GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
THE
EYIDE/frCES
v
.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
BY ANDREWS NORTON.
(JHUttton.
BOSTON:
AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION.
1889.
Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1867, by
THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION,
Tn the Clerk s Office of the District Court of the District ol Massachusetts.
EIGHTH EDITION.
UNIVERSITY PRESS: JOHN WILSON & SON,
CAMBRIDGE.
EDITOEIAL NOTE.
THE present edition of " The Evidences of the Genuineness
of the Gospels " contains the whole of the original work,
vfith the exception of such portions as might be omitted
without essential injury to the force of its main argu
ment.
The omissions chiefly consist of passages addressed rather
to the scholar than to the general reader ; and they have
been the more readily made, from the belief that any stu
dent who might be desirous of following the author in his
investigation of the subject in its more obscure, collateral
developments, might, without much difficulty, obtain a copy
of the work in its original form. For the information of the
reader, a list of the principal omissions is hereto appended.
C. E. N
LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL OMISSIONS IN THE
PRESENT EDITION.
ORIGINAL EDITION. VOL. I.
NOTE. (pp. 110-126.)* On some opinions and arguments of
Eichhorn, and other German theologians.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
NOTE A. (pp. iii.-xxxiv.) Sect. I. Introductory statement.
Sect. II. On the systematic classification of the copies of the New
Testament, adopted by Griesbach and others ; and the language con
cerning the diversities among those copies with which it has been
connected.
NOTE B. (pp. xcviii.-ci.) Various readings of the copies of the
Gospels extant in the time of Origen, which are particularly noticed
by him.
NOTE C. (pp. cii.-cv.) Undisputed interpolations in manuscripts
of the Gospels.
NOTE E. (pp. ccxiv.-ccxxxviii.) Justin Martyr s quotations.
VOL. II. ADDITIONAL NOTES.
NOTE A. (pp. iii.-xxiii.) On the statue which is said, by Justin
Martyr and others, to have been erected at Rome to Simon Magus.
NOTE B. (pp. xxiv.-xxxvi.) On the Clementine Homilies.
NOTE C. (pp. xxxvii.-xlvii.) On the false charges brought
against the heretics, particularly by the later fathers.
NOTE D. (pp. xlvii.-cciv.) On the Jewish dispensation, the
Pentateuch, and the other books of the Old Testament.
The paging referred to is that of the second edition: Cambridge, 1848
viii OMISSIONS IN THE PRESENT EDITION.
VOL. III.
CHAP. VII. (pp. 3-66.) On the system of the Gnostics, as
intended for a solution of the existence of evil in the world.
CHAP. VIII. (pp. 67-168.) On the peculiar speculations of the
theosophic Gnostics.
CHAP. IX. (pp. 169-181.) On the opinions of the Gnostics
concerning the person of Christ.
CHAP. X. (pp. 182-186.) On the opinions of the Gnostics re
specting the design of Christianity.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
NOTE A. (pp. iii.-xxxv.) On the distinction made by tne
ancients between things intelligible and things sensible; on the use of
the terms spiritual and material as applied to their speculations ; and
on the nature of matter.
NOTE B. (pp. xxxvi.-xlv.) On Basilides and the Basilidians.
NOTE C. (pp. xlvi.-lx.) On the Gospel of Marcion.
NOTED, (pp. Ixi.-lxxvii.) On the use of the words Oedf and
Dem.
CONTENTS.
EDITORIAL NOTE.
PAGE
NOTES iii
LlST OF THE PRINCIPAL OMISSIONS IN TUB PRESENT EDITION iv
INTRODUCTION.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
What is meant by the genuineness of the Gospels, 1. Early
testimony to their genuineness has been affirmed to be want
ing, 1-5. Theory of Eichhorn respecting the formation of
the first three Gospels, and of other gospels supposed to have
been in use before those now received, by successive additions
of transcribers to the text of an Original Gospel, 5-10.
Remarks, 10, 11.
PART I.
PROOF THAT THE GOSPELS REMAIN ESSENTIALLY
THE SAME AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY COM
POSED 18
CHAPTER I.
ARGUMENT FROM THE AGREEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE COPIES
OF THE FOUR GOSPELS 15
The proposition that the Gospels remain essentially the same
explained, 15-19. They have suffered, like all other ancient
writings, from the accidents of transcription, 15, 16. Pas-
X CONTENTS.
PACIB
sages in the Received Text that may be regarded as spurious
or suspicious, 16-19. Proof that the Gospels remain essen
tially the same as they were originally composed from the
agreement among the present copies of them, 19-24. This
agreement not to be accounted for by supposing any arche
types for our present copies of the Gospels other than the
original exemplars, 24-27. Argument from the agreement
among the copies of the Gospels extant at the end of the
second century, 27-34.
CHAPTER II.
ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .... 85
From the high value ascribed to the Gospels by the Christiana
of the first two centuries, 35-41. From their strong censure
of the mutilations and changes which they charge some
heretics, particularly Marcion, with having made in the text
of the Gospels, 42. From the character of the various read
ings in Origen s manuscripts of the Gospels, particularly
mentioned or referred to by him, 42-47. From the notices
of various readings in other ancient writers, 47. From the
striking characteristics of the respective Gospels being pre
served throughout in all of them, showing that each is
essentially the work of an individual author, 48-50. Par
ticularly from their being written throughout in Hebraistic
Greek, 50-52. From their not betraying marks of a later
age than that assigned for their composition, or incongruities
with the character and circumstances of their supposed
authors, 52, 53. From their consistency in their representa
tions of the character of Christ, 53, 54. Summary of pre
ceding arguments, 54, 55. Particular remarks on the Gospel
of Matthew, 55-57. Conclusion, 57, 58.
CHAPTER III.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 69
General remarks, 59, 60. The theory of the corruption of the
Gospels as connected with that of an Original Gospel from
which the first three, in common with many apocryphal gos
pels, were derived, remarked upon, 60-62. Assertion of
Eichhorn respecting arbitrary alterations in manuscripts be-
CONTENTS. XI
PAGE
fore the invention of printing, 62, 63. Examination of a
passage from Celsus, 63-65. Of a passage from Clement of
Alexandria, 65-67. Conclusion, 67.
PART II.
DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE GOS
PELS HAVE BEEN ASCRIBED TO THEIR TRUE
AUTHORS 69
CHAPTER I.
EVIDENCE FROM THE GENERAL RECEPTION OF THE GOSPELS
AS GENUINE AMONG CHRISTIANS DURING THE LAST QUARTER
OF THE SECOND CENTURY 71
The proposition that they were so received generally admitted,
71. Evidence of it from IrenaBus, 71-74. From Theophi-
lus, 74, 75. From Tertullian, 75-77. From Clement of
Alexandria, 77, 78. From Celsus, 78-81. From Origen,
81-83. Remarks on this evidence. The Christian writers
adduced do not testify merely to their individual belief, but
speak in the name of the whole community to which they
belonged, 83, 84. The testimony to the genuineness of the
Gospels is, therefore, of a peculiar character, 84, 85. Chris
tians, at the period in question, were fully able to determine
whether the Gospels were genuine or not, 85-87. They
were deeply interested in the question, 87, 88. Character of
the Christians of that age, 88, 89. Throughout this commu
nity the Gospels were received as genuine, 89. Confirma
tion of their testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels
from the fact of the unquestionable genuineness of most of
the other books of the New Testament universally received
by them, and the probable genuineness of all, 89-91. The
belief of Christians in their religion was a belief of the
truths contained in the Gospels, and therefore identified with
a belief of their authenticity, and consequently of their
genuineness, 91-93. The fact of the general reception of
the Gospels at the period in question, considered in itself, is
to be accounted for only on the supposition of their genuine
ness, 93. The truth of this proposition may be particularly
Xll CONTENTS.
PAUH
shown, as regards the first three Gospels, by a consideration
of the remarkable phenomena which they present in their
correspondences with, and differences from, one another, 93,
94. Supposing the first three Gospels not to be works of
the apostolic age, those phenomena cannot be explained
consistently with the fact of their common reception among
Christians : either by the supposition that the evangelists
copied one from another, 94-96 ; or that they made use of
a common written document or documents, 96-98 ; or that
they all founded their narratives on oral tradition, 98-100.
The phenomena, therefore, admit of no solution, if we sup
pose the first three Gospels to have been written after the
apostolic age, 100. Observations upon this fact, 100. The
four Gospels, if they were not the works of the authors to
whom they are ascribed, could never have been acknowledged
and received as such by the Christian community, 100, 101.
Their reception not the result of any concert among leading
Christians, 101, 102. Names of their authors not arbitrarily
assigned, otherwise Matthew s Gospel would have been
ascribed to a more distinguished apostle, and those of Mark
and Luke to apostles, 102. The discrepances among the
four Gospels would have prevented the reception of all as
of equal authority, had they not been handed down together
from the apostolic age, 102-105. The genuineness of any
one of the Gospels creates a strong presumption in favor of
the genuineness of the other three, 105-107. The Gospels
were composed among the Jewish Christians, but descend to
us through the Gentile Christians, who would not have re
ceived from the former, after the apostolic age, four spurious
histories of Christ, written by unlearned Jews in a style
regarded by native Greeks as barbarous, 107-110. The
reverence for the Gospels at the end of the second century
implies their celebrity at a much earlier period, 110, 111.
Summary, 111, 112.
CHAPTER II.
EVIDENCE TO BE DEBITED FROM THE WRITINGS OP JUSTIN
MARTYR . 118
Account of Justin and his writings, 113, 114. Three objec
tions which have been made to the supposition that he quoted
CONTENTS.
PAOK
the Gospels, 114, 115. Answer to the first objection, that
he does not quote the Gospels by their present titles, 115-119.
Answer to the second objection, that there is a want of
verbal coincidence between his quotations and the correspond
ing passages in the Gospels, 119-125. Answer to the third
objection, that he quotes passages respecting Christ not found
in the Gospels, 125-132. Proof that Justin used our present
Gospels : From the agreement in thought and words between
his quotations and passages in the Gospels, and the great im
probability that those quotations should have been taken from
any other book, 132-135. From the fact, that there is no
intimation to the contrary in any subsequent writer, 135.
From the manner in which he mentions and describes the
books which he quotes, 135, 136. From the manner in which
he speaks of the high authority and general reception among
Christians of those books, answering to the manner in which
his contemporary, Irenaeus, speaks of the Gospels ; and from
the fact, that such books as Justin describes and quotes could
not have disappeared and been forgotten immediately after he
wrote, as must have been the case if they were not the Gos
pels, 136, 137.
CHAPTER IH.
EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS. ST. LUKE S OWN TESTIMONY TO THE
GENUINENESS OF HIS GOSPEL 138
Scarcity of the remains of Christian writers during the first
half of the second century, 138. Remarks on the evidence
of Papias, 139. On St. Luke s testimony to his own Gospel,
139, 140. This, likewise, tends to prove the genuineness of
the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, 140. And of all the
other three Gospels, 141. And particularly, in connection
with the evidence of Papias, the genuineness of that of John,
141, 142.
CHAPTER IV.
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVI
DENCE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS 143
No testimony of the same character, or of the same weight,
can be produced for the genuineness of any other ancient
Xiv CONTENTS.
PAGE
work, 143, 144. But, putting out of view the peculiar nature
and value of the testimony to their genuineness, their univer
sal reception by catholic Christians can be accounted for only
by the fact, that they had been handed down from the begin
ning with the character which they afterwards bore, 144, 145.
Comparison of the evidence of the genuineness of the
Gospels with that of the genuineness of ancient classical
writings, 146. Objection to it on the ground that the con
tents of one Gospel are irreconcilable with those of another,
146. Objection on the ground of the miraculous char
acter of the history contained in the Gospels, 146, 147.
This objection destructive of all religion, 147, 148. But has
no bearing to disprove the genuineness of the Gospels, 148,
149. Remarks on the present state of belief in Christianity,
149-151.
PART III.
ON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OF
THE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE EARLY HERE
TICS 153
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. THE EBIONITES. THEIR USE OP
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ONLY. INFERENCES FROM THEIR
NOT USING THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS 155
CHAPTER H.
GENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE GNOSTICS. STATE OF OPINION
AMONG THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIANS DURING THE SEC
OND CENTURY 160
Meaning of the word " Gnostic," 160. General notice of the
Gnostics, and of the value of their evidence, 160-163.
Acquaintance with their history and doctrines necessary in
order to estimate its value, 163. Incidental bearings of the
inquiry into their history and doctrines, 163-170. The
Gnostics divided into the MARCIONITES and the THEO-
SOPHIC GNOSTICS, 170. The Valentinians, the principal
representatives of the theosophic Gnostics, 170. Doctrines
CONTENTS. XV
PAQB
common to the Gnostics generally, 170-174. Notice of the
doctrines peculiar to the theosophic Gnostics, 174, 175.
These, from various causes, difficult to be ascertained and
understood, 175-177, Imperfect and erroneous accounts of
the Gnostics given by the fathers, 175-179. Method to be
pursued in determining the facts concerning them, 179.
Errors of modern writers, 179-184. Separation of the
Gnostics and Ebionites from the catholic Christians, 184-186.
State of opinion among the catholic Christians, 186, 187.
Aversion to Judaism, the principal occasion of Gnosti
cism, 188.
CHAPTER HI.
ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE GNOSTICS, AND THE
SOURCES OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM 189
Story of Irenseus, and other fathers, that Simon Magus was the
author of the Gnostic heresy, 189. Account of Simon Ma
gus, 189-195. Notice of other supposed heretics of the first
century, 195, 196. . Of Cerinthus, 196-200. Gnostics not
referred to in the undisputed books of the New Testament,
200-203. Did not appear before the earlier part of the
second century, 203, 204. Date assigned to the principal
Gnostic sects by Clement of Alexandria, Irenseus, Justin
Martyr, and Tertullian, 204, 205. Those sects all mentioned
by Justin Martyr, 205, 206. The work of Irenasus Against
Heretics, 206, 207. Other works affording information re
specting the Valentinians, 207-209. Tertullian s work
against Marcion, and other writings concerning the Marcion-
ites, 209, 210. The earlier fathers to be chiefly relied on as
respects the Gnostics, 210. Distinction between the earlier
and the later fathers, 210, 211. The later fathers who have
given accounts of them, 211-215. Epiphanius, 211. The
author of the Dialogue De Recta Fide, 212. Philaster, 212.
Augustin, 212, 213. Theodoret, 213, 214. Other wri
ters, particularly Eusebius, 215. Notices of the Gnostics
by Celsus, 215. Notices of the Gnostics, and of individuals
holding Gnostic opinions, by Plotinus and Porphyry, 215-218.
Plotinus refers primarily to heathens, 217, 218. Remarks
on preceding statements, 218. Origin and decline of the
Gnostics, 219, 220. Their number when most flourishing,
220-223.
XVI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
PA.GB
ON THE MORALS OF THE GNOSTICS, AND THEIK IMPERFECT
CONCEPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY 224
Character of the catholic Christians in the second century, 224.
Two classes of Gnostics ; one strict, and the other lien
tious, in their morals, 224-232. Charges of licentiousness
against a portion of the theosophic Gnostics not unfounded,
225-232. Peculiar causes of the existence of immorality,
and ignorance of the character and requirements of Chris
tianity, among a portion of its early converts, 232-249 :
the influence of the vices and idolatry of the heathen world,
233-236 ; the misunderstanding and perversion of Chris
tian truths, particularly as expressed by St. Paul, 236-239;
the great change in men s religious belief effected by Chris
tianity, 239-243; the imperfect means that many had of
becoming acquainted with Christianity, 243-245 ; false
teachers receiving money from their disciples, and in other
respects of like character with the ancient sophists, 245-249.
Digression on the divinity of Christianity, 248. The
immorality and irreligion resulting from these causes de
scribed by St. Paul, 249, 250 ; also in the Second Epistle
of Peter (so called), and the Epistle of Jude (so called), 250-
252; and in the Apocalypse, 252, 253. Why these im
moralities finally settled down among a portion of the
Gnostics, 253-255. The licentious class of Gnostics escaped
that persecution by which the catholic Christians were puri
fied, 255-258. Principles and practice of the better class of
Gnostics respecting martyrdom, 258, 259. Those of the
catholic Christians, 259-263. General remarks on the moral
and religious character of the Gnostics, 263-266.
CHAPTER V.
ON SOME PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN SECTS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY CONFOUNDED WITH THE GNOS-
"cs 267
The fact that the Gnostics have been confounded with sects not
Christian is evident from their origin being referred to Simon
CONTENTS.
TAGU
Magus, neither Simon nor his followers being Christians, 267.
Other pseudo-Christian sects, with whom they have been
Confounded, 267-291 : the Carpocratians, 267 -27 5 ; pseudo-
Christians maintaining that the practice of scandalous immoralities
was a religious duty, 275, 276 ; a subordinate set of Gnostics,
the existence of whicli is pretended by Epiphanius, and to
which he gives the name of " Gnostics," used, not as a generic,
but a specific, name, 276-279 ; ( the Gospel of Eve ; ) pantheis
tic pseudo- Christians, 279-283; the Ophians or Ophites, 283-
291. Causes of the existence of such pseudo-Christians,
291, 292. How the Gnostics came to be confounded with
them, 292, 293.
CHAPTER VI.
UN GNOSTICISM, CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATION OP JUDAISM
FROM CHRISTIANITY 294
The opinions of the Gnostics concerning the Old Testament,
294-298. Correspondence between their opinions and those
of the early catholic Christians, 298. Views of the author
of the Clementine Homilies, 298, 299. Modes by which the
catholic Christians solved the difficulties which they felt in
the Old Testament, 299-315 : they applied to the Logos
those representations of God in the Old Testament which they
thought unworthy of God, 299-303; Tertullian s notion,
that it was characteristic of the dispensations of God to use
means ignoble and foolish in the eyes of men, 303, 304 ; the
fathers generally solved the difficulties of the Old Testament
by the allegorical mode of interpretation, 305-315. This
mode of interpretation rejected by the Marcionites, and not
thus applied to the Old Testament by the theosophic Gnostics,
816. The proper Christian Gnostics regarded it as impossi
ble, that the God of the Old Testament and the God of
Christians should be the same being, 316, 317. The extra
ordinary character of the fact, that the catholic Christians
adopted the notions of the Jews respecting the Old Testa
ment, 317-319. The fundamental difference between them
and the Gnostics consisted in their different opinions con
cerning Judaism and the author of the Jewish dispensation,
319.
6
XV111 CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
PAOB
ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GNOSTICS RECONCILED THEIR
DOCTRINES WITH CHRISTIANITY 320
Discrepance between the doctrines of the Gnostics and the
teaching of Christ such as may lead one at first view to sus
pect that they held the Gospels in no esteem, 320. But
a similar discrepance has existed between the doctrines of a
great majority of professed Christians and the teaching of
Christ, 320-322. Prevalence of religious error, 322.
Faith, in consequence, disconnected from reason, and founded
on a pretended intuitive discernment of spiritual things, 323.
Prevalent errors respecting the character and interpretation
of the Scriptures, 323-325. Means by which the Gnostics,
in particular, reconciled their doctrines with their Christian
faith, 326-338 : allegorical and other false modes of inter
pretation used by the theosophic Gnostics, 326, 327 ; their
appeal to a secret oral tradition, by which they contended that
the esoteric doctrines of Christianity had been preserved,
327-332 ; (the notion of such a tradition equally maintained
by Clement of Alexandria, 328-331 ; to be distinguished
from the public traditionary knowledge of Christianity as
serted by other fathers, 329-331 n. ; and also from the
fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church con-
corning the authority of tradition, 331 n.) ; the notion of
the Gnostics concerning the apostles and Christ, that they
accommodated their doctrine to the capacity of their hearers,
not openly teaching the more mysterious truths of religion,
331, 332 ; another opinion, that the apostles generally,
through the influence of their Jewish prejudices, were led
into errors, and did not discern all the truth ; St. Paul, how
ever, being regarded as much the most enlightened of their
number, 332, 333 ; opinion that the teachings of Christ
were not all of equal authority, 334; (remarks on the no
tions of the Gnostics respecting the apostles, 334, 335 ;
on their pretence to infallible knowledge, 335-337) ; pecu
liar case of the Marcionites in appealing only to their muti
lated copies of the Gospel of Luke and of ten of the Epistles
of St. Paul, 337. Apparent from what precedes, that the
Gnostics could have appealed to no history of Christ at vari-
CONTENTS. XIX
PAQR
ance with the four Gospels, 338. But the subject admits
of further explanation, 338, 339.
CHAPTER VHI.
ON THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE GNOSTICS OPPOSED TO THE
FOUR GOSPELS ANY OTHER WRITTEN HISTORIES OR HISTORY
OF CHRIST S MINISTRY 340
This question leads to a general review of those books which
have been called apocryphal gospels, 340, 341. Considera
tions to be attended to in this examination, 342-345. Had
the Gnostics opposed any other history of Christ to the four
Gospels, we should have had full information of the fact,
342, 343. But no evidence of such a fact appears in Irenaeus
or Tertullian, the two principal writers against the Gnostics,
343. It is not probable that the ancient books which may
be properly called apocryphal gospels were histories of Christ s
ministry, but books giving the views of the writer concerning
the doctrines of Christianity, 343-345. No apocryphal gos
pel mentioned by Tertullian, 345, 346. Irenaeus once speaks
of a book called The True Gospel as in use among the Valen-
tinians, 346, 347. If there were such a book, it was not an
historical gospel, 347. Its existence doubtful; and, if such
a book existed, it was a work of no notoriety, and one to
which the Valentinians, in general, attached no importance,
347, 348. Irenaeus mentions one other supposed book, The
Gospel of Judas, of which he ascribes the use to a sect called
Cainites ; but the existence of the sect or of the book is
altogether improbable, 348-350. This is all the information
concerning apocryphal gospels to be derived from the two
principal writers against the Gnostics, 350, 351. Excepting
the story of Irenaeus about The True Gospel, there is no
charge by any writer against the Valentinians, or the Mar-
cionites, of using apocryphal gospels, unless Marcion s
mutilated copy of Luke be so called, 351. Nor against the
Basilidians, before the author of the Homilies on Luke, 851.
He, and others subsequently, speak of a Gospel of Basili-
des, 351, 352. No probability that such a book existed, 352.
The notion of its existence probably had its origin in the
feet, that Basilides wrote a Commentary on the four Gospels,
862, 353. Remarks on the preceding facts, 353. Clement
XX CONTENTS.
PAGB
of Alexandria mentions The Gospel according to the Egyptians,
353, 354. Account of this book, 354-358. No other apocry
phal gospel mentioned by Clement, unless the Gospel of the
Hebrews be so named, 358, 359. But he speaks of a book
called The Traditions, which has been imagined to be the same
with The Gospel according to Matthias, 360. Account of this
book, 360. Of the title of The Gospel according to Matthias,
361, 362. The Gospel of Peter, 362. Account of this book,
362-365. Origen, in his undisputed works, mentions no
other apocryphal book entitled a gospel, besides this, 365,
366. Notices of supposed apocryphal gospels by the author
of the Homilies on Luke, and by Eusebius, 366. General
remarks on the apocryphal gospels, 366-370. Not commonly
written with a fraudulent design, 367, 368. Very little
notice taken of them in ancient times, 368-370. Late
apocryphal gospels, 370. The Protevangelion of James, and
other gospels of the Nativity, so called, 370-374. Fables re
specting Joseph and Mary, 371-374. The gospels of the
Infancy, so called, 374-379. Fables respecting the infancy
and childhood of our Lord, 374-378. Account of The Gos
pel of Nicodemus, so called, 379-383 n. Remarks on the
fables concerning our Lord and concerning Mary, 380-384.
Conclusion from the preceding statements, 385. Subject
resumed, 385. Certain gospels, imagined to have been used
by Tatian in forming his Diatessaron, 385-387. Pretended
Gospel of Cerinthus, 387-389. Concluding remarks. Mis
takes that have been committed concerning apocryphal gos
pels, 389-391.
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT OP THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENU
INENESS OF THE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE GNOSTICS . . 392
General view, 392. Evidence particularly afforded by the Mar-
cionites, 392, 393. Evidence particularly afforded by the
theosophic Gnostics, 393-396. Striking proof from Tertul-
lian of the abundant use of the Gospels made by the Gnostics,
397-400. No history of Christ s ministry at variance with
the four Gospels known by the early Christians, 401. Re
marks on the supposition, that the Gnostics appealed to the
Gospels only by way of reasoning ad hominem with the catho
lic Christians, 401-404. Concluding remarks, 405-413.
CONTENTS.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
NOTE A.
PAGE
FURTHER REMARKS ON THE PRESENT STATE OP THE TEXT
OF THE GOSPELS 417
f
SECTION I.
On the Character and Importance of the Various Readings of
the New Testament 417
SECTION II.
On the Original Language of Matthew s Gospel, and its Use by
the Hebrew Christians 425
SECTION III.
On some Passages in the Received Text of the Gospels, of
which the Genuineness is doubtful 431
I.
The first Two Chapters of the present Greek Gospel of Mat
thew 431
II.
Matthew, chap, xxvii. 3-10. (Account of the repentance and
death of Judas) 437
in.
Matthew, chap, xxvii. part of ver. 52 and 53. (Account of
the rising of the bodies of many saints at our Saviour s death) 441
Marginal note on Matthew, chap. xii. 40. (The sign of Jonah) 442
IV.
The Conclusion of Mark s Gospel. (Chap. xvi. 9-20) . . .448
v.
Luke, chap. ix. 55, 56. (Our Lord s reproof of James and
John, when they proposed calling down fire from heaven on
a village of Samaritans) 449
XX11 CONTENTS.
YI. PAGB
Luke, chap. xxii. 43, 44. (The account of the agony and
bloody sweat of Jesus) 454
VII.
John, chap. v. 3, 4. (The descent of the angel into the Sheep
Pool at Jerusalem) 458
VIII.
John, chap. vii. 53-viii. 11. (The story of the woman taken
in adultery) 460
IX.
John, chap. xxi. 24, 25. (The concluding words of our present
copies of John s Gospel) 461
NOTE B.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CORRESPONDENCES AMONG THE
FIRST THREE GOSPELS 463
SECTION I.
Preliminary Statement 463
SECTION II.
On the Supposition that Two of the Evangelists copied, One
from his Predecessor ; and the Other, from Both his Prede
cessors 475
SECTION III.
On the Supposition that the First Three Evangelists made use
of Common Written Documents 488
SECTION IV.
Proposed Explanation of the Correspondences among the First
Three Gospels < g^Q
SECTION V.
Inferences from the Explanation which has been given of the
Correspondences among the First Three Gospels 524
CONTENTS. XX111
FAOB
SECTION VI.
Illustration of the First Three Gospels to be derived from the
Circumstances connected with their Composition 528
SECTION VII.
Concluding Remarks 542
NOTE C.
ON THE WRITINGS ASCRIBED TO APOSTOLICAL FATHERS . . 645
SECTION I.
Purpose of this Note 545
SECTION II.
The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Another
Epistle ascribed to Clement 546
SECTION III.
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 549
SECTION IV.
The Shepherd of Hermas 550
SECTION V.
The Epistle of Barnabas, so called 553
SECTION VI.
Epistles ascribed to Ignatius 560
SECTION VII.
Concluding Remarks respecting the Evidence for or against the
Genuineness of the Gospels to be derived from the Writings
before mentioned 566
INTRODUCTION.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
THE object of the following work is to prove the genuine
ness of the Gospels. In asserting their genuineness, I mean
to be understood as affirming, that they remain essentially the
same as they were originally written ; and that they have
been ascribed to their true authors. The ground which has
been taken by those who have denied their genuineness, as
thus explained, may appear from the following statements.
The Gospels are quoted, as the undoubted works of the
authors to whom they are ascribed, by an unbroken series
of Christian writers, reaching back to the latter part of the
second century ; or, in other words, to the time of Irenseus,
who wrote in the last quarter of that century. But it is
affirmed, that beyond his time the testimony to their genuine
ness fails. As we ascend to a remoter period, we come to the
writings of Justin Martyr, who flourished about the middle
of the second century; and to those ascribed to Apostolic
Fathers, or supposed contemporaries of the Apostles. It has
been affirmed, that these writings, though they are commonly
quoted for the purpose, afford no evidence that our present
Gospels were known to their authors. In regard to the
writings attributed to Apostolic Fathers, the remark is not
new. It was made, for instance, by Bolingbroke, who, in
2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
his u Letters on the Study of History," has the following
passage :
"Writers copy one another; and the mistake that was com
mitted, or the falsehood that was invented by one, is adopted
by hundreds.
" Abbadie says, in his famous book, that the gospel of St.
Ma* ,hew is cited by Clemens, Bishop of Rome, a disciple of the
apostles; that Barnabas cites it in his epistle; that Ignatius and
1 olycarp receive it ; and that the same fathers that give testimony
for Matthew, give it likewise for Mark. Nay, your Lordship will
find, I believe, that the present bishop of London [Gibson] , in his
third pastoral letter, speaks to the same effect. I will not trouble
you nor myself with any more instances of the same kind. Let
this, which occurred to me as I was writing, suffice. It may well
suffice ; for I presume the fact advanced by the minister and the
bishop is a mistake. If the fathers of the first century do mention
some passages that are agreeable to what we read in our evangel
ists, will it follow that these fathers had the same gospels before
them ? To say so is a manifest abuse of history, and quite inex
cusable in writers that knew, or should have known, that these
fathers made use of other gospels, wherein such passages might be
contained ; or they might be preserved in unwritten tradition.
Besides which, I could almost venture to affirm, that these fathers
of the first century do not expressly name the gospels we have of
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." *
The supposition of Bolingbroke in the last sentence is
true ; or rather, to state the fact precisely, the Gospels are
not named in the writings ascribed to fathers of the first
century. In agreement with what has been quoted, the
learned German theologian, Eichhorn, in his "Introduction
to the New Testament," endeavors to prove at length, that
the authors of those writings did not make use of our present
Gospels, but of others different from them, t
* Letter V. 4.
t Einleitung in d. N. T., i.e. Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i
p. 113, seqq. I give the pages of the first edition, which are numbered like
wise in the margin of the second.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 3
Another German theologian, Less, who died about the
close of the last century, wrote in defence of the genuineness
of the books of the New Testament. In treating this subject,
the results at which he arrives, from an examination of the
writings just mentioned, are thus stated by Bishop Marsh :
"From the epistle of Barnabas, no inference can be deduced
that he had read any part of the New Testament. From the gen
uine epistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred
that Clement had read the first epistle to the Corinthians. From
the Shepherd of Hernias, no inference whatsoever can be drawn.
From the epistles of Ignatius, it may be concluded that he had
read St. Paul s epistle to the Ephesians, and that there existed iu
his time evangelical writings, though it cannot be shown that he
has quoted from them. From Poly carp s epistle to the Philip-
plans, it appears that he had heard of St. Paul s epistle to that
community, and that he quotes a passage which is in the first
epistle to the Corinthians, and another which is in the epistle to
the Ephesians; but no positive conclusion can be drawn with
respect to any other epistle, or any of the four Gospels." *
According to this statement, it would appear that no evi
dence can be derived from the works ascribed to Apostolic
Fathers in proof of the genuineness of the Gospels.
The writings of Justin Martyr have, till of late, been ap
pealed to confidently, as affording very early and very impor
tant evidence of this fact. Lardner states, that "he has
numerous quotations of our Gospels except that of St. Mark,
which he has seldom quoted ; " that " it must be plain to all,
that he owned and had the highest respect for the four Gos
pels ; " and that he affords proof, that " these Gospels were
publicly read in the assemblies of the Christians every Lord s
day." f " It seems extremely material to be observed," says
Paley, "that in all Justin s works, from which might be
extracted almost a complete life of Christ, there are but two
* Marsh s Michaelis, vol. i. p. 354.
1 Lardner s Credibility of the Gospel History, p. ii. c. 10.
4 STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
instances in which he refers to any thing as said or done
by Christ which is not related concerning him in our present
Gospels ; which shows that these Gospels, and these, we may
say, alone, were the authorities from which the Christians of
that day drew the information upon which they depended." *
It is, however, at present contended, that Justin Martyr
did not quote from our four Gospels, and therefore cannot
afford evidence of their genuineness. He does not mention
them by name. His quotations which agree in sense with
passages found in the Gospels, he professes to take from what
he calls " Memoirs by the Apostles ; " and, in these quota
tions, there is generally a want of verbal coincidence with
the passages in the Gospels to which they otherwise corre
spond.
"Mr. Stroth," says Bishop Marsh, "has shown by very satis
factory arguments, that these Memoirs were not our four Gospels,
but a single gospel, which had much matter in common with the
Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke ; but which was
not the same with any of them. Since Mr. Stroth s time, the sub
ject has been again investigated by several eminent critics ; and
the uniform result of their inquiries is, that Justin s Kiro^vrj^ovevfiara
[the Memoirs in question] were not our four Gospels, but some
single gospel." f " If," says Bishop Marsh, in another work,
"the force of Mr. Stroth s arguments be admitted (and they seem
really convincing), we cannot produce Justin as an evidence for
the four Gospels ; but, on the other hand, no inference can be
deduced to their disadvantage." J
The concluding remark, that no inference can be deduced
to the disadvantage of the Gospels, Bishop Marsh endeavors
to illustrate : but its truth will not be admitted by those who
deny the genuineness of the Gospels; and the proposition
does not, in itself, appear tenable.
* Paley s Evidences of Christianity, p. i. c. ix. s. 1.
t Letters to the Anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his
Commentator, p. 29.
$ Marsh s Michaelis, i. 361.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 5
* Justin Martyr," says Eichhorn, "who was born A.D. 89,
and died A.D. 163, a Samaritan, a native of Flavia Neapolis,
early became converted from a heathen philosopher to a zealous
Christian, and was one of the earliest Christian writers. He no
where quotes the life and sayings of Jesus according to our pres
ent four Gospels, which he was not acquainted with. This is a
very important circumstance in regard to the history of the Gos
pels ; as he had devoted many years to travel, and resided a long
time in Italy and Asia Minor." *
On the whole, it is concluded by Eichhorn and others, that
our four Gospels, in their present form, were not in common
use before the end of the second century. Previously to that
time, it is supposed that other gospels were in circulation.
" If we will not," says Eichhorn, " be influenced by idle tales
and unsupported tradition, but by the only sure evidence of
history, we must conclude, that, before our present Gospels,
other decidedly different gospels were in circulation, and were
used during the first two centuries in the instruction of Chris
tians." f He supposes these earlier gospels and our first three
Gospels, namely, those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to have
all had a common origin ; and he gives the following ac
count of the manner in which he conceives them to have been
formed.
There was, he supposes, very early in existence a short
historical sketch of the life of Christ, which may be called the
Original Gospel. This was, probably, provided for the use
of those assistants of the apostles in the work of teaching
Christianity, who had not themselves seen the actions and
heard the discourses of Christ. It was, however, but "a
rough sketch," "a brief and imperfect account," "without
historical plan or methodical arrangement." In this respect
it was, according to Eichhorn, very different from our four
Gospels. " These present no rough sketch, such as we must
suppose the first essay upon the life of Jesus to have been ;
* Einleitung iu d. N. T., i. 78. f Ibid., p. 140.
b STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
but, on the contrary, are works written with art and labor,
and contain portions of his life of which no mention was
made in the first preaching of Christianity."* This Original
Gospel was the basis both of the earlier gospels used during
the first two centuries, and of the first three of our present
Gospels, by which, together with the Gospel of John, those
earlier gospels were finally superseded. The earlier gospels
retained more or less of the rudeness and incompleteness of
l .he Original Gospel.
* But they very soon fell into the hands of those who undertook
to supply their defects and incompleteness, both in the general
compass of the history, and in the narration of particular events.
Not content with a life of Jesus, which, like the gospel of the He
brews, and those of Marcion and Tatian, commenced with his pub
lic appearance, there were those who early prefixed to the Memoirs
used by Justin Martyr, and to the gospel of Cerinthus, an account
of his genealogy, his birth, and the period of his youth. In like
manner, we find, upon comparing together, in parallel passages,
the remaining fragments of these gospels, that they were receiving
continual accessions. The voice from heaven at the baptism of
Jesus was originally stated to have been, Thou art my Son ; this
day have I begotten thee ; as it is quoted by Justin Martyr in two
places. Clement of Alexandria found the same, in the gospel of
which we have no particular description, with the addition of the
word beloved : Thou art my beloved Son ; this day have I be
gotten thee. Other gospels represented the voice as having been,
Thou art my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; as it is
given in the catholic Gospels, namely, in Mark i. 11. In the gos
pel of the Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, both accounts of
the voice from heaven were united : Thou art my beloved Son, with
thee 1 am well pleased ; and again, This day have I begotten thee.
By these continual accessions, the original text of the life of Jesus
was lost in a mass of additions, so that its words appeared among
them but as insulated fragments. Of this any one may satisfy him
self from the account of the baptism of Jesus, which was compiled
out of various gospels. The necessary consequence was, that at
* Einleitung in d. N. T., i. 5, 242.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 7
last truth and falsehood, authentic arid fabulous narratives, or
such, at least, as through long tradition had become disfigured
and falsified, were brought together promiscuously. The longer
these narratives passed from mouth to mouth, the more uncertain
and disfigured they would become. At last, at the end of the sec
ond and the beginning of the third century, in order, as far as
might be, to preserve the true accounts concerning the life of Je
sus, and to deliver them to posterity as free from error as possible,
the Church, out of the many gospels which were extant, selected
four, which had the greatest marks of credibility, and the neces
sary completeness for common use. There are no traces of our
present Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before the end of
the second and the beginning of the third century. Irenaeus, about
the year 202, first speaks decisively of four gospels, and imagines
all sorts of reasons for this particular number ; and Clement of
Alexandria, about the year 216,* labored to collect divers ac
counts concerning the origin of these four gospels, in order to
prove that these alone should be acknowledged as authentic.
From these facts, it is evident, that it was about the end of the
second and the beginning of the third century that the Church first
labored to establish the universal authority of these four gospels,
which were in existence before, if not altogether in their present
form, yet in most respects such as we now have them, and to pro
cure their general reception in the Church, with the suppression
of all other gospels then extant.
" Posterity would indeed have been under much greater obli
gations, if, together with the Gospel of John, the Church had es
tablished, by public authority, only the first rough sketch of the
life of Jesus, which was given to the earliest missionaries to au
thenticate their preaching ; after separating it from all its additions
and augmentations. But this was no longer possible ; for there
was no copy extant free from all additions, and the critical opera
tion of separating this accessory matter was too difficult for those
times. 1 f
* The dates here assigned by Eichhorn, it may be observed, are, as has
been supposed, the dates of the death of Irenaeus and of Clement, not of the
periods about which they wrote and flourished. These he elsewhere gives
correctly.
t Einleit. in d. X. T., i. 142-145.
g STATEMENT OF THE CA>E.
" Many ancient writers of the Church," Eichhorn subjoin*
in a note, u doubted the genuineness of many parts of oui
Gospels ; but were prevented from coming to a decision by
want of critical skill."* It is to be observed, however, that
the only ancient writer of the CJturch, whom he quotes in
proof of this assertion, is Faustus, the well-known Manichaean
of the fourth century.
In treating of the continual alterations and additions, to
wliich he supposes the text of the Original Gospel to have
been subjected, before it assumed that form in which it was
used by the first three Evangelists, Eichhorn observes, that
" Such an arbitrary mode of dealing with the composition of an
other, so that it shall pass thus altered into circulation, is in our
times a thing unheard of and impossible ; because it is prevented
by the multiplication of printed copies. But it was different," he
proceeds, "before the invention of printing. In transcribing a
manuscript, the most arbitrary alterations were considered as al
lowable, since they affected only an article of private property,
written for the use of an individual. But these altered manuscripts
being again transcribed, without inquiry whether the manuscript
transcribed contained the pure text of the author, altered copies
of works thus passed unobserved into circulation. How often do
the manuscripts of any one of the chronicles of the Middle Ages,
of which several manuscripts are extant, agree with each other in
exhibiting the same text, equally copious, or equally brief? What
numerous complaints do we read in the fathers of the first centu
ries concerning the arbitrary alterations made in their writings,
published but a short time before, by the possessors or transcrib
ers of manuscripts. Scarcely had copies of the letters of Diony-
sius of Corinth begun to circulate, before, as he expresses himself,
* the apostles of Satan filled them with tares ; omitting some things
and adding others ; and the same fate, according to his testimony,
the Holy Scriptures themselves could not escape. If transcribers
had not permitted themselves to make the most arbitrary altera
tions in the writings of others, would it have been as customary as
* Einleit. in d. X. T., i. U5.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 9
we find it was for authors of those times to adjure their readers, at
the end of their writings, to make no alterations in them, and to
denounce the most fearful curses against those who should under
take to do so ?
" The histories of Jesus must also have been subjected to the
same mode of treatment. Does not Celsus object to the Chris
tians, that they had changed the gospels three times, four times,
and oftener? From what other cause can it proceed, that we still
find fragments of the apocryphal gospels, in which all the accounts,
respecting some particular passage of the life of Jesus, which aic,
elsewhere found scattered in different gospels, are brought to
gether and combined into one whole ? Thus the apocryphal gos
pel of the Ebionites, quoted by Epiphanius, has brought together
all relating to the baptism of Jesus which is found concerning it
in our first three Gospels, and in the Memoirs by the Apostles,
used by Justin Martyr." *
" As soon," he remarks in another place, * as the history of our
catholic Gospels commences, we find men without any critical
knowledge busy in altering their text, in shortening and lengthen
ing it, and in making changes of synonymous words. And is this
to be wondered at ? Ever since the existence of written histories
of Jesus, it had been customary for the possessors of manuscripts
to make alterations in their text, according to the particular knowl
edge which they had of his preaching and actions, and of the events
of his life. Thus the second and third generations of Christians
only continued this practice respecting the gospels which the first
had begun. The custom was, in the second century, so generally
known, that even those who were not believers were acquainted
with it. Celsus objects to the Christians, that they had changed
their gospels three times, four times, and oftener, as if they were
deprived of their senses. Clement also, at the end of the second
century, speaks of those who corrupted the gospels, and ascribes
it to them, that at Matt. v. 10, instead of the words, for theirs is
Hie kingdom of heaven, there was found in some manuscripts, for
they shall be perfect ; and in others, for they shall have a place
where they shall not be persecuted." }
Einleit. in d. N. T., i. 173, seqq. t Ibid., pp. 652, 653.
10 STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
The preceding statements give a view of the difficulties
which have been supposed to attend the proof of the genuine
ness of the Gospels ; and likewise of the opinions which have
been entertained respecting their gross corruption, supposing
them, in a certain sense, to have proceeded from the authors
to whom they have been ascribed. The passages quoted from
Eichhorn are not to be regarded as expressing the views of
only a single writer. No work of a similar kind has been,
received in Germany with more approbation than his "Intro
duction to the New Testament ; " and his notions respecting
the Gospels, or others of the same general character, essen
tially affecting the belief of their genuineness, have been held
by many modern German writers.
But, if the preceding statements and opinions be correct,
an objector may say, " You have little or rather no evi
dence for the genuineness of the Gospels, which reaches back
beyond the close of the second century ; though they were
composed, as you imagine, about one hundred and fifty years
before. You have, in fact, no proof of their existence, in
their present form, previous to that period. All that can be
rendered probable is, that some works were in existence,
which served as a basis for the Gospels you now possess.
But if, during the first two centuries, it was so common to
enlarge the histories of Jesus Christ, then in use, with tradi
tionary tales, and with additions of various kinds, great and
small; and to alter and remodel them, as the transcribers
or possessors of manuscripts might think proper, you can
hardly pretend to rely with much confidence upon those
histories which now exist. We know in what manner the
legends of saints have been gradually swelled with the ad
dition of miraculous stories, unknown to those by whom they
were first composed ; and something very similar may have
been the case with your Gospels."
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 11
In answer, then, to all that has been alleged, the object
of the following work is to establish these two proposi
tions:
I. That the Gospels remain essentially the same as they
were originally composed.
II. That they have been ascribed to their true authors.
PAET I.
PROOF THAT THE GOSPELS REMAIN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS
THEY WERE ORIGINALLY COMPOSED
PAKT I.
CHAPTER 1.
ARGUMENT FROM THE AGREEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE
COPIES OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
THE first proposition to be established, that the Gospels re
main essentially the same as they were originally composed,
requires some explanation and remark.
In regard to St. Matthew s Gospel, the proposition is to
be understood in a particular sense. This Gospel, it is prob
able, was originally composed in Hebrew ; and we possess
only a Greek translation, made at a very early period.*
This translation, it will be my purpose to show, has been
faithfully preserved. No reason has ever been adduced for
suspecting that the translation was not intended to be a faith
ful representative of the original.
The Gospels, I have said, remain essentially the same as
they were originally written. In common with all other
ancient writings, they have been exposed to the accidents to
which works preserved by transcription are liable. In the
very numerous authorities for determining their text, we find
a great number of differences, or various readings. But, by
comparing those authorities together, we are able, in general,
to ascertain satisfactorily the original text of the last three
On this subject see Note A, pp. 425-430.
16 EVIDENCES OF THE
Gospels, and of the Greek translation of St. Matthew.
There are, however, a few passages admitted into the Re
ceived Text (the text in common use before the publication
of Griesbach s edition), some extant in a majority of our
present manuscripts, and some even in all, the genuineness of
: which is still questionable. Various considerations arising
irom some of these passages not being found in manuscripts
of the highest authority, from direct historical evidence con
corning them in the writings of the fathers, from their unsuit-
ableness to the context, from the nature of their contents,
and from the want of correspondence between their style and
that of the evangelist in whose work they now stand may
lead us to disbelieve or doubt that they proceeded from him.
In mentioning such as are extant in all our present manu
scripts, I refer particularly to certain passages in the Greek
Gospel of Matthew.
I will here mention the more important passages in the
Received Text of the Gospels, which, from such causes as I
have spoken of, may, I think, be regarded as spurious, or as
lying under suspicion. I shall reserve a more particular
examination of them for another place, where I shall treat
at length of the various readings of the text of the Gospels.*
There are strong reasons for thinking that the first two
chapters of our present copies of the Greek Gospel of Mat
thew made no part of the original Hebrew. We may sup
pose them to have been an ancient document, which, from
the connection of the subject with his history, was transcribed
into the same volume with it, and which, though first written
as a distinct work, with some mark of separation, yet in pro
cess of time became blended with it, so as apparently to form
its commencement. Being thus found incorporated with the
Gospel in the manuscript, or in manuscripts, used by the
translator, it was rendered by him as part of the original.
* See Note A, pp. 431-462
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 17
There are two other passages in our Greek Gospel of
Matthew, which, as it seems to me, there is much reason for
regarding as interpolated. These passages are the narrative
concerning Judas, in the twenty-seventh chapter, beginning
with the third and ending with the tenth verse ; and the ac
count of the raising of the bodies of many saints at the time
of our Saviour s crucifixion, in the latter part of the fifty-
second verse and the fifty-third of the same chapter.
Li respect to Mark s Gospel, there is ground for believing
that the last twelve verses were not written by the evangel
ist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short
conclusion to the work, which some cause had prevented the
author from completing.
In Luke s Gospel, the only passage of any considerable
length or importance, the genuineness of which appears to
me liable to suspicion, consists of the forty-third and forty-
fourth verses of the twenty-second chapter, containing an
account of the descent of an angel to Jesus, and of his agony
and bloody sweat.
In John s Gospel, what now stands as the conclusion, the
Litter part of the twenty-fourth verse and the twenty-fifth, of
the last chapter, has the air of an editorial note.
In the Received Text of this Gospel, there are likewise
two other passages to be considered. The genuineness of the
last clause of the third and the whole of the fourth verse of
the fifth chapter, which contain an account of the descent
of an angel into the pool of Bethesda, is very questionable ;
and the story of the woman taken in adultery is, in my opin
ion, justly regarded by a majority of modern critics as not
having been a part of the original Gospel.*
* Besides those that have been mentioned above, there are two other pas
sages in the Gospels which it may be well to notice in connection with this
subject.
One consists of the words ascribed to our Lord in Matt. xii. 40 : " For
as Jonah was three days ard three nights in the belly of the fish, so will
2
18 EVIDENCES OF THE
The two passages last mentioned, and the other interpo
lations that have been suggested, that is, the two insertions
into the body of the text of the original Hebrew of Matthew s
Gospel, and one into that of Luke s Gospel, were, we may
suppose, first written as notes or additional matter in the
margin of some copies of the Gospel in which they are found.
But passages belonging to the text of a work, which had been
accidentally omitted by a transcriber, were likewise ofte i
preserved in the margin. From this circumstance, notes and
additional matter, thus written, were not unfrequently mis
taken for parts of the text, and introduced by a subsequent
copier into what he thought their proper place. This is a
fruitful source of various readings in ancient writings ; and
may explain how the passages in question, if not genuine,
have become incorporated with the text of the Gospels.
The facts that have been mentioned, respecting doubtful or
spurious passages in the text of the Gospels, imply nothing
opposite to the general proposition maintained. On the con
trary, in reasoning concerning those passages, we go upon the
supposition of its truth. It is assumed, that the Gospels, gen
erally speaking, have been faithfully preserved ; but it is con
tended, that there are particular reasons for doubting, whether
one or another of the passages in question, though found in
the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
There are strong, and it may seem sufficient, reasons for believing these words
not to have been-uttered by our Lord. But, on the supposition that they were
not, it does not necessarily follow that they are an interpolation in the text
of Matthew s Gospel.
The other passage consists of the words in which our Lord is said to have
reproved James and John for the suggestion of calling down fire from heaven
upon a village of the Samaritans, Luke ix. 55, 56. There is nothing in the
words themselves to excite a doubt of their having been spoken by Jesus.
The only reason for questioning whether they originally made a part of
Luke s Gospel is, that they are wanting in a large number of the most im
portant copies of it. The passage presents one of the most ditfieult and
curious problems in the criticism of the text of the New Testament.
Both these passages are examined in Note A, before referred to.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 19
many or in all the extant manuscripts of a Gospel, proceeded
from the pen of the evangelist. These reasons are specific,
applying in every case to the particular passage under consid
eration, and not admitting of a general application. They
suppose no new theory respecting the corruption of the Gos
pels, and no habit in transcribers of making unlicensed al
terations. They imply nothing more than the operation of
particular accidents, producing error in particular cases ; the
possibility of which none will deny. All that we can say
respecting any ancient work is, that it remains essentially the
same as it was originally composed. For specific reasons,
applying to some particular passage, we may doubt whethei
it proceeded from the pen of the evangelist. But unless the
Gospels were exposed, as has been imagined, to some pecu
liar causes of corruption, there can be no question, that, gen
erally speaking, we have satisfactory means of determining
the original text of the last three Gospels, and that of the
Greek translation of Matthew ; the number of authorities for
settling it manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations by
ancient writers being far more numerous and important
than those for settling the text of any other ancient writing.
We proceed, then, to the proof that the Gospels have not
been exposed to any peculiar causes of corruption, but remain
essentially the same as they were originally composed.
This appears, in the first place, from the agreement among
our present manuscript copies of the Gospels, or of parts of
the Gospels, in whatever form these copies appear. There
have been examined, in a greater or less degree, about six
hundred and seventy manuscripts* of the whole, or of por
tions, of the Greek text of the Gospels. These were written
in different countries, and at different periods, probably from
the fifth century downwards. They have been found in places
* See Scholz s Catalogue, in the Prolegomena to his N. T.
20 EVIDENCES OF THE
widely remote from each other, in Asia, in Africa, and from
one extremity of Europe to the other. Besides these manu
scripts of the Greek text, there are many manuscripts of
ancient versions of the Gospels, in different languages of each
of the three great divisions of the world just mentioned.
There are likewise many manuscripts of the works of the
Christian fathers, abounding in quotations from the Gospels ;
and especially manuscripts of ancient commentaries on the
Gospels, such as those of Origen, who lived in the third cen
tury, and of Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth, in which
we find their text quoted, as the different portions of it are
successively the subjects of remark.
Now, all these different copies of the Gospels, or parts of
the Gospels, so numerous, so various in their character, so
unconnected, offering themselves to notice in parts of the
world so remote from each other, concur in giving us essen
tially the same text. Divide them into four classes, corre
sponding to the four Gospels, and it is evident that those of
each class are to be referred to one common source ; that they
are all copies, more or less remote, of the same original ; that
they all had one common text for their archetype. They vary,
indeed, more or less from each other: but their variations have
arisen from the common accidents of transcription; or, as
regards the versions, partly from errors of translation ; or, in
respect to the quotations by the fathers, partly from the cir
cumstance, that, in ancient as in modern times, the language
of Scripture was often cited loosely, from memory, and with
out regard to verbal accuracy, in cases where no particular
verbal accuracy was required. The agreement among the
extant copies of any one of the Gospels, or of portions of it,
is essential : the disagreements are accidental and trifling,
originating in causes which, from the nature of things, we
know must have been in operation. The same work every
where appears: and, by comparing together different copies,
we are able to ascertain the original text to a great degree
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 21
of exactness ; or, in other words, where various readings
occur, to determine what were probably the words of the
author.
The Greek manuscripts, then, of any one of the Gospels,
the versions of it, and the quotations from it by the fathers,
are a l, professedly, copies of that Gospel, or of parts of it ;
and these correspond with each other. But, as these pro
fessed copies thus correspond with each other, it follows that
they were derived more or less remotely from one archetype.
Their agreement admits of no explanation, except that of
their being conformed to a common exemplar. In respect to
each of the Gospels, the copies which we possess must all be
referred, for their source, to one original Gospel, one original
text, one original manuscript. As far back as our knowledge
extends, Christians, throughout all past ages, in Syria, at
Alexandria, at Rome, at Carthage, at Constantinople, and
at Moscow, in the East and in the West, have all used copies
of each of the Gospels, which were evidently derived from
one original manuscript, and necessarily imply that such a
manuscript, existing as their archetype, has been faithfully
copied.
Let us now consider what must have been the consequence,
if the supposition before stated, respecting the license taken
by different transcribers, were true of any one of the Gospels.
In this case, one transcriber, in one part of the world, would
have made certain alterations in his copy, and inserted certain
narratives which he had collected ; and another, in another
place, would have made different alterations, and inserted dif
ferent narratives. Such copies, upon the supposition that this
imagined license continued, would, when again transcribed,
have been again changed and enlarged. Copies would have
been continually multiplying, diverging more and more from
the original and from each other. The original text would
ha\e been confounded and lost among additions and changes,
till, at last, it might have appeared, to quote the language of
22 EVIDENCES OP THE
Eichhorn, only in "insulated fragments." * No generally re
ceived text would have existed ; none, therefore, could have
been preserved and handed down. Instead of that agreement
among the copies of each Gospel which now exists, we should
have found everywhere manuscripts, presenting us with differ
ent collections of narratives and sayings ; and differing, at the
same time, in their arrangement of the same facts, and in their
general style of expression. There would have been as great
a want of correspondence among the manuscripts which pro
fessed to contain any particular Gospel as there is known to
exist among those of the Arabian Nights, or among the cop
ies of the Gesta Romanorum. They would have been more
unlike than those manuscripts of chronicles of the Middle
Ages to which Eichhorn refers,! as the Gospels have been
much more frequently transcribed. The copies of these
writings would have presented the same phenomena as those
of some of the apocryphal books ; that, for example, called the
Gospel of the Infancy, which appears in several different
forms, this collection of fables having been remodelled by
one transcriber after another according to his fancy. At the
same time, we should have found the want of agreement,
which must have existed among different manuscripts of any
one of the Gospels, extending itself equally to the transla
tions of that Gospel, and to the professed quotations from
it in ancient writers.
The argument which has been employed seems easy to
be comprehended ; and at the same time conclusive of the
fact, that all our present copies of each of the Gospels are to
l>e traced back to one original manuscript, in multiplying the
copies of which, no such liberties can have been taken by
transcribers as are supposed in the hypothesis under con
sideration. The argument seems, likewise, very obvious ;
yet its force and bearing appear to have been overlooked
^
* See before, p. 6. f See before, p. 8.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 23
in framing that hypothesis. The fact does not seem to have
been distinctly adverted to, that the transcriber or possessor
of a manuscript, making such alterations as the hypothesis
supposes, could introduce them only into a single copy, and
into such others as might be transcribed from it ; and that ho
could not, properly speaking, add to or corrupt the work
itself. His copy would have no influence upon contemporarj
copies ; and in the case of the Gospels, we may say, upon
numerous contemporary copies, in which the true text might
be preserved, or into which different alterations might be
introduced. It is quite otherwise since the invention of
printing. He who now introduces a corruption into the
printed edition of a work, introduces it into all the copies
of that edition ; if it be the only edition, into all the copies of
that work ; and, in many cases, into a great majority of the
copies which are extant, or which are most accessible. All
these copies will agree in presenting us with the same
changes or interpolations. He may properly be said to cor
rupt the work itself. Thus, before the invention of printing,
the famous verse in the first Epistle of John, v. 7, was to be
found, as far as is known, in the text of not more than two
Greek manuscripts of all those in existence.* But it was
early admitted into a printed edition of the New Testament ;
and it is now to be found in a great majority of the printed
copies, and consequently of all the copies, of the New Testa
ment. It is not now to be considered as a corruption of a
particular manuscript, but as a corruption of the Epistle itself.
If printing had not been invented, and the Epistle had been
preserved, as before, only by transcription, the fact would
probably have been very different. The passage, instead of
being in a great majority of copies, might have been found
* I refer to the Codex Montfortianus, and to another lately discovered in
the Vatican Library by Scholz (see his Biblischkritische Reise, i.e. Travels
for the Purpose of Biblical Criticism, p. 105). But it is not certain that
cither o these manuscripts was written before the invention of printing.
24 EVIDENCES OF THE
only in a very small minority. The power of an ancient
copier to alter the text of a work was very different from
that of a modern editor ; yet it would seem that they must
have been confounded in the hypothesis under consideration,
unless some further account is to be given of the manner in
which the text of our present Gospels has been formed and
perpetuated.
It is evident from the preceding statements, that the exist
ing copies of each of the Gospels have been derived from
some common exemplar, faithfully followed by transcribers.
But it may be said, that this exemplar was not the original
work, as it proceeded from the hand of the evangelist ; that
the lineage of our present copies is not to be traced so high ;
but that, at some period, the course of corruption which has
been described was arrested, and a standard text was selected
and determined upon, which has served as an archetype for
all existing copies ; but that this text, thus fixed as the
standard, had already suffered greatly from the corruptions
of transcribers, and was very different from the original.
This supposition is implied in the passage from Eichhorn,
which has been before quoted.*
The Church, according to Eichhorn, selected four gospels
out of a multitude, and labored to procure their general re
ception in the Church. In order to understand this proposi
tion, it is necessary to determine what must be the meaning
of the word " Church." There was no organized universal
Church, nor any thing resembling such an establishment, in
existence, till long after the close of the second century
There was no single ecclesiastical government, which ex
tended over Christians, or over a majority of Christians, or
over any considerable portion of their number. They had
no regular modes of acting in concert, nor any effectual
* See before, p. T.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 25
means whatever of combining together for a common pur
pose. Neither the whole body, nor a majority of Christians.
ever met by delegation to devise common measures. Such
an event did not take place till a hundred and twenty years
after the end of the second century, when Christianity had
become the established religion of the Roman empire, and
the first general council, that of Nice, was called together
by the Emperor Constantine. At the time of which we are
speaking, Christians were spread over the world from the
Euphrates to the Pillars of Hercules. They were disturbed
and unsettled by frequent cruel persecutions, one of which,
that under Severus, was at its height just about the com
mencement of the third century. They were separated from
each other by a difficulty and consequent infrequency of com
munication, of which, such are the facilities that now exist,
we can hardly form a just notion. They were kept asunder
by difference of language ; some speaking the Greek, some
the Latin, and others different languages and dialects of the
East. Exclusively of those generally considered as heretics,
they were disunited and alienated from each other by dif
ferences of religious opinion, and even by violent controver
sies ; for it was before the end of the second century, that
Victor, Bishop of Rome, had excommunicated the Eastern
churches. This being the state of Christians at the end of
the second century, the proposition on which I am remarking
supposes that they corresponded together, and came to an
agreement to select four out of the many manuscript gospels
then in existence, all of which had been exposed to the
license of transcribers. Of these four, no traces are to be
discovered before that time ; but it was determined to adopt
them for common use, to the prejudice, it would seem, of
others longer known, and to which different portions of
Christians had respectively been accustomed. There was a
universal and silent compliance with this proposal. Copies
of the four new manuscripts, and translations of them, were
26 EVIDENCES OF THE
at once circulated through the world. All others ceased
to be transcribed, and suddenly disappeared from common
notice. Copiers were at the same time checked in their
former practice of licentious alteration. Thus a revolution
was effected in regard to the most important sacred books of
Christians, and at the same time better habits were intro
duced among the transcribers of those books.
I believe it will be seen, that I have stated nothing but
vs hat the supposition we are considering necessarily implies.
But when we divest it of its looseness and ambiguity of lan
guage, and state clearly the details which it must embrace, no
one can suppose that any such series of events took place at
the end of the second century. It is intrinsically incredible :
but, if this were not the case, we might urge against it the
fact, that there is no record, nor any trace of it. It is sup
posed, that a change was effected in the sacred books of
Christians, spread abroad, as they were, throughout the
civilized world. Any change of this sort could not be
effected without great difficulty, under the most favorable
circumstances. Let us consider for a moment what an effort
would be required, and what resistance must be overcome, ia
order to bring into general use among a single nation of
Christians at the present day, not other gospels, but simply a
new and better translation of our present Gospels. In the
case under consideration, allowing the supposed change to
have been possible, it must have met with great opposition ;
it must have provoked much discussion ; it must have been
the result of much deliberation ; there must have been a
great deal written about it at the time ; it must have been
often referred to afterwards, especially in the religious con
troversies which took place ; it would have been one of the
most important events in the history of Christians ; and the
account of the transaction must have been preserved. There
would have been distinct memorials of it everywhere, in con
temporary and subsequent writings. That there are no
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 27
traces of it whatever is alone conclusive evidence that it
never took place.
But we may even put out of view all the preceding con
siderations. " The Church," it is said, " about the end of the
second and the beginning of the third century, first labored
to procure the general reception of the four Gospels in the
Church." By the Church must be meant the great body
of Christians. The general reception of the Gospels was
foanded upon the belief, real or pretended, of their being the
genuine works of those to whom they were ascribed. The
statement, therefore, resolves itself into the following dilemma :
Either the great body of Christians determined to believe
what they knew to be false, or they determined to profess to
believe it. The first proposition is an absurdity in terms ;
the last is a moral absurdity.
There is, then, no ground for the supposition of any inter
position of authority, or of any concert among Christians,
at the end of the second century, to select our present Gos
pels for common use ; or, in other words, to select from the
great number then in existence four particular manuscripts,
which should serve as archetypes for all subsequent tran
scribers, and the text of which should alone be considered as
the authorized text. Our present agreement of authorities,
which necessarily refers us back to one manuscript of each
of the Gospels as the archetype of all the copies of that
Gospel, cannot thus be explained. We are left, therefore, to
the obvious conclusion, which we adopt in regard to other
writings, that this manuscript was the original work of an in
dividual author, which has been faithfully transmitted to us.
The argument from the agreement of our present manu
script copies of the Gospels seems alone to be decisive of the
truth of the proposition which it is brought to establish.
But a similar mode of reasoning may be applied to the agree
ment between the very numerous manuscripts of the Gospels
28 EVIDENCES OF THE
which were in existence at the end of the second century ;
and, as it was before this period that transcribers are fancied
to have taken the greatest liberties, it may be worth while to
enter into the detail of this argument, especially as it is
connected with the proof of the antiquity of the Gospels.
Our present Gospels, it is conceded, were in common use
among Christians about the end of the second century. The
number of manuscripts then in existence bore some propor
tion to the number of Christians, and this to the whole popu
lation of the Roman empire. The population of the Roman
empire in the time of the Antonines is estimated by Gibbon
at about one hundred and twenty millions.* With regard to
the proportion of Christians, the same writer observes, " The
most favorable calculation will not permit us to imagine, that
more than a twentieth part of the subjects of the empire had
enlisted themselves under the banner of the cross before the
important conversion of Constantine." f If not more than a
twentieth part was Christian at the end of the third century,
just after which the conversion of Constantine took place,
we can hardly estimate more than a fortieth part of it as
Christian at the end of the second century. Yet this propor
tion seems irreconcilable with the language which we find
used concerning the number of Christians. Just after the
close of the first century, Pliny was sent by Trajan to govern
the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia. While exercising his
office, many accusations were brought to him against Chris
tians ; and he wrote to the emperor to consult him on the
subject :
"I have recourse," he says, "to you for advice; for it has
appeared to me a subject proper to consult you about, especially
on account of the number of those against whom accusations are
brought. For many of all ages, of every rank, and of both sexes
likewise, have been and will be accused. The contagion of this
* Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. ii. f Ibid., ch. xv
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 29
superstition has made its way, not in cities only, but in the lesser
towns also, and in the open country . It seems to me that it may
be stopped and corrected. It is certain, that the temples, which
were almost deserted, begin to be frequented ; and the sacred
solemnities are revived after a long intermission. Victims like
wise are everywhere sold, of which, till lately, there were but
ver~ few purchasers. 1 *
There is no reason to suppose, that Christians were moie
numerous in Pontus and Bithynia than in any other part of
Asia Minor, or in Macedonia, or in Greece. Yet, if we sup
pose them to have constituted but a fortieth or even a twen
tieth part of the inhabitants, there would be an extravagance
in the statements of Pliny, not to be expected in an official
letter, written for the purpose of affording facts to the em
peror, on which to found specific directions. I pass over
much other evidence with respect to the number of Chris
tians ; f and will quote only one or two passages from Ter
tullian, who wrote at the particular period which we are
considering, about the year 200. In speaking of the sub
mission of Christians to the civil authority by which they
were persecuted, he remarks, that it may clearly appear to be
the result of the patience taught them by their religion ;
considering," he says, "that we, so great a multitude of men,
almost the majority of every city, pass our lives silently and
modestly, more known, perhaps, as individuals than as a body,
and to be recognized only by our reformation from ancient
Again, in addressing those who governed the Roman empire,
be says :
* We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every thing that
is yours, cities, islands, castles, free towns, council-halls, the very
* Plinii Epist, lib. x. epist. 97.
t See Paley s Evidences of Christianity, p. ii. c- ix.
| Ad Scapulam, 2, p. 69, ed. Priori!.
30 EVIDENCES OF THE
camps, all classes of men, the palace, the senate, the forum, We
have left you nothing but your temples. We can number your
armies : there are more Christians in a single province. Even if
unequal in force, is there any war for which we, who so readily
submit to death, should not be prepared, or not prompt, if our
religion did not teach us rather to be slain than to slay? Un
armed and without rebellion, had we only separated from you,
we might thus have fought against you, by inflicting the injury
which you would have suffered from the divorce. If we, such a
multitude of men, had broken away from you, retiring into some
remote corner of the world, your government would have been
covered with shame at the loss of so many citizens, whoever they
might be. The very desertion would have punished you. With
out doubt, you would hav.e been terrified at your solitude ; at the
silence and stupor of all things, as if the world were dead. You
would have had to look about for subjects." *
This, it may be said, is the language of exaggeration : un
questionably it is so. But Tertullian was a writer of far too
much acuteness and too much real eloquence to suffer the
boldness and vehemence of his language to pass those limits,
beyond which their only effect must have been to expose him
to derision. The very passage which I have quoted shows
that he was a man of no ordinary mind. But, as far as its
exaggeration is concerned, the most unwise and most impu
dent of declaimers would not have so stated the number of
Christians, if it did not amount to more than a fortieth part
of the whole population of the empire, exclusively of those
denominated heretics, who were few in comparison with catho
lic Christians. I accept, however, this proportion ; and only
wish it to be well understood, that it is fairly within the
truth ; probably falling very far short of it. The conclusion
to be established admits of great wastefulness in the calcula
tions leading to it. The fortieth part of one hundred and
twenty millions, the estimated population of the empire, is
* Apologeticus adversus Gentes, $ 37. See Semler s Ed., torn. v. p. 90.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 31
three millions. There were Christians without the bounds of
the empire, but I am willing to include those also in the num
ber supposed. At the end of the second century, then, there
were three millions of believers, using our present Gospels,
regarding them with the highest reverence, and anxious to
obtain copies of them. Few possessions could have been more
valued by a Christian than a copy of those books, which con
tained the history of the religion for which he was exposing
himself to the severest sacrifices. Their cost, if he were able
to defray it, must have been but a very trifling consideration.
But a common copy of the Gospels was not a book of any
great bulk or expense.* I shall not, therefore, I think, be
* That the cost of books in ancient times was not excessive, may appear,
in part, from the circumstance, that Juvenal describes them as among the
possessions of Codrus, whom he represents as extremely poor. They were
a part of his totum nihil.
" Jamque vetus Graces servabat cista libellos." Sat. iii. 206.
But it is remarkable how little exact information is to be found respecting
the cost of books in ancient times. "The prices," says Arbuthnot, "which
I find mentioned by the ancients, are for such as were manuscripts in our
cense, that is, not published, and valuable for the rarity of them." Mar
tial, however (lib. i. epig. 118), states the cost of the first book of his Epigrams,
or perhaps of the first and second (lib. ii. epig. 93), in an ornamented copy,
rasum pumice, purpuraque cultum, at five denarii ; which, taking silver as the
standard of comparison, is equal to about seventy-two cents, American money.
This was a book for the luxurious. A copy of any one of the Gospels might
probably have been bought at a much cheaper rate in proportion to its size.
The price of Martial s thirteenth book, which contains far less matter than the
tirst, but amounts to two hundred and seventy-two verses, he states to have
been four sestertii ; or, if that were thought too much, two sestertii, which he
says would still leave a profit to the bookseller (lib. xiii. epig. 3). Two
sestertii were half a denarius; that is, about seven cents. We sometimes con
found the state of things in the Middle Ages, when there was a great scarcity
of books, with that which existed in the flourishing times of Greek and Roman
literature. It would be a still greater mistake to suppose that the number of
Greek manuscripts of the Gospels extant during that period in Western Eu
rope, where the Greek was almost an unknown tongue, affords any means of
determining the number in existence when the Greek was a living language
and a medium of communication throughout the civilized world.
32 EVIDENCES OF THE
charged with over-estimating, if I suppose that there was one
copy of the Gospels for every fifty Christians. Scattered over
the world, as they were, if the proportion of them to the
heathens was no greater than has been assumed, fifty Chris
tians would often be as many as were to be found in any one
place, and often more ; but we cannot suppose that there were
many collections of Christians without a copy of the Gospels.
Origen, upon quoting a passage from the New Testament,
says that it is written not " in any rare books, read only by a
few studious persons, but in those in the most common use."*
[n truth, there can be little doubt that copies of the Gospels
were owned by a large portion of Christians, who had the
means of procuring them ; and in supposing only one copy of
these books for every fifty Christians, the estimate is probably
much within the truth. This proportion, however, will give
as sixty thousand copies of the Gospels for three millions of
Christians.
This number of copies may strike some, who have never
before made any estimate of the kind, as larger than was to
be expected. But the following facts may serve to show that
the calculation is not extravagant. In the latter part of the
second century, a history of Christ was compiled by Tatian,
professedly, as is commonly believed, from the four Gospels.
Tatian was a heretic, and his work never obtained much
reputation or currency. Eusebius, the historian of the
Church in the first half of the fourth century, is the earliest
writer who mentions it. His acquaintance with books was
extensive ; yet he appears not to have examined it. At the
present day, no copy of it is known to be in existence. Yet
of this obscure work, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in the fifth
century, says that he found two hundred copies in use among
Christian churches, which he removed, and supplied their
* Ev rolg Sj]fiu6ecT00i(;. Orig. cont. Gels., lib. vii. 37; Opp. i. 720,
ed. Delarue.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 33
place by copies of the Gospels.* It appears, then, that, in
churches to which the examination of a single bishop
extended, there were two hundred copies of a book of
suspicious credit, and not in common use ; and that the
place of these was readily supplied by copies of the Gos
pels. This fact is one of those which may serve to show
that the estimate of the whole number of copies of the
Gospels existing at the end of the second century is far
from being too great.
Again, in the Acts of the Apostles,f it is related, that, of
those who had become converts to Christianity in Ephesus
and its neighborhood, some had been addicted to the study of
magic. After their conversion, they brought together their
books relating to this subject, to be burnt ; and the value of
them is said to have been fifty thousand pieces of silver. If,
as is probable, by " pieces of silver " is to be understood cisto-
phori, a common Asiatic coin and money of account, the sum
mentioned amounts to about four thousand two hundred and
fifty dollars. Books of magic, whatever may be here in
tended by that name, would be sold at a high price. But we
cannot reasonably suppose those works on magic to have been
the larger portion of the books owned by the converts of
Ephesus and its vicinity at this early period. Such being the
case, we may infer that the number of copies of the Gospels
in use among Christians at the end of the second century die.
not fall short of that which has been estimated, but probably
far exceeded it.
There were, then, at the end of the second century, when
it is agreed that the Gospels were in common use, at least
sixty thousand copies of them dispersed over the world.
These copies had not been subjected to the licentious altera
tions of transcribers. They agreed essentially with each
* Theodore! Hferet. Fab., lib i. c. 20; Opp. iv. 208, ed. Sirmond.
t Chap. xix. /er. 19
34 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
other. This is implied in the fact that they were copies of
our present Gospels. It is made evident by the considera
tion, that, if there had been important discrepancies among
these sixty thousand copies, no series of events could either
have destroyed the evidence of these discrepancies, or could
have produced the present agreement among existing copies,
derived, as they are, from those in use at the period in ques
tion. The agreement, then, at the end of the second century,
among the numerous copies of the respective Gospels, proves
that an archetype of each Gospel had been faithfully followed
by transcribers. This archetype, as we have seen, there is no
ground for imagining to have been any other than the origi
nal work of the author of that Gospel. It follows, therefore,
that, in the interval between the composition of these works
and the end of the second century, their text did not suffer,
as has been fancied, from the licentiousness of transcribers.
But it must have taken a long time, I use an indefinite
expression, to which there can be no objection, leaving it to
every one to fix such a period as he may think most probable,
it must have taken a long time for the Gospels to obtain so
established and extensive a reputation, to come into common
use as sacred books among Christians throughout the civilized
world, and for such a number of copies of them to be made.
They must have been composed, therefore, a long time before
the end of the second century ; or, rather, before the year 180,
about which period Irenseus wrote, who asserts their general
reception and acknowledged authority, in as strong language
as any Christian would use at the present day. It follows,
then, from all that has been said, that, long before the latter
part of the second century, our present Gospels were com
posed by four different authors, whose works obtained general
reception among Christians as authentic histories and sacred
b3oks, and were everywhere spread and handed down, without
aiiy essential alterations from transcribers.
CHAPTER II.
ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
BESIDE the argument already adduced, there are other* to
which we will now advert,
I. It would have been inconsistent with the common seitti-
ments and practice of mankind for transcribers to make such
alterations and additions as have been imagined, in the sacred
books which they were copying. No one can be so dull as
not to feel the propriety and importance of preserving the
genuine text of books which are regarded as works of
authority, or as possessing a peculiar character in conse
quence of their having been composed by a particular author.
In proportion as a work is of higher authority, this sentiment
will be stronger. It would be idle to imagine, that the habit
of making additions and alterations at will, which is attributed
to the transcribers of the Gospels, was common in ancient
times, and practised in the transcription of other writings ;
the histories, for instance, of Thucydides or Tacitus. But,
with the great body of believers, the Gospels were peculiarly
guarded from corruption; and what we apprehend so little
concerning other writings is still less to be apprehended con
cerning them. The Christians * of the first two centuries, it
* By " the Christians " I mean, here and elsewhere, the great body of be
lievers, the generality of Christians, the catholic Christians. Conformably to
36 EVIDENCES OF THE
cannot be doubted, valued very highly their sacred books
and none more highly than those which contained records of
the actions and discourses of Christ. But they valued them
as sacred books, and as authentic histories, and not as the
patchwork of unknown transcribers. They would not, there-
Core, suffer them gradually to assume the latter character.
They would not cause or permit alterations and additions to
be silently introduced into books of history, the authenticity
of which would be thus destroyed; and sacred books, the
peculiar character of which would, in consequence, be lost.
To interpolate or alter any thing in books of the latter kind
has commonly been considered as a crime, bordering upon
sacrilege. This sentiment may be counteracted in a certain
degree ; but it is a very general, a very natural, and a very
strong one. The care of any community in preserving their
sacred books from corruption will be proportioned to the
value which they set upon those books ; and the degree
in which they value them will be proportioned to the interest
which they feel in their religion. But no men ever felt that
interest more strongly than the Christians of the first two
centuries. There is therefore, as we might expect, abundant
evidence extant in their writings, that they had as great
reverence for the sacred books of our religion, and were as
little disposed to make or to suffer an admixture of foreign
matter with their genuine text, as Christians of the present
day. I will quote a few passages in proof of this fact.
The first writer by whom any one of the Gospels is ex
pressly mentioned is Papias, who lived about the beginning
of the second century,* a contemporary of the disciples of the
rts common use in speaking of the first ages of Christianity, I use the name
as a general, not a universal term. I do not mean to include under it the
heretical sects of the Ebionites and the Gnostics, to whom all the assertions
made respecting " the Christians " do not apply. The evidence which those
sects afford of the genuineness of the Gospels will be considered hereafter.
* The assertion of Eichhorn, that we find no traces of our first three Goa-
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 37
apostles. He speaks particularly of the Gospels of Matthew
and Mark, affirming that they were composed by those indi
viduals, and that the Gospel of Mark was founded on the
oral narratives of Peter. He applies to them the title of
oracles* The respect in which they were held appears frcm
this title, and from the authors to whom they were referred.
Christians would neither corrupt such works, nor suffer them
te be corrupted.
About the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr
describes the histories of Christ which he used as written by
apostles and their companions,! by those whom Christians
believed. $ He says, that either these books, or the writings
of the Jewish prophets, were read in Christian churches on
the first day of every week. He everywhere appeals to
them as of undoubted authority. They were regarded by
him, we may infer, as entitled to at least equal reverence
with the Jewish Scriptures. But in the dialogue which he
represents himself as having held with Trypho, an unbe
lieving Jew, he charges the Jews with having expunged
certain passages of the Old Testament relating to Christ.
To this Trypho answers, that the charge seems to him in
credible. Justin replies : " It does seem incredible ; for to
mutilate the Scriptures would be a more fearful crime than
the worship of the golden calf, or than the sacrifice of children
pels before the end of the second century, can be reconciled with well-known
and undisputed facts only by supposing that our present Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke have been so corrupted as not to be essentially the same
with those which anciently bore their names. I scarcely knoAV whether it is
worth while to observe, that Eichhorn repeatedly quotes the mention by Pa-
pi is of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In one place, he says, that, " long
before the end of the second century, the authors of the first three Gospels are
named as authors of narratives of the life of Jesus; as, for example, Matthew
and Mark are so named by Papias." Einleitung in d. N. T., vol. i. (2d ed.)
p. 684.
* Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 39.
f Dial, cum Tryph., p. 361, ed. Thirlb.
t Apolog. Prim., p. 54. Ibid., p. 97.
88 EVIDENCES OF THE
to demons, or than slaying the prophets themselves." * It is
not probable that Christians were tampering with their own
sacred books at a time when they had such feelings respect
ing those of the Old Testament. The histories of Christ
used by Justin, I shall hereafter show, were our present
Gospels.
Some of the heretics in the second century made, or were
charged with making, alterations in the Christian Scriptures,
in order to accommodate them to their own opinions. Of
such corrupters of Scripture, Dionysius, who was bishop
of Corinth about the year 1 70, thus speaks : " I have written
epistles at the desire of the brethren. But the apostles of
the Devil have filled them with darnel, taking out some things,
and adding others. Against such, a woe is denounced. It is
not wonderful, therefore, that some have undertaken to cor
rupt the Scriptures of the Lord, since they have corrupted
writings not to be compared with them." f The meaning
of Dionysius is, that, the persons spoken of having shown
their readiness to commit such a crime, it was not strange
that they should even corrupt the Scriptures ; these being
works of much higher authority than his epistles, and from
the falsification of which more advantage was to be gained.
We perceive how strongly he expresses his sense of the guilt
of such corruption ; a sentiment common, without doubt, to
a great majority of Christians. When Dionysius wrote, it
clearly could not have been esteemed innocent, and a matter
of indifference, for transcribers to make intentional altera-
aons in their copies of the Gospels. Yet this is one of the
passages which have been adduced to show that such was
their common practice.^: But, as we have no reason to doubt
that the prevailing sentiment was that which Dionysius has
expressed, we may confidently infer that Christians did not
Dial, cum Tryph., p. 296. f Apud Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. c. 23.
Sec before, p. 8.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 39
generally practise or permit what was esteemed a work of
" the apostles of the Devil," and one " against which a woe
was denounced."
"We have not received," says his contemporary, Irenasus,
* the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others
than those through whom the Gospel has come down to us ;
which Gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will
oi God, transmitted to us in writing, that it might be the
foundation and pillar of our faith."* He immediately pro
ceeds to speak particularly of the composition of the four
Gospels, referring them to the authors to whom they are
commonly ascribed. These books he afterwards represents
as the most important books of Scripture ;f and the Scrip
tures he calls "oracles of God." $ "We know," he says,
* that the Scriptures are perfect, as dictated by the Logos of
God, and his spirit."
Such passages show the reverence in which the Scriptures
were held, and the feelings with which any corruption of
them must have been regarded. They are likewise irrecon
cilable with the supposition, that the Gospels had but just
appeared in their present form ; and that, previously, those
who possessed copies of these books had regarded them only
* as an article of private property, in which any alterations
were allowable." || If the Gospels had been partly the work
of unknown transcribers, the fact must have been notorious ;
and no writer, of whatever character, would have ventured
to use such language as that of Irenseus.
Clement of Alexandria, his contemporary, calls the Scrip
tures divinely inspired^ divine and holy books.** He speaks
of the four Gospels, in contradistinction from all other ao
* Cont. Haeres., lib. iii. c. 1, p. 173, ed. Massuet.
t Ib., lib. iii. c. 11, 8, p. 190. f Ib., lib. i. c. 8, 1 p. 37
Ib., lib. ii. c. 28, 2, p. 156. || See before, p. 8.
Tf Stromat, lib. vii. 16, p. 894, ed. Potter.
** Paedagog., lib. iii. c. 12, p. 309.
40 EVIDENCES OF THE
counts of Christ, as having been handed down to the Chris
tians of his age ; * and he gives an account of the order of
succession in which they were composed, saying that this
account was derived from the presbyters of former times, t
Tertullian manifests the same reverence for the Scriptures,
and especially for the Gospels, as his contemporaries, Irenasus
and Clement. He, like them, quotes the Gospels as works
of decisive authority, in the same manner as any modern
theologian might do. He wrote much against the heretic
Marcion, whom he charges with having rejected the other
Gospels, and having mutilated the Gospel of Luke to con
form it to his system. This leads him to make some state
ments which have a direct bearing on the present subject.
" I affirm," says Tertullian, " that not only in the churches
founded by apostles, but in all which have fellowship with
them, that Gospel of Luke, which we so steadfastly defend,
has been received from its first publication." "The same
authority," he adds, " of the apostolic churches will support
the other Gospels, which, in like manner, we have from them,
conformably to their copies." $ "They," he says, "who were
resolved to teach otherwise than the truth, were under a
necessity of new-modelling the records of the doctrine." "As
they could not have succeeded in corrupting the doctrine
without corrupting its records, so we could not have preserved
and transmitted the doctrine in its integrity, but by preserving
the integrity of its records."
I quote only a few short passages from Christian writers,
arid those which have the most immediate relation to my
present purpose; because I shall hereafter have occasion to
show, more at length, the general reception of the Gospels,
and the reverence in which they were held, at the end of the
* Stromat., lib. iii. 13, p. 553. f Apud Euseb. H. E., lib. vi. c. 14.
J Advers. Marcion., lib. iv. 5, pp. 415, 416, ed. Priorii.
De Prescript. Hairet , 38, p. 216.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 41
second century. The following is from an anonymous writer
against the heresy of Artemon. He accuses those who main
tained this heresy, of corrupting the Scriptures, and adds :
4 How daring a crime this is, they can hardly be ignorant :
for either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were
dictated by the Holy Spirit, and then they are infidels; or
they believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and
what are they then but madmen?"* Origen, in like manner,
regarded the Scriptures as dictated by the Holy Spirit. He
has many passages which correspond to the following, from
one of his commentaries : " After this, Mark says [x. 50],
And he, casting away his garment, leaped, and came to Jesus.
Did the evangelist write without thought, when he related
that the man cast away his garment, and leaped, and came to
Jesus ? Or shall we dare to say, that this was inserted in the
Gospel without purpose ? I believe that not one jot or one
tittle of the divine instructions is without purpose." f
In commenting upon Matt. xix. 19, Origen suspects, for
reasons which it is unnecessary to state, the genuineness of
the words, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; but he
says, that, if it were not for the number of various readings
found in different copies of the Gospels, " it might well seem
irreverent in any one to suspect that the precept has been
inserted here, without its having been mentioned by the
Saviour." $
The passages quoted show the state of opinion and feeling
among Christians during the first two centuries. They have
been alleged to prove nothing in itself improbable, but, on
the contrary, the existence of sentiments which it is incredible
should not have existed. But it is clear, that those who enter
tained them would neither make nor permit intentional altera
tions in the Gospels.
* Apud Euseb. H. E., lib. v. c. 28.
t Comment, in Matt., torn. xvi. 12 ; Opp. iii. 734.
J Comment, in Matt, torn. xv. 14; Opp. iii. 671.
42 EVIDENCES OF THE
II. About the close of the second century, different Chris-
lian writers express strong censure of the mutilations and
changes which they charge some heretics, particularly Mar-
cion, with having made in the Gospels, and other books of
the New Testament. Some passages to this effect have been
quoted. It is unnecessary to adduce others, because the fact
is well known and universally admitted. The feeling ex
pressed by those writers was common, without doubt, to
Christians generally. But they could not have felt, or have
expressed themselves, as they did, if their own copies of the
Gospels had been left, as is imagined, at the mercy of tran
scribers, and there had been such a disagreement as must in
consequence have existed among them. What text of their
own would they have had to oppose to the text of Marcion,
or of any other heretic ? What would they have had to bring
forward, but a collection of discordant manuscripts, many of
them, probably, differing as much from each other as the
altered gospels of the heretics did from any one of them?
If our Gospels had not existed, in their present form, till the
close of the second century ; if, before that time, their text
had been fluctuating, and assuming in different copies a differ
ent form, such as transcribers might choose to give it, those
by whom they were used could not have ventured to speak
with such confidence of the alterations of the heretics. They
must have apprehended too strongly the overwhelming retort,
to which they lay so exposed, and against which they were so
defenceless. If, however, any one can imagine that they really
would have been bold enough to make the charges which they
do against heretics, yet in this case they must at least have
shown strong solicitude to guard the point where they them
selves were so liable to attack. But no trace of such solicitude
appears.
III. We happen to have, in the works of a single writer,
decisive evidence that no such differences ever existed in the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 43
manuscripts of the Gospels as are supposed in the hypothesis
under consideration, and consequently that no such liberties
as have been imagined were ever taken by their transcribers.
Origen was born about the year 185, and flourished during
the first half of the third century, dying about the year 254.
IIo was particularly skilled in the criticism of the Scriptures.
II is labors upon the text of the Septuagint are well known
lie had in his possession, or had the means of consulting,
Tarions manuscripts of the Gospels, of which he made a crit
ical use, noticing their various readings. His notices are
principally found in commentaries, which he wrote on the
Gospels. Under these circumstances, if the manuscripts of
the first and second centuries had differed from each other as
much as has been imagined, we should expect to find distinct
evidence of the fact in the voluminous writings of this early
father. But this is not the case. On the contrary, the lan
guage which he uses, and the kind of various readings which
he actually adduces, prove that he was ignorant of any such
diversities as have been fancied. But he could not have been
ignorant of them, if they had existed. The various readings
which he mentions are all unimportant variations. The
greater part of them are still extant in our manuscripts. He
remarks upon no such diversities as must have existed, if
transcribers had indulged in such licentious alterations as
have been supposed. On the contrary, the citations and
remarks of Origen are adapted to produce a conviction, that
the manuscripts of his time differed, to say the least, as little
from each other, as the manuscripts now extant ; and, con
sequently, that before his time there was the same care to
preserve the original text as there has been since.
This conviction is not weakened by a passage in his writ
ings, which may seem at first view to favor the opposite
opinion. The passage has been already referred to,* in this
* See before, p. 41.
44 EVIDENCES OF THE
chapter, for the purpose of proving the reverence in which
the Gospels were held ; but we will now attend to it a little
more particularly. Origen, as has been said, was led, by
a course of reasoning of considerable subtilty, to doubt the
genuineness of the words (Matt. xix. 19), Thou shall love
thy neighbor as thyself. After stating his arguments at some
length, he says :
" But if it were not that in many other passages there is a dif
ference among copies, so that all those of the Gospel of Matthew
do not agree together, and so also as it regards the other Gospels,
it might well seem irreverent in any one to suspect that the pre
cept has been inserted here without its having been mentioned by
the Saviour. But it is evident that there exists much difference
among copies, partly from the carelessness of some transcribers,
partly from the rashness of others in altering improperly what they
find written, and partly from those revisers who add or strike out
according to their own judgment."
He immediately subjoins, that he had provided a remedy for
such errors in the copies of the Septuagint, by giving a new
critical edition of it.
In this passage, nothing is referred to but well-known, com
mon causes of error in the transcription of manuscripts.
We learn from it, that transcribers were sometimes careless :
that they sometimes improperly altered from conjecture a
reading in the copy before them, which they fancied to be
erroneous ; and that those whose business it was to revise
manuscripts after transcription, for the purpose of correcting
errors, did sometimes, in the want of proper critical appa
ratus, rely too much upon their mere judgment concerning
what was probably the true text. These are all propositions
which we might credit without the testimony of Origen. His
language in speaking of the difference among the manuscripts
of the Gospels, though he had a particular purpose in repre
senting it as considerable, is much less strong than what has
been used by some modern critics, and among them by Gries-
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 45
bach himself, in speaking of the disagreement among our
present copies. The expressions of the latter, as one may
easily satisfy himself, are very loose and exaggerated.* If
they had been found in Origen, it might have been difficult to
believe that the agreement among the copies of the Gospels
existing in his time was really as great as we know it to
be among those extant at the present day. His language,
inch as it is, affords no ground for a contrary supposition.
But the passage before us deserves further attention in
several points of view. In the first place, it goes to prove,
as has been remarked, the reverence with which the Gospels
were regarded. In the next place, it shows the importance
which the most eminent Christian writer of his age attached
to the proposal of omitting a few words in the text of St.
* Griesbach, for instance, says (in the Prolegomena to his New Testament,
sect, iii.), that what he calls the Alexandrine text of the New Testament dif
fers from what he calls the Western text, " in its whole conformation and
entire coloring," toto suo habitu universoque color e. According to him, if we
take the quotations of Origen and Clement, certain manuscripts, and certain
other authorities, all of which he classes together as Alexandrine, and settle
the text of the New Testament from them al me, this text will differ in its
whole aspect from that which may be formed by a similar process from the
quotations of Tertullian and Cyprian, and the other authorities which, ac
cording to him, belong to the Western class. All that seems necessary to
enable one acquainted with the subject to perceive the extravagance of
Griesbach s language, is to have his attention directed to it. It is incon
sistent with his own statements elsewhere, and with indisputable facts.
The assertion of Griesbach above quoted is made by him in a merely criti
cal essay, in which any thing like exaggeration was least to be expected. If
&n assertion of a similar kind had been found in any work, however declama
tory, of a writer of the first three centuries, the circumstance might have
eeemed embarrassing, as respects the present argument. We should, how
ever, have been equally justified in regarding such language as highly
extravagant in the one case as in the other. I advert to these facts in crder to
illustrate a principle of considerable importance, that single passages from a
particular writer are often of very little weight or importance, when opposed
to a conclusion resting upon strong probabilities. Many writers, who have
no intention of deceiving, are far from being accurate and attentive in esti
mating the meaning and force of their words.
46 EVIDENCES OF THE
Matthew. But this renders incredible the supposition, that
it had been common for the possessors and transcribers of
manuscripts to make intentional changes in the text of the
Gospels. The passage shows the prevalence of a sentiment
wholly inconsistent with the disposition to make such changes ;
and the prevalence of a belief in the genuineness of their text,
which could not have existed if such changes had been com
mon. This sentiment and belief are further exhibited in
another passage of Origen, where, comparing the prediction
of our Saviour, The Son of man shall be three days and three
nights in the earth, with his declaration to the penitent rob
ber, This night thou shalt be with me in paradise, he says,
that " some have been so troubled with the seeming incon
sistency as to venture to suspect the latter words of being an
interpolation."* But, further, the passage before us shows,
that Origen did not regard the Gospels as having been ex
posed to any other causes of error than those common in the
transcription of manuscripts ; such, for instance, as had oper
ated, and without doubt much more extensively, in the copies
of the Septuagint. And, lastly, the language of this passage
affords proof, if such proof be needed, that Origen had no
disposition to keep out of view, or to extenuate, the differ
ences among the copies of the Gospels extant in his time.
We may therefore be satisfied, that none of more importance
existed than what we find noticed by him.
It appears, then, that Origen thought the diversities of
manuscripts a subject deserving particular attention ; that
lie was rather disposed to complain of the carelessness and
rashness of transcribers and revisers, and to exaggerate the
discrepancies which had been thus produced; nnd yet that he
never mentions the existence of any more important differ
ences among the copies of the Gospels extant in his time,
than such various readings as are found in our present manu-
* Comment, in Joan., torn, xxxii. 19 ; Opp. iv. 455.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 47
scripts. lie was ignorant, therefore, of any such differences
as are supposed in the hypothesis under consideration. But,
if unknown to him, they were unknown to other Christians
at the time when Origen lived ; that is, during the first half
of the third century. They, therefore, did not exist in
the manuscripts of this period. But we, at the present
day, have manuscripts of the Gospels written at least twelve
hundred years since: and, during the first half of the third
century, a large portion of all the copies which had ever been
made was probably in existence ; some written in the earliest
times, and others in succession during the interval. The
oldest manuscripts would be sought for by Origen, and other
critics contemporary with him ; as they have been by critics
since his time. The manuscripts of a later date extant in his
age were transcripts of others more ancient, and must have
perpetuated their discrepancies. But no important discrep
ancies were known to Origen ; they were not found in earlier
or later copies, extant in his age ; and it is but little more
than stating the same thing in other words, to say that they
never had existed.
IV. We may reason in a similar manner from all the
notices in ancient writers relating to the text of the Gospels.
These notices show that no greater difference existed among
the manuscripts of the Gospels in their day than exists at
present. We may even draw a strong argument from their
silence. If there had been narratives or sayings in some
copies of the Gospels, not found in the generality, we should
have information of it in their works. But, on the contrary,
nothing can be alleged from their writings to prove any
greater difference among the copies extant in their time
than what is found among those which we now possess.
The silence of the fathers proves that there was a similar
agreement.
48 EVIDENCES OF THE
V. When we examine the Gospels themselves, there is
nothing which discovers marks of their having been subjected
to such a process of interpolation as has been imagined. On
the contrary, there is evidence which seems decisive that each
is the work of an individual, and has been preserved as it
was written by him. The dialect, the style, and the modes
of narration in the Gospels, generally have a very marked
and peculiar character. Each Gospel, also, is distinguished
from the others by individual peculiarities in the use of lan
guage,, and other characteristics exclusively its own. Any
onQ familiar with the originals perceives, for instance, that
Mark is a writer less acquainted with the Greek language
than Luke, and having less command of proper expression.
His style is, in consequence, more affected by the idiom of
the Hebrew, more harsh, more unformed, more barbarous,
in the technical sense of that word. If you were to transfer
into Luke s Gospel a chapter from that of Mark, every critic
would at once perceive its dissimilitude to the general style
of the former. The difference would be still more remarka
ble, if you were to insert a portion from Mark in John s
Gospel. But the very distinctive character of the style of
the Gospels generally, and the peculiar character of each
Gospel, are irreconcilable with the notion, that they have
been brought to their present state by additions and altera
tions of successive copiers. A diversity of hands would have
produced in each Gospel a diversity of style and character.
Instead of the uniformity that now appears, the modes of
conception and expression would have been inconsistent and
vacillating. We are able to give a remarkable exemplifica
tion and proof of this fact. With the exception of a few
short passages which have been transferred from one Gospel
to another, of the doxology at the end of our Lord s Prayer
in Matthew, and of the story of the woman taken in adultery,
as inserted in a very few modern manuscripts at the end of
the twenty-first chapter of Luke, there have been found but
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 49
three undisputed interpolations of any considerable length
among all the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels ; and every
one of the three betrays itself to be spurious by its internal
character, by a style of thought and langunge clearly dif
ferent from that which characterizes the Gospel in which it
has been introduced. This is not a matter of fancy. It is
a point which no critic will dispute. If, then, our present
Gospels had been the result of successive additions, made by
different hands to a common basis, there would have been
a marked diversity of style in different portions of the same
Gospel ; so that these works would have been very unlike
what they now are. We should have perceived clear traces
of different writers, having greater or less command of ex
pression, accustomed to a different use of language, and
viewing the history of Christ under different aspects and
with different feelings.
It is true, that in the passage commencing with the fifth
verse of the first chapter of St. Luke s Gospel, and extend
ing to the end of the second chapter, there is an observable
dissimilarity between the language and that of the remainder
of his Gospel ; so that it forms an exception to the general
remarks which have just been made. This circumstance has
given occasion for supposing it to be an interpolation. But
the true account seems to be, that this passage was a short
narrative, in existence before the work of the evangelist,
which he incorporated with his Gospel ; that, if he found it
extant in Greek, he did not essentially modify the style ; and,
if in Hebrew, that his translation was literal, and affected
throughout by the idiom of the original. The events recorded
in this portion of his Gospel having taken place, as we
believe, about sixty years before he wrote, the supposition is
in itself probable ; and it explains the character of this par
ticular passage, without affecting the force of the preceding
reasoning. On the contrary, this is strengthened by the cir
cumstance, that, where an exception occurs, we can assign
4
50 EVIDENCES OF THE
a special and probable cause for it. It may be observed,
further, that our being able to perceive so much difference
between the language of this portion of St. Luke s Gospel
and that of the remainder, shows the general uniformity and
marked character of St. Luke s style.
Upon the hypothesis under consideration, it is as probable
that the stories collected by various transcribers would have
bojn added to St. John s Gospel, as to any one of the other
Gospels. By comparing his Gospel with the other three, we
perceive that there were many narratives concerning Christ
in existence, which are not contained in the former, and
which would have afforded an abundant harvest for an
interpolator. But it is obvious that no such additions have
been made to St. John s Gospel as are supposed to have
been commonly made to the histories of Christ. The modes
of thinking, and the style, are uniform throughout, and
very marked and distinguishable. It may be separated into
a few long divisions, each of which is closely connected
within itself; and it contains scarcely any of those short
narratives in the style of the other Gospels, among which we
must look for the additions which transcribers are supposed
to have made to the latter. Such being the facts, it is impos
sible to believe that this Gospel has ever been essentially
corrupted by additions from its copiers. But if this Gospel,
equally exposed to corruption with any one of the other
three, has not thus suffered from transcribers, we may infer
that the same is true of the other three Gospels.
VI. There is also another ground, on which we infer, from
the uniformity of style in the several Gospels, and the pecu
liar character of this style, that they have not been inter
polated. The Gospels are written in Hellenistic Greek, a
dialect used by Jews imperfectly acquainted with the Greek
language, and intimately affected, in consequence, by the
influence of the Hebrew. A native Greek could not have
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 51
written in this dialect, if he would, without having made it
a particular study. Now, it is through the Gentile branch
of the early converts that Christianity and the Gospels have
been transmitted to us. But we know from the New Testa
ment, that, in the very beginning, there were strong tenden
ciss to schism between the Jewish and Gentile converts.
After the death of the apostles, and the destruction of Jem
salem, the former, generally speaking, separated themselves
more and more from the latter; they remained strongly
attached to their law ; they were reputed heretics ; they
seem to have made little or no use of the books which con
stitute the New Testament, with the exception of the Gospel
of Matthew ; and at last, after four or five centuries, they
disappear from our view. It would be a very improbable
supposition, that any considerable number of the copies of
the Gospels used by Gentile Christians were made by Jewish
transcribers, or interpolated by Jews. It is not to such
copies that we can trace back the lineage of our own. Only
a portion of the Jews were acquainted with the Greek lan
guage as written ; and very few, it is probable, exercised the
trade of transcribers in that language. Origen, in attempting
to explain the cause of a supposed error, which he believed to
have arisen from ignorance of the Hebrew, speaks of the
Gospels as having been continually transcribed by Greeks
unacquainted with that language.* But the Gospels are
throughout written in Hellenistic . Greek. Whatever inter
polations may be fancied to exist, they do not discover them
selves by being written in pure and common Greek. These
fancied interpolations, however, are supposed to have been
made by a series of transcribers. But these transcribers, as
we have seen, must generally have been Gentiles ; and
Gentiles would hardly have interpolated in Hebrew-Greek,
or, to say the least, would hardly have interpolated ID
* Comment, in Matt., torn. xvi. 19; Opp. iii. 748.
52 EVIDENCES OF THE
Hebrew- Greek so uniformly that we should not be able to
trace any considerable departure from this dialect.
VII. In those cases in which we have good reason to sus
pect an ancient writing of being spurious altogether, or of
having received spurious additions, the fact is almost always
betrayed by something in the character of the writing itself.
Spurious works, and interpolations in genuine works, are dis
covered, for instance, by something not congruous to the char
acter of the pretended author ; by a style different from that
of his genuine writings ; by the expression of opinions and
feelings which it is improbable that he entertained ; by discov
ering an ignorance of facts with which he must have been
acquainted ; by a use of language, and the introduction of
modes of conception, not known at the period to which they
are assigned ; by an implied reference to opinions, events, or
even books, of a later age ; or by some bearing and purpose
not consistent with the time when they are pretended to have
been written. Traces of the times when they were really
composed are almost always apparent. This must have been
the case with the Gospels, if they had been conformed, as has
been imagined, to the traditions and doctrines of the Church in
the second century. But, putting this notion out of view, we
should have perceived distinct traces of a later age than the
period assigned for their composition, if they had been sub
jected to alterations and additions from different editors and
transcribers, with different views and feelings, and more or
less interested and excited about the opinions and controver
sies which had sprung up in their own times. But no traces
of a later age than that which we assign for their composition
appear in the Gospels. He who fairly examines the scanty
list of passages which have been produced, as giving some
countenance to an opposite opinion, may fully satisfy himself
of the correctness of this assertion. I will quote, in proof of
it, a passage from Eichhorn, which 1 am unable to reconcile
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 53
with the statements before adduced from him, and with other
parts of his writings ; but which, evidently, derives additional
weight from this inconsistency. In a section " on the credi
bility " of the Gospels, after mentioning by name Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, as the authors of the first three, he thus
proceeds :
"Every thing in their narratives corresponds to the ago in
which they lived and wrote, and to the circumstances in which we
must believe them to have been placed, an unanswerable proof
of their credibility. No one has yet appeared, who, in this re
spect, has convicted them of want of truth ; and, until this be done
by satisfactory evidence, their credibility may be confidently main
tained." *
If, then, the Gospels do not bear the impression of later
times, but correspond in their character to the age in which
we believe them to have been written, this must be regarded
as a strong proof that they are genuine, uncorrupted works of
that age.
VIII. The character and actions of Jesus Christ, as exhib
ited in the Gospels, are peculiar and extraordinary beyond all
example. They distinguish him, in a most remarkable man
ner, from all other men. They display the highest moral
sublimity. We perceive, throughout, an ultimate purpose
of the most extensive benevolence. But this character of
Christ, which appears in the Gospels, is exhibited with per
fect consistency. Whatever he is represented as saying or
doing corresponds to the fact or the conception, call it
which we will, that he was a teacher sent from God, indued
with the highest powers, and intrusted with the most impor
tant office ever exercised upon earth. The different parts of
each Gospel harmonize together. Now, let any one consider
how unlikely it is that we should have found this consistency
* Einleitung in d. N. T., i. 639.
54 EVIDENCES OF THE
in the representation of Christ, if the Gospels had been, in
great part, the work of inconsiderate or presumptuous copiers ;
or if they had consisted, in great part, of a collection of tra
ditionary stories ; and especially if these stories had been, as
some have imagined, either fabulous accounts of miracles, or
narratives having a foundation in truth, but corresponding so
little to the real fact as to have assumed a miraculous charac
ter, which there was nothing in the fact itself to justify. It
is incredible, that, under such circumstances, there should be
the consistency which now appears in the Gospels. On the
contrary, we might expect to find in them stories of the same
kind with those which were found, or are still found, in cer
tain writings that have been called apocryphal gospels,
stories which betray their falsehood at first view by their
incongruity with the character and actions of our Saviour, as
displayed by the evangelists. We shall have occasion to
notice some of them more particularly hereafter. Every one
acquainted with the stories referred to must perceive and
acknowledge their striking dissimilitude to the narratives of
the Gospels. A dissimilitude of the same kind would have
existed between different parts of the Gospels, if they had
grown, as has been imagined, to their present form by a grad
ual contribution of traditionary tales. On the contrary, their
consistency in the representation of our Saviour is. one
among the many proofs that they have been preserved essen
tially as they were first written.
We have seen, then, in the present chapter, that there is no
reason to doubt that the Christians of the first two centuries
had the highest reverence for their sacred books ; and that,
with this sentiment, they could neither have made nor have
suffered alterations in the Gospels ; that the manner in which
the Christian fathers speak of the corruptions with which
they charged some of the heretics implies, from the nature of
the case, that they knew of no similar corruptions in their
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 55
own copies of the Gospels ; that, from the notice which
Origen takes of the various readings found by him in his
manuscripts of the Gospels, we may conclude, that no con
siderable diversity among the manuscripts of the Gospels had
ever existed ; that we may infer the same from all the other
notices respecting the text of the Gospels in the writings of
the fathers, and from the absence of any thing in theii works
which might show that their copies differed more from each
other than those now extant ; that the peculiar style of the
Gospels generally, and the uniform style of each Gospel,
afford proof that each is essentially the work of one author,
which has been preserved unaltered ; that this argument be
comes more striking when we consider that far the greater
number of the copies of the Gospels, during the first two
centuries, were made by Greek transcribers, who, if they had
interpolated, would have interpolated in common Greek ; that
it is from copies made by them that our own are divided, but
that the Gospels, as we possess them, are written throughout
in that dialect of the Greek which was used only by Jews ;
that spurious works, or spurious additions to genuine works,
may commonly be discovered by some incongruity with the
character or the circumstances of the pretended author, 01
with the age to which they are assigned, but that no such
incongruity appears in the Gospels as may throw any doubt
upon their general character; and, lastly, that the consist
ency preserved throughout each of the Gospels in all that
relates to the actions, discourses, and most extraordinary char
acter of Christ, shows that each is a work which remains the
same essentially as it was originally written, uncorrupted by
subsequent alterations or additions.
It has, indeed, been already remarked, that the Gospel of
St. Matthew was probably written in Hebrew ; and that we
5t) EVIDENCES OP THE
possess only a Greek translation. So far, therefore, as re
gards this Gospel, a part of the arguments adduced, especially
those in the first chapter, apply directly only to prove the
uncorrupt preservation of the Greek copy. But I am not
aware of any consideration that may lead us to suspect, that
the Greek is not a faithful rendering from the Hebrew copy
or copies used by the translator, or that the exemplar he
followed did not essentially correspond with the original. On
the contrary, there seems no reasonable ground for doubt
respecting either proposition.
It is true, that the three additions before suggested* may
have been made to the Hebrew text used by the translator.
The liability to those accidents that attend the transcription
of books was probably increased, in the case of Matthew s
Gospel, by a more than ordinary want of skill and judgment
in some of its Hebrew copyists ; for the transcription of
books cannot be supposed to have been an art much practised
among the native Jews of Palestine. But the causes of error
in the text used by Matthew s translator could have operated
but a short time, since we cannot suppose the interval between
the composition and translation of the Gospel to have been
more than about fifty years.
In regard to the hypothesis we have been considering, of
licentious and intentional additions by transcribers, as we have
seen that there is no ground for it as regards the Greek Gos
pels, so we may infer that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
did not thus suffer during the fifty years after its first appear
ance. The supposition that it did so, being altogether im
probable in itself, would require strong, direct proof to justify
us in admitting it ; but, on the contrary, there is nothing to
set aside the conclusion, founded on the general analogy of
other writings, that this Gospel was the work of an individual
See before, pp. 16, 17.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 57
author, and was, during the short interval before its transla
tion, preserved essentially as written by him.
Speaking of the time when the Hebrew original alone was
extant, Papias says, that "every one translated it as he
could ; " meaning, I conceive, that he translated it to himself
in reading it. His words, it is evident, directly imply that it
was in the hands of readers whose vernacular language was
the Greek. Many of the Jewish converts, without doubt,
were capable of understanding it both in the Hebrew and the
Greek. There were, therefore, contemporary j idges of the cor
respondence of the translation with the original, by whom its
correspondence was not questioned ; for, had it been, we should
have known the fact. Nor is an expression of doubt con
cerning its authenticity to be found in any subsequent age :
on the other hand, controvertists, the most opposed to each
other, agreed in using the Greek translation as a common
authority.
But the whole supposition of licentious alterations in the
Gospels from the text of their original authors must rest on
the belief that there was a general indifference among the
early Christians about the genuineness and authenticity of
the books from which they derived a knowledge of their
religion. Those writings they might have preserved uncor-
rupted, if they would. But such, it must be presumed, was
their negligence and folly, that they cared not whether the
contents of the Gospels were true or false ; whether they
proceeded from apostles and evangelists, or from unknown
and anonymous individuals. Christians, at the time of which
we speak, were submitting to severe privations, and exposing
themselves to great sufferings, for their religion. They were
supported by a conviction of the infinite value of the truths
which it taught, those truths, the knowledge of which was
preserved, as they believed, in the writings cf its first disciples.
58 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
But, if we suppose the text of any one of the Gospels to
have suffered essential alteration, we must suppose that
Christians were indifferent about the contents of those books
which they regarded as the authentic records of their faith,
tfieir duties, their consolations, and their hopes. It seems,
therefore, not too much to say of the hypothesis of the essen
tial corruption of the Gospels, that it is irreconcilable with
any just conception of the circumstances and feelings of the
early Christians, and of the moral nature of man.
CHAPTER III.
OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.
UPON what arguments, then, rests the supposition that essen
tial alterations have been made in the Gospels since their
original composition ? These arguments, whatever they are,
if of any force, must assume the character of objections and
difficulties, when viewed in relation to the proposition, the
truth of which has been maintained. But, strongly as the cor
ruption of the Gospels has been asserted, I am unacquainted
with any formal statement of arguments in its proof.
Those by whom it has been principally maintained belong
to that large class of German critics who reject the belief of
any thing properly miraculous in the history of Christ. But
the difficulty of reconciling this disbelief of the miracles with
the admission of the truth of facts concerning him not miracu
lous is greatly increased, if the Gospels be acknowledged as
the uncorrupted works of those who were witnesses of what
they relate, or who derived their information immediately
from such witnesses. On the other hand, in proportion as
suspicion is cast upon the genuineness and authenticity of
those writings, the history of Christ becomes doubtful and
obscure. An opening is made for theories concerning his life,
character, and works, and the origin of his religion. Any
account of our Saviour, upon the supposition that he was not
a teacher from God endued with miraculous powers, must be
almost wholly conjectural. But such a conjectural account
60 EVIDENCES OF THE
will appear to less disadvantage, if placed in competition with
narratives of uncertain origin, than if brought into direct
opposition to the authority of original witnesses.
The theory of the corruption of the Gospels has been con
nected with an hypothesis concerning the manner in which
the first three Gospels were formed; from which, as I con
ceive, it has been regarded as deriving its main support. This
hypothesis is intended to account for the remarkable phenom
ena in the agreement and disagreement of the first three Gos
pels with each other. It has been explained and defended,
with much clearness and ability, by Bishop Marsh.* It sup
poses the existence of an original document, a brief narrative
of the public life of Christ, the Original Gospel of Eichhorn.
This document, it is believed, was in the hands of several
persons, who added to it different narratives, according to
their respective information ; so that copies of it were in
existence with different additions. Each of the first three
evangelists is thought to have used a different copy as the
basis of his Gospel. It is then only to suppose, that the same
custom of making additions, which was common in regard to
the original document just mentioned, prevailed afterwards
in regard to the Gospels, and we have the very supposition
against which we have been contending.
To this the answer is, that the hypothesis, in any form in
which it may be presented, can, at most, be regarded only as
creating a presumption that the Gospels have been corrupted ;
and this presumption would be of no force in opposition to
the facts stated in the two preceding chapters. It would only
bring suspicion upon the hypothesis itself; since this must be
* In his " Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Three First
Canonical Gospels," and his tracts in the controversy occasioned by an anony
mous publication (of which Bishop Randolph was the author) entitled,
" Remarks on Michaelis s Introduction to the New Testament ; by Way of
Caution to Students in Divinity."
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 61
conformed to all the facts -which have a bearing upon it. The
latter must not be made to bend to the former. With such a
view of the subject, it would be improper, in this place, to
enter into a particular examination of the theory in question.
Such an examination, however, may be found in one of the
additional notes to this volume.* If the reasoning there
urged be correct, it will appear that the hypothesis of an
original document gradually receiving additions from different
hands, and used in different forms by the first three evange
lists, involves suppositions which cannot be admitted ; that it
is unnecessary in order to account for the agreement cf the
Gospels with each other ; and that it is neither implied, nor
rendered probable, by the phenomena to be explained, but
that, on the contrary, it is inconsistent with those phenomena.
It may be recollected, that the Original Gospel is regarded
by Eichhorn, not only as the common source of our first three
Gospels, but likewise of certain apocryphal gospels, which
were in use before them.f These, according to him, were
the following : The Gospel of the Hebrews ; the Gospel of
Marcion ; the Memoirs by the Apostles, used by Justin Mar
tyr ; the gospel adopted by Cerinthus and his sect ; gospels
used by Tatian in composing his Diatessaron ; and those used
by the apostolic fathers. These gospels, and our first three
Gospels, are all supposed to have been so intimately con
nected, as to prove their derivation from a common original ;
and the knowledge which we possess respecting their con
tents is regarded as illustrating the process of change and
growth which they had all gone through. I shall, in the
course of this work, remark, under the proper heads, upon
the gospels mentioned by Eichhorn, and endeavor to show,
that the Gospel of the Hebrews was probably, in its primi
tive state, the Hebrew original of St. Matthew ; that the
books used by Justin were our four Gospels ; that there is no
* See Note B, pp 463-510. f See before, p. 5, seqq.
62 EVIDENCES OF THE
reason to doubt, that the four gospels, which, toward the end
of the second century, Tatian, who had been a disciple of
Justin Martyr, made the basis of his Diatessaron, were the
four canonical Gospels ; that Marcion had a mutilated copy
of St. Luke, a fact which, in consequence of the exami
nations that have taken place since Eichhorn wrote, seems
now to be generally undisputed ; that the scanty, uncertain,
contradictory information respecting Cerinthus and his sect
affords no ground for the conclusion that they used a peculiar
gospel ; and that there is nothing in the writings ascribed to
Apostolic Fathers which may justify the supposition, that,
previously to the general reception of our four Gospels, other
gospels were in common circulation among Christians as
authentic histories of Christ.
It is, moreover, affirmed by Eichhorn as a general truth,
that "before the invention of printing, in transcribing a
manuscript, the most arbitrary alterations were considered
as allowable, since they affected only an article of private
property, written for the use of an individual." 4 It fol
lows, that, in maintaining that the Gospels have under
gone a process of corruption, one is only maintaining that
they shared the common fate of all other ancient writings.
In proof of his general proposition, Eichhorn alleges, that
there are many manuscripts of chronicles of the Middle
Ages, which, purporting to be copies of the same work,
yet present different texts, some containing more and others
less ; and, in further evidence that the most arbitrary altera
tions by transcribers were considered as allowable, he cites
Dionysius of Corinth as calling some who had corrupted his
writings apostles of Satan. But the proposition, though
apparently laid down as the basis of his hypothesis, is so
obviously false as hardly to admit of remark or contradiction.
* See before, p. 8.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 03
It could only have been made through some strange inadvert
ence. As the ordinary mode of dealing with books in ancient
times was, as every one knows, the reverse of what Eichhorn
supposes, it must need very strong and special reasons to
render the conjecture probable, that the Gospels were made
exceptions to the common usage.
As evidence that such was the case, that the Gospels were
subjected to a mode of treatment different from that which
other books experienced, a few passages have been quoted
from ancient writers ; which, in fact, form the whole of what
can bo considered as a direct attempt to prove the proposi
tion. Two of them one from Dionysius of Corinth, and the
othei from Origen we have already had occasion to exam
ine ; and their true bearing appears to be directly opposed to
the supposition which they have been brought to establish.*
Two others remain to be considered.
" Celsus," says Eichhorn, " objects to the Christians, that
they had changed their Gospels three times, four times, and
oftener, as if they were deprived of their senses." f The
passage is twice quoted by him, and therefore, it may be pre
sumed, is regarded as an important proof of his theory. If
it were correctly represented in the words which have been
given, the first obvious answer would be, that such a charge
is as little to be credited upon the mere assertion of Celsus,
as various other calumnies of that writer against the Chris
tians, which no one at the present day believes. But Celsus
does not say what he is represented as saying. He does not
bring the charge against Christians generally, but against
tome Christians. His words are preserved in the work com
posed by Origen in reply to Celsus ; and, correctly rendered,
are as follows : " Afterwards Celsus says, that some believ
ers, like men driven by drunkenness to commit violence on
* Seo before, pp. 38, 39, and p. 43, seqq. t See before, p. 9.
64 EVIDENCES OF THE
themselves, have altered the Gospel-history,* since its first
composition, three times, four times, and oftener, and have
refashioned it, so as to be able to deny the objections made
against it." To this, the whole reply of Origen is as fol
lows : " I know of none who have altered the Gospel-history,
except the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, and I think
also those of Lucan. But this affords no ground for reproach
against the religion itself, but against those who have dared
to corrupt the Gospels. And as it is no reproach against
philosophy, that there are Sophists or Epicureans or Peripa
tetics, or any others who hold false opinions ; so also it is no
reproach against true Christianity, that there are those who
have altered the Gospels, and introduced heresies foreign
from the teaching of Jesus." f
It is evident, that Origen regarded the words of Celsus as a
mere declamatory accusation, which he was not called upon
to repel by any elaborate reply. A grave charge against the
whole body of Christians, of the nature of that which Celsus
urges, could not have been dismissed in three sentences of
a long and able work in defence of Christianity against his
attacks. The charge may have been founded, as Origen sup
poses, upon the mutilations and corruptions of the Gospels
made by some heretics. Another solution of it is, that Cel
sus, being acquainted with the four Gospels, and perceiving
that they had much in common with much that was different,
did, on this ground, represent Christians as having given the
Gospel-history four different forms. But if we believe that
Celsus fully understood the subject, and, having no reference
to any heretical sects or to the existence of four different
histories of Christ, really meant to bring against catholic
* Literally, the Gospel, TO evayyefaov ; but this word is here used, as it is
elsewhere in ancient writers, to denote the Gospel-history. In this use of the
word, the four Gospels are commonly denoted, considered collectively, as
containing this history.
t Orig. cont. Cels , lib. ii. 27; Opp. 5. 411.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 65
Christians a grave charge of corrupting the Gospels, then we
must consider what is the proper inference from the passage.
He was, as no one will deny, forward enough in adducing
unsupported and calumnious accusations against those whom
he was attacking. If there had been any pretence for saying
that Christians generally had altered and corrupted the Gos
pels, he would have said it. But he does not. He merely
.says, whether truly or not may be a question, that some
Christians had done this. It is of the nature of such a
charge, when brought against some of any community, to
exculpate the community in general. According, therefore,
to the implied testimony of their enemy, Christians, generally
speaking, had not altered nor corrupted the Gospels.
But the passage affords ground for further remark. Celsus
compares the conduct of those whom he charges with altering
the Gospel-history, or the Gospels, to that of men impelled
by drunkenness to commit violence on themselves. Origen
does not object to the comparison ; and there is no objection
to be made to the opinion implied in it, respecting the char
acter and consequences of such a procedure. It is one which
the friends and the enemies of the religion must equally have
perceived to be correct. The question, therefore, whether
the early Christians altered the Gospels, resolves itself into
the question, whether they acted like men intoxicated, to the
evident ruin of their cause.
The other passage, before referred to, is from Clement of
Alexandria. " Clement also, at the end of the second cen
tury, speaks of those who corrupted the gospels, and ascribes
it to them, that at Matt. v. 10, instead of the words, for theirs
is the kingdom of heaven, there was found in some manu
scripts, for they shall be perfect ; and in others, for they shall
have a plane where they shall not be persecuted" * This
statement is erroneous. Clement does not speak of those
See before, p.
5
66 EVIDENCES OF THE
who corrupted, but of those who paraphrased, the Gospels ;
nor does he give the words alleged by him, as various read
ings in manuscripts of the Gospels. Quoting the original
text incorrectly, probably from memory, in these words,
" Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness*
sake, for they shall be called the sous of God," * he adds,
" Qr, as some who have paraphrased the Gospels express
it, Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness
sake, for they shall be perfect; and, Blessed are they who
are persecuted for my sake, for they shall attain a place
where they shall not be persecuted." It is of paraphrasts
or scholiasts that the passage is understood by Eichhorn
himself, when writing without a view to his peculiar theory. f
Clement expresses no indignation against those of whom he
speaks, as he would have done if they had corrupted the
Gospels. On the contrary, his quoting their words as he
does implies a certain degree of approbation.
It is remarkable, that, in understanding his words as proving
a general license of corruption during his time, the extraor
dinary and quite incredible nature of the inference which is
to be drawn from them has not been adverted to. If his
words were thus to be understood, they would prove, not that
transcribers made additions to what they found before them,
or occasionally omitted or corrupted a passage, but that they
indulged themselves in the most wanton alterations of the
plain language of the Gospels. There are few passages less
exposed to intentional corruption than the one quoted by
Clement ; and if this were made to assume three such differ
ent forms in the manuscripts which he had seen, and if these
changes afforded, as is maintained, a specimen of the common
practice of transcribers, it would follow, that the text of the
Gospels had, in the time of Clement, undergone great altera-
* The words are not, as given by Eichhorn, For theirs is the kingdom of
leaven.
* Einleit. in d. N. T., -u. 553.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 67
tions, and had assumed a very different character in different
manuscripts. There must have been, in his age, an astonish
ing discordance among different copies of the Gospels. Some
must have been very unlike others in their modes of expres
sion, as well as in their contents. But, if this be the legitimate
conclusion from the meaning which has been put upon his
words, it is only necessary to state it, in order to show that
that meaning must be false.
Such are the main arguments in support of the hypothesis
of the corruption of the Gospels ; or, in other words, such are
the objections to the proposition that they remain essentially
the same as they were originally composed. The truth of
this proposition, it may be recollected, is proved by various
considerations, unconnected with each other. It appears
from the essential agreement among the very numerous
copies of the Gospels, so diverse in their character, and in
their mode of derivation from the original. This agreement
among different copies could not have existed, unless some
archetype had been faithfully followed ; and this archetype, it
has been shown, could have been no other than the original
text. It appears from the reverence in which the Gospels
were held by the early Christians, and the deep sense which
they had of the impropriety and guilt of making any altera
tion in those writings. It appears from the historical notices
respecting their text, which are wholly inconsistent with the
supposition of its having suffered essential corruptions. And,
finally, it appears from the internal character of the books
themselves, which show no marks of gross, intentional inter
polation ; but, on the contrary, exhibit a consistency of style
and conception irreconcilable with the supposition of it.
If, then, we may consider the proposition as established, that
the Gospels remain essentially the same as they were origi
nally composed, the remaining inquiry is, whether they are
the works of those to whom they have been ascribed.
PART II.
DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE GOSPELS HAVE BEEN
ASCRIBED TO THEIR TRUE AUTHORS.
PAKT H.
CHAPTER I.
EVIDENCE FROM THE GENERAL RECEPTION OP THE GOS
PELS AS GENUINE AMONG CHRISTIANS DURING THE
LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY.
HAVING shown that the Gospels have been transmitted to
us as they were first written, I shall, in what follows, adduce
evidence of the fact that they have been ascribed to their true
authors.
The proof which may be first stated is, that they were re
garded with the highest reverence, as genuine and sacred
books, by the great body of Christians during the last quarter
of the second century.
There is little or no dispute about the truth of this proposi
tion, and I might perhaps assume it as established, and pro
ceed to reason upon it ; but it may be better to bring forward
some of the evidence on which it rests. I have had occasion
already to quote, or allude to, a part of it ; * and shall en
deavor, as far as possible, to avoid repetition. The passages
before given must be viewed in connection with those here
alleged.
One of the earliest Christian writers whose works have
come down to us is Irenaeus. The exact time of his birth is
* See before, pp. 36-41.
72 EVIDENCES OF THE
uncertain ; but he was born in the first half of the second
century, and but just survived its close. Beside a few frag
ments of other writings, there is only one of his works which
remains to us, his treatise "Against Heretics," a name which,
in his time, was limited in its application to the different sects
of Gnostics and the Ebionites. It was in the name of the
great body of catholic believers, and in defence of their opin
ions, that Irenceus wrote. The first sentence of the following
passage has been already quoted :
"We," says Irenseus, " have not received the knowledge of the
way of our salvation by any others than those through whom the
Gospel has come down to us ; which Gospel they first preached, and
afterwards, by the will of God, transmitted to us in writing, that
it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith." "For after our
Lord had risen from the dead, and they [the apostles] were clothed
with the power of the Holy Spirit descending upon them from on
high, were filled with all gifts, and possessed perfect knowledge,
they went forth to the ends of the earth, spreading the glad tidings
of those blessings which God has conferred upon us, and announcing
\>eace from heaven to men ; having all, and every one alike, the
Gospel of God. Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel
in their own language ; while Peter and Paul were preaching the
Gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And, after their
departure [death], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
himself delivered to us in writing what Peter had preached ; and
Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel preached by
him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who leaned upon
his breast, likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus,
in Asia. And all these have taught us, that there is one God, the
Maker of heaven and earth, announced by the Law and the Proph
ets ; and one Christ, the Son of God. And he who does not assent
to them despises indeed those who knew the mind of the Lord ; but
he despises also Christ himself the Lord, and he despises likewise
the Father, and is self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own
salvation; and this all heretics do."*
* Contra Haeres., lib. iii. c. 1, pp. 173, 174.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 73
In this passage it may be observed, that Irenaeus, in defend
ing the Christian doctrine, rests it upon the authority of the
Gospels ; that he even does this without mentioning the other
books of the New Testament ; that he considers the former as
having been composed, that they might be the foundation and
pillar of the faith of Christians ; and that he assigns them,
without doubt or hesitation, to the authors by whom we be
lieve them to have been written. The following passage is
to the same effect :
** Nor can there be more or fewer Gospels than these. For, as
there are four regions of the world in which we live, and four car
dinal winds, and the Church is spread over all the earth, and the
Gospel is the pillar and support of the Church, and the breath of
life ; in like manner is it fit that it should have four pillars, breath
ing on all sides incorruption, and refreshing mankind. Whence it
is manifest, that the Logos, the former of all things, who sits upon
the cherubim, and holds together all things, having appeared to
men, has given us a Gospel fourfold in its form, but held together
by one spirit." "The Gospel according to John declares his
princely, complete, and glorious generation from the Father, say
ing, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,
and the Logos was God ; all things were made by him, and without
him was nothing made. " " The Gospel according to Luke, being
of a priestly character, begins with Zacharias, the priest, offering
incense to God." "Matthew proclaims his human generation,
saying, The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son
of Abraham. " " Mark begins with the prophetic Spirit, which
came down from above to men, saying, The beginning of the Gos
pel of Jesus Christ; as it is written in Isaiah the prophet. "*
Here, again, the same remarks may be made as before.
The Gospels are expressly assigned to the authors to whom
we ascribe them ; and they are spoken of as the four pillars
of the Church, breathing on all sides incorruption, and re
freshing mankind. The figure has been ridiculed; but the
* Contra Hares., lib. iii. c. 11, 8, pp. 190, 191.
74 EVIDENCES OF r l HE
meaning .3 sufficiently clear, and the want of metaphorical
elegance does not affect the present argument.
I pass ovor other passages, to be found in Lardner, in
which Irenseus speaks of the Gospels, referring them to their
authors, and remarking generally upon their character and
contents. The passages cited by him from the Gospels, many
of which are cited more than once, may be found collected in
Massuet s edition of his works. They fill about eleven closely
printed folio columns ; while the passages cited from all the
Old Testament fill about fifteen such columns. He appeals
to the Gospels continually ; and quotes them as undoubted
authority for the faith of the great body of Christians, with
the same confidence which might be felt by any writer of the
present day. They were books in general circulation, and
commonly studied.
Such is the information afforded by Irenaeus concerning
the general reception of the Gospels in his time. He had
spent some portion of the earlier part of his life in Asia ; but
was, at the time when he wrote, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul.
From Gaul we return to Asia. Theophilus, whom I shall
next quote, was bishop of Antioch before the year 170, antf
died before the end of the second century. Of his writings,
we have remaining only one work, containing an account and
defence of Christianity, addressed to Autolycus, a heathen.
After some mention of the Jewish Law and Prophets, he
has this passage : " Concerning the righteousness of which
the Law speaks, the like things are to be found also in the
Prophets and Gospels, because they all spoke by the inspira
tion of one spirit of God." * The estimation in which the
Gospels were held by Christians appears as well in the pas
sage just quoted as in the following : " These things," says
Theophilus, "the Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who
* Cent j, Haeres., lib. iii. 12.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 75
were moved by the Spirit ; among whom John says, * In the
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God. " *
Having quoted a passage from the Old Testament (Prov.
iv. 25, 26), which he interprets as a precept of chastity, he
says, " But the Evangelic voice teaches purity yet more im
peratively," and then quotes Matt. v. 28 and 32 in procf
of his assertion.f A little after, he quotes several precepts
from Matthew and from St. Paul; introducing those taken
from the Gospel of Matthew with the expression, " The Gos
pel says." *
From Antioch we pass to Carthage. Here Tertullian was
born, and here he appears principally to have resided. The
dates of his birth and death are both uncertain ; but he be
came distinguished as a writer about the close of the second
century. No evidence can be more full and satisfactory than
that which he affords of the general reception of the Gospels,
and of their authority as the foundation of the Christian
faith. He ascribes them without hesitation to the authors by
whom we believe them to have been written ; and he rests
the proof of their genuineness upon unbroken tradition in
the churches founded by the apostles. There is not a chap
ter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, from which
he does not quote ; and from most of them his quotations are
numerous. " We lay it down," says Tertullian, " in the first
place, that the Evangelic Document had for its authors
apostles, to whom this office of promulgating the Gospel was
assigned by our Lord himself. And, if some of them were
companions of apostles, yet they did not stand alone, bui
were connected with and guided by apostles." " Among the
apostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us. Among
L.b. ii. 22. t Lib. iii. 13. J Ibid., 14.
Evangelicum instrumentum. " Instrumentum " is here used, as it if
:len by Tertullian, in a metaphorical sense, derived from its technical mean
iig, as signifying a legal instrument which may be produced in evidence.
76 EVIDENCES OF THE
the companions of the apostles, Luke and Mark renovate
it."* The Gospels are always appealed to by him as de
cisive authority for the faith of Christians. The evangelists
and apostles are placed by him, as they are by Irenaeus and
Theophilus, in the same rank with the Jewish prophets. In
his time, the Scriptures, among which the Gospels held the
first place, were publicly read, as at the present day, in the
assemblies of Christians. " We come together," he says, " to
bring to mind the divine Scriptures, for the purpose of warn
ing or admonition, if the state of the times require it. Cer
tainly, we nourish our faith, raise our hopes, and confirm out
trust, by the sacred words." f The Christian Scriptures wer
accessible to all. In one of his writings, a defence of Chris*
tians addressed to heathens, he says, " Examine the words of
God, our literature, which we are far from concealing, and
which many accidents throw in the way of those who are not
of our number." $ He then quotes two passages from these
Scriptures, one from the Gospels, and another from the Epis
tles, in evidence of what Christians believed to be their duty
in regard to civil government.
In defending the genuine Gospel of Luke against the
mutilated gospel used by Marcion, Tertullian has the fol
lowing passage, a part of which has been already quoted :
"To give the sum of all, if it be certain, that that is most
genuine which is most ancient, that most ancient which has
been from the beginning, and that from the beginning which
was from the apostles ; so it is equally certain that that was
delivered by the apostles which has been held sacred in
the churches of the apostles." He then enumerates various
churches founded by apostles, which were still flourishing,
and proceeds : " I affirm, then, that in those churches, and
not in those only which were founded by the apostles, but
* Advers. Marcionem, lib. iv. 2, p. 414.
f Apologet., 39, p. 31. J Ibid., 31, p. 27.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 77
in all which have fellowship with them, that Gospel of Luke
which we so steadfastly defend has been received from its first
publication." " The same authority," he adds, " of the apos-
tolic churches will support the other Gospels, which, in like
manner, we have from them, conformably to their copies." *
We will pass from Carthage to Alexandria, the residence
of Clement. Here was a celebrated school for the instruc
tion of Christians, founded, probably, early in the second
century, of which Clement was, in his time, the principal
master. He was eminent during the latter part of the
second and the beginning of the third century.
In the evidence which Clement affords of the general re
ception of the Gospels as sacred books, there is nothing of a
peculiar character. It is similar to that already adduced
from Irenaeus and Tertullian. His very numerous quota
tions from the Gospels in his extant works are, at the present
day, an important means of settling their true text. In one
passage, he proposes, after showing that "the Scriptures
which we [Christians] have believed are confirmed by the
Omnipotent," "to evince from them, in opposition to all
heretics, that there is one God and Almighty Lord, clearly
proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, and, together with
them, by the blessed Gospel." f This affords a specimen of
the manner in which the Gospels are appealed to by him. In
another place, in reasoning against certain heretics, he notices
a saying ascribed to Christ, quoted by them in support of
their opinions from an apocryphal book, called " The Gospel
according to the Egyptians ; " and commences his answer
with this remark : "In the first place, we have not that say
ing in the four Gospels which have been handed down to
us." t Here, in a few words, he expresses his sense of the
* Advers. Marcionem, lib. iv. 5, pp. 415, 416.
f Stromat., lib. iv. 1, p. 564. J Ibid., lib. iii. 13, p. 653.
78 EVIDENCES OF THE
exclusive authority of the Gospels as histories of our Saviour ;
and the fact of their reception before his time. The Gospels
had been handed down to the Christians of his age ; that is,
the Christians who lived about the end of the second century.
By Clement was preserved, as has been before stated, a tradi
tion received from ancient presbyters concerning the order
in which they were written. According to this tradition
" The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first
The following providence gave occasion to that of Mark.
While Peter was publicly preaching the word at Rome, and
through the power of the Spirit making known the Gospel,
his hearers, who were numerous, exhorted Mark, upon the
ground of his having accompanied him for a long time, and
having his discourses in memory, to write down what he had
spoken ; and Mark, composing his Gospel, delivered it to
those who made the request. Peter, knowing this, was not
earnest either to forbid or to encourage it. In the last place,
John, observing that the things obvious to the senses had
been clearly set forth in those Gospels, being urged by his
friends, and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a
spiritual Gospel."*
In the second century, but how long before its close cannot
be determined, Celsus wrote against Christianity. About
the middle of the third century, his work was answered by
Origen, who speaks of him as long since dead;f and who
evidently was unable, confidently, to identify him with any
known individual. Origen seems to have observed upon
every important particular contained in it, and has given
many extracts from it. It appears from these extracts, that
Christians, in the time of Celsus, had histories of our Sa
viour, which they believed to have been written by his
* Apud Euseb. H. E., lib. vi. c. 14. Comp. lib. ii. c. 15.
t Cont. Cels. Praefat, 4 ; Opp. i. 317.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 79
disciples, and the genuineness of which was not contro
verted by him. Without mentioning their authors by name,
he frequently quotes and refers to them. It has been ob
served with truth, that an abridgment of the history of
Jesus, corresponding to that in the Gospels, may be found
in the remains of his work. He discusses the account of the
miraculous birth of Christ, remarking various particulars re
lated in the first two chapters of Matthew s Gospel. He
refers to the appearance and voice from heaven at our Lord s
baptism. He alludes to the account of his temptation. He
says that he collected " ten or eleven publicans and sailors,"
with whom he travelled about "procuring a shameful and
beggarly subsistence." He calls Christ himself a carpenter.*
He speaks of his miracles, of his having cured the lame and
blind, fed a multitude with a few loaves, and raised the dead ;
and argues upon the supposition that these facts really took
place. He says it was a fiction of his disciples, that Jesus
foreknew and foretold whatever should befall him. He
refers to the prediction of our Saviour, that deceivers should
come in his name. He animadverts upon various passages
in our Lord s discourses : upon his direction to his first disci
ples to exercise a peculiar trust in the providence of God, to
observe the lilies and the ravens ; | upon his precept, If any
man strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also ; upon his saying, It is impossible to serve two masters ;
and upon his declaration, It is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of God. He refers to the incredulity with which
he was heard, and to his denunciations against the Pharisees.
He speaks of his having been betrayed by one disciple, and
denied by another; of his prayer, Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me : of the soldiers who derided him ; of
the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed which was
* Mark vi. 3. f Luke xii. 24, 27.
80 EVIDENCES OP THE
put into his hand ; of the vinegar mixed with bitter drugs,
offered him at his crucifixion; of his saying, I thirst ; of the
loud cry which he uttered just before expiring ; of the earth
quake and darkness which accompanied his death ; of his
rising from the dead ; of the angel who removed the stone
at the door of the sepulchre; of his appearing, not to his
enemies, but to a "distracted woman" (Mary Magdalene)
and u others, engaged with him in the same magical arts ; "
and of his exhibiting his hands, as they had been wounded
on the cross, which last circumstance is mentioned by St.
John alone.*
In one passage, Celsus says that those who had given gene
alogies of Jesus had had the confidence to derive his descent
from the first man, and from the Jewish kings ; referring to
the genealogies found in the first two chapters of Matthew
and in Luke. In another passage, he appears to refer at once
to all our four Gospels ; for he observes, that " some relate that
one, and some that two, angels descended to his sepulchre
to announce to the women that Jesus was risen." Matthew
and Mark speak of but one angel : Luke and John mention
two.
The numerous objections of Celsus to the accounts received
by Christians respecting our Saviour are always made to ac
counts found in the Gospels. After remarking upon several
passages, he says, " These things are from your own books,
for we need no other testimony. Thus you fall by your own
hands." He nowhere implies the existence of any narrative
respecting Christ, as believed by Christians, which is not re-
ated by the evangelists, f
That the histories of Christ referred to by Celsus were OUT
present Gospels, appears from the general correspondence of
* John xx. 27.
t For the references to the passages quoted above, see Lardner s Ancient
Heathen Testimonies, chap, xviii.; Works (4to ed.), iv. 113, seqq.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 81
their contents ; from the particular coincidences which have
been pointed out ; from their identity with the Gospels being
constantly implied by Origen, without the appearance of his
entertaining any doubt upon the subject; from their being
attacked by Celsus as the acknowledged records of the reli
gion ; and from the impossibility that in his time there should
have existed a set of books bearing this character, which have
been forgotten, and superseded by another set.
But, in attacking these books, that is, our present Gos
pels, Celsus evidently considered himself to be undermining
the foundations of Christianity ; to be attacking books re
garded by Christians as of the highest authority, as the
authentic records of the history of their Master, composed or
sanctioned by his immediate disciples. We have, then, the
evidence of an enemy of our religion, that the Gospels were
thus regarded by the Christians of his age.
Origen was born about the year 185, and died about the
year 254. There was no Christian writer whose authority
was so high in his own time, and in the period immediately
following. His works, only a small portion of which remains
in their original language, the Greek, were very numer
ous. He was eminent for his talents, and for the extent of
his learning. Nor was he less distinguished for his piety, his
integrity, and his scrupulous conscientiousness. He was also,
as I have before observed, a careful critic of the text of the
Septuagint and of the New Testament. In those of his works
which are still extant in the original, the Gospels are quoted
so frequently, that, supposing all other copies of them to be
lost, those of Matthew, Luke, and John might be restored
almost entire from his quotations alone, if we had a clue by
which to arrange them. In speaking of the history of their
composition, he professes to give what he had " learnt by tra
dition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are received
without controversy by the Church of God under heaven."
G
82 EVIDENCES OF THE
He says, " The Gospel of Matthew, who, from being a tax-
gatherer, became an apostle of Christ, was the first written. Il
was composed in Hebrew, and published for the use of Jewish
believers. Mark next wrote his Gospel, conformably to the
accounts which he had received from Peter. Hence, Peter,
in his catholic Epistle, acknowledges him as his son, saying,
The sister church in Babylon salutes you ; also, my son Mark.
The Gospel of Luke, that which is praised by St. Paul, was
the third, and was composed for Gentile believers. Last of
all followed that of John."* Elsewhere Origen writes thus:
" We may, then, be bold to say, that the Gospel f is the prime
fruit of all the Scriptures." " Of the Scriptures which are
in common use, and which are believed to be divine by all the
churches of God, one would not err in calling the Law of
Moses the first fruit, and the Gospel the prime fruit." $
" The Gospels are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the
Church, of which elements the whole world that is reconciled
to God by Christ consists." I have before had occasion to
quote a passage in which Origen speaks of the Scriptures as
" books in the most common use." ||
Origen, as we have seen, speaks of the Gospels as "re-
* Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. c. 25.
f By the Gospel, here, as elsewhere, is to be understood the Gospel-his
tory, or the four Gospels.
} Comment, in Joan., torn. i. 4; Opp. iv. p. 4. Conformably to Origen s
meaning, and to the proper sense of the terms, I have rendered TrpUToylvvrjfj.a,
first fruit, and a.Tra(j%7}, prime fruit. These words were borrowed by him from
the Septuagint, and denote two different kinds of oblations, both of which,
in our Common Version, are indiscriminate!} - called "first fruits." By
irnuToyivvr][j.a, first fruit, is meant that first produced, of which an offer
ing was made on the day after the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 10-14). By
cnrapXTj, prime fruit, is meant the best of the harvest, which was to be set
aside for the priests, and from which an offering was to be made on the day
of Pentecost, and perhaps at the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 15-20;
Numb, xviii. 12, 13; Deut. xviii. 4). " We must understand," says Origen,
* that the prime, fruit and the first fruit are not the same. For the print
fi*uit was offered after the harvest, but the first fruit before."
Ibid., 6, p. 5. y See before, p. 32.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 83
ceived without controversy," and as "believed by all the
churches of God." If these expressions were to be inter
preted, with the narrowest limitation, as relating only to the
state of things at the precise time when he wrote, we might
still infer that the Gospels had been received as of equal
authority in the last quarter of the second century; since
nothing had occurred during the short intervening period to
produce a unanimity which did not then exist. If there had
been any dissension or difference of opinion then, it is impos
sible that unanimity should have been afterwards produced
without some controversy or discussion, without some trace
remaining of the change from one state of opinion to an
other ; but nothing of this sort appears. Origen, however, in
the expressions which he uses, does not refer to his own time
alone. His language is meant to include all Christians, from
the first promulgation of the Gospels. It appears from the
writings of the fathers generally, that the books which Chris
tians received as sacred books of the highest authority were,
as they believed, distinguished from all others pretending to
the same character, by the circumstance that they had been
unanimously so received from the apostolic age through every
successive generation of catholic Christians.
In estimating the weight of evidence which has thus far
been adduced for the genuineness of the Gospels, we must
keep in mind, what has not always been sufficiently attended
to, that it is not the testimony of certain individual writers
alone on which we rely, important as their testimony might
be. These writers speak for a whole community, every mem
ber of which had the strongest reasons for ascertaining the
correctness of his faith respecting the authenticity, and con
sequently the genuineness, of the Gospels. We quote the
Christian fathers, not chiefly to prove their individual belief,
but in evidence of the belief of the community to which they
belonged. It is not, therefore, the simple testimony of Ire-
84 EVIDENCES OF THE
nrcus and Theophilus and Tertullian and Clement and Origeu
which we bring forward : it is the testimony of thousands ana
tens of thousands of believers, many of whom were as well
informed as they were on this particular subject, and as
capable of making a right judgment. All these believers
were equally ready with the writers who have been quoted,
to affirm the authority and genuineness of the Gospels. The
most distinguished Christians of the age, men held in high
esteem by their contemporaries and successors, assert that the
Gospels were received as genuine throughout the community
of which they were members, and for which they were
writing. That the assertion was made by such men, under
such circumstances, is sufficient evidence of its truth. But
the proof of the general reception of the Gospels does not
rest upon their assertions only, though these cannot be
doubted. It is necessarily implied in their statements and
reasonings respecting their religion. It is impossible that
they should have so abundantly quoted the Gospels, as con
clusive authority for their own faith and that of their fellow-
Christians, if these books had not been regarded by Christians
as conclusive authority. We cannot infer more confidently
from the sermons of Tillotson and Clarke the estimation in
which the Gospels were held in their day, than we may infer
from the writers before mentioned, that they were held in
similar estimation during the period when they lived.
The testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels is there
fore distinct in its character from that which may be adduced
to prove the genuineness of ancient profane writings. As
testimony to this, we are able, perhaps, to collect from differ
ent authors a few passages, in which the writing in question
is quoted as the work of the individual to whom it is ascribed,
or in which it is expressly affirmed that he composed such a
work. We may even find it mentioned as his work in some
other composition, ascribed to the same individual ; but this
alone does not affect the nature of the evidence, since the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 85
genuineness of the last-mentioned writing remains to be
proved, and, as far as testimony is concerned, can be proved
only by the testimony of individual writers. But these
writers do not speak in the name and with the sanction of a
whole community, every member of which was deeply and
personally concerned in the question whether the book were
genuine or not. They give their testimony simply as indi
viduals ; and they were, for the most part, individuals who
had no interest in ascertaining the truth, and perhaps little
curiosity about it. We have commonly no ground for sup
posing, that any circumstance had led them to a scrupulous
examination of the claims of the work. We have no cer
tainty that its genuineness was not doubted by others, equally
well informed with the authors whom we quote. But such is
not the character of the historical evidence produced for the
genuineness of the Gospels. The whole community of Chris
tians is brought to testify their belief respecting a subject
which deeply interested them, and about which, as we shall
now proceed to observe, they were in circumstances to be
fully informed.
That Christians during the latter part of the second century
had sufficient means of determining whether the Gospels were
genuine or not, may appear from the consideration, that they
must have been acquainted with the history of the promulga
tion of these books. If the Gospels were the works of those
to whom they are ascribed, they had been received as such
by the contemporaries of the evangelists, by apostles, and
the companions and disciples of apostles. They had been
handed down by them to succeeding Christians, as the authen
tic histories of their Master. There had been a clear, un
broken, and therefore incontrovertible acknowledgment of
their genuineness, during the period of somewhat more than
a century which had elapsed between the time when the
earliest of them was written, and the time to which we have
86 EVIDENCES OF THE
clearly traced back their general reception. Such must have
been the state of the case upon the supposition of their genu
ineness ; but their history, whatever it were, must have been
very different, if they were not genuine. In the latter case,
they had not been known as the works of their pretended
authors by the contemporaries of those to whom they were
afterwards ascribed. They had not, consequently, been
handed down from the first to the second generation of Chris
tians as the works of those individuals. But, during the latter
part of the second century, the only satisfactory evidence of
their genuineness, that which the case necessarily demanded,
must have been their general acknowledgment as genu
ine since the time of their supposed composition. This is
the proof on which the Christian fathers, and consequently the
proof on which the Christian community, relied : and it is of
some importance to observe, that they relied upon this alone ;
that the earlier writers of whom we speak bring forward no
other argument in support of their belief. Those facts in the
history of the Gospels which must have been of common
notoriety were decisive of the question. On the one hand,
if the facts necessary to prove their genuineness had really
existed, the evidence was incontrovertible : on the other hand,
if these facts had not existed, every other pretended proof of
the genuineness of the books must have been wholly unsatis
factory.
But the Christians of the latter half of the second century
could not be ignorant of the history of the Gospels, or, in
other words, of the manner in which they had been regarded
by their predecessors. From the statements which have been
quoted from different writers, we may fairly take the year 175
as a period when, as shown by direct historical evidence, the
Gospels were generally received among Christians. But
the old men of this period were born about the end of the
first and the beginning of the second century. During their
youth, they had been contemporary with those who had been
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 87
contemporary with the apostles and the other disciples of
Christ himself, and who might have received immediate in
struction from them. Irenasus informs us, that he had listened
to the discourses of Polycarp, who had been a disciple of St.
John, and conversant with others who had seen the Lord.*
This fact is important, as it respects the value of the indi-
ridual testimony of Irenaeus to the genuineness of the
fiospels. But it is also to be regarded as a particular
exemplification of a general truth, about which there can
t>e no dispute, that it needed but a single link in the chain
of succession, to connect the old men of the time of Irenaeua
with the apostolic age. Such being the case, the Christians
of his time could not be ignorant of the manner in which the
Gospels had been regarded by their predecessors ; and, in his
time, the belief of the genuineness of the Gospels was estab
lished throughout the Christian community.
but Christians at that period, equally with Christians at
the present day, must have considered the question of the
genuineness of the Gospels as one of great importance. If
a book be offered to us as of the highest authority, there is
no man who will not ask what claim it has to this authority,
and upon what proofs its claim is founded. There was every
thing in the circumstances of the early Christians to give
strength to this desire for information and evidence. In
embracing a new religion, they must have felt the strongest
interest concerning all that related to its character and history.
This religion did not then, as it does at the present day, con
stitute the prevailing faith, nor blend itself with the opinions,
belief, sentiments, and customs of the age. It stood in oppo
sition to all that was established. Every thing connected with
it was rendered prominent and striking by the contrast, and
* Irenaei Epist. ad Florin., apud Euseb. H. E., lib. v. c. 20; Contra Haeres,
lib. iii. c. 3, 4, p. 176.
88 EVIDENCES OF THE
became a subject of earnest attention, an object of attack
and defence. The early Christians were separated from other
men. Their religion snapt asunder the ties of common inter
course. It called them to a new life ; it gave them new senti
ments, hopes, and desires, a new character; it demanded
of them such a conscientious and steady performance of duty
as had hardly before been conceived of; it subjected them to
privations and insults, to uncertainty and danger ; it required
them to prepare for torments and death. Every day of their
lives, they were strongly reminded of it, by the duties which
it enforced, and the sacrifices which it cost them. Their
external circumstances, and their connections with this world,
instead of distracting their thoughts from it, as is the common
tendency of our relations to the present life, kept it constantly
pressed upon their attention. In this state of things, it can
not be supposed that they were indifferent about the genuine
ness of those records on which their faith rested. They must
have felt, at least as strongly as we do, the fundamental
importance of the subject. But respecting the history and
genuineness of those records, if what has been stated be cor
rect, they could not have been ignorant if they would.
In estimating the value of the testimony of the Christian
community during the latter part of the second century, it is
well to consider the intellectual and moral character of those
of whom it was composed.
Our religion, at the time to which we refer, was not so
corrupted as greatly to weaken its power over the affections
and moral principles of those by whom it was held ; and there
is no doubt, that the Christians of the second and third centu
ries were, as a body, distinguished from the world around
them by their moral superiority, and by virtues which scarcely
existed beyond the limits of their community. They were
not, as some have pretended, an illiterate people. They had
among them a full share, to say the least, of the learning and
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 89
intellectual improvement of the age. From the middle of the
second century, they abounded in writers, many of whose
works are lost ; but many which remain give proof of more
than common learning and vigor of intellect. There is a
tendency to speak of the Christian fathers with a disrespect
wholly unmerited by those of the first ages. During the
latter part of the second and the first half of the third cen
tury, that is, from the time when Irenaeus wrote till that of
Origen s death, though the Christians were much fewer in
number than the heathens, yet the Christian writers, as a
body, have far higher claims to intellectual distinction than
the heathen. After the period last mentioned, as Christians
increased in number, their intellectual ascendency, of course,
became more conspicuous, and, at the same time, less extraor
dinary.
By a community of this character, in the last quarter
of the second century, the Gospels were received as genuine.
There was no controversy nor difference of opinion on the
subject within its limits.
But, in addition to what has been said, it happens that we
are able to produce a striking confirmation of the testimony
of the early Christians to the genuineness of the Gospels, by
ascertaining, with a high degree of probability, the correct
ness of this testimony in regard to other books of the Chris
tian Scriptures, from a distinct source of evidence. It is well
known, that all our present books of the New Testament were
not, during the first ages, received as of equal authority.
Some were universally acknowledged as belonging to the
class of sacred books, while others were not ; the genuineness
or the value of the latter being doubted or denied by a greater
or less portion of the Christian community. The books uni
versally received as genuine and sacred were the following,
twenty in number : The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul (exclusive of the Epistle tc
90 EVIDENCES OF THE
the Hebrews), the first Epistle of John, and the first of Peter.
For the genuineness of more than half of this number, we
have evidence of a peculiar kind. It is that which is so ably
stated by Paley, in his " Horae Paulinae," arising from the
undesigned coincidences which appear upon comparing to
gether the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles pf St.
Paul.* In respect to the Acts, and most of the Epistles of
St Paul, this species of evidence, in connection with all the
other proof, internal and external, which bears upon the same
point, is abundantly sufficient to put the question to rest.
The genuineness of three of his Epistles, it is true, those to
Timothy and Titus, has been attacked by some of the Ger
man theologians. But, putting these aside for the present,
there are ten Epistles of St. Paul, and the Acts of the
Apostles, the genuineness of which we may consider as es
tablished. Out of twenty books which the early Christians
have transmitted to us as unquestionably genuine, there are
* This statement, so far as it respects the Acts of the Apostles, requires a
few words of explanation.
Paley s argument goes directly to prove the genuineness of the Epistles
of Paul ; for they assume to be his compositions. But it does not go directly
to prove the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles; for this book does not
assume to be the work of Luke, whose name is not mentioned in it.
But Paley s argument proves the truth of the history contained in this
book. And the book, it appears from the frequent use in it of the first person
plural, was written by a companion of St. Paul.
Such being the case, the book being authentic, and being written \>\ a
companion of St. Paul, there is no supposable mistake, which might have led
the early Christians to ascribe it to any other than its true author. And they
unanimously ascribed it to Luke. Throughout the whole of antiquitv, there
is no suggestion of any other author, nor an intimation of doubt that Luke was
the author.
In confirmation of this reasoning, if it need confirmation, we find Luke
repeatedly mentioned by St. Paul as his companion and friend. He calls
him (Coloss. iv. 14), "Luke, the beloved physician." He sends to Philemon
(ver. 24) a salutation from him as one of his "fellow-laborers." And in his
last Epistle to Timothy, written just before his martyrdom, speaking .f being
deserted by one and left by others, he says (iv. 11), "Luke alone is with
me.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 91
eleven which are unquestionably genuine. There are eleven,
for the genuineness of which we have strong proof, of a kind
wholly distinct from their testimony. We have a peculiar
means of testing the value of our witnesses, in regard to a
most important part of their evidence ; and by this test their
correctness is fully established. But the greater the number
of buuks the genuineness of which is admitted, by whatever
means this be proved, the greater the presumption that the
testimony of the early Christians may be relied upon ; or, in
other words, that all the books of the New Testament which
they received as unquestionably genuine are in fact genuine.
This proposition being granted, I think that he who will
examine the subject may fully satisfy himself that the Epis
tles to Timothy and Titus were written by St. Paul. I
think he will find no reason to doubt, that the two catholic
Epistles before mentioned the first of John and the first
of Peter were the works of the apostles to whom they
are ascribed. With regard to them, there is, to say the
least, nothing to detract from the credit due to the authority
of the early Christians. But if he should come to the con
clusion, that all these books, with those before mentioned,
are genuine ; that sixteen out of the twenty received by the
early Christians are genuine, he can hardly refuse to
admit, that there is a very strong presumption in favor of
the genuineness of the remaining four ; these four, the Gos
pels, being the most important of all.
We have hitherto considered the subject as if the early
Christians, whose testimony has been adduced, might have
had a firm belief of the truth of their religion, unconnected
with a belief of the genuineness of the Gospels. There is
nothing in the nature of things to render this supposition
incredible. But it is a fact deserving particular attention,
92 EVIDENCES OP THE
that the one belief was, in their minds, identified with the
other. Their faith in Christianity was an assurance of
the truth of the accounts respecting. Christ recorded by the
four evangelists. It was a belief, that he was such as he
was represented to be by them; and that he taught the
truths, and inculcated the precepts, preserved in their writ
ings. What was to be learnt from the four Gospels was the
object of a Christian s faith ; and no other source of instruc
tion came in competition with them. They were, as Irenaeus
expresses it, " the pillar and support of the Church." They
were, in the view of the Christians of his age, the Gospel,
transmitted in writing, through the appointment of God, by
those who had been commissioned to preach it.* To be a
Christian, then, was to believe what was recorded in the
Gospels ; or, in other words, it was to believe the credibility
of these books. But these books were believed to be credi
ble, because they were believed to be genuine; to be the
works of eye-witnesses, or of those who derived their informa
tion from eye-witnesses ; histories, all of which had apostolic
authority, because they were written by apostles, or sanc
tioned by apostles. Supposing any doubt to have been cast
upon their genuineness, the same doubt would have extended
to their credibility. If they did not appear till after the
apostolic age, a false character had been ascribed to them ;
and their whole contents would, in consequence, become sus
picious. Every attestation, therefore, given by a Christian
of his belief in his religion, was an attestation of his belief
in the credibility and the genuineness of the four Gospels.
It was in consequence and in testimony of this belief, that he
lived as a Christian, and was prepared to die as a martyr.
But his belief in the genuineness of the Gospels was a belief
of an historical fact. It did not regard a matter of opinion
or interpretation. At the same time, it lay at the foundation
* See before, p. 72.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 93
of his religious faith. It was the first point to be settled in
becoming a believer. The conversion, the virtues, and the
sufferings of the early Christians, all, therefore, bear testi
mony to their firm belief of this fact ; it was a fact respect
ing which they had the strongest interest in not being
deceived; and such, as we have seen, was the information
necessarily possessed by them, that, in the exercise of com
mon good sense, they could not be in error.
But even putting out of view those considerations which
have been brought forward to explain the value of the testi
mony of the Christian community, during the last quarter of
the second century, to the genuineness of the Gospels, it may
be shown, that the general reception of these books during
the period in question is to be accounted for only by ad
mitting their genuineness.
Before attending to those considerations which may show
the truth of this proposition in regard to the Gospels gener
ally, we will advert to some circumstances which respect only
the first three. These, when compared together, present
phenomena, of which, if their genuineness be denied, no
solution can be given, not irreconcilable with the fact of the
reception of all three as books of the highest authority.
The phenomena referred to consist in the frequent instances
of verbal agreement among them, and in their correspondence
with one another in the selection and narration of the same
events, viewed in connection with their disagreements and
individual peculiarities. The common reception of the first
three Gospels, and the appearances which these writings
present, must be regarded together. When thus regarded,
they prove the genuineness of the books in question ; because,
upon the opposite supposition, no explanation can be given
94 EVIDENCES OF THE
of these appearances not inconsistent with the fact of their
common reception. This is the point to which we will now
attend.
If it be maintained that the first three Gospels are the
compositions of writers who lived after the apostolic age,
then, at first view, three suppositions may present themselves
as affording a solution of the phenomena which have been
mentioned. One writer may have copied from another, o*
from both of the others ; or each writer may have made us
of some written document or documents which had much in
common with those used by the other two, though in many
respects dissimilar; or they may all have derived their
accounts from tradition, the traditions preserved by one
being partly the same with those preserved by another, and
partly different. We will examine in order each of these
solutions.
I. The supposition that the author of any one of the first
three Gospels copied from either of the others, has, in mod
ern times, been subjected to very thorough examination. It
has been found exposed to great, and, as may seem, insu
perable objections, which show themselves on comparing
together the contents of the first three Gospels. Some of
these objections are stated in another place.* But, under
the conditions of the case now before us, that is, in con
nection with the belief that the Gospels were written after
the apostolic age, the supposition is liable to peculiar objec
tions, which alone it is necessary to consider at present.
These objections may be shown by applying them to a
particular instance; it being kept in mind that they are
applicable to any other which may be presented. Let us
suppose, then, that the author of the Gospel ascribed to Luke
made use of that ascribed to Matthew, and derived from it
See Note B, pp. 463-510.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 95
the large portion of matter which his history has in common
with it. The question then arises, What was his purpose in
composing his own work ? lie must have intended to give a
better, a more authentic, or a more plausible history than
that ascribed to Matthew, one which might more effectu
ally serve the end proposed in such a work, whatever that
were. It must have been his purpose to remodel the gospel
before existing ; to arrange its contents in suitable order ; and
to omit, correct, and add, according to his superior infoima-
tion, skill, and judgment. The general character of both
histories is strikingly the same ; they correspond with each
other in the greater part of their contents ; and, if the writer
of that ascribed to Luke took that ascribed to Matthew for
the basis of his own work, all change, addition, or omission
must appear to be intentional correction or improvement.
The former work must have been a refashioning of the latter,
with the purpose of removing its errors, and supplying its
deficiencies. The object of the author of the new history,
therefore, was to produce a work which ought to supersede
the old. But this is inconsistent with the fact, that those who
received his Gospel as authentic received also that ascribed
to Matthew as of equal authority ; and those who reverenced
that ascribed to Matthew made no hesitation in admitting that
ascribed to Luke as also entitled to the rank of a saci d
book. If the writer of the gospel ascribed to Luke intend. i
to give a better or more serviceable history than that as
cribed to Matthew, he would have been considered either as
having succeeded or as having failed. In comparison with
the latter work, his own must either have been preferred or
rejected. If we imagine that, when he wrote, the gospel
afterwards ascribed to Matthew was already regarded as the
composition of that apostle, little favor would have been
shown to the author of a pretended revision of such a
work, and his book would have obtained little currency. If,
at tho time when he wrote, the gospel afterwards ascribed to
96 EVIDENCES OP THE
Matthew were regarded as having no claim to higher author
ity than his own might pretend to, then the two histories
would have come in competition, and it cannot be supposed
that both would have been received as of equal authority and
worth.
Supposing the first three Gospels to have been composed
after the apostolic age, or, in other words, if their genuine
ness be denied, it is obvious that similar arguments may be
brought to prove that the author of no one of them made
use of either of the other two, in such a manner as to explain
the correspondence between their writings. The use sup
posed is inconsistent with the fact of the common reception
of all of them as sacred books of the highest authority.
II. We will, then, examine the next solution which has
been mentioned. It may be said, that the authors of the first
three Gospels each made use of a written document or docu
ments; and that the documents respectively used by them
had much common and corresponding matter, and much
verbal agreement, but that they were distinguished from one
another by many individual peculiarities.
In respect to this supposition, let us consider of what
character those documents must have been. They were not
separate narratives of single events, real or supposed, in the
life of Christ. It cannot be believed, that, after the apostolic
age, the history contained in the first three Gospels was,
before their composition, circulating among Christians in
many separate written fragments. Whoever was desirous
of obtaining one written account of an event, or supposed
event, in the life of Christ, would be desirous of obtaining
more. He would extend his collection, and arrange it, if he
did not find a collection arranged to his hands. The coinci
dence between the Gospels ascribed to Mark and Luke in the
order of the events which they have in common shows that
the authors of these Gospels, if they followed written docu-
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 97
ments, must have copied documents in which the events were
already thus arranged. The writer of the Gospel ascribed
to Luke says, that many before him had undertaken to
prepare accounts of Christ ; and, whether we do or do not
believe the Gospel to be the work of Luke, there can be no
reason for doubting the truth of this information.
The documents in question, then, must have been different
histories of Christ, different gospels, in existence before our
first three Gospels. Such writings, when once in existence,
would soon be widely circulated. Now, upon the supposition
that the first three Gospels were composed after the apostolic
age out of such documents, each of them was nothing more
than a particular compilation of the same kind with those
already existing, made by some unknown individual, who
has left no trace of his history. Each of these new collec
tions, likewise, was incomplete; for each of the first three
Gospels wants much that is found in the other two, and in
the Gospel of John, to say nothing of what may have ex
isted in any of the supposed earlier gospels. There are dis
crepancies between them, and they present very considerable
difficulties when compared together. There could be no rea
son, therefore, why any individual, who had possessed a more
ancient collection, should reject that to which he had been
accustomed, in order to substitute these three, or one of these
three, in its place. There was nothing to give these new
compilations any peculiar sanctity or authority ; or to secure
them, any more than other collections of the same kind, from
additions and changes. No reason can be assigned why any
one of them, and still less why all three equally, should have
obtained such celebrity and general reception, a character so
exclusively sacred, as to cause all similar compilations to dis
appear. The proprietor of a different collection, if he chanced
to meet with one of these, might note what he found in it,
not contained in his own; and, if he thought the relation
worthy of being preserved, he might insert it in the margin
7
98 EVIDENCES OF THE
of his old manuscript, or in the text of a new one. But there
was no reason why he should reject what he had before re
garded as a credible narrative, because he did not find it in
one of these compilations. Because three unknown indi
viduals had made three new compilations, not differing in
their general character from such as had existed before, all
other manuscripts of a similar kind would not be destroyed.
Copies of various manuscripts would continue to be multi
plied, containing, probably, new additions ; till at the end of
the second century, instead of finding Christians agreed in
the use of the four Gospels, we should have found as many
different gospels as there had chanced to be different col
lectors. Under the circumstances supposed, no authority,
generally acknowledged, could have belonged to any particu
lar compilation.
III. We will now attend to the third supposition men
tioned, that the correspondence between the first three Gos
pels, supposing them to have been written after the apostolic
age, is to be accounted for by the circumstance, that they
were all founded upon oral traditionary narratives, in great
part similar or the same. To this, the answer is, that an
oral traditionary history of Christ would have varied more
in its form as preserved by three different writers. It would
have become adulterated in different and opposite ways,
probably grossly adulterated, through the various opinions,
conceptions, errors, and passions of the times following the
apostolic age. A large portion of the accounts concerning
Christ would have been imperfectly comprehended by many,
piobably by most Christians; and, in repeating such ac
counts, they would have conformed them to their own appre
hensions, and not to the truth. No narratives are so exposed
to change and corruption by oral transmission, as those which
relate to supernatural events, real or supposed. The forgeries
of an excited imagination become more and more mingled
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. U9
with the history, as it passes from mouth to mouth. Oral
traditionary relations concerning the Founder of Christianity,
preserved by Christians after the apostolic age, must have
received a different moulding and coloring from many differ
ent hands. Had the first three Gospels been founded upon
such relations, they would not have been so consistent with
each other as they now are, in presenting the same view of
the most remarkable character of Christ, of the events of his
life, of his words and deeds, and of the purpose of his minis
try. They would not have had the striking resemblance to
each other which they now possess, in their general com
plexion. Nor would there have been the remarkable cor
respondence which now exists among them in many of their
relations, in which we find the same facts, conceptions, &nd
language.
In estimating the force of these remarks, we must attend
particularly to the circumstance, that the traditionary ac
counts supposed could not have assumed a well-defined and
authorized form, by being embodied into one long, oral nar
rative, generally taught and received. They must have ex
isted in a fluctuating and unconnected state ; for many things
are related differently in the first three Gospels : each of
them has matter, and two of them, respectively, much mat
ter, which is not found in either of the others; and the
arrangement of Mark and Luke differs from that of Mat
thew. Let us suppose that the history and discourses of
Socrates had been preserved by oral tradition, a tradition,
however, not spread over the world, but confined to the city
of Athens ; and that, some half-century or more after his
death, they had been first committed to writing by three
different individuals. The improbability that their three
works would have resembled each other as much as the first
three Gospels, partially expresses the improbability, that
these Gospels, being written after the apostolic age, were
founded upon oral tradition.
100 EVIDENCES OF THE
The argument which it has been my object to illustrate
may be stated briefly in the following manner. There are
many correspondences between any two of the first three
Gospels, so remarkable, that, in each particular case, they
admit only of one of the following explanations : either one
writer copied the other, or each writer followed some au
thority common to both, which authority must have been
either written or oral. But either of these solutions, to
which we are reduced by the nature of the case, becomes
too improbable to be admitted, if we suppose those Gospels
to have been written after the apostolic age.*
It is, then, a curious and important circumstance, that in
the very structure of the first three Gospels, when compared
together, taken in connection with the fact of their common
reception and high and peculiar authority among Christians
before the close of the second century, we find evidence that
they must have been composed during the apostolic age.
Upon a contrary supposition, we have seen that no solution
can be given of the remarkable phenomena presented by
them, which is in itself probable, and at the same time
consistent with the fact of their common reception. But, if
written in the apostolic age, they must have been handed
down from that period with such a character as gave them
the authority which they afterwards possessed ; and no rea
sonable doubt can remain of their genuineness. They were
works which had received the sanction of that age ; their
authors were then, undoubtedly, known ; and they were un
doubtedly ascribed to their true authors.
We will now regard the four Gospels in common. Their
general reception as genuine and sacred books, during the
* On the manner in which the phenomena presented by the first three
Gospels, when compared together, may be explained on the supposition of
their genuineness, see Note B, pp. 510-544.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 101
last quarter of the second century, can be accounted for only
by admitting their genuineness.
Let us first view the subject in its simplest form. If the
Gospels be not genuine, how was it possible for any one of
them to obtain general reception and authority, as the work
of the author to whom it was ascribed? This could not
have taken place during the age of the apostles, while the
reputed author or his friends were still living. After the
death, therefore, of the reputed author, and of most of those
acquainted with him, we must suppose that a claim was first
set up for a certain book, falsely asserting it to be the work
of St. Matthew or St. John, or one of the other evangelists.
The claim had not before been heard of. The evidence
which the case demanded to satisfy any reasonable man
that is, the belief and testimony of the preceding age was
wanting. It must have been evident, therefore, that the
claim was without foundation. An attempted fraud of this
kind in relation to books of such general interest, and pre
tending to such high authority, could not, from its very
nature, have been successful. It could not have produced
belief; and it would be an hypothesis against which it is
unnecessary to bring arguments, to suppose it to have pro
duced, throughout the widely dispersed Christian community,
a general profession of belief in what every one must have
known, or at least strongly suspected, to be a falsehood.
Possibly, however, the suggestion may still be made, that
the reception of the Gospels, as the works of those to whom
they are ascribed, was produced by a general concert and
combination among Christians, under the direction of those
of most eminence and authority. Enough has been already
said to show, that the effect in question could not have been
the result of such a combination.* But let us again COD-
* See before, p. 24, seqq.
102 EVIDENCES OF THE
sider, that the supposition implies great dishonesty in the
deceivers, and gross ignorance and credulity in the de
ceived ; and that no part of the Christian community will be
exempt from one or the other of these charges. But none
would venture explicitly to maintain, that the character of
the early Christians was such as to render it probable that
one portion of them was so fraudulent as to impose upon
their brethren, for a rule of faith and practice, certain books
as genuine, which they knew were not genuine ; and that
the larger portion was so weak as to submit quietly to the
imposition.
It is a strong subsidiary argument, if such be needed,
against the supposition of a fraudulent or arbitrary assign
ment of the names of the authors of the Gospels, that only
two of them are ascribed to apostles ; and one of these two
is ascribed to an apostle not distinguished, except as tho
author of the work in question. If the assignment had been
arbitrary, names of more distinction would have been chosen.
The early fathers, as is well known, were solicitous to prove,
that the Gospels of Mark and Luke, though not written by
apostles, were entitled to apostolical authority, on the ground
that the former only embodied those narratives which St.
Peter had delivered orally, and that the latter had received
the sanction of St. Paul. Upon the supposition that these
writings were as little the work of the supposed evangelists
as of the apostles, the names of the latter would have been
given them at once.
But there are other considerations to which we will now
attend. It is to be particularly remarked, that we have not
one only, but four books, each professing to give a history
of Jesus Christ. These books, though consistent with each
other in their representations of his most remarkable charac
ter ; though they agree in giving the same view of his doc-
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 103
trines, and of the purpose of his ministry ; and though they
have many facts and discourses common to two or more of
their number, yet differ much from each other in the selec
tion, arrangement, and connection of events, and in their
accounts of some particular facts and transactions. Their
discrepancies are such as could not escape observation. In
the first half of the third century, the importance of them
was magnified by Origen in the language of extravagant
exaggeration. He adopted, and carried to its greatest length,
the allegorical mode of interpreting the Scriptures ; and
thought that there was no means of saving the credit of
the Gospels, but by recurring to the hidden sense of their
words. In one place, after remarking upon an apparent
disagreement between the first three evangelists and St.
John, he says : " And in regard to many other passages, if
one carefully examine the Gospels, with a view to the dis
sonances in their history, which severally we shall endeavor
to set forth according to our ability, he will, being wholly
bewildered, either refuse to acknowle dge, conformably to
truth, the authority of the Gospels, and, making a selection,
will adhere to one alone, not willing wholly to give up the
faith concerning our Lord ; or, receiving the four, will deter
mine that the truth is not in their literal meaning." *
Now, if we admit that the Gospels were written by the
authors to whom they are ascribed, the general reception of
all four as of equal authority, notwithstanding these dis
crepancies, is at once accounted for. But, supposing them
not to be genuine, no probable explanation can be given of
this fact. Allowing that each of the four Gospels might, in
some way or other, have obtained a certain degree of credit,
yet one would have been used by one portion of Christians,
and another by another, according as the place of its com
position, or some other particular circumstance, favored its
* Comment, in Joan., torn. x. 2; Opp. iv 163.
104 EVIDENCES OF THE
reception. There would have been as many different parties
among Christians as there were different Gospels ; each party
maintaining the superior authority of its own Gospel. Be
side these, there would probably have been another large
party, which would not have admitted the authority, or at
least the genuineness, of any one of our present Gospels.
They who had received, and had been accustomed to use, a
particular Gospel, would look with suspicion upon another,
which was presented as its rival. However credulously they
had admitted the claims of their own history, they would
examine with jealousy those of a new work. This would
especially be the case, if the latter appeared in any respects,
though but of little importance, to be inconsistent with, or
contradictory to, the former. But obvious discrepancies ex
ist among the Gospels, the importance of which would be
magnified by those who, having been accustomed to use and
reverence one of these books, were urged to receive another
as its companion, and to regard it as of equal credit. These
discrepancies, apparent or real, must therefore have greatly
aggravated the difficulty of introducing any other Gospel
among those by whom one of the Gospels had been already
received.
Let us, for instance, suppose the Gospel ascribed to Luke
to have been presented for the first time to Christians who
had been accustomed to use only that ascribed to Matthew.
Upon first opening the former, they would have been shocked
at finding a genealogy of Christ quite different from that
with which they were familiar. They would next have
missed, in its place, the Sermon on the Mount ; and, having
found a portion of it elsewhere, they would have regarded
it as inaccurately reported, when they perceived, that, with
much verbal similarity, different thoughts were in fact ex
pressed. They would have been offended by an arrangement
of events, throughout the narrative, irreconcilable with that
in their own Gospel. They would have discovered, that
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 105
even a different name, Levi, was given to the supposed
author of that Gospel, in the account of his being called by
Christ to be an apostle. Upon further examination, many
other discrepancies, real or apparent, that is, many other
reasons for rejecting this new history, would have presented
themselves ; and, so far from its being admitted to the same
rank with that which they had before used, it would have
been thrown aside with strong dislike. Beside the prejudice
against it which would thus necessarily exist, we must
recollect that all well-founded claims to genuineness and
credit are excluded by the supposition we are considering.
There is therefore no other account to be given of the com
mon reception of these two Gospels, together with the re
maining two, as all of equal authority, except this, that they
had been handed down from the apostolic age as the works
of the persons to whom they were ascribed, and had always
been regarded as of equal authority.
To recur for a moment to the notion of a concerted pjan
to select our present Gospels, ascribe them to certain au
thors, and bring them into common use, it may be observed,
that the more intelligent Christians before the end of the
second century would not have concerted a plan to bring four
Gospels into use, which the most able and learned of their
immediate successors, Origen, thought exposed to such seri
ous objections, when compared with each other.
With the argument just stated, a consideration is connected
which deserves particular attention. It is, that, if the genu
ineness of any one of the four Gospels be proved, a very
strong presumption immediately arises in favor of the genu
ineness of the remaining three. If the four Gospels were
not handed down from the apostolic age, and received in
common by succeeding Christians, then, at some period after
that age, their respective claims to authority must have come
in competition. But, if any one of them were genuine, the
106 EVIDENCES OF THE
authority of this had been acknowledged since the times of
the apostles. Now, we cannot suppose that Christians, ac
customed to use a gospel which they believed, or, rather,
which, from the nature of the case, they knew to be genuine,
would receive a spurious history of Christ as of equal au
thority. All their prejudices would have been in favor of
the book to which they were accustomed. This, then, being
genuine, and the other spurious, the evidence for the former
being decisive, and the pretended evidence in favor of the
latter false, there could be little probability that the new
work would be classed with that already received, as a sacred
book of the highest value. No probable motive, nor mistake,
can be imagined, which might lead to so extraordinary a
result.
This is taking the most obvious view of the subject. But
when we further consider the discrepancies among the Gos
pels, and reflect that the new history must have appeared, in
some respects, inconsistent with, and contradictory to, that
genuine Gospel, the authority of which was already estab
lished, we perceive how incredible it is that the former would
have been placed on a level with the latter. Without doubt,
it would have been rejected. Common policy alone, if it
were necessary to recur to such a consideration, would have
prevented Christians from giving the same authority to a
spurious as to a genuine book, if discrepancies existed be
tween them ; as these discrepancies would expose the whole
history to the cavils and objections of unbelievers.
It appears, therefore, that, if any one of the Gospels be
genuine, this circumstance alone goes far to prove that all
are genuine. If the evidence for either of the Gospels had
been much weaker than that for the other three, its discrep
ancies from them, if there had been no other cause, would
have decided its rejection. The fact that we have four
Gospels, which, with all their essential agreement, differ so
much from each other, is a very important means of proving
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 107
the genuineness of all and of any one of them. That these
discrepancies should serve to confirm our faith in all that is
essential or important in the narrative contained in the Gos
pels, has been often observed. They show that the writers
had each independent means of information. Such discrep
ancies naturally, and almost necessarily, exist among all
original histories of the same events.
We will pass to another consideration, showing that the
Gospels must have been transmitted as genuine from the
apostolic age.
They are evidently the works of Jewish authors.* But
* To this statement may be objected the opinion, which has obtained some
currency, that Luke was a Gentile by birth. But this opinion is countenanced
by only a very slight show of evidence.
The main argument for it is derived from the concluding verses of the
Epistle to the Colossians, where St. Paul, after sending salutations from some
whom he designates as " of the circumcision " (chap. iv. 11), afterwards sends
salutations from others, whom it is supposed that he meant to distinguish from
those first mentioned by him, as not being of the circumcision. Among them
is Luke; and hence it has been inferred that Luke was by birth a Gentile.
But those who favor this opinion admit that he was a proselyte to the
Jewish religion before becoming a Christian; and Lardner has shovvn, that
there were not, as has been represented, two classes of proselytes among the
Jews, one circumcised, and the other uncircumcised. (Works, ed. 4to, 1815,
\ol. iii. p. 395, seqq. ; vol. v. p. 496, seqq. Compare Wetstein s note, N. T.,
vol. i. pp. 483-485. See also Justin Martyr s Dial, cum Tryph., pp. 399-401,
ed. Thirlb., or p. 215, ed. Maran.) All proselytes were circumcised. If Luke,
therefore, had been a proselyte, it could not have been the purpose of the
aposlle to distinguish him as not being of the circumcision; and the argu
ment therefore falls to the ground.
But the question whether Luke were a Jew or Gentile by birth is wholly
HP important, not merely in regard to the reasoning in the text, but in regard
to the correct use of language in calling him " a Jewish writer." Proselytes,
as we learn from Dion Cassius (quoted by Wetstein, ubi sup ), were commonly
culled Jews ; they being Jews by religion, and having become incorporated
with the Jewish nation. St. Luke (not, however, as I conceive, on the ground
of his being a proselyte, but because he was a Jew by birth) ranks himself
108 EVIDENCES OF THE
the Gospels descend to us through the Gentile branch of
Christians. Now, as has been already observed,* the Jewish
and Gentile Christians, from the first admission of the latter
into the Church, had a strong tendency to separate, and form
distinct societies. Hardly held together by the authority of
the apostles, they seem to have started asunder as soon as the
power of the apostles was removed. Very soon, the Gentile
Christians far outnumbered the Jewish ; and the two parties
seem to have regarded each other with somewhat the same
feelings as had belonged to Jews and Gentiles before the
introduction of Christianity. Before the close of the second
century, we find the Jewish Christians, with perhaps some
individual exceptions, regarded as heretics, under the name
of Ebionites. There is therefore a great improbability,
that, at any period after the apostolic age, Gentile Christians
would have received from Jewish Christians four spurious
histories of Christ, purporting to have been written by
apostles and companions of apostles, and would have deferred
with such credulity to their testimony as to ascribe to these
works the character of sacred books.
The improbability of this supposition is increased by the
fact, that the four Greek Gospels the works in question
were not in common use among Jewish Christians. They
made use only of a Hebrew Gospel, which, there seems to
be no reason to doubt, was, as they first received it, the
Hebrew original of Matthew s Gospel ; though this, in pro
cess of time, became corrupted in their hands. Their early
reception of the Hebrew original may have countenanced the
use of the Greek translation of Matthew ; but, in regard to
the other three Gospels, the Gentile Christians could not
with Jews in the commencement of his Gospel, speaking " of the events ac
complished among MS." Whatever question may have been raised respecting
the parentage of Luke, there can be no doubt that the author of the Gospel
ascribed to him was a Jew by birth or by adoption, a Jewish writer.
* See before, p. 61.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 109
have received them upon the authority and recommendation
of the Jewish Christians, by whom they were not used.
But there is another circumstance to be considered. The
Gospels are evidently the work, not merely of Jewish
authors, but of unlearned Jewish authors ; men unskilled in
the use of language generally, and of the Greek language
in particular. These writings can make no pretension to
any merely literary merit. Their Hebraistic style arid
idioms, with the peculiar senses given to words, must
have obscured their meaning, and made them appear bar
barous to those whose native language was the Greek.
Origen informs us, that "the style of the Scriptures was
regarded by the Greeks as poor and contemptible."* " Lit
erary men," says Lactantius, " when they give their attention
to the religion of God, unless they receive their fundamental
instruction from some able teacher, do not become believers ;
for, being accustomed to pleasing and polished discourses and
poems, they despise as sordid the simple and common Ian
guage of the divine writings." f If, therefore, the Gospels
had not been genuine, their style and idiom alone would have
formed no small obstacle to their reception.
Let us now put these circumstances together, and, advert
ing merely to the particular view of the subject just taken,
consider what is necessarily embraced in the supposition, that
the Gospels, being spurious, obtained general authority after
the apostolic age. According to this supposition, while the
Jewish and Gentile Christians were regarding each other
with but very little favor, four spurious works, the produc
tion of illiterate Jewish writers whose names are wholly
unknown, the style of which must have been repulsive to
Greeks, and three of which were not in common use among
Jewish Christians, and therefore not recommended by their
* Comment, in Joan , torn. iv. 2 ; Opp. iv.
t Institut. vi. 21.
110 EVIDENCES OF THE
authority, whatever weight that might have had, all, in a
body, obtained the highest credit as sacred books throughout
the widely dispersed community of Gentile Christians.
It is acknowledged, that the four Gospels were received
with the greatest respect, as genuine and sacred books, by
catholic Christians ; that is, by the great body of Christians
at the end of the second century. But, earlier than this
time, it has been pretended that we find no trace of their
existence ; and hence it has been inferred, that, before this
time, they were not in common use, and were but little
known, even if extant in their present state.* I shall here
after produce notices of their existence at a much earlier
period. But waiving, for the present, this consideration, the
reasoning appears not a little extraordinary. About the end
of the second century, the Gospels were reverenced as sacred
books by a community dispersed over the world, composed
of men of different nations and languages. There were, to
say the least, sixty thousand copies of them in existence ; t
they were read in the churches of Christians ; they were
continually quoted, and appealed to, as of the highest author
ity ; their reputation was as well established among believers,
from one end of the Roman empire to the other, as it is at
the present day among Christians in any country. But it is
asserted, that, before that period, we find no trace of their
existence ; and it is therefore inferred, that they were not in
common use, and but little known, even if extant in their
present form. This reasoning is of the same kind as if one
were to say that the first mention of Egyptian Thebes is in
the poems of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as a city
which poured a hundred armies from its hundred gates ; but
* See before, p. 7. t See before, p. 32.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. Ill
his is the first mention of it, and therefore we have no rea
son to suppose, that, before his time, it was a place of any
considerable note. The general reception of the Gospels as
books of the highest authority, at the end of the second
century, necessarily implies their celebrity at a much earlier
period, and the long-continued operation of causes sufficient
to produce so remarkable a phenomenon.
This phenomenon, it may appear from what has been said,
could not have been the result of any combination, nor of
fraud, nor accident. Those by whom the Gospels were
received as books of the highest value were men superior,
generally, in moral and intellectual qualities, to their con
temporaries. If they were deceived, it was at their peril ;
they enjoyed such means of knowledge concerning the his
tory of the Gospels as might, and we may truly say must,
have removed all doubt whether they were genuine or not ;
and, in their words and by their lives, they unequivocally
affirmed them to be genuine. The first three Gospels, when
compared together, present appearances which, viewed in
connection with the fact of their general reception, admit of
no explanation that does not suppose their genuineness. But
further: from the nature of the case, the Gospels must have
made their way to general reception by their intrinsic worth
and authority. Four histories of Christ, the work of
unlearned Jewish authors, written in a style which must have
appeared barbarous to native Greeks, and regarded by those
who held them in the highest respect as presenting discrep
ancies with each other, which, in the literal sense of their
words, were irreconcilable, obtained equal reception through
out the Christian community, from beyond the Euphrates,
through Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, and Italy, to the western
coasts of Spain and Africa. They were received as sacred
books by portions of this community, who probably had
never heard of each other s existence. Wherever the reli
gion had spread, they had spread with it. The faith of
112 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
Christians rested on the belief of their authenticity. Of
these facts, no other account can be given, than that those
writings were derived from the same sources as the religion
itself, and had been handed down with it from the apostolic
age, as its authentic records. But, if this be so, no reasonable
question can be raised respecting their genuineness. It
could not be established by any proof more decisive and
unsuspicious than what has just been stated ; for it appears
as a necessary inference from notorious and indisputable
facts.
Such is the conclusion concerning the genuineness of the
Gospels to be drawn from the fact of their reception as
genuine throughout the community of catholic Christians in
the last quarter of the second century. But all reasoning
on historical subjects, however decisive it may seem, admits
of confirmation ; and we are not satisfied till whatever diffi
culties have been opposed to it are removed. We will
therefore proceed to examine whether the conclusion to
which we have arrived is confirmed or weakened by evidence
from a still earlier period. We will first attend to the evi
dence of Justin Martyr. It has been maintained, as we have
before seen,* that he did not quote the Gospels ; but con
sistently with the conclusion to which we have arrived, and
in confirmation of it, I trust it may be clearly shown, that he
did quote the same Gospels to which we now appeal, and
that he, and the Christians contemporary with him, held
them in as high respect as the Christians who immediately
succeeded him, or as do Christians at the present day.
* See before, p. 4.
CHAPTER II.
EVIDENCE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE WRITINGS OF
JUSTIN MARTYR.
IN ascending toward the apostolic age, after the fathers who
have been mentioned in the last chapter, we come to Justin
Martyr, who flourished about the year 150. He was of Gen
tile extraction, born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, in
the latte? part of the first or in the beginning of the second
century. He studied the different systems of heathen phi
losophy under several masters. He preferred the Platonic,
until he became acquainted with Christianity, which he then
embraced as the only "certain and useful philosophy." He
appears to have spent much of his life in travelling; and,
according to Eusebius, chose Rome for his residence, where,
as there seems no reason to doubt, he suffered martyrdom.
As early as the year 150, he addressed a Defence of Chris
tianity to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in connection with
Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Verus, and the Roman senate
and people. Afterwards, he wrote another work in explana
tion and defence of Christianity, in the form of a dialogue
with an unbelieving Jew, called Trypho. It is doubtful
whether the form given to it be wholly fictitious, or whether
the work were occasioned by a conference which actually
took place. Not long before his death, he published a second
Defence of Christianity. His two defences are commonly
called Apologies, the name being used in the sense of the
8
114 EVIDENCES OP THE
Greek word from which it is derived; namely, "defence,"
" vindication."
Beside those that have been mentioned, Justin composed
writings which are lost. There are three other short works
extant, of which he was perhaps the author.* But they are
all addressed to Gentile unbelievers, and contain no reference
to any book giving a history of Christ. This is true, like
wise, of his second Apology, which is short. It was occa
sioned by a particular act of persecution at Rome, in which
three Christians were put to death. Our attention, therefore, is
confined to the first Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho.
From these works of Justin might be extracted a brief
account of the life and doctrines of Christ, corresponding
with that contained in the Gospels, and corresponding to
such a degree, both in matter and words, that almost every
quotation and reference may be readily assigned to its proper
place in one or other of the Gospels. There was conse
quently, till within a short period, no doubt entertained that
the Gospels were quoted by Justin. The facts just men
tioned do not fully establish this proposition ; but they afford
a strong presumption of its truth. To the supposition, how
ever, that Justin quoted the Gospels, objections have been
made, which, as far as they are important, may be reduced to
the three following heads :
I. He nowhere designates any one of the Gospels by the
title of it afterwards in use, or names the evangelists as
the authors whom he quotes. His quotations are taken from
what he calls " Memoirs by the Apostles ; " for so we may
translate the title which he gives to the work or works to
which he appeals.f
* Ad Grsecos Oratio, Ad Graecos Cohortatio, De Monarchia.
f Tu A.Tro{tvrj l uovVfjiaTa TCJV
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 115
II. There is a great want of verbal coincidence between his
quotations, and the corresponding passages in the Gospels.
III. He has passages apparently or professedly taken
from the written history of Christ used by him, which are
not found in the Gospels.*
The facts stated in the first two objections admit of suffi
cient explanation, by attending to the character of Justin s
writings, and the circumstances under which they were com
posed. His quotations are found, as has been said, in his
first and longer Apology, and in his Dialogue with Trypho.
In the former work, he gives an account of Christ and his
ministry, of the doctrines and precepts of his religion, and
of the character of his followers. He is, throughout, ad
dressing heathens.
We will first, then, consider the manner in which he has
described the Gospels (as we believe) in this Apology.f He
quotes much from them without any express reference or
description, which, however, he has given three times, in the
following words :
1. "And the messenger then sent to that virgin announced
to her the glad news, saying, * Behold, thou shalt conceive
through the Holy Spirit, and bring forth a son, and he shall
be the son of the Most High ; and thou shalt call his name
* These objections are stated in a dissertation by F. A. Stroth, published
In the first volume of Eichhorn s Repertorium, and entitled, Entdeckte Frag-
mente des Evangeliums nach den Hebraern in Justin dem Martyrer; i.e.,
Fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, discovered in Justin
Martyr. Eichhorn s Einleitung in d. N. T., i. 78-106. Bishop Marsh s
Letters to the anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his Com
mentator, pp. 28-32 ; and his Illustration of his Hypothesis respecting the
Origin and Composition of our three first Gospels, Appendix, pp. 22-79.
t The order of the Apologies in the older editions being inverted, the first
written is often cited as the second; as it is by Eiehhorn. This fact, if not
explained, might produce some confusion. I call that the first Apology which
was first written, and which is placed first in the later editions; and follow,
in quoting, the pages of Thirlby s edition.
116 EVIDENCES OF THE
Jesus ; for he shall deliver his people from their sins ; as those
who have written memoirs concerning every thing relating to
our Saviour, Jesus Christ, have taught, whom we believe"*
2. In giving an account of the Last Supper of our Lord,
he says, " The apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them,
which are called Gospels, have thus informed us," f &c.
3. He says, " Oil the day which is called the day of the
Sun [Sunday], we all, whether dwelling in cities or in the
country, assemble together ; when the Memoirs by the Apos
tles,:}: or the writings of the Prophets, are read, as long as
time permits." He then describes the rest of the service,
which consisted in an exhortation, prayer, the celebration of
the Lord s Supper, and a contribution for the poor.
We believe that the books of which Justin thus speaks
were the Gospels ; and it does not appear how, in addressing
a heathen emperor and heathen readers, he could have de
scribed them more clearly than he has done, or afforded more
satisfactory proof that they were the works to which he
appealed. How early the term rendered " Gospel " came
to be applied to a history of Christ, is uncertain. We have
no evidence that it was so long before the time of Justin.
In this application, the word was so removed from its original
sense, that the meaning put upon it would not have been un
derstood, without explanation, by a native Greek, acquainted
only with its common use in his language. If it was per
ceived to be the title of a book, it would still convey to him
no proper and distinct notion of the contents of that book.
This, therefore, was not a title to be used without explana
tion by Justin, in addressing a Roman emperor. Nor would
there have been more propriety in his giving the names of
the authors of the respective Gospels. Of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, neither the emperor, nor the generality of
those heathens who might read his Apology, had probably
* p. 54. t p- 96. | p. 97.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 117
ever heard. The names of four unknown individuals would
have carried with them no historical authority. Considering
the state of things at the time when Justin wrote, there would
have been something incongruous, and almost ludicrous, in
quoting by name "The Gospel according to Matthew," or
" The Gospel according to Luke," in an address to the
Roman emperor and senate. The object of Justin, in appeal
ing to any history of Christ was, to show, that his own state
ments rested on authority acknowledged by those in whose
name he spoke. It was necessary, therefore, for him to de
scribe those books in words which would be understood, and
which would show, at the same time, how they were esteemed
by Christians. This is what he has done. He calls them
" Memoirs by the Apostles." The description was of the kind
which his purpose required, and was sufficiently correct : for,
though only two of the Gospels were written by apostles, the
other two, according to the universal sentiment of antiquity,
were considered as carrying with them apostolic authority ;
being sanctioned by apostles, and containing only narratives
derived from them. We shall presently perceive, that, on
another occasion, he expressed himself with perfect accuracy.
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin defends and maintains
Christianity against the objections of the unbelieving Jews.
Like his Apologies, therefore, this work was intended to be
read by unbelievers, and by unbelievers who, as appears from
a passage to be hereafter quoted, might never have heard the
names of the evangelists. In speaking of the Gospels, Justin,
accordingly, pursues the same course as in his Apology. But,
in this Dialogue, we find the following passage : " In those
Memoirs" says Justin, "which I affirm to have been com
posed by apostles of Christ and their companions, it is writ
ten, that sweat, like drops of blood, flowed from him while
he was praying." *
p. 361.
118 EVIDENCES OF THE
That companions of the apostles are here named by Justin
serves especially to prove, that he referred to the Gospels,
when viewed in connection with the fact, that the passage
which he immediately quotes is found only in the Gospel of
Luke, who was a companion of the apostles. In another
place,* a little after, Justin speaks of our Saviour s changing
the name of Peter, " as it is written in his Memoirs ; " and
likewise of his giving to James and John the name of Boa-
nerges.^ By his Memoirs, according to Justin s constant use
of language, we must understand Memoirs of which Peter
may be regarded as the author.^ But it was the opinion of
the ancients, that Mark s Gospel was essentially the narra
tive of Peter, and thus entitled to apostolic authority. The
mention of the surname given to James and John is to be
found in no other Gospel.
The explanation which has been given of the fact, that
Justin does not mention the evangelists by name, is con
firmed by a passage before referred to, as proving that those
for whom he intended his work might never have heard the
names of the evangelists. He believed that the Apocalypse
was written by St. John ; and in defending the doctrine of a
millennium, after quoting passages from the Old Testament,
he appeals to that work in the following terms : " And a
man of our own number, by name John, one of the apostles
of Christ, in the revelation which was made by him, has
prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall spend a
* p. 365. t Comp. Mark iii. 17.
J AS ATTOCTTO/IUV elsewhere, when governed by ATro^i^ovety/ara, denote?
the authors, and not the subjects, of these Memoirs; so, in this passage, the
genitive OITOV must refer to him who was regarded, in a certain sense, aa
the author of the work in question, namely, Peter, and not to the subject
nf the work, Christ. Justin nowhere uses the expression,
On the preceding page.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 119
thousand years in Jerusalem ; and that after this will be, to
speak briefly, the general and eternal resurrection and judg
ment of all men together."* With the exception of St. Paul,
there was probably no one of the early disciples whose name
was more likely to be known to unbelievers than that of St.
John ; yet we see in what manner he is here mentioned. It is
easy to perceive how little advantage or propriety there would
have been in Justin s quoting the evangelists by name, when
addressing those to whom their names were unknown. Nor
was there any cause why, with the purpose which he had in
view, either in his Apology or his Dialogue with Trypho, he
should be careful to distinguish between what he took from
one evangelist, and what from another. He regarded all as
of equal authority. There was therefore no reason why he
should specify the different evangelists by name in quoting
their Gospels. There was not even a suitable occasion for
him to do so.
II. We come, then, to the second objection, the want ot
verbal coincidence between the quotations of Justin and the
corresponding passages in the Gospels.
In order to understand the precise force of this objection,
it should be premised, that, in the quotations in question, the
language answers in great part to that of the evangelists;
but that the cases are comparatively rare in which a series
of words of any considerable length runs strictly parallel
with the corresponding passage in the Gospels. There is
commonly a change, addition, or omission of one or more
words, or an alteration in the construction or arrangement.
Respecting the objection, as thus explained, it may first be
remarked, that it proceeds on a false assumption concerning
the degree of accuracy generally to be found in the quota
tions of the fathers, in cases where no particular circum-
p. 315.
120 EVIDENCES OF THE
stance operated to produce it. Strict verbal coincidence
between their citations from Scripture, and the text of the
New Testament or of the Septuagint, from which they
quoted, is not to be confidently expected, except under con
ditions which do not apply to Justin s citations from the
Gospels. The fathers may be presumed to have quoted
verbally in their commentaries ; because they may be sup
posed to have written with the volume, on which they were
commenting, open before them. There is a presumption,
likewise, that they were often accurate in their controversial
writings ; as it is obviously proper, when a doctrine is to be
proved or disproved by the Scriptures, to produce the pas
sages appealed to in the very words of the original. They
sometimes give proof of quoting verbally by remarking on
the various readings of a passage. One father, likewise,
from habits of critical study of the Scriptures, is frequently
correct, while another is more inaccurate. Origen, for ex
ample, quotes generally with closer adherence to the text,
than Clement of Alexandria, of whom it has been remarked,
that "he not unfrequently cites from memory, and gives
rather the sense than the words of the sacred writers."*
But, in many of the works of the fathers, there is a want of
verbal coincidence similar to that found in Justin s quotations
from the Gospels. The other fathers, like Justin, quoted
from memory carelessly, substituting one synonymous word
or clause for another, transposing the order of words and
thoughts, omitting parts of a passage, paraphrasing, inserting
their own explanations, expressing the meaning in their own
language, and blending together passages which stand remote
from each other in the Scriptures.
Accuracy of quotation seems to have been less regarded
by ancient writers, in general, than by modern ; a circum
stance probably arising from the greater difficulty in pro-
* Griesbach. Symbol. Crit, torn. ii. p. 235.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 121
curing and in consulting books. It has been remarked, for
instance, that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his rhetorical
works, often quotes the same passage differently; and that,
particularly, he has long citations from Isocrates repeated,
sometimes more than once, with variations.* We may men
tion, as another example, the well-known fact of the want
of exactness in the quotations from the Old Testament,
contained in the Gospels and Epistles. In ancient times,
the unrolling of a volume to find a particular passage must
have taken more time, and given more trouble, than the
opening of a book in modern days.
But, besides the false assumption respecting the general
accuracy of the fathers in their quotations, the objection we
are considering rests for support upon an express assertion
respecting Justin in particular. It has been said, that " Justin
is extremely accurate as to the words of his quotations." t
If Justin had been extremely accurate in his quotations from
other books, there might be a reasonable doubt whether the
" Memoirs by the Apostles " were the four Gospels, on
account of the want of verbal agreement between his quota
tions and the text of the Gospels. But with the special
exception to be hereafter mentioned, which does not affect
the present argument, the assertion is strangely erroneous.
Justin s frequent want of accuracy in his quotations has been
remarked in strong language by the commentators on his
writings.! There is a great want of verbal coincidence in
many of his quotations from the Septuagint. He alters and
transposes the language ; he brings together detached pas
sages from the same or from different books, giving them in
connection, as if they followed each other in the original.
* Vid. Matthtei Nov. Test. Graced, torn. i. p. 690, n. 13.
t Marsh s Letters, p. 31, note. Comp. Appendix to Illustration, p. 82,
sqq.
J See Thirlby s edition, pp. 75, 92, 166, 180.
12i EVIDENCES OF THE
It is not uncommon for him to commit the error of ascribing
to one prophet the words of another; and he has even,
apparently through indistinct recollection and the confound
ing of different things together, quoted the Pentateuch, once
expressly and once by implication, for facts not to be found
in it. I have noticed in his Apologies and Dialogue seven
quotations from Plato. There is one of them, consisting
only of four words in the original, which would be verbally
accurate if Justin had not inserted a particle. None of the
others is so. In three, he gives what he conceived to be
the sense, without regard to the words, of Plato ; and, in the
only other of any considerable length, there is much discrep
ance of language. He quotes likewise from Xenophon the
story of the choice of Hercules, giving this also in his own
words.
It is true, that many of Justin s quotations from the Sep-
tuagint, in the Dialogue with Trypho, correspond closely
to the text of the original. But their difference in this
respect from his other quotations in his first Apology and in
the Dialogue is easily explained. Many of those referred to
are of such length, as, at first view, to render it improbable
that he trusted to his memory, as on other occasions. In
citing a whole Psalm, or a long passage from one of the
prophets, he is verbally correct, or nearly so, because, as it
may be presumed, he recurred to the volume, and transcribed
it In his Dialogue with Trypho, he is reasoning in contro
versy with a Jew from passages of the Old Testament ; and
this circumstance would lead him to pay particular attention
to accuracy in citing it It is to be observed also, that, for
his quotations from the Septuagint, he had an invariable
archetype ; while, on the contrary, the same facts or dis-
couises were often recorded in different terms in each of the
first three Gospels. This diversity would tend to prevent a
distinct and accurate impression of any particular form of
words from being left on the memory ; and would, at the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 123
same time, seem to prove it unimportant to adhere closely to
the language of any one of the evangelists.
It seemed proper to enter into the preceding explana
tions, in order to show the sources of the erroneous reasoning
respecting the quotations of Justin. But the fact, that he
did not cite the work or works, which he entitles " Memoirs,"
with verbal accuracy, admits of decisive proof. In at least
seventeen instances, he has repeated the same quotation.
Now, if he had cited with verbal accuracy, every quotation,
when repeated, must have agreed with itself. But this is not
the fact Passing over what may be considered as trifling
variations, we find, that in more than half of them, as re
peated, there is a striking want of correspondence, either in
the words themselves, or in their connection with other
words quoted. Nothing can be said which will tend either
to illustrate or to set aside the inference from this fact. The
conclusion, that Justin did not quote the "Memoirs" used
by him with verbal accuracy, is irresistible ; and it is truly
an extraordinary phenomenon, that an hypothesis should
have been built upon the opposite supposition.
It would have been strange, if Justin, in composing such
works as he did, had regarded verbal accuracy in quoting
the Gospels. He wrote for unbelieving Gentiles and Jews,
men ignorant of what Christianity really was. It was his
purpose to give a general view of its history and character.
In pursuing this purpose, while using the Gospels as his
main authority, he intermixes with his statements quotations
from them, sometimes partly in the words of the original,
and partly in his own. He blends together passages taken
from different places in the same Gospel, or from different
evangelists. He quotes the Gospels from memory, as, with
the exceptions before mentioned, he does the Septuagint.
In thus quoting the Septuagint, he has committed remarkable
124 EVIDENCES OF THE
mistakes ; but he might well feel assured, that, in reporting
the teachings or the history of our Lord, his memory wouL
not so fail as to cause him to give a false representation of
them. It would have been, not a degree of accuracy tha
we might reckon upon, but it would have been superstitious
precision, if, in addressing a Roman emperor or unbelieving
Jews, he had thought it necessary to transcribe the exact
words of any one of the Gospels in the exact order in which
they stand, especially while he found the same facts and
the same sayings presented by different evangelists in differ
ent words. In works of such a character as those of Justin,
composed at so early a period in the history of Christianity,
his mode of quotation was such as might reasonably be
expected.
In not mentioning the Gospels by the titles in use among
Christians, and in not appealing to the evangelists by name,
Justin pursued a course similar to that which was adopted by
a long series of Christian Apologists from his time to that of
Constantine. In other words, it was the course pursued
by the fathers generally in their works addressed to unbe
lievers, by Justin s disciple, Tatian, who, though he formed
a history of Christ out of the four Gospels, does not make
mention of them, nor of the evangelists, in his Oration to
the Gentiles; by Athenagoras, who is equally silent about
them in his Apology, addressed, in the last quarter of the
second century, to Marcus Aurelius; by Theophilus, who
conforms to the common usage of the writers with whom he
is to be classed, except that, as before mentioned,* he once
speaks of " the Gospels," and uses once the name " Gospel,"
and once the term " Evangelic Voice," in citing the Gos
pels, and once quotes the evangelist John by name ; by Ter-
tullian, who quotes the Gospels elsewhere so abundantly, but
* S?e before, pp. 74, 75.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 125
from whose Apology, or from whose work " To the Nations,"
no information (supposing those works to stand alone) could
be gleaned concerning them ; by Minutius Felix, whose
single remaining book a spirited and interesting defence of
Christianity and attack on heathenism, in the form of a
dialogue affords, likewise, no evidence that the Gospels
were in existence; by Cyprian, the well-known bishop of
Carthage about the middle of the third century, who in his
defence of Christianity, addressed to Demetrian, a heathen,
does not name the Gospels nor the evangelists ; and, to come
down to the beginning of the fourth century, by Arnobius,
who, in his long work " Against the Gentiles," does not cite
any book of Scripture ; and by Lactantius, who, in his
v - Divine Institutes," does not speak of the Gospels, nor
quote by name any one of the evangelists, except John, and
mentions him only in a single passage.*
Cyprian, in his work addressed to Demetrian, has quota
tions from Scripture, and, among them, three from the Gos
pels, though the Gospels are not expressly named by him.
On this, Lactantius remarks, that Cyprian has not treated
the subject as he ought ; for Demetrian " was not to be
confuted by authorities from that Scripture which he re
garded as false and fabricated, but by arguments and rea
son."t
Such, as we have seen, was the course generally adopted
by the fathers, in their works addressed to unbelievers.
But, among all who have been mentioned, Justin is remark
ably distinguished by the abundance of his quotations from
the Gospels, and by the explicitness with which he has
described their character.
III. We proceed to the last objection. It is, that Justin
has passages, apparently or professedly taken from the his-
* Institut., lib. iv. 8. f Ibid., lib. v. 4.
126 EVIDENCES OF THE
tory or histories of Christ used by him, which are not found
in the Gospels.
In respect to these passages, it is first to be observed, that
with only one exception,* which presents no considerable
difficulty, they are not professedly taken by Justin from the
Memoirs used by him, or from any other book. That they
are not found in the Gospels can therefore afford no proof
that Justin did not elsewhere quote the Gospels. It must
be remembered, that he lived near the times of the apostles ;
and that there would be nothing strange in his having learnt,
by oral tradition, or from some writing or writings then
extant, but since lost, a few facts respecting our Saviour, not
recorded by the evangelists. From either source, accord
ingly, we may suppose him to have derived one or two
circumstances which he mentions. In other passages, he
has probably done nothing more than express, in different
terms, his conception of the meaning of the evangelists ;
sometimes dilating it a little, and blending with it his own
inferences. The following are the only passages of sufficient
curiosity or importance to require particular remark.
1. Justin says, that the Jews who witnessed the miracles
performed by Jesus "said that they were a magical delu
sion ; and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of
the people." f
Justin has here only stated, in different language, facts
recorded by the evangelists, who relate that the enemies of
Christ said, that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, and that
he deceived the people. Lactantius expresses himself in the
game manner as Justin. " He performed wonderful things,"
says that writer ; " we might have thought him a magician,
as you now think him, and as the Jews then thought him,
if all the prophets, inspired by the same spirit, had not pre-
* See No. 4, following. f Dial- cum Tiyph., p. 288.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 127
dieted that the Messiah would perform those very things."*
It was a common pretence of the enemies of Christianity,
that our Lord performed his miracles by magic.
2. Justin says, that " Christ, being regarded as a worker
in wood, did make, while among men, ploughs and yokes;
thus setting before them symbols of righteousness, and teach
ing an active life."f
It may be doubted, whether Justin was acquainted with
any narrative to this effect. In the Gospel of Mark, the
Nazarenes, according to the Common Version, are repre
sented as asking concerning Jesus, " Is not this the carpen
ter ? " J The word rendered " carpenter," Justin, it appears,
understood as denoting a worker in wood, which is not
improbably its meaning in this passage. He may therefore
have mentioned the particular implements which he does,
because he regarded their fabrication as part of the proper
business of a worker in wood.
3. Justin says, that " when Christ was born at Bethlehem,
as Joseph could find no room in any inn in that village, he
lodged in a certain cave, near the village; and, while they
were there, Mary brought forth the Messiah, and laid him in
a stall."
There was a prevailing tradition, that our Lord was born
in a cave, which is found in many of the fathers besides Jus
tin. At the present day, in the East, caves, it is said, are
Bometimes used for stables. Origen states, that, " conforma
bly to the account in the Gospel-history of the birth of
Christ, there is shown the cave in Bethlehem, in which he
was born ; and, in the cave, the stall where he was swathed :
and the place which is shown is famous in that neighbor-
Institut., lib. v. 3. f Dial- cum Tiyph., p. 333.
Mark vi. 3 Dial, cum Tryph., p. 306. Comp. Luke ii. 7
128 EVIDENCES OF THE
hood, even among those who are aliens from the faith, on
the ground that in this cave was born that Jesus whom
Christians revere and venerate."* The alleged cave of the
Nativity is still shown at Bethlehem.
4. Justin twice t gives the words, Thou art my Son, this
day have I begotten thee, as those uttered at our Saviour s
baptism ; and, in one place, says expressly that the words
were found in the Memoirs by the Apostles.
The words alleged by Justin are not in the Gospels ; but
they are given, as uttered at the baptism of our Saviour, by
several other ancient writers, whose acquaintance with, and
constant use of, the Gospels is well known. They are found
in Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Hilary, Lactantius,
and Juvencus. Augustin states that these words were the
reading of some manuscripts, though not, it was said, of
the most ancient Greek copies, upon Luke iii. 22 ; and they
are still found there in the Cambridge manuscript, and in
several Latin manuscripts.^:
This, then, is nothing more than an error common to Jus
tin, with many others. It seems to have had its origin in a
confusion of memory ; the words in question being applied to
our Saviour repeatedly in the New Testament.
5. The next passage, likewise, relates to the baptism of our
Saviour. Justin says, " When Jesus came to the river Jor
dan, where John was baptizing, upon his entering the water,
a fire was kindled in the Jordan ; and the apostles of this
same person, our Messiah, have written, that, when he came
out of the water, the Holy Spirit, like a dove, alighted upon
him." ||
* Cont. Gels., lib. i. 51 ; Opp. i. 367.
t Dial, cum Tryph., p. 333 et p. 361.
J See Thirlby s note, p. 333; and Griesbach s Nov. Test., Luke iii. 22.
Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5; y. 6. || Dial, cum Trypk., p. 331.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 129
Justin says, that, as Jesus entered the water, a fire was
kindled in the Jordan. Of this story, beside the mention of
it by him, traces are elsewhere extant.* His mention of it
is incidental. In what precedes the passage quoted, he is
explaining at length what he supposes to be meant by " the
Spirit of God resting upon Jesus." In relation to this sub
ject, he quotes the account of the descent of the Holy Spirit
upon Jesus at his baptism, and alleges for this fact the testi
mony of the apostles. But he does not bring into his argu
ment the appearance of lire in the Jordan ; nor, according to
the grammatical construction of his words, does he say that
this appearance was related by the apostles.
But it has been contended, that his whole account of the
baptism of our Lord is so closely connected, that he must be
understood as giving for the whole the authority of the apos
tles, and therefore that he quoted the whole from his Me
moirs by the Apostles. This seems to be forcing a construction
on his words, for the sake of creating a difficulty or an argu
ment. But, should it be admitted that Justin is to be thus
understood, we might conclude, either that the story of the
fire in the Jordan had been interpolated in the copy of
the Gospels which he used, as a similar story has been
interpolated in two manuscripts, now extant, of old Latin
versions;! or, what may seem more probable, that Justin,
who often wrote carelessly, adduced the authority of the
apostles for the whole of his account, while in fact it applied
only to the essential part of it, and not to the circumstance
which he had incidentally mentioned. As I have before
observed, he twice refers to the Pentateuch for supposed
facts not to be found in it.
6. The following is the only remaining passage : " Accord-
* See Thirlby s note, p. 331 ; and Maran s note, p. 185 of his edition of
Justin. Also Grabe s Spicilegium, i. 69.
1 See Griesbach s N. T., Matt. iii. 15.
130 ETIDENCES OF THE
ingly," Justin remarks, " our Lord Jesus Christ said, In what
ever actions I apprehend you, by those I will judge you. " *
These words are found, with some variety of form, in many
ancient Christian writers ; but Justin is the only one who
appears to ascribe them to Christ.f His error, for I doubt
not it is an error, may have arisen from a failure of memory
similar to that through which he has elsewhere ascribed to
one prophet the words of another ; or, perhaps, he may have
been acquainted with some tradition or writing which as
cribed the saying in question to our Saviour.
There are a few sayings attributed to Jesus in the writings
of the fathers, which are not recorded in the Gospels. Thus,
for example, Irenaeus quotes, $ without distrust, from Papias
a pretended discourse of our Lord relating to the millennium,
resembling the extravagant fables of the Jewish rabbis found
in the Talmud. He is represented as predicting, that there
would be at that time an enormous increase in the size and
productiveness of plants, particularly of the vine and of wheat,
and as describing the clusters of grapes as about to be indued
with a human voice. The story deserves particular attention,
as serving to show what sort of materials might have gone to
the composition of the Gospels, if their composition had been
delayed till the times of Irenasus and Justin Martyr.
Origen speaks of " the precept of Jesus," Be good money
changers ; that is, learn to distinguish well between what is
true and what is false, as skilful money-changers distinguish
readily good money from bad. There is no intrinsic improba
bility that these words were uttered by Jesus. Origen often
quotes or alludes to them. So also does Clement of Alex
andria, who cites them as words of Scripture ; || and they are
* Dial, cum Tryph., p. 232.
t Fabricii Cod. Apoc. N. T., torn. i. p. 333 ; ed. 2da.
t Cont. Ilseres., lib. v. c. 23, 3, 4, p. 333.
Comment, in Joan., torn. xix. 2; Opp. iv. 289, where see Huet s note.
y StrOmat., lib. i. 28, p. 425. See Potter s note.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 131
found in many other ancient writers, though the greater num
ber do not expressly refer them to Christ*
Clement represents our Lord as saying, "Ask great things,
ard what are small shall be given you in addition." t Origen
quotes these words without expressly ascribing them to Chrisi,
but appearing to give them as his, and adds the following :
" Ask heavenly things, and what are earthly shall be given
you in addition ; " $ and, in another place, he states that Jesus
said, " For the sake of the weak, I was weak ; for the sake of
the hungry, I hungered; and, for the sake of the thirsty, [
thirsted."
We know how familiarly acquainted Ireneeus, Clement, and
Origen were with the Gospels, and in what high respect they
held them. The fact, therefore, that Justin quotes a supposed
saying of our Lord not found in the Gospels, or that he men
tions some unimportant incidents not recorded in them, affords
no proof that he was not equally well acquainted with the
Gospels, and did not hold them in like respect.
The examination of the passages from Justin, which we
have gone over, is of much more interest than may appear
at first sight. He carries us back to the age which followed
that of the apostles. His writings have been searched for
the purpose of finding some notices of Christ, or some inti
mations relating to him, different from the accounts of the
evangelists. But nothing that can be regarded as of any
importance has been discovered. On the contrary, he gives
a great part of the history of Christ in perfect harmony with
what is found in the Gospels, sometimes agreeing in words,
and always in meaning. It is remarkable, that, ip so early a
writer as Justin, there is so little matter additional to what ia
* Fabricii Cod. Apoc. N. T., torn. i. pp. 330, 331.
t Stroinat, lib. i. 24, p. 416. Comp. lib. iv. 6, p. 67?.
J De Orat, 2 et 14; Opp. i. 197 et 219.
Comment in Matt., torn. xiii. 2; Opp. iii. 573.
132 EVIDENCES OF THE
contained iii the Gospels ; so little which one can suppose to
be derived from any other source. That we find what we do,
presents no marvel nor difficulty. The phenomenon to be
accounted for is, that we find no more ; and of this phenome
non the only satisfactory explanation is, that the Gospels had
come down from the apostolic age with such a weight of
authority, there was such an entire reliance on their credi
bility, that it was generally felt to be unwise and unsafe to
blend any uncertain accounts with the history contained in
them. Such accounts, therefore, were neglected and for
gotten. The Gospels extinguished all feebler lights.
In what precedes, we have examined the objections to the
conclusion that Justin quoted the Gospels. We will now
attend to the arguments in proof of this fact.
I. In other cases, where we find such an agreement of
thoughts and words as exists between the passages quoted
by Justin and passages of the Gospels, particularly of Mat
thew and Luke, no doubt is entertained that the volume thus
furnishing a counterpart to certain citations was the work
cited/* The presumption arising from this agreement is to
be overborne only by the strongest objections, founded on
some striking peculiarity in the case. Nothing, however, has
been opposed to it but the conjecture, that there may have
been some work extant in the time of Justin, as nearly allied
in character to the first three Gospels as any one of these is
to either of the others ; and that Justin quoted this work, and
not the Gospels.
But, in regard to any book which Justin may be conjectured
* The coincidence is particularly striking in several citations from the
01 1 Testament, common to St. Matthew and Justin, in which the latter writer
appears to have followed, wholly or in part, the Greek Gospel of the former;
though the passages, as they stand in that Gospel, agree neither with the
Septuagint nor the Hebi-ew.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 133
to have quoted, it must answer to the following conditions :
It must have been one which he and other Christians believed,
or professed to believe, " written by apostles and companions
of apostles ; " it must have been of the highest authority
among Christians, a sacred book, read in their churches ;
it must have been the work to be appealed to as containing
those facts, doctrines, and precepts on which they formed
their lives ; and it must, immediately after he wrote, have
fallen into entire neglect and oblivion ; for no mention of it,
or allusion to it, as quoted by him, is discoverable in any
writer who succeeded him. But it is impossible to believe
all these propositions to be true of any book.
The supposition of some one book, different from the Gos
pels, has been resorted to by those who have maintained that
Justin did not quote the Gospels ; though they have not
agreed among themselves in their conjectures as to what this
book might be. But this supposition is irreconcilable with
the language of Justin, which implies that he quoted a num
ber of books, as I shall remark more particularly hereafter.
Should it, in consequence, be maintained that he used a num
ber of books different from the Gospels, the objections just
urged would apply with even greater force, if possible, to
this supposition than to that of a single book. No plausible
hypothesis, therefore, can be framed to detract from the evi
dence afforded by the correspondence of Justin s quotations
with the contents of the Gospels.
These quotations principally correspond to passages in the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But if Justin, and the Chris
tians contemporary with him, received those Gospels as works
of the highest authority, we may confidently infer that they
received the other two Gospels as bearing the same character.
Had they not done so, it is impossible that the Gospels of
Mark and John should have been so regarded by their younger
contemporaries, the Christians of the time of Irenseus. We
have before attended to the consider ttions which show, that
134 EVIDENCES OF THE
such an event could not have occurred ; that if the authority
of two, or of one, of the Gospels were established in the Chris
tian community, this would present a decisive obstacle to the
reception of any other, which had not always been regarded
as having like authority.*
In respect to the use made by Justin of the Gospels of
Mark and John, it may be observed, that Mark records but
few discourses of our Saviour, and has very little which is
not common to him with Matthew or Luke, except some
additional circumstances in the relation of particular facts,
not of a character to be noticed in giving a general view of
the history and doctrines of Christianity. His language,
likewise, when different, being commonly inferior to that of
Matthew and Luke, Justin would naturally prefer their ex
pressions. But, as we have seen,t he has mentioned two
facts recorded only by Mark, and that with an almost explicit
reference to his particular Gospel.
From John s Gospel, Justin derived his doctrine of the
incarnation of the Logos in Christ, a doctrine which must
have been founded on the first verses of that Gospel. The
conception of the Logos, indeed, was familiar before the time
when either Justin or St. John wrote ; but the doctrine of the
incarnation of the Logos in Christ must have rested wholly
on the passage referred to. Accordingly, Justin speaks in
language similar to that of St. John, of " the Logos having
been made flesh." $ He has likewise other conceptions and
turns of expression apparently derived from John s Gospel.
He represents John the Baptist as having said, " I am not
the Christ." He justifies Christians for not keeping the
Jewish sabbath, "because God has carried on the same ad
ministration of the universe during that day as during all
* See before, pp. 102-107. t See before, p. 118.
J Apolog. Prim., p. 62. John i. 14.
Dial, cum Tryph., p. 332. John i. 20 ; iii. 28.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 135
others ; " * a thought so remarkable, that there can be little
doubt, that he borrowed it from what was said by our Saviour,
when the Jews were enraged at his having performed a
miracle on the sabbath: "My Father has been working
hitherto, as I am working." | And, in the last place, he
Btates, that " Christ said, Unless ye be born again, ye can
not enter the kingdom of heaven ; " adding, with allusion to
the words of Nicodemus, that " it is evidently impossible for
those once born to enter into their mother s womb." $
II. That Justin made use of the Gospels, appears from the
fact that there is no intimation to the contrary in the whole
numerous succession of subsequent Christian fathers. We
have the evidence of Eusebius in the fourth century, and of
Photius in the ninth, that his works were well known, and
held in high esteem. They are referred to with respect by
several of the principal fathers. But his quotations excited
no attention, as presenting any unexpected appearance, or as
a matter of any difficulty or curiosity. If he had quoted
histories of Christ different from the Gospels, it is incredible
that the fact should have escaped the knowledge of all ancient
writers after his time ; or that, being known, it should not
have been adverted to.
in. The description given by Justin of the books which
he used shows that those books were the Gospels. He
appeals to several books. He speaks, not of one, but of
several authors. " Those," he says, " who have written me
moirs concerning every thing relating to our Saviour Jesus
Christ, whom we believe ; " " Memoirs, which I affirm to
be composed by the apostles of Christ, and their com
panions ; " 4 * Memoirs composed by the apostles, which are
* Dial, cum Tiyph., pp. 194, 195. t John v. 17.
$ Apolog. Prim., p. 89. John iii. 3, 4.
136 EVIDENCES OF THE
called Gospels."* These passages, taken in connection, ap
pear, without any other evidence, to be decisive of the point
in question. It is hardly to be contended, that books extant
in the time of Justin, which were called Gospels, and which
were written, or were supposed to be written, by apostles of
Christ and their companions, could be any other than our
present Gospels.f
IV. The manner in which Justin speaks of the character
and authority of the books to which he appeals, of their
reception among Christians, and of the use which was made
of them, proves these books to have been the Gospels. They
carried with them the authority of the apostles. They
were those writings from which he and other Christians
derived their knowledge of the history and doctrines of
Christ. They were relied upon by him as primary and
decisive evidence in his explanations of the character of
Christianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They
were read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord s day,
* See before, pp. 204, 207.
t It deserves remark, that Justin, besides saying that the books he used
were called Gospels, twice speaks of " the Gospel " in the singular, using the
article.
He represents Trypho as saying (p. 156), " I know also that your precepts
in what is called the Gospel are so wonderful and weighty, as to cause a sus
picion that no one may be able to observe them ; for I have taken the pains
to read them."
In the other passage referred to, he quotes (p. 352) Matt. xi. 27, as being
" written in the Gospel."
In both passages, the force of the article in Greek is the same as in Eng
lish. By " the Gospel " must be meant some particular, well-known book.
But it is not to be imagined, that, in the time of Justin, any history of Christ,
not one oi the four Gospels, was thus pre-eminently distinguished above them
by the title of " the Gospel," or that any one of the four Gospels was so dis
tinguished from the other three. No conclusion remains, but that Justin used
the term "the Gospel " in a sense familiar to the fathers who succeeded him,
as denoting the four Gospels collectively, and consequently the volume iu
which they were brought together.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 137
in connection with the prophets of the Old Testament. Let
us now consider the manner in which the Gospels were
regarded by the contemporaries of Justin. Irenasus was in
the vigor of life before Justin s death ; and the same was
true of very many thousands of Christians living when
Irenoeus wrote. But he tells us, that the four Gospels are
the four pillars of the Church, the foundation of Christian
faith, written by those who had first orally preached the
Gospel, by two apostles and two companions of apostles.*
It is incredible that Irenasus and Justin should have spoken
of different books. We cannot suppose, that writings, such
as the Memoirs of which Justin speaks, believed to be the
works of apostles and companions of the apostles, read in
Christian churches, and received as sacred books of the
highest authority, should, immediately after he wrote, have
fallen into neglect and oblivion, and been superseded by
another set of books. The strong sentiment of their value
could not so silently, and so unaccountably, have changed
into entire disregard, and have been transferred to other
writings. The copies of them spread over the world could
not so suddenly and so mysteriously have disappeared, that
no subsequent trace of their existence should be clearly dis
coverable. When, therefore, we find Irenasus, the contem
porary of Justin, ascribing to the four Gospels the same
character, the same authority, and the same authors, as are
ascribed by Justin to the Memoirs quoted by him, which
were called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that
the Memoirs of Justin were the Gospels of Irenaeus.
We shall next consider a portion of the evidence for the
genuineness of the Gospels, to be gathered from a still earlier
period.
* See before, p. 72, seqq.
CHAPTER III.
EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS. ST. LUKE S OWN TESTIMONY TO
THE GENUINENESS OF HIS GOSPEL.
BETWEEN the death of St. John and the time when Justin
wrote, an interval, probably, of about fifty years, there
were very few Christian writers of whose works any remains
are extant. It was a period of distress and confusion. Our
religion, left upon the death of that apostle without any
powerful and distinguished advocate, was struggling for
establishment against the opposition and persecution of the
world. A great revolution was taking place in the minds
of those who had been acted upon by the preaching of the
apostles. Their opinions, like their circumstances, were
unsettled. The separation or the union, which was after
wards effected, between ancient errors and the new doctrines
of our faith, was as yet undecided. Our religion had not
assumed among its professed followers a well-defined charac
ter ; and its sublime truths were not so fully comprehended
as when men had become more familiar with the conception
of them. It had not yet secured possession of the minds
and hearts of many converts well qualified by their literary
eminence to explain and defend it. These causes will
account for the few remains of writers from among the
catholic Christians during this period ; and for the absence
of any historical notice of the Gospels, which has come
down to our times, except that of Papias.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 139
Papias I have already had occasion to mention.* He lived,
it may be recollected, during the first quarter of the second
century ; and was acquainted, as he informs us, with many of
the disciples of the apostles. He wrote a work, now lost, but
of which some fragments are preserved by Eusebius. In this
work, as quoted by Eusebius, Papias mentions the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark. He says that he received much
information from John the Presbyter ; and gives the follow
ing account, as derived from him:
* The Presbyter said, that Mark, being the interpreter of
Peter, carefully wrote down all that he retained in memory
of the actions or discourses of Christ ; not, however, in order,
for he was not himself a hearer or follower of the Lord ; but
afterwards was, as I said, a companion of Peter, who taught in
the manner best suited to the instruction of his hearers, without
making a connected narrative of his discourses concerning the
Lord. Such being the case, Mark committed no errors in thus
writing some things from memory ; for he made it his sole object
not to omit any thing which he had heard, and not to state any
thing falsely." f
Of Matthew, Papias says, " Matthew wrote the oracles in
the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he
was able." t
It appears from these passages, that the Gospels of Mat
thew and Mark were well known before the time of Papias,
that they were attributed to those writers, and, being regarded
as authentic, were venerated as oracles.
In the commencement of the Acts of the Apostles, we
have Luke s own testimony to the genuineness of his Gospel.
The historical proof that the first-mentioned work was writ
ten by him is confirmed by other evidence, so satisfactory as
* See before, pp. 36, 37. t Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 38
J Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 39.
140 EVIDENCES OF THE
to leave no reasonable doubt on the subject.* We have,
then, Luke s own testimony that he was the author of a
history of Christ. But as no one will adopt so absurd
a supposition as that the history which he wrote has been
lost, and another substituted in its place, the work of which
he speaks must be our present Gospel.
But Luke s testimony not only establishes the genuine
ness of his Gospel : it has a further bearing. There is a
striking resemblance between his Gospel and those of Mat
thew and Mark. There are, likewise, many striking points
of resemblance between the character and situation of the
former writer and the two latter. They had similar oppor
tunities for information respecting all the common objects of
knowledge ; the influences of our faith had produced in them
similar feelings and conceptions ; they were all placed in
circumstances the most extraordinary, and peculiar to a few
individuals ; they all belonged to the small class of the first
missionaries of our religion. One of them is supposed to
have been an eye-witness of many of the facts, and a hearer
of many of the discourses, which he records ; and the other
two are believed to have derived their information from
those who, like him, were companions of our Lord. When,
therefore, we find that a work of a very remarkable charac
ter was written by Luke, and that two other works distin
guished by the same characteristics are ascribed to Matthew
and Mark, there arises a strong presumption that they have
been ascribed to their true authors. No objection can be
brought against the genuineness of the two latter histories;
stronger than those which may be adduced against the genu
ineness of the former. In one case, we find that these
objections are unfounded : we have therefore good reason to
believe that they are equally unfounded in the other.
* See before, pp. 89-91.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 141
Here, likewise, we would recur to the considerations before
presented,* which show that the proof of the genuineness
of any one of the Gospels involves the proof of the genuine
ness of all. The argument that has been brought forward,
when reduced to its simplest form, is nothing more than an
obvious truth, which may be thus stated: Supposing any
body of men to possess an account of events esteemed by
them of the greatest interest to themselves and to the world,
to know that this account was the work of an author whom
they hold in the highest respect, to believe him to have had
the most satisfactory means of information, and to regard his
work, therefore, as entitled to the fullest credit, and, still
more, to a sacred character ; and supposing them, further, to
be placed in circumstances, which alone, even without any
careful scrutiny on their part, almost exclude the possibility
of deception, these men will not receive, as likewise en
titled to the fullest credit and to a sacred character, another
account, a fraudulent work, falsely ascribed to some vener
ated name, falsely pretending to an authority to which it has
no claim, and, at the same time, in more or fewer respects,
irreconcilable with that which has been received as the truth.
The Gospel of Luke, then, came down from the apostolic
age as his work, with his own attestation to its genuineness.
This being so, the other three Gospels could not have ob
tained reception as sacred books, in common with it, if they
had not been the works of the authors to whom they were
ascribed.
Confining our view merely to the evidence presented in
this chapter, we may regard the result of it under still
another aspect. Luke testifies to the genuineness of his
own Gospel ; Papias, to that of the Gospels of Matthew and
Mark: it follows that the authority of all three was estab-
* See before, pp. 102-107.
142 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
lished in the time of Papias. Now, this was a period but
just after the death of St. John, when thousands were living
who had seen that last survivor of the apostles, many per
haps who had made a pilgrimage to Ephesus to behold his
countenance and listen to his voice, and hundreds who be
longed to the church over which he had presided in person.
It is incredible, therefore, that, before the time of Papias, a
spurious gospel should have been received as his work ; and
after the time of Papias, when the authority of the first three
Gospels was established, the attempt to introduce a gospel
falsely ascribed to St. John must have been, if possible, still
more impracticable.
Here, then, we finish the statement of the direct historical
evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels, from their re
ception by the great body of Christians.* We will hereafter
consider what may be inferred from the use made of them by
the earlier heretical sects.
* It has been customary, in treating the- subject before us, to allege the
supposed testimony of certain writings ascribed to contemporaries of the apos
tles, and called Writings of Apostolical Fathers. But nothing has, in my
opinion, contributed more to give a false and unfavorable impression of the
real nature and strength of the evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels.
On this subject, see Note C, pp. 545-569.
CHAPTER IV.
CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVI
DENCE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
SUCH, as we have seen, is the direct historical evidence of
the genuineness of the Gospels. The confirmation it receives
from the manner in which they were regarded by the earlier
heretical sects is still to be considered ; and likewise all that
proof to be derived from the Gospels themselves, which
makes it evident, that they could have been written only by
individuals bearing the character, and placed in the circum
stances, of those to whom they are ascribed. For the present,
we confine our attention to the direct historical evidence
alone.
In regard to this, the nature of the case is such, that no
evidence of the same character, or of the same weight, can
be produced for the genuineness of any other ancient work,
which was not, like them, received as an undisputed book of
the Christian Scriptures. It is the testimony of a great,
widely spread, and intelligent community to a fact about
which they had full means of information, and in which they
had the deepest interest. It is their testimony to the genu
ineness of books, the reception of which as authentic would
change the whole complexion of their lives ; and might, not
improbably, put at hazard life itself, or all that they had
before considered as rendering life desirable. It is the testi-
144 EVIDENCES OP THE
mony of Gentiles to their belief of the genuineness and truth
of books derived from Jews, books regarded with strong
dislike by a great majority of that nation ; three of which
were not in common use among those few Jews who, like
them, were disciples of Christ; and all of which were so
stamped throughout with a Jewish character, as to be likely,
at first view, strongly to offend their prejudices and tastes.
But the peculiar nature and value of this testimony may
be laid out of consideration. The fact alone, that the four
Gospels were all received as genuine books, entitled to the
highest credit, by the whole community of catholic Christians
dispersed throughout the world, admits of no explanation,
except that they had always been so regarded. We have
begun by reasoning from their reception during the last
quarter of the second century; and their reception at that
time affords, as we have seen, decisive proof of the estimation
in which they must have been held during the whole pre
ceding interval from their first appearance. But, though we
may entitle this proof decisive, yet, like all other probable
reasoning, it admits of confirmation ; and we have seen the
confirmation afforded by the evidence of Justin Martyr, who
gives direct proof, that the authority of the Gospels was
established among Christians before the middle of the second
century. I say, before the middle of the second century ;
for, though this was the precise time when he wrote his first
Apology, yet his testimony must be considered as relating to
a state of things with which he had been previously con
versant. We have next remarked the express and particular
testimony of Papias to the genuineness of two of the Gospels,
and to the estimation in which they were held by Christians.
Then, tracing the stream of evidence back to its very source,
we have seen Luke s own attestation to the genuineness of
his Gospel. And in connection with this, and with the
testimony of Papias, we have attended to the fact, that the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 145
acknowledged genuineness of any one of the Gospels must
have presented an insuperable barrier to the reception of any
spurious gospel as a work of like authority. The testimony
to the genuineness of any one of the Gospels is virtually a
testimony to the genuineness of all ; and the testimony to
their genuineness is a testimony to their reception by all
catholic Christians wherever they had become known.
But, in regard to our present argument, it is unimportant
what period an objector may fix upon for the general recep
tion of the Gospels as genuine. The later the period as
signed for this event, the more obviously incredible does it
become that it should have taken place, on the supposition
that the Gospels were not received from the beginning in the
character which they afterwards bore. The longer the Chris
tian community had existed without a knowledge of the
Gospels, or without a belief in their genuineness, the more
difficult must it have been to produce this belief, and to
cause them to be recognized as books of the highest value
and authority. Let us suppose that they were not so
regarded till the last quarter of the second century. Their
general recognition at that period becomes a most remarka
ble phenomenon. Some very effective cause or causes must
be assigned for it, sufficient to explain how four spurious
books, not before known, or known only to be rejected,
should suddenly have obtained universal acceptance through
out the Christian world, as containing the truths fundamental
to a Christian s belief. No trace of any causes capable of
producing this result can be discovered or imagined. In the
nature of things, it is impossible that such causes should
have existed. The Christians of that age professed to re
ceive the Gospels as genuine and authentic, on the ground
that they had always been so regarded. The truth of this
fact is the only explanation which can be given of the uni
versal respect in which they were then held.
10
146 EVIDENCES OF THE
It appears, therefore, that the evidence of the genuineness
of the Gospels is of a very different character from what we
are able to produce for the genuineness of any ancient classi
cal work. Very few readers, I presume, could at once recol
lect and state the grounds on which we believe the Epistles
to Atticus to have been written by Cicero, or the History of
the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. But should any
writer undertake to impugn the genuineness of these, or of
many other ancient works that might be named, in the man
ner in which attempts have been made to weaken the histori
cal argument for the genuineness of the Gospels, he would
hardly succeed even in gaining a discreditable notoriety.
But there are objections derived from the Gospels them
selves, which are relied upon as doing away the whole force
of the historical argument. It is urged, that the contents of
one Gospel are irreconcilable with those of another, and
therefore that the Gospels could not be the works of well-
informed narrators. By the opponents of Christianity, the
errors of theologians are commonly confounded with the truths
of our religion ; and, so far as the objection just mentioned
rests on any tenable grounds, it bears, not against the authen
ticity and genuineness of the Gospels, but against the doctrine
that they were written by miraculous inspiration. It would
be an extraordinary fact, if these books presented on their
face decisive objections to their own credibility, which had
been overlooked for eighteen centuries by intelligent Chris
tians engaged in their study. To any one, indeed, who is
capable of a just apprehension of the proof of the genuineness
of the Gospels, afforded by their intrinsic character, nothing
can appear more idle than such an attempt to prove, from
their contents, that they could not have been written by the
authors to whom they are ascribed.
But there is another objection drawn from the essential
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 147
character of the Gospels, which is, in fact, the root, and
furnishes the sap and strength, of all others which have been
urged against them. They contain the history of a miracu
lous dispensation ; and a miracle, it is asserted, is impossible.
This objection, if it can be maintained, is final, not merely
in regard to the truth of the Gospels, and the truth of Chris
tianity, but in regard to the truth of all religion.
The assertion, that a miracle is impossible, and, conse
quently, that such a miraculous intervention of the Deity as
Christianity supposes is impossible, must rest for support
solely on the doctrine, that there is no God, but that the
universe has been formed and is controlled by physical pow
ers essential to its elementary principles, which, always
remaining the same, must always produce their effects uni
formly, according to their necessary laws of action. This
being so, a miracle, which would be a change in these neces
sary laws, is of course impossible.
But when we refer the powers operating throughout the
universe to one Being, as the source of all power, and ascribe
to this Being intelligence, design, and benevolence, that is,
when we recognize the truth that there is a God, it becomes
the extravagance of presumptuous folly to pretend, that we
may be assured, that this Being can or will act in no other
way than according to what we call the laws of nature ; that
he has no ability, or can have no purpose, to manifest him
self to his creatures by any display of his power and goodness
which they have not before witnessed, or do not ordinarily
witness.
The assertion, therefore, that a miracle is impossible, can
be maintained by no coherent reasoning, which does not
assume, for its basis, that all religion is false ; that its fun
damental doctrine, that there is a God, is untrue. The con
troversy respecting it is not between Christianity and atheism :
it is between religion, in any form in which it may appear,
and atheism.
148 EVIDENCES OF THE
One may, indeed, give the name of God to the physical
powers operating throughout the universe, considered col
lectively, or to some abstraction, as the moral law of the
universe, for example, or to some conception still more un
substantial and unintelligible, and thus contend that he does
not deny the existence of God. But there is only one view
which an honest man can take of the deception which in this
and other similar cases has been attempted through a gross
abuse of words, by which their true meaning is razed out, and
a false meaning forced upon them. In contending with irre-
ligion, we have a right to demand that we shall not be mocked
with the language of religion.
But the fact has been overlooked, that, supposing the propo
sition to be admitted, that a miraculous intervention of the
Deity is impossible, it would have no bearing on our imme
diate subject. No inference could be drawn from it to show,
that the Gospels were not written by those to whom they are
ascribed.
The first disciples of our Lord, the first preachers of his
religion, whether their account was true or false, taught that
he was a messenger from God, whose authority was continu
ally attested by displays of divine power, superseding the
common laws of nature. They represented Christianity only
under the character of a dispensation wholly miraculous. It
has come down to us bearing this character from the first
accounts we have of its annunciation, from the time when
St. Paul wrote those Epistles, the genuineness of which can
not be questioned. The fact that Christianity is a miraculous
dispensation was the basis of his whole teaching, and equally
of the teaching of the other apostles. It cannot be pretended,
that any indication is to be found of its having been presented
to men under another character. The effects which followed
its preaching- are such as could have resulted only from such
a conception of it. The hypothesis, therefore, for such an
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 149
hypothesis has actually been put forward,* that this was
not the original character of Christianity ; that its first preach
ers did not announce it as a miraculous dispensation, but that
some time during the lives of the apostles, or immediately
after, it assumed this character, can be regarded only as
one of the most extraordinary of those exhibitions of- human
folly which have lately been given to the world as specula
tions concerning our religion. There is no doubt, that the
apostles and their companions represented Christ as a mes
senger from God, whose divine authority was attested through
out his ministry by miracles. It can therefore be no objection
to the genuineness of the Gospels, that such is the representa
tion to be found in them. Whether true or false, it is the only
representation that was to be expected in histories of Jesus
given by apostles and their companions.
The Gospels, then, contain that view of Christianity which
was presented by its first preachers. We have in these books
that solemn attestation which was borne by them, and was
confirmed by circumstances that exclude all doubt of its truth,
to facts in the ministry and character of Christ which evince
his divine mission.
In regard to men s belief in Christianity, and their appre
hension of its character, the present is an age of transition.
We are leaving behind us the errors and superstitions of
former days, with all their deplorable consequences, the
domination of a priesthood, tyranny over reason, persecution,
false conceptions of morality by which its sanctions were
often wholly perverted, and that disgust toward Christianity
which the deformed image bearing its name, and set up for
idol- worship, was so fitted to produce. But through a revul
sion of feeling, occasioned by this state of things, many of the
* By Strauss, in his Leben Jesu (Life of Jesus
150 EVIDENCES OF THE
clergy, particularly in England, one is reluctant to say
many priests, though this is a title which they readily assume,
have turned about, and are travelling back into the dark
region of implicit faith, Jesuitical morality, and religious for
malities, absurdities, and crimes. On the other hand, there is
a multitude of speculatists, who, in the abandonment of re
ligious error, have abandoned religion itself, and whose only
substitute for it, if they have any, is an unsubstantial spectre
which they have decorated with its titles. Meanwhile, very
many enlightened men, who have been repelled from the
study of Christianity by the imbecility or folly of those who
have assumed to be its privileged expositors and defenders,
regard it, at best, only with a certain degree of respect, as
being, perhaps, a noble system, if properly understood, and
one the belief of which, even under the forms that it has
been made to assume, is, at all events, useful to the commu
nity. Magnified quidem res et salutaris, si modo est ulla.
In order that we may pass from this state of things to a
better, it is necessary that the intellect of men should be
awakened, and brought to exercise itself on the most impor
tant subject that can be presented to its examination. The
result would be a rational and firm faith in Christianity, with
all the consequences that must flow from such a faith. The
convictions which rest on reason are of very different efficacy
from the impressions produced through prejudice, imagina
tion, or passion. The latter may lead to great evil : the former
can produce only good. There is a sense of reality attending
the convictions of reason, which makes it impossible that they
should not penetrate into the character. Let any one, in the
best exercise of his understanding, be persuaded that the his
tory of Jesus Christ is true ; that the miracle of his mission
from God, which belongs to the order of events lying beyond
the sphere of this world, and concerning the whole of man s
existence, is as real as those facts which take place in this
world, conformably to the narrow circle of its laws with which
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
151
we are familiar, and he has become intellectually, and can
hardly fail to become morally, a new being. In recognizing
that fact, he recognizes his relation to God, or rather, if I
may so speak, God s relation to him. Life assumes another
character. It is not a short period of existence in which we
are to confine our views and desires to what may be attained
within its limits. It is a state of preparation for a life to
come, which will continue into an infinity where the eye of
the mind is wholly incapable of following its course. Viewed
in the broad light which thus pours in upon us, their false
coloring disappears from the objects of passion ; and we per
ceive that there is nothing permanently good, but what
tends to the moral and intellectual progress of the soul, and
nothing to be dreaded as essentially evil, but what tends
to impede it
PART III.
ON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS
AFFORDED BY THE EARLY HERETICS.
PAKT in.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. THE EBIONITES. THEIR USE
OP THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ONLY. INFERENCES FROM
THEIR NOT USING THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS.
WE now come to a subject, concerning which important errors
have been committed, and which requires a more thorough
examination than it has hitherto received. It is the manner
in which the Gospels were regarded by the heretics of the
first two centuries, particularly by the Gnostics.
Beside the great body of Christians, the Catholic Chris
tians, as they may be denominated, conformably to the ancient
use of the term, who were united, notwithstanding many
diversities of opinion, in the general reception of a common
system of faith, there were, at an early period, various sects
called Heresies. The generality of the Heretics of the first
two centuries may be divided into two principal classes, the
Ebionites and the Gnostics ; and these two classes alone are
of importance as furnishing evidence in regard to the genuine-
oess of the Gospels.
Ol the EBIONITES, the heretical Jewish Christians, I shall
state in sect. ii. of Note A,* nearly all that may be said con-
* pp. 425-430.
156 EVIDENCES OF THE
cerning them in relation to the present subject. They were
a sect that attracted but little notice from the earlier fathers ;
whose accounts of them, however, are explicit and consistent.
The discussions concerning them, in modern times, have been
founded principally on the confused, contradictory, and obvi
ously very inaccurate statements of Epiphanius, in the latter
part of the fourth century. But all the ancient accounts of
them agree, in affirming, that they used the Gospel of
Matthew in its original language, with a text more or less
pure. This would not have been said of them, had they
not said it of themselves. They comprehended, as appears,
the generality of Jewish Christians, and were the successors
and representatives of those early converts in Judea, who
were all " zealous for the law," and regarded with dislike
or distrust the preaching of St. Paul.* There seems to have
been but little intermixture among them of those Jews, the
Hellenists, to whom, as living in foreign countries, the Greek
language was often more familiar than that of their own
nation. Thus, using the Gospel of Matthew, which was
written in their native language, and, as there seems no
doubt, with particular reference to Jewish Christians, they
neglected the other Gospels. Their testimony, in receiving
the Gospel of Matthew as his work, is blended with that of
the common mass of Christians. Nor is it important to urge
it any further ; but it may be worth while, here as elsewhere,
to keep in mind those considerations, formerly presented,!
which show that the direct proof of the genuineness of any
one of the Gospels is an indirect proof of the genuineness
of all.
But there is another aspect in which this subject is tc be
viewed. The fact, that the Jewish Christians generally did
not usa the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, is to be con-
* Acts xxi. 20, 21. f pp. 102-107, 141.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 157
sidered in connection with the fact of the reception of those
Gospels by the whole body of Gentile Christians. We have
already taken notice of some of the inferences resulting from
this consideration.* But the subject well deserves further
consideration.
Christianity had its origin among the Jews. From theix
it was communicated to the Gentiles, between whom and tho
Jews there had been previously a wide separation. This
separation continued between the Jewish Christians gene
rally and the Gentile Christians. With the exception of
the Gospel of Matthew, the former did not use the Gospels
received by the latter. It was not, therefore, from the main
body of Jewish converts that the Gentile Christians received
the books, or, to say the least, three of the books, which
obtained universal reception among them, as genuine and
authentic histories of Jesus. But these books did not have
their origin among the Gentile Christians. They are evi
dently the works of Jewish writers.
From whom, then, and when, did the Gentile Christians
receive them ? There were preachers of the Gospel to the
Gentiles, like St. Paul and his associates ; like Barnabas,
the early friend of St. Paul ; like Peter, who defended their
cause before the assembled Church at Jerusalem; like the com
panion of his travels, the evangelist Mark ; and like John, who
spent the latter part of his life among them, men enlight
ened by the spirit of God, who, in the first age of Christianity,
communicated its great truths to the Gentiles, and called upon
them to embrace it, teaching them that God had made no
difference between them and the Jews as to a participation of
its blessings. These early missionaries sent by God broke
through the inveterate prejudices of their nation ; they made
an opening in the "partition-wall" which separated Gentiles
from Jews ; and from them, together with the religion itself,
* See p. 107, seqq. ; p. 50, seqq.
158 EVIDENCES OF THE
must the Gospel have been received by the Gentile Chris
tians.
The prejudices which had been broken through by the
apostles and their associates quickly closed round the remain
ing body of Jewish Christians, who were very soon regarded
as an heretical sect, under the name of Ebionites. After the
apostolic age, there were no missionaries from their numbei
for the conversion of the Gentile world.
St. John is supposed to have been the last survivor of that
noble company of the first preachers of Christ to the heathen
world, through whom we who are not Jews by descent have
received the blessings of our religion. Before his death, the
Jewish nation had been trampled to the earth. But the Gos
pels are unquestionably the work of Jewish authors. This
being the state of the case, it is a supposition utterly in
credible, that, after the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70),
three writers should have risen up among the Jews, not apos
tles nor associates of apostles, but free from the narrow spirit
of their nation, and zealous for the conversion of the Gen
tiles, who, to effect this object, composed three spurious Gos
pels under the names of Mark, Luke, and John. But the
improbability does not stop here ; for it must further be sup
posed, that these three anonymous Jews put forward their
Gospels, not only some time after the death of St. John, as
well as of the other two pretended authors, but some time
after the death of those who had known them familiarly ; and,
still more, that those Jews, though they could not procure
reception or countenance for their works among their own
countrymen, succeeded effectually in deluding the whole body
of Gentile Christians throughout the world, though it .must
have been at a pretty late period that they undertook to
accomplish this object.
Such, however, are the suppositions that must be resorted to,
if it be denied that the Gospels were written by the authors
to whom they are ascribed, and passed with the religion itself to
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 159
the first converts from heathenism, sanctioned and certified
by its earliest missionaries. The undisputed facts relating to
the history of the Gospels, especially the fact that three of
them were not used by the main body of Jewish Christians,
make it evident that those books were received by the Gen
tile world through the channel of the first preachers of
Christianity ; that they were received from apostles and thei.
associates.
CHAPTER 11.
GENERAL ACCOUNT OP THE GNOSTICS. STATE OF OPINION
AMONG THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIANS DURING THE
SECOND CENTURY.
WE here take leave of the Ebionites, and enter on a much
more extensive and difficult subject. Our attention will now
be confined to the GNOSTICS.
The Greek word rendered Gnostic denoted, in its primary
meaning, an enlightened man ; and is commonly used by
Clement of Alexandria to signify an enlightened Christian, a
Christian philosopher.* In this sense, it was assumed as a
designation by those heretics to whom the name is now re
stricted. The heretical Gnostics were divided into many
particular sects ; but there were striking characteristics com
mon to them all, by which they were distinguished from the
great body of Christians. Their religion was eclectic. While
some of their contemporaries among the Heathens, of a similar
cast of mind to their own, the later Platonists, were form
ing systems in opposition to, and in rivalship of, Christianity,
they, on the contrary, incorporated into their theology the his
torical facts and some of the essential doctrines of our faith.
* This meaning survived the application of the word to the Gnostic here
tics. In the Lexicon ascribed to Zonaras, who lived in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, TvuartKuf (a "Gnostic") is defined to be "one perfectly
conformed to the truth."
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 161
In the systems thus composed by the Gnostics, foreign as they
were from pure Christianity, the ministry of Christ held a
very important place. -It was the key-stone of their hypotheses.
Some of the leaders of the Gnostic sects appear to have
been generally regarded in their day as men of more than
common learning and ability ; and their systems were so
accordant with conceptions and habits of thinking which then
prevailed, as to obtain a considerable degree of reputation
and credence. Of the doctrines maintained by them, it is
necessary to our purpose to give some general account, which,
in order that it may be at all satisfactory, or afford ground
for a correct estimate of the character of those doctrines, will
lead us to look beyond the Gnostics considered in themselves,
and to view them in their relations to the state of things in
which they existed.
By the generality of Christians, they were regarded as
adversaries, not as fellow-disciples ; and they, in return,
looked upon the many as unenlightened followers of Christ,
who did not .comprehend the essential character of his mission,
were ignorant of the true God, whom he came to reveal, and
mistook for that God, who had been before unknown, the
inferior being who was the god of the Jews. With the ex
ception of the Marcionites, they appear generally to have
considered themselves as distinguished from all others, in
their original conformation, by the peculiar possession of a
spiritual principle, implanted in their nature, which was
a constant source of divine illumination. Thus, in examining
into the genuineness of the Gospels, the early Gnostics pre
sent themselves as an independent set of witnesses, widely
separated, in their opinions and feelings, from the catholic
Christians. Their doctrines were, at the same time, of such
a character, as to seem, at first view, to admit of no recon
ciliation with the contents of the Gospels. " It was impos
sible," says Gibbon, " that the Gnostics could receive our
present Gospels, many parts of which (particularly in the
11
162 EVIDENCES OF THE
resurrection of Christ) are directly, and, as it might seem,
designedly, pointed against their favorite tenets."* If, not
withstanding this supposed impossibility, we should find that
the Gnostics actually bear testimony to the genuineness of
the Gospels, their evidence must clearly have a distinct and
peculiar value.
It is true, that other sects, whose doctrines may appear to
an intelligent Christian as irreconcilable with the contents of
the Gospels as those of the Gnostics, have been zealous in
asserting the claim of those books to the highest deference.
But this has been done under very different circumstances.
The systems of those sects have been slowly formed, during
ages of ignorance and false reasoning ; the true sense of the
language of the Gospels has been gradually obliterated, and
false meanings, derived from a barbarous theology, have been
substituted in its place; the considerations necessary to be
attended to, in order to understand the words of Jesus, have
been disregarded ; and thus, the key to their true explanation
being lost or thrown away, modes of interpretation have been
introduced, at once so irrational and so unsettled, that, by
their application, the Scriptures may be made to speak any
doctrine. Those systems, having no aid from reason, but
being assailed by it on every side, have been obliged to rely,
for their sole support, on the supposititious meanings assigned
to the Scriptures ; and thus, in the very act of falsifying the
testimony of the books appealed to, it has become essential
to maintain their credit. At the same time, the prevailing
Delief in the genuineness of the Gospels, not being the result
of any investigation of the subject, had assumed the charac
ter of an inveterate and unassailable prejudice. But the case
of the Gnostics was widely different. Their systems were in
narmony with many of the philosophical speculations of their
* Decline and Fall o* he Roman Empire, chap. xv. note 35
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 163
age, and relied for support upon doctrines already received,
rather than upon the misinterpretation of the Scriptures. If
they admitted the Gospels as genuine, they did not feel obliged,
in consequence, to admit their authority as final : they ap
pealed to other sources of religious knowledge, to their own
reasonings, to oral tradition, by which they pretended that
the higher and esoteric doctrines of Jesus had been trans
mitted to them, and to the divine light within, the privilege
of their spiritual nature.
But it is particularly to be observed, that the earlier
Gnostics lived at a time, when, if the Gospels be not genuine,
the question respecting their credit and value must have been
entirely open and unsettled ; that, upon the supposition of
their not being genuine, they were works of the contempo
raries of those Gnostics, or of individuals of the age imme
diately preceding; and that their late origin, therefore,
must have been so notorious, that no process of reasoning
could have been required to make it evident that they were
not genuine. But, in rejecting their authority on such indis
putable ground, the Gnostics, instead of carrying on a doubt
ful and disadvantageous contest, would have gained a decisive
triumph over their opponents, by simply pointing out the
fact, that the catholic system of faith, so far as it contradicted
their own, was founded on writings pretending to an authority
which they did not possess.
It follows from what has been said, that the nature and
value of the evidence which the Gnostics afford for the
genuineness of the Gospels cannot be understood and cor
rectly estimated without some acquaintance with their history
and doctrines. The subject is worthy of investigation ; and
I enter the more readily upon the explanation of it, such
explanation as it may be in my power to give, because it
is not only necessary to my present purpose, but may also
open to us new views of the history of opinions, and of the
164 EVIDENCES OF THE
early history and of the evidences of our religion. It may
be well, before proceeding farther, to advert to some of these
bearings of the inquiry.
The study of the history and doctrines of the Gnostics,
connected as those doctrines were with the morals and
philosophy of the age, and giving birth to controversies in
which much of the character of the age is exhibited, may
enlarge our views of the condition of the world when Chris
tianity was revealed ; and every accession to our knowledge
concerning the intellectual and moral state of men in those
times is adapted to strengthen our conviction of the divine
origin of our religion.
In order to have a full conception of the evidences and
value of Christianity, we must be informed of the state of the
human character that existed at the time of its introduction,
and with which it had to struggle. As our prospect widens
and becomes more distinct, we may be reminded of the
ancient doctrine of the East, that this world is the battle
field of the good and evil spirits who divide the universe.
The power of our religion will be perceived in the strength
of the obstacles over which it triumphed. Its great truths,
in their own nature intelligible as they are sublime, were
then " dark with excessive bright." Men s minds were over
whelmed by their grandeur and novelty, and could not open
to their full comprehension. In their colossal simplicity, they
stood opposed to the baseless and visionary speculations
which then passed for philosophy. The very plainness of
their evidence, appealing only to the authority of God, as
made evident by miraculous displays of his power, was in
striking contrast with the reasoning of the age, resting on
dreams, dealing in slippery words, and full of shallow subtil-
ties. The morality of the Gospel, having for its object to
free the individual from whatever may injure himself or
others, and to teach him that his highest good consists in
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 1G5
acting for the common good of all, presented itself in strange
contrast with the unabashed selfishness, the loathsome sensu
ality, the rapacity, violence, and cruelty, which overspread
society. This morality was, at the same time, very different
from that magnificent but impracticable scheme which, though
fully developed only by the Stoics, was presented in its chief
lineaments by all the higher philosophy of the age, the pro
fessed purpose of which was to aggrandize, and, as it were,
deify its disciple, by raising him above all passion and suffer
ing ; to teach him, as tl\e sum of duty, to bear and to forbear ;
and to place him in a state of stern, insulated quiet, unmoved
by all around him. The first word which our religion ad
dressed to men was " Reform." It came to re-create their
characters, to change them in their own view from earthly to
immortal beings, to call forth new affections, to supply new
principles and aims, and to teach "the new doctrine of
piety;"* making men feel what they had not before con
ceived of, their relations to God. By revealing him, it
came to annihilate the superstitions of the heathen world,
blended as they were with all its history, philosophy, elo
quence, and poetry ; forming an essential part of the machi
nery of government, entering into the daily habits of common
life, and the source of those frequent festivals, games, and
shows, which, barbarous and licentious as they often were,
afforded to the many their most exciting pleasures. A
principle was at work which had to contend with all that
existed on earth, except what might remain uncorrupted in
the moral nature of man.
The strength of the errors that were to be overcome may
be partially estimated by their continued operation to the
present day, appearing in false doctrines, which were gradu
ally introduced, and are now incorporated with the professed
faith of most Christians ; in modern systems of what is
* 1 Tim. iii. 16.
166 EVIDENCES OP THE
called philosophy, allied in thought and language to the mys
ticism of the later Platonists, and the pantheism of other
ancient theologists ; and in the influences of pagan history
and literature upon our taste and morals, in changing and
debasing that standard of human excellence which Christian
ity would lead us to form.
Such being the state of the ancient world, the conceptions
of our religion entertained by its early converts were not
only imperfect, but were modified and discolored by the
universal prevalence of error. These converts might change
their hearts and lives, but they could not renovate their
minds. They could not divest themselves of the whole
character of their age, so as fully to comprehend the great
truths they had been taught, in their proper bearing upon
the conceptions and doctrines prevailing around them. They
could not break up all their previous associations of thought
and feeling, originate new and rational systems of the highest
philosophy, and pursue only those correct modes of reason
ing, which, even at the present day, are but partially under
stood, and imperfectly applied to all subjects connected with
our moral and intellectual nature. They could not at once
do for themselves what many centuries have been slowly
effecting for the wisest of modern times.
The causes which operated in common upon Christian
converts, to alloy the doctrines of our faith with the errors of
the age, produced their most remarkable effects among the
Gnostics. More visionary and more self-confident than
Che catholic Christians, they relied more on their philosophy,
and less on the written records of our religion. Many of
them, also, were among the mystics of those times, and
trusted for guidance to their divine inward light. Hence,
the Gnostics proceeded to extravagances, from which the
catholic Christians kept aloof; but, in comparing together
the distinctive opinions of the two parties, we shall find that
their conceptions often approximated each other, and that,
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 167
with essential differences of doctrine, there were also re
markable analogies and coincidences.
Thus, though the Gnostic doctrines were in stronger con
trast with the truths of Christianity than the errors and
misconceptions of the catholic Christians, yet, as they had
ultimately the same origin or occasion, as they are to be
traced alike to the false notions which had prevailed in the
world, either among heathens or Jews, their history may
serve to bring out to view more distinctly the direct and
indirect operation of some of those causes of error which
enthralled the minds of the early catholic Christians ; to
make us apprehend more clearly, that there might be, and
were, many conceptions of the wisest among them which are
not to be confounded with the doctrines of Christ ; and to
enable us to discern the real derivation of opinions that
we might otherwise ascribe, as they have been ascribed, to
traditionary explanations or to mere misconceptions of
our faith. It is in a great measure by such investigations
that Christianity may be relieved from that apparent respon
sibility for what, in fact, are but the errors of its disciples,
which, at the present day, is a principal obstacle to its re
ception.
It is true, that in the fundamental opinions of the early
catholic Christians, as they appear in the writings of the
most eminent of their number during the first three centu
ries, there was nothing that essentially changed the character
of our religion, or was adapted greatly to pervert its moral
influence. But when we compare their writings with the
New Testament, and remark the operation of tlie world
around them on their sentiments and belief, we are, if I
mistake not, irresistibly led to the conclusion, that the re
ligion of Christ, the religion taught in the Gospels, did not
come into being at any period subsequent to his time.
Those who became its disciples after his death did not origi
nate what they but imperfectly and erroneously apprehended.
168 EVIDENCES OF THE
They were not the authors of doctrines or of books, of which
they were, in many respects, but poor expositors.
Nor, it may be added, did Christianity have its origin in
any wisdom of a preceding age. Distinguishable, as it is,
from the opinions of its earlier converts respecting it, it
stands far more widely separated from all that preceded
it, either in the Jewish or Gentile world. There is nothing
human to which its origin can be traced. When we under
stand the Gospels, and enter into their spirit; when we
consider their teachings respecting God, his inseparable re
lations to all his creatures, and his universal providence and
love ; their disclosures concerning man s immortality and the
purposes of life, our duties and our prospects ; their narra
tive, as consistent as it is wonderful, and their unparalleled
portraiture of moral greatness in the character of Jesus ; and
when we observe that these histories are inartificial and
imperfect, written in a rude style, clearly that of unedu
cated persons, so that their intrinsic character, even -in this
respect alone, precludes, as an incredible anomaly, the idea
that they were the result of literary skill, the study of phi
losophy, or any art of man, it becomes evident that their
existence cannot be explained by any thing known or felt on
earth before the events which they record. It is a phenome
non marked by its dissimilitude from all around it, the
unlikeness between the things of time and eternity, and, if I
may so speak, between man and God.
As has been said, the religion of Christ is one thing, and
the religion of the early Christians was another. But this
renders it the more necessary, in order to estimate correctly
the character of the early fathers, the early writers of emi
nence among the catholic Christians, that we should not
forget the strong disturbing forces which acted upon their
minds to draw them from the sphere of Christian truth.
They labored under great disadvantages, from the universa 1
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 109
ignorance of the Gentile world Respecting many of the new
subjects presented to their inquiry. On the one hand, they
were biased by the inveterate errors of their age; and on
the other, so far as those errors were connected with licen
tiousness of life, they were repelled by them to the opposite
extreme of asceticism in speculation and practice, an ex
treme to which, also, they were led by their hard circum
stances, as members of a suffering and persecuted sect. To
judge them fairly, we must be acquainted with the principles,
conceptions, and modes of reasoning, which characterized the
philosophy of their times, and had modified all existing
forms of thought, having been transmitted from the ancient
philosophers, particularly Plato, with the whole weight of
their authority. We must know what advances the human
intellect had made, comprehend the influences under which
their minds had been formed, and compare them, not with
the most enlightened men of modern times, who have en
joyed advantages for the culture of the understanding which
they never dreamed of, but with their predecessors and con
temporaries. We must view them, like all other eminent
men of ancient days, as figures in the age to which they
belong, and not bring them prominently forward, surrounded
only by modern associations. If ignorant of the philosophy
of their age, we have no standard by which to judge of their
intellectual powers. Nay, we shall often misunderstand their
meaning, and may direct our contempt or ridicule, not against
what they have said, but against our own misconception
of what they have said. Now, the doctrines of the Gnostics
will show us what extravagances might be advanced by those
who were reputed able and learned men in the times of
which we speak ; and such is the connection or identity of
many opinions of the Gnostics with opinions that had before
been held, or were appearing simultaneously in the writings
of their contemporaries, that we cannot study their systems
without being led to look beyond them to the philosophy
170 EVIDENCES OF THE
of the age ; and, in doing so, we shall find that the Christian
fathers suffer as little by a comparison with the heathen phi
losophers, as with the Gnostic heretics. Such are some of
the considerations incidentally presented to us in the inquiry
on which we are now about to enter.
The Gnostics may be separated into two great divisions,
the MARCIONITES, on the one hand, and the THEOSOPHTC
GNOSTICS, as they may be called, on the other; this epithet
being understood as referring to the imaginations of the latter
respecting the Supreme God, and the spiritual world, as
developed from him. Of the latter class the Valentinians are
the principal representatives, as being the most considerable
and numerous sect, and one the essential characteristics of
which appear throughout the systems of other theosophic
Gnostics. The fundamental doctrines held in common by the
Valentinians and Marcionites were the following : That the
material world, the visible universe, was not the work of
the Supreme Being, but of a far inferior agent, the Demiur-
gus, or the Creator,* who was also the god of the Jews ; that
the spiritual world, the Pleroma, as it was called, over which
the true Divinity presided, and the material world, the realm
of the Creator, were widely separated from each other ; that
evil was inherent in matter ; that the material world, both as
being material, and as being the work of an inferior being,
was full of imperfection and evil ; that the Saviour descended
from the spiritual world, as a manifestation of the Supreme
God, to reveal him to men, to reform the disorders here exist-
* AT/^ovpyof, literally the "Workman." The term "Maker" might
seem the preferable rendering, except that the associations with the word
" Creator," when standing alone, correspond better with the conceptions of
the Gnostics. But, in thus using the term "Creator," we must divest it
of the idea of creation from nothing. There is no satisfactory evidence, that
any of the Gnostics rejected the then common philosophical notion of eternal,
uncreated matter.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 171
ing, and to deliver whatever is spiritual from the dominion of
matter; and that the Supreme God had been unknown to
men, to Jews and Heathens equally, before his manifestation
of himself by Christ. In their view, he was the God of the
New Testament, and the Creator was the god of the Old
Testament. They at the same time conceived of the Creator
as exercising a moral government over men, as dispensing
rewards and inflicting punishments. He, in their view, was
"Just." But the Supreme God did not punish. He was un-
mingled benevolence. He was " Good."
In connection with these doctrines, neither the Valentinians
nor the Marcionites supposed the Saviour to have had a
proper human body of flesh and blood, in which corruption
would have dwelt. The Valentinians, however, ascribed to
him a real though not a human body, while the Marcionites
regarded his apparent body as a mere phantom. Those who
maintained the latter opinion were called Docetce, a name for
which we may give an equivalent in the word Apparitionists.
But this name was also sometimes, if not commonly, ex
tended to all who denied that Christ had a proper human
body; and, thus used, comprehended the generality of the
Gnostics.
In the systems of the Marcionites and Valentinians, the
Creator appears as one. Other sects, it is said, believed
the material world to have been formed by angels. But,
among those angels, one was generally, perhaps universally,
regarded as pre-eminent, and as the god of the Jews ; that is,
as one to whom the name Creator may be distinctively ap
plied. The Valentinians themselves sometimes spoke of the
Creator as an angel, and associated with him, in the govern
ment of his works, other beings whom he had produced, giv
ing them also the name of angels.
Such were the common doctrines of the Gnostics. Their
fundamental distinction may be regarded as consisting in the
172 EVIDENCES OF THE
belief, that the material universe was not formed by th
Supreme Being, but by some inferior being or beings ; and
that this being, or one of these beings, was the god of the
Jews. In the writings of the earlier fathers against them,
the stress of the controversy concerns this topic. It was, as
we might suppose, the great point at issue between them
and the catholic Christians.
Thus, Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, states it to
be " the principal question"* between them ; and the whole
tenor of his argument shows that it was so. The principal
question, he says, in commencing his work, " whence the
whole controversy arises, is, whether it be allowable to intro
duce two gods." The main object of his work is to prove
from reason, from the Old Testament, from the Gospels,
and from the Epistles, that the Supreme Being, the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the same being with the
Creator of the material universe, and the God of the Jews.
Irenasus is our great authority concerning the theosophic
Gnostics, of whom alone he treats, to the exclusion of Mar
cion and his followers, for a reason to be hereafter mentioned.
In the introduction to his work, he assigns, as the cause of
his undertaking to write against the heretics, that they " over
turn the faith of many, leading them away, by a pretence of
superior knowledge, from Him who framed and ordered the
universe, as if they had something higher and better to
show them than the God who made heaven and earth, and
all that is therein ; bringing ruin upon their converts, by
giving them injurious and irreligious sentiments toward the
Creator." f In the first book of his work, he gives an ac
count of the opinions of the Gnostics. In his second book,
he undertakes to confute them, by showing their intrinsic
incredibility, and commences by saying, " It will be proper to
* Advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 1 ; Opp. p. 366, ed. Priori!.
, Cent. Haeres., lib. i. Praef. 1, p. 2, ed. Massuet.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 173
begin with the first and principal topic, God, the Creator,
whom they blaspheme, who is God and Lord alone, sole
author of all, sole Father." * In concluding the book, he
affirms that what ho has been maintaining is consonant to
what was taught by Christ and his apostles, by the Law
and the Prophets, namely, that there is one God and Father
of all, and that all things were made by him, and not by
angels, nor by any other Power, f He then begins his third
book by proving this doctrine from the Gospels, which, he
says, all teach " that there is one God, the Maker of heaven
and earth, who was announced by the prophets ; and one
Messiah, the Son of God." J In the last paragraph of this
book, he prays that the heretics may not persevere in their
errors, but that, being "converted to the Church of God,
Christ may be formed within them ; and that they may know
the Maker of this universe, the only true God and Lord of
all." " Thus we pray for them," he says, " loving them better
than they love themselves." He then states, that in his next
book he shall endeavor to induce them, by reasoning from the
words of Christ, " to abstain from speaking evil of their
Maker, who alone is God ; " and accordingly, in the com
mencement of the fourth book, he repeats similar representa
tions of their fundamental doctrine, which, with others to the
same effect, it is unnecessary to subjoin.
" I will endeavor," says Origen, " to define who is a heretic.
All who profess to believe in Christ, and yet affirm that there is
one god of the Law and the Prophets, and another of the Gospels,
and maintain that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
was not He who was proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, but
another, I know not what, God, wholly unknown and unheard of,
- all such we consider as heretics, however they may set off their
Lib. ii. c. 1, 1, p. 116. f Lib. ii. c. 35, 4, p. 171.
J Lib. iii. c. 1, 2, p. 174.
Apud Pamphili Hart. Apolog. pro Origene; in Origen. Opp. iv., Ap
pend., p. 22.
174 EVIDENCES OF THE
doctrines with different fictions. Such are the followers of Maiv
cion and Valentinus and Basilides." *
In the fifth century, Theodoret wrote a history of heresies.
He speaks of the Gnostics as nearly extinct, and professes
that his accounts of them are derived from preceding
writers, f He treats of them in his first book ; and this
book, he says, contains " an account of the fables of those
who have imagined another Creator, and, denying that there
is one principle of all things, have introduced other principles
which have no existence ; and who say that the Lord ap
peared to men in the semblance of a man only." $
Our information concerning the distinguishing doctrines
common to the Gnostics, in the general form in which they
have been stated, is full and satisfactory ; and these doctrines
there is no difficulty in comprehending. But the same cannot
be said of the transcendental speculations of the theosophic
Gnostics. These concerned the supposed production from the
Supreme Divinity of hypostatized attributes and ideas*
forming beings whom, in common with him, they denomi
nated .^Eons, or Immortals ; the full development of the
Deity by those emanations, constituting the Pleroma ; || the
* The original adds, "and those who call themselves Tethians;" where,
for " Tethians," I suppose we should read " Sethians," a name assumed by
some of the Gnostics, who regarded Seth as the progenitor or prototype of
the spiritual among men.
I See the Introduction to his " Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium,"
and the Preface to the Second Book; Opp. iv. pp. 187-189, 218, ed. Sir-
tnond.
J Ibid., p. 188.
I use the term " hypostatize," and its relatives, to express the ascribing
of proper personality to what in its nature is devoid of it.
|| IlA^p<J//a, Fulness, Completeness, Perfection, here signifying the full,
complete, perfect development of the Deity. The word, though with a change
of its meaning, was borrowed by the Gnostics from St. Paul. See Eph. i.
23; iii. 19. Col. i. 19; ii. 9.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 175
realm of God, the spiritual world (in contradistinction to the
animal and material), which was likewise called the Pleroma ;
all properly spiritual existences being considered as deriving
their substance from that of the Infinite Spirit; and the
mingling of spirit with matter ; the causes which led to
the formation of the material world, and the relations of this
to the spiritual world.
These speculations of the theosophic Gnostics were very
foreign from any conceptions with which we are familiar.
They seem to have assumed no definite and permanent shape,
but to have varied according to the imaginations of different
sects and individuals ; every one, as Tertullian says, mould
ing what he had received to his own liking; the disciple
thinking himself as much at liberty as his master to innovate
at pleasure.* Nearly all the direct information concerning
them, on which we can rely with any confidence, is derived
from their earlier controversial opponents, the fathers of the
second and third centuries ; and it cannot be supposed, that
those writers furnish a full explanation of the theories of the
Gnostics in their most intelligible and plausible form. It
was the business of the fathers to divest them of all adventi
tious recommendations, to remove whatever might dazzle and
deceive the eye, and to show, not their coincidence with any
existing forms of philosophy, but their essential errors, their
intrinsic incongruity, and their opposition to reason and Scrip
ture. They have taken them to pieces, to exhibit their
* Tertullian., De Prescript. Hseretic., c. 42, pp. 217, 218. Of the sect
of the Marcosians, Irenacus treats at much length, probably because they pre
vailed particularly in the part of Gaul where he resided (lib. i. c. 13, 7,
p. 66). He concludes his account of them with saying, "But, since they
disagree among themselves in doctrine and teaching, and those who are
acknowledged as the more recent affect every day to find out something new,
and to bring forth what never had been thought of before, it is hard to de
scribe the notions of all of them " (lib. i. c. 21, 15, p. 98). The same, or
nearly the same, might, I conceive, have been said of every other body of
theosophic Gnostics, who were classed together as a sect.
176 EVIDENCES OF THE
defects ; and it is not easy, or rather it is impossible, to restore
them as they were originally put together. At the same
time, clearness of thought, precision of language, and accuracy
in reporting opinions, were not characteristics of the writers
of that age. Beside this, the Gnostics did not understand
themselves ; and it was impossible, therefore, that the fathers
should understand them.
All these causes combine to occasion peculiar difficulty in
forming a just notion of the speculations of the theosophic
Gnostics. If their own writings had remained to us entire,
no common acuteness would probably have been necessary to
follow the process by which visionary conceptions and alle
gories passed into doctrines ; to apprehend the state of mind,
the confused mingling of imperfect, changing, and inconsistent
fancies, out of which their theories arose ; to determine where
mysticism was brightening into meaning ; or to detect what
portion of truth, under some disguise or other, may have
entered into and been neutralized in their composition. As
in so many metaphysical and theological systems, from the
age of Plato to our own, we should doubtless have found, that
their dialect admitted of but a very partial translation into the
universal language of common sense. With the best guidance,
we should have been unable to place ourselves in the same
position with the Gnostics, under the same circumstances, so
as to discern the spectral illusions which, in the dawn of
Christianity, they saw pictured on the clouds, and fancied to
be celestial visions.
Still, even as regards their theosophic doctrines, enough
may be ascertained for our purpose ; perhaps all that is
of importance in relation to the history of opinions, or
the history of our religion. After fixing our attention
on thsm ste adily, what appeared at first view altogether
confused and monstrous begins to assume a form better
defined; the great features common to their systems show
themselves more distinctly, and we are able to discern
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 177
their likeness to other modes of opinion that have widely
prevailed.
The fathers, as has been said, were but poor interpreters of
the dreams of the theosophic Gnostics. But, as regards the
whole history of the Gnostics, there is constant need of caution
in admitting, and care in scrutinizing, the representations
of their catholic opponents. What is related by the fathers
concerning supposed heretics of the first century is mixed
with fables and improbabilities. Their fuller accounts of the
more important sects of the second century, the Marcionitos
and Valentinians, were founded upon the writings of mem
bers of these sects. But there are other cases, in which it
admits of no doubt, that even those of the fathers who are
our best authorities proceeded upon common rumor and oral
information, distorted, exaggerated, and unfounded.
It often requires much acuteness and discrimination, as well
as intellectual and moral fairness, to give a correct report of
the system of an individual or a sect, especially when its doc
trines, being involved in mysticism, present no definite ideas,
even to the minds of those by whom they are held. Some of
the ancient philosophers, particularly Plato, could they have
had a foreknowledge of the works of their admirers and ex
positors, in ancient and modern times, would, I believe, have
wondered greatly at much which they could, and much which
they could not, understand. But the fathers did not write of
the Gnostics as admiring historians. With the partial excep
tion of Clement of Alexandria, they wrote as controvertists,
whose feelings were enlisted against them. All the errors,
but such as spring from intentional dishonesty, to which such
controvertists are liable, are to be expected, even from those
of their number on whom alone we can rely, the fathers of
the first three centuries, or the earlier fathers, as they may be
called by way of specific distinction. Under circumstances
which furnish much less excuse, the grossest mistakes are not
12
178 EVIDENCES OF THE
unfrequently committed. Thus, a German theologian of our
day classes Priestley among decided atheists;* and another,
a naturalist himself, states that Locke agreed with Spinoza,
Hobbes, and Hume, in believing reputed miracles to be only
natural events, referring, in evidence of his assertion, to a tract
by which it is clearly disproved.! A still more remarkable
error concerning that great man is the statement or implica
tion, to be found, I believe, in some writers above the lowest
class, that he referred the origin of all our ideas to sensation.
Many similar misrepresentations might be produced; and
from such errors, committed, as it were, before our eyes,
through the neglect or misuse of means of information open
to all, we learn what may have been the errors of ancient
writers, at a period when it was incomparably more difficult
to ascertain the truth ; when all communication of knowledge
from a distance was tardy and imperfect ; when oral accounts,
with the misunderstandings and misrepresentations by which
they are usually characterized, were often the only source of
information attainable ; and when the voice of the press, which
now makes itself heard on every side, to confirm truth or to
confute error, in regard to all facts that are anywhere of
common notoriety, was as yet unuttered.
Thus, as reporters of the history and doctrines of the
Gnostics, in their obscurer ramifications, even the earlier
fathers were in a great measure disqualified, not merely by
their feelings of dislike toward those heretics, but by the
great difficulty of obtaining full and correct knowledge con
cerning them ; and, we may add, by that want of accuracy of
conception and representation, which they shared in com
mon with their opponents, and with all others of their age.
We must, furthermore, keep in view their prejudices, and
* Lehrbuch des Christlichen Glaubens, von August Hahn (Leipzig, 1828),
p. 178.
t Institutiones Theologiae Christianas Dogmatics a I. A. L. Wegscheider,
48, not. a, p. Ill, ed. 2dae.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 179
their liability to mistake, not merely as respects the doctrines,
but also as respects the character and morals, of the Gnostics.
We may readily believe, that vices, which were more prop
erty to be ascribed to the depravity of individuals, were some
times brought as general charges against the whole body
to which those individuals were considered as belonging, and
that the practical inferences unfavorable to morality, to be
drawn from the false doctrines of the Gnostics, were repre
sented as their common practical effects ; though it is often
the case, that men do not follow out in action the results
of bad principles any more than of good.
In determining the truth concerning the Gnostics, we may
find a concurrence of credible and contemporary testimony to
what is probable in itself, and coincident or consistent with
the still remaining expositions which they themselves gave of
their doctrines ; and consistent, also, with forms of opinion
which prevailed during the period when they sprung up and
flourished. This testimony, so confirmed, is sufficient to estab
lish the leading facts concerning their character and doctrines.
In proceeding farther, we must judge of the accounts given
of them from the particular probabilities that each case may
present, and especially from the consistency of those accounts
with the truths concerning them which we have found means
to settle. Arid, throughout this whole inquiry, particular at
tention must be given to the very different value of those
ancient writers who have treated of the Gnostics, to the
period when they lived, to their means of information, to the
temper and purpose with which they wrote, and to their
respective characters for correctness and truth. In this re
spect, as we shall hereafter see, a wide distinction is to be
made among writers who have often been indiscriminately
quoted, as of equal authority in regard to the history of tho
Gnostics.
This subject has afforded scope for an abundance of hypoth-
180 EVIDENCES OF THE
eses in modern times ; for few facts have been so well estab
lished, and so generally acknowledged, as to stand in theii
way. It has been a sort of disputed province between fiction
and history. We may meet, on every side, with statements
respecting the Gnostics altogether unfounded. Gibbon says,
that they " were distinguished as the most learned, the most
polite, and most wealthy of the Christian name : " * but
the assertion is made without proof, on his own responsibility;
unless, indeed, he has repeated or exaggerated the error of
some preceding modern writer, of which I am not aware.
The representation is such as it may readily be supposed was
not derived from their ancient controversial opponents, who
alone can be referred to for information concerning the sub
ject. No one, I think, besides Gibbon, has ascribed to them
the worldly distinctions of superior refinement and wealth;
but the zeal for paradoxes, which prevails among many of the
theological writers of our age, has shown itself in other repre
sentations. The theosophic Gnostics, though their specula
tions are among the most vague and inconsequent that any
visionaries have produced, have been transformed into pene
trating and refined philosophers, or, rather, described as
" equally versed in the mysteries of Platonism, of the Cab
bala, of the Zend-Avesta, and of the New Testament ; as
belonging rather to the world of ideas than to that of sensa
tions, and as manifesting the human soul in its sublime
ecstasies." f This is the language of a writer who does not
separate himself from the rest of the intellectual world by
his general tone of thought and expression, or by any radical
changes iu the use of language. But one of the followers
of the latest, darkest, and most repulsive school of German
metaphysicians has likewise thought to do honor to the Gnos
tics, by claiming them as its progenitors.^
* Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv.
t Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme (1828), torn. ii. p. 281.
J I refer to Baur, Professor of Gospel Theology in the University of
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 181
To justify such eulogies as have been bestowed on them
by the writer first mentioned, their systems are professedly
laid open ; and though the end be not obtained, though noth-
Tiibingen, a disciple of Hegel, and a writer of much note among his coun
trymen, who has published a large work relating to the Gnostics, entitled
"The Christian Gnosis (or Gnosticism); or, the Christian Philosophy of
Religion historically developed " (Tubingen, 8vo, 1835). His main pur
pose is to represent the Gnvtics as the true religious philosophers of their
times, and to exhibit the resemblance of their doctrines to the latest philoso
phy of religion, as developed by Jacob Boehmen, Schilling, Schleiermacher,
and finally by Hegel, who has brought it nearest to perfection. The funda
mental doctrine, in which he regards the Gnostics as coinciding with these
modern philosophers, is one which he has arbitrarily ascribed to them.
According to him, they viewed God (their Supreme God) as an unconscious,
impersonal, and unintelligent being. The doctrine of Hegel teaches that all
individual spirits are but modifications of one universal spirit, the only posi
tive existence in the universe. Ideas alone are things. But this universal
spirit is, in itself, unconscious, and first arrives at consciousness in its devel
opment in man. Man is the only conscious God. " The essence of religion,
therefore, is the self-consciousness of God. God knows himself in a con
sciousness different from him, which, in itself, is the consciousness of God,
but which also has reference to itself, as it knows its identity with God ; an
identity existing through the negation of finiteness. Thus, in one word,
God is this, to distinguish one s self from one s self, to become objective
to one s self, but, in this distinction, to be absolutely identical with one s
self." These words, in which Baur reports the doctrine of Hegel on the most
important of subjects, seem rather the language of a man not of sane mind,
than such as accords with the character of one reputed, by many of his coun
trymen, to be the wisest of philosophers.
After this account of " The Christian Philosophy of Religion," which, it
appears, is atheism, Baur remarks, that it is evident " how intimately this
philosophy is connected with Christianity, how eagerly it transfers to itself
its entire substance, nay, that, in its whole purpose, it is nothing else than a
scientific explanation of the problem of historical Christianity" (pp. 709,
710).
In the work of Baur, there is no critical examination of the history of the
Gnostics, nor any information of value concerning them. He ascribes to
them, not only without authority, but contrary to all evidence, the doctrine
of an unconscious and impersonal God. His work, like those of many of his
countrymen, exhibits an incapacity of thinking clearly and consistently, and
of presenting a lucid and well-digested exposition of a subject; and is char
acterized by such a use of words, especially concerning the topics of religion
as would unsettle all their established meanings. It belongs to that class of
182 EVIDENCES UF THE
ing wonderful appear, yet the Gnostics, could they revive,
might address their expositors in words like those which
Plato puts into the mouth of Thesetetus, after subjecting him
to the questioning of Socrates : " By Jupiter, you have made
me say more than I had in me." Nor has this too great
ingenuity of explanation been confined to those who have
formed an over-estimate of the spiritual acquirements of the
Gnostics. In the development of their opinions, it is not
uncommon to find a striking contrast between the scanty
or worthless materials that antiquity has left us, and the
long and ready detail of a modern expositor, defining the
particulars, and tracing the history, of a system. When
speculative writings, of which Germany has been so fertile ; treating of the
most important subjects, and promulgating, sometimes with dogmatical
phlegm, and sometimes with heartless flippancy, doctrines the most disas
trous to faith and morals. These writings are distinguished, not so much bv
a want of reasoning, or an evident incapacity of reasoning, as by an apparent
insensibility to its necessity or use. Every thing is assumed. The most
extravagant and most pernicious theories are put forward as if they consisted
of self-evident propositions. Yet when the metaphysician or theologist of
the day brings out his new system, resting on no truths or facts, but spun
irom his own brain, his disciples (les plus sots qui toujours admirent un sot)
applaud the rigid thought and profound speculations of their master; while
more intelligent readers, unaccustomed to this style of discussion without
explanation or argument, are at first perplexed by a phenomenon which
they cannot readily understand. These works, numerous as they are, do not
belong to the literature of the world. They form a literature, if it may be so
called, immiscible with any other. The speculations they contain have no
alliance with those truths which human wisdom has established, or which
God has revealed to us. Tennemann, the German historian of philosophy,
likened the new school of German metaphysicians, as it existed in his time,
to the later Platonists. Baur finds a strong resemblance between those of
our day and the Gnostics. These modern metaphysicians do, in truth,
belong to the age of the later Platonists and Gnostics. But they resemble
them, not so much through a correspondence of doctrines, as in their mystical
and barbarous obscurity, in their perversion and fabrication of language, in
their arrogant claims, in their contempt for the exercise of the understanding
in the investigation and establishment of truth, and in their pretending to
Borne other foundation than reason and the revelation of God on which to rest
our highest knowledge.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 183
we look for the proof of what is affirmed, we find, per
haps, straggling authorities of doubtful credit or uncertain
application ; supposed analogies with opinions less under
stood than those of the Gnostics, to establish which, the
mere shadows of meaning are to be tracked through the
obscurity of Eastern theology, or some imaginary scheme of
Egyptian superstition ; etymological conjectures ; and expla
nations of allegories and symbols, to which the ingenuity of
the writer may give a glimmering of probability, while his
page is open before us. In the words of Tertullian, Late quce-
runtur incerta, latins disputantur prcesumpta, " There is a
wide search after uncertainties, and a wider discussion of
assumptions." At the same time, facts that lie most open to
view have been disregarded or misrepresented, or but par
tially stated.
In consequence, however, of all the attention which has
been given to the subject, the character of the Gnostics may
undoubtedly at the present day be better understood than it
has been. The extravagant over-estimate of them, which
appears in some modern writers, is, in part, a re-action pro
duced by the extravagant depreciation of them which preceded
it. The crude accounts of the later as well as earlier fathers
were formerly received without discrimination, and without
any attempt to disengage the truth from the language of con
troversy, or from the mass of falsehood in which it was envel
oped, and consequently without any exercise of judgment on
the respective credibility of the authorities adduced. The
charges made against them by the later as well as earlier
fathers, whether probable or not, have been repeated without
examination by theological bigotry, which, connecting with
the name of heretic the ideas of folly, immorality, and im
piety, has given itself full scope in ascribing these bad quali
ties to the Gnostics. Even more sober and judicious writers
have spoken of their systems as if they had just appeared,
instead of having been produced many centuries ago ; and
184 EVIDENCES OP THE
have rather compared them with an abstract standard of
what they themselves deemed sound philosophy, than viewed
them relatively to the erroneous conceptions of ancient times.
Their proper rank has not been assigned them among the
other forms of metaphysical and religious belief, equally false
and irrational, which have been or still are extensively re
ceived. But the Gnostics were prodigies neither of wisdom
nor of folly. There was nothing peculiar in the character
of their minds to distinguish them from numerous theorists of
their own and other times. With the exception of the Mar-
cionites, they belonged to the large class of the professors
of hidden but intuitive wisdom, who exhibit to the ignorant
bits of colored glass, with the air of men displaying inesti
mable jewels. The most eminent among them were probably
far inferior to some of their opponents, to such men as Ter-
tullian and Origen, in vigor and clearness of intellect, and
in that intense conviction of the truths of religion which
at once implies a sound judgment, and tends to perfect it; but
I do not know that they would appear to much disadvantage,
if brought into comparison with the later Platonists of the
third and fourth centuries.
The Gnostics and Ebionites, as has been remarked, were
the principal heretics of the first two centuries. They
were both divided from the communion of catholic Christians.
The Ebionites, belonging to what, in their view, was the
privileged race of the Jews, kept aloof from the Gentile con
verts ; and, among the Gnostics, the Marcionites formed
separate churches of their own.* The theosophic Gnostics, it
is probable, likewise had their separate religious assemblies,
unless they were prevented by the smallness of their numbers,
or by what they regarded as a philosophical indifference to out
ward forms of religion. Tertullian, however, says generally
* Tertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 5, pp. 415, 416.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 185
of the heretics, that, " for the most part, they have no churches
motherless, without a settled habitation, bereaved of faith,
outcasts, they wander about without a home."* An open
separation between the Gnostics and the catholic Christians
was produced, on the one hand, by the pride of the Gnostics
in their peculiar opinions, and by their regarding themselves
as the only spiritual believers, and all beside as lying in dark
ness ; and, on the other hand, by the strong dislike which the
great body of Christians entertained for their doctrines and
pretensions, and by the brief profession of faith (the origin of
what was afterward called " The Apostles Creed ") required
of a catechumen, after passing his noviciate, before admission
to the communion. The Gnostics, however, sometimes rep
resented their exclusion from the Church as unjust. Irenseus
says of the Valentinians,
" For the sake of making converts of those of the Church, they
address discourses to the multitude, by which they delude and en
tice the more simple, imitating our modes of expression to induce
them to become more frequent hearers, and complaining to them
of us, that when they think as we do, say the same things, and
hold the same doctrine, we abstain without reason from their com
munion, and call them heretics." f
Till toward the middle of the third century, when the
heretics were spoken of in general terms, the Gnostics alone
were for the most part intended. Thus, for example, Clement
of Alexandria sets forth his design to " show to all the here
tics, that there is one God and one Lord omnipotent clearly
proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, in connection with
the blessed Gospel ; " $ a proposition requiring to be proved
only against the Gnostics. So also Irenaeus, in the Preface
to his fourth book, disregarding his own previous mention of
* De Prescript. Haeretic., c. 42, p. 218.
t Cont. Hseres., lib. iii. c. 15, 2, p. 203.
J Stroinat., lib. iv. 1, p. 564, ed. Potter.
186 EVIDENCES OP THE
the Ebionites, speaks of all heretics as " teaching blasphemy
against our Maker and Preserver." *
But, in considering the subject of the early heretics, it is to
be remarked, that among the catholic Christians, their con
temporaries, there was great freedom of speculation, and great
diversity of opinion, till after the time of Origen. Probably
no standard of orthodoxy was generally received, much more
comprehensive than what has been called the Apostles
Creed ; and the opinions of no individual writer were con
formable to any of the standards which have been since
established. In comparing Tertullian with Origen, the one
the most eminent defender of the common faith among the
Greeks, and the other among the Latins, and both, after their
death, reputed as heretics, we not only find in them a wholly
different cast of mind and temper, but the speculations of the
one are in many respects diverse from, and opposite to, those
of the other; while those of each of them are often very
remote from what is the general belief of Christians at the
present day. The author of the Clementine Homilies seems,
in ancient times, to have escaped the imputation of being a
heretic ; yet, among other doctrines widely different from the
more common faith, he brought forward a theory, to be else
where noticed, respecting the Jewish Law and the Old Testa
ment, in opposition to the Gnostics, which approached little
nearer than their own to the opinions afterwards established.
Tertullian wrote warmly against Hermogenes, who main
tained that evil had its source in eternal, unoriginated matter.
Yet Hermogenes does not appear to have been separated
from the communion of the catholic Church; and probably
riot a few other catholic Christians held, in common with
him, a doctrine so prevalent in pagan philosophy. It may be
observed, that Hermogenes gave his name to no sect, which
* Cont. Hjeres., lib. iv. Pref. 4, p. 228.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 187
beems to show that there was nothing extraordinary in his
opinions being held by a Christian. Tertullian also wrote
against Praxeas, who opposed the speculations which had
been introduced concerning the proper personality of the
Logos. His zeal was inflamed by the circumstance, that
Praxeas had been an opponent of the Montanists, of which
sect Tertullian had become a member. But he tells us, that
the greater part of Christians, "the simple, not to say the
unwise and ignorant," favored the opinions of Praxeas.*
And, to mention but one other example, there is no ground
for supposing, that Tertullian himself, after becoming a Mon-
tanist, was rejected from the communion of the catholic
Church ; though it is true, that the Montanists were soon
regarded as a heresy separated from it.
The state of Christians, then, during the second century,
presents a very remarkable appearance. By the side of the
great body of Gentile Christians, among whom such freedom
of speculation prevailed, we find another smaller body of
Gentile Christians, the Gnostics, agreeing with the former in
acknowledging Christ as a divine teacher, but separated from
them by an impassable gulf, as holding doctrines which
rendered the amalgamation of the two parties impossible.
Notwithstanding some striking analogies between their specu
lations, there was no gradual transition from one system to
the other. The separation was abrupt and broad. It con
sisted in the fundamental doctrine of the Gnostics, that the
Creator, or the principal Creator, of the universe, the god of
the Jews, was not the Supreme Divinity and the God
of Christians.
The scheme of the Gnostics is, without doubt, to be re
garded, in part, as a crude attempt to solve the existence of
evil in the world ; a subject which engaged their attention in
* Advers. Praxcam, c. 3, p. 502.
188 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
common with that of other religious theorists of their age.
But the desire to solve this problem was not, I conceive, the
principal occasion of the existence of Gnosticism. This, I
think, is to be found in the hereditary aversion of Gentiles to
Judaism ; in the traditionary views of the Old Testament,
communicated by the Jews from whom it was received ; and
in the impossibility which the Gnostics found of reconciling
the conceptions of God that it presents, with their moral feel
ings, and with those conceptions of him which they had
derived from Christianity. Nor in this respect did they
stand alone. A large portion, we know not how large, of the
catholic Christians, including some of the most eminent and
intellectual of their number, equally regarded much in the
Jewish Law and history as irreconcilable with correct morality
and just notions of God, if understood in its obvious sense.
They, however, as we shall hereafter see, took a very different
course from that of the Gnostics, in escaping from the diffi
culty with which they were pressed.
Regarding the aversion of the Gentiles to Judaism as the
principal occasion of Gnosticism, we may readily understand
why the whole body of early heretics among the Gentile con
verts became Gnostics. As soon as men s attention was
distinctly fixed upon the subject, nothing but a thorough and
strongly operative faith in Christianity could enable a Gentile
Christian to subdue the prejudices, and overcome the diffi
culties, which stood in the way of his acknowledging the
Old Testament to have the divine authority that was claimed
for it.
To the opinions of the Gnostics respecting Judaism we
shall recur hereafter. But other topics must be first attend
ed to.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OP THE GNOSTICS, AND THE
SOURCES OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM.
IRENES us pretends, that all the Gnostics derived their ex
istence from Simon, the magician of Samaria, who is men
tioned in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. He
says, that "all heresies had their origin in him," that he
was " the father of all heretics." * All those, he says, who in
any way corrupt the truth, or mar the preaching of the
Church, are disciples and successors of Simon, the Samaritan
magician ; although, as he honestly adds, " they do not ac
knowledge him as their master." f The same representation
of Simon appears in other, succeeding fathers. But the in
formation of Irenaeus and his contemporaries, concerning
particular personages and events in the history of Christianity
during the first century, except so far as it was derived from
the New Testament, was very imperfect and uncertain ; and
their accounts of Simon are not to be implicitly received.
But there is no doubt, that there was, in the first century,
a Simon, a Samaritan, a pretender to divine authority and
supernatural powers, who for a time had many followers,
twho stood in a certain relation to Christianity, and who may
lave held some opinions more or less similar to those of the
* Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 23, 2, p. 99 ; lib. iii. Prsef. p. 173 ; lib. ii. Praef
p. 115.
t Lib. i. c. 27, 4, p. 106.
190 EVIDENCES OF THE
Gnostics. Justin Martyr mentions him and his followers
several times, but gives no account of his doctrines. He only
states, that he deceived men by magical arts, and that almost
all the Samaritans (the countrymen of Justin) " acknowledged
and worshipped him as the first God," " over all rule, authority
and power ; " and affirmed, that a woman, whom he carried
about with him, named Helena, was the first (hypostatized)
conception of his, that is, of the divine mind.* These opinions
seem to imply an annihilation of common sense in his fol
lowers ; but they admit, as we shall see, of some explanation,
that may serve to reconcile them to our apprehensions.
Justin does not identify the Simon of whom he speaks with
the Simon mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ; f and, in
modern times, some of the learned have contended that they
were different individuals. But Luke describes the Simon
whom he mentions as practising magical arts, so as to deprive
the Samaritan nation of their senses, and as declaring himself
to be some great personage ; and he adds, that all, high and
low, affirmed him to be the Power of God, called Great. J
When we compare Luke s account with that of Justin, it
appears incredible that the two writers should be speaking of
two different individuals, who bore the same name, who were
conspicuous in the same country, Samaria, and who likewise
were contemporaries ; for Justin says of the Simon whom he
mentions, that he was at Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Believing the accounts of both, therefore, to relate to the
same person, we may observe, that Simon, according to Luke,
suffered himself to be regarded as a manifestation of what was
probably considered as the highest power of God. From this,
it was an easy transition for his followers to speak of him as
* I. Apolog., p. 38, seqq., p. 84; II. Apolog., p. 134; Dial, cum Tryph.,
p. 397, ed. Thirlby.
t Chap. viii. 9-24.
{ Acts viii. 9, 10. In the tenth verse, I adopt the reading, Qvr ic kcriv {
rov Qeov r
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 191
a manifestation of God, or as God made manifest to men, and
thus to represent him as God himself. I have here supposed
this account to have been given of him by his followers.
Some of the fathers subsequent to Justin affirm, that Simon
himself claimed to be God. But this was not unlikely to be
said, if his adherents so regarded him ; for the later opinions
of a sect were not uncommonly ascribed to its founder. But,
if Simon did use such language concerning himself, it may
still be explained in a similar manner. In the assertions
which he or his followers made concerning Helena, there was,
I conceive, a like vague use of words ; but through the
strange accounts given of her, which it is not worth while to
detail, we may perhaps discern that she was regarded as the
symbol, or the manifestation, of that portion of spirituality
which (according to a common conception of the Gnostics)
had become entangled in matter, and for the liberation of
which the interposition of the Deity was required.
From all the notices of Simon, it does not seem likely that
he much affected the character of a speculative philosopher
or theologist, or was solicitous to establish any system of
doctrines. He appears to have been a bold, artful, vainglo
rious, dishonest adventurer, claiming to possess supernatural
powers, and having much skill in obtaining control over, the
minds of others. In Josephus, there is mention of a Simon,
pretending to be a magician, who, somewhere about twenty
years after the events recorded in the eighth chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles, was employed by Felix, then Procurator
of Judaea, to persuade Drusilla, the wife of Azizus, King of
Emesa, to forsake her husband, and marry Felix ; which
Drusilla was prevailed on to do.* It is not improbable that
this was the same Simon who is spoken of by St. Luke.
Whether he were so or not, the Simon connected with the
* Josephi Antiq., lib. xx. c. 7, 2. Drusilla is mentioned, Acts sxiv,
24
192 EVIDENCES OP THE
early history of Christianity may be classed with certain im
postors and fanatics, not uncommon in the age in which he
lived, who, proceeding on the doctrines of the Pythagorean
Platouists (as they may be called), pretended, through mysti
cal exercises of mind, to have attained a communion with the
invisible world, and to possess a power, which they denomi
nated theurgy, of performing supernatural works by divine
assistance. He may be compared with his contemporary,
Apollonius of Tyana, whose works Hierocles, an early enemy
of Christianity, represented as equalling or excelling those of
our Lord ; or with a somewhat later impostor, Alexander,
the Paphlagonian prophet, on whom Lucian poured out his
invective. Like pretensions to magical power were common
among the other extravagances of the later Platonists. Plo-
tinus, the most eminent of the sect, was, according to the
account of his disciple Porphyry (famous for his work against
Christianity), a great theurgist; and Proclus, than whom
none of these philosophers had more alacrity in diving into
the deepest and darkest mysteries, is said by his friend and
biographer, Marinus, to have been able to bring rain from
heaven, to stop earthquakes, and to expel diseases. Simon
had learned in a similar school ; and though he was, probably,
more of an impostor than a fanatic, yet a religious impostor
can hardly be very successful without a mixture of fanaticism.
If he succeed in deceiving others, he commonly succeeds,
partially at least, in deceiving himself. The false opinion
which he creates in those about him re-acts on his own mind.
Simon, we may suppose, like the generality of men in his age,
was a believer in the power of magic, or theurgy ; arid, when
he saw the miracles performed by Philip, was filled with as
tonishment, and regarded him as operating through magical
powers unknown to himself. Giving credit, at the same
time, to the accounts of the miracles of Jesus, he probably
thought him to have been a great theurgist, and wished to
become possessed of the secrets which he imagined him
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 193
to have communicated to his disciples. Being confirmed in
this state of mind by witnessing the effects produced by the
imposition of the hands of the apostles, he did what naturally
occurred to him : he offered money to purchase their disclosure.
He was at first humbled and terrified by the severe rebuke
of Peter : but no evil immediately followed ; and it appears,
from the further accounts of him, that he resumed confidence,
pursued his former course of life, and was excited to set him
self up as a rival of our Lord.
Of the particular events of his subsequent life, little is
known. It is not probable that he left any writings behind
him.* Justin Martyr says, that he visited Rome, and there
displayed his pretended magical powers.f Irenoeus relates,
that he was honored by many as a god, and that images of
him and Helena the former fashioned as Jupiter, and the
latter as Minerva were worshipped by his followers ; J and
Justin says, that there was at Rome a statue dedicated to him
as a god.
The history of Simon is an object of interest from the
mention of him by St. Luke, and from his early connection
with Christianity. The accounts of him, however, afford 110
* About the end of the fourth century, Jerome, in a single passage (Opp.
iv. p. i. col. 114), speaks of books written by Simon : " Qui se magnain
dicebat esse Dei virtutem; haec quoque inter csetera in suis voluminibus
ecripta dimittens : Ego sum sermo Dei ; ego sum speciosus, ego Paracletus,
ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei. " Except as a mystical expression of Pan
theism, the passage is somewhat too blasphemous for one readily to believe
it to have been written by any man in his senses. In regard to books
ascribed to Simon, if such really existed in Jerome s time, he is far too late
an authority to afford any proof of their genuineness; and such books are
mentioned by no preceding writer. Beausobre (Histoire du Manicheisme,
i. 269, 260) maintains, what I doubt not is true, that Jerome did not take his
pretended quotation from any work of Simon, nor any work which had been
commonly believed to be Simon s ; though, in doing so, he has destroyed the
only evidence for the opinion, which he himself expresses, that Simon vrote
books explanatory of his doctrine (ibid., p. 259).
f I. Apolog., p. 39.
J Cont. Hares., lib. i. c. 23, 1, 4, pp. 99, 100.
13
EVIDENCES OP THE
means of determining, with any particularity and assurance,
what opinions he put forward ; but, whatever he taught or
affirmed, he did not rest his doctrine on the authority of
Christ. Him he emulated : he was not his disciple. The
only ground on which his followers might be confounded
with Christians is indicated in an account of Irenaeus, that
Simon "taught that it was he himself who had appeared
among the Jews as the Son, had descended as the Father in
Samaria, and had visited other nations as the Holy Spirit." *
Conformably to what has been before remarked, that the
later opinions of a sect were often ascribed to its founder, I
suppose this, or something like this, to have been said, not
by Simon, but by some of his followers. Representing him
as the Great Power of God, manifested in all divine com
munications to men, and reckoning Christianity among these
communications, they thus brought themselves into some
relation to it.
But I imagine them to have been held together as a
sect, rather by the admiration of his supposed powers, by
the worship of him as a divinity, or the Divinity, and by the
study and practice of magical arts, than by the profession
of any system of doctrines. However numerous they may
at one time have been, they soon dwindled away. Origen
charges Celsus with error for speaking of the Simonians
as a Christian sect. That writer "was not aware," he
says, "that they are far from acknowledging Jesus as the
Son of God ; but affirm that Simon was the Power of God.
They relate various marvels of their master, who thought,
that, if he could acquire such powers as he believed Jesus to
possess, he should have as great influence over men." f In
another place, he expresses the opinion, that in his time there
were not more than thirty Simonians in the world. He
* Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 23, 1, p. 99.
t Cont. Cels., lib. v. n. 62; Opp. i. 625, 626.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 195
says, that a very few were living in Palestine (the successors,
we may presume, of his first Samaritan followers) ; but that
generally, wherever the name of Simon was known, it was
through the mention of him in the Acts of the Apostles.*
Elsewhere, he speaks of the sect as having ceased to exist.
" There are no Simonians," he says, " remaining in the
world ; though Simon, in order to draw after him a greater
number of followers, relieved them from the danger of death,
to which Christians were taught to expose themselves,
by teaching them to regard the worship of idols as a matter
of indifference." t They worshipped, as we have seen,
images of Simon and Helena. Irenaeus says, what is alto
gether probable, that they were men of loose lives, devoted
to the study of magic ;$ and their magical discipline was
connected, according to Tertullian, with paying religious
service to angels.
Such, I believe, is the amount of all that can be known,
or probably conjectured, concerning Simon and his followers.
But, beside the historical notices of him, he is introduced as
a principal personage into an ancient work of fiction, called
the Clementine Homilies. This work throws some light on
the history and character of Gnosticism ; but no one would
pretend, that it is of any authority as regards the history of
Simon, or even as regards any doctrines he may have held.
Our information being so imperfect and uncertain concern
ing Simon, the most noted among all who have been repre
sented as Gnostics, either antichristian or heretical, of the
first century, we may be prepared for the obscurity and
doubt which cloud over the history of other individuals
and of supposed heretical sects during the same period.
* Cont. Gels., lib. i. n. 57, pp. 372, 373.
f Ibid., lib. vi. n. 11, p. 638.
t Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 23, 4, p. 100.
De Prescript. Haeret., c. 33, p. 214.
196 EVIDENCES OF THE
Menander, another Samaritan, is said to have been the suc
cessor of Simon, and to have claimed, like him, to be one of
the Powers of God, manifested for the salvation of men ; *
and some stories remain of an individual called Dositheus,
who, Origen says, pretended to be the Jewish Messiah.f We
may conclude, perhaps, from these accounts, that, about the
time of Simon, there were other less noted impostors of a
similar character. These, together with him, may be con
sidered as antichristian, not heretical.
Among the reputed heretics of the first century, using the
word heretic in its modern sense, there is none of whom
the notices are adapted to excite any considerable degree of
interest or curiosity, except Cerinthus. Cerinthus is repre
sented by Irenseus, who first mentions him, as a Gnostic
leader, contemporary with St. John. He taught, according
to Irenaeus, that the world was not formed by the Supreme
God, but by a certain Power, widely separated from him, and
ignorant of his existence. He supposed Jesus not to have
been born of a virgin, but of Joseph and Mary. He regarded
him as having been distinguished from other men by superior
wisdom and virtue. Into him, at his baptism, he believed
that Christ descended, from " that Principality which is over
all" (the Pleroma), in the form of a dove ; and that then he
announced the Unknown Father, and performed miracles.
At the crucifixion, Christ, who was spiritual and impassible,
re-ascended from Jesus, and Jesus suffered alone. He alone
died, and rose from the dead.$ Irenasus also relates an idle
* Irenseus, lib. i. c. 23, 5, p. 100.
f Cont. Cels., lib. i. n. 57; Opp. i. 372. Dositheus is elsewhere spoken
of by Origen, in several places; but is not mentioned by Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria, or Tertullian. It may here be observed, that the short ac
count of heresies published in the editions of Tertullian, at the end of his
book, De Prsescriptione Hgereticorum, is not the work of that father. In this
account, Disitheus is spoken of.
\ Cont H*res , lib. i. c. 26, 1, p. 106.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 197
tale, which he says some had heard from Polycarp, that
John, while residing at Ephesus, on going to bathe, found
Cerimlms in the building, and rushed out, exclaiming, " Let
us fly, lest the bath should fall upon us ; Cerinthus, the ene
my of truth, being within." * He further supposes, that one
purpose of John in writing his Gospel was to confute the
errors of Cerinthus.t
In the account given by Irena3us of the doctrines of Cerin
thus, there is nothing, perhaps, intrinsically improbable ; and,
from this account, it would appear that Cerinthus held the
characteristic doctrines of the Gnostics. But the Roman
presbyter, Caius, contemporary with Irenoeus, represents him
as a believer in a millennium, in which sensual pleasures
were to be enjoyed, and affirms him to have been the author
of a certain book, which Caius so describes as to leave, I
think, little doubt that he intended the Apocalypse. He
speaks of Cerinthus as one "who, in Revelations, written
under the name of a great apostle, introduced forged accounts
of marvels, which he pretended had been shown him by
angels ; and taught, that, after the resurrection, there was to
be an earthly reign of Christ, and that men, dwelling in
Jerusalem, would again become slaves to the lusts and pleas
ures of the flesh." $ In the last half of the third century,
Dionysius of Alexandria, referring probably to this passage,
says that some of those before him had ascribed the Apoca-.
lypse to Cerinthus, regarding it as an unintelligible and inco
herent book; and he himself assigns to Cerinthus the same
Jewish notions concerning the millennium which Caius had
represented him as holding. In the account of Irenasus,
Cerinthus appears as an early Gnostic; but the expectation
* Cont. Hseres., lib. Hi. c. 3, 4, p. 177. The same story is told by
Epiphanius, not of Cerinthus, but of Ebion. Haeres., xxx. 23, pp. 148,
149.
t Lib. iii. c. 11, 1, p. 188.
J Apud Eusst. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 28. Ibid., et lib. viii. c. 25.
198 EVIDENCES OF THE
of a millennial reign of Christ had its origin in the belief of
the Jews, antecedent to Christianity, concerning the temporal
reign of their Messiah. The doctrine was Jewish in its origin
and character, and altogether foreign from the conceptions of
the Gnostics. They could not but revolt at the idea of
assigning to their Christ a glorious reign on this earth, which,
in their view, was the dwelling-place of imperfection and evil,
over followers reclothed in what they regarded as the pollu
tion of flesh. But, according to Irenaeus, Cerinthus coincided
with the Gnostics in holding their essential doctrines of an
Unknown God, of an ignorant and imperfect Creator, and
of the necessity of a divine interposition through Christ,
descending from the pure world of spirits. But the strongly
marked character of the Apocalypse is such as to render it
impossible that it should have been written by a Gnostic, or
by one holding the doctrines that Irenaeus attributes to
Cerinthus. The supposition would have been too glaring
an absurdity to have been made by Caius, or countenanced
by Dionysius. They, therefore, did not regard him as hold
ing those doctrines. On the other hand, they not improbably
considered him as an Ebionite, according to one part of the
representation which, as we shall see, was given by Epipha-
nius concerning him.
Cerinthus is not named (and the fact is of importance in
forming a judgment concerning his history) by Justin Martyr,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen. From this we
may conclude, that he was not particularly conspicuous in the
first century ; that he left no reputation which had made
a deep impression on the minds of men ; that there was no
considerable body of heretics bearing his name in the second
and third centuries ; and that no writings of his were extant,
of any celebrity. Probably there were none whatever ; for
except a story of Epiphanius about a pretended gospel, which
we shall elsewhere have occasion to examine, none are re
ferred to by any writer.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 199
Justin Martyr, as has been mentioned, does not name
Corinth us. On the contrary, he implies his ignorance of any
individuals who separated the man Jesus and the JEon Christ
in the manner in which Cerinthus and his followers are said
to have done by Irena3us. In a passage in which he is speak
ing of the Gnostics generally, and in which he particularly
mentions the names of the leading sects, he describes them as
" not teaching the doctrines of Christ, but those of the spirits
of delusion ; " yet " professing themselves to be Christians,
and professing that Jesus who was crucified was the Lord
and Christ." * According to the account of Irenaeus, Cerin
thus and his followers could have made no such profession.
The distinction that was in fact supposed by the theosophic
Gnostics between the ^Eon Christ and the man Jesus, Justin,
if it existed in his day, overlooked ; and it could hardly, there
fore, have been a doctrine that had its origin in the first
century, when Cerinthus is said to have lived.
Of this reputed heretic we have further notices in Epipha-
nius ; f but, with that writer, we enter the region of fable.
After repeating, in effect, the brief account of Irenaeus, he
subjoins, that Cerinthus was a zealot for the Mosaic Law ; $
though, with a disregard of probability common enough in his
stories, he states, at the same time, that Cerinthus " affirmed
that the giver of the Law was not good." Epiphanius,
among other fictions, pretends that he was a leader of those
Jewish Christians, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, who
contended that the Gentile converts must be circumcised.
He thus ascribes to him the two opposite heresies of the
Gnostics and the Ebionites. It may be noted also, as re-
* Dial, cum Tryph., p. 207.
t Hseres., xxviii.; Opp. i. 110, seqq. $ Ibid., pp. 110-113.
Ibid., p. 111. Such a representation, says Massuet, the Benedictine
editor of Irenseus, hardly obtains credit with men in their senses, vix fidem
apud sobrios obtlnet. See his Dissertatio Prima in Libb. Irenaei, De Cerintho,
n. 127, p. 53.
200 EVIDENCES OF THE
markable even among the blunders of Epiphariius, that he
follows Irenasus in stating the belief of Cerintlms to have
been, that Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ returned
to the Pleroma ; * and shortly after asserts, that Cerinthus
" dared to affirm that Christ suffered and was crucified, and
was not yet raised, but would rise in the general resurrec
tion." f He concludes by expressing his uncertainty whether
Cerinthus and Merinthus were the same, or two different her
etics.
From the contradictory accounts of Cerinthus; from the
silence respecting him of the four Christian writers of highest
eminence during the period in which they lived, Justin
Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen ; from
the implication of Justin, that he knew of no heretics holding
such opinions as Irenseus ascribes to Cerinthus ; and from
the fables which Epiphanius has connected with his name,
we may infer that very little was certainly known concerning
him. Of the stories relating to him, it may seem the most
probable solution, that there was a heretic of that name in
the first century, of whom little or no information had been
preserved, except that he was a heretic; and that, it not
being certainly known in what his error consisted, Cerinthus
had hence the ill-fortune to have ascribed to him divers con
tradictory heresies, which different writers supposed to have
had their origin in that early period, and was sometimes
made a Gnostic, sometimes an Ebionite, and sometimes a
millenarian, and the forger of the Apocalypse.
From the fathers we can derive no information concerning
Jae existence of Gnostics in the first century, more satisfac
tory than what has been stated. It has been thought, how
ever, that there are references to them in the New Testament
itself; and this is a subject that has been much discussed.
* Hseres., xxvih p. 111. f Ibid., p. 113.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 201
It may be, that they are referred to in what has been called
the Second Epistle of Peter, and in the Epistle ascribed to
Jude. But these writings were not generally acknowledged
by the early Christians as the works of those apostles ; and
we have no reason to assign them an earlier date than the
first half of the second century. There seems to me no good
reason for believing that Gnostics are taken notice of in any
genuine writing of an apostle; nor, I may here add, do I
think it probable that any Gnostic system had been formed,
or any Gnostic sect was in existence, before the end of the
first century.
In the Epistles of St. Paul, the false teachers and the false
doctrines that he refers to were for the most part evidently
of Jewish origin. Nor do I perceive in them an allusion
to any peculiar doctrine of the Gnostics. When we keep in
mind what those peculiar doctrines were, the introduction
of an Unknown God ; the ascribing of the creation, and of
the origin of the Jewish religion, to an imperfect being or
beings ; the representing of Christ as a manifestation of the
Unknown God, or a messenger from him, who merely used
Jesus as an organ for his communications, or had only the
unsubstantial semblance of a human body ; and the specula
tions of the theosophic Gnostics, founded on hypostatizing the
ideas and attributes of God, when we recollect what were
the characteristic doctrines of the Gnostics, we shall perceive,
I think, that there is no reference to them in those passages
in which St. Paul has been supposed by some to have
had them in view. The strong, general language in which he
sometimes speaks of the false teachers of his day, though
often sufficiently applicable to a portion of the Gnostics, as it
is to false teachers of later times, contains nothing by which
those heretics are particularly designated. Had St. Paul
been acquainted with any professed expounders of Christian
ity, who were attempting to introduce the fundamental doc
trine of the Gnostics, the doctrine of an Unknown God,
202 EVIDENCES OF THE
different from the God of the Jews, his Epistles would have
left no shadow of uncertainty respecting the fact. On this
ground I think it may be determined from them, that no
heretics of such a character existed in his time.
Nor does it appear probable, that the Gnostics are referred
to by St. John, in the introduction to his Gospel. The
passage has been explained as if the apostle alluded to a
scheme, like that of Valentinus, concerning the derivation of
uEons from the Supreme Being. But there seems no reason
to suppose that such a scheme existed in the time of the
apostle. Valentinus, who did not appear till somewhere
about thirty years later, is represented as the author of the
scheme taught by him, with which the language of St. John
has been compared. The names which Valentinus gave to
some of his thirty jEons correspond to names found in the
introduction of St. John s Gospel ; but it is more probable
that they were suggested to him by this introduction, than that
the apostle referred to them as already employed by Gnos
tics. The Valentinians made use of the passage in question,
and accommodated it to their opinions, as they did the rest
of the New Testament, as far as was in their power.
It has been especially thought, that St. John, in his first
Epistle, animadverts either on the opinion existing in the
second century among the theosophic Gnostics, that the man
Jesus was to be distinguished from the JEon Christ, as a dis
tinct agent, which was connected with the doctrine, that
Jesus had not a proper human body of flesh and blood ; or
on the opinion of the Docetae, that the apparent body of
Jesus was a mere phantom. He has been supposed to do so
in the passage in which he says, " Every spirit [that is, every
teacher] professing that Jesus is the Messiah [or Christ]
come in the flesh is from God ; and every spirit which pro
fesses not Jesus is not from God."* But it seems to me
* 1 John iv. 2, 3. I omit, with Griesbach and other critics, the words in
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 203
most probable, that the apostle merely had in view individu
als who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, and objected that
the Messiah would not have come, as Jesus had done, to lead
a life of hardship, and die a cruel and ignominious death ;
that he would not have " come in the flesh," that is, exposed
to all the accidents and sufferings of humanity. Perhaps,
however, by the Messiah s " coming in the flesh," St. John
meant nothing more than that he had appeared in the
world," that he had " appeared among men." That the
words were not essential to the main idea which he wished
to express is evident from his omitting them in a correspond
ing passage, where he likewise refers to the false teachers
to whom Christians were exposed, and where he simply
describes them as "denying that Jesus is the Messiah."!
In this latter passage, if in either, one might suppose him to
have had Christian heretics in view ; for he says that those
of whom he speaks had separated themselves from the body
of Christians : $ but it is clear that he did not here refer to
individuals as holding any Gnostic doctrine, but to proper
apostates and unbelievers.
It may appear, therefore, that little or nothing can be in
ferred from any authentic source to* prove the existence of
Gnostic systems or sects during the first century. The
the last clause, answering to those italicized in what follows: "And every
spirit which professes not that Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God."
t 1 John ii. 22.
\ "They have gone out from us." Ibid. ii. 19.
In treating of the heretics of the first century, I, of course, make no use
of the pretended Epistles of Ignatius, of which I shall speak in sect. vi. of
Note C, pp. 560-566. Jerome (Advers. Luciferianos, Opp. iv. pars. ii. coL
804), in a declamatory passage, full, as I conceive, of misstatements, asserts
that, " while the apostles were still living, while the blood of Christ was still
recent in Judaea, it was maintained that the body of Christ was a phantom."
But the authority of such a writer, at the end of the fourth century, is of no
weight. Gibbon, however, twice imitates the passage of Jerome, and repeat*
his assertion. ( History of the Roman Empire, chaps, xxi. and xlvii )
204 EVIDENCES OF THE
accounts of supposed Gnostics given by Irenaeus and others
will not bear the test of examination, as we have seen in the
ase of Cerinthus ; or they relate, as in the case of Simon
Magus and Menander, not to Christian heretics, but to anti-
christian impostors. But we are now about to quit the
uncertain ground over which we have hitherto made our
way, and enter on a somewhat more open road. In the
earlier part of the second century, light breaks in upon us,
and individuals and systems distinctly appear. We likewise
find evidence to confirm the conclusion to which we have
arrived, that the Gnostics did not before this time make their
appearance.
There is no dispute that the leading sects of the Gnostics
that is to say, the Valentinians and the Marcionites, with
whom the Basilidians may perhaps be classed had their
origin after the close of the first century.
* Subsequently to the teaching of the apostles," says Clement
)f Alexandria, "about the reign of Adrian [A.D. 117-138],
appeared those who devised heretical opinions, and they continued
to live till that of the elder Antoninus [A.D. 138-161]. Of this
number was Basilides, though, as his followers boast, he claimed
Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter, for his teacher; as it is likewise
reported, that Valentinus was a hearer of Theodas, who was famil
iar with Paul. As for Marcion, who was their contemporary, he
continued to remain as an old man with his juniors." *
The account of Clement respecting Valentinus and Mar
cion corresponds with what is said by Irenaeus, who states
that Valentinus " came to Rome while Hyginus was bishop,
flourished during the time of Pius, and remained till that of
Anicetus. Marcion was at his height under Anicetus."f
The particular dates assigned to these three bishops of Rome
are so various and uncertain as to make it not worth while
* Stroinat., vii. 17, pp. 898, 899.
t Cont. Haeres., lib. iii. c. 4, 3, pp. 178, 179.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 205
to give them ; but the first died some time before, and the
last survived, the middle of the second century. Justin
Martyr, who wrote his first Apology about the year 150,
twice speaks in it of Marcion as then living ; * and Tertul-
lian refers both Marcion and Valentinus to the times of
Antoninus Pius.f
The Valentinians, Marcionites, and Basilidians are all
mentioned in the remaining works of Justin Martyr. In his
Dialogue with Trypho, he says, that the existence of men
who, though Christians in profession, teach not the doctrines
of Christ, but those of the spirits of delusion, serves to con
firm the faith of the true believer, because it is a fulfilment
of the prophecies of Christ. He had declared that falso
teachers should come in his name, having the skins of sheep,
but being ravening wolves within. " And accordingly," says
Justin, " there are and have been many coming in the name
of Jesus, who have taught men to say and do impious and
blasphemous things." " Some in one way, and some in
another, teach men to blaspheme the Maker of all, and
the Messiah who was prophesied as coming from him,
and the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." In these
words, Justin refers to the fundamental doctrines of the
Gnostics, that the maker of the material universe, or
the chief of those by whom it was made, was not the
Supreme God, but a being imperfect in power, wisdom,
and goodness ; that the same being was the god of the
Jews ; and that the expected Jewish Messiah, who had been
foretold as coming from him, had been superseded by an
other, an unexpected messenger of a far higher charac
ter and office, coming from and revealing the true God.
Some of the heretics mentioned, Justin proceeds to say,
* I. Apolog., p. 43, p. 85.
t Advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374. De Prescript. Hseret., c. 30
p. 212
206 EVIDENCES OF THE
" are called Marcionites, some Valentinians, some Basilidians,
some Saturuilians, and others by different names, after their
leaders." * The Saturnilians or followers of Saturnilus, or
Saturninus, as he is more commonly called, were an obscure
sect which requires no particular notice.
The M&rcionites are twice mentioned by Justin elsewhere.
"Marcion of Pontus," he says, "under the impulse of evil
demons, is even now teaching men to deny the God who is
the Maker of all things celestial and terrestrial, and the
Messiah bis Son, who was foretold by the prophets, and
proclaiming a certain other God beside the Maker of all
things, and likewise another Son." f
Beside these notices of them in his remaining works,
Justin composed, as he himself informs us, j a treatise against
all heresies ; but this is not extant. Irenaeus quotes a book
of Justin against Marcion, which was perhaps a portion of
the work just mentioned, but which, whether it were so or
not, is also lost.
Such being the case, the most important authority respect
ing the history of the early heretics, except the Marcionites,
is Justin s contemporary, Irenaeus. The large work of Ire-
nasus which remains to us (principally in an ancient Latin
translation) is occupied by the statement and refutation of
their opinions. Though he gives accounts of other heresies,
he writes with particular reference to the Valentinians,
whom he regarded as the chief of the Gnostic sects. || " The
doctrine of the Valentinians," says Irenasus, " is a summary
of all heresies, and he who confutes those heretics confutes
every other." 1T He explains at length their theory as it
* Dial, cum Tryph., pp. 207-209.
t I- Apolog., p. 85 ; vide etiam p. 43. $ I. Apolog., p. 44.
Cont. Hajres., lib. iv. c. 6, 2, p 233.
|| Ibid., lib. i. Prarf. 2, p. 3.
T Ibid., lib. iv. Prsef 2, p. 227 : conf. lib. ii. c. 31, 1, p. 163.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 207
existed in his day, not indeed in its original form, as it pro
ceeded from Valentinus, but as it had been subsequently
modified by one of his most distinguished followers, Ptolemy.
Afterwards, he gives an account of the original scheme of
Valentinus, which does not appear to have differed in any
essential particular from the modification of it by Ptol
emy.*
The statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians are
confirmed by Tertullian in a work written expressly against
that sect,f which so closely resembles the account of Irenaeua
as to leave little doubt that he took this for the basis of his
own ; though there is no reason for supposing, that his
acquaintance with the doctrines of the Valentinians was de
rived only from the writings of that earlier father. Many
notices of them are found in his other works, and in those of
Clement of Alexandria, and of Origen. These notices con
firm generally what is stated by Irenaeus, and add something
to the information which he affords.
We have also some remains of the writings of Valentinians
themselves. The most important of them is a letter by
Ptolemy, preserved by P^piphariius.J It is addressed to a
lady, whose name was Flora, and contains an account of his
opinions concerning the origin and character of the Jewish
Law, and the god of the Jews, whom he identifies with the
Maker of the world. However erroneous may be the opin
ions of Ptolemy, he expresses himself with good sense, and
his manner is unobjectionable.
Epiphanius has likewise given an extract from the work
of some one, whom he calls a Valentinian, but whose name
he does not mention. It relates to the derivation of the
^Eons. The writer commences by professing his intention to
* Lib. i. c. 11, p. 52, seqq. t Adversus Valentinianos.
J Haeres., xxxiii. p. 216, seqq. The letter of Ptole:aiy is also printed in
the Appendix to Massuet s edition of Irenaeus.
Haeres., xxxi. p. 168, seqq. Apud Irensei Opp., ed. Massuet, p. 855
208 EVIDENCES OF THE
speak of " things nameless and supercelestial, which cannot
be fully comprehended by principalities nor powers, nor
those in subjection, nor by any one, but are manifest only
to the thought of the Unchangeable ; " and he proceeds in
a manner conformable to this annunciation, so discouraging
to a common reader. It is a very offensive specimen of
the extravagances of some of the Gnostics. Epiphanius,
as has been mentioned, ascribes it to a Valentinian. But,
from its want of correspondence with the preceding accounts
of the different systems held by Valentinus and his followers,
it affords additional proof, either that the speculations of the
Valentinians were continually changing their form, or that
the names of ancient sects were very loosely applied in the
time of Epiphanius.*
There is also a work consisting, in great part, of extracts
from one or more writers of the school of Valentinus.f But
it is of less value than might be expected. It presents no
connected system. Its language is very obscure ; its text
appears to have been but ill preserved ; and there is a diffi
culty in distinguishing between the words and sentiments of
the compiler and those which he quotes.
Beside the writings mentioned, Origen has preserved vari
ous passages from a commentary on the Gospel of John by
Heracleon, a distinguished Valentinian of the second cen
tury ; and Clement of Alexandria affords us another extract
* In the passage quoted by Epiphanius, there are allusions of the grossest
kind in reference to the production of the ^Eons. Such language, as Clement
of Alexandria informs us, was used, in his time, by the followers of an indi
vidual, named Prodicus ; but Clement, in speaking of them, exculpates the
Valentinians from the imputation of such impurity- Stromat, iii. 4,
pp. 524, 525.
t The title of this compilation is, " From the Writings of Theodotus. The
Heads of the Oriental Doctrine, so called, as it existed in the Age of Valen
tinus," I shall quote the work under the name of "Doctrina Orientalis."
It may be found in Potter s edition of the Works of Clement of Alexandria,
p. 966, seqq.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 209
from Heracleon, and a few extracts from the works of Valen-
tinus himself.*
Of the opinions of Marcion and his followers, our informa
tion is nearly or quite as ample. Irenaeus, indeed, gives but
a short account of them ; it having been his intention, as
he states, to refute that heretic in a separate treatise. This
work, if he ever accomplished it, which is not probable, is
now lost. The reasons which he assigns for discussing Mar-
cion s system by itself deserve attention. He says, " Because
Marcion alone has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures,
and has gone beyond all others in shamelessly disparaging the
character of God [the Creator], I shall oppose him by himself,
confuting him from his own writings ; and, with the help of
God, effect his overthrow by means of those discourses of our
Lord and his apostle [St. Paul] which are respected by him,
and which he himself uses." f In speaking of Marcion s dis
paraging the character of God, Irenaeus refers, as will be
readily understood, not to Marcion s opinions concerning the
Supreme Being, but to his opinions concerning that inferior
agent whom the Gnostics conceived of as the Maker of the
world. In the view of Irenaeus, the Supreme God and
the Maker of the world being the same, what was said
unworthily of the latter he regarded as virtually said of
the former.
The information respecting the Marcionites which we miss
in Irenaeus is abundantly supplied by Tertullian in his long
and elaborate treatise, " Against Marcion ; " a composition
that so clearly exhibits the workings of a powerful mind,
in which striking thoughts are presented with such condensa
tion of language, expressions stand out in such bold relief,
* These fragments of Heracleon and Valentinus are collected in the
Appendix to Massuet s edition of Irenaeus.
t Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 27, 4, p. 106.
14
210 EVIDENCES OF THE
and arguments are sometimes so rapidly developed, as, not
withstanding a difficult style and a corrupt text, to fix the
attention, and create an interest in the exposition and confu
tation of obsolete errors. Of Marcion and his followers we
find mention, likewise, in other works of Tertullian, and in
those of Clement and of Origen ; and, in addition to what
is given by Tertullian, Epiphanius affords some further infor
mation, which there is no particular reason to distrust, re
specting Marcion s mutilations of the New Testament.
As regards other Gnostic sects existing in the second cen
tury, our principal information must be derived from the ear
lier fathers who have been mentioned, Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Clement, and Origen.* For the most part, the later fathers
who have written concerning the Gnostics either copy their
predecessors, or present us, instead of facts, with misconcep
tions, fictions, and calumnies ; or perhaps report, under some
ancient name, the doctrines and practices ascribed to supposed
individuals of their own day, who, if such individuals really
existed, had little in common with those by whom the name
given to them had been formerly borne. If we would have
any just conceptions of Christian antiquity, we must never
lose sight of the distinction between the earlier and the later
fathers, between those who wrote before, and those who
wrote after, the establishment of Christianity as the religion
of the empire. It has been greatly neglected. It admits of
particular exceptions and much qualification in favor of indi
viduals. But, generally, a wide separation is to be mado
between the patient or stern sufferers of the ages of persecu-
* I have already had occasion to mention the addition by another writer
to Tertullian s work, De Praescriptione. (See p. 196, note f.) The date of its
composition is uncertain. It is a brief summary of some of the common
accounts of the heretical sects, evidently made with little investigation, and,
consequently, of little value. An undue weight is sometimes given it, by its
being quoted as if written by Tertullian
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 211
tion, whose religion was the principle of their lives, and the
courtier bishops who frequented the imperial palace, the fac
tious and virulent party -leaders who rent the Church with
their dissensions, and the fiery ascetics to whom monastic
superstition gave birth.
Of the later writers concerning the Gnostics, the first to be
mentioned is Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus during
the latter part of the fourth century, and the author of a large
work " Against Eighty Heresies." He was a zealot of a
mean mind and persecuting temper. He had a childish love
of multiplying the sects and names of the heretics, and was
unsparing in loading them with opprobrium. He was, un
doubtedly, credulous, and has sometimes told in good faith
what cannot be believed ; but the stories that he relates on
his own authority show that his want of truth was equal to
his want of good sense. In some of those charges which he
is ever ready to bring against the heretics, he discovers a
mind familiar with the most loathsome conceptions of impu
rity. His work, at the same time, is full of blunders and
contradictory statements, arising from ignorance, negligence,
and want of capacity. Still something may be learnt from it ;
and the testimony of Epiphanius may deserve attention, when
his reports are intrinsically probable, when they coincide with
and complete the information of some more credible writer,
when they are in opposition to his own prejudices, or in cases
in which there was no temptation to falsehood and small
liability to mistake. Sometimes, also, we may form a prob
able conjecture, by considering on what facts a particular
misrepresentation, coming from a writer of such a character,
was likely to be founded. Even where his accounts in their
gross state are false, it has been found possible, by combining
them with the information received from others, by subject
ing them to an analysis and applying the proper tests, to
detect and separate a portion of truth.
212 EVIDENCES OP THE
We pass to a work on heresies, entitled " A Dialogue
concerning the Right Faith in God," De Recta in Deum
Fide?* This has sometimes been regarded as a work of Ori-
gen : but it is the production of a later writer, who lived after
the establishment of Christianity as the religion of the empire,
and appears to have borne, like Origen, the name of Adaman-
tius ; it being now ascribed in its title to an author of that
name. In determining the opinions of the ancient heretics,
too much credit has been given to this work, which deserves
little or no consideration when its accounts are inconsistent
with those of the earlier fathers. It is the production of one
who was very imperfectly acquainted with the real doctrines
of the Gnostics, if he meant to represent them correctly, and
who has, in consequence, improperly assigned to different
sects opinions which it was his purpose to confute.
In the latter half of the fourth century, a work on heresies
was composed by Philaster, Bishop of Brescia in Italy, a
writer of the lowest order. It is full of almost pitiable weak
nesses. His reputation, for some reputation he had, serves
to show how low the human intellect had sunk in his age
within the limits of the Western Empire.
His work is, however, quoted as a main source of informa
tion on the subject by Augustin, who has left a name indel
ibly impressed on the history of the world, and who, in the
first half of the fifth century, likewise wrote on heretics. But
his " Catalogue of Heresies," as it is entitled, is merely a
synopsis, apparently a hasty production, composed without
any critical inquiry. It is of no authority, containing little
which is not taken from Epiphanius or Philaster ; and it
even appears that he was ignorant of the existence of the
whole work of Epiphanius. His description of the book
* It is published in the first volume of De la Rue s edition f Origen.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 213
which he used is applicable only to an epitome of it.* He
probably consulted some manuscript which contained in a
Latin translation (for he was ignorant of Greek) only the
synopses that Epiphanius has prefixed to the different divis
ions of his work. It is evident that he did not write from
any personal knowledge of Gnostics as existing in his time.
In the fifth century, likewise, Theodoret, who holds a high
rank among the later Greek fathers, composed a treatise on
the heretics, in five books.f The first three books relate to
those whom he calls ancient heretics, the Gnostics and the
Manichaeans ; the Ebionites, and those who believed with
them that Christ was only a man; and some others, whom
he ranks with neither class. Concerning these ancient here
tics, he professes to have compiled his information from older
writers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, Eusebius the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius of
Emesa, Adamantius (the author of the Dialogue De Recta
fide), and others of less note, whose works are lost. It is
perhaps a proof of his good sense, that he does not name
Epiphanius as an authority. He speaks of the ancient sects,
preceding the time of Arius, as being for the most part ex
tinct ; and apprehends that he may be blamed by some for
having " brought them again from the darkness of oblivion
into the light of memory." $ He says, that God, permitting
the evil seed to be sown, had turned the greater part of the
tares into wheat, so that most places were free from the Gnos
tic heresies ; the remaining disciples of Valentinus and of
Marcion, and likewise the Manichaeans, being few, easily
numbered, and thinly scattered in certain cities. In various
* Opp. (Basil, 1569) vi. col. 10.
t Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, in the fourth volume of Sir-
ond s edition of his works.
J Epist. Praefat. ad Sporacium, pp. 188, 189.
\ Haeret Fab., lib. ii. Praefat. p. 218.
214 EVIDENCES OP THE
places he expresses himself to the same effect. The ancient
heresies, he informs us, had passed out of notice ; they had
either been " rooted up, or remained, like half-withered trees,
in a few cities and villages." *
* Lib. iii. Prsefat. p. 226; lib. iii. (adfinem\ p. 132; lib. iv. Prsefat. p. 232.
Certain assertions, however, in the Epistles of Theodoret may appear, at
first sight, irreconcilable with those quoted above. In one place (Epist.
Jxxxi., Opp. iii. pars. ii. p. 954), he says he had converted the inhabitants of
eight villages, together with those of the neighboring country, from the
heresy of Marcion, and brought them over willingly to the truth ; in another
(Epist. cxiii. pp. 986, 987), that, during the twenty-six years he had been
bishop, he had u delivered more than a thousand souls from the disease of
Marcion," adding, that all heresy was thoroughly extirpated from the
churches under his charge; and in a third (Epist. cxlv. p. 1026), that, by
his controversial writings against them, he had made orthodox Christians of
more than a myriad of Marcionites, which, of course, may be considered as
an extravagant rhetorical amplification. It is an obvious remark, that a sect
must have been already falling to pieces, from which converts were made so
readily. It is probable, likewise, that Theodoret, who, in these Epistles, is
defending himself against his enemies, and enumerating his services and
labors as bishop, not only exaggerated in the estimate of numbers, but
applied the name Marcionite very loosely. The remains of the Marcionites,
however, from the more simple doctrines and stricter morality and discipline
of the sect, were likely to survive those of the other Gnostics.
Another passage of one of Theodoret s Epistles has been referred to
(Priestley s History of Early Opinions, vol. i. p. 148), as proving that the
Gnostics were reviving in his time. But the passage has been misunder
stood. Theodoret says, " Those who, at the present time, have renewed the
heresy of Marcion and Valentinus and Manes, and the other Docetae, being
angry with me for publicly exposing their heresy, have endeavored to de
ceive the emperor " (Epist. Ixxxii. p. 955). He is here speaking, not of any
proper Gnostics, but of his enemies, the Eutychians, at that time the domi
nant party in the Church. With reference to their opinions respecting tlm
person of Christ, he elsewhere describes them as endeavoring to plant anew
the heresy of Valentinus and Bardesanes, which had been rooted out (Epist.
cxlv. p. 1024). In his work on Heresies, likewise, he says, that Satan, by
means of " the miserable Eutyches, had caused the heresy of Valentinus,
withered long ago, to flower again" (Hseret. Fab., lib. iv. n. 13; Opp. iv.
246.
These passages illustrate the loose manner in which the names of ancient
Gnostic sects were applied in later times, and serve to show that they were
sometimes used as mere terms of reproach toward those who were regarded
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 215
Beside the writers who have been mentioned, and of whose
respective authority it has been my purpose to give some
estimate, there are notices of the Gnostics, though not of much
value, in Eusebius s Ecclesiastical History ; and some informa
tion concerning them is scattered, here and there, in the
wiitings of other later fathers. But, in general, it is little to
be relied on.
In addition, likewise, to what is said of them by Christian
writers, we find some notices of them in the works of the
heathen opponents of Christianity. Celsus brought forward,
as objections to Christianity, their real or pretended doctrines,
in his work which was answered by Origen. In one place,
as quoted by Origen,* he says, " Let no one think me ignorant,
that some of the Christians agree that their God is the same
with the God of the Jews, while others maintain one opposite
to him, from whom they say that the Son came."
In the third century, Gnostics, and individuals holding some
of the fundamental doctrines of the Gnostics, were made a
subject of remark by the later Platonists, Plotinus and
Porphyry. After the death of Plotinus, Porphyry reduced
into some form, and gave some finish to, the crude mass of his
writings, which he had left unpublished, and prefixed to them
an account of his life. In this account, he says that there
were in the time of Plotinus many Christians, and other
sectaries, drawn away from the ancient philosophy, the fol
lowers of Adelphius and Acylinus, two individuals of whom
we have no further knowledge. These sectaries used the
works of writers whose names Porphyry gives, but of whom
nothing now remains except their names. They likewise, he
states, had books entitled Revelations, ascribed to Zoroaster f
as coinciding with the Gnostics in Rome one of their opinions. A similar use
of opprobrious appellations has at all times been common.
* Cont. Gels., lib. v. n. 61 ; Opp. i. 624.
t Many spurious works were about this time ascribed to Zoroaster. Of
216 EVIDENCES OP THE
and others. "Being," he says, "deceived themselves, they
deceived many, pretending that Plato had not penetrated to
the depth of the essence of intelligiUes" Plotinus, he informs
us, had written a treatise concerning them, which he, in his
arrangement of Plotinus s works, had entitled " Against the
Gnostics."* But in the manuscripts of this treatise there is
found another title, more precise and appropriate, which de
scribes it as " Against those who affirm that the World and its
Maker are Bad." Porphyry says, that he had himself proved
at length, that the work ascribed to Zoroaster was spurious,
having been lately fabricated by those sectaries. f It may be
remarked, that Clement of Alexandria says, that the followers
of Prodicus, a most immoral sect of pseudo- Gnostics, boasted
of possessing the secret writings of Zoroaster. $
Plotinus, in the tract referred to, represents those against
whom he is writing as believing that the sensible universe
was badly formed by an imperfect and erring power, sinking
downward, as it were, with failing wings. He himself taught
that it was eternal, without beginning or end. He refers
particularly to doctrines concerning its formation, coincident
with those ascribed to the Valentinians by Irenaeus, || which
will be hereafter explained. In reference to the doctrine of
the Gnostics concerning JEons, or hypostatized attributes and
ideas, emanent from God, and belonging to the totality of his
nature, he objects, that, under pretence of investigating more
accurately, they so divided the intelligible nature into this
multitude of beings as to make it like the sensible. The
these, his " Oracles " alone are, in part, extant. They may be found at the
end of Stanley s "History of Philosophy." But they are not the work
referred to above. They contain nothing peculiarly Gnostic, but are con
formed to the doctrine of the later Platonists, and are quoted with admiration
by Proclus, and other writers of that school.
* Now forming the ninth book of the second Ennead of his Works,
p. 199, seqq.
t Plotini Vita, ubi sup. j. Stromat., i. 15, p. 357.
Cont. Gnost, 4, p. 202, passim. \\ Ibid., 4, p. 202, 10, p. 209.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 21"|
division, he says, should be as small as possible, into not more
than three* (the trinity of the later Platoriists). He dwells
upon their blaming the constitution and government of the
world.f He speaks of their hating the body. | He says that
they used magical arts. And he represents their doctrines
its strongly tending to produce bad morals. ||
In all this, so far as it goes, there is sufficient agreement
with the representations of the fathers concerning the Gnos
tics. But there is no evidence that Plotiuus was writing
against Christian heretics. Nothing is said by him concerning
that essential part of the scheme of the Gnostics which was
founded on Christianity. The doctrines attacked by him
might have been, and probably were, all held by heathen
speculatists ; and to such there seems little doubt that he
primarily referred. He nowhere uses the name of Gnostic
or Christian in this discussion. He nowhere, throughout his
writings, makes any direct and open attack on Christians, or
expressly recognizes their existence. Thus leaving the great
body of Christians unassailed, it is not likely that he would
have entered into a labored controversy with heretics, dis
avowed by them, though claiming the Christian name, and not
recognized as proper heathen philosophers, who consequently
could hardly have been thought by him worthy of so much
attention. There are doubtless in his tract "Against the
Gnostics " positions asserted contrary to Christian truth, or to
what was then the common belief of Christians ; as, for in
stance, he in one place expressly defends polytheism, If and
in another argues against ascribing diseases to the agency of
demons : ** but this does not prove that the writer had Chris
tian heretics particularly in view. In supporting his own
* Ibid., 6, p. 204. f Ibid., 12, p. 211; 15, p. 213, passim.
} Ibid., 17, p. 215, seqq. Ibid., 14, p. 212.
|| Ibid., 15 ; p. 213. Tf Ibid., 9, p. 207.
** Ibid., 14, pp. 212, 213.
218 EVIDENCES OF THE
philosophy, he could not but advance what was opposite to
Christianity, and to the opinions of Christians. He speaks
of those holding the doctrines against which he particularly
wrote, as being, some of them, friends of his own, who had
adopted those opinions before they became his friends.* If
any Christian heretics had become friends of Plotinus, a cir
cumstance very improbable, we can hardly doubt, that in
controverting their peculiar doctrines, bearing throughout a
relation to Christianity, he would have distinctly brought into
view the fact of their being Christians. Porphyry says, that
those against whom his master wrote were followers of
Adelphius and Acylinus. Neither of these names, nor any
that may plausibly be substituted for the latter of the two if
it be an error of transcription, as has been supposed, is found
anywhere in the writings of the fathers as that of the founder
of a Gnostic sect. Nor is the use of any of the books, men
tioned by Porphyry as current among the sectaries of whom
he speaks, ascribed by the fathers to any of the Gnostics;
unless the Revelations of Zoroaster should be supposed an
exception to this remark, on the ground of the statement of
Clement, that the secret writings of Zoroaster were used by
the followers of Prodicus. But the followers of Prodicus
were not, I conceive, Christians.
Thus we have seen from what writers our information con
cerning the history of the Gnostics is to be derived, and how
their respective authority is to be estimated. If the views
that have been taken are correct, it is clear that these writers
are not to be adduced indiscriminately. We cannot gain a
correct knowledge of the Gnostics from a modern account, in
which the statements of Epiphanius, Philaster, Augustin,
and Theodoret are blended, as of equal value, with those of
Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen.
* Cont. Gnost., 10, p. 209
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 219
From what has been said, we conclude that there are no
distinct traces of the existence of Gnostic sects or systems
during the first century. But, before the middle of the second
century, the Gnostics became a well-recognized body, their
most distinguished leaders appeared, and their opinions were
formed into different systems. From the writers of this cen
tury and the next, to Origen inclusive, our principal authentic
information concerning them is to be derived. At the same
time, it is only with the opinions of the Gnostics of the first
three centuries concerning the genuineness of the Gospels
that we are concerned. Those of the Gnostics of a later
period require no particular investigation, and throw no light
on the subject. In the latter part of the third century, the
sect of the Manichseans arose, nearly allied to that of the Gnos
tics, but presenting a bolder and broader theory of the
universe, which cast into the shade the system of their prede
cessors. The names of ancient Gnostic sects, however, still
remained in the fourth century, sometimes, we may believe,
voluntarily assumed, and sometimes imposed as names of
obloquy ; but it may be doubted, whether the tenets of the
sects originally denoted by those names had not, in many
cases, undergone great modifications among their reputed
successors. By the writers of this century, the Gnostics are,
I think, generally treated of in a manner that implies rather
their past existence than their actual prevalence. Their
history became full of mistakes and falsehoods. From the
third to the fifth century, they were probably dwindling away ;
and in the fifth century, in the time of Theodore t, they seem,
with the exception of some remaining Marcionites, nearly to
have disappeared. Indeed, according to Gregory Naziarizen,
they had ceased to disturb the Church before the Arian con
troversy arose, in the beginning of the fourth century.
Speaking of the period immediately preceding, he says, 3 *
Oral, xxiii.; Opp. i 414, ed. Morelli.
220 EVIDENCES OP THE
" There was a time when we had rest from heresies ; when
the Simonians and Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Basili-
dians, and the followers of Cordo, the Cerinthians and Carpo-
cratians, with all their idle and monstrous doctrines, their
complete division of the God of All, and opposing of the
Good God to the Creator, were swallowed up in their own
ABYSS, and given over to SILENCE." In the last clause, there
is a play upon words ; Bvdog, the Depth, or the Abyss, being
the name given by the Valentinians to the Supreme Being,
who was represented by them as having dwelt from eternity
with the .2Eon, Silence.* After the quotation just made,
Gregory speaks of the decline of other heresies extant in the
third century ; and then says, " After a short interval, a new
tempest rose against the Church," the Arian heresy. He
does not represent the old heresies as ever reviving. The
passage from which I have quoted is undoubtedly rhetorical
and inexact ; but we can hardly infer less from it than that
the Gnostic heresy was dwindling away during the fourth
century. In the Code of Justinian, however, among the
edicts against heretics,f the names of ancient Gnostic sects
occur ; but how far those to whom they were applied resem
bled the Gnostics of the second and third centuries, may
appear, from what has been before said, to be very ques
tionable.
Respecting the number of the Gnostics at the time when
they were most numerous, we have no means of approximating
to any precise computation ; but many considerations show
that it must have .borne but a small proportion to that of the
catholic Christians. The doctrines of the theosophic Gnostics
were of such a nature, that they were little likely to be em
braced except by men of a peculiar turn of mind, somewhat
* The same play upon words expressive of the same fact is in Theodoret:
Haeret. Fab., lib. iv. Prsefat. p. 232. f Lib. i. tit. 5.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 221
accustomed to the philosophical speculations of the age ;
especially as the character of that age, and the external cir
cumstances of Christians, did not favor the affectation of
mysticism, or the pride of holding novel theories, among the
unlearned. Ptolemy, the Valentinian, in the beginning of his
letter to Flora, before mentioned, says that u not many have
a right apprehension of the Law given by Moses," meaning,
that not many adopted the Gnostic opinions concerning it.
The followers of Basilides affirmed, according to Irenaeus, that
" few could understand their mysteries, one only in a thou
sand, and two in ten thousand ; " and added, " that the Jews
had ceased to be, but Christians were not as yet." * In the
Doctrina Orientalist Theodotus, or some other Gnostic,
referring to a division of men into three classes, made by
the Valentinians, says, that "the earthy are numerous, the
rational^ [which class included common Christians] are not
numerous, and the spiritual [the Gnostics] are rare."
These statements correspond to the common representation
of the theosophic Gnostics, that their peculiar doctrines were
the esoteric doctrines of Christianity, which had been privately
handed down to those capable of receiving them.
What has been said applies more particularly to the theo
sophic Gnostics. As regards the Marcionites, they were
distinguished for their abstinence from worldly pleasures.
Marriage was not tolerated among them. Those united by it
were obliged to separate, on becoming members of their com
munity. || Their bold doctrines were opposed without dis
guise to the common belief, and to the plain language of the
Gospels, and were little likely to be received except by indi
viduals possessed of more than usual hardihood of mind. In
* Contra Haeres., lib. i. c. 24, 6, p. 102. f See before, p. 90S note f.
\ Oi TpvxiKoi. Doctrina Orientalis, 56, p. 9S3
|| Clement. Al. Stromat., iii. 3, p. 515, seq., 4, p. 522, 5, p. 529, 6,
p. 531, seqq, Tertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 29, pp. 380, 381; lib. iv,
C. 11, p. 422, c. 23, p. 438, c. 34, p. 450; lib. v. c. 7, p 469, c. 15, p. 480.
222 EVIDENCES OF THE
the practice of their self-denying virtues or extravagances,
they were not encouraged, as others have been, by popular
admiration. On the contrary, they were objects of odium.
They had no support but from among themselves. They
were rejected by the catholic Christians as heretics, and by
the Heathens they were persecuted as Christians. They
were very conscientious, but very erroneous believers. Such
a sect we must suppose to have been small, compared with
the catholic Christians ; though there is some ground for be
lieving, that its number was nearly or quite equal to that of
all the other Gnostics.
The fact that the different sects of Gnostics insensibly
melted away at so early a period, and the further fact that
their doctrines had so little influence upon the belief of sub-
Bequent Christians, likewise afford proof that they formed only
a small part of the whole Christian body. The same infer
ence may be drawn from the manner in which they were
treated by the early fathers, who manifest no alarm at their
growth, nor fear of their prevalence, but who write concern
ing them in a tone of undoubting superiority. It may be
further observed, that the early fathers, in the passages in
which they speak of the multitude of Christians who had
spread through the world, neither except nor include the
Gnostics, but appear not to have had them in mind, though
they certainly did not consider them as belonging to the
Church, or, in other words, to the great body of proper
Christians. In the passages, likewise, in which they speak of
the unity of faith in the Church, their modes of expression
imply that the Gnostics bore but a small proportion to the
catholic Christians.
"The Church," says Irenaeus, "though scattered over the
whole world, carefully preserves the faith derived from the apostles
and their disciples, as if it were but a single family in one house
It speaks as with one mouth. For, various as are the languages
of the world, the essential doctrine is one and the same. No
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 223
different belie! has been held or taught by the churches founded in
Germany, nor by those in Spain, nor in Gaul, nor in the East, nor
in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor by those founded in the middle of the
world [Judaea]. But as the sun, the creature of God, in every
part of the world is one and the same ; so the preaching of the
truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all who are desirous of
knowing the truth." *
Language such as this could hardly have been used, if there
had been a large body of professed Christians who rejected
the doctrines of the Church.
Here, then, we conclude what may be called the external
history of the Gnostics. In the next chapter, we shall speak
of their moral characteristics, in connection with their imper
fect knowledge of Christianity.
Cent. Hares., lib. i. c. 10, 2, p. 49: conf. 1, p. 48.
CHAPTER IY.
ON THE MORALS OP THE GNOSTICS, AND THEIR IMPER
FECT CONCEPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.
WHEN, in the second century, after an interval of obscurity
following the times of the apostles, the catholic Christians
appear distinctly in view, we find them distinguished, as a
body, by their abhorrence of the vices of the heathen world,
by a high and stern morality, by the strictness of the disci
pline which respective churches exercised over their members,
by a general tendency to the virtues of the ascetic and the
martyr, and by Christian faith, the conviction of the reality
of the unseen and the future controlling the sense of present
pleasures and sufferings. In this character the Marcionites
appear to have shared; but what was the state of morals
among the theosophic Gnostics is a question less easy to
decide.
Clement of Alexandria divides the heretics into two
classes. " They either teach men," he says, " to lead a loose
life, or, with overstrained severity, they preach continence
through impiety and enmity ; " * that is, as Clement meant,
enmity towards the Creator. In his view, the latter class in
cluded the Marcionites, and some ascetics among the other
Gnostics, to all of whom the name of Encratites f was given.
* Stromat., iii. 5, p. 529, seqq.: conf. 3, 4, p. 515, seqq.
f From the Greek y/cpai%, "practising self-command," "continent.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 225
They taught that it was not right to marry, and bring children
into this imperfect and unhappy world; and, regarding the
body as evil, considered the pleasures of the senses as sinful.
In consequence, Clement ascribes their principles to enmity
to the Creator. "Through opposition to the Creator," ho
says, " Marcion rejected the use of the things of this world."*
A similar account of the self-denial of the Encratites, and of
its cause, is given by Irenaeus. f To the strict morals of the
Marcionites, Tertullian bears indirect but decisive testimony.
He is speaking of their doctrine, that while the Creator was
just, and inflicted punishment, the Supreme God, their God,
was good, and not to be feared. " Come now," he says, with
his usual force of expression, though the sentiment is incorrect,
"you who do not fear God, because he is good, why do you
not indulge in every lust, the chief gratification of life, as far
as I know, to all who do not fear God ? Why not frequent
the customary pleasures of the raging circus, the savage arena,
and the lascivious theatre ? Why, in times of persecution, do
you not at once take the proffered censer,J and save your
life by denying your faith ? Far be it from me ! you say ;
* far be it from me ! You fear to offend, then, and thus you
prove that you fear Him who forbids the offence." Con
formably to this, Origen speaks of the good morals of some of
the heretics, as one means of drawing men over to their doc
trines ; and he states hypothetically the case of such a heretic,
" either a Marcionite," he says, " or a disciple of Valentinus,
or of any other sect." ||
But generally, the accounts of the morals of the theosophio
Gnostics are very unfavorable. According to the statements
* Stromat, iii. 4, p. 522.
t Cont. Haires., lib. i. c. 28, 1, pp. 106, 107.
J The censer was proffered, that the person accused of Christianity might
offer incense to some idol, and thus refute the charge.
Advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 27, pp. 379, 380.
Homil. in EzechieL, vii. 3; Opp. iii. 382.
15
226 EVIDENCES OF THE
of Irenaeus, the Valentinians, affirming themselves to be dis
tinguished from others by their spiritual nature, which made
a part of their original conformation, maintained that it was
impossible they should not be saved, whatever they might
do. They regarded the spiritual principle identified with
them as incapable of pollution ; and compared themselves to
gold, which receives no injury from defilement. Hence the
perfect among them, he affirms, practised without fear all that
is forbidden. They ate idol-sacrifices, and celebrated the
heathen festivals ; some of them did not abstain from the
shows of gladiators and the fights with wild beasts, " spec
tacles," says Irenaeus, with the new feeling of a Christian con
cerning them, " hated by God and men ; " and others were
grossly licentious in their lives, seducing and corrupting
women, by teaching them their principles.*
The erroneous doctrine, mentioned by Irenaeus, concerning
their spiritual nature, appears, in its essential features, to
have been common to the Valentinians generally, and also
to the other theosophic Gnostics,! but not the moral offences
with which he charges them as its consequence, as may
appear in part from the limiting words, " some" and " others,"
and " the perfect among them " (used perhaps ironically),
which he introduces into his account. Of the Valentinians
and other theosophic Gnostics, it is to be recollected, on the
one hand, that they were Christians, and, on the other, that
they were not rational Christians. As a sect, they enter
tained very erroneous views of our religion, and probably
many of them had been very ill informed concerning it.
Repelled, as they were, from the great body of believers,
there is no reason to doubt that there were among them
those whom the power of Christianity was not sufficient to
* Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 6, p. 28, seqq.
1 In addition to wl at has been quoted from Irenaeus, see Clement. AL
Stromat., ii. 3, pp. 433 434, 20, p. 489; v. 1, p. 645.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 227
withdraw from the evil influences of the pagan world, by
which they were surrounded ; whose ties to it were far from
being altogether broken ; who still remained entangled among
its corruptions. With some softening, perhaps, of such
charges as those of Irenseus, we have no ground for ques-
i ion ing their applicability to a portion of the theosophic
Gnostics ; but, at the same time, we have evidence, to which
we will now advert, that they were true only of a portion.
Clement of Alexandria, discoursing on self-restraint, quotes,
almost as an authority, a passage from Valentinus. It begins
thus : " There is One who is good, who has openly manifested
himself through his Son ; and through him alone can the heart
be made pure, every evil spirit being driven out of it." Val
entinus compares the heart polluted by the indwelling of evil
spirits to a caravansary injured and defiled by the strangers
who lodge in it. " But," he says, " when the only good
Father takes charge of it, it is made holy and enlightened ;
and thus he who has such a heart is blessed, for he shall see
God" * Tatian, who was distinguished for his asceticism, was,
says Clement, of the school of Valentinus.f Heracleon, a
distinguished Valentinian, is quoted by Clement, as teaching
that the profession of faith required by Christ of his follow
ers is not that made in words only, but that " made by works
answering to faith in him." $ And Ptolemy, who remodelled
the system of his master, taught that the fasting enjoined by
our Saviour was not bodily abstinence, but abstinence from
all sin.
Basilides and his followers formed another branch of the
* Stromat, ii. 20, pp 488, 489. Valentinus, it will be perceived, alludes
to the words of Christ, " Blessed are the pure in heart ; for they shall see
God." The whole passage, as Clement remarks, does not seem easily recon
cilable with the doctrine, that the spiritual are so by natural constitution, and
are, in consequence, assured of salvation.
t Ibid., iii. 13, p. 653. J Ibid., iv. 9, p. 595.
Epist. ad Floram ; apud Irensei Opp. p. 360
228 EVIDENCES OF THE
theosophic Gnostics, nearly allied to the V^lentinians ; and
Irenasus brings similar charges of immorality against them.*
But Clement begins the third book of his Stromata with
quoting two passages, one from Basilides, and the other from
his son Isidore ; and then proceeds to say, " I have adduced
these words for the reproof of those Basilidians who live not
as they ought, as if through their perfectness they were free
to sin, or as if, though they should now sin, they would be
saved by nature through their innate election ; for the found
ers cf their doctrines give them no license so to act." | Thus
Clement, writing with less prejudice, corrects, and at the
same time confirms in part, the accounts of Irenacus.
But against certain sects and individuals Clement himself
brings the gravest charges of immorality, so deep-seated as
thoroughly to corrupt their principles. "I have fallen in
with a sect," he says, " whose leader affirmed that we must
fight with pleasure by the use of pleasure ; this genuine
Gnostic, for he called himself a Gnostic, thus deserting to
pleasure under the pretence of warring against it."$ He
then mentions others, who perverted (one can hardly think
seriously) the ascetic maxim, " that the body must be abused,"
and employed it to justify themselves in the most licentious
indulgences. In another place, he speaks of an individual
named Prodicus, and of his followers. " They affirm," says
Clement, " that by nature they are sons of the First God ;
that, using the privilege of their birth and freedom, they live
as they choose, and that they choose to live in pleasure.
They think that they are under no control, as lords of the
Sabbath, and born superior to every other race, royal chil
dren ; for a king, they say, is circumscribed by no law." ||
* Cont. Hjeres., lib. i. c. 24, 5, p. 102, c. 28, 2, p. 107.
t Stromat, iii. 1, p. 510. } Ibid., ii. 20, p. 490.
Ibid., ii. 20, pp. 490, 491: conf. iii. 4, pp. 522, 523.
|| Ibid., iii. 4, p. 525.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 229
They taught that there was no obligation to pray.* Speak
ing of sectaries of a like kind, Clement also says, that there
were " some who called intercourse with common women a
mystical communion ; doing outrage to the name." " They
consecrate such licentiousness," he says, "and think that it
conducts them to the kingdom of God."t The charge of
teaching that gross licentiousness was a necessary means
of liberating the soul from its entanglement in matter,
and consequently was a religious duty, is likewise brought
by Irenaeus against the Carpocratians, a sect to be hereafter
mentioned.
Clement also speaks of individuals, called Antitacta
(Opponents), whom he describes as maintaining that "the
God of all is our Father by nature, and that all which he
made is good ; but that one of those produced by him sowed
tares, and gave birth to evils, in which he involved us, oppos
ing us to the Father ; whence, to avenge the Father, we,
they say, oppose him, doing contrary to his will. Since,
therefore, he said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, we
commit adultery to break his command." t The giver of the
law, it seems, was, in their view, the Devil. Ptolemy, the
Valentinian, likewise speaks of some who referred the origin
of the Jewish Law to the Devil ; but he says that they also
ascribed to him the creation of the world ; which does not
appear to have been true of the persons mentioned by Clem
ent. These, it would seem, pretended to be in some sort
Christians ; for Clement, in reasoning against them, im
plies that they affirmed, that " the Saviour only was to be
obeyed ; " || the comparison evidently being between him and
the giver of the Law.
There is a passage of the later Platonist, Porphyry, de-
Stromat., vii. 7, p. 854. f Ibid., iii. 4, pp. 523, 524.
\ Ibid., iii. 4, pp. 626, 527. Epist. ad Floram, pp. 357, 358.
|| Stromat, iii. 4 p. 527
230 EVIDENCES OP THE
scriptive of individuals resembling some of those spoken of
by Clement, in their pretensions and in their licentious
principles. It is in his work in which he defends the Pytha
gorean doctrine of abstinence from animal food. " The
opinion," he says, " that one yielding to the affections of the
senses can employ his powers about the objects of intellect,
has been the ruin of many of the barbarians;" by which term
he means those whose religion and philosophy were not
Grecian. " They have arrogantly," he continues, " indulged
in every form of pleasure, saying that he who is conversant
with other things may grant such license to the irrational
part of his nature." They compared themselves to the ocean,
which is undefiled by the pollutions that rivers are con
tinually carrying into it. " All things," they said, " must be
subjected to us. A small body of water is easily made turbid
by any impurity ; and so it is in regard to food (the particular
subject of discussion) with men of little minds. But, where
there is a depth of power, men receive all things, and are
defiled by nothing." " Thus deceiving themselves," says
Porphyry, " they act conformably to their error ; and, instead
of enjoying liberty, throw themselves into a gulf of misery
in which they perish."*
The individuals spoken of by Porphyry were, it appears,
ready to admit that men of little minds were corrupted by
sensual indulgences. So the theosophic Gnostics, according
* De Abstinentia ab Animalibus necandis, lib. i. 42. It may be ob-
foprved, that this work is addressed to an acquaintance, who had fallen away
ft om the Pythagorean doctrine, and that, in appealing to him, Porphyry has
the following allusion to Christians: " I would not intimate, that your nature
is inferior to that of some ignorant persons, who, embracing rules of conduct
contrary to those of their former life, submit to be cut limb from limb
(ro^of re popiuv VTrofievovot) ; and abhor, more than human flesh, certain
kinds of animal food in which before they indulged" (lib. i. 2). He refers,
I suppose, to the abstinence of Christians from the flesh of idol-sacrifices,
and the other kinds of food prohibited by the council at Jerusalem (Acts xv
28, 29).
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 231
to Irenaeus, affirmed, that, while they were altogether secure
of salvation as being naturally spiritual, common Christians,
who were not so, must attain salvation through good works
and a simple faith, simple faith, in contradistinction to that
perfect knowledge of spiritual things which they themselves
There can be no doubt, I think, that the doctrine, held
by the theosophic Gnostics, concerning the spiritual and in
corruptible nature of a favored portion of mankind, was
abused by certain individuals, and connected with the gross
est immorality, as is represented by Clement and Porphyry.
But I do not conceive that the individuals of whom they
speak were Christian heretics. The supposition of any seri
ous or intelligent belief of the divine mission of Christ is
wholly inconsistent with the extreme licentiousness of their
principles and practice. So far as they were at all connected
with Christianity, we may suppose that they had learnt some
thing concerning it, perhaps through the medium of the Gnos
tics ; and that such was the character of their minds, that they
were very ready to break through their old restraints, to
treat with contempt the Pagan mythology, to regard them
selves as specially illuminated, and to form their crude
conceptions into principles that might sanction their licentious
ness, as the privilege of their new liberty and their spiritual
nature. Sects and individuals of this class may be denom
inated pseudo- Christian ; a name to be understood as distin
guishing them, on the one hand, from the Christian heretics,
and, on the other, from those heathen Gnostics on whom the
influence of Christianity, if any, was more remote. Each of
the three classes, however, probably passed into that nearest
to it by insensible gradations. Of the pseudo-Christian sects
I shall speak in the next chapter ; and will only here ob
serve, that, taking the name heathen, not in the distinguishing
* Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 6, 2, p. 29, 4, p. 31.
232 EVIDENCES OF THE
sense just mentioned, but in the extent of its meaning, these
pseudo-Christians may properly be called Heathens.
As regards the theosophic Gnostics, we have seen that a
portion of them were ascetics, as well as the Marcionites;
and that immorality was far from being taught or counte
nanced by the more distinguished of their number. But
many of them, a portion so large as, in the minds of some
writers, to give, whether fairly or not, a character to the
whole, were but partially separated from the heathen world.
They joined in its idol-sacrifices, and shared in its licentious
ness. The charges brought against them by Irenaeus are
confirmed, as we have seen, by Clement, as regards one of
the two classes into which he divides the heretics. They
correspond to the representations of Tertullian. And, at
a still earlier period, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with
Trypho, introduces Trypho as saying, that "he had learnt
that many of those who said that they professed Jesus, and
who were called Christians, ate idol-sacrifices," that is, joined
in the rites of Pagan worship, " saying that they were nothing
hurt by it." * They justified themselves in their practices by
doctrines common to the theosophic Gnostics, which admitted
of an easy perversion to the purpose. It is probable, how
ever, that some of them laid little or no stress on the incor
ruptibility of their spiritual nature; but merely said, as
Irenaeus states in ons passage, that " God did not care much
for those things." f
But any approach to idolatry is so contrary to the funda
mental doctrine of our religion, and the grosser sensual vices
stand in such manifest opposition to the spirituality required
by it, and to its express prohibitions, that they would seem to
be among the last offences that one believing himself a Chris-
* Dial, cam Tryph., p. 207.
t . . . . "non valde hac curare dicentes Deum." Lib. i. c. 28, 2,
p. 107.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 233
tian might imagine to be countenanced or permitted by
Christianity. The case of those Gnostics we have been con
sidering presents, therefore, a remarkable phenomenon. But
it is one which may be explained, and its existence, conse
quently, be confirmed, by considerations drawn from the ante
cedent history of Christianity, and the state of the ancient
world. To these we will now attend.
From the New Testament we learn how imperfectly some
of the first Gentile converts comprehended the undivided
worship to be paid to the Supreme Being, and the purity of
life which Christianity requires. They, like the looser Gnos
tics of later times, were guilty of licentiousness and of joining
in idolatrous rites. " Some," says St. Paul to the Corin
thians, " being accustomed to the idol, eat even till now as of
an idol-sacrifice ; " * and he thus exhorts them, referring to
the ancient Israelites : " Be not ye idolaters, as were some
of them, as is written, The people sat down to eat and drink,
and rose up to sport. Nor let us commit fornication, as did
some of them, of whom three and twenty thousand fell in one
day." f The latter exhortation seems to have been thus inti
mately connected with the former, because debauchery was so
common a part, or an accompaniment, of the religious festi
vals and rites of the Heathens. As regards idol-sacrifices, it
appears that some of the Corinthians thought, that, as " an
idol was nothing in the world," they might, therefore, " sit at
meat in an idol s temple ; " that is, that they might join their
former heathen associates in being present at a sacrifice there
offered, and at the entertainment following it, when those
portions of the victim which belonged to the offerer were
eaten, that they might, as St. Paul expresses it, "have
* 1 Cor. viii. 7. I read avvrjOeip, not (as in the Received Text) aweidqaet.
But which is the true reading is doubtful, and, to the present purpose, unim
portant.
t 1 Cor. x. 7. 8,
234 EVIDENCES OF THE
communion with demons," and " partake both of the Lord s
table and the table of demons." *
The early history of Christianity affords another remarkable
indication of such errors as have been mentioned existing
among its converts. When it was determined by the apos
tles and elders at Jerusalem to admit the Gentile converts as
Christians to their communion, without their being previously
circumcised, that is, without their first professing themselves
proselytes to Judaism, they were specially enjoined to abstain
from idol-sacrifices and from fornication. "It has seemed
good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to impose upon you no
greater burden than these necessary things : To abstain from
idol-sacrifices, and from the eating of blood and of things
strangled, and from fornication." f Nothing at first view
may strike a modern reader more strangely than that the
eating of idol-sacrifices and unchastity should be coupled in
the same prohibition with actions morally indifferent in their
nature. But I have referred to this decree (as it has been
called), because it affords much light on the state of the early
Christian community, in reference to the present subject.
We will attend to both parts of it, as their connection re
quires, though only that relating to idolatry and licentious
ness is to our immediate purpose.
To explain it, then, two considerations are to be attended
to, the prejudices of the Jewish, and the erroneous senti
ments and habits of the Gentile, converts. The result of
the deliberations of the council was "after much discus
sion," $ in which those who opposed the admission of the
Gentile converts into the Church, unless they first became
proselytes to Judaism and assumed the observance of the
whole Jewish Law, had, we may presume, particularly
urged against them the commission of the acts specially
See 1 Cor. viii. 4, 10; x. 20, 21. f Acts xv. 28,
Acts xv. 7.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 235
prohibited. Why the eating of blood and of things stran
gled should have given strong offence to those who were
zealous for the Law may appear from the fact, that the
command to abstain from them is expressly extended in the
Law to strangers sojourning among the Israelites.* It is
also represented in Genesis as a universal precept, given by
God to Noah and his descendants ; f and may, therefore, have
been regarded, even by many of those Jews who were most
liberally disposed, as binding upon all men. It is next to be
remarked, that many of the Gentile converts, as it appears,
had no correct moral feeling of the offence, either of joining a
feast in honor of an idol, or of unchastity. At such feasts
they had been accustomed to be present ; and seeing that they
knew, as the Corinthians boasted, " that an idol was nothing
in the world," $ they saw no harm to themselves or others in
continuing to enjoy the gratification. As for simple unchas
tity, it had not been considered by the generality of Heathens
as a matter of reproach, except in the female sex. Amid the
prevalence of more odious vices, and the general disrespect
for woman, it was lightly thought of by the wisest and best
among them, and was either permitted by their moralists and
philosophers, or scarcely came within their view as any thing
to be reprehended. Thus, while, on the one hand, the strong
conscientious prejudices of probably far the greater part of
the Jewish believers required the prohibition of eating " flesh
with the life thereof, which is its blood ; " so, on the other
hand, the imperfect notions of religion and morality which
* Lev. xvii. 10-13. t Gen. ix. 4.
J St. Paul (1 Cor. viii. 1, seqq.) refers to such a boast ironically, with
reference to the misapplication which the Corinthians had made of their
knowledge: "Concerning idol-sacrifices we know, for we all have knowl
edge; knowledge puffs up, but love edifies; he who thinks he knows some
thing knows nothing yet as it ought to be known; but he who loves God has
been taught by him, concerning the eating of idol-sacrifices, then, we
know that an idol is nothing in the world, and there is no other God but
one." Gen. ix. 4
236 EVIDENCES OP THE
the Gentile converts brought with them made it necessary to
insist particularly on the graver offences specified, and ex
plicitly to announce that they were forbidden by Christianity.
But the same influences that corrupted the imperfect faith of
some of the earliest Gentile converts continued to operate in
the second century on the imperfect faith of many of the
theosophic Gnostics ; nor is there, as some have suggested,
any reason to regard those charges as unjust or improbable,
when made against a considerable portion of their number,
which we know to be true as respects a portion of the pro
fessed converts of the apostolic age.
4
But the influence of heathen principles and practice was
not the only source of moral error. Even Christian truths,
viewed in relation to the circumstances of the times, were
liable to be grossly misrepresented and abused ; and some
times the strong words in which they are expressed by St.
Paul were so perverted as to make them contradict the whole
tenor of his doctrine. " Where the spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty," * said the apostle, in one of the noblest
declarations ever uttered. " The creation itself will be deliv
ered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty
of the sons of God." f " Stand fast in the liberty with which
Christ has made you free." $ The liberty of which St. Paul
speaks was that enlargement of mind produced by Christian
ity, through new conceptions of duty and of God; liberty
from the narrow and bitter prejudices of the Jews, and from
the burdensome ritual of their Law, which, according to a
remarkable expression of St. Peter, was " a yoke that neither
they nor their fathers had been able to bear ;" and liberty,
on the other hand, from heathen superstition, its sanctified
follies, its idle terrors, its abominable rites, and its slavery to
2 Cor. iii. 17. f Rom. viii. 21.
Gal. v. 1. Acts xv. 10.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 237
gods whose characters were only a source of moral pollution ;
that system from which Lucretius thought atheism a happy
deliverance :
" Humana ante oculos foede quom vita jaceret
In terris oppressa gravi sub religione."
The liberty of which the apostle spoke was freedom from
all those hard and degrading observances and supposititious
duties, " that servitude to the weak and beggarly principles
of the world," * through which men have sought the favor of
the being or beings whom they have worshipped, in the neg
lect of moral goodness. It was freedom from " that; spirit of
bondage and fear " with which the Jews regarded God, and
the reception of the Christian spirit, which " bears witness to
our spirits that we are children of God." f In a word, it was
freedom from superstition and sin.
This state of mind, this liberty, was to be attained through
faith, by becoming a Christian ; that is, through the hearty and
practical reception of Christian truth. The favor of God was
not, as the unbelieving Jews maintained, to be secured by
" the works of the Law ; " that is, by the observance of the
Jewish Law, according to their notions of what constituted
its observance, namely, a strict regard to all its peculiar
requirements and religious rites. Such observance was so
far from being the duty of a Christian, as some of the Jewish
believers maintained, that the new convert would wholly
mistake the character of his religion, if he suffered himself to
be persuaded that it was an essential means of obtaining
God s favor.ij: It would be seeking " for completion in the
flesh, after having begun in the spirit." ** I tell you," says
the apostle, " ye who seek for righteousness by the Law have
done with Christ ; ye have fallen away from the dispensation
Gal. iv. 3, 9. f Rom. viii. 14, 15.
See the Epistle to the Galatians. Gal. iii. 3.
238 EVIDENCES OF THE
of favor." * To have faith, to be a Christian, was all that
was required ; and " the works of the Law," in the sense in
which that term was used by the unbelieving Jews and
bigoted Jewish converts, were not required.
But, further than this, the blessings which believers enjoyed
were not conferred in consequence of any previous merit
of theirs, of any works which they had performed, nor of any
claim upon God, such as the Jews believed themselves to
have established by keeping their Law. They were his free
gift to a world lying in sin. They were offered equally to
the tax-gatherer and to the harlot, and to him who was, or
fancied himself, righteous. It was not the goodness of men
which had entitled them to this new dispensation of favor : it
was their sinfulness and misery which had called for this
interposition of mercy ; " and now to him," says the apostle,
" performing no works " (that is, to him who had performed
no works), "but having faith in God, who receives the sinner
to his favor, his faith is accounted righteousness." f His sins
were forgiven upon his becoming a Christian; for the first
duty of a Christian was reformation, and reformation is the
only ground of the forgiveness of sin.
Such were the truths maintained by St. Paul. But the
bold, brief, unlimited, unguarded language, in which they
were occasionally expressed by him, admitted of being misin
terpreted in a manner contradictory to the whole spirit of his
teaching, and to the fundamental requirements of Christianity.
We perceive that he sometimes apprehended that his doctrine
might be so perverted. " Brethren," he says to the Galatians,
"ye have been called to liberty, only use not your liberty
as a pretence for the flesh ; " that is, as a pretence for the
indulgence of sinful appetites and passions. $ St. Peter, like-
* Gal. v. 4. t Rom. iv. 5.
J Gal. v. 13 : comp. ver. 19-21, where the apostle enumerates the work*
f the flesh.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 239
wise, exhorts that Christians should conduct themselves as
" free, and not using their freedom as a cloak for wickedness,
but as servants of God." * After strongly stating that the
pardon of sin was tendered to all by Christianity, St. Paul
asks, with reference probably both to the misrepresentations
of the unbelieving Jews, and the loose notions of some Chris
tian converts, " What then shall we say ? Shall we con
tinue in sin that the favor may superabound ? " f and
earnestly rejects this false inference. How St. Paul s doc
trine concerning " works " was abused, we learn from the
Epistle ascribed to St. James. $ It is evident that there were
those who thought that to become a Christian, in a loose
sense of the word, was all that was required ; who had false
notions of Christian liberty and of the pardon of sin ; and who
comprehended the moral duties among the works from which
their faith absolved them.
Great changes in the religious opinions and sentiments ot
men can hardly be effected without producing also extrava
gances of speculation, moral irregularities, and scepticism.
The belief of the larger part of men has rested, and must
ever rest, on authority. They are but sharers in the common
belief of the community or sect to which they belong ;
though this belief, and especially its practical effects, may be
greatly modified in different individuals by personal qualities,
good or bad. The knowledge of the wisest man is but the
result of the action of his mind on the accumulated wis
dom and judgments of those who have preceded him,
and on what he believes, from testimony, to have been the
experience of the past. There are no independent thinkers,
in the absolute sense of the words. Independent and judi
cious thinkers, in the more popular sense, are rare. In our
intellectual as well as our moral nature, we are parts of each
1 Pet. ii. 16. f Rom. vi. 1. J James ii. 14, seqq.
240 EVIDENCES OP THE
other, and cannot, without a severe struggle, release ourselves
from the traditionary opinions of those with whom we are
connected. One generation inculcates its faith on another;
and this is received and incorporated into the mind at a
period too early for examination or doubt, and is thus perpet
uated from age to age. When, therefore, the authority of
the past gives way, the minds of many are liable to be greatly
unsettled. To some, the rejection of errors that have been
long maintained seems equivalent to the denial of the best
established truths ; for the grounds of their belief in the one
and the other are the same, both having been admitted by
them on authority.* They either obstinately defend all they
have been taught, or, through a tendency to scepticism, impa
tience of doubt, and an inability to estimate moral evidence,
and consequently to discriminate what may be proved true,
and what false, reject the whole together. Others, again,
join at once in the new movement ; and, feeling themselves
released from the ordinary restraints of speculation, confident,
like the Corinthians, that they have knowledge, and elated
by their victory over what wiser men have reverenced, pro-
* However obvious is the general truth of the remarks above made, it
may be thought by some that they are not applicable to the revolution of
opinion produced by Christianity ; but that, on the contrary, the folly of the
pagan religions was such, that they could have had no strong hold on the
belief of men through the influence of authority. But, setting aside all other
evidence, the proper fanaticism displayed by the Pagans in their contest
with Christianity would alone be sufficient to disprove the error.
Some time after writing what is in the text, I was struck by accidentally
meeting with the following passage of Lactantius, which I had read long
before, but had forgotten. It speaks of the state of things when Christianity
had been preached for two centuries and a half. After remarking on the
pagan religions, Lactantius says: "These are the religions which, handed
down to them from their ancestors, they persevere in most obstinately main
taining and defending. Nor do they consider of what character they are ;
but are confident that they are good and true, because they have been trans
mitted from the ancients. So great is the authority of antiquity, that to
inquire into it is pronounced impiety. It is trusted to everywhere with the
same confidence as is felt in ascertained truth " (Institut, lib. ii. 6).
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 241
mulgate, often in a new dialect, their crude and inconsequent
doctrines, perhaps as the anticipated wisdom of a coming
age.
In the breaking-up of old opinions, the true and only
appeal is to reason. But the process is difficult, and there
are not many capable of carrying it through. When we
personify abstract reason, we must acknowledge that her
decisions are final. But in a large portion of individual
minds the actual power of reasoning is small ; or rather, if
we take into view the whole human race, as spread over the
earth, we shall perceive that there is a very large majority in
whom the power of determining by themselves any contro
versy concerning the higher objects of thought cannot be said
to exist. In revolutions of religious opinion, therefore, it has
been common to substitute for reason an imaginary faculty,
an intuitive perception of the highest truths. Men claim
to know that their opinions are true, on the ground that they
directly perceive them to be true without the intervention of
reasoning. This claim to inward illumination, to an imme
diate revelation to individual men, has commonly, as in the
case of the Gnostics, been asserted by particular sects as
their peculiar privilege ; but in our times the privilege
has been extended, with magnificent absurdity, to the whole
human race.
One other fact may be remarked. In all reforms, it is
common for men to discern the truth imperfectly, under one
aspect alone ; to mistake general for unlimited propositions ;
and to affirm what is true in a certain sense, and with certain
modifications, as universally true. They seize, perhaps, on
some doctrine recommended to them by its being opposite to
an old error ; and without defining it in their own minds, or
reconciling it with admitted truths, or viewing it in its extent
and relations, insist on its absolute, unqualified reception.
But, in the interregnum and partial anarchy that take
place between the overthrow of one system and the establish-
16
242 EVIDENCES OF THE
merit of another, moral disorders commonly break out. The
passions throw off the^r restraints, as well as the understand
ing. Men s notions of duty change with their religious be
lief; and they regard as indifferent actions which they before
thought obligatory or criminal, or they even ascribe to the
same actions an opposite moral character. The limits of
right and wrong are for a time obscured; and there are
those who will take advantage of this uncertainty to trans
gress. The reception of the new system constitutes a
distinction which, in the minds of some, supersedes the
necessity and merit of common virtues. There is a wild
growth of error ; and all religious errors, being mistakes con
cerning the nature, relations, and duties of man, tend to moral
evil. Thus all great and apparently sudden revolutions of
religious opinion, which are commonly, in some sense, re
forms, as being a re-action against abuses and errors, are
accompanied in their turn by new errors and excesses.
It was, I conceive, in contemplation of the demoralizing
effects commonly attending sudden changes of religious opin
ion, however beneficial in their final or immediate result, that
our Saviour, at the commencement of his ministry, thus
addressed his hearers : " Think not that I have come to
annul the Law or the Prophets : I have not come to annul,
but to perfect. For I tell you in truth, not till heaven and
earth pass away shall the smallest letter or stroke pass away
from the Law; no, not till all things are ended."* His
meaning was, Think not that I have come to set aside
those religious and moral principles, the true Law of God,
which your faith inculcates. I have come to explain them
more fully, and to enforce them more solemnly. They re
main for ever unchangeable. And thus he goes on to say :
"Whoever shall break one of these least commandments
"that is, one of the least of those which he was about to give]
* Matt. v. 17, 18.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 243
ghall be least in the kingdom of heaven. . . . For, unless
your goodness exceed that of the teachers of the Law and the
Pharisees, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." *
It was among the Gentile converts that the Gnostics
appeared ; and we shall perceive, that even under the teach
ing of St. Paul, and those associated with him, the notions
of many of the Gentile converts concerning our religion
must have been imperfect and erroneous, when we consider
what opportunities they enjoyed for attaining a knowledge
of it, for correcting their former prejudices, and for deter
mining its bearing upon the mass of their old conceptions
and opinions. They had not the help of the New Testa
ment. With the exception of his own Epistles, the oral
teaching of St. Paul and his associates was probably the main
source of instruction to a majority of his converts. But
the apostle, earnest to spread as widely as possible a knowl
edge of Christ, and driven hither and thither by persecution,
often rested but a short time in the places which he visited.
Many, we may believe, after witnessing his miraculous
power, and hearing from him the fundamental facts and
doctrines of Christianity, professed themselves converts,
though they had only a brief opportunity of listening to his
expositions of truth and duty. Some doubtless embraced
the religion under a temporary excitement of feeling, without
a just notion of its character, or a correct sense of the obli
gations it imposed. We cannot question, that, by the apostle
as well as by our Saviour, the seed was often scattered where
it sprung up to be choked by weeds. He would encourage
every motion toward good. He would not repel any one
who professed a desire to turn from sin to righteousness,
however crude and unformed were his conceptions of the
new religion. He would receive as a disciple whoever re-
* Matt. v. 19, 20.
244 EVIDENCES OP THE
garded it with favor. He would act in the spirit of the
words of his Master, " Forbid him not ; for he that is not
against you is for you."
Such being the state of things, great errors, schisms, oppos
ing parties, and moral irregularities, existed, in consequence,
among the earliest Gentile converts. They are often referred
to in the Epistles of St. Paul. Into what gross misconcep
tions of Christianity individuals who professed themselves
converts to it might fall, may appear from the fact, that some
among the Corinthians denied its fundamental doctrine of a
future life. " How say some among you," asks the apostle,
" that there is no resurrection of the dead ? " * The ten
dency to these evils was aggravated by a spirit of opposition
to St. Paul. This originated among the bigoted Jews,
zealous for the observance of the Levitical Law by the Gen
tile converts ; and, there can be little doubt, spread from
them to others. In his second Epistle to the Corinthians,
there is much referring to opponents who spoke of him dis
respectfully and reproachfully. Thus, under the operation
of the various circumstances that we have adverted to, indi
viduals were led to form systems for themselves, different
from the religion taught by the apostles; and a way was
opened for speculations as extravagant as those of the Gnos
tics, for moral principles as loose as were those of some of
their number, and for the existence of sects which, deriving
their origin from the preaching of Christianity, had yet no
title to the Christian name.
But we must also recollect, that a knowledge of Chris
tianity was spread by others than the apostles, and their
immediate associates, and those whose teaching they sanc
tioned. Of such as were or thought themselves converts,
many would be zealous to communicate the new doctrine to
* 1 Cor. xv. 12.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 245
others. From them it would often pass, more or less muti
lated by their ignorance, or adulterated by their prejudices,
or blended with their former errors. Of such teachers from
among the Jewish converts, who insisted on the observance
of the Levitical Law, we have abundant evidence in St. Paul s
Epistles. Beside them, we cannot doubt that there were,
from the body of Gentile Christians, others with very differ
ent conceptions. It is easy to conceive what crude and false
notions of our religion may thus have been spread among its
remoter and less-informed professors, and how far it may
have been divested of that solemn authority with which it
impressed the mind of an intelligent believer.
Great errors might be consistent with honest zeal in those
who thus communicated their imperfect conceptions of Chris
tianity. But there also appeared among Christians pretended
teachers of our religion, to whom honest zeal cannot be
ascribed. They are spoken of by St. Paul, in writing to the
Corinthians, as " false apostles, fraudulent workmen, trans
forming themselves into apostles of Christ," but in truth
" ministers of Satan." * They are described by him as " the
many who adulterate, for the sake of gain, the doctrine of
God." f The heathen sophists taught for money ; and,
undoubtedly, often sought to distinguish themselves, for the
sake of procuring hearers, by novel, paradoxical, and licen
tious opinions. When Christianity opened a wholly new
field for speculation, producing a strong excitement and
action of mind wherever preached, men of a similar character
would be ready to take advantage of this state of things.
Thus we find that among the Corinthians there soon appeared
false teachers, whose object was to procure a maintenance,
and who defrauded and oppressed their disciples. It is in
reference to them, or to some one of their number, that St.
* 2 Cor. xi. 13, 15. t Ibid., ii. 17.
246 EVIDENCES OF THE
Paul says, " Ye bear it patiently, if a man make slaves of
you, if he devour you, if he take your property, if he treat
you insolently, if he strike you on the face. I speak it with
shanie ; for it is as if we ourselves suffered." * Some, prob
ably most or all, of these men, it appears, were Jews ; for,
speaking of his opponents, he says, " Are they Hebrews ?
So am I ; " t an( i these Jews might have learned from their
own Rabbis to receive fees from their disciples. With the
conduct of such false teachers St. Paul contrasts his own in
taking nothing from the Corinthians ; partly because he
would " afford no pretence to those who wished for a pre
tence." $ And, what is remarkable, the very circumstance
of his preaching gratuitously was made use of by his oppo
nents to depreciate his character ; and he found himself
called upon to defend his conduct in this respect. " Have I,"
he says indignantly, "humbling myself that you might be
exalted, done wrong in preaching to you the gospel of God
gratuitously ? " The Corinthians were so familiar with the
custom of paying the highest fees to those professed teachers
of wisdom who were in the most repute, that some of them
were disposed to regard as of little value a teacher who did
not demand money for his instructions.
He alludes to the subject again, late in life, in his Epistle
to Titus. "There are many," he says, "especially among
those of the circumcision, who are disorderly, vain talkers,
deluding men s minds, whose mouths must be stopped, who
subvert whole families, teaching what should not be taught
for the sake of shameful gain." || And he also refers to them
in his first Epistle to Timothy, written about the same time
with that to Titus. " If any one," he says, " teach another
doctrine, and hold not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to the doctrine of piety, he is puffed up, under-
* 2 Cor. xi. 20, 21. f Ibid., xi. 22. J Ibid., xi. 12.
Ibid., xi. 7. |! Chap i. 10, 11.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 247
standing nothing, but having a diseased craving for discus
sions and strifes of words, from which proceed ill-will,
quarrelling, reviling, malicious surmises, perverse disputa
tions of men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, thinking
to make a gain of piety. From such keep away. Piety,
indeed, with contentment, is a great gain. We have brought
nothing into the world ; it is clear that we can carry nothing
out of it: having, then, food and clothing, with these we
shall be satisfied. But they, whose purpose it is to be rich,*
fall into temptation, and a snare, and many senseless and
pernicious lusts, which plunge men into destruction and ruin.
The root of all these evils f is the love of money, through
their craving after which some have strayed from the truth,
and have pierced themselves through with many pangs." i
This class of false teachers existed among the Gnostics :
and probably most of their professors of wisdom, like the
heathen sophists, gave instruction only to those disciples who
were able to purchase it. Speaking of some of their doc
trines, Irenaeus says ironically, " It seems to me reasonable
that they should not be willing to teach them openly to all,
but only to those who are able to pay a great price for such
mysteries ; for these doctrines are not like those concerning
which our Lord said, Freely ye have received, freely give ;
but are remote from common apprehension, marvellous and
profound mysteries, to be attained with much toil by the lovers
of falsehood. Who, indeed, would not spend his whole sub
stance to learn them ? " Such teachers existing, it can be
no matter of surprise, that some of them taught systems as
unlike Christianity as those of any of the Gnostic sects,
* Referring, I conceive, to those before spoken of as " men of corrupt
minds."
t Not "the root of all evil," as in the common version. The original is,
Pifc yap TTUVTUV TUV nanuv.
J Chap. vi. 3-10.
Lib. i. c. 4, 3, p. 20 : conf. lib. iv. c. 26, 2, p. 262.
248 EVIDENCES OP THE
and that others merely borrowed certain conceptions from our
religion, without pretending to embrace it.
Had it, indeed, been other than a revelation from God, ex
pressing its divine origin in its whole history and character ;
had it been only a new form of barbaric philosophy, that had
sprung up among the Jews in Galilee, then, instead of bear
ing down through the heathen world, a broad and ever
widening stream, it would have been choked by corruptions
and errors, through which it could not force its way; it
would have been wasted and lost, like those rivers of Africa
and the East that disappear in deserts of sand. One incom
municable attribute alone, its divine authority, gave it per
manence. Whatever might be the mistakes of its disciples
concerning it, yet in its own nature it allowed of no amalga
mation with human opinions, as sharing its paramount claims.
It admitted of no change or addition. This opposed an in
superable barrier to all innovations, which did not at least
claim, however falsely, to be original doctrines of Christianity.
It controlled the operation of those causes of error which
have been pointed out. It is the redeeming principle, which
we may hope will yet restore the religion of Christians to the
native purity of Christianity. Had it not possessed this
character ; had it been merely a new system of Jewish philos
ophy, having a fabulous origin, a system of assertions with
out proof, for such Christianity is, if it be not a divine
revelation, a multitude of sects would have appeared among
its Gentile followers, not hovering, like the Gnostics, on the
outskirts of our faith, but seizing on the whole ground, form
ing theories of equal authority with the original doctrine, the
records of which they could but imperfectly understand ; and
at the present day, instead of seeing Christianity the professed
religion of the civilized world, we should know as little of
disciples of Jesus, existing as a distinct body, as we krio\?
of disciples of Socrates.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 249
It lias appeared, that, with the first propagation of our
religion among the Gentiles, causes of error were operating
to produce resistance to the authority of St. Paul and the
other apostles, schisms, moral irregularities, false doctrines,
and apostasy. It was with a foresight of this state of things
that Jesus said, " He who perseveres to the end will be
saved ; " and, at the same time, predicted that many would
fall away, " They will deliver up one another, and hate
one another ; and many false teachers will arise, and deceive
many ; and iniquity will so abound, that the love of many
will grow cold."* Notwithstanding the vast power which
our religion displayed in changing the characters of men, such
disorders and evils were to attend its progress. " But know
this," says St. Paul to Timothy, in his last Epistle, when an
ticipating his own martyrdom, ** that hereafter there will be
evil times ; for those men [a class of men of whom he had
before spoken] will be selfish, avaricious, boastful, haughty,
given to evil-speaking, disobedient to parents, ungrateful,
unholy, without natural affection, without faith, slanderers,
of unrestrained passions, without humanity, without love for
what is good, treacherous, violent, puffed up with pride, lovers
of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a show of piety,
but renouncing its power. From such turn away. Of their
number are those who creep into houses, and make captive
weak women, laden with sins, carried away by divers evil
desires, always learning and never able to gain a knowledge
of the truth. But as James and Jambres contended against
Moses, so they contend against the truth ; men whose minds
are corrupt, and whose faith is unsound. But they will not
proceed far ; for their folly will be manifest to all, as was that
of James and Jambres." f
Who " those men " were, of whom St. Paul thus speaks,
appears from what precedes in the Epistle. " Put men in
* Matt. xxiv. 10-12. f 2 Tim. iii. 1-9.
250 EVIDENCES OF THE
mind of these things," he says (that is, of certain fundamental
truths of Christianity, which he had just expressed), " adjur
ing them before the Lord not to engage in idle disputes,
which profit nothing, but subvert the hearers. . . . Avoid those
profane babblings ; for these men will go on to greater im
piety, and their doctrine will eat into them like a gangrene.
Of their number are Hymena3us and Philetus, who have erred
from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken
place, and who are subverting the faith of some. ... In a
great house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but
also of wood and clay, and some for honorable and others for
mean uses. If, then, one keep himself clear from those things,
he shall be a vessel for honor. . . . Avoid those foolish and
unlearned discussions, knowing that they produce strife."*
The great body of catholic Christians was continually throw
ing off these disorders, and separating itself from them. But
there can be no reason to doubt the existence of such dis
orders among the heretical as well as pseudo-Christian sects
of the second and subsequent centuries.
There is no historical evidence which justifies us in believ
ing, that what assumes to be a second Epistle of Peter, and
that which has been ascribed to the apostle Jude, were the
works of those authors ; and the character and contents of
the writings are unfavorable to the supposition. The ancient
Christians are not responsible for any error concerning their
authorship ; for it does not appear that they were generally
considered as genuine during the first three centuries. It
Beems to me most probable, that they were composed in the
first half of the second century, under the names of those
apostles ; and that the writer of each assumed a character not
his own, rather by way of rhetorical artifice, than with inten
tional fraud. In both, individuals of depraved morals are
* 2 Tim. ii. 14-23.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 251
described as existing among Christians, in language wh eh, if
not that of the apostles, we may consider as declamatory and
exaggerated, but cannot look upon as without foundation. It
appears that those spoken of were not yet wholly separated
from the communion of catholic Christians. "They are
hidden rocks in your love-feasts,"* it is said. But they
are spoken of as those " who are making a separation ; " | and
the feelings expressed toward them in these Epistles are such
as must have produced their severance from the catholic body.
They were not only immoral in their lives, but " false teachers,
secretly bringing in destructive heresies ; " J and the language
used may suggest the inference, that these were Gnostic
heresies. Thus it is said, that they "denied the Sovereign
Lord who bought them, and our Lord Jesus Christ ; " mean
ing, we may suppose, that they denied that the Creator was
the Supreme God, and held opinions concerning Christ so
contradictory to the truth, as to amount to a denial of his
real character. To the pretension of the Gnostics, that they
alone were spiritual, and possessed of true knowledge, the
writers may be supposed to refer indignantly and contemptu
ously, when they describe those of whom they speak, as
"animal, not having the spirit," || as "speaking evil of what
they understand not," and as "brute beasts, governed by
instinct, made to be taken and destroy ed."H " They promised
men freedom," it is said, " while they themselves were slaves
of corruption ; " ** language corresponding to the representa
tions of the early fathers 
