(logo)
(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Open Source Books | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections

Search: Advanced Search

Anonymous User (login or join us)Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The evidences of the genuinesness of the Gospels"

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