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 concerning the pretensions and
character of many among the Gnostics. It may be added,
that they taught for money. " Through covetousness," it is
* JucU 12 : comp. 2 Pet. ii. 13, where ayu.Ka.i seems probably the true
reading.
t Jude 19, oi uirodiopifrvTec. The word iavTOVf, which follows it the
Received Text, does not appear to be genuine.
t 2 Pet. ii. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 1. Jude 4. || Jude 19.
T 2 Pet. ii. 12. Jude 10. ** 2 Pet. ii. 19.
252 EVIDENCES OF THE
said, " they will make a gain of you by fraudulent dis
courses ; " * and they are compared to Balaam, who " loved
the wages of unrighteousness," t having been tempted by the
bribes of Balak. " Woe for them," says the author of
the Epistle ascribed to Jude ; " for they have walked in the
way of Cain, and given themselves up to deceive, like Balaam,
for pay, and brought destruction on themselves through
rebellion, like Korah." $ It is not, perhaps, improbable,
that these Epistles were written about the time that Gnos
ticism was first making its appearance, and before it had yet
acquired any reputable or able leaders.
The date of the Apocalypse is uncertain ; but it is, I think,
to be referred either to the latter part of the first, or the
earlier part of the second century. In the addresses to
the seven churches of Asia, we find mention of the same
vices, as existing among professed Christians, which we have
before remarked ; and, in speaking of them, Balaam is intro
duced under a point of view different from that in which he
appears in the Epistles ascribed to Peter and Jude. Thus,
in the address to the church at Pergamus, it is said, " But I
have a few things against thee, for thou hast those who follow
the teaching of Balaam, who instructed Balak how to cause
the Israelites to offend, by eating idol-sacrifices and com
mitting fornication ; so hast thou, too, those who thus follow
the teaching of the Nicola itans," that is, thou, too, hast
those who eat idol-sacrifices and commit fornication. The
Nicola itans are also mentioned once before ; || and this appel
lation appears to be used as equivalent to "followers of
Balaam," the significance of " Balaam " in Hebrew, and
" Nicolaiis " in Greek, being the same. The name Nicola itans
was subsequently applied to Gnostics who led licentious lives,
* 2 Pet. ii. 3. f 2 Pet. ii. 16 J Jude 11
Rev. ii. 14, 15. || Rev. ii. 6.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 258
till at last it came to be considered as the name of a sect.*
This sect was then supposed to derive its origin from Nicolaiis t
(Nicholas), one of the seven deacons appointed by the
apostles. $ The fable for such it is to be considered is
rejected by Clement of Alexandria, who gives an account of
Nicolaiis, perhaps equally unfounded, in which he is repre
sented as an ascetic. The Nicola itans are the sect before
referred to, || as, according to Clement, perverting the maxim,
that "the body must be abused," which he ascribes to
Nicolaiis.
It appears, then, that, from the times of the apostles, im
moral doctrines and practices had existed among professed
Christians, and that, due allowance being made for the
language of controversial enmity, and for charges brought
against Christian Gnostics, which, so far as they were true,
were true only of sects not Christian, there is still no reason
to doubt that the principles of a portion of the Gnostics did
not secure them from the common vices of the pagan world ;
and that there were those among them who perverted their
doctrines to defend themselves in criminal irregularities.
The character of the great body of Christians, founded on the
requirements of our religion ; the supervision exercised by
their respective churches over the morals of individual mem
bers ; their rejection from their number of those whose lives
or whose principles were essentially unchristian, these
causes, in connection with the persecution which they suffered
from without, were continually operating to produce a separa
tion between them and such individuals as have been de
scribed. But there was nothing to prevent such individuals
from forming, or from joining, a looser class of heretics, and
* Irenseus, lib. i. c. 26, 3, p. 105: conf. lib. iii. c. 11, 1, p. 188.
t Ibid. J Acts vi. 5.
Stromat, ii. 20, pp. 490, 491 ; iii. 4, pp. 522, 523.
|| See p. 228.
254 EVIDENCES OF THE
announcing themselves as Gnostics, or, in other words, as
peculiarly enlightened.
Many of the first converts to Christianity must, as we have
seen, have had but very imperfect information concerning it.
Former prejudices still retained a strong hold on their minds.
In the effervescence of the times, false teachers soon arose.
The doctrine of the apostles was resisted on the one hand, and
perverted on the other. Such being the state of things in
the first century, the way was prepared for the existence,
in the second century, of doctrines as remote from Christianity
as those of the Gnostics. They were the fruit of errors that
had sprung up when the Gospel was planted, and had accom
panied its growth.
During the second century, all those distinctly recognized
as heretics among the Gentile converts were, or were repre
sented to be, Gnostics. As has been before observed, it was
natural, that an ill-informed convert, possessed with the com
mon prejudices of the Gentiles, should adopt the Gnostic
doctrine concerning the Old Testament and the God of the
Jews. It was equally natural, that one who had become
separated from the great body of Christians by an immoral
life, if he did not renounce his religion altogether, should join
a body of heretics whose extraordinary pretensions at once
afforded a cover for his vices and a gratification to his vanity.
He would pass over to the looser class of theosophic Gnostics.
Thus it may be conceived, that, in the second century, those
irregularities and vices settled down among them, which, in the
first century, appear diffused through the body of Christians.
We have had occasion to bring into view the disorders
among Christians, that unquestionably existed during the
apostolic age. But we must be careful not to have an exag
gerated idea of their nature or extent. They were such as
could not but attend so wonderful a change of thought and
feeling as our religion produced, and the formation of a body
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 255
of Christians in the midst of such a world as lay around them.
In the latter half of the second century, the catholic Christians
were, as I have said, pre-eminently distinguished by their
religious character and high morality ; and are liable as a
community to no graver charge, than that their virtues bor
dered on asceticism, austerity, and enthusiasm. The commo
tion in men s minds produced by the first preaching of our
religion had subsided. It was better understood. The books
of the New Testament, and especially the Gospels, were now
open to the examination of all, and afforded means for study
ing its history and character. The great body of Christians,
who were united in a common faith, had been purified by
severe sufferings and persecution, and by the discipline which
they maintained among themselves. They were a new class
of men, standing in contrast with their heathen contempo
raries; and the grosser vices of the world found either no
entrance or no toleration among them. But it is not strange
if the overwhelming licentiousness of the times forced itself
in, where the weaker faith and the erroneous doctrines of the
Gnostics presented a feebler resistance, or opened a way for
its admission.
But this subject requires some further explanation. "We
may readily understand why, at the present day, individuals
without Christian faith, or without Christian morals, should
claim to be called Christians, or why the generality of men in
a Christian country, whatever may be the strength of their
faith or its practical influence, should acquiesce in being
numbered as believers ; but the inquiry may well arise, how
it was, that, when to be a Christian was to expose one s self
to hatred arid persecution, any should take that name, except
from such sincere conviction and such conscientious motives
as would preserve them from indulging in the vices of the
heathen world, and especially from justifying such indulgence
on principle.
256 EVIDENCES OF THE
The solution of the fact is, that the looser heretics did not
expose themselves to persecution. The hatred of the Hea
thens to the Christians manifested itself by irregular out
breaks. It would be a great mistake to suppose, that the
proceedings against them, at least before the latter part of
the third century, resembled the systematized persecution
of infidels and heretics in those Roman- Catholic countries
where the Inquisition has been established. The steady
action of law was unknown throughout the Roman Empire.
Its machinery was wholly out of order. Its workings were
irregular and interrupted. After the time of Nero till that of
Diocletian, the emperors, for the most part, appear rather to
have yielded to the spirit of persecution, than to have excited
it. The sufferings of the Christians were occasioned far le~s
by their edicts, than by the superstition and enmity of the
lower classes, the cruelty of some of the provincial governors,
and the license and rapacity of the -soldiery. Such persecu
tors would, in general, select their victims from the most
conscientious and zealous among the number of those who,
from their circumstances in life, might be most easily op
pressed, or who, being conspicuous among Christians, had, at
the same time, incurred some particular odium. The more
licentious among the heretics had little to fear. They prob
ably called themselves Gnostics, or enlightened men, rather
than Christians ; for the latter name might not only have
exposed them to obloquy and danger, but would have con
founded them with the great body of believers, whom they
looked down upon with contempt. They were connected
with the heathen world in its vices and in its idol-worship.
Moreover, a man devoid of conscientiousness and self-devo
tion need apprehend no danger, even if, by some accident, he
might be accused as a Christian. The judicial trials of
Christians were very unlike those of heretics in later times
The accused had his condemnation or acquittal in his own
power. He might save himself by renouncing his faith, or
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 257
by denying it. All that was required of him was to profess
himself not a Christian, and to burn incense before the judge
in honor of an idol, or to swear by the genius of the
emperor.
It appears, indeed, that many of the theosophic Gnostics
withdrew themselves from that severe discipline of persecu
tion to which the catholic Christians were exposed, and
which tended essentially to preserve their moral energy, their
spiritual character, and their high tone of virtue. Tertullian
has a discourse, written with all his usual vehemence, against
such as dissuaded from martyrdom. It is entitled Scorpiace,
that is, " An Antidote against Scorpions ; " for to scorpions
he compares those whom he considered as endeavoring to
instil poison into others, which would cause their spiritual
death. " When the faith," he says, " is vexed with fire, and
the Church is in the midst of flames, like the burning bush,
then the Gnostics break out, then the Valentinians creep
forth, then all the opposers of martyrdom are made active by
the heat to strike, to dart their stings, and to kill." * They
taught, that to profess the faith at the cost of life was not
required by God, who desires the death of no man, but was
an act of folly. The true profession they maintained to be
the holding of the true doctrine in the sight of God, not a
profession made openly before men. Similar principles and
a corresponding practice are charged upon the heretics gener
ally by Irenseus, though he admits that there had been
martyrs from their number. The Gnostics, according to him,
maintained that it was not necessary to submit to martyrdom.
Their doctrine was the true attestation of their faith.f
" Some," he says, " have had the hardihood to despise mar
tyrs, and to cast censure on those who are put to death for
the profession of the Lord." J The same account is given
* Scorpiace, c. 1, p. 487. t Cont. Haeres., lib. iv. c. 33, 9, p. 272.
t Ibid., lib. iii. c. 18, 5, p. 210.
17
258 EVIDENCES OF THE
of one portion of the heretics by Clement of Alexandria.
Through an irreligious and cowardly love of life, he says,
they represented martyrdom as self-murder ; maintaining the
true Christian testimony was not a martyr s testimony, but
their own higher knowledge of Him who is really God.
Clement, however, says, that other heretics (referring, doubt
less, to the Marcionites) were, through enmity to the Creator,
eager to expose themselves to martyrdom. * A writer quoted
by Eusebius observes, that some heretical sects had furnished
many martyrs, and particularly mentions the Marcionites as
claiming this distinction, f
Among the theosophic Gnostics, the ascetics, we may pre
sume, were equally ready with the Marcionites to suffer
when their faith required it. Of the practice and the doc
trine of others of that class of Gnostics, but especially of the
principles of their leaders, we may judge in some degree from
a passage of the Valentinian, Heracleon, preserved by Clem
ent of Alexandria,:}: a part of which has been already quoted.
It, at once, serves to explain, and to give credibility to, what
is said concerning them by their catholic opponents. In
commenting on the words of Jesus, in which he speaks of
that profession of him which his disciples were required to
make before men, and especially before those in authority,
Heracleon says, that there is a profession which is made by
faith and conduct, and another by words ; that the latter,
which is made before those in authority, is erroneously con
sidered by most as the only profession ; but that it may
be made by hypocrites, and that it has not been made by all
those who have been saved, and, among them, not by several
of the apostles. It is only partial, not complete : complete
profession is made by works and deeds, corresponding to
faith in Christ. He who makes this profession will make the
Stromat., iv. 4, p. 571. f Hist. Eccles., lib. v. c. 16.
Stromat, iv. 9, pp. 595, 596. See before, p. 227.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 259
other, should it become a duty, and reason require it. He
will rightly profess Christ in words who has previously pro
fessed him in his dispositions. Heracleon adds more to the
same effect, but nothing which alters the complexion of the
passage. In his comments upon it, Clement says, that here
and elsewhere Heracleon, whom he calls the most approved
of the Valentinians, appears to agree in opinion with catholic
Christians. He conceives, however, that he has disregarded
the fact, that a martyr s profession is alone sufficient proof of
sincere faith ; and observes on the unreasonableness of sup
posing that it might be made by a hypocrite. " To profess
our faith," he goes on to say, " is the duty of all, for this
is in our power : to defend it is not the duty of all, for it may
not be in our power," * words that may remind one of
Latimer, when, broken by age and suffering, he declared to
his judges, that he could not argue for his religion, but that
he could die for it.
However unobjectionable, in themselves considered, were
the leading sentiments of Heracleon, they were, when thus
nakedly stated, not altogether apposite to the times. It is
not too much to say, that he discovers some tendency to
depreciate that bold profession of Christ, by which, when
made before a persecuting judge, a Christian sealed his con
demnation to torture and death. It is easy to perceive how
his view of the subject might degenerate into that which
Tertullian, in his " Scorpiace," says was presented by the
Valentinians.
There is, indeed, a very striking contrast between the pas
sage of Heracleon, and two treatises which remain to us, one
by Tertullian, and the other by Origen. That of Tertullian
is entitled " Concerning Flight in Persecution." It is a
strong exhortation not to avoid persecution, either by flight,
or by buying off those who threatened to become informers*
* Stromat., iv. 9, p. 596.
260 EVIDENCES OF THE
It is written with the intense earnestness of one who, if he
had not been a Christian, might have raised a warrior s voice,
of power
" To cheer in the mid battle, ay, to turn the flying."
There can be little doubt, that often, under the circumstances
of those times, the course of conduct to which he exhorted
was that most honorable to Christians, most likely to com-
mand the respect of their enemies, and best adapted to extend
the knowledge and influence of our religion. In more than
one instance, persecution appears to have been checked by
the number and intrepidity of those who were ready to sub
mit to martyrdom. There may be errors of reasoning in his
work, but the deepest sincerity is evident throughout ; and,
compared with his other writings, it has a subdued tone of
expression suited to the subject. It is characterized, at the
same time, by an unshrinking consistency, in which its sever*
purpose is never for a moment lost sight of, and by a sus
tained energy of wholly unworldly feeling. Tertullian con
cludes it with the following words :
* This doctrine, brother, perhaps seems to you hard and intol
erable. But recollect what God said, Let him who can receiv\
it receive it ; that is, Let him who cannot receive it depart. H
who fears to suffer does not belong to Him who suffered. But h
who does not fear to suffer is perfect in love, the love of God ; foi
perfect love casts out fear. Thus it is, that many are called, bui
few are chosen. He is not sought for, who is ready to follow the
broad way, but he who will take the narrow path. And thui
the Paraclete is necessary, the leader into all truth, the en-
courager to endure all things ; and they who have received him
neither fly persecution, nor buy it off; we having Lira on our
side, both to speak for us when interrogated, and to aid us when
Buffering."
Tertullian, when he wrote this tract, had become a Mon-
tanist ; and the Holy Spirit, which the Montanists believed tc
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 2f>l
have spoken by Montanus, they commonly denominated the
Paraclete.
There is as great a difference between the treatise of
Origen and that of Tertullian as may well exist between two
works of able writers, relating to the same subject, and
having nearly the same purpose. That of Origen is of par
ticular interest. It was addressed, during a time of persecu
tion, to two friends, with one of whom he appears to have
been particularly connected, to exhort them to meet suffering
and death with Christian fortitude. When we can bring
before our minds all that is implied in one friend s writing to
another to encourage him to martyrdom, we may, in one
respect, have a distinct conception of the state and character
of the early catholic Christians. The address of Origen is
affectionate, considerate, and respectful, but with no expres
sion of temporary excitement. On the contrary, it has some
thing of his usual languor and diffuseness of style, and
oversubtilty of thought. It is characterized by the calmness
of one who was thoroughly penetrated by the spirit of our
religion, whose earthly passions had been subdued, whose
hopes were fixed on heaven ; and who had thus learned to
look on life and death indifferently, and to contemplate
Buffering as one prepared for it.
"I would," says Origen, " that you may be able through the
whole of this present conflict to bear in mind the great reward
which is laid up in heaven for those who are persecuted and reviled
for righteousness sake, and for the sake of the Son of man ; so as
to rejoice and exult, and leap for joy, as the apostles in former
days rejoiced, when they were deemed worthy to suffer contumely
for him. . . . Would, indeed, that your souls may not be at all
perturbed, but that, when standing before the tribunal, and when
the nake:l sword hangs over your throats, you may be strengthened
by the peace of God which passes all understanding, and made
calm by the thought that they who are absent from the body are
present with the Lord of all ! But, if we are not able always to
preserve our firmness, I would at least that our trouble may not
262 EVIDENCES OF THE
appear, and show itself to those who are alien from our
faith." *
" Whether our profession of Christ be complete or not, we may
thus determine. If, through the whole time of the inquisition and
temptation, we yield no place in our hearts to the Devil, who
would corrupt us with evil thoughts of denying our faith, or cause
us to hesitate, or pervert us by some sophistry to what is at enmity
with a martyr s testimony and our perfection ; if, with this, we
bring no stain upon ourselves by any word foreign from our pro
fession ; if we endure all the reproach and mockery and laughter
and reviling of our adversaries, and the pity which they seem to
have for us, regarding us as in error and foolish, and speaking to
us as deluded ; and, still more, if the strong love of children, or
their mother, or any of those dearest to us in this world, do not
violently draw us back to their enjoyment or to this life, but,
turning from them all, we can devote ourselves wholly to God,
and to that life which is with him, as about to be associated with
his only Son and with his followers, then we may say that we
have fully perfected our profession." f
The tone of mind expressed by Tertullian and Origen is
very different from that of Heracleon. It is to men possessed
with their spirit that we are indebted, through the providence
of God, for the preservation of Christianity. Wholly relieved,
as we are, from the necessity of practising those high and
hard duties which were appointed to them, we may IDC unable,
without an effort, to enter into their principles and feelings.
Looking, under very different circumstances, to the severo
sufferings to which they were summoned, and not having
been strengthened to meet them by that preparatory discipline
which they had gone through, we may even shrink from
sympathy, and feel rather with those who fled, or bought off
their accusers, in times of persecution. But let us at least be
just, and give honor where honor is due ; and not suffer our
* Exhortatio ad Martyrium, 4; Origen. Opp. i. 276.
t Ibid., 11, p. 281.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 263
attention to be engrossed by the extravagance that sometimes
marked the strength of those virtues which the early Chris
tians displayed, and almost necessarily accompanied them in
such minds as Tertullian s.*
I have spoken of the Gnostics as they existed in the
second century, and of the charges brought against them by
the early fathers, the fathers of the second and third centuries.
After this time, there is, as I have before remarked, little
reason to believe that any proper Gnostic sects survived in
much vigor. Their doctrines were such as strike with the
glare of novelty, and are thrown aside when that becomes
tarnished. They were superseded by the kindred sect of the
Manichaeans. Through the union of Christianity with the im
perial power, a flood of corruption poured in among Chris
tians ; and, in the fourth century, a variety of new, bitter,
worldly controversies arose, which diverted men s attention
from the old errors of the Gnostics, except as a matter of
history, and a means of blackening the name of heretic by
odious representations of those who had borne it. There is
no reason to doubt that the Gnostics who still remained
shared in the degeneracy of that evil age, when darkness was
* Gibbon (chap. xvi. note 100) says, that the treatise of Tertullian is
" filled with the wildest fanaticism and the most incoherent declamation."
That a work such as I have described should appear to a writer like Gibbon
expressive of the wildest fanaticism may easily be supposed. But the asser
tion that it is full of incoherent declamation is utterly unfounded. No writer
ever kept his purpose more steadily in view than does Tertullian in this
treatise.
Very probably, Gibbon had never read it ; but he had perhaps seen what
is said by Jortin: "In the persecution under Severus, many fled to avoid it,
or gave money to redeem themselves. Tertullian, like a frantic Montanist,
condemned these expedients" (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History (Loud.
1805), vol. ii p. 90). Jortin \vas a scholar of some elegance and some acute-
ness, but of little compass of mind, and wanting almost every requisite
essential in treating of the history of the early Christians. In aiming at
smartness of style, he sometimes falls into flippancy.
264 EVIDENCES OF THE
beginning to close over men, and they were about to enter on
that long series of centuries which marks the history of the
world with its mental and moral desolation. But the specific
charges urged against the Gnostics by the orthodox historians
of heresy in the fourth and fifth centuries, with Epiphanius
at their head, are so obviously in great part calumnies, as to
afford no safe ground for determining what was, or what had
been, the character of those against whom they are brought.
It appears, then, from what precedes, that there was great
diversity of moral character among the Gnostics. Some were
distinguished for their severe asceticism, and others for their
principled licentiousness. The inveterate prejudices of the
Gentiles against the Jews and Judaism; the traditionary
errors of the Jews concerning their religion ; the form, conse
quently, in which it was presented to the minds of the new
converts ; and their inability to comprehend the subject cor
rectly, and to solve in a satisfactory manner the difficulties
with which it was and is embarrassed, caused a portion of the
Gentile converts to separate the Mosaic dispensation from
the Christian, and to regard the latter alone as coming from the
Supreme Being. These were the Gnostics. But the arbi
trary hypothesis of a Supreme God and an inferior god, by
which the Gnostics made a forced separation of Judaism from
Christianity, and the inconsistency of their scheme with the
plain language of Christ and his apostles, spread confusion
and indistinctness through all their conceptions of our religion.
Notwithstanding this, the Marcionites, influenced more by
moral and Christian feeling than by any other cause in
rejecting the representations of the Old Testament as appli
cable to the true God, did not fall behind the catholic Chris
tians in the strictness or strength of their self-denying virtues.
On the contrary, there seems to have been much of fanaticism
mixed with their renunciation of the pleasures of this life.
But the theosophic Gnostics were less detached from the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 205
heathen world. They drew their vague speculations from
its philosophy. There was a tendency in their minds to sub
stitute for the realities of God s revelation a baseless, abstract
faith, the evidence of which was the testimony of their own
spiritual nature. They seem to have regarded Christianity
too much as a system of philosophy, and too little as a divine
revelation. They thus stood as a sort of intermediate class
between the catholic Christians and the Heathens. Many of
them, doubtless, received our religion in good faith, according
to their modification of it, and conformed their lives to the
moral purity which it requires ; but it does not appear that
any considerable number felt it to be a means of the moral
renovation of mankind, or regarded themselves as called upon
to seal their testimony to it with their blood. It is clear that
they had not that zeal in avowing and defending and propa
gating their faith, as of inestimable value to their fellow-men,
which exposed the catholic Christians to persecution. Some
of them, pretending, perhaps, as men of enlightened minds, to
hold in disregard outward forms of religion, joined, of their
own accord, in idol-sacrifices ; while others, like the ancient
heathen philosophers, were probably ready to escape odium
and vexation by whatever compliances were necessary with
the popular superstitions. It appears, further, that there were
some, perhaps many, of their number, who, though not coun
tenanced by their principal leaders, or the more respectable
portion of the theosophic Gnostics, seized on the doctrine of
the incorruptible purity of their spiritual nature, as a pretence
for indulging in gross vices. The existence of such a class
of men, not altogether destitute of belief in the divine mission
of our Saviour, is, as we have seen, accounted for by causes
that had been in operation from the time when St. Paul first
gathered converts from the Gentiles. They were early
thrown off from the body of catholic Christians, and became
apostates or heretics. It may readily be believed that they
had no attachment to Judaism which would prevent them
266 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
from becoming Gnostics, and, in the pride of their new
spiritual superiority, looking down upon the unenlightened
and over-scrupulous body of Christians by whom they were
rejected. In taking this course, they met with no obstacle ;
for, among the generality of theosophic Gnostics, there was no
combination or discipline which might have repelled or ex
cluded the unworthy from being associated with them.
Nor was there any thing precisely to define the limits
between the theosophic Gnostics and individuals holding
Gnostic opinions, and more or less affected by the widely
spreading influence of Christianity, who yet had no title to
the name of Christians. But, though the limits were unde
fined, there was the well-marked general distinction between
those who decidedly belonged to one class or the other, that
the former believed, and the latter did not believe, the divine
mission of Christ. In respect, also, to one noted pseudo-
Christian sect which has been mistaken for a branch of the
Gnostics, I mean the Carpocratians, it will appear, I think,
from what is about to be said, that its members did not even
hold Gnostic doctrines. We must therefore separate, as far
as possible, the pseudo-Christians from the Gnostics ; and to
this subject we will next attend.
CHAPTER V.
ON SOME PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN SECTS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY CONFOUNDED WITH THE GNOS
TICS.
WE have seen that Simon Magus is represented by the
fathers as the parent of all the heretical sects ; while, at the
same time, he is described, not as a disciple of Christ, but as
opposing himself to Christ as a rival. His followers, the
Simonians, therefore, were not Christians. These facts may
induce us readily to give credit to the supposition, that among
those who may seem to be, or who are, enumerated as Chris
tian heretics, by some one or more of the fathers, there were
other sects or individuals who had no title to the name of
Christian ; though many of them may have held the Gnostic
doctrine, that the material universe is the work of a being
or beings imperfect or evil. This confusion, if it exist, of
Christian and pseudo- Christian sects must be removed, before
we can form a correct notion of the Gnostics ; and the inves
tigation of the subject may also serve to make us acquainted
with the character of the times, and the effects produced by
the promulgation of Christianity.
Among the sects referred to, the Carpocratians may be
first mentioned. They had their origin in Alexandria, and
became conspicuous about the middle of the second century.
268 EVIDENCES OF THE
By Irengeus they are classed with the Gnostics ; and, accord
ing to him, they affirmed that the world was made by angels.
But a comparison of his whole account * with the information
afforded by Clement of Alexandria f may lead us to the con
clusion, that the Carpocratians were neither Christians nor
heathen Gnostics, but a corrupt sect of Platonists, who pre
tended to regard Christ as a very eminent philosopher among
the barbarians, as Confucius was at one time celebrated by
European men of letters. This may appear from what fol
lows.
With Carpocrates was connected, as a founder of the sect,
his son Epipbanes, the author of a work " Concerning Just
ice," from which Clement quotes a series of passages.! The
purpose of them is to maintain that no property should exist,
but that all things should be common to all. " The justice
of God," Epiphanes says, " is a certain equal distribution."
Following out his principles, he maintains, as Plato had
taught in his Republic, that there should be a community of
women ; women in Egypt and Greece, as in the East, being
regarded much in the light of property. For his doctrine of
equality he argues from the natural order of things ; accord
ing to which, for example, God gives the light of the sun
equally to all ; and a common nature, and food in common, to
all the individuals of the different species of animals. This
order he vindicates as good ; he regards it as a manifestation
of the great moral law of all beings, and ascribes it to the
u Maker and Father of all," that is, to the Supreme God.
It appears, therefore, that Epiphanes regarded the order
of nature as good, and as proceeding from the Supreme
Being. He differed, therefore, from the Gnostics in their
fundamental doctrine. They considered the order of nature
* Cont. Hasres., lib. i. c. 25, pp. 103-105, c. 28, 2, p. 107; lib. ii. cc.
81-33, pp. 164-168.
f Stromat., iii. 2, pp. 511-515. J Stromat., iii., ubi supi a.
p. 512.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 269
as full of defects and evils, and ascribed it, in consequence, to
an imperfect Creator. But Epiphanes, it is clear, had no
such being in view. He ascribes the constitution of things in
the material universe to the Supreme God, whom alone he
regards as the Creator. He was, moreover, so far from hold
ing the doctrine of the Gnostics, which identified the Creator
with the God of the Jews, that, as quoted by Clement, he
considered the command, " Thou shalt not covet," as ridicu
lous, and more especially the command, " Thou shalt not
covet thy neighbor s wife ; " they being, according to him,
directly opposite to the ordinances of the Creator as mani
fested in his works. Epiphanes, then, was not a Gnostic,
nor was his father Carpocrates, from whom he derived his
principles, nor the followers of both, by whom they were
adopted. Nor had they, I conceive, more title to be consid
ered as Christians.
It is the obvious remark of Clement, that the doctrines
alleged clearly subvert the Law and the Gospel. Upon
their first aspect, they show themselves to be the doctrines
of one who had no deference for the divine authority of
Christ. Their advocate, Epiphanes, was, according to Clem
ent, a youth of extraordinary precocity, who died at the age
of seventeen, after having been educated by his father in the
different branches of knowledge, particularly in the Platonic
philosophy. Clement says that his mother was a native of
Cephallenia, and that in Same, a city of that island, a temple
was erected to him as a god, and divine honors were paid him
after his death. There seems no reasonable ground for doubt
ing this account. There is nothing in it inconsistent with the
customs of the Heathens. Clement lived in the same century
with Epiphanes, and in the same city in which he was born ;
and the facts stated by him are of such a kind as hardly to
admit the supposition of any essential mistake concerning
them. But the followers of Epiphanes, who paid him divine
honors, were evidently Heathens. In conformity with this,
270 EVIDENCES OF THE
Irenaeus tells us that the Carpocratians had images of Christ,
together with those of heathen philosophers, as Pythagoras,
Plato, and Aristotle, which they crowned with garlands, and
honored after the fashion of the Gentiles.* It appears, there
fore, that they placed Christ in the same rank with those
philosophers. Some of them, he says, affirmed that they
were like Jesus, and some that in certain respects they were
stronger or better.|
Respecting their other opinions, Irenaeus states, that they
believed that "Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was like
other men, except that his soul, being strong and pure, re
membered what it had seen in its circumgyration with the
unoriginated God." $ These conceptions were founded on
the doctrine of Plato, who had taught, in his Phsedrus, the
pre-existent immortality of all souls ; and that those of the
better class had, before their immersion in matter, ascended
to the outer orb of heaven, where they had been borne round
in company with the gods, and had beheld the eternal Ideas,
there presented to view, of which all true knowledge is only
a reminiscence.
Irenaeus, attributing Gnostic conceptions to the Carpocra
tians, goes on to say, that, according to them, the soul of
* Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 25, 6, p. 105.
f Ibid., lib. i. c. 25, 2, p. 103; lib. ii. c. 32, 3, p. 165.
J Ibid., lib. i. c. 25, 1, p. 103.
Plato in Phtedro, p. 245, seqq. (I refer here, as elsewhere, to the pages
of Henrv Stephens s edition (Paris, 1578), which are commonly numbered in
the margin of later editions.) Plato puts the representations there given into
the mouth of Socrates. They appear irreconcilable with those concerning the
creation, and the pre-existent state, of souls, given in his Timgeus, p. 41, seqq.
But his imaginations at different times were not unfrequently at variance
with each other. The words of Plato, in his Phaedrus, in speaking of the
vision of eternal Ideas presented to pre-existent souls, as borne round on
the outer orb of heaven, are so characteristic of ancient philosophy as to be
worth quoting. " This supercelestial place," he says, " no poet here on earth
has ever celebrated, or will celebrate, worthily. But thus it is ; for one must
dare to describe it truly, especially one who is discoursing of the truth" 1 " 1 (p. 247).
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 271
Jesus being thus excellent, " powe~ was sent it by God to
enable it to escape the Makers ol the world, arid passing
through them all, and being wholly liberated, to ascend to
him ; " and that the same would be the case with all souls
who followed his course. This conception of Makers of the
world, disposed to impede the ascent of the soul, is Gnostic ;
but that Irenaeus was in error in ascribing it to the Carpo
cratians may appear by what has been quoted from Epipha-
nea. It seems to have been not uncommon to attribute
incorrectly to one sect opinions held, or reputed to be held,
by another. The mistake of Irenaeus may have arisen in this
way alone, or it may be otherwise accounted for. Through
the irregular action of Christianity upon their minds, and the
consequent unsettling of their old faith, the Carpocratians
may have advanced so far toward the opinions of the catholic
Christians, as to regard the inferior gods of the later Plato-
nists, the heathen divinities, as evil spirits ; and, if this were
so, Irenaeus might easily confound those inferior gods with
the creator-angels of the Gnostics. That such was the case
may be conjectured from what he states to have been said by
them ; namely, that the soul of Jesus had learned to despise
the Makers of the world, in consequence of having been
educated among the Jews.* No Gnostic would have repre
sented Jesus as learning to despise the Makers of the world,
among whom they commonly regarded the god of the Jews
as the chief, in consequence of his being imbued with Jewish
notions ; but the Carpocratians, if such as we have supposed
them, might well have assigned this as a cause for hi* ton-
tempt of the heathen divinities. It can hardly be, that the
account of Irenaeus is not erroneous.
The morals of the Carpocratians are portrayed in very
dart colors by their contemporaries, Irenaeus and Clement.
They represent the sect as having brought reproach on the
Lib. i. c. 25, 1, p. 103.
272 EVIDENCES OF THE
Christian name, upon "us," says Irenseus, "who have no
communion with them either in doctrine, or in morals, or in
daily life."* The Heathens, doubtless, were very ready to
impute to Christians the vices and licentiousness of those
whose minds had merely been put in action by the new faith,
of those bands of outlaws, who, not belonging to the num
ber of the true followers of our religion, yet accompanied its
march, and hovered round its outposts. Some modern writers
have been disposed to regard the charges brought against the
Carpocratians by their contemporaries as improbable, and in
great part unfounded. But their principal argument is, that
the Carpocratians were Christians, and that Christians could
not have been guilty of such immoralities. If, on the con
trary, we regard them as Heathens, on whom the indirect and
irregular influence of Christianity had had no other effect
than to* set them free from the restraints of common opinion,
and who, in consequence, were inflated with a notion of their
superiority to common prejudices, we shall perceive that they
were in the very state in which moral disorders might be
expected to break out among them. The charges against
them are, to a great extent, confirmed by the principles of
Epiphanes, whom they deified. These are advanced in tbs
broadest manner in the extracts from him given by Clement.
He maintained that all laws for the security of private prop
erty were in violation of the universal law of God, which had
given all things in common to all ; and that they alone created
the offences which they punished.f This, indeed, may be con
sidered as little more than a speculative principle, since society
imposes such severe penalties on those who act in conformity
to it, that none are likely to reduce it to practice from a mere
conviction of its truth. But his doctrine respecting the pro
miscuous intercourse of the sexes, which not only broke down
all moral restraint, but represented it as an ordinance of God,
* Lib. i. c. 25, 3, p. 103. f Stromat., iii. 2, pp. 512, 513.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 273
is sufficient, especially when we consider the state of society
in which it was promulgated, to remove any doubt concerning
the reality of the licentiousness of which the Carpocratians
were accused. They were heathen philosophers, and Chris
tian chastity was not to be learned from heathen philosophy.
They were, as we have supposed, of the school of Plato, and
in two of his most noted Dialogues they might have found a
mixture of philosophical jargon with nameless impurity.*
Nor is there any reason to question what Irenaeus says of
them,t that they, like the later Platonists, professed the
science and practice of magic or theurgy, and used their
pretended skill for the purpose of deception.
I have reserved for a separate head the mention of one
doctrine which Irenasus imputes to them ; because, so far as
it may appear to have been held by any individuals, it con
nects them in a class with other pseudo- Christians, main
taining that the practice of scandalous immoralities was a
religious duty. As followers of Plato, the Carpocratians
believed the doctrine of the pre-existence and transmigration
of souls ; and maintained, says Irenasus, that the soul would
not obtain its final liberation from matter till it had beeu
conversant with every kind of life and every mode of action ;
that is, as he explains their meaning, till it had been con
versant with every kind of impurity and vice.? A strong
doubt may at once arise whether such a doctrine could hare
been professed by any individuals; and the idea of acting
upon it, to its full extent, appears altogether monstrous and
incredible. Irenseus himself says, that he could not believe
that their practice corresponded to their principles. What,
indeed, were the principles or the practice of certain liber-
* I refer to the Phsedrus and the Banquet.
t Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 25, 3, p. 103; lib. ii. c. 31, 2, p. 164, c. 32, 3,
p. 165.
J Lib. i. c. 25, 4, pp. 103, 104; lib. ii. c. 32, 2, p. 165.
18
274 EVIDENCES OP THE
tine individuals of the second century, called Carpocratians ;
whether they were more immoral than some have supposed,
or less immoral than their opponents represented, is a sub
ject that may seem wholly uninteresting at the present day.
Certainly it is so, as far as justice to their memory is con
cerned. But, on the other hand, if they held the doctrine
imputed to them by Irenaeus, or if they held any doc
trine which, without being greatly misrepresented, might
afford occasion for the statement which he makes, this is a
phenomenon in human nature that may well deserve atten
tion.
That they did hold some doctrine of this kind, and that he
did not essentially mistake their meaning, may appear from
various considerations. Irenaeus affirms, that it was expressed
in their writings ; and that they taught that Jesus had com
municated it privately to his apostles and disciples, and had
appointed them to communicate it to those who were worthy
and obedient They would not have maintained that a doc
trine concerning morals had been taught privately, if it had
been such as was correspondent to the tenor of the Gospels.
He says that they accommodated to their doctrine the words
of our Saviour, " Agree with thine adversary quickly ; "
representing the adversary as Satan, one of the angels of the
world, who would not suffer the soul to obtain its freedom
from imprisonment in some mortal body, till it had paid the
uttermost farthing ; that is, according to his explanation, till
it had been conversant in all the works of this world. His
appeal to their writings, and the particulars which he gives
relating to their doctrine, serve to show, that, if his account
is not true to the letter, it still had an essential foundation in
truth. It is repeated by other writers, particularly by Ter-
tullian, who says,* that they represented " crimes as the
tribute which life must pay ; " facinora tributa sunt vitce ;
* De Aniina, c. 35, p. 291.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 275
and notes the same perversion of Scripture that is mentioned
by Irenaeus.
The doctrine in question, stated in its least offensive form,
we may, perhaps, conceive to have been, that the soul must
have full experience of this life before passing into another
Btate, and that, to this end, it must be conversant with pleas
ures commonly considered criminal. To represent indulgence
in such pleasures as a matter of religious obligation was con
formable to the teaching of Epiphanes, that promiscuous
intercourse of the sexes was an ordinance of God. Irenaeus
concludes his account of the moral principles of the Carpo-
cratians with saying, that they taught that men were " saved
by faith and love, but that other things were indifferent;
that, according to the opinions of men, some were accounted
good and others bad, but that nothing was bad by nature." *
By faith tkfly may have meant a firm adherence to their
philosophy ; for to souls purified by philosophy Plato assigned
the highest places after death. But in what they said of
faith and love we may recognize, perhaps, a common tendency
of those most licentious in their speculations or their practice
to shelter themselves under a show of words expressive of
common sentiments or belief.
It may appear, then, that the Carpocratians belonged to
the same class with those pseudo-Christians mentioned by
Clement of Alexandria, as quoted in the last chapter.f The
principle common to them all was, that the practice of scan
dalous immoralities was a matter of religious obligation. It
may be observed, in connection, that the charges brought
against them, however general may be the terms in which
they are sometimes expressed, evidently relate principally to
the vices of sensuality and profligacy.
The avowal of such a principle may strike us at first view
as a moral absurdity scarcely credible. But it was in truth
* Lib. i. c. 25, 6, p. 104. t See pp. 228-231.
276 EVIDENCES OF THE
a principle with which Paganism had made men familiar, and
which it had thoroughly sanctioned. In the heathen wor
ship, gross indecencies, and abominable extravagances and
debaucheries, were represented as acceptable to many of
their gods, to Bacchus, Venus, Cybele, and Flora ; not to
mention other inferior divinities of a still baser character.
The public celebration of many of the heathen rites was
marked with deep stains of pollution. In Egypt, where
brute animals were deified, heathen writers tell us (whether
we can believe them or not), that abominations were com
mitted in their worship, with which even those that Epipha-
nius charges on the heretics whom he most vilifies are not
to be compared.
But, though we receive as essentially true the accounts of
Irenaeus and Clement respecting the pseudo-Christians whom
we have been considering, we cannot extend the same credit
to the outrageous charges brought by writers of the fourth
and fifth centuries, particularly by Epiphanius, against some
of those whom they represented as heretics. There is a most
offensive specimen of them in the account which that writer
gives of a pretended sect, to which, with the confusion fre
quent in his writings, he applies the name of " Gnostics" used
not as a generic, but a specific name.* The origin of his
appropriation of the term to a particular sect may be thus
explained.
Irenaeus speaks of the Gnostics whom he supposes to have
existed antecedently to their being split into different sects
and called after different leaders, simply under that generic
name, and uses the same general name also concerning those
whom he does not refer to any particular class. Especially
at the conclusion of his first book, after having given an
account of the principal Gnostic sects, distinguished by
* Haeres., xxvi. ; Opp. i. 82.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 277
particular names, as referred to their respective leaders, he
says, that besido these a multitude of Gnostics arose, whose
different doctrines he proceeds to mention, without denoting
those who held them by any specific appellations.* Among
them were those who were afterwards named Ophians and
Cainites. Irena3us likewise says, that the Carpocratians
called themselves Gnostics ; f by which appropriation of the
name, they, of course, meant nothing more than that they
were " enlightened men."
The latter remark of Irenaeus has led Eusebius to affirm,
after speaking of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, and
Basilides, that "Irenaeus writes, that Carpocrates was the
father of another sect, called that of the Gnostics." J The
passage is remarkable, as showing how confused were
the notions of Eusebius concerning the earlier heretics,
and may lead to the conclusion, that, in his time, they had
almost sunk out of notice. In fact, he appears to have had
little or no personal knowledge of them, and to have used
Irenaeus as his principal authority in speaking of them.
Him, it seems, he had consulted so negligently, that among
the various sects of Gnostics he thus appropriates the name
to one, the Carpocratians, as if it belonged to them exclu
sively.
Perhaps, Epiphanius, also, misapprehended IrenaBus, mis
taking his use of the term " Gnostics " as a generic name, in
the passages before mentioned, for its use as a specific appel
lation ; and this mistake may have suggested to him the fabri
cation of this sect of subordinate Gnostics. || But his real
* Lib. i. cc. 26-31, p. 107, seqq. In the first sentence of chapter twenty-
ninth, the word " Barbelo " appears to be an interpolation.
t Lib. i. c. 25, 6. J Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. c. 7.
In appropriating it to the Carpocratians, he differs from Epiphanius,
who distinguishes between the Carpocratians ano his Gnostics; and who
eays (Opp. i. pp. 77, 82), that the latter had their origin from the Nico-
laltans.
U Haeres., xxvi. ; Opp. i. 82, seqq.
278 EVIDENCES OF THE
purpose, I conceive, in his account of this pretended sect, was
to cast odium upon all those heretics who bore the name
of Gnostics. Accordingly, in his account he makes no dis
tinction between this sect and the whole body of Gnostics, of
which, if the sect existed, it could at most have been regarded
only as a subdivision. His accusations stand against Gnos
tics generally, without any limitation ; there being nothing in
this part of his work from which it could be inferred that
there were other heretics who bore the name besides those
of whom he is speaking.
In conformity with what may be presumed to have been
his purpose, he has loaded this fictitious sect (as I conceive it
to be) with charges of absurd doctrines, abominable crimes,
and loathsome impurities. " Scruples are felt," says Beau-
sobre, " about giving the lie to Epiphanius, who represents
this sect as Christians ; but, for myself, I feel much stronger
scruples against ranking among Christian heretics individuals
who were the most profane of men, if what is said of them be
true." * Certainly, such individuals as Epiphanius describes
could not have been Christians ; but it may further be ob
served, that his authority is not of a kind to afford ground
for believing that such individuals ever existed, supposing
their existence possible. Epiphanius is a writer as deficient
in plausibility, as in decency and veracity. He has in an
extraordinary manner implicated his own character in his
account; for, after describing practices which no mind not
thoroughly corrupt could regard as other than ineffably
odious, he asserts that he had gained his knowledge from
women belonging to the sect, who, in his youth, had endeav
ored to corrupt his virtue and seduce him to join it ; f that he
had been under strong temptation, but that God in his mercy
* Histoire de Manichde et du Maniche"isme, torn. ii. p. 68.
t According to his own account, he was acquainted with the private sign
by which the members of the sect recognized each other (Hseres. xxvi. 4,
op. 85, 86).
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 279
had delivered him, in answer to his prayers and groans ; and
that then he had denounced the members of the sect, whoso
names had before been unknown, to the " bishops in that
place " (what bishops, or what place, he does not specify),
and that " the city " (a nameless city) had in consequence
been purged by the banishment of about eighty individuals.*
While, however, we reject in the gross the account of
Epiphanius, as not true of any body of men, it does not follow
that it is throughout a mere fabrication. There may have
been in his age crazy and vicious fanatics, who afforded * a
certain foundation for it. Some facts are also to be discov
ered in what Epiphanius has brought together. He mentions
and quotes a book of some interest, of which he affords the
only account, and concerning which there seems no reason to
suspect him of mistake or falsehood. It was called the
" Gospel of Eve," as containing the wisdom which Eve had
learned from the Serpent.f That it was so called is one
among the many proofs which make evident what we shall
hereafter have occasion to observe, that the title " Gospel "
did not imply that a book to which it was given was a history
of the ministry of Jesus. But this book is an object of curi
osity for another reason. It appears from the single passage
of it extant, quoted by Epiphanius, to have been founded on
the Egyptian pantheism. Conformably to this, he says,J
that those who used it believed that " the same soul is dis
persed in animals and insects and fishes and serpents and
men, and in herbs and trees and fruits." The passage from
the Gospel of Eve is to the following effect. The writer,
or the person represented as speaking, says, " I stood on a
high mountain, and I saw a man of large stature, and another
mutilated ; and I heard, as it were, a voice of thunder ; and I
Hseres., xxvi. 17, pp. 99, 100. f Ibid., 2, p. 84.
Ibid., 9, p. 90. Ibid., 3, p. 84.
280 EVIDENCES OF THE
drew near to hearken, and it spoke to me, and said, * 1 am
thou, and thou art I ; and, wherever thou mayest be, there
am I ; and I am dispersed in all things ; and, from whatever
place thou wouldst collect me, in collecting me thou art
collecting thyself. "
What the two figures were intended to symbolize cannot, I
think, be conjectured with any probability. But the words
uttered appear evidently to be an expression of the pantheistic
doctrine, according to which all individual beings are but
parts of the one, sole, self-subsistent being, the Universe.
There is, perhaps, in the passage, an allusion to the fable of
the mutilation of the body of Osiris by Typhon, and the col
lection of his members by Isis, which, when the absurdities
of ancient mythology were transformed by the philosophers
of later times into allegories, was mystically explained, as
symbolizing the discerption and disappearance of Ideas, the
essential forms of things, the body of Osiris, through the
action of the destructive powers of nature, personified as
Typhon, and their being collected anew and re-adapted to
their purpose by the receptive and nutritive powers typified
by Isis.* The analogy, also, is striking between the words
said to be uttered and the inscription which Plutarch reports
to have been engraved on the temple of Isis at Sais : " I
am all that has been, is, or will be ; " f Isis being here per-
* Plutarch, de leide et Osiride, 53. Moral., torn. ii. pp. 626, 527, ed.
Wyttenbach.
t Ibid., 9, p. 453. Plutarch concludes the inscription thus: "And my
veil no mortal has ever lifted." Proclus gives it with a different ending.
That it was actually to be found on or in the temple at Sals is very doubtful.
But, as regards our present purpose, the question is unimportant, since the
report of Plutarch sufficiently shows the existence of this conception of Isis
long before Epiphanius s notice of the Gospel of Eve. See, respecting this
inscription, Jablonski s Pantheon ./Egyptiorum, pars i. lib. i. c. 3, 7, and
Mosheim s notes in his Latin translation of Cudworth s Intellectual System,
torn. i. p. 610, seqq., and p. 522, ed. secund. In the last note, Mosheim gives
the coirect reading of another remarkable inscription to Isis, of similar import.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 281
sonified as Universal Nature. It is to be observed, that
there is great confusion in the Egyptian mythology, the same
attributes being ascribed to different divinities. This confu
sion probably originated from the fact that one god was the
peculiar object of veneration in one place, and another in
another, so that the highest attributes were in different places
ascribed to different gods ; but it was at once both solved
and aggravated by the mystical theology, which taught that
they were all only manifestations of Universal Nature,
each of them but different names for the " One and All," con
sidered under different relations.
From the title of the book mentioned by Epiphanius, that
is, from its being called a " gospel ; " from the circumstance
that he ascribes its use to an heretical sect; and from the
account given by him of the pantheistic opinions of this sect,
we may infer that there were individuals who blended con
ceptions borrowed from Christianity with the Egyptian
mythology and pantheism, and who have been improperly
represented as Christian heretics. Pseudo-Christians of like
character appear to have existed in Egypt at an early period.
found at Capua, which is to this effect : " Aerrius Balbinus dedicates thee
[that is, a part of the universe, a stone] to thyself, who art one and all things,
the goddess Isis."
It may here be observed, that Cudworth should be read with the notes ot
Mosheim; unless, indeed, one be so acquainted with the philosophy and reli
gion of the ancients, and so accustomed to reasoning, and to estimating the
power and the ambiguity of language, as to be able to correct for himself his
deceptive representations. He deserves the highest praise for integrity as a
writer; his learning was superabundant, and his intellect vigorous enough to
wield it to his purpose. But he transfers his own religious conceptions to the
heathen philosophers and religionists; he infuses the sentiments of a modem
theist into their words ; and he confounds together the doctrines of those who
preceded Christianity, and of those who were powerfully acted upon by its
influence. He thus spreads a luminous cloud over the ancient heathen the
ology, which Mosheim has done something to dispel. Mosheim has likewise
corrected many of the other errors of fact, or mistakes of judgment, which run
through the mass of Cudworth s learning; and has added much to illustrate
the topics of which he treats.
282 EVIDENCES OF THE
We have some information, such as it is, concerning this
subject in a curious letter of Hadrian, preserved by the
pagan historian Vopiscus.* The emperor says : " Egypt,
my dear Servian, which you recommended to me, I have
found to be light, vacillating, and borne about by every
rumor. Those who worship Serapis are Christians, and
those who call themselves Christian bishops are devoted to
Serapis. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samar
itan, no Christian priest, who is not an astrologer, a diviner,
a leader of a sect.f The patriarch J himself, when he comes
to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, and, by others,
Christ." The emperor may not have had the best opportu
nities for obtaining information respecting the state of reli
gion among the Egyptians, and he may have trusted too much
to the jeers of his courtiers ; but notwithstanding this, and
notwithstanding the levity and obvious extravagance of his
letter, we cannot suppose that what he says was wholly with
out foundation. Some state of things existed in Egypt, in
the first half of the second century, which gave occasion to
his representation. The minds of many, it may be presumed,
were affected by Christianity, who had but a very imperfect
knowledge of what Christianity was, and some of whom com
bined it very grossly with their former errors.
* In his Life of Saturninus.
t "A leader of a sect." The Latin word is aliptes, which means an
anointer, one who anoints those who have bathed, or the combatants for the
arena. But, as it is not easy to perceive any appropriateness in this mean
ing, I have ventured to render the word in a sense of the Greek aheinTqe,
which is used metaphorically to signify an inciter or leader. Perhaps the
emperor wrote tne word in Greek letters. But after all. in using the expres
sions wnicii ne does, mathematicus. /laruspex. aitptes. ne may have fiad m
mind a line in Juvenal s description 01 a needv Greek adventurer (Sat. iii.
76,, " Grammaticus. rnetor. geometres. pictor aliptes:" and mav thus, in
employing the word aliptes, have intended omy an expression of contempt.
f The patriarch of the Jews must be meant, as the title and dignity of
patriarch were not known in the Christian Church till long after the time
of Hadrian.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 283
It seems probable that the book mentioned by Epiphanius,
the Gospel of Eve, containing the wisdom which Eve learned
from the Serpent, had its origin among certain reputed here
tics, who, according to Origen, were not Christians. They
were called Ophians or Ophites (we might render the name
Serpentists), from the Greek word oqpt, a serpent ; because,
as Origen says, they took the part of the Serpent who seduced
Eve, and represented him as having given good counsel to
our first parents.* Irenaeus, in one of the last chapters of
his first book,| before referred to, $ gives an account of the
doctrines of a certain sect not named by him, but which, as is
evident from a comparison with Origen and other subsequent
writers, was that of the Ophians. Nothing entitled to much
credit is added by the later historians of the heretics to the
notices of Irenaeus and Origen.
Origen s mention of them is incidental. There is no reason
to distrust its essential correctness, but he enters into no
general exposition of their system. The account of Irenaeus
is confused and improbable, and appears to have been put
together from imperfect and inconsistent sources of informa
tion. The statements respecting them by him and by the
other writers who speak of them as heretics, as the author
of the Addition to Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Theodoret,
when taken in connection, present a system of absurdities so
palpably irreconcilable, that no sect could have professed it
for their creed. We may compare it to a machine composed
of parts of various others, interfering among themselves in
such a manner, that evidently it could never have been in
operation.
We can therefore admit, with any confidence, only some
very general conclusions respecting the doctrines of the
Ophians. Whether Christians or not, they appear to have
* Origen. cont. Celsum, lib. vi. 28, Opp. i. pp. 651, 652.
1 Cap. 30. J See p. 276.
See the account of Irenaeus, as before referred to, lib. i. c. 30 ; and that
284 EVIDENCES OP THE
been of the class of theosophic Gnostics, holding very dispar
aging opinions of the Creator, whom they regarded as the
god of the Jews. They believed that he, with six other
powers produced by him, informed and ruled seven spheres
surrounding the earth (those of the sun and of the planets
known to the ancients) ; and that through these spheres the
soul had to pass after death in its ascent to the spiritual
world. The way, which might otherwise be barred by those
powers, was open to such as were initiated in their mysteries,
and had learned the proper invocations which the soul must
address to them in its ascent, to obtain its passage. Their
doctrines have the appearance of being a caricature of the
doctrines of the proper Gnostics. Maintaining the common
opinion, that the Creator was not spiritual, and regarding him
as being opposed to the manifestation and development of the
spiritual principle in man, they honored the Serpent for hav
ing thwarted his narrow purposes, withdrawn our first parents
from their allegiance to him, induced them to eat the fruit of
the tree of knowledge, and thus brought them the knowledge
of " that Power which is over all." By a serpent, the
Phoenicians and Egyptians are said to have symbolized the
Agathodaemon, the benevolent power in nature (the god
Cneph of the Egyptians) ; * and the Ophians, perhaps, re
garded the Serpent under the same aspect. Clement of Alex
andria once incidentally mentions the Ophians, in speaking of
the origin of the names of different sects. Some, he says,
are denominated " from their systems, and from the objects
they honor, as the Caiinists and the Ophians." f The Cainists
or Cainites (whom we shall have occasion to notice hereafter)
are represented as magnifying Cain. The Ophians honored
the Serpent.
of Origen in his work, Against Celsus, lib. vi. Opp. i. pp. 648-661 ; lib. viL
pp. 722, 723 ; lib. iii. p. 455.
* Eusebii Prseparatio Evangelica, lib. i. c. 10.
t Stromat, vii. 17, p. 900.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 285
Nothing concerning the Ophians would seem to be better
established than this fact. But it is not stated by Irenaeus.
On the contrary, according to his account of their system, the
Serpent was originally vicious, produced by the Creator in
the dregs of matter, and treacherous to him. Afterwards,
indeed, he appears employed by Sophia or Wisdom, the
offspring of the Unknown God, the mother but adversary of
the Creator, for the purpose of seducing our first parents to
eat of the forbidden fruit ; by which they obtained a knowl
edge of the Supreme Divinity. But the Creator, who was
himself desirous of being regarded as the highest God, being,
in consequence, angry with the Serpent, expelled him from
heaven, where he had before dwelt, and cast him down to
earth. After this fall, he is made to correspond to the ser
pent of the Apocalypse, the Devil ; and is represented as
producing six other evil powers (answering to the six subor
dinate powers of the Creator), and as being, together with
them, full of malice equally toward men and their Maker.
But we have good reason to believe, that Irenaeus, our
earliest and one of our two principal authorities, has fallen
into great errors respecting the system of the Ophians, when
we find him saying, notwithstanding what has been stated,
that they affirmed the Serpent to be " the Nous (Intellect)
himself ; " * for this was the name by which theosophic
Gnostics designated their first emanation from the Su
preme Being. Elsewhere he says, that some of the Ophians
maintained that Wisdom herself became the Serpent.f
And, in connection with this, we cannot but be struck
with the intrinsic improbability of the scheme that he as
cribes to the sect ; according to which, the Devil was em
ployed for the purpose of communicating spiritual wisdom
and a knowledge of the true God to our first parents. These,
* Lib. i. c. 30, 5, p. 110.
t Ibid., 15, p. 112.
286 EVIDENCES OF THE
however, are but some of the inconsistencies that present
themselves in the system that he has depicted.
That the Ophians held the Serpent in honor appears from
the testimony of Clement and Origen, the indications fur
nished by Irenaaus himself, the reports of later writers, and
the evidence of their distinguishing name. Epiphanius says,
that they glorified the Serpent as God, or as a god, and
affirmed him to be Christ ; * though, at the same time, with
the grossest inconsistency, of which he seems to have had
some indistinct consciousness, he gives a mutilated variation
of the account of Irenseus by winch the Serpent is identified
with the Devil.f The same inconsistency exists in the
relation of the author of the Addition to Tertullian, who fol
lows Irenaeus in part, but affirms that the Ophians placed the
Serpent above Christ. $ And Theodoret, who, I think, was
embarrassed by the contradictions of his predecessors, says,
that some of the Ophians worshipped the Serpent.
Modern writers have, in consequence, conjectured, either
that there were two sorts of Ophians, or that there were two
Serpents in their system, one celestial and the other terres
trial. But it would have been strange, if two classes of
persons, one honoring the Serpent as a god, and the other
regarding him as the Devil, had both been comprehended
under the same name; and as for the conjecture of two
Serpents, it is certain that Irenaeus, and the other ancient
writers who mention the Ophians, speak only of one. A
general solution of this and of other difficulties concerning
them is to be found in the obscurity of the sect, in the conse
quent ignorance and inaccuracy of the reporters of their doc
trines, and in the great probability that these doctrines were
little settled among themselves.
* Indie, in torn, iii., lib. i. p. 229. Haeres., xxxvii. 1, 2, pp. 268, 269
5, pp. 271, 272.
1 Ibid., 4, 5, pp. 271, 272. J Apud Tertullian., Opp. 47, p. 220.
Hseret. Fab., lib. i. n. 14, p. 205.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 287
Our purpose does not require us to enter further into
the detail of their system, and to force our way through the
crude accounts of ancient, and the hypotheses of modern
writers. The labor would in any case be unprofitable. It
may be the duty of one exploring these difficult subjects to
spend his own time in pursuing obscure paths, tangled with
briers, till he is satisfied that they lead to nothing ; but it can
seldom be worth while to conduct others over the same
ground, that they may enjoy a like gratification.
The accounts of the Ophians belong, for the most part, to
the fabulous history of the Gnostics. Nor should I have dwelt
even so long upon this obscure and insignificant sect (for such
we shall perceive it to have been), were it not for its having
been magnified into importance by the discussions concerning
it in modern times, and, still more, if it were not for the rela
tion in which Origen says the Ophians stood to Christianity.
He speaks of them in his work against Celsus. Celsus
had charged Christians with calling the Creator " an accursed
god," * upon the ground, as appears, that this was done by
the Ophians ; for it was his custom to accuse Christians of
the extravagances and errors of heretical and pseudo-Chris
tian sects. But Origen says, in reply, that the Ophians were
so far from being Christians, that they spoke of Jesus not less
reproachfully than did Celsus himself, that they admitted no
one into their fellowship without pronouncing curses against
him, and that they were unwilling to hear his name even as
that of a wise and virtuous man.f Origen calls them a very
obscure sect, J and speaks of their number as very small ;
there being, he says, none or very few remaining. Celsus
had brought forward a symbolical diagram, having reference
to the ascent of the soul through the seven spheres of the
Creator and his angels ; and Origen is principally occupied
by an account of this diagram, and the prayers inscribed upon
* Contra Gels., lib. vi. 28; Opp. i. 651. f Ibid., p. 652.
J Ibid., 24, p. 648 Ibid., 26, p. 650.
288 EVIDENCES OP THE
it. It bore names given to the seven Powers, barbarous to
Grecian ears, borrowed partly from the Old Testament, and
partly, according to Origen, from the art of magic.* But he
says, that though he had travelled much, and everywhere
sought the acquaintance of men professing to know any thing,
yet he had never met with any one who professed to explain
it.f
In a passage antecedent to what I have quoted, Origen
says : " Celsus seems to me to have become acquainted with
some sects that have no fellowship with us even in the name
of Jesus. Thus, perhaps, he has heard of the Ophians or the
Cainites, or of some others, holding doctrines wholly foreign
from those of Jesus." J
Origen s account of the insignificance of the sect of the
Ophians is confirmed, if it need confirmation, by the facts,
that they are not named by Irenaeus, nor are their peculiar
doctrines referred to in his long confutation of different here
sies, which forms the greater part of his work ; that they are
but once incidentally mentioned, as we have seen, by Clement
of Alexandria ; and that they are not noticed at all by Ter-
tullian. Their want of notoriety appears likewise from the
uncertainty respecting their name. None is given them by
Irenaeus. By Clement and Origen they are called Ophians
( Ocpiavoi) ; by Epiphanius, and some Latin writers who
mention them, Ophites ( Ocpiiai). Theodoret speaks of
them as "Sethians, or Ophians, or Ophites ;" but Epi
phanius and others make quite a distinct sect of the Seth
ians, || and the probability is, that no proper sect ever
existed under this name. H The obscurity of the Ophians is
* Cont. Cels., lib. vi. 32, pp. 656, 657. f Ibid., 24, p. 648.
J Ibid., lib. iii. 13, p. 455. Haeret. Fab., lib. i. n. 14, p. 204.
|| They are the thirty-ninth Heresy of Epiphanius ; Opp. i. 284.
Tf The Sethians have been mentioned before (p. 174, note). I conceive,
that " Sethians " was, as there explained, only a name by which some of the
Gnostics denoted the spiritual ; Seth being regarded as their progenitor or
prototype.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 289
made still more evident by the very confused and inconsistent
accounts of their doctrines, accounts such as would not have
been given of those of any well-known sect.
There is, as we have seen, a disagreement between Origen
on the one side, and Irenoeus and subsequent writers on the
other, concerning the relation in which the Ophians stood to
Christianity. Irenoeus represents them as Christian heretics ;
Origen, as an antichristian sect. The difference would have
been of no account, if Origen had merely said that they were
not Christians. According to Irenasus, they held that their
doctrines were not openly taught by Christ, but that Jesus,
whom they distinguished from Christ, remaining on earth
eighteen months after his resurrection, then communicated
them to a few of his disciples, who had capacity for such
great mysteries.* Thus founding a system of their own
invention on a supposititious basis, they might well be consid
ered as not Christians. But Origeu says, that they pro
nounced curses against Jesus. With so slight a hold as they
had upon Christianity, and probably with no very fixed belief,
they may have passed through a natural process of deteriora
tion during the interval between Irena3us and Origen. There
is nothing improbable in the supposition, that a vain and
foolish sect should first claim to be a sort of transcendental
Christians, and then, finding themselves contemned by the
great body of believers, and perceiving that their specula
tions were only embarrassed by their pretended faith, should
have determined to rely on their own spiritual wisdom alone,
and should have openly professed their rejection of Christian
ity with something of the spleen of apostates.
This is an obvious solution of the disagreement between
Origen and Irenoeus. But perhaps we are to look still far
ther for an explanation of it. With more or less analogy to
some later sects, the theosophic Gnostics believed that they
Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 30, 14, p. 112.
10
290 EVIDENCES OF THE
were guided to the truth by the divine light within, that
spiritual nature which they considered as peculiar to them
selves. Their systems consequently were the truth. They
were derived from a higher source than reasoning, and were
not amenable to it. They could be judged of only by those
whose spiritual apprehensions were conformed to their recep
tion. These principles, it is true, were not consistently acted
upon. The Gnostics appear to have reasoned as well as
they were able ; and, as we shall hereafter see, were even
reputed in their day subtile reasoners from the Scriptures.
The claim of a higher internal source of knowledge, of the
nature and operations of which reason is not the judge, is
commonly resorted to only when all other modes of proof
fail. Men do not contemn the aid of reason before it is
withdrawn. But it was the tendency of the self-confident
state of mind which characterized the Gnostics to lead them
to reject instruction from without. A true Gnostic was his
own teacher ; and, though he found his system in the Gospel,
yet his own mind was the book in which it was first read.
Christianity was likely thus to become, in his view, an ab
straction, the name for a body of opinions and imaginations,
which he had embraced because he knew them to be true,
independently of what others regarded as evidence of the
divine authority of our religion.
Together with this, the theosophic Gnostics generally
distinguished between the being who appeared as a man,
Jesus, the son of the Creator, and the celestial being, Christ,
or the Saviour, or the spiritual Jesus, who, at the baptism of
the former, descended into him from the Pleroma.* To use
the words of Tertullian, they " made Christ and Jesus different
beings. The one had escaped from the midst of multitudes,
the other was apprehended : the one in the solitude of a
* Irenseus, lib. i. c. 7, 2, pp. 32, 33; lib. iii. c. 10, 4, p. 186, c. 11, 1,
8, pp. 188, 189: conf. lib. i. c. 2, 6, pp. 12. 13.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 291
mountain, overshadowed by a cloud, had been resplendent
before three witnesses ; the other, with no mark of distinction,
had held common intercourse with men : the one was mag
nanimous, but the other trembling : and, at last, Jesus had
been crucified, and Christ had risen."* It was the Christ of
the Pleroma whom they regarded as the teacher of divine
truths ; and those truths which were most mysterious and
transcendent they conceived him to have taught in secret
meanings and enigmas, and in mere intimations and allusions,
recorded in the Gospels, and in private, unrecorded discourses
addressed only to those capable of comprehending them.
But the system of the Ophians appears throughout as a
coarse exaggeration of the doctrines of the theosophic Gnos
tics. In common with those Gnostics, they regarded Jesus
as the son of the Creator. But of the Creator they gave the
most disparaging representations, and are said to have pro
nounced him accursed. It is not, then, difficult to believe
that they extended like enmity to his son ; nor is there any
thing very improbable in supposing, that they might have
pretended to be, in some sort, followers of Christ, while they
rejected Jesus as a divine teacher, and even proceeded to
the extravagance, mentioned by Origen, of pronouncing
curses on his name.
From what has been said, it may appear that sects and
individuals who are not to be considered as Christians have
been erroneously reckoned among the Gnostics. Nor is
their existence difficult to be accounted for. Christianity
soon became an object of universal attention. It was a new
phenomenon in the intellectual world. A power unknown
before was in action, and spreading its influence far beyond
the sphere to which it might seem to be confined. Our
religion essentially affected the heathen philosophy contem-
* De Came Chrisli, c. 24, p. 325.
292 EVIDENCES OP THE
porary with it, and introduced into it conceptions such as had
not been previously entertained. The doctrines of our faith
were undoubtedly more or less known to many who had
not studied them in the Gospels, nor were acquainted with
its evidences as a revelation from God. Though not received
by such as of divine authority, and but imperfectly under
stood, they gave a new impulse to thought. Men s minds
were thrown into a state of effervescence, new affinities
operated, and new combinations of opinion were formed.
There were, doubtless, those whose vanity prompted them
to profess an acquaintance with the new barbaric philosophy,
as they deemed it, and to represent themselves as having
exercised a critical and discriminating judgment upon it, and
as having discovered in it certain important views, and certain
truths not before developed. In sOme of those affected by
our religion, their imperfect and heartless knowledge of it
would be rather destructive than renovating, breaking down
all barriers of thought, and opening the way for wild specula
tions. Hence, as we may easily believe, new systems of
opinion sprung up, not Christian, but deriving some charac
teristic peculiarities from Christianity, the systems held by
.hose whom we have called pseudo- Christians.
But how, it may be asked, came the pseudo- Christians to
b-3 confounded with Christian heretics ? Various considera
tions afford an answer to this question. As I have remarked,
no well-defined boundary was apparent between the two
classes. They passed insensibly into each other. In the
reliance of the Gnostics upon the revelations of their own
spiritual nature, we may perceive a tendency to infidelity.
It was an error which would lead many to undervalue, and
some to reject, the authority of Christ. The pseudo-Chris
tians were reckoned among the Gnostics, because many of
them held Gnostic opinions ; and such opinions were attributed
even to those, the Carpocratians, by whom they were not
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 293
held. Another cause of this confusion may be found in the
fact, that the Heathens would naturally blend together in one
general class all those who, breaking away from the old forms
of philosophy, were evidently involved in the new movement
in the intellectual world produced by Christianity. The ene
mies of our religion charged upon Christians what might be
truly or falsely said of such sectaries as we have been consid
ering. And, on the other hand, the catholic Christians,
regarding the Gnostics as not true believers, as not belonging
to the Christian body, were not careful to discriminate be
tween them, and those who, though corresponding with them
in many respects, had yet no title to the Christian name.
Hence it was, we may conceive, that the Gnostics were
classed with individuals whose doctrines and whose lives
many of them regarded with as strong disapprobation as did
the catholic Christians.
In the preceding chapters, we have taken a general view of
the Gnostics, and of their relation to the catholic Christians.
We have traced their external history, and attended to the
respective characters of those writers from whom our knowl
edge of them is derived. We have considered their morals,
an essential point in determining how far they may be
regarded as sincere though erroneous believers ; and we have
discriminated them from sectaries with whom they have been
confounded, who, though borrowing some conceptions from
Christianity, were not Christians.
It has been suggested, likewise, that the occasion of Gnos
ticism was to be found in the aversion of the Gentiles to
Judaism, in the form in which it was presented to their
minds; and to this subject we will next attend.
CHAPTER YL
ON GNOSTICISM, CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATION OF JUDA
ISM FROM CHRISTIANITY.
" EVERY heretic, as far as I know," says Tertullian, " ridi
cules the whole of the Old Testament."* " To separate the
Law from the Gospel," he observes in another place, " is
the special and principal object of Marcion." f " The labor
of the heretics," he says, " is not in building up an edifice of
their own, but in destroying the truth. They undermine ours
to erect their own. Take away from them the Law of Moses,
and the Prophets, and the Creator God, and they will have
nothing to urge against us." $ " It is the case with all those,"
says Irenseus, " who hold pernicious doctrines, that, being influ
enced by the opinion that the Law of Moses is different from,
and contrary to, the doctrine of the Gospel, they have not
turned to consider the causes of the difference between the
two Testaments."
Origen, in maintaining the necessity of interpreting the
Scriptures allege rically, says, that many have fallen into
great errors from not understanding them in their spiritual
sense. He first instances the unbelieving Jews, who, he says,
rejected the Messiah in consequence of interpreting the
Advers. Marcion., lib. v. c. 5, p. 467. f Ibid., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374.
| De Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 42, p. 217.
Cont. Hjeres., lib. iii. c. 12, 12, p. 198.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 295
prophecies concerning him literally. He then proceeds
thus :
44 The hcrevics, too, when they read, Afire has blazed from my
wrath ;* I am a jealous God, requiting the sins of fathers upon
children to the third and fourth generation ; f / repent that 1
have anointed Saul to be king ; J / am the God who makes peace
and creates evil ; and, in another place, There is no evil in a city
which the Lord hath not wroug7it;\\ and yet further, Evil came
down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem ; ^ and, An evil
spirit from the Lord tormented Saul,** when they read these and
ten thousand other similar passages, they do not indeed venture
to reject the divine origin of the Scriptures [the Jewish Scrip
tures] , but they believe them to have proceeded from the Creator
whom the Jews worship. Regarding him, in consequence, as
imperfect, and not good, they think that the Saviour came to make
known the more perfect God, who, they affirm, is not the Creator.
Holding various opinions concerning this subject, and having de
serted the Creator, who is the unoriginated only God, they have
given themselves up to their own fabrications ; and have formed
mythological systems, according to which they explain the pro
duction of things visible, and of other things, invisible, the exis
tence of which they have imagined. But indeed," continues
Origen, "the more simple of those who boast that they belong
to the Church, who regard none as superior to the Creator, and
in this do well, have yet such conceptions of him as are not to be
entertained of the most cruel and most unjust of men," in con
sequence, as he immediately remarks, of their understanding the
Jewish Scriptures, not " according to their spiritual sense, but
according to the naked letter." ff
44 The most ungodly and irreligious among the heretics," says
Origen, in his Commentary on Leviticus, "not understanding
the difference between visible Judaism and intelligible Judaism,
that is, between Judaism in its outward form and Judaism in its
* Jer. xv. 14. f Exod. xx. 5. J 1 Sam. xv. 11.
Isa. xlv. 7. || Amos iii. 6, so quoted by Origen.
Tl Micah i. 12. ** 1 Sam. xvi 14.
ft De Principiis lib iv. 8 ; Opp. i. 164, seqq.
296 . EVIDENCES OF THE
hidden purport, have at once separated themselves from Judaism,
and from the God who gave these Scriptures and the whole Law,
and have fabricated for themselves another God beside him who
gave the Law and the Prophets, and made heaven and earth."*
Of the opinions of Ptolemy, the Valentinian, respecting
the Jewish Law, we have a detailed account in his Letter to
Flora, which he seems to have intended as a sort of inti educ
tion to Gnosticism, as an exposition and defence of its
fundamental doctrine. He begins by stating, that some
believe the Law to have been ordained by God the Father,
and others by the Adversary, Satan. Both opinions he
rejects as altogether erroneous. It could not have proceeded
from the Perfect God and Father, because it is imperfect,
and contains commands unsuitable to the nature and will of
such a God; nor, on the other hand, can the Law, which
forbids iniquity, be ascribed to the Evil Being. His own
opinion, he conceives, may be proved by the words of Christ,
to which alone, he says, we may safely trust in investigating
the subject. It is, that the Law contained in the Pentateuch
does not proceed from a single lawgiver, consequently not
from the god of the Jews alone. A part of it is to be
ascribed to him; another part was given by Moses on his
own authority ; and a third portion consists of laws inter
polated by the elders of the people. In proof that some
laws proceeded from Moses alone, he quotes the words of
Christ, " Moses, on account of the hardness of your hearts,
permitted you to put away your wives ; but in the beginning
it was not so, for God established the connection ; and what
the Lord has joined together, let no man put asunder." f To
the laws interpolated by the elders, he regards Christ as
referring, when he taught the Jews that they had set aside
the Law of God by the traditions of their elders. $ Of that
* Philocalia, c. 1, adjinem; Opp. ii. 192.
t Matt. xix. 4-8. J Mark vii. 3-9.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 297
portion of the Law which he ascribes to the god of the
Jews, some of the precepts, according to him, are wholly
unmixed with evil. They constitute the Law, properly so
called, that Law which the Saviour came not to destroy, but
to perfect. They are those of the Decalogue.* Other pre
cepts have a mixture of something bad and wrong, and were
abrogated by the Saviour. Such, for instance, is the law
respecting retaliation, " An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth." A third class, consisting of the ceremonial law,
relates to things typical of those to come, more spiritual and
excellent, in the Christian dispensation. Why the laws of
the god of the Jews should contain types of Christianity,
Ptolemy does not explain in this Letter. He probably ac
counted for it through a secret influence from the Pleroma,
under which, as we shall hereafter see, the Creator was rep
resented by the Valentinians as acting.
Ptolemy next proceeds to answer the inquiry, Who was
that god who gave the Law ? He was not, he repeats, the
Perfect God, nor was he Satan ; but he was the Fashioner
and Maker of this World, and of the beings contained in it,
not good (that is, not possessing unmingled goodness), like
the Supreme God, nor evil and wicked like Satan ; but stand
ing in the midst between them, one who may properly be
called Just, as one who rewards and punishes according to
his measure of goodness ; not unoriginated, like the Supreme
God, but being an image of him.
In this account of his opinions, Ptolemy probably gives as
* There is here, apparently, an example of that inconsistency of which
we find so much in the theological speculations of the ancients. Christ,
according to Ptolemy, retained and perfected "the ten commandments."
But Ptolemy believed these to have been given, not by the Supreme Being,
but by the god of the Jews. Now the first of them is, " Thou shalt have no
other God beside me;" a command which, according to his system, it is
impossible that Christ should have confirmed, since Ptolemy regarded him
as having come to reveal another and far greater God than the god of the
Jews.
293 EVIDENCES OF THE
favorable a view as was entertained by any Gnostic of the
Jewish Law, and of the god of the Jews.
It is to be observed, that the Gnostics did not reject the
Pentateuch, and the other books of the Old Testament, as
unworthy of credit. On the contrary, their system was
founded on the supposition, that those books contained a
correct account of the Jewish dispensation, and of the events
connected with it. Difficulties and objections then pressed
upon them. There was much that offended their reason,
their moral sentiments, and their prejudices as Gentiles.
Receiving the history as true, and understanding it in its
obvious sense, they could not believe that the god of the
Jews was the same being as the God of Christians. Thus
they were led to separate the Law from the Gospel, and to
introduce the agency of another being, wholly distinct from
the Supreme God, in the government of the world. The
corner-stone of Gnosticism was thus laid.
But in regarding many of the representations given of
God in the Old Testament as unworthy of the Supreme
Being, the Gnostics did not stand alone. The more intelli
gent of the catholic Christians, contemporary with them,
strongly felt and expressed these and other objections to
which the Old Testament was, in their view, exposed, if
understood in its obvious sense. This feeling is shown in
the quotations before given from Origen, and the subject well
deserves further consideration ; for there are few of more
importance in the history of Christian opinions.
There is a work called the " Clementine Homilies," or the
" Clementines," the author of which is unknown. The time
of its composition is likewise uncertain ; but, judging from
the fact, that, though its contents are such as would have
been likely to attract the attention of Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian, it is yet not noticed by any one
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 299
of them, and, from other considerations, it probably was not
written before, or much before, the end of the second century.
Tt is remarkable as an ancient work of fiction, resembling a
modern romance. It is written in the form of an autobio
graphy of an individual bearing the name of Clement. Cle
ment represents himself as having been converted to Chris
tianity by the preaching of Barnabas and Peter, and as
having been present at many of the discourses of the latter,
particularly with Simon Magus, who was represented by the
writers against the Gnostics as the founder of their heresy.
There is much relating to the objections to the god of the
Jews (that is, in the view of the writer, to the Supreme
God), which the Gnostics derived from the Old Testament;
and of these objections the author, under the person of Peter,
presents a bold solution. He gives up at once to reprobation
the passages on which they were founded, maintaining that
they are false representations of God. He represents them
as existing in the Jewish Scriptures, through the permitted
agency of Satan, to serve as a test for distinguishing between
those who are, and those who are not, willing to believe evil
concerning God.* According to him, what in those Scriptures
is accordant with right conceptions of God is to be received
as true, and what is not so is to be rejected as false. f
But in his view of the general character of the Old Testa
ment, the author of the Homilies stood apart from the other
Christian writers of the second and third centuries. They
received its books from the Jews, and received them with
the Jewish notions of their divine authority, and were there
fore obliged to resort to modes different from those of the
Gnostics, or the author of the Clementine Homilies, for solv
ing the difficulties which they equally felt.
* Homil. ii. 38-52; Homil. iii. 5.
f Homil. ii. 40, seqq. ; Homil. iii. 42, seqq.
300 EVIDENCES OF THE
In the solution that I shall first mention, as resorted to by
the catholic Christians, will be perceived that remarkable
resemblance, without coincidence, which often appears be
tween their doctrines and those of the Gnostics. In com
paring them together, we see sometimes, as in the present
case, a striking likeness fashioned out of materials essentially
different, while in other cases the material is the same, but
moulded into a different form. In the solution of which I
now speak, the Logos of the catholic Christians takes the
place of the Creator of the Gnostics as the god of the Jews ;
those representations of the Divinity in the Old Testament,
which catholic Christians, equally with the Gnostics, regarded
as incompatible with the character of the Supreme Being,
being referred by them to the Logos.
In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr says : " I will
endeavor to prove to you from the Scriptures, that he who is
said to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses,
and is called God, is another god [that is, divine being], dif
ferent from the God who created all things ; another, I say,
numerically, not in will ; for I affirm that he never did any
thing at any time but what it was the will of Him who cre
ated the world, and above whom there is no other God, that
he should do and say." *
Justin, among many other similar proofs that there is
another god beside the Supreme God, quotes those passages
in which it is said, that God ascended from Abraham ; that
God spoke to Moses ; that the Lord came down to see the
tower of Babel which the sons of men had built ; and that
God shut the door of the ark after Noah had entered. " Do
not suppose," he says, "that the unoriginated God either
descended or ascended; for the ineffable Father and Lord
of all neither comes anywhere, nor walks nor sleeps nor
arises ; but remains in his own place, wherever that may be."
* Dial, cum Tryph., p. 252.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 301
After describing the greatness, omniscience, and omnipres
ence of the Supreme God, he proceeds : " How, then, can he
speak to any one, or be seen by any one, or appear in a little
portion of the earth, when the people could not behold on
Sinai even the glory of him whom he sent ! . . . Neither
Abraham, therefore, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man,
ever saw the Father, the ineffable Lord of all, even of Christ
himself; but they saw him who, through the will of the
Father, was a god, his Son, and likewise his angel, as min
istering to his purposes."*
Tertullian regarded the Son, or the Logos, as having been
the minister of God in creation and in all his subsequent
works. To him he ascribes whatever actions are ascribed
to God in the Old Testament. " He always descended to
converse with men, from the time of Adam to that of the
patriarchs and prophets. . . . He who was to assume a
human body and soul was even then acquainted with human
affections ; asking Adam, as if ignorant, Where art thou,
Adam? repenting of having made man, as if wanting pre
science ; putting Abraham to trial, as if ignorant of what was
in man ; offended and reconciled with the same individuals :
and so it is with regard to all which the heretics [the Gnos
tics] seize upon to object to the Creator, as unworthy of God ;
they being ignorant that those things were suitable to the
Son, who was about to submit to human affections, to thirst,
hunger, and tears, and even to be born and to die. . . .
How can it be, that God, the Omnipotent, the Invisible,
whom no man hath seen or can see, who dwells in light inac
cessible, walked in the evening in paradise, seeking Adam,
and shut the door of the ark after Noah had entered, and
cooled himself under an oak with Abraham, and called to
Moses from a burning bush? . . . These things would not
be credible concerning the Son of God, if they were not writ-
* Dial, cum Tiyph., pp. 410, 411.
302 EVIDENCES OF THE
ten: perhaps they would not be credible concerning the
Father, if they were."*
In his work against Marcion, Tertullian, after explaining
various particular passages of the Old Testament objected to
by him, says, that he will give a summary answer to the rest.
" I will give," are his words, " a simple and certain account
of whatever else you have objected to the Creator, as mean
and weak and unworthy. It is, that God could not have had
intercourse with men, unless he had assumed the feelings and
affections of humanity, by which he humbled and tempered to
human infirmity the intolerable might of his majesty. Un
worthy indeed it was in respect to himself, but necessary for
man; and therefore became worthy of God, since nothing
can be so worthy of God as the salvation of man." Marcion
himself believed that God had manifested himself as Christ ;
and Tertullian proceeds, in language so foreign from what
we are accustomed to, that it hardly admits of a literal trans
lation : " Why do you think that those humiliations [the facts
in the Old Testament which Marcion so regarded] are un
worthy of our God, seeing that they are more tolerable than
the contumelies of the Jews, and the cross, and the lomb ?
Are not those humiliations ground for concluding,! that
Christ, subjected as he was to the accidents of man, came
from the same God whose assumption of humanity is made
by you a matter of reproach? For we further maintain,
that Christ has always been the agent of the Father in his
name, that it was he who from the beginning was conversant
with men, who had intercourse with the patriarchs and proph
ets ; being the son of the Creator, his Logos, whom he made
his Son by producing him from himself, and then set him over
all that he disposed and willed ; making him a little lower
* Advers. Praxeam, c. 16, pp. 509, 510.
f "An hae sunt pusillitates quae jam prsejudicare debebunt," &c. For
"An," we may read "An non," as the sense (about which there is no uncer
tainty) seems to require.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
than the angels, as was written by David. In thus being
made lower than the angels, he was prepared by the Father
for those assumptions of humanity with which you find fault.
He learnt from the beginning, being then already a man, what
he was to be at last. It was he who descended, he who ques
tioned, he who demanded, he who swore. But that the
Father has been seen by none, the Gospel common to us
both* bears witness; for in this Christ says, k No one has
known the Father but the Son. For he had pronounced in
the Old Testament likewise, No one shall see God and live;
thus determining that the Father is invisible, in whose name
and by whose authority he who became visible as the Son of
God was God. ... Thus whatever you require as worthy
of God will be found in the invisible Father, remote from
human intercourse, calm, and, if I may so speak, the God
of the philosophers ; but whatever you censure as unworthy
will be ascribed to the Son, who was seen, and heard, and
had intercourse with men, who sees the Father and ministers
to him, who unites in himself humanity and divinity, being
in his powers divine, in his humiliation a man, that what he
parts with from his divinity he may confer on man. All, in
fine, that you regard as dishonorable to my God is the
pledge of human salvation."!
In the passage just quoted, beside the doctrine, that the
Logos, or Son, was the being represented as God in the Old
Testament, and that to him actions might be ascribed which
would be unsuitable to the Father, there appears another
conception, which is often presented in the writings of Ter-
tullian, and is employed by him elsewhere to answer the
objections of the Gnostics to the Old Testament. It is, that,
in both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, the means
* That is, the Gospel of Luke as used by Marcion.
t Advers. Marcion., lib. ii. c. 27, pp. 395, 396.
504 EVIDENCES OF THE
used by God to effect his purposes are such as in the view
of man may appear unworthy, incongruous, and contemptfble.
He regards this as characteristic of the special manifestations
of God. He grounds the conception particularly on a passage
of St. Paul, which he frequently quotes or alludes to: " God
has chosen the foolish things of the world to put wise
men to shame, and the weak things of the world God has
chosen to put to shame the strong, and the mean things of
the world, and the despised, has God chosen ; and things that
are nought, to do away what exist."* Tertullian, under
standing this passage as he did, was able to reconcile himself
to much that might otherwise have offended him in the Old
Testament. " Nothing," he says, " ordained by God is truly
mean, and ignoble, and contemptible, but only what proceeds
from man. But many things in the Old Testament may be
charged upon the Creator as foolish and weak and shameful
and little and contemptible. What more foolish, what more
weak, than the exaction by God of bloody sacrifices and
sweet - smelling holocausts? What more weak than the
cleansing of cups and beds? What more shameful than to
inflict a new blemish on the ruddy flesh of an infant ? What
so mean as the law of retaliation ? What so contemptible as
the prohibition of certain kinds of food ? Every heretic, as
far as I know, ridicules the whole of the Old Testament,
For God chose the foolish things of the world to confound
its wisdom." f
It is to be observed, however, that Tertullian had, in a
former part of his work, $ ably defended the reasonableness
of all the requisitions of the Law of which he here speaks,
except circumcision ; and that the defence of the Old Testa
ment, in its literal or obvious sense, was not neglected by
other fathers.
* 1 Cor. i. 27, 28. f Advers. Marcion., lib. v. c. 5, p. 467
{ Ibid., lib. ii. c. 18, seqq.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 305
But, in connection with those that have been mentioned,
another solution was found for its difficulties in the supposi
tion of a hidden or allegorical sense. This imaginary sense
was believed not to be expressed by the words in their direct
meaning, but to be one of which the direct meaning presented
an allegory, a type, a symbolical representation, or an enig
matical expression. The allegorical mode of interpretation
was unsupported by any tenable reasoning ; it proceeded on
no settled principles ; it had no definite limits in its applica
tion ; there was not, even professedly, any test of its correct
ness ; nor, generally, does there appear to have been a distinct
apprehension that the meaning educed by it was intended by
the writer to whose words it was ascribed.* The subject
* The following may serve as a specimen of allegorical interpretation*
In Exod. xv. 23-27, it is related, that the Israelites, after crossing the Red
Sea, came to the waters of Marah, which were so bitter that they could not
drink them ; but that the Lord showed Moses a tree, which, when he cast
into the water, it became sweet; and that afterwards, the Israelites arrived at
Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees.
" It is very strange," says Origen, " that God should show Moses a tree to
cast into the water, to make it sweet. Could he not make the water sweet
without a tree? But let us see what beauty there is in the inner sense."
He accordingly explains, that, allegorically understood, the bitter waters of
Marah denote the Jewish Law, which, in its literal purport, is bitter enough;
so that of its bitterness the true people of God cannot drink. " What, then,
is the tree which God showed to Moses? Solomon teaches us, when he says
of Wisdom, that she is a tree of life to all who embrace her. If, therefore, the
tree of wisdom, Christ, be cast into the Law," and show us how it ought to
be understood (I compress several clauses into these words), "then the water
of Marah becomes sweet, and the bitterness of the letter of the Law is changed
into the sweetness of spiritual intelligence ; and then the people of God can
drink of it." Origen afterwards remarks on the subsequent arrival of the
Israelites at Elim with its twelve springs and seventy palm-trees. " Do you
think," he asks, " that any reason can be given why they were not first led
to Elim ? ... If we follow the history alone, it does not much edify us to
know where they first went, and where they next went. But, if we search
out the mystery hidden in these things, we find the order of faith. The
people is first led to the letter of the Law, from which, while this retains its
bitterness, it cannot depart. But, when the Law is made sweet by the tree
of life, and begins to be spiritually understood, then the people passes from
20
306 EVIDENCES OF THE
was still further confused by the circumstance, that the term
" to allegorize " was applied to the use of simply figurative
language, of which the true meaning was sufficiently obvious ;
and such language, in consequence, was confounded with that
to which an imaginary mystical sense was assigned. Thus,
Clement of Alexandria, in remarking on the words of our
Saviour, "The good shepherd lays down his life for his
sheep," speaks of Christ as by sheep expressing allegoricalJy
a flock of men.* As to Origen, though it is not probable that
he had ever so stated the subject to his own mind, yet his
customary modes of speaking in relation to it imply that all
interpretation of Scripture which is not literal is allegorical,
and that there is no choice but of the one mode or the
other.
The allegorical mode of interpretation thus affords a strik
ing illustration of the indistinct conceptions and unsubstantial
the Old Testament to the New, and comes to the twelve fountains of the
apostles. In the same place, also, are found seventy palm-trees. For not
alone the twelve apostles preached faith in Christ; but it is related, that
seventy others were sent to preach the word of God, through whom the world
might acknowledge the palms of the victory of Christ." Homil. in Exod.
vii. 1, 3, Opp. ii. 151, 152.
Such is the style of interpretation which, intermixed with good sense, just
remarks, and correct moral and religious sentiments, prevails throughout the
expository works of Philo and Origen, and is frequent in the writings of
many of the other fathers beside Origen ; especially, as regards our present
purpose, in those of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian.
" Ce qu il y a de commode," says Le Clerc, " dans cette maniere d expli-
quer la Bible, c est que Ton fait de son texte la meme chose que les Peripate-
ticiens font de leur matiere premiere, quce neque est quid, neque quale, neque
quantum, neque quicquam eorum quibus ens denominatur. On le tourne comme
on veut; on lui donne la forme que Ton trouve a propos; et Ton y trouveroit
^galement son compte, quand il auroit dit tout le contraire." Bibliotheque
Universelle, torn. xii. p. 20.
* Ei (Je rj TToifJ-vr] rj aXTujyopovfizvij irpb? TOV Kvptov ovdev u2}io rj
aytkri nq uvOpujruv kariv, K. r. "X. Stromat. i. p. 421. The same use of
iM,7]yopu t or an equivalent term, may be found on p. 104, 11. 17, 30; p. 129,
11. 20, 29; p. 138, 1. 5; p. 148, 1. 5; p. 528, 1. 21; p. 708, 1. 11; p. 771, 1. 23;
p. 806, 1. 17.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 307
reasoning of the ancients. For we must not suppose that it
was adopted by the fathers alone, or confined in its applica
tion to the Scriptures. It was prevalent in the age of which
we speak. It had for a long time been applied by the heathen
philosophers to the offensive fables of their mythology, the
scandal of which they endeavored to remove by representing
them as symbolical representations of certain truths concern
ing the physical and moral world ; a mode of explanation
which, with little good sense, has been continued to our own
day.* The revelations in the heathen mysteries probably
consisted in great part of such interpretations of the heathen
mythology. The philosophical Jews also had resorted to
it in the exposition of the Old Testament ; and, in applying
it to the same book, the fathers only followed in the broad
path which had been cleared by Philo. His explanations of
the Old Testament are throughout allegorical. He had the
same feeling as the Christian fathers of the objections to
which it is liable, if understood in its obvious sense, and of
the supposed necessity of recurring to a hidden meaning.
Thus, in reference to the account of the formation of Eve, he
affirms that " what is said concerning it is fabulous ; " that is,
that the obvious meaning is fabulous. " How can any one,"
he asks, " credit that a woman, or any human being, was
made out of the rib of a man ? " And after various objec
tions to the story, he proceeds to convert it into an allegory.f
Speaking of the serpent which tempted Eve, and of the
brazen serpent of Moses, he says, " These things, as they
are written, are like prodigies and portents ; but, when alle-
gorically explained, the fabulous immediately disappears, and
the truth is manifestly discovered." J After quoting the
* On this subject, see (in the " Bibliotheque Choisie," torn. vii. p. 88, seqq.)
the remarks of Le Clerc, who, in the compass of a few pages, treats it with hia
customary clearness and judgment.
t Legis Allegoriae, lib. ii. Opp. i. 70, ed. Mangey.
J De Agriculture, Opp. i. 315.
308 EVIDENCES OF THE
words, " And God planted a garden in Eden," he says, that
to understand this of his planting vines, or fruit-trees of any
kind, would be great and hardly curable folly. " We must
have recourse to allegory, the friend of clear-sighted men." *
Thus, also, in commenting on the passage, " Cain departed
from the face of God," he regards it as proving that what is
written in the books of Moses is to be understood tropologi-
cally (that is, allegorically), the apparent meaning presented
at first sight being far from the truth. " For if God have
a face, and he who wills to leave him may easily remove else
where, why do we reject the impiety of the Epicureans, or
the atheism of the Egyptians, or the mythological fables of
which the world is full ? " t Many similar passages occur in
his writings. $
Nor was the allegorical mode of understanding the Jewish
Scriptures introduced by Philo. He celebrates the Thera-
peutae, a sect among the Jews who devoted themselves to
religious exercises and meditation, and of them he relates,
that they occupied much of their time in the allegorical expo
sition of the sacred writings, regarding the literal meaning as
symbolical of hidden senses, expressed enigmatically. He
says, that they compared the whole Law to an animal, its
body being the literal precepts, but its soul the invisible sense
lying treasured up in the words ; and adds, that, in their alle
gorical exposition, they had for models the writings of ancient
men, the founders of the sect. Elsewhere, Philo repeatedly
refers to this mode of interpretation as common. " I have
heard," he says in one place, " another explanation from in-
* De Plantatione Noe, Opp. i. 334: conf. De Mundi Opificio, Opp. i. 37;
Legis Allegorise, lib. i. Opp. i. 32.
| De Posteritate Caini, Opp. i. 226.
{ As, for example, Legis Allegoriae, lib. ii. Opp. i. 70, lib. iii. 88. Quod
Deterius Potion insidiari soleat, Opp. i. 194, 209, 223. De Posteritate Caini,
Opp. i. 232, 234, 235. Quod Deus sit immutabilis, Opp. i. 292, et alibi.
De Vita Contemplative,, Opp. ii. 475, 483.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 309
spired men, who consider most things in the Laws as visible
and spoken symbols of the invisible and unspeakable." * The
confidence with which, throughout his works, he proceeds on
the system of allegorical exposition, without explaining or
defending it, shows that it was well known and admitted. Its
general prevalence is likewise made evident by the fact, that
it appears in quotations from the Jewish Scriptures in the
New Testament, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
The Christian fathers, from the beginning, adopting the
conceptions of their age, interpreted the Old Testament alle-
gorically. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho,
abounds in such expositions of it ; but, in a controversy with
a Jew, he was not called upon to defend it. He makes
evident, however, his notions of its character, as requiring to
be thus explained. After having represented the blood of
the passover, with which the Israelites sprinkled their door-
. posts when the first-born of the Egyptians were destroyed,
and the scarlet line which the harlot Rahab hung out
when Jericho was taken, as both intended for types of the
blood of Christ, shed for the deliverance of men, he thud
addresses Trypho : " But you, who explain these things in
a low sense, impute much weakness to God, through under
standing them so simply, and not inquiring into the true
purport of what is said. For thus [that is, by understanding
the Scriptures thus literally] even Moses may be judged a
transgressor ; since, after commanding that no likeness should
be made of any thing either in heaven, or on the earth, or in
the sea, he himself made a brazen serpent, and, setting it up
for a sign, directed those who were bitten to look upon it ;
and, by looking upon it, they were saved. So the serpent,
then, whom God cursed in the beginning, and destroyed, as
Isaiah proclaims, with a great sword,| will be thought to
have then saved the people ; and thus we shall understand
* De Specialibus Legibus. Opp. ii. 329. f Isa. xxrii. 1.
310 EVIDENCES OF THE
such things foolishly, like your teachers, and not as symbol
ical." *
Irenaeus does not resort to allegorical interpretation in
directly answering the objections of the Gnostics to the Old
Testament. He defends it in its obvious meaning, in much
the same manner as modern divines have done. But, in
maintaining its connection with Christianity, he represents it
as full of types, shadowing forth in their hidden senses the
coming dispensation ; and in such hidden senses it appears
that he himself was disposed to take refuge from the difficul
ties that pressed upon its obvious meaning. Thus he says :
" One of the ancient presbyters relieved my mind by
teaching me, . . that when the wrong actions of the patri
archs and prophets are simply related in the Scriptures with
out any censure, we ought not to become accusers (for we
are not more observing than God, nor can we be above our
master), but to look for a type. For no one of those actions,
which are mentioned thus uncensured in the Scriptures is
without its purpose." f
Tertullian does not dwell at length on the objections of the
heretics to the Old Testament in any of his works except that
against Marcion. Marcion rejected the allegorical mode or
interpretation ; $ and, in reasoning with him, Tertullian de
fends, and with ability, portions of the Jewish Law and
history understood in their obvious sense, except so far as
this sense was modified by his belief, before mentioned, con
cerning the agency of the Logos. But he abounds, at the
same time, in allegorical expositions of the Old Testament,
some of them exceedingly forced. He speaks of " the secret
meanings of the Law, spiritual as it is, and prophetical, and
* Dial, cum Tryph., pp. 374, 375.
t Cont. Hseres., lib. iv. c. 31, 1, p. 268.
f Tertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. ii. c. 21, p. 392; lib. iii. cc. 4, 5, pp.
398, 399. Origen. Comment, in Matt., torn. xv. 3, Opp. iii. 655. In Epist.
ad Homanos, lib. ii. Opp. iv. 494, 495.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 811
full of figures in almost every part." * And, in another
place, he describes God, the God of the Old Testament, as
" making foolish the wisdom of the world, choosing its foolish
things, and disposing them for man s salvation ; " this being,
he says, the hidden wisdom of which the apostle speaks,
k which was in foolish and little and shameful things, which
lay hid under figures, allegories, and enigmas, and was after
wards to be revealed in Christ." f
Celsus, who lived in the second century, was acquainted
with this manner of explaining and defending the Old Testa
ment, and expressed himself vehemently against it. " He
attacks the history of Moses," says Origen, " and finds fault
with those who explain it tropologically and allegorically." $
" He seems to me to have heard of writings containing the
allegories of the Law, which if he had read, he would not
have said, The pretended allegories written concerning
these fables are far more offensive and absurd than the fables
themselves ; for, with marvellous and altogether senseless
folly, they bring together things which can in no way what
ever be fitted to one another. He seems," continues Origen,
" to refer to the writings of Philo, or to others still more
ancient, as those of Aristobulus." But Origen did not
mean to imply, that Celsus, in his attack on the allegorical
interpretations of the Old Testament, had not in view Chris
tian allegorists as well as Jewish. He had a little before
quoted from him a passage, in which Celsus, speaking of some
of the narratives in Genesis and Exodus, says, that "the more
rational of the Jews and Christians turn them into allegories.
They take refuge in allegory because they are ashamed of
them." In reply, Origen makes a strong retort upon the
* Advers. Marcion., lib. ii. c. 19, p. 391.
t Ibid., lib. v. c. 6, p. 467.
J Cont. Cels., lib. i. 17, Opp. i. 336.
Ibid., lib. iv. 51, p. 542.
312 EVIDENCES OP THE
obscene fables of the mythology of the Pagans, which their
philosophers represented as allegories.*
The early fathers, in general, allegorized freely in their
expositions of the Old Testament, and evidently regarded
this mode of exposition as a means of removing objections to
it. But no other of their number has recurred to this method
so confidently as Origen, of whom Jerome, before he began
to regard his opinions as heretical, declared, that " none but
an ignorant man would deny, that, next after the apostles, he
was the master of the churches." f Origen, proceeding on
the hypothesis of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures,
allegorized the New Testament as well as the Old ; perceiving
no other method of solving the great difficulties which, on
that hypothesis, often presented themselves to his mind in
the verbal meaning of the Gospels and Epistles. $ His no
tions of the Old Testament appear in the passages already
quoted ; but it may be worth while to adduce a few others.
" There are many of the laws of Moses," he says, " which,
as regards their literal observance, are absurd or impossible.
It is absurd to forbid the eating of vultures, a kind of food
which none, however pressed by hunger, would resort to.
An infant not circumcised on the eighth day, it is said, shall
be cut off from the people. || Were any law which was to be
understood literally, required respecting this matter, it ought
to have been, that the parents, or those who have the care of
such an infant, should suffer death." *J[ In one of his Hom
ilies, speaking of the directions concerning the sin-offering
in Leviticus,** he says, " All this, as I have often before
observed when the passage was recited in the church, unless
* Cent. Gels., 48, p. 540 ; 50, p. 542.
t Praefat. in lib. de Interpret. Nomin. Hebraeor. Opp. ii. 3.
$ See p. 103. Lev. xi. 14. Deut. xiv. 13. || Gen. xvii. 12, 14.
[[ De Principiis, lib. iv. 17, Opp. i. p. 176. Origen treats at length of
the subject of allegorical interpretation, in the work just referred to, p. 164.
seqq. ** Chap. vi. 24-30.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 313
it be understood in a sense different from the literal, is more
likely to be a stumbling-block in the way of Christianity, and
to overthrow it, than to be matter for exhortation and edifica
tion." * Elsewhere, in treating of the distinction of clean
and unclean food, after having allegorized the laws respecting
it, he thus goes on : " If we say that the great God pro
mulgated laws to men which are to be thus understood, I
think that they will appear worthy of the divine majesty.
But if we cleave to the letter, and receive them as they are
understood by the Jews, or as they are commonly understood,
I should blush to affirm and profess that such laws were given
by God. The laws of men, as those of the Romans, or of
the Athenians, or of the Lacedaemonians, would seem more
refined and reasonable. But if the Law of God be under
stood, as is taught by the Church, then it evidently surpasses
all human laws, and may truly be believed to be the Law of
God." f
A few more passages will sufficiently illustrate Origen s
opinions on this subject. Speaking of different narratives in
Exodus, he says, " These are not written to afford us
instruction in history, nor is it to be supposed that the divine
books relate the acts of the Egyptians ; but what is written
is written to afford us instruction in doctrine and morals. J
. . . We, who have learned to regard all that is written, not
as containing narratives of ancient times, but as written for
our discipline and use, perceive that what is here read takes
place now, not only in this world, which is figuratively called
Egypt, but in each one of ourselves." This mode of alle
gorizing Egypt into the world and the inferior part of our
nature was, with much else of the same character, derived by
Origen from Philo. || In answering certain objections of
* Homil. in Lev., v. 1, Opp. ii. 205. f Ibid., vii. 5, Opp. ii. 226..
J Homil. in Exod., i. 5, Opp. ii. 131. Ibid., ii. 1, Opp. ii. 133.
U Philo de Migratione Abraham!, passim.
314 EVIDENCES OF THE
Celsus, founded on the Old Testament, he has these words : *
" We say the law is twofold, literal and allegorical, as
others have taught before us. The literal has been pro
nounced, not so much by us as by God, speaking in one of
the prophets, to consist of ordinances not good, and statutes
not good ; | but the allegorical, according to the same prophet,
is said by God to consist of good ordinances and good stat
utes. $ Certainly the prophet does not here [in speaking of
the Law in the passages referred to] assert manifest contra
dictions. And, conformably to this, Paul says, The letter,
that is, the Law understood literally, kills ; but the spirit, that
is, the Law understood allegorically, gives life."
The allegorical or hidden meaning was divided into the
moral, and the mystical or spiritual ; the moral being sup
posed to relate to morality, and the mystical to the doctrines
of religion. In remarking on the declaration of St. Paul,
The works of the flesh are apparent, || Origen allegorizes the
passage as referring to the literal sense of the Old Testament.
This was figuratively called the carnal sense, being compared
to the body in man ; while the two branches of the allegori
cal the moral, and the mystical or spiritual were compared
to the soul and to the spirit, according to the threefold divis
ion of man in ancient theology. " The history of the di\ ine
volumes," he says, " contains the works of the flesh, and is of
little benefit to those who understand it as it is written."
* Cont. Cels., lib. vii. 20, Opp. i. 708.
t Ezek. xx. 25. J Ezek. xx. 11.
2 Cor. iii. 6. This is a passage which, from the time of Origen to the
present day, has been often so quoted as to pervert its meaning. The word
ypdiifjia, incorrectly translated "letter," means "what is written," "the writ
ten Law," " the Jewish Law." St. Paul says, that he was not a minister of
that Law, but of " the Spirit," or, in other words, of the spiritual blessings
to be received through Christ ; " for the written Law causes death [that is, to
such as adhere to it in opposition to Christianity], but the Spirit gives life. *
There is no reference to the distinction between the letter and the spirit of any
particular writing. || Gal. v. 19.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 815
The examples of the patriarchs, according to him, lead to
dissoluteness, and the sacrifices of the Law to idolatry, if the
history of the former, and the injunctions concerning the latter,
are not supposed to have a further meaning than appears in
the letter. " That the language of Scripture," he adds,
" in its obvious sense, teaches hatred, is shown by this pas
sage : Wretched daughter of Babylon ! Blessed be he who
shall requite thee as thou hast treated us. Blessed be he
who shall take thy little ones and dash them against the
stones ; * and by this passage: In the morning, I slew all the
sinners of the land.^ And there are others of a similar kind,
expressive of contention, rivalry, anger, strife, dissension ;
which vices the examples set before us in the history, if we
do not look to their higher meaning, are more likely to
produce than to restrain. Heresies, likewise, owe their ex
istence rather to understanding the Scriptures carnally [liter
ally] than, as many think, to the works of the flesh." $ The
last sentence shows the liberality of Origen. From this, as
well as from passages before cited, we perceive what he
thought the main occasion of the heresy of the Gnostics, and
consequently what he regarded as its essential characteristic,
that is to say, their doctrine concerning the Jewish dispensa
tion. All the passages quoted from him prove, likewise, that
he agreed with the Gnostics in regarding the opinions of the
Jews respecting their Scriptures as untenable, if these Scrip
tures were to be understood only in their obvious meaning.
But, if the metaphor may be allowed, he thought that their
difficulties were to be solved in the menstruum of allegor
ical interpretation, and that the essential meaning might thus
be obtained in crystalline purity.
* Psalm cxxxvii. 8, 9. t Psalm ci. 8.
J Ex decimo Stromatum Origen. Lib. (apud Hieronymi Comment, in ED
ad Galat., Opp. iv. pars 1, coll. 294, 295), Origenis Opp. torn. i. p. 41.
See pp. 296, 296
316 EVIDENCES OF THE
Among the Gnostics, Marcion, as I have said, rejected the
allegorical mode of interpretation. Other Gnostics, particu
larly the Valentinians, allegorized at least as extravagantly
as the fathers ; but they were not disposed, like them, thus to
do away the difficulties of the Jewish Scriptures. They, per
haps, felt more strongly the common dislike of the Gentiles
to the Jews. They were not so ready to overcome the first
unfavorable impressions which those books made upon their
minds. Their faith as Christians was more imperfect ; it
was more implicated with their philosophical speculations ;
and they were not as solicitous as the catholic Christians
to receive all which they supposed to be taught or implied in
the New Testament. Their hypothesis respecting the Jewish
dispensation, that it proceeded from an inferior divinity, was
equally in accordance with the notions of the times, as the
supposition that the books of the Jews were to be interpreted
allegorically. By their theory, by admitting the existence
and acts of the God of the Jews, but denying him to be the
Supreme Being, they accounted, as they believed, for the
otherwise inexplicable phenomena which those books pre
sented ; while the catholic Christians thought themselves
enabled to escape the force of the objections founded on those
phenomena, by the allegorical mode of interpretation, and the
other expedients to which they had recourse.
It may appear, then, that the principal occasion of the
existence of the Gnostics, that is, of proper Christian Gnos
tics, was the impossibility, as it seemed to them, of regarding
the God of the Old Testament and the God of Christians as
the same being. It is true, that their systems, as we shall
see, were intended to give an account of the evil in the world.
But, in having this object in view, they did not differ from the
catholic Christians, nor from heathen philosophers. What
characterizes them is their regarding the Jewish dispensation
as an essential part of the evil and imperfection to be ac-
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 311
counted for, and the character and agency which they conse
quently assigned in their systems to the God of the Jews.
They were constituted a peculiar class by being Christians
who separated Judaism from Christianity. In the contro
versy with their catholic opponents, the strength of their
cause evidently lay in their objections to the Old Testament.
These they appear to have been most ready to bring forward
in defending their systems. In them they had a vantage-
ground above their opponents, and could become assailants in
their turn. Such was the state of opinion and feeling in the
early age when the Gnostics were most numerous and re
spectable, that we might reasonably suppose that a consid
erable number of individuals would embrace Christianity with
more or less imperfect faith, who would not extend their
belief so far as to acknowledge Judaism also as a dispensation
from God.
The belief of the catholic Christians in the divine origin of
Judaism was a genuine consequence of their Christian faith.
But with this belief, as if the one thing were necessarily
connected with the other, they went on to adopt, likewise,
the opinions of the Jews concerning the divine authority of
the books of the Old Testament. Those opinions were not,
indeed, at once received by all Christians not Gnostics, as we
have seen in the case of the author of the Clementine Hom
ilies ; but they soon obtained general reception. The belief
of the divine authority of the Jewish books was even extended
by the catholic Christians to embrace most of those which
constitute the Apocrypha of our modern Bibles.
There are few phenomena in the history of opinions more
remarkable than this reception of the Jewish notions concern
ing the Old Testament by the generality of the early Chris
tians. The Jews had been regarded with aversion by other
nations. The unbelieving Jews continued to be so by the
Gentile Christians ; and the believing Jews were an hereticaJ
318 EVIDENCES OF THE
sect in little repute. The books of the Old Testament,
though accessible to every Greek and Roman scholar through
the medium of the Greek translation of them, the Septuagint,
had heretofore been treated with contemptuous neglect. The
Gentile Christians, by whom they were received as of divine
authority, were, with very few exceptions, wholly unac
quainted with their original language, and obliged to recur
for its meaning to copies of the Septuagint or of other trans
lations, the correctness of which was denied by their oppo
nents, the unbelieving Jews. At the same time, they had a
strong feeling of the objections to which the Pentateuch and
other parts of the Old Testament are exposed, if understood
in their obvious meaning, or, as they expressed it, in their
literal sense ; and notwithstanding the allegorical mode of
interpretation, and the other expedients by which they es
caped from these difficulties, they were reduced to straits,
both in reconciling many passages to their own reason and
moral sentiments, and in defending them against the attacks
of Gnostics and unbelievers. Still they encumbered their
cause, and gave great advantage to their opponents, by as
serting the Jewish opinions concerning the character of those
books, in consequence of the belief that the truth of Chris
tianity implied, not merely the fact of the divine mission of
Moses, but the truth of those Jewish opinions. The scholars
and philosophers, for scholars and philosophers they were,
notwithstanding any modern prejudices to the contrary,
who during the first three centuries appear as Christian fath
ers, received from the Jews, with whom as a people they had
no friendly intercourse, all their canonical books ; regarding
them as of divine origin, and ascribing to them equal author
ity with the records of Christianity. It must have been a
powerfully operative cause which produced this result. It
strikingly evinces the strength of evidence that accompanied
our religion. Its proofs must have been overwhelming,
when, in addition to establishing an invincible faith in the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 319
religion itself, they occasioned, notwithstanding such obstacles,
the adoption of the Jewish opinions respecting the Old Testa
ment.
The fundamental difference, then, between the Gnostics
and the catholic Christians consisted in their different views
of Judaism, and of the author of the Jewish dispensation.
But, like other speculatists of their day, the Gnostics formed
for themselves a system of the universe, in which, answer-
ably to the declarations of the Old Testament, he whom they
regarded as the god of the Jews appears as the Creator of
the physical world. Such a system necessarily embraced
some solution, or rather some account, of the evil that exists ;
and this was partly found in the supposed character of the
Creator, and partly in the evil nature ascribed to matter.
The topics treated of in this chapter naturally suggest
the inquiry, In what manner should the Jewish dispensation
and the books of the Old Testament be regarded? The
views that have been given of the opinions of the early Chris
tians, both Catholics and Gnostics, involve the whole subject
in doubts and difficulties, of which no rational solution is
afforded. But the Jewish is intimately connected with the
Christian dispensation, and one may therefore reasonably be
unwilling to dismiss the inquiry without some attempt to
answer it. I have accordingly considered the subject else
where.*
* See the original edition of this work, vol. ii., Additional Note, D.
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GNOSTICS RECONCILED
THEIR DOCTRINES WITH CHRISTIANITY.
IN comparing the peculiar doctrines of the Gnostics with the
teaching of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, or with the
Christian Scriptures generally, the question naturally arises,
How could they imagine those doctrines to have been taught
by the Master whom they professed to follow, or identify
them in any way with Christianity ? We may, at first vie\\ ,
be inclined strongly to suspect that they held the common
histories of Christ, and the other books of the New Testa
ment, in no esteem ; and to adopt the inference of Gibbon,
that " it was impossible that the Gnostics could receive our
present Gospels."*
But, on further attention to the subject, we may perceive
that there is nothing peculiar in the case of the Gnostics.
Their systems have long been obsolete; they are foreign
from our thoughts and imaginations ; and, in comparing
them with the systems of other sects, we are apt to
measure their relative distance from Christianity by their
relative distance from the forms of Christian belief with
which we are familiar. Of opinions equally false, those
with which we have long been acquainted seem to us much
less extraordinary than such as are newly presented to our
* See p. 161.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 321
minds. In inquiring, therefore, how the Gnostics could mis
take their doctrines for the doctrines of Christianity, the first
consideration to be attended to is the fact, that their mistake
was not greater than that which has been committed by a
large majority of the professed disciples of Christ. The faith
of the whole Christian world for ten centuries before the
Reformation had no advantage over that of the Gnostics, in
being more accordant with reason and Christianity. The
gross literal errors and absurdities, maintained by the Catho
lics of this period, are in as strong contrast with the truths of
our religion, as the mystic extravagances of the early heretics.
The system by which the Catholic faith was supplanted among
Protestants, with its doctrines concerning the threefold per
sonality of God, and concerning God s government of his
creatures ; with its representations of the totally depraved
nature, capable only of moral evil, with which he brings men
into being ; with its scheme of redemption required by man s
utter misery and helplessness ; its infinite satisfaction to the
justice of God the Father, made by the sufferings of God
the Son ; and its " horrible decrees," * may perhaps appear,
to a rational believer of the present day, to stand in as open
and direct opposition to Christianity as the systems of the
leading Gnostics. Or, to come down to a later period,
the hypotheses and expositions by which the Gnostics recon
ciled their conceptions with the declarations of Christ and
his apostles could not, as many will think, be more irrational
and extravagant than the hypotheses and expositions of that
modern school of German theologians, who, admitting the
authenticity of the Gospels, find nothing supernatural in the
* I borrow the expression from a well-known passage of Calvin. " Unde
factum est, ut tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus aeternse morti
involveret lapsus Adae absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? . . .
Decretum quidem horribile fateor." "Whence is it, that the fall of Adam
involved so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, without
r&medy, except that it so seemed good to God ? ... It is a horrible decree
I confess." Institut., lib. iii. c. 23, 7.
21
322 EVIDENCES OF THE
history, but explain, as conformable to the common laws of
nature, events which, according to their theory, have, from
the time of their occurrence to the present day, been mistaken
for miracles. I refer to the opinions of large bodies of Chris
tians, or of men claiming to be called Christians; and to
peculations which have been defended by such as were, or
have been reputed to be, learned and able. It is not neces
sary to pursue the illustration by adverting to the doctrines
of smaller sects. I will only observe further, as the case
seems to me particularly analogous, that the disciples of
Swedenborg are believers in our religion, that they have
their full share of the Christian virtues, and that they
have reckoned among their number men of more than com
mon powers of mind ; while he who rejects the systems both
of Ptolemy and of Swedenborg will probably think that there
is no reason for preferring one to the other, on account of
its being the more rational faith, or having a better founda
tion in the Gospels.
Whatever opinions a thinking man may entertain of Chris
tianity, or of religion unconnected with Christianity, when
he compares them with those which have existed, or are
existing, among mankind, he will find himself in a small
minority. Whoever may really have attained to the
" bene munita, . . .
" Edita doctrinal sapientum, templa serena,"
to the serene temples, well fortified, built up by the learning
of the wise,
" Despicere unde queas alios, passimque videre
Errare atque viam palenteis quaerere vitse,"
will assuredly not find them thronged ; and, from their
height, he will see not a few others wandering in errors as
extravagant as those of the Gnostics.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 323
Such have, for many centuries, been the doctrines of the
larger portion of the professed followers of Christ, that faith
has been formally disconnected from reason ; and reason, or,
as the term is usually qualified, human reason, has been
represented as its dangerous enemy. From the time of the
Gnostics to our own, there has always been a very numerous
class, composed of individuals who have held different and
opposite tenets, but who have all in common appealed, in
some form or other, to an inward sense, a spiritual discern
ment, infallible in its perceptions, surpassing the powers of
the understanding, and superseding their use. " The natural
man," says St. Paul, meaning the unconverted, him who
rejected revelation, " receives not the truths of the spirit of
God ; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know
them, because they are spiritually discerned;"* that is to
say, spiritual things, the truths taught by Christianity, are
to be discerned only through the light which Christianity
affords. But the words of the apostle were early perverted
by the theosophic Gnostics ; f and there are none that have
been more commonly or more mischievously abused. One
main occasion of the existence, not only of the Gnostics, but
of other sects of religionists, has been the vanity of belonging
to a spiritual aristocracy, from which good sense, learning,
and rational piety only form a ground of exclusion. Those
Gnostics, with their pretence to spiritual discernment, had no
more difficulty than later sects in finding what they looked
for in the teachings of Christ.
The ease with which different parties among Christians
have discovered apparent support for doctrines the most
irrational has been essentially connected with a fundamental
error respecting the nature of those writings which compose
the Old and New Testaments. All these writings, so different
* 1 Cor. ii. 14. f Irenaeus, lib. i. c. 8, 3, p. 39.
324 EVIDENCES OF THE
in character and value, have been represented as constituting
the Revelation from God. They have been ascribed to God
as their proper author ; the human writers being considered
only as agents under his immediate direction. When, there
fore, all these different writers, with all their imperfect and
erroneous conceptions, were thus transformed into infallible
divine instructors, there is no wonder, that their words, even
if correctly understood, should afford support for many errors.
But, beside the direct consequence of this fundamental misap
prehension, there has been an indirect consequence not less
important. The words contained in the books of the Old
and New Testaments being regarded as the words, not of men,
but of God, the rational principles of interpretation, which
would apply to them as the words of men, have been set
aside. These principles would lead us to study the respective
characters of the authors of those books, and the various influ
ences which were acting upon them, and to make ourselves
acquainted with the particular occasion and purpose of their
different writings, and with the characters, circumstances,
opinions, errors, and modes of expression of those for whom
their writings were immediately intended ; and when we had
thus enabled ourselves, as far as possible, to sympathize with
them, we should determine their meaning with a constant
regard to the considerations which we had thus grouped
together. But such knowledge is foreign from the purpose,
if the books to be explained are not properly the works of
human authors. It has, accordingly, been disregarded. The
essential elements and rules of a correct interpretation have
been neglected; and the work of explaining the Scriptures
has been denied to reason and judgment, and delivered over
to men s preconceptions, caprices, imaginations, and spiritual
discernment. The consequence has been, that, in the per
formance of this work, we may find all varieties of error,
from the wildest allegories and cabalistic follies, down to
the imposition of verbal meanings which are verbal or moral
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 325
absurdities. The false modes of interpretation common in
their day afforded the theosophic Gnostics, as false modes of
interpretation have afforded later sects, a ready means of ap
parently reconciling their opinions with the Scriptures.
Every one acquainted with theological controversy must
be familiar with the fact, that, in defending doctrines contrary
to the teaching of Christ, a few texts are seized upon, the
words of which, when standing alone, admit an interpretation
favorable to those doctrines ; and that their defenders, fixing
their attention on these texts, are able to close their eyes to
the whole opposing tenor of the New Testament. But the
Gnostics could have been in no want of such toxts as might
readily be accommodated to the support of their fundamental
doctrine, that the God of the Jews was not the God of
Christians. Marcion wrote a work on this subject, which he
entitled " Antitheses," the main object of which was to point
out the contrariety between the representations given by
Christ of his Father, and those given of God in the Old
Testament.* The opposition between Christianity and some
of the views of religion and morals presented in the Penta
teuch (which I have had occasion to remark) furnished the
Gnostics with a storehouse of arguments from Scripture. As
regards another principal point, the claim set up by the the
osophic Gnostics to be by nature the chosen, or the elect, of
God, as being the spiritual, they could have found no more
difficulty in supporting their pretensions from the New
Testament, than one of those who, since their day, have
claimed to be elected as the spiritual through a decree of
God, irrespective of any merits of their own. Similar modes
cf misinterpretation would apply as well in the one case as
the other, and furnish a similar harvest of apparent proofs.
* TerUllian. ailvers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374; lib. iv. c. 1, p. 413j
t. 6, p. 416.
326 EVIDENCES OP THE
After these general remarks, we will proceed to consider
more particularly the means by which the Gnostics reconciled
their doctrines with their Christian faith. The inquiry is one
of particular interest, on account of the proof which it affords
that the Gnostics had no other Gospel-history than that which
was common to them with the catholic Christians and with
ourselves ; and that, together with the catholic Christians,
they used some one, or all, of our present Gospels, as the
only document or documents of any value respecting the min
istry of Christ.
In the first place, then, the theosophic Gnostics, in common
with the catholic Christians, applied the allegorical mode of
interpretation to the New Testament. Neglecting the proper
meaning of words, they educed from them mystical senses.
Of these, I have already, in the course of this work, produced
examples ; and many more are given by their early oppo
nents, particularly by Irenaeus. This afforded a ready means
of accommodating the language of the New Testament to
their conceptions. But their whole system of interpretation
was, besides, arbitrary, and unsupported by any correct prin
ciples. The vocabulary of the theosophic Gnostics, like that
of other erring sects, consisted, in great part, of words from
the New Testament, on which they had imposed new senses.
The names of the -ZEons most frequently mentioned were
borrowed from the New Testament ; and, as the same name
was applied by them to different individuals, as the name
of God, for example, was given both to the Gnostic Creator
and to the Supreme Being, and that of Jesus both to the JEon
so named and to the man Jesus, it thus became easy for
them, on the one hand, to find supposed references to their
theory, and, on the other, to explain away much that was
inconsistent with it.
Like other false expositors of Scripture, the Gnostics
detached particular passages from their connection, and in-
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 327
fused a foreign meaning into the words. Irenoeus, after
saying that they appealed to unwritten tradition as a source
of their knowledge, goes on to remark, that, "twisting, ac
cording to the proverb, a rope of sand, they endeavor to
accommodate, in a plausible manner, to their doctrines the
parables of the Lord, the declarations of the prophets, or
the words of the apostles, so that their fiction may not seem
to be without proof. But they neglect the order and connec
tion of the Scriptures, and disjoin, as far as they are able,
the members of the truth. They transpose and refashion,
and, making one thing out of another, they deceive many by
a fabricated show of the words of the Lord which they put
together."* The Gnostics, according to him, in thus putting
together proofs from Scripture, resembled one who, taking a
mosaic representing a king, should separate the stones, and
then form them into the likeness of a dog or a fox.f He
afterwards compares them to those who made centos from
lines of Homer, by which some story was told altogether
foreign from any thing in his works.J They allowed, he
says, that the unknown God, and the transactions within the
Pleroma, " were not plainly declared by the Saviour, because
all had not capacity to receive such knowledge ; but, to those
who were able to understand them, they were signified bv
him mystically and in parables."
In addition to these modes of interpretation, the theosophic
Gnostics likewise maintained a principle similar to a funda
mental doctrine of the Roman Catholics ; namely, that reli
gious truth could not be learned from the Scriptures alone,
without the aid of the oral instructions of Christ and his
apostles, as preserved by tradition. " When," says Irena3us,
* Cent Haeres., lib. i. c. 8, 1, p. 36. For tro^i p, in the last sentence, I
Adopt the reading, QavTaaip, or ^avrdafiari.. See Massuet s note.
t Ibid. I Lib. i. c. 9, 4, pp. 45, 46.
Lib. i. c. 3, 1, p. 14; lib. ii. c. 10, 1, p. 126; c. 27, 2, p. 155.
328 EVIDENCES OF THE
" they are confuted by proofs from the Scriptures, they turn
and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not
correct, nor of authority ; they say that they contain contra
dictions, and that the truth cannot be discovered from them
by those who are ignorant of tradition. For that it was not
delivered in writing, but orally ; whence Paul said, We
speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this
world. " * "The heretics," says Tertullian, "pretend that
the apostles did not reveal all things to all, but taught some
doctrines openly to every one, some secretly, and to a few
only."t What was peculiar in their own doctrines they
regarded as that esoteric teaching which had come down to
them by oral tradition.
Conformably to this, the Gnostics, in particular cases,
pointed out certain individuals, supposed disciples of the
apostles, from whom their leaders had received their systems.
Thus, Valentinus was said to have been taught by Theodas,
an acquaintance of Paul, and Basilides by Glaucias, a com
panion of Peter. $ It would seem, likewise, from a single
passage in Clement of Alexandria, that the Gnostics gener
ally boasted that their opinions were favored by Matthias,
who was chosen an apostle in the place of Judas. || Though
the remark is not made by Clement, yet it is evident that
this appeal to the authority of a particular apostle one of
whom scarcely any thing is now known, and of whom it
follows that scarcely any thing was known in the second
century proves that the Gnostics did not appeal with any
confidence to the authority of the other apostles.
Irenasus earnestly opposes the doctrine of a secret oral
tradition. H But it was maintained by Clement as expressly
and fully as by the Gnostics. It was altogether consistent
* Lib. iii. c 2, 1, p. 174.
t De Praescriptione Hsereticorum, cap. 25, p. 210.
J Clement. Al. Stromat., vii. 17, p. 898. Ibid., p. 900.
U Acts i. 26. Tf Cont. Haeres., lib. iii. capp. 2-4, pp. 174-170.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 829
with his conceptions, that the more recondite truths of
philosophy were to be exhibited under a veil, and not to
be communicated to the generality. This higher knowledge,
the philosophy of Christianity, to which he gave the same
name (yrcodr^) which the Gnostics gave to their specula
tions, he supposed was to be attained only by those who
were in his view true Gnostics (yyoxmxot), that is, truly
enlightened. The greater number of Christians had only
simple faith, faith in the essential truths of Christianity,
which was sufficient for them. On this faith, as its founda
tion, all higher knowledge rested.* It was the notion of
Clement, that the secret wisdom of which he speaks was first
communicated by our Lord to Peter, James, John, and Paul,
from whom it had been transmitted."}" " Our Lord," he says,
" did not at once reveal to many those truths which did not
belong to many ; but he revealed them to a few to whom he
knew them to be adapted, who were capable of receiving
them, and of being conformed to them. But secret things, as
God [meaning, I conceive, philosophical speculations con
cerning God], are committed, not to writing, but to oral dis
courses."
This notion of a secret tradition is not found in Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, or Tertullian. When the two latter speak
of tradition, they mean that traditionary knowledge of the
history and doctrines of Christianity which necessarily ex
isted among Christians. It is described by Irenaeus as a
" tradition manifest throughout the world, and to be found in
every church." By it, he says, a knowledge of our religion
was preserved without books among believers in barbarous
nations. || At the end of about a century from the preaching
of the apostles, there must have been, throughout the com-
* See, among many passages to this effect, Stromat, vii. pp. 890, 891.
t Stromat., i. p. 322. Etiam apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. ii. c. 1.
| Stromat, i. p. 323. Lib. iii. c. 3, 1, p. 175.
|| Ibid., c. 4, 2, p. 178.
830 EVIDENCES OP THE
munities which they had formed, a general acquaintance with
what they had taught, even had no written records of our
religion been extant. In regard, likewise, to facts important
in their reference to Christianity, as, for example, the genu
ineness of the books of the New Testament, the Christians
of the last half of the second century must have relied on the
testimony of their predecessors. It is this traditionary knowl
edge concerning Christianity, not secret, but open to all, which
Irenaeus and Tertullian appeal to, with justifiable confidence,
in their reasonings against the heretics, when they distinguish
between the evidence from tradition and the evidence from
Scripture. The tradition of which they speak is altogether
different from the secret tradition of Clement.
The origin of the opinion common to Clement and to the
theosophic Gnostics may be explained by the supposition,
that inferences, true or false, from the truths taught by
Christ and his apostles, and theories built on those truths,
were conceived of, and represented, as having been taught by
them ; and, since it did not appear that they made a part of
their public teaching, the notion in consequence grew up, that
they were taught by them privately. This notion would ally
itself with the conceptions of both Clement and the Gnostics
concerning that higher esoteric wisdom which few only were
capable of receiving. In holding their common belief, it is
probable that neither had a distinct conception of what was
embraced in the tradition the existence of which they as
serted. It appears from the whole tenor of the Stromata of
Clement, that, in his view, the true knowledge, which, in
union with accordant virtues, constituted an enlightened
Christian (his Gnostic), in the highest sense of the words,
comprehended the whole compass of intellectual philosophy,
and particularly all that can be known by men respecting the
nature, attributes, and operations of God.* If he had been
* Instead of producing at length the authorities and reasons for this
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 331
asked, whether he believed that all this knowledge had
been handed down by a secret tradition, the question might
have presented the subject to his mind under a new aspect,
but he undoubtedly would have answered in the negative.
Had he then been requested to point out what particular part
of it he conceived to have been thus handed down, I think he
would have been embarrassed by the inquiry.
In connection with their notion of a secret tradition, the
Gnostics, or some of the Gnostics, said, according to Irenaeus,
statement, which would carry us too far away from our main purpose, I will
quote a few sentences from the valuable work of the present Bishop of Lin
coln (Dr. Kaye), entitled " Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of
Clement of Alexandria." It is the most important work on the subject
of which it treats. The author says (pp. 238-241) :
" By yvwatf [the higher esoteric knowledge] Clement understood the
perfect knowledge of all that relates to God, his nature and dispensa
tions. . . . The Gnostic [Clement s Gnostic] comprehends not only the First
Cause and the Cause begotten by him [the Logos], and is fixed in his no
tions concerning them, possessing firm and immovable reasons; but also,
having learned from the truth itself, he possesses the most accurate truth
from the foundation of the world to the end, concerning good and evil, and
the whole creation, and, in a word, concerning all which the Lord spake . . .
With respect to the source from which this knowledge is derived, Clement
says, that it was imparted by Christ to Peter, James, John, and Paul, and
by them delivered down to their successors in the Church. It was not
designed for the multitude, but communicated to those only who were capa
ble of receiving it; orally, not by writing. "
The notions of Clement respecting this sacred tradition are not only to be
distinguished from the reasonable conceptions of other fathers respecting that
public traditionary knowledge concerning Christianity which necessarily
existed among Christians, but equally also from an opinion which began to
prevail in the latter half of the fourth century, and which has become funda
mental in the Roman-Catholic Church. This opinion is, that certain doctrines
and rites, which are not to be kept secret, but are to be made known to all,
and to be believed or practised by all, are not expressly taught or enjoined
in the New Testament, but are derived from the oral teaching or the appoint
ment of Christ or his apostles, a knowledge of which has been preserved by
tradition. This principle was, perhaps, first clearly avowed by Basil of
Caesarea, in the latter half of the fourth century, in his treatise, " Concerning
the Holy Spirit*"
332 EVIDENCES OF THE
"that the apostles, practising dissimulation, accommodated
their doctrine to the capacity of their hearers, and their
answers to the previous conceptions of those who questioned
them, talking blindly with the blind, weakly with the weak,
and conformably to their error with those who were in error ;
and that thus they preached the Creator to those who thought
that the Creator was the only God, but to those able to
comprehend the unknown Father they communicated this
unspeakable mystery in parables and enigmas."* " Some,"
says Irenasus, " impudently contend, that the apostles, preach
ing among the Jews, could not announce any other God but
him in whom the Jews had believed." f
Again : some of the Gnostics, especially the Marcionites,
maintained that Paul was far superior to the other apostles
in the knowledge of the truth ; " the hidden doctrine having
been manifested to him by revelation."! They represented
the other apostles as having been entangled by Jewish preju
dices, from which he was in a great measure free. Hence
Tertullian, in one place, calls him " the Apostle of the Here
tics. ^ In support of this opinion, Marcion relied much on
that passage in the Epistle to the Galatians || in which Paul
represents himself as having reproved Peter and Barnabas
for not acting conformably to the principles of Christianity,
but by their conduct " compelling the Gentiles to Judaize,"
that is, to observe the Levitical Law.^1 Marcion regarded
the Gospels as expressing the false Jewish opinions of their
writers. But among the Gospels he conceived that there
was ground for making a choice; and he selected, for his
own use and that of his followers, the Gospel of Luke, the
* Lib. iii. cap. 5, 1, p. 179. t Ibid., cap. 12, 6, p. 195.
J Ibid., c. 13, 1, p. 200. Advers. Marcion., lib. iii. c. 5, p. 399
|| Chap. ii. 11, seqq.
Tf Advers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 3, pp. 414, 415; lib. i. c. 20, p. 375: conf.
De Prsescript. Haeretic., c. 23, p. 210.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 333
Companion of Paul. This he further adapted to his purpose
by rejecting from it what he viewed as conformed to those
opinions. Nor did he consider Paul himself as wholly free
from Jewish errors, but likewise struck out, from those of his
Epistles which he used, the passages in which he thought
Ihem to be expressed.
Sometimes, according to Irenseus, the Gnostics, apparently
without making an exception in favor of St. Paul, charged
the apostles generally with Jewish errors and ignorance con
cerning the higher truths and mysteries of religion. "All
those," he says, " who hold pernicious doctrines, have departed
in their faith from Him who is God, and think that they have
found out more than the apostles, having discovered another
God. They think that the apostles preached the Gospel
while yet under the influence of Jewish prejudices, but that
their own faith is purer, and that they are wiser than the
apostles." He states that Marcion proceeded on these prin
ciples in rejecting the use of some of the books of Scripture,
and of portions of those which he retained.* " The heretics,"
says Tertullian, " are accustomed to affirm that the apostles
did not know all things ; while at other times, under the
influence of the same madness, they turn about, and maintain,
that the apostles did indeed know all things, but did not
teach all things to all." f "I cannot help wondering," says
Clement of Alexandria, " how some dare to call themselves
perfect, and Gnostics, thinking themselves superior to the
apostles." J But the theosophic Gnostics did not stop here.
Irena3us, after saying that the heretics, when confuted from
the Scriptures, appealed to oral tradition, goes on thus : " But
when we, on the other hand, appeal to that tradition which,
proceeding from the apostles, has been preserved in the
Church by a succession of elders, then they oppose tradition,
* Lib. iii. c. 12, 12, p. 198. | De Prescript. Hseretic., c. 22, p. 209.
t Paedagogus, lib. i. c. 6, pp. 128, 129.
334 EVIDENCES OF THE
saying that they, being not only \*iser than the elders, but
wiser than the apostles, have discovered the pure truth. For
the apostles, they say, mixed their legal notions with the
words of the Saviour ; and not only the apostles, but the Lord
himself, spoke sometimes from the Creator [as the Messiah
of the Creator], sometimes from the Middle Space [that is,
conformably to the spiritual nature which he had derived
from Achamoth], and sometimes from the highest height fas
the JEon Christ from the Pleroma] ; * but that they them
selves know with full assurance the hidden mystery, un
mixed, in all its purity ."f The opinion of the Gnostics,
here expressed, concerning the discourses of Christ, is analo
gous to the Orthodox doctrine, still extant, that he spoke
sometimes as a man, sometimes as God, and sometimes in
his mediatorial character, as neither God nor man simply,
but as both united ; and that, as a man, he was ignorant of
what, being God, he knew.
There is nothing to object to the general proposition of the
Gnostics, that the apostles were under the influence of Jew
ish prejudices, nor to the proof which they brought of this
fact from the conduct of Peter and Barnabas, which was
reproved by Paul. Their extravagance consisted in the
irrational misapplication which they made of this principle.
The spirit of God, which enlightened the minds of the apos
tles as to all essential truths of religion, did not deliver them
* According to the verbal construction of the old Latin Translation of
Irenaeus, which is here our authority, and which I have followed in my
translation, though not in my exposition, these clauses apply equally to the
apostles as to Christ. But I cannot think that this meaning was intended
by Irenaeus, or, at least, that this was the meaning of the Gnostics. Irenteus
elsewhere (lib. i. c. 7, 3, p. 34) gives a similar account of their opinions re
specting the preaching of Christ, without mentioning the apostles. Nor is
there any probability that the Gnostics believed in the inspiration of men
from the Pleroma, which opinion would be implied in the supposition that
the apostles sometimes spoke " from the highest height."
t Lib. iii. c. 2, 2, p. 175.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 335
from all error, and transform them into all-wise and all
knowing philosophers. But, if the apostles were liable tft
any errors, they were particularly exposed to the influence of
those in which they had been educated, and could hardly
escape being more or less affected by the inveterate concep
tions and errors of their countrymen. It being the object of
the Gnostics to separate Judaism from Christianity, and to
distinguish the God of the Jews from the God of Christians,
they naturally seized upon this truth to effect their purpose ;
and as no strongly marked line can be drawn, defining the
sphere within which alone the apostles were liable to error,
they applied, or rather misapplied, a principle, correct in
itself, to all cases in which the words of the apostles so
explicitly contradicted their doctrine, as to be incapable, by
any force, of being conformed to it.
It remains to add a few words concerning the belief of the
theosophic Gnostics in their own infallible spiritual knowl
edge. This they conceived of as the result of their spiritual
nature. " They object to us," says Clement of Alexandria,
" that we are of another nature, and unable to comprehend
their peculiar doctrines." * A similar pretension to that of
the Gnostics has been common among Christians. An
essential doctrine of the Roman-Catholic Church is its own
infallibility, an infallibility which must reside in some of its
individual members. Among the sects into which Protes
tants have been divided, the generality hare, at least in the
earlier stages of their growth, maintained the principle,
expressed in the perverted language of St. Paul, that spir
itual things are spiritually discerned, and have, of course
confined this unerring spiritual discernment to themselves.
Calvin taught that " the first step in the school of the Lord
is to renounce human reason. | For, as if a veil were inter-
* Stromat , vii 16, pp. 891, 892. f "Humana perspicacia."
336 EVIDENCES OF THE
posed, it hinders us from attaining to the mysteries of God,
which are not revealed but to little children;"* and, after
these words, he proceeds to quote, as might be expected, the
often-quoted passage of St. Paul just referred to. Even
the genuineness and inspiration of the books of the Bible,
or, as he expresses it, the fact that they " had proceeded from
the very mouth of God" (ab ipsissimo Dei ore fluxisse),
11 were not to be submitted to reasoning and arguments," but
were spiritually discerned ; so as to be known with the same
certainty as men know that black is not white, and sweet is
not bitter." f The theosophic Gnostics, in expressing their
sense of the incapacity of common Christians to understand
their doctrines, could not have used stronger language than
that of Calvin concerning the natural blindness of the unre-
generate to the truths of religion. It was, in his view, the
spiritual illumination of the elect which enabled them clearly
to discern these truths ; or, in other words, clearly to discern
the identity of the system which he taught with the teachings
of Christ.
The Gnostics, as we have seen, were equally able with
Calvin to identify their systems with Christianity. In the
modes by which they effected their purpose, we may observe
the same operations of the human mind as have been going
on from their day to our own. One of the most effectual
means of checking their further progress is, by directing atten
tion to the extravagances to which they lead. It is a main
advantage resulting from the study of obsolete errors, and
one which this study alone can furnish, that, as we have no
prejudices in their favor, we are able, without disturbance, to
trace them to their sources ; and when those sources are dis
covered, we may perceive that they are still in full action
producing new errors, or more commonly, perhaps, repro-
* Institut, lib. iii. c. 2, 34. f Ibid., lib. i. c. 7.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 337
ducing old ones under a new form. It may be doubted,
whether a History of Human Folly would not be a more
instructive work than our Histories of Philosophy ; but its
contents would not be throughout so different from theirs as
its different title might lead one to expect.
Among the Gospels, the Marcionites used only their copy
of that of Luke. To this they joined ten Epistles of St. Paul,
from which, as from the Gospel, they rejected certain pas
sages, as I have before mentioned. On this history of Christ,
and on these Epistles, they founded their system, and from
them they reasoned. They appealed to them as freely and
confidently as did the catholic Christians, and the theosophic
Gnostics, to the books of the New Testament in general.
The arguments which they drew from them are presented to
view in the writings of their opponents, especially of Tertul-
lian. From those books they derived their knowledge of
Christ and of Christianity. It does not appear that they
made a pretence to any exclusive spiritual discernment, or
that they relied on any secret tradition. It does appear that
they made no use of any other history of Christ besides the
Gospel of Luke. No apocryphal gospel is said to have been
extant among them. They are never charged with having
rested their system, wholly or in part, on any such gospel.
But, had there been ground for the charge, it would undoubt
edly have been made. The controversy between them and
the catholic Christians would have brought out such a fact
with the broadest distinctness. It would have been, to say
the least, as much insisted upon as the fact that they struck
out some passages from the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles
of Paul, notices of which are continually recurring in the
writings of their opponents. Those passages the Marcionites
rejected, and they disavowed the authority of the other three
Gospels, not on the ground that they were not genuine,
but because, believing them to be genuine, they believed
22
338 EVIDENCES OF THE
their authors to be under the influence of Jewish preju
dices.
But were those which have been mentioned the only means
that the Gnostics made use of to find support for their systems
in the real or supposed teaching of Christ? Had they not, as
has been imagined, gospels of their own, presenting a view of
his ministry and instructions, different from that contained
in the catholic gospels; -accounts of Christ, which they pre
ferred and opposed to those given by the evangelists ? Every
one has heard of apocryphal and Gnostic gospels.
As regards the Marcionites, these questions have been
answered. It is evident that they had no such gospels or
gospel. Those theosophic Gnostics, who adopted the means
that have been explained of reconciling their doctrines with
Christianity, could, likewise, have had no such gospels. It
has appeared, not only in the present chapter, but through
out this work, that their systems, equally with the faith of
the catholic Christians, were founded on the common account
of Christ s ministry. In their reasonings, they constantly
referred to the Gospels. They therefore could have received
as of authority no history of his ministry which varied essen
tially from those Gospels. Whether they had any other
histories of his ministry, which did not vary essentially from
the Gospels, is an unimportant question, so far as it regards
the main purpose which we have in view. For, if those
histories proceeded from authors who wrote from independent
sources of information, they would serve, by their agreement,
to confirm the accounts of the catholic Gospels; while, if
they were merely founded on those Gospels, or on some one
of them, they would serve to show the authority which the
latter had very early attained.
But a question may be virtually settled without all the
explanation having been given which is necessary to our
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 339
satisfaction, and to a full understanding of the subject. After
all that has appeared, the inquiry may still recur, What, then,
were those apocryphal and Gnostic gospels about which so
much has been said ? To this inquiry I propose to give an
answer in the next chapter.
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE QUESTION, WHETHER THE GNOSTICS OPPOSED TO
THE FOUR GOSPELS ANT OTHER WRITTEN HISTORIES OR
HISTORY OF CHRIST S MINISTRY.
THIS question will lead us to consider all those books that
have been called apocryphal gospels which we have any reason
for supposing to have been extant during the first two cen
turies, except the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of
Marcion. We examine elsewhere the grounds for believing
that the former, as it was first used by the Hebrew Chris
tians, was the Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew,
though its text, in some or many copies, may hare afterwards
become much corrupted.* The latter was merely the Gos
pel of Luke mutilated by Marcion. f The authority of
neither of these books, therefore, could be opposed to that
of the catholic Gospels ; nor can the epithet apocryphal, with
its common associations, be properly applied to them. No
book which was not in existence till after the end of the
second century, could have been used by the Gnostics as a
basis for their opinions, or could, by any sect whatever, have
been brought into competition with the four Gospels, as an
original history of Christ s ministry. All that is necessary to
be said in direct reply to the question proposed lies within a
* See Note A., section iv.
t See Additional Note, C, in vol. iii. of the former editions of the Genu
ineness of the Gospels: " On the Gospel of Marcion."
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 341
small compass. But the subject of apocryphal gospels, as
well as that of apocryphal books in general, has been treated
in such a manner as necessarily to produce confused and
erroneous conceptions respecting them. It is a subject which
demands explanation, where argument is not needed ; and the
inquiry on which we are about to enter will, through its
incidental relations, extend much beyond the second century,
and embrace books which were not extant till long after that
period.*
* In respect to the apocryphal gospels, the modern writer, whose informa
tion is principally relied on, is Fabricius. In his " Codex Apocryphus Novi
Testamenti," he has given a full and accurate account of all the passages
relating to them which are to be found in ancient writers. I say, " a full and
accurate account;" because his work has now sustained that reputation
unquestioned for more than a century. Fabricius, however, has merely
brought together a mass of materials, without applying them to the illustra
tion of any fact whatever. He has not arranged the books which he treats
of chronologically, with reference to the period when they are first mentioned,
or when they may be supposed to have appeared. Such an arrangement
would at once show, that far the greater number deserve no consideration
from any supposable bearing on the authority of the Gospels. He has
arranged them in the alphabetical order of their titles, which tends to produce
the impression, that they all equally deserve attention.
Fabricius was followed by Jones in the first two volumes of his " New and
Full Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament "
But the principal value of Jones s work consists in its giving, in an English
dress, the information to be found in Fabricius, and in the republication of
some of the later apocryphal writings (also published by Fabricius) with
English translations. He had no clear comprehension of his own purpose in
writing; and his views and reasonings only tend to perplex the subject. He
follows Fabricius in arranging the books in the alphabetical order of their
titles.
In 1832, J. C. Thilo published the first volume of his "Codex Apocryphus
Novi Testamenti," a work commenced on an extensive plan, but of which
no other portion has appeared. The first volume contains the later apocry
phal writings, which had previously been published, with others in addition,
all apparently edited in a careful and thorough manner, with Prolegomena
and notes. It contains also the Gospel of Luke used by Marcion, as restored
by Hahn, who has made Marcion s Gospel a particular subject of study.
I shall refer to the three works which I have mentioned, by the names of
their respective authors. The copy of Fabricius which I use is of the second
342 EVIDENCES OP THE
I begin by stating the most important considerations re
specting the question proposed ; and I hope to be excused for
BO me repetition in hereafter recalling attention to them with
reference to different writings.
Of the controversy carried on by the catholic Christians
with the Valentinians and the Marcionites, we have, as has
been seen, abundant remains. The opinions and arguments
of those heretics are brought forward in order to be confuted ;
and though we may not regard them as fully and fairly
stated, yet, on the other hand, it cannot be supposed that any
striking peculiarity in their opinions, or any main topic of
their reasoning, has been passed over in silence. If they had
opposed other histories of Christ to the four Gospels, if they
had relied for the support of their systems on accounts of his
ministry different from those we now possess, we should find
frequent notices of the fact. If they and the catholic Chris
tians had been at issue on the question, which among dis
cordant histories of Christ was to be received as authentic,
this would necessarily have been the main point in contro
versy, the question to be settled before all others. We find
in the case of the Marcionites, that their confining themselves
to the use of a mutilated copy of Luke s Gospel is a circum
stance continually presented to view ; and we have particular
notices of the use which other heretics made of a few passages
relating to Christ, not found in the evangelists. The fathers
were eager to urge against the Gnostics the charges of cor
rupting and contemning the Scriptures, and of fabricating
apocryphal writings. Had there been occasion to make it,
they would not have passed over what in their view would
have been a far graver allegation, that the Gnostics pretended
to set up other histories of Christ in opposition to those re-
edition, printed in 1719, in three parts. That of Jones is of the Oxford edition,
printed in 1798.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 343
ceived by the great body of Christians. Such a fact, from its
very nature, neither would nor could have remained unno
ticed. Ample evidence of it must have come down to
us ; an> I, if no evidence is to be found, we may conclude
without hesitation, that the Gnostics made no pretence to
having more authentic histories of Christ than the Gospels.
What, then, is the state of the case ? I answer, in the
first place, that Irenaeus and Tertullian were the two prin
cipal writers against the Gnostics, and from their works it
does not appeal- that the Valentinians, the Marcionites, or
any other Gnostic sect, adduced, in support of their opinions,
a single narrative relating to the public ministry of Christ,
besides what is found in the Gospels. It does not appear
that they ascribed to him a single sentence of any imaginable
importance, which the evangelists have not transmitted. It
does not appear that any sect appealed to the authority of any
history of his public ministry, besides the Gospels, except
so far as the Marcionites, in their use of an imperfect copy
of St. Luke s Gospel, may be regarded as forming a verbal
exception to this remark. The question, then, which we
have proposed for consideration, would seem to be settled.
The Gnostics did not oppose any other history of Christ
to the catholic Gospels. Had they done so, it is altogether
incredible that the fact should not have been conspicuous
throughout the controversial writings of Irenaeus and Tertul
lian.
But what, then, were those ancient books which have been
called " apocryphal gospels " ? I answer, that, with the ex
ception of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Marcion,
and a narrative which Tatian formed out of the four evange
lists, it is not probable that any one of them was a professed
history of Christ s ministry. The main evidence of this fact
will appear from a particular examination of the accounts which
have been given of them. But it may be here observed, that
the name " gospel," signifying in its primary meaning " a
344 EVIDENCES OF THE
joyful message," "glad news," was given as a title to the
works of the evangelists, because they contained an account
of the joyful message which Christ gave from heaven to
men. It but indirectly denoted their character as histories
of his ministry. The name " gospel " has ever been used to
signify the whole scheme of Christianity ; and a book, con
taining the views of its writer concerning this system, or the
views ascribed by him to a particular apostle, might hence be
entitled his gospel, or denominated by him the gospel of that
apostle. There was a book in common use among the
Manichaeans, called a gospel, which, as Cyril of Jerusalem
expressly mentions, contained no account of the actions of
Christ.* In later times, in the latter part of the seventeenth
century, a book was published by Dr. Arthur Bury, which
he entitled " The Naked Gospel." Another work appeared
about the same time in Germany, which was called " The
Eternal Gospel ; " and another with the same title was pro
duced in the thirteenth century.f It is not improbable, like
wise, that the fathers may have used the term " gospel " in
the same way in which it has been used by controvertists
in modern times, when they have charged their opponents
with teaching " another gospel." There is a French book
entitled " The New Gospel of Cardinal Pallavicini, revealed
by him in his History of the Council of Trent ; " J Scioppius,
in one of his letters, talks of " the fifth gospel of Luther ; "
and the Jesuit Rene Rapin published against the Jansenists a
work which he called " The Gospel of the Jansenists." ||
Thus in ancient times the charge of teaching a new gospel
might occasion the title " gospel " to be given to some book
by which it was not assumed ; or even lead to the false
* It is ascribed by him to Scythianus as its author. Catachesis, vi. 13,
p. 92.
t Fabricius, i. 337*, 338. J Ibid., i. 339, note.
La Roche s Memoirs of Literature, vol. ii. p. 252.
|| Fabricius, i. 339, note.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 345
supposition, that there was some book which bore that title,
or to which it might be applied, when no such book existed.
Among what have been called the Gnostic gospels, we find,
as I have formerly mentioned, one under the name of " The
Gospel of Eve," probably used by the Ophians, which pro
fessed to contain that wisdom which Eve learned from the
Serpent. This gospel, therefore, was not a history of the
ministry of Christ* Nor can we reasonably suppose that
this character was ascribed to another, said to be in use
among the Cainites, called " The Gospel of Judas," meaning
Judas Iscariot.f Epiphanius mentions a book as in use
among Gnostics, which he says was named " The Gospel of
Perfection." $ Its title, and the brief account which he
gives of it, imply that it was not an historical book, if indeed^
any such book existed. These remarks are merely prelimi
nary. As we proceed, I trust it will appear that there is no
ground for believing that any work which may properly be
called a Gnostic gospel was a professed history of Christ s min
istry, or that any history of his ministry was in circulation
during the second century, among either the catholic Chris
tians or the Gnostics, besides the cathplic Gospels, and books,
like those of Marcion and Tatian, founded upon one or all of
them.
With this understanding of what might be meant by the
title " gospel," let us next inquire what we may find respect
ing Gnostic or apocryphal gospels in Irenaeus and Tertul-
lian.
Tertullian often mentions the mutilated copy of Luke s
Gospel used by the Marcionites. But this, as I have said,
should not be spoken of as an apocryphal gospel. He no-
* See p. 279, seqq. t Irenaeus, lib. i. c. 31, 1, p. 112.
t Hares, xxvi. 2, p. 83.
346 EVIDENCES OP THE
where, throughout his writings, ascribes to the Gnostics the
ase of any proper Gnostic gospel, in any sense of the term
" gospel." He nowhere speaks of any apocryphal gospel
whatever, or intimates a knowledge of the existence of such
a book. The conclusion is unavoidable. Either he did not
know of the existence of any such book, or, if he did, he re
garded it as too obscure and unimportant to deserve notice.
But neither could have been the case in respect to any book
which the Gnostics brought into competition with the Gos
pels.
Once, and once only, Irenaeus speaks of what he calls a
u gospel," as used by the Valentinians, in addition to the four
Gospels. He thus expresses himself concerning it: "The
followers of Valentinus, throwing aside all fear, and bringing
forward their own compositions, boast that they have more
gospels than there are. For they have proceeded to such
boldness as to entitle a book not long since written by them
< The True Gospel/ [verbally The Gospel of the Truth,"]
a book which agrees in no respect with the Gospels of the
apostles, so that not even the Gospel can exist among them
without blasphemy. For if that which is brought forward
by them be the true Gospel, but differ at the same time from
those Gospels which have been handed down to us by the
apostles (those who wish may learn in what manner from the
writings themselves), then it is evident that the Gospel
handed down by the apostles is not the true Gospel." *
The author of the Addition to Tertullian, probably copy-
* " Si enim quod ab iis profertur veritatis est Evangelium, dissimile est
autem hoc illis [sc. Evangeliis] quae ab Apostolis nobis tradita sunt; (qui
volunt possunt discere quemadmodum ex ipsis scripturis;) ostenditur jam
non esse id quod ab Apostolis traditum est veritatis Evangelium." Lib. ili.
c. 11, 9, p. 192. This difficult passage may, perhaps, be thus arranged with
a change of pointing, a parenthesis, and the printing of scripturis without an
initial capital. But no difference of arrangement or translation is important
aa regards the present subject.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 347
lug Irenocus, says, "Valentinus likewise has his gospel
besides ours." * By Valentinus is here, I presume, meant the
Valentinians ; sects being not unfrequently by the fathers thus
designated from their leaders. These are the only notices to
be found of the Valentinians, as a sect, having used any
other book called a gospel besides the canonical Gospels.
It is evident from the passage of Irenaeus, as well as from
much other equally unequivocal testimony, that the Valentin
ians received the four Gospels in common use. The charge
against them is, that they had more gospels than the catholic
Christians, that is, one more. This additional gospel, there
fore, could have contained no history of Christ s ministry at
variance with that in the four Gospels, which they also admit
ted. But (if such a gospel existed) there is no probability
that it was an historical book of any sort. It was a gospel, we
may reasonably presume, of the kind before described, contain
ing an account of what its author believed to be the doctrines
of the Gospel. If it had been a history presenting any addi
tions to the narratives of the evangelists, adopted by the
Valentinians to support their opinions, they would have
quoted it for this purpose ; and of the additional accounts,
and of the arguments founded upon them, we should have had
abundant notices in the writings of their opponents, and in
the fragments still extant of their own. But there are no
such notices whatever.
Such is the state of the case, if the Valentinians really had
among them a book with the title supposed. But, though
the account of Irenaeus, so far as it relates to the existence of
the book, may be correct, there is reason for doubting it alto
gether. If he has fallen into a mistake, it is one that may
easily be explained. The Valentinians, we may suppose, pro
fessed that they alone had " the true Gospel," meaning that
they alone held the true doctrines of the Gospel ; and some
* De Prescript. Haretic., c. 49 p. 222.
348 EVIDENCES OF THE
of their opponents misunderstood them as meaning that they
possessed a book with that title. Had they really, as Ire-
nasus says, boasted of possessing such a gospel, it must have
been an important book in reference to the exposition of their
doctrines. But, as I have said, it is nowhere referred to
by Irenaeus himself, except in the passage just quoted. It is
mentioned by no subsequent writer except the author of the
Addition to Tertullian, who probably took his notice of it
from Irenaeus. Tertullian himself, who was well acquainted
with the works of Irenseus, affords proof, by his silence con
cerning it in his writings against the Valentin ians, that he
was not aware of its existence, or regarded it as not worth
notice. It follows, therefore, either that Irenaeus was in
error in supposing that there was such a book, or that he
was in error in supposing that the Valentinians, generally,
attached any importance to it.
Irenaeus gives one other title (before mentioned), purport
ing to be that of an apocryphal gospel which he supposed
to be in existence, and to be called " The Gospel of Judas,"
that is, of Judas Iscariot. He represents it as having been
used by the Cainites. According to him, these heretics were
distinguished by their abominable immorality, by their de
grading the character of the Creator, and by their celebrating
such personages in the Old Testament as Cain, Esau, Korah,
and the Sodomites. They regarded them as allied to them
selves by the possession of the same spiritual nature, and as
having been, on account of this nature, persecuted by the
Creator. They apparently considered Cain as the head of
the spiritual among men. He was from " the higher power "
(a superior e principalitate). The truth, on these subjects,
they said, was known to Judas alone ; and in consequence of
this knowledge, " he performed the mystery of delivering up
his master ; and thus through Judas all things earthly and
heavenly [all the works of the Creator] were dissolved.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 349
And they produce," adds Irenaeus, "a fabrication to this
effect, calling it < The Gospel of Judas. " * The account of
Irenasus is repeated by Epiphanius and Theodoret.
If there were such a book as Irenaeus names, there is no
ground for believing it to have been a fabricated history of
Christ s ministry. But it is highly improbable that any sect
or any book existed, such as Irenaeus describes. It is a
moral absurdity to suppose that there was a Christian sect
which held such doctrines, and were guilty of such vices, as
he imputes to the Cainites; that there were Christians
avowing Cain to be their spiritual head, claiming alliance
with the Sodomites, and taking Judas for their religious
teacher. Nor would there be much less absurdity in imagin
ing that any pseudo- Christian Gnostics exposed themselves
in this barefaced manner to infamy and detestation ; that they
claimed to be on a level with the worst characters in the Old
and New Testaments, and avowed doctrines at once so mon
strous, and so intimately connected with Judaism and Chris
tianity. Without supposing the existence of any such sect, it
is not difficult to explain the origin of the stories concerning
it, in connection with the origin of the name. We have good
reason to think that the name " Nicola itans " was derived
from passages in the New Testament; and especially from
two in the Apocalypse, in which it is applied to those who,
having professed themselves Christians, indulged in licen-
tiousness.f That of " Cainites," we may suppose, was de
rived from a passage (formerly quoted) in the Epistle of
Jude, in which certain individuals are thus spoken of:
u Woe for them ! for they have walked in the way of Cain,
and given themselves up to deceive, like Balaam, for pay,
and brought destruction on themselves through rebellion, like
Korah." $ The name was applied to those otherwise called
* Cont. Hares., lib. i. c. 31, pp. 112, 113. t See pp. 252, 253.
t Jude, ver. 11. See p. 252.
350 EVIDENCES OP THE
JSicolai tans, as we are informed by Tertullian in the only
passage in which he mentions it.* But there was probably
still another occasion of its use. The theosophic Gnostics
considered Seth as the representative and head of the spir
itual among men, and, in consequence, appear to have some
times given themselves the name of Sethians.f But the
assumption of this name might naturally provoke the more
angry among their opponents to apply the opposite name of
Cainites to those Gnostics, at least, whom they regarded as
guilty of gross vices. The name being given, a system of
doctrines corresponding to it would be easily fabricated, out
of exaggerations, misconceptions, and false reports ; and one
may find little difficulty in supposing that the assertion, that
those to whom it was applied were traitors to Christ, teaching
not his gospel, but the gospel of Judas Iscariot, gave occasion
to the notion that they had a book with that title. If there
were no sect holding the doctrines imputed to the Cainites,
there was no gospel in existence conformed to those doc
trines. Should it, however, still be thought that there may
have been such a book, it is to be recollected that it must
have been a book not used by Christians, of no authority,
and, as appears from the little attention it received, of no
notoriety.
Such is all the information concerning Gnostic or apocry
phal gospels afforded by the two principal writers against the
Gnostics. Tertullian, throughout his works, mentions no
such gospel. Irenasus gives two titles supposed by him to
belong to such books. But it is very improbable that there
was any such book as " The Gospel of Judas." The exist
ence of " The True Gospel," also, is doubtful. But, if there
* Tertullian, after referring to the Nicolaltans mentioned in the Apoca
lypse, says: "Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaltae; Calana haeresis dicitur." De
Prescript. Haeretic., c. 33, p. 214.
f See p. 174, note; and p. 288.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 351
were a book bearing that title, we cannot reasonably suppose
it to have been a history of Christ s ministry at variance with
the four Gospels.
The Valentinians and Marcionites were the two principal
sects of the Gnostics, and probably comprehended far the
greater part of their number. Excepting the story of Ire-
naeus concerning " The True Gospel," there is no charge
against either sect, that they appealed to apocryphal gospels ;
unless that name be given to Marcion s defective copy of
Luke s Gospel. Next to those two sects, the Basil idians
appear, for some reason or other, to have been regarded
as the most important ; and we will now attend to what is
said of their use of an apocryphal gospel.
Of any work called a " gospel," different from the four
Gospels, which was in use among the Basilidians, there is no
mention in Irenaeus or in Clement of Alexandria, who are
the principal sources of all the information concerning them
to which any credit can be attached. Nor is such a work
mentioned by Epiphanius, who in general brought together
all that he could find, true or false, to the prejudice of the
heretics; nor by Eusebius, among the apocryphal writings
which he enumerates ; nor by Theodoret, who compiled his
accounts of the heretics from many earlier authors. Such
a book is first named by the author of the Homilies on Luke,
which have been ascribed to Origen. That writer speaks of
it in a passage in which he gives the titles, real or supposed,
of various apocryphal gospels, to be hereafter noticed. He is
commenting on the words with which Luke begins his Gos
pel, " Since many have undertaken to arrange a narrative
of the events accomplished among us." He regards the term
" undertaken " as perhaps implying a censure on the works
referred to by Luke. The four evangelists, he says, did not
" undertake ; " they wrote under the impulse of the Holy
352 EVIDENCES OP THE
Spirit. But others (since their day) had " undertaken," and
among them " Basilides," he says, " had the boldness to write
a * Gospel according to Basilides. " * The whole passage,
with this notice of a gospel ascribed to Basilides, was imitated
by Ambrose t and Jerome $ toward the end of the fourth
century.
Such is the evidence that a gospel was written by Basilides.
It consists in the assertion of an unknown writer, who must
have lived more than a century after the death of Basilides,
and the repetition of this assertion by two other writers, more
than two centuries after that event. This evidence is of no
weight to counterbalance the great improbability, that such
a gospel should not have been taken notice of by the earlier
opponents of Basilides, nor by any writer of a later age who
has professed to give an account of his doctrines and sect.
The fathers were very ready to charge the heretics with using
books of no authority, apocryphal books. Why should we
not have heard as much of a gospel written by Basilides,
as of the defective Gospel of Luke used by the Marcionites ?
The notion that Basilides wrote a gospel probably arose
from the fact, that he wrote a commentary on the Gospels.
In this he of course explained his views of Christianity ; and
these views, or the book in which they were contained, might
be called his gospel. Agrippa Castor, who, according to
Eusebius, was a contemporary of Basilides, and whose " most
able confutation " Eusebius says was extant in his time,
apparently knew nothing of any " Gospel of Basilides," but
did mention that he "wrote twenty-four books on the Gos
pel," meaning by that term the four Gospels. From the
twenty-third book of this Commentary Clement of Alexandria
quotes several passages in connection. The Commentary of
* Homil. i. in Lucam. Origen, Opp. iii. 933.
1 Expositio Evang. Lucae, lib. i. Opp. i. 1265, ed. Benedict.
J Comment, in Matth. Proem., Opp. torn. iv. pars i. p. 2.
Stromat., iv. 12, pp. 599, 600.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 353
Basilides is one among the decisive proofs of the respect in
which the Gospels were held by the theosophic Gnostics.
If the account of the author of the Homilies on Luke were
founded on the existence of any work, this Commentary, in
all probability, was the work, which, having heard of it and
not having seen it, he called " The Gospel of Basilides."
But, were there another book bearing that title, it could not
have been a history of Christ s ministry at variance with our
present Gospels. Of such a book we should have had far
other information than an incidental mention of its title first
made more than a century after the death of its author.
In what precedes, we have seen the whole amount of infor
mation concerning apocryphal gospels, the use of which is
attributed to either of the three principal Gnostic sects. This
information consists of two stories, one concerning " The True
Gospel," an4 the other concerning " The Gospel of Basilides."
It is doubtful, as we have seen, whether any books existed
bearing those titles ; but, did such books exist, they must have
been works of no celebrity, not current among the Gnostics,
and not regarded by them as of authority. No writer pro
duces an example of their drawing an argument from either
of them, or of their appealing to them for any purpose what
ever.
We have seen, likewise, that, of the two principal writers
against the Gnostics, Tertullian makes no mention of apocry
phal gospels ; and we have considered what is the amount of
evidence which Irenaeus affords of their existence and use.
Next to Irenaeus and Tertullian, their contemporary, Clem
ent of Alexandria, is our most important authority concern
ing the Gnostics. He was a man of extensive information, a
wide reader, quoting from a great variety of authors, and
acquainted with the writings of the principal theosophic
Gnostics, whose words he often cites. From him, therefore,
23
854 EVIDENCES OF THE
if from any one, we should expect authentic notices of apocry
phal gospels ; and, accordingly, we do find mention of one
such book, which, there is no doubt, really existed. It was
called " The Gospel according to the Egyptians." *
This book has, in modern times, been particularly remarked.
It has been thought by many to have been a history of Christ s
ministry, used by the Gnostics ; and some have even imagined
that it was one of those gospels referred to by Luke in tho
introduction to his own.* The facts concerning it are these.
Clement, in reasoning against those heretics who denied the
lawfulness of marriage, gives the following passage, as adduced
by them in support of their doctrine. " When Salome asked
the Lord, i How long death should have power, he replied,
* As long as you women bear children. " f This, Clement
asserts, is only a declaration that death is the natural conse
quence of birth. Considering the passage, therefore, as hav
ing no force to prove the point for which it was adduced,
namely, our Lord s disapproval of marriage, he does not
remark upon the question of its authenticity, nor mention in
this place from what book it was taken. But a few pages
after he says, " But those who, through their specious conti
nence, oppose themselves to the creation of God, cite what
was uttered to Salome, of which I have before taken notice.
The words are found, as I suppose, in the Gospel according
to the Egyptians. For they affirm that our Saviour himself
said, I have come to destroy the works of the female ; by
the female meaning lust, by the works generation and
corruption." $
Clement explains the words ascribed to Jesus in a different
sense from that in which they were understood by those
against whom he wrote. It is unnecessary to give his re
marks. Toward the conclusion of them he asks,
* The opinions of modern authors respecting it are collected by Jones, i.
201, seqq.
t Stromat, iii. 6, p 532. J Ibid., 9, pp. 539, 540.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 355
" But do not those who prefer any thing to walking by that
gospel rule which is according to the truth, also allege what
follows of the conversation with Salome? For, upon her
saying, * I have done well in not bearing children, as if there
were something improper in it, the Lord replied, Eat of
every herb, but of that which is bitter eat not ; by which
words he signifies that celibacy or marriage is a matter within
our own choice, neither being enforced by any prohibition of
the other." *
I proceed to the last passage whim ne quotes. He is
here arguing particularly against a writer named Julius
Cassian.
" Cassian [in defending his doctrine respecting celibacy]
says, Upon Salome s asking when those things should be
known concerning which she inquired, the Lord answered,
When ye shall tread under foot the garment of your shame,
and when the two become one, and the male with the female
neither male nor female. " f
By the garments of shame, that is, the garments of skin,
which, according to the story in Genesis, God made for Adam
and Eve, Cassian, in common with other ancient allegorists,
understood human bodies, the flesh, the seat of corruption.
The body was the garment of shame which he believed was
to be trodden under foot. $
Part of the words ascribed to Christ in the passage last
quoted are likewise given as a " saying of the Lord," without
reference to any book, in a spurious work called the " Second
Epistle of Clement," of Rome.
The words in the passage first quoted || occur in the Doc-
* Stromat,, iii. 9, p. 541. t Ibid., 13, p. 553.
J See the context of the passage in Clement, p. 564, and Beausobre, His-
toire du Maniche"isme, torn. ii. pp. 135, 136.
The words are found at the end of the fragment of this epistle which
remains.
11 See before, p. 354.
356 EVIDENCES OF THE
trina Orientalis,* as follows: "When the Saviour said to
Salome, Death shall continue as long as women bear chil
dren, he did not mean to blame the generation of children."
The Gnostic writer, who here quotes the words, rejected, J ke
Clement of Alexandria, the use made of them by the ascetics.
He supposed them to have a mystical meaning, referring to
Achamoth.
The title of " The Gospel according to the Egyptians " is
mentioned by the author of the Homilies on Luke, in the
passage before referred to, and after him by three writers who
have imitated that passage ; namely, Jerome, Titus Bostrensis,
and Theophylactt
Epiphanius, in his article on the Sabellians, after saying
that they make use of all the writings both of the Old and
of the New Testament, selecting passages to their purpose,
adds, " But their whole error, and the main support of their
error, they derive from certain apocryphal books, particularly
that called The Egyptian Gospel, a name which some have
given it. For in that there are many things to their purpose,
of an obscure, mystical character, which are ascribed to the
Saviour; as if he himself had made known to his disciples
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were the same
person." $
An improbable story, resting solely on the testimony of
Epiphanius, is not entitled to credit ; and this story about the
Sabellians is altogether improbable. Epiphanius does not
seem to have known even the proper title of the book which
he charges them with using. He says that it was called
" The Egyptian Gospel ; " the other writers who mention it
give it the title of " The Gospel according to the Egyptians."
I have quoted all the fragments, and, I believe, mentioned
* 67, p. 985. f Fabricius, i. 335*, note,
t Haeres., Ixii. 2, Opp. i. 613, 514.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 357
all the notices of this apocryphal gospel which have come
down to us. One unaccustomed to such studies might be sur
prised to see the hypotheses and assertions that have been
founded upon them in modern times. What in fact appears
is, that it was an anonymous book, extant in the second cen
tury, and probably written in Egypt, in the dark and mystical
style that prevailed in that country. In judging of its noto
riety and importance, we must compare the few writers who
recognize its existence with the far greater number to whom
it was unknown, or who were not led by any circumstance to
mention it. It was a book of which we should have been
ignorant, but for a few incidental notices afforded by writers,
none of whom give evidence of having seen it.* Neither
Clement, nor any other writer, speaks of it as a Gnostic gos
pel. It does not appear that it had any particular credit or
currency among the generality of the Gnostics. Some asce
tics of their number, in maintaining the obligation of celibacy,
argued from a passage found in it, as they did undoubtedly
from passages found in the four Gospels ; but other Gnostics,
as we have seen from the Doctrina Orientalis, rejected their
interpretation. The Gnostics did not appeal to it in support
of their more distinguishing and fundamental doctrines ; for,
had they done so, we should have been fully informed of the
fact.
As this is the first apocryphal gospel the former existence
of which we have clearly ascertained, the question arises,
whether it were or were not a history of Christ s ministry
* That it had not been seen by Clement of Alexandria, from whom our
principal information concerning it is derived, appears from his turns of
expression in remarking on the quotations from it: "The words are found,
as I suppose (olfiai\ in the Gospel according to the Egyptians;" " They
affirm, that the Saviour himself said;" and where, in appealing to a pas
sage in the conversation with Salome, as justifying his own views, he refers
to it as quoted by those whom he is opposing, and not as otherwise known to
him, thus, " Do they not also allege what follows? " See Jones, i. 206.
358 EVIDENCES OF THE
The only aigument of any weight for believing it to have
been so is, that it contained a narrative of a pretended con
versation of Christ with Salome. But if it were not an his
torical, but a doctrinal, book, there is no difficulty in supposing
that the writer might find occasion to insert in it a traditional
account of a discourse of Christ. A few such traditional ac
counts of sayings of our Lord are found in other writers of
the first three centuries.* As regards the words ascribed to
him in the conversation with Salome, it is evident that the
tradition concerning them was false. Our Saviour never
expressed himself as he is reported to have done in the pas
sages that have been quoted. The writer had an erroneous
conception of his character. But if the book had been an
historical gospel, this conception would have pervaded it, and
would have been prominent in many other particular passages.
A history of Christ s ministry, so foreign in its character from
the Gospels as this must have been, could not have existed
in the last half of the second century, whether it were a com
position of an early age, or a fiction of later times, without
having been an object of far greater attention than that which
this book received. Especially, had it been brought forward
by any sect in opposition to the Gospels, it would have been
a primary subject of discussion. But we have seen that the
book in question was little regarded or known. It could not,
therefore, have been a history of Christ s ministry.
This is the only apocryphal gospel, unless the Gospel
according to the Hebrews be regarded as apocryphal, the title
of which is mentioned by Clement. According to his present
text, he quotes one other without giving its title. But there
are good reasons for believing that his text, as it stands, is
corrupt, and that there was originally no mention in it of a
gospel.f
* See pp. 130, 131. Fabricius, i. 321*, Beqq. Jones, i. 405, seqq.
t Clement (Stromat., v. 10, p. 684) is treating of the hidden wisdom on
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 359
If this be so, then, with the exception just mentioned of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, supposing that this ex
ception should be made, the Gospel according to the Egyptians
is the only apocryphal book, bearing the title of a gospel, that
is mentioned by any writer during the three centuries suc
ceeding our Lord s death, from which a single quotation is
professedly given, or of which it is probable that a single
fragment remains.
As I have said, the title of no other apocryphal gospel,
used by any Gentile Christians, is mentioned by Clement.
But it is desirable to give the fullest information on the sub
ject which we are examining ; for, as I have before remarked,
which he so much insists. He professes to quote a passage from a prophet,
apparently intending Isaiah, though nothing very like it is found in his
writings, or elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is this : " Who shall under
stand the parable of the Lord [Jehovah], but the wise and understanding,
and he who loves his Lord?" Clement then, as his text now stands, goes
on thus : " For it is in the power of few to understand these things. For the
Lord, though not unwilling to communicate, the prophet says [or, the Scrip
ture says], declared in a certain gospel, My secret is for me and the sons
of my house. " "Ov jap Qdovtiv, (f>rjal, irapTjyyeLhsv 6 KvpiOf zv TIVI
eiayythiu" K. T. A. I suppose the words u in a certain gospel" to be an
interpolation. The passage quoted corresponds to what is found in some
copies of the Septuagint at Isa. xxiv. 16. (See the note on the passage in
Potter s edition of Clement, where, in the first line, " cap. 2 " is a misprint
for "cap. 24.") The verb <prjai, sat/s, must have for its subject, either the
prophet mentioned immediately before, or the Scripture (the ellipsis supposed
in the last case being not uncommon). But Clement cannot be imagined to
have made so incongruous an assertion as that " The prophet says," or
" The Scripture says," " that the Lord [Christ] declared in a certain gospel."
That he considered himself as borrowing the words, " My secret is for me
and my children," not from a certain gospel, but from Isaiah, appears also
from the circumstance, that, a few lines after them, he gives a quotation from
Isaiah, introducing it with the words, "The prophet says again " (llahv 6
Trpo^r^f .) I suppose, therefore, that the words " in a certain gospel " were
originally a marginal gloss made by a transcriber, who attributed to Christ
the declaration quoted by Clement, and who, knowing that it was not found
in the four Gospels, thought it must be in some gospel or other. (See Jones,
i. 422. seqq. )
360 EVIDENCES OF THE
it is a subject that requires elucidation rather than argument.
I will therefore advert to another work, which he quotes
under the name of "The Traditions," and which has been
imagined to be the same with an apocryphal gospel called
"The Gospel according to Matthias." He speaks of the
Traditions in the following passages :
" To attain wisdom we must begin with wondering at things,
as Plato says in his Theastetus ; and Matthias, in the Tra
ditions, thus concludes, Wonder at present things ; making
this the first step of our progress in knowledge." *
In arguing against the licentiousness of the Carpocratians,
he adduces another passage, thus :
" It is said, likewise, that Matthias also thus taught : We
must contend against the flesh and humble it, granting it no
intemperate pleasure, but promote the growth of the soul
through faith and knowledge. " f
He again quotes a passage ascribed to Matthias, for the
purpose, as before, of confirming his own doctrine: "It is
said in the Traditions, that Matthias, the apostle, often re
peated, * that, if the neighbor of one of the elect sin, he him
self has sinned ; for, if he had conducted himself as Reason
(the Logos) dictates, his neighbor would have so reverenced
his course of life as not to sin. " $ The language is too un
limited, but the morality is good.
In what is supposed to be a Latin translation of a portion
of a lost work of Clement, called " Hypotyposes," or Institu
tions, there is another strange passage quoted from the Tra
ditions, as agreeing with the conceptions of the writer.
Clement, if he be the writer, is commenting on the first
words of the First Epistle of John, which to render as he
understood them are these: "What was from the begin
ning, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have heard,
* Stromat., ii. 9, pp. 452, 453. f Ibid., iii. 4, p. 523.
J Ibid., vii. 13, p. 882.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 361
and our hands have touched, concerning the Logos of life."
He maintains (conformably to what Photius says* was a
heresy affirmed by Clement in the work just mentioned), that
the Logos who was from the beginning is to be distinguished
from the Logos who became incarnate. The latter consisted
of those powers of the former which proceeded from him as
" a ray from the sun ; " and " this ray, coming in the flesh,
became an object of touch to the disciples." "Thus," he
says, " it is related in the Traditions, that John, touching
his external body, plunged his hand in, the hardness of the
flesh offering no resistance to it, but giving way to the hand
of the disciple. Hence it is that John affirms, Our hands
have touched concerning the Logos of life ; f that which
came in the flesh being made an object of touch." $ Such
traditions strikingly illustrate what would have been the state
of the history of Jesus in the latter half of the second century,
had it not been for the early existence and authoritative char
acter of the Gospels.
There is no reason to suppose that the book called " The
Traditions " was in favor with any Gnostics. Clement does
not represent it as having been cited by any heretical writer.
On the contrary, he himself quotes it as confirming his own
opinions. He does not entitle it " The Traditions of Mat
thias," as it has been called in modern times, but simply " The
Traditions." The former title has been given it, because, in
the three passages quoted by Clement in his Stromata, the
name of Matthias occurs ; and this title having been given it,
the book has been fancied by some to be the same with an
apocryphal gospel called " The Gospel according to Mat
thias."
Of this book, nothing but the title remains. It is first
* Photii Bibliotheca, col. 285, ed. Schotti.
t " Propter quod et infert, Et manus nostrce contrectaverunt de verfa rite."
t Apud dementis Fragmenta, Opp. p. 1009.
362 EVIDENCES OF THE
mentioned by the author of the Homilies on Luke ; after him,
by his imitators, Ambrose and Jerome, and also by Eusebius.
Possibly the notion that there was such a book may have
arisen from the fact mentioned by Clement,* that the Gnostics
boasted that their opinions were favored by Matthias, or, in
other words, that they taught the Gospel as it was understood
by Matthias, the Gospel according to Matthias. Had they
possessed a book with that title known to Clement, it seems
likely that he would have spoken of it, when thus taking
notice of their claim to the countenance of Matthias. Con
sidering the tendency of the fathers to charge the heretics
with using books of no authority, the bare titles of supposed
apocryphal and heretical works given by the author of the
Homilies on Luke, and by writers after the end of the third
century, deserve little consideration.
Before the time of Origen, no writer besides Irenaeus
and Clement mentions any apocryphal gospel, real or sup
posed, except Serapion, as quoted by Eusebius. Serapion,
who was bishop of Antioch about the close of the second
century, wrote, concerning a gospel called " The Gospel ac
cording to Peter," a tract, of which Eusebius gives the follow
ing account.f
" Another tract was composed by Serapion concerning the
Gospel according to Peter, so called, the object of which was
to confute the errors contained in it, on account of some in
the church at Rhossus who had been led by this book to
adopt heterodox opinions. From this it may be worth while
to quote a few words in which he expresses his opinion con
cerning it. We, brethren/ he writes, acknowledge the au
thority both of Peter and the other apostles, as we do that of
.Christ; but we reject, with good reason, the writings which
falsely bear their names, well knowing that such have not
* See before, p. 328. f Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. c. 12.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 363
been handed down to us. T, indeed, when I was with you,
supposed that you were all going on in a right faith ; and, not
reading through the gospel under the name of Peter which
was produced by them [those who were pleased with it], I
said, If this is all that troubles you, let the book be read.
But having since learnt from what has been told me, that
their minds had fallen into some heresy, I hasten to be with
you again, brethren, so that you may expect me shortly
Now we, brethren, know that a like heresy was held by
Marcion, who also contradicted himself, not comprehending
what he said, as you may learn from what has been written
to you.* For we have been able to procure this gospel from
others who use it, that is, from his followers, who are called
Docetce (for the greater part of the opinions in question be
long to their system), and, having gone through it, we have
found it for the most part conformable to the true doctrine of
the Saviour ; but there are some things exceptionable, which
we subjoin for your information. "
We may conclude, from this account, that the Gospel of
Peter was not a history of Christ s ministry. Serapion would
not have regarded with such indifference as he first manifested
a history of our Lord, ascribed to the apostle Peter, which he
had not before seen. Were it genuine, it must have been to
him, as to any one else, an object of great interest. But the
supposition of its genuineness is too extravagant to require
discussion. Nor can we suppose it to have been an original
* As this sentence is unimportant, and as I believe the present text to be
corrupt, I have ventured to render it as perhaps it should be amended. It
now stands thus: H/zeif 6e, afietyol, K(iTakai3d[j,VOi 6-noia^ rjv aipeaeu^ 6
Map/ciavdf, Kal eavrw TJVO.VTIOVTO, pr] vouv u eAa/lei, a (jLaOrjazaQe ef tjv V[MI>
typdtyr]. Edw^pv yap Trap uA^uv, K. T. A. I would read the first words
as follows: HjUCif (5e, adeAtyoi, KaTfhafioftev on 6[ioia fyv alpeaewc 6 Mup/ctwv,
OC Kal EaVTU) fjVaVTlOVTO, K. T. /I.
There is also some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the next
sentence ; but, fortunately, this uncertainty does not extend to any thing
important in the paragraph
364 EVIDENCES OF THE
history (that is to say, not a compilation from any one or
more of the four Gospels), which, though not the work of
Peter, was yet entitled to credit. For it is impossible that
the existence of such a history should not have been notori
ous ; that it should not have been a frequent subject of re
mark ; that it should have been unknown to Serapion, himself
a bishop and a controversial writer; or, even if previously
unknown, that it should not at once have excited his atten
tion. Nor can it have been a history founded upon one or
more of the four Gospels, with certain additions favoring the
opinions of the Docetae. When we recollect the abundant
notices of Marcion s gospel, which was only a mutilated copy
of Luke s, it cannot be believed that there was another his
torical book extant among Marcion s followers, of a similar
character (except that it contained some obnoxious additions),
of which the notices are so scanty, and which is never men
tioned as an historical book. There is still another supposi
tion, that it was a history undeserving of credit, a history
containing many fabulous accounts. But this is inconsistent
with the manner in which Serapion mentions it; for he
speaks of it with but slight censure, commending the general
ity of its contents ; as no catholic writer of his time would
have spoken of such a professed history of Christ s ministry
as we hav6 last imagined.
The Gospel according to Peter, then, was not an historical
book ; and this appears, not merely from what has been said,
but from the fact, that neither Serapion nor Eusebius gives
any intimation that it bore that character. Serapion s trea
tise was in the hands of Eusebius, as it probably had been in
those of many before him. It treated of the errors in the
book ; it was written to refute them ; and, had these errors
consisted in false narratives concerning Christ, there is no
reasonable doubt that plenary evidence of the fact would have
existed, both in the writings of Serapion and Eusebius, and
in those of other fathers. It appears that it was used by the
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 366
Gnostics, and, had it been a professed history of Christ s min
istry used by them, we should certainly have had much more
full information concerning it. The supposition that it was
not an historical book, and this alone, it may be further ob
served, agrees with the manner in which 8erapion describes
it, as " for the most part conformable to the true doctrine "
(not the true history) " of the Saviour, but containing some
things exceptionable."
The book, it may be added, was not of any importance or
notoriety. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, in his time the prin
cipal see in the East, was, as we have seen, unacquainted with
it, till his attention was called to it by some Christians of his
diocese, as favoring heretical doctrines. We may conclude,
therefore, that it was unknown to a great majority of Chris
tians, his contemporaries. Besides the notice of it by him,
we find the following passage in Origen : " Some say that
the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Joseph by a wife to
whom he was married before Mary, relying upon the tradi
tion in the Gospel according to Peter or the book of James." *
It is also referred to by Eusebius and Jerome, who mention
it as an apocryphal work falsely ascribed to Peter. Eusebius
especially enumerates it among those books which were
brought forward by the heretics under the names of apostles ;
such as no writer of the Church had thought worth commem
orating, they being altogether devoid of good sense and piety.
No fragment of it remains, and these are all the notices of it
found in the first four centuries.
We now come to Origen. It is doubtful whether the
Homilies on Luke, which have been so often mentioned in
this chapter, are to be referred to him as their author, f If
they are not, there is no passage in all Origen s works in
* Comment, in Matth., torn, x., Opp. iii. 462, 463.
t See the Preface to the third volume of De U Rue s edition of Origen.
368 EVIDENCES OF THE
which he speaks of an apocryphal gospel as used by any
Gentile Christians, catholic or heretical, besides that relating
to the Gospel of Peter which has just been quoted. Of the
book of James, mentioned in connection with it, I shall speak
hereafter.
I have remarked on three titles of apocryphal gospels men
tioned by the author of the Homilies on Luke. There is one
other, "The Gospel according to Thomas," to which likewise
I shall advert hereafter.
Besides those writers whom I have quoted, there is none
who speaks of apocryphal gospels before Eusebius, in the first
half of the fourth century. He enumerates among heretical
books, " altogether absurd and irreligious," three of those
already mentioned, namely, the gospels of Peter, Thomas,
and Matthias,* but gives no further information concerning
them, and adds no new title to the list.
I have brought down the inquiry respecting apocryphal
gospels to a much later period than was necessary. No one
will suppose that a book of which there is no mention before
the fourth century could have served the Gnostics as a basis
for their doctrines. If any book appeared after the com
mencement of the fourth century, pretending to be an origi
nal history of Christ s ministry, of which we have no
proof, and which, in the nature of things, is altogether im
probable, no one will imagine that it was entitled to
regard. Of any book of an early age, purporting to give an
account of his ministry different from that contained in the
four Gospels, it is a moral impossibility that we should not
have received full and unequivocal information from writers
before the time of Eusebius.
* Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 25.
GKNUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 367
There is no reason, as I conceive, to suppose that the apoo-
ryphal gospels which have been mentioned, or the other
apocryphal books extant during the first three centuries,
were commonly written with the fraudulent design of fur
nishing the pretended authority of Jesus or his apostles in
support of false doctrines or spurious history ; or that, when
they bore the name of an apostle, it was intended that they
should be ascribed to him as his proper work. The
author of such a book may have put his own opinions into
the mouth of an apostle by a common rhetorical artifice, as
Plato in his dialogues introduces Socrates and Timaius as
teaching his doctrines ; or as if one, at the present day, were
to publish a work, calling it " The Gospel- as taught by (ac
cording to) St. Paul," or "The Gospel as taught by St.
James." Of this mode of writing we have a remarkable ex
ample in the Clementine Homilies, the author of which could
have intended no deception. But the whole account given in
them of the actions of Peter is a fiction, and the discourses
ascribed to him contain only the writer s own views of the
character of Christianity. According, however, to the an
cient use of language, this book might have been, and possibly
was, called " The Gospel according to Peter." Such books
might be, or it might be fancied that they were, founded on
some traditionary information respecting the teaching of an
apostle. Thus a book called " The Preaching of Peter," or
" The Preaching of Peter and Paul," was regarded both by
Clement of Alexandria and by Lactantius as a work of some
authority. Lactantius supposed it to be a record of their
preaching while together at Rome.* Clement quotes it in
the same manner as he quotes " The Traditions" before men
tioned, and the works of the Pagan philosophers, not in evi
dence of facts, but as corresponding with and confirming his
own opinions.
* Institut., lib. iv. c. 21.
368 EVIDENCES OF THE
Irenseus speaks, at we have seen, of a gospel by Judas
Iscariot. There was reported to be another under the name
of Matthias, and another under the name of Thomas; but
these titles are not mentioned before the third century. Of
the books or of the titles which have been enumerated, bear
ing the names of apostles, there is besides only the Gospel of
Peter, which became known to Serapion about the close of the
second century. But it is altogether incredible that any Gen
tile Christian in the second century should have engaged in
so hopeless and foolish an attempt, as to endeavor to pass off
a composition of his own as a gospel written by an apostle,
a gospel which had never before been heard of. Nor is it
much more likely that any Gentile Christian, without ascrib
ing his work to an apostle, would, after the destruction of
Jerusalem, have pretended to give an original history ot
Christ s ministry, at variance with the four Gospels. As we
have already seen, there is no evidence that any such work
existed.
The subject of the apocryphal gospels has, as it was natural
it should, attracted much attention. It is a subject which de
served to be thoroughly examined. But the unavoidable
consequence of the manner in which it has been treated has
been to produce a very false impression of their importance.
They were obscure writings, very little regarded or known
by any Christians, catholic or heretical. We find in Justin
Martyr and Tertullian nothing concerning them ; in Irenceus,
two titles, one purporting to be that of a book, which most
probably was not extant, and the other likewise perhaps
originating in mistake, but supposed to belong to a Valen-
tinian gospel, which there is no evidence that the Valentinians
ever appealed to. Clement gives some extracts from a gospel
which he found quoted by the Encratites or ascetics. Serapion
mentions the Gospel of Peter, as in the hands of persons be
longing to a parish in his diocese, called Rhossus, and as used
by some of the Docetae. Origen once refers to the same book.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 369
And the author of the Homilies on Luke adds three other
titles of books of which he gives no account.* These are al
the notices of apocryphal gospels to be found in all the writers
of Christian antiquity before the end of the third century.
Had they been works of any notoriety, works possessing any
intrinsic or accidental importance, we should have had page
after page of controversy, discussion, and explanation con
cerning them.
About the beginning of the last century, a manuscript was
made known of a gospel ascribed to Barnabas, in the Italian
language, but supposed to be translated from the Arabic. It
is the work of a Mahometan, or a work interpolated by a
Mahometan. Much more has been written by different
authors about this book| than all that is to be found in the
Christian writers of the first three centuries concerning apoc
ryphal gospels. Yet it is a book of which, probably, few of
my readers have ever heard ; and of which he who has known
any thing may have forgotten what he knew. It is easy to
* I have not adverted in the text to one title mentioned by the author
of the Homilies; namely, " The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles; "
because, as we learn from Jerome (Advers. Pelagianos, lib. iii. Opp. torn. iv.
pars ii. col. 533), this was only a name which was sometimes given to the
Gospel of the Hebrews. It may naturally have had its origin in the cir
cumstance that the Hebrew Christians affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew,
which alone they used, contained the Gospel as taught by the apostles, or, in
other words, was the Gospel according to the apostles. But there is some
thing more to be observed. The title given is not simply, " The Gospel
according to the Apostles," but " The Gospel according to the Twelve Apos
tles." The Hebrew Christians, generally, did not recognize the apostleship
of St. Paul, but regarded him as a false teacher. They revolted at his
doctrine of the abolition of their Law, and of their peculiar national distinc
tions. Hence they may have called their gospel the Gospel according to the
Twelve Apostles, of whose number he was not, in order to imply that it was
from the twelve apostles, and not from him, the preacher to the Gentiles, that
the true doctrines of the Gospel were to be learned.
t See Fabricius, iii. 373, seqq. ; Jones, i. 162, seqq.; Sale s Translation
of the Koran (ed. 1825), in his Preliminary Discourse, p. 102, and in his
Notes, vol. i. pp. 61, 170; and the works referred to by the authors men
tioned.
24
370 EVIDENCES OF THE
apply this fact to assist ourselves in judging of the importance
to be attached to the notices of apocryphal gospels found in
the fathers.
It may seem as if, in reference to our present inquiry, any
further discussion of the subject must be useless ; and it would
be so, but for the misapprehensions which have existed con
cerning it. There are some fabulous books still extant, which,
thus standing as it were in the foreground, are more likely, at
first view, to be taken for true representatives of ancient apoc
ryphal gospels, than those titles and fragments, appearing in
the remote distance, with which alone we are in fact con
cerned. These books have, in modern times, been called
" Gospels of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary," and " Gospels
of the Infancy," that is, of the infancy of Jesus. They have,
likewise, directly or indirectly, been brought into competition
with the four Gospels. But whatever tends to weaken the
exclusive authority of the catholic Gospels, or to confound
them in the same class with fabulous writings, opens the way
for a vague conjecture that there may have been in early times
other histories of the ministry of Christ at variance with those
Gospels, and entitled to as much or more credit. We will,
therefore, go on to take notice of the works referred to.
In the quotation that I have given from Origen,* besides
the mention of the Gospel of Peter, there is mention, likewise.
of a book of James. About the middle of the sixteenth cen
tury, the celebrated visionary Postel brought to the notice of
European scholars a work written in Greek, a manuscript
of which he found in the East. It is a book of about a quarter
of the size of the Gospel of Mark. He entitled it "The
Protevangelion (that is, the First Gospel) of St. James the
Less ; " t the pretended events which it relates being sup-
* See before, p. 365.
* The work has been republished by Fabricius, Jones, and Thilo.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 371
posed by him to have occurred prior to those recorded by St.
Mark, to whose Gospel he fancied it intended for an intro
duction. But a number of manuscripts of it are now known,
and the title Protevangelion is not supported by their au
thority.* The author, in the conclusion of the work, gives
his name as James. It is a collection of legendary fables
principally concerning the nativity of the Virgin Mary, her
history and that of Joseph, and the nativity of Jesus. The
nativity of the Virgin is represented to have been miraculous,
like that of Samuel, and to have been announced by an angel.
Some things are interwoven from the first two chapters
ascribed to Matthew, and from the account of our Saviour s
birth given by Luke. There are two coincidences of its
narrative with what is found in ancient authors, which
deserve notice. The first relates to the passage of Origen
just referred to.
Origen says, that, conformably to the book of James, the
individuals called in the Gospels the brothers f of Jesus were
children of Joseph by a former wife. In the Protevangelion,
Mary is represented as having been dedicated by her parents
as a virgin to the service of God in the Temple, but at the
age of twelve years as having been removed thence by the
priests, and committed in trust to Joseph, with the purpose
of her becoming his wife. Before receiving her, he is repre
sented as saying, "I am an old man and have children." J
* Its title is given with much diversity in different manuscripts ; but in
all its variations expresses that the subject of the work is a History of the
Nativity of Mary. In what is supposed to be the oldest manuscript it
runs thus : " A Narration and History how the superholy Mother of God
(ij VKepayia Georo/cof) was born." (Thilo, p. liii.) But the book is not
confined to a mere account of the nativity of Mary: it extends (as appears
above) to the history of her life.
t The word in the original, udetyoi, should be rendered kinsmen, accord-
ing to a common use of it. It does not in the passage -in question denote
brothers, in the limited sense of the English word.
$ Protevangelion, c. 9.
372 EVIDENCES OF THE
The story, that Joseph, when he married Mary, was an old
man with children by a former wife, is found in many writers
after the middle of the fourth century.
One of the fables in this book is, that Mary, after child
birth, remained in all respects as a virgin.* The story is
referred to and countenanced by Clement of Alexandria, t
Tertullian, on the contrary, in contending against those
Gnostics who asserted that the body of Christ was not a body
of flesh and blood, and that it was in no part derived from
his mother, insists on his proper birth, and incidentally repre
sents it as in all respects like that of others, t It is not,
however, to be inferred that the Gnostics maintained the
opinion just mentioned ; for, on the one hand, the Marcion-
ites denied altogether the nativity of Christ ; and, on the
other, that opinion was not necessarily connected with the
doctrine of the theosophic Gnostics, who ascribed to Christ
a body, though not a human body. But, with a strange
approximation to the Gnostic denial of the proper body of
Christ, it has become the established faith of the Roman
Catholic Church. It was made an article of orthodox belief
by the Lateran Council, held under Pope Martin the First,
in the year 649.
Unless Origen, under the name of the book of James,
* Protevangelion, cc. 19, 20. f Stromat., vii. 16, pp. 889, 890.
J In his tract De Came Christi.
"II convient toutefois qu il est de la foi catholique, que Marie est
dcmeure e Vierge apres 1 enfantement comme devant." (Fleury, Hist.
Eccle"s. An. 847.) In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pars i. art. 3,
n. 13) it is said, " Praeterea, quo nihil admirabilius dici omnino, aut cogitari
potest, nascitur [Christus] ex matre sine ulla maternae virginitatis diminu-
tione, et quo modo postea ex sepulcro clauso et obsignato egressus est, atque
ad discipulos clausis januis introivit: vel, ne a rebus etiam, quae a natura
quotidie fieri videmus, discedatur, quo modo solis radii concretam vitri sub-
stantiam penetrant, neque frangunt tamen, aut aliqua ex parte laedunt;
simili, inquam, et altiori modo Jesus Christus ex materno alvo, sine ullo
inaternae virginitatis detrimento, editus est, ipsius enim incorruptam virgini
talem verissimis laudibus celebrainus."
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 373
refers to some work like the Protevangelion, that is, to some
pretended history of the mother of our Lord, which may
have served for the foundation of that now extant, there is
no mention of any such work before the latter half of the
fourth century. In the fourth and fifth centuries, it seems
probable that there was more than one narrative of this kind
in existence ; but that these narratives were generally re
garded as fabulous and worthless.* During the ages of
darkness that followed, the legends concerning the Virgin
found favor, in common with other fables which overspread
ecclesiastical and profane history. They have entered into
the established mythology of the Roman Catholic Church,
and have furnished conceptions for its great masters in the
art of painting. But the particular book we are considering,
the Protevangelion, never obtained such credit in the West
as in the East. In the West, its existence had become un
known before it was brought to light by Postel. In the
East, it seems probable that it was at one period read in some
churches on certain holydays, in the same manner as the le
gends of Saints were read on their festivals. f The oldest man
uscript of it now known is referred to the tenth century. J
The fables respecting the nativity and history of Mary, like
those which went to the compilation of other apocryphal
writings, being destitute of all authority, were recast in differ
ent forms by different hands. They are extant, with much
diversity from the Protevangelion, in a work found in two
Latin manuscripts, one of the fourteenth and the other of the
fifteenth century, in which they are connected at the end
with a few stories of miracles performed by our Lord in his
infancy. || In Latin, also, there is another work, shorter and
* Thilo, p. lx. seqq.; p. xci. seqq: conf. Epiphanius, Haeres., xxiv. 12,
p. 94.
t Thilo, pp. lix., lx. J Ibid., p. liii. Ibid., p. cviii.
|| The work is published by Thilo under the title of " Historia de Nativi-
tate Mariae et de Infantia Salvatoris "
374 EVIDENCES OF THE
less extravagant than those which have been mentioned, re
lating to the birth and history of Mary, of which the modern
title is "The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary."* Of this
the pretended Hebrew original was ascribed to the Apostle
Matthew, and the translation to Jerome. The fiction by
which Jerome is represented as its translator shows that its
composition must have been later than the fourth century.
We proceed to the Books of the Infancy. As I have men
tioned, the author of the Homilies on Luke gives the title of
a Gospel according to Thomas ; and the same title is found in
subsequent writers.f We may conjecture it to have been
one of those professed expositions of Christianity which were
called "gospels." Nor is there any thing in the ancient
writers who mention it to countenance a different supposition.
But there is now extant in Greek a collection of fables con
cerning the infancy and childhood of Jesus, which is not, in
the manuscripts of it, entitled " a gospel," but the writer of
which announces himself as Thomas an Israelite. $ This
book has been thought to be essentially the same with the
gospel mentioned by the author of the Homilies, and to have
been in existence in the second century. But of such books,
more or less resembling one another, there are a number ex
tant, which have passed in modern times under the name of
" Gospels of the Infancy."
One of this number (much larger than the book ascribed to
Thomas in its present state) is written in Arabic. It was
published with a Latin translation in the year 1697, by
Henry Sike, Professor of the Oriental Languages in the Uni
versity of Cambridge. With this the name of Thomas is not
* It may be found in Fabricius, Jones, and Thilo.
t See Fabricius, i. 131, seqq.; Thilo, Ixxix. seqq.
J A fragment the first part of this book may be found in Fabricius
and Jones. The whole, as now extant, is given by Thilo.
The Latin version has been republished by Fabricius and Jones ; and
the original with the version, by Thilo.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 375
connected. It consists of stories of pretended miracles, which
accompanied the birth and infancy of our Saviour, and which
he himself performed when a child. There is some fancy in
these fictions. They have a tinge of Eastern invention, but
are essentially of the same character as the common legends
of the Middle Ages. The relater sometimes refers to facts in
the Gospels, and connects his story with them. Thus he
gives a narrative concerning two robbers, whom he represents
as the same afterwards crucified with Jesus.* These and simi
lar fables became popular in the East, particularly among the
followers of Mahomet. Two of them appear in the Koran,f
and others have been current among Mahometan writers. $
The compilation in Greek that bears the name of Thomas
has a general correspondence with the last half of the preced
ing. Omitting those pretended miracles which accompanied
the nativity and infancy of Jesus, it begins with those per
formed in his childhood. Of these, about half the stories
in one work correspond to those in the other, though the
order in which they are arranged is not the same, and they
are often differently told. Both works imply a very low
state of intellect and morals in those by whom and for whom
they were written. In some of the fictions, Jesus, as a child,
is represented as violent and cruel, so that his father, Joseph,
is introduced as saying, " From this time we will not suffer
him to go out of the house ; for whoever makes him angry is
killed." The notions of the writer of either book seem in
this respect to have been derived from the use of power by an
Oriental despot.
Cap. 23.
t One is of Christ s speaking while in his cradle (Arabic Gospel of the
Infancy, c. 1), which he did according to the Koran (chap. 3, vol. i. p. 58,
and chap. 19, vol. ii. p. 145). The other is of his making birds of clay, to
Which he gave life (Arabic Gospel, cc. 36, 46), which is referred to in tt
Kjran (chap. 3, vol. i. p. 59, and chap. 5, vol. i. p. 139).
J See Sike s notes (republished by Thilo).
Arabic Gospel, c. 49. Gospel of Thomas, c. 14.
876 EVIDENCES OF THE
A similar collection of fables appears to be, or to have
been, extant in different languages of the East.* Several
manuscript collections of them are extant in Latin, more or
less diverse from one another, and from the Arabic and the
Greek compilation. One only of these is known to bear the
name of Thomas. The author s name is otherwise given as
Matthew the Evangelist, or James the son of Joseph (to
whom the Protevangelion is ascribed) ; and in one copy the
pretended authors are Onesimus and John the Evangelist.f
In regard to these fables respecting the infancy and child
hood of Jesus, we find an early notice of one of them in
Irenaeus. He is giving an account of a sect, the Marco-
sians, who believed, like the Jewish Cabalists, that there
were profound mysteries hidden in the letters of the alpha
bet. After speaking of their perversion of the Scriptures,
Irenasus says,
** Moreover, they bring forward an unspeakable number of
apocryphal and spurious writings, which they have fabricated, to
confound the simple, and such as are ignorant of those writings
which contain the truth. To this end, they also adopt that fiction
concerning our Lord, that, when he was a child, and learning the
alphabet, his master, as usual, told him to say Alpha (A) ; and
that, upon his repeating Alpha, when his master next told him to
say Beta (B), the Lord replied, * Do you first tell me what Alpha
is, and then I will tell you what Beta is. And this they explain
as showing that he alone knew the mystery, which he revealed, in
the letter Alpha." J
We may first incidentally remark on this passage, that the
many apocryphal books fabricated by the Marcosians could
have had but a short-lived existence, and were but of little
note; since no one of them is specified by name in any
writer ; nor does Irenams, in his long article on the sect, nor
* Thilo, p. xxxii. seqq. t Ibid., p. cv. seqq.
J Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 20, p. 91.
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 877
any other writer, refer elsewhere to any use which the Mar-
cosians made of them. It may next be observed, that the
passage is remarkable, as affording one of the only two exam
ples which are reported by the writers during the three
centuries succeeding the death of our Lord, of an argument
for a Gnostic doctrine, founded on a narrative concerning
him not related in the Gospels.* But that this narrative was
already incorporated into a collection of like stories does not
appear from Irena3us. His words, on the contrary, rather
imply that it was not. " In addition," he says, to their apoc
ryphal books, for this is the force of his language, "they
adopt for the same purpose that fiction," a well-known fiction,
as is implied, " concerning the Lord."
This fiction has become the foundation of two different
stories in the Arabic compilation,! and of three in the Greek, J
in the former our Saviour being represented as having had
two successive schoolmasters, and in the latter, three ; and, as
might be expected from its antiquity, none of the fables of
the same class appears to have been more widely circulated.
* The other example which I refer to is the use, before mentioned (see
p. 354, seqq.), which was made by the Encratites of a passage in the Gospel
of the Egyptians.
I" Cc. 48, 49. J Cc. 6, 7, 8, 14, 15.
"As to the life of Jesus Christ," says Chardin, "the Persian legends
contain not only what is in the Gospels, but likewise all the tales found in
the legends of the Eastern Christians, and particularly in an Annenian
legend, entitled VEvangile Enfant* which is nothing but a tissue of fabulous
miracles; such, for example, as that Jesus, seeing Joseph much troubled at
having cut a board of cedar too short, said to him, Why are you so troubled ?
Give me one end of the board and pull the other, and it will grow longer.
Another story is, that, being sent to school to learn the alphabet, his master
directed him to pronounce A. He paused, and said to his master, Tell me,
first, why the first letter of the alphabet is formed as it is. Upon this, his
master treating him as a talkative little child, he answered, I will not say
A, till you tell me why the first letter is made as it is. But his inustrr
growing angry, he said to him, I will instruct j ou, then. The first letter
* The title is so rendered by Chardia.
378 EVIDENCES OF THE
During a long interval after Irenaeus, we hear nothing
more of fables respecting the infancy and childhood of Christ.
There is nothing necessarily miraculous in the supposed fact
related in the story which he quotes : on the contrary, none
but the Marcosians, or those who entertained like notions
with them of the mysterious significance of the letters of the
alphabet, could have inferred from it any supernatural knowl
edge in the infant Jesus. , Epiphanius is the first writer who
distinctly refers to stories of fabulous miracles performed by
Jesus in his childhood; and these stories he does not alto
gether reject. The miracle at the marriage feast at Cana, he
says, was the first performed by Jesus, "except, perhaps,
those which he is reported to have performed in his youth, in
play as it were, according to what some say." * After him,
Chrysostom expresses his opinion, that the miracle of Cana
was the first performed by our Saviour, and rejects, as wholly
undeserving of credit, the fables concerning miracles per
formed by him in his childhood.f
As regards the book now extant, of which the author calls
himself Thomas, it could not have been that referred to by
the author of the Homilies on Luke, and subsequently by some
other ancient writers, under the name of the Gospel of
Thomas ; for it is evidently a composition of the Middle Ages.
All, it would seem, that can be meant by those modern
of the alphabet is formed of three perpendicular lines on a horizontal line
(the Armenian A is thus formed, very like an inverted m) to teach us that
the Beginning of all things is one Essence in three persons. " Voyages en
Perse, torn. ii. pp. 269, 270, ed. 4to, 1735.
The difference between the Armenian version of the story of the alpha
bet and that given by the Marcosians shows the changes to which fables of
this sort were exposed. Two stories, different from each other, but both
corresponding essential!} to the marvel of lengthening the cedar board, are
found, one in the Arabic Gospel (c. 39), and the other in the Gospel of
Thomas (c. 13).
* Hajres., li. 20, Opp. i. 442.
f Homil. in Joannem, xx. col. 132, ed. 1697. Homil. xvi. col. 108.
Homil. xxii. col. 124.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 379
writers who have regarded the two books as the same, is,
that the one anciently called the Gospel of Thomas served as
a basis for the present compilation of fables. But the present
book bears so thoroughly, in its matter and style, the charac
ter of an age far later than that in which the Gospel of
Thomas is first mentioned, that, should we attempt to sep
arate this character from it, we should find that nothing
would be left. Besides, of those different compilations of
fables that have been mentioned, only one set professes to have
been written by an author called Thomas ; and no copy which
bears his name assumes to be called a gospel. The supposi
tion, that the ancient Gospel of Thomas was so remarkable a
book, as one containing a collection of stories respecting our
Lord s childhood must have been regarded during the first
three centuries, cannot be reconciled with the facts, that we
are not informed of its contents by any ancient writer ; that
it is not quoted under that name by any ancient writer ;
that those who mention the fables do not speak of the Gospel
of Thomas, and that those who mention the Gospel of Thom
as do not speak of the fables.*
* There is another book that has been reckoned among apocryphal
writings, "The Gospel of Nicodemus," so called, of which, when the
first edition of this work was published, it did not seem to me that there was
occasion to give an account in relation to the argument before us, or that
there would be any propriety in doing so incidentally. But I have remarked
that one of the most noted modern champions of infidelity (Strauss), in
treating of the death of our Lord, and elsewhere, often quotes it, and com
pares its statements with those of the evangelists ; as he has also quoted, in
like manner, the Protevangelion of James, the History of the Nativity of
Mary (see before, p. 374), and the Gospels of the Infancy.
The Gospel of Nicodemus is equally fabulous with the books just men
tioned. The Greek original has been published, from a collation of different
copies, with elaborate notes, by Thilo. A Latin translation, which differs
from it in many particulars, may be found in Fabricius and Jones. The
copies of this book, like those of others of the same class, vary much from
one another.
According to the Greek text, a person who announces himself as Ananias,
a Jew, says, that, in the reign of Theodosius (his blunders in chronology
380 EVIDENCES OF THE
But, it may be asked, were the fables contained in the
Protevangelion and the Books of the Infancy ever really
believed? The question falls into the same wide class with
are such as to leave it uncertain whether he meant the first or second emperor
of that name), he had discovered this book; that it was written originally
in Hebrew by Nicodemus, and that he had translated it into Greek.
The book which follows this proem consists, first, of an account of the
trial of our Lord before Pilate, founded on the relations of the evangelists.
It is swelled by a narrative of the appearance before Pilate of many who had
been the subjects or witnesses of his miracles, miracles recorded in the
Gospels, who are introduced as testifying in his favor. Then, after an ac
count of his death and burial, follows a marvellous story respecting Joseph
of Arimathea, who is represented as having been persecuted by the Jews on
account of the honor paid by him to the body of Jesus, and to have been
delivered from confinement by Jesus immediately after his own resurrection ;
and narratives of individuals supposed to have witnessed the ascension of
our Lord, and to have testified to this fact before the Jewish Sanhedrim.
Here it seems probable that the book originally ended ; but, in some manu
scripts, a conclusion is found, which consists of an account of our Lord s
descent to Hades, and of his carrying away thence the souls of the just who
had died before his time. It is given in the form of a deposition before the
Sanhedrim of two of the dead, who were present in Hades upon the occasion ;
which deposition they themselves committed to writing, and gave into the
hands of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. This concluding legend
appears to have been the immediate source of those conceptions respecting
our Lord s descent to Hell, or the " Harrowing of Hell," as it was called in
old English literature, which were common in the latter part of the Middle
Such is the Gospel of Nicodemus. It is not named by any Greek or
Latin father; nor is there any clear proof of its existence till a very late
period. (See the Testimonia et Censures collected by Fabricius, i. 214-237,
and the Prolegomena of Thilo.) There would be no greater want of good
sense in quoting a miracle-play of the Middle Ages for the purpose of con
fronting its representations with those of the evangelists, than what appears
in quoting for this end the Gospel of Nicodemus; or, it may be added, in
thus quoting the Protevangelion of James, the History of the Nativity, and
the Gospels of the Infancy.
But as this book has been mentioned, it may be well to enter into some
further explanation respecting it. There has been, as I conceive, a great
confusion of ideas concerning it, arising from the error of giving it the addi
tional name of " The Acts of Pilate." This error appears to have had its
origin from two passages in the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours,
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.
many others, to all which a common answer is to be given.
Were the legends with which the whole history of Christen
dom was swarming from the fourth century to the fifteenth
written in the latter part of the sixth century. In the first of these passages
(lib. i. cap. 21), Gregory makes a very brief mention of the imprisonment of
Joseph of Arimathea by the chief-priests (the story before referred to), which
he says was related in the Acts of Pilate ( Gesta Pilati), sent by him to the
Emperor Tiberius; and in the second (ibid., c. 24) he mentions these Acts
again, as containing information, given by Pilate to the emperor, of the
miracles, death, and passion of Jesus, and as being still extant. The cir
cumstance, that, in the first passage, he has referred to the persecution of
Joseph of Arimathea, which is related in the Gospel of Nicodemus, has led
to the belief that this work is, or was originally, the same book with the Acts
of Pilate. But the argument would in no case avail to prove this identity,
since the author of the Gospel of Nicodemus may, equally with Gregory,
have derived the story, directly or indirectly, from some book which bore
that title, fl; may even be that Gregory himself furnished him with tho
germ of his fable.
Here two questions arise : What was the original meaning of that title,
" The Acts of Pilate " ? and how must it be understood in relation to the
subject before us ?
The accounts which the Roman provincial governors were accustomed to
send to the emperor of their own doings, and of remarkable events in their
respective provinces, were sometimes called Acts (Ada in Latin, or, as
written in Greek letters, *Ara). There can be little doubt that Pilate did
send home such an account relating to Jesus. Rumors concerning him must
have reached Rome; and his reputed miracles and claims, and the circum
stances connected with his history and death, were not matters to be passi-d
over in silence in the reports of a procurator who was under the eye of
Tiberius.
Accordingly, Justin and Tertullian, in their Apologies, refer briefly in gen
eral terms to the account of Pilate, which Justin calls his Acts, as confirm
ing their statements respecting the miracles and death of Jesus. But it is
not probable that either of them had seen an authentic copy of those Acts,
or that such copies were ever in circulation. They either spoke from private
information, direct or indirect, or perhaps inferred, from the nature of the
case, that the account given by Pilate must tend to confirm their own.
In the beginning of the fourth century, according to the relation of Euse-
bius (Hist. Eccles., lib. ix. c. 5: conf. lib. i. cc. 9, 11), during the persecu
tion under Maximin, pretended Acts of Pilate, full of calumnies against our
Lord, were fabricated and zealously circulated.
Afterward, as we learn from Epiphanius (Hseres., 1 , Opp. i. 420), th-re
were extant among Christians, in the fourth century, other spurious Acts 3f
382 EVIDENCES OF THE
really believed ? How was it with the mythology and marvels
of Greek and Roman Paganism, interwoven as they were
with the religious sentiments and rites and daily usages of
Pilate, which were appealed to by certain heretics, in proof that our Lord
suffered on the eighth of the Calends of April, the anniversary of which day
they commemorated. Epiphanius says (but whether truly or not may be a
question) that he had seen copies of those Acts giving a different date. The
author of a Homily ascribed to Chrysostom (Chrysostomi Opp. v. 942, ed.
Savil.) says that the day of our Lord s death was known, from the Acts of
Pilate, to be the eighth of the Calends of April. The same date is also
found in the Gospel of Nicodemus.
This is the sum of all the information concerning any real or pretended
Acts of Pilate furnished by all the writers before Gregory of Tours.
No one can be supposed to imagine, that the Gospel of Nicodemus is
either the authentic Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin and Tertullian. or
those spurious Acts which were put into circulation during the persecution
under Maximin. It follows, that those who believe the Gospel to be the
same book with the Acts must believe it to be the Acts of which Epiphanius
speaks, of the contents of which we know nothing, except that they specified
a particular day as that of our Lord s death.
But this belief must be entertained in opposition to the clear and decisive
evidence furnished by the book itself.
The Greek Gospel published by Thilo begins with a statement that the
Hebrew original was found and translated into Greek in the seventeenth
year of Theodosius, the first or second of that name. At the end of the
Latin version edited by Fabricius, Theodosius the Great is said to have
discovered it in the Prsetorium of Pilate at Jerusalem, which extraordinary
story shows that the times of Theodosius must have been to the author of
this version a fabulous age. No copy of the work assigns an earlier date
for its discovery.
But no one will credit the fable of the Hebrew original of the book. The
Greek text is the original ; and this, it appears, claims for itself no higher
antiquity than the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth.
It is probably of much later date. But, on its own showing, it could not
have been the book quoted, as Epiphanius reports, under the name of " The
Acts of Pilate," by heretics in the fourth century.
The character of the Gospel of Nicodemus is such as to render the sup
position utterly incredible, that any one could have put it forth under the
name of" The Acts of Pilate; " that title being understood, as it undoubtedly
was during the first four centuries, to denote an official account of his doings
concerning Jesus sent by Pilate to the emperor. It has nothing of the
nature or form of an official communication. It is a legendary fable. There
is no inscription to Tiberius, nor any address to him throughout the book.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 383
tfee most enlightened nations of antiquity ? Had the Egyp
tians a true fhith that a particular bull was their god Apis ?
Did they believe in the divinity of the Crocodile and the
Ibis ? What was their state of mind in respect to their other
gods, quaJia demens ^Egyptus portenta colebat, with all
the strange and disgusting histories attached to them ? How
has it been with the Hindus, one of the few nations out of
the European family which have approached to European
intelligence ? Have they believed or not the enormous fables
that even a healthy imagination shrinks from which are
reported as true in their sacred books ? How much of the
history of human opinions on all the higher subjects of
thought is a history of human errors, often of errors the
most repulsive to reason, yet widely prevailing, and obsti
nately maintained from century to century ! Have riot those
errors been believed ?
The general answer to be given to these questions em
braces the particular reply to the inquiry by which they
were suggested, respecting the fables of the Protevangelion
and of the Books of the Infancy. Throughout the history of
mankind, we find, as regards both facts and doctrines, the
broadest exhibitions of credulity, which, if the delusion have
Nor is it pretended in the book itself that Pilate was its author. Ac
cording to its own statement, it was composed by Nicodemus. In the Greek
copies, there is no mention of Pilate as haring any thing to do with it.
Nor does it appear, that the title, Acts of Pilate," wns given it in any manu
script, Greek or Latin. In an addition made in Latin copies (Thilo, p. 788),
it is said, that Pilate, having been informed by Joseph of Arimathea and
Nicodemus of all that passed in the Jewish Sanhedrim, "wrote all which
had been done and said by the Jews concerning Jesus (omnia quce rjesta tt
dicta sunt de Jesu a Judceis), and put all the words in the public books of his
Praetorium." This story, and the words "omnia quse gest(i," may perhaps
have countenanced the error of calling it the Acts of Pilate ( Gesta Pilati).
But the only title which could with any plausibility be derived from the
passage would be " Acts of the Jews " ( Gesta Judceorum), meaning, in a sense
of the word Gesta familiar in the Middle Ages, "Deeds (or Doings) of the
Jews. Note to Second Edition, 1847.
384 EVIDENCES OF THE
passed away, or if we are out of the sphere of its influence,
we can hardly help regarding as monstrous and unnatural, till
we recollect how prevalent they have been, and consequently
how consistent with our common nature. There are other
avenues, more trodden than the narrow way of reason, by
which opinions enter the mind. What impresses the imagi
nation, affects the feelings, and is blended with habitual asso
ciations, is received by the generality as true. Fables
however absurd, conceptions however irrational, even un
meaning forms of words, which have been early presented to
the mind, and with which it has been long conversant, make
as vivid an impression upon it as realities, and assume their
character. No opinions inhere more strongly than those
about which the reason is not exercised ; for they are unas
sailable by argument. It would be well to have different
words to distinguish between the two different states of
mind, in the one of which we receive conceptions as true
without reasoning, while in the other our assent is given
through an exercise of judgment. The term to credit is now
used in one of its significations merely as synonymous with
the term to believe. We might confine the use of the former
term to denoting the first kind of assent, assent without the
exercise of the understanding ; and employ the latter only to
signify a faith that relies on reason. Using the words in
these senses, we might say that the mass of errors which
have been credited bears a vast disproportion to the amount
of truths which have been believed. Nor shall we find it
hard to conceive, nor regard it as a very extraordinary fact,
that the fables respecting the mother of our Lord and our
Lord himself have been credited, as well as the doctrine of
tran substantiation. Undoubtedly the world has grown wiser ;
or, rather, a small portion of the world has grown wiser ; and
we may hope that the light will become less troubled, stead
ier, and brighter, and spread itself more widely. Aliud ex
olio clarescet. Res accendent lumina rebus.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 385
From what has appeared in this chapter, it is evident that
the Gnostics did not oppose to the four Gospels any other
history of Christ s ministry ; or, to state the conclusion in
more general terms, it is evident, that, during the first three
centuries, no history of Christ s ministry at variance with
the. four Gospels was in existence. The history of his min
istry, such as it is contained in them, or in some one of them,
served as a common basis for the opinions of all Christians,
both catholic and heretical.
If the Gospel of the Hebrews, in its uncorrupted state,
was, as we have seen reason to believe, the Gospel of Mat
thew, then there is no probability that any work besides those
of the evangelists, professing to be an original history of our
Lord s ministry, was ever in circulation after the appearance
of the first three Gospels, somewhere, probably, about the
year 65. Luke mentions imperfect accounts which preceded
his own. But, after the appearance of the first three Gos
pels, though the copies of such accounts might not be
destroyed, they would cease to be multiplied and circulated.
We accordingly find no trace of their existence subsequent
to the notice of them by Luke.
It may seem again as if nothing further were to be said ;
but, in order to exhaust the general subject we are consider
ing, a few more remarks remain to be made concerning some
supposed gospels, formerly mentioned, which Eichhorn main
tains to have been in common use during the second century
pieviously to the use of the catholic Gospels, or even to the
existence of the latter in their present state.* I have
already had occasion to take notice of all the titles which he
enumerates, except two. These two, to which we will now
attend, are " gospels used by Tatian in composing his Dia-
tessaron," and " The Gospel of Cerinthus." f
* See pp. 61-62: comp. p. 5, seqq.
t Cerinthi Eyangelium. Eichhorn s Einleit. in das N.T., i. 107.
25
386 EVIDENCES OF THE
Tatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, and the contempo
rary of Irenseus, became an ascetic, and a Gnostic of the
Valentinian school. Respecting his Diatessaron, Theodo-
ret, as we have formerly remarked,* speaks of his having
found two hundred copies of it among the Christians of his
diocese, which he removed, and supplied their place by copies
of the Gospels. He says, "Tatian put together what is
called The Gospel out of the Four " (that is, a gospel com
posed out of the four Gospels, a Diatessaron), " cutting
away the genealogies, and all else which shows that the Lord
was born of the race of David according to the flesh. And
this book is used, not only by those of his sect, but by those
who adhere to the doctrines of the apostles ; they not know
ing the fraud in its composition, but using it, in their simpli
city, as a compendious book." f It is evident, that Theodoret,
with the book before his eyes, regarded it as a history of
Christ compiled from the four Gospels ; nor does he object
any thing to it but the omissions which he specifies. Euse-
bius gives the same account of the composition of the book
from the four Gospels ; remarking in connection, that the
Encratites (of which sect, he says, Tatian was the founder)
used the Gospels. $ But, in opposition to all testimony and
probability, it was fancied by Eichhorn that Tatian did not
use our present four Gospels, but four others very like
them, so like them, it appears, that they were mistaken
for them. There is not a sufficient show of argument in
support of this conjecture to admit of any particular confuta
tion. It may be worth while to discuss it, when the suppo
sition can be rendered plausible, that, in the time of Irenaeus,
simultaneously with our four Gospels, four other gospels
existed very like them, but not the same. ||
* See p. 32. t Hseret. Fab , lib. i. n. 20, Opp. iv. 208.
J Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. c. 29. Einleit. in das N.T., i. 110-113.
|| " Tatian s Gospel," says Eichhorn, " was called by many the Gospel of
the Hebrews; " and he asks, " Whence could this name have arisen, except
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 387
The Diatessaron of Tatian, then, is one among the abun
dant proofs which the theosophic Gnostics made of the four
Gospels, and of the authority which they ascribed to them.
We proceed to the supposed gospel of Cerinthus. Eich-
horn quotes, concerning this, two passages from Epiphanius,
who is his sole authority.
That writer, in his account of the Cerinthians, affirms that
they " used the Gospel of Matthew, not complete, however,
but in part only ; " * and, in his account of the Ebionites, he
says that Cerinthus used the same Gospel of Matthew with
the Ebionites, except that he retained the genealogy for the
purpose of proving from it that Jesus was the son of Joseph
and Mary.f
Regarding Epiphanius as a trustworthy writer, and as
being alone a sufficient representative of Christian antiquity,
Eichhorn asserts that " it is undeniable that Christian anti-
from the circumstance that that gospel served for its basis?" The only
authority for his assertion is a passage of Epiphanius.
Epiphanius, as his text now stands, says (Hseres., xlvi. 1, Opp. i. 391),
"From Tatian, those who are called Encratites derive their origin, partaking
of the same venom; and it is said that The Gospel out of the Four, which
some call The Gospel according to the Hebrews, was made by him." But
there can be no doubt that the Diatessaron of Tatian and the Gospel of the
Hebrews were very different books ; and the supposition that the Hebrew
Gospel of the Jewish Christians was written in Greek by a Gnostic, toward
the close of the second century, is too gross an absurdity for any one to have
entertained. Nor is there the least probability that the title of " The Gospel
according to the Hebrews " was ever common to the book to which it prop
erly belonged and to Tatian s Diatessaron. If the text of Epiphaniu* be
correct, his assertion can only be reckoned as one among his numberless
blunders. But it seems most probable, that his text is corrupt; and that,
instead of Kara Ei3paiav$, " according to the Hebrews," we should read
KO.TU, Eycpanraf, " according to the Encratites." This will accord with his
speaking of Tatian s Diatessaron in immediate connection with his mention
of the Encratites as deriving their origin from him. They, of course, were
likelv to rn ake particular use of his Diatessaron; and this therefore might
naturally be called by some " The Gospel according to the Encratites."
Hajres., xxviii. 5, f. 113. | Haeres., xxx. 14, p. 138.
388 EVIDENCES OP THE
quity ascribed to Cerinthus the use of Matthew s Gospel, but
with a shorter text;"* and he infers that the Gospel of
Cerinthus was an earlier gospel than that of Matthew ; that
is to say, the Gospel which we now call Matthew s in a yet
imperfect state.f
It is needless to inquire by what process this might be
inferred from the words of Epiphanius, supposing him to be
a writer of good authority. As we have formerly seen, $
he is entitled to no credit in his account of the Cerinthians.
He has manufactured a sect, to which, ascribing the doctrines
of the Ebionites, he has likewise ascribed the use of the
Gospel of the Ebionites.
But there is another passage of Epiphanius, which Eich-
horn has omitted to notice. It is in his account of the Alogi.
" Luke," he says, in the first words of his Gospel, " since
many have undertaken," that is, to write gospels, " points
to some undertakers, as Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others."
He had before told us that Cerinthus arid his followers used
the Gospel of Matthew, with some omissions. He here tells
* Einleit. in das N.T., i. 110. It may be worth while here to take notice
of what we might call an extraordinary oversight of Eichhorn, if such over
sights did not often occur in the works of the modern theologians of Ger
many. Cerinthus is represented, by all the ancient writers who pretend to
give an account of him, as teaching that Jesus was the son of Joseph and
Mary. But Eichhorn, after quoting his authority, Epiphanius, to this effect,
proceeds, a few lines after (p. 108), to observe, that, as the gospel of Cerin
thus had the genealogy of Jesus, so " it probably had also the whole evanye-
lium infantue (gospel of the infancy) which is now contained in the first two
chapters of Matthew." That is to say, Eichhorn supposes, that, though
Cerinthus rejected the belief of the miraculous conception of our Lord, he
received the account of it as authentic.
It is by conjectures which have more or less of a like character, and by
critics equally inconsiderate, that the genuineness and authenticity of the
Gospels have been assailed in modern times in Germany. Among thosa
critics, I know of none who is to be ranked higher than Eichhorn for theo
logical knowledge, clearness of mind, and power of reasoning.
t Einleit. in das N.T., i. 10. f See pp. 199, 200.
Haeres., li. 7, p. 428.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 389
as that Cerinthus wrote a gospel before Luke wrote his.
Following him, therefore, as a well-informed and credible
writer, and putting his different accounts together, we must
conclude that Cerinthus was the original composer of Mat
thew s Gospel. Reasoning after a fashion with which every
one acquainted with modern German theology must be famil
iar, we might go on to infer, as highly probable, that Merin-
thus was the author of the Gospel of Mark. But here we
should be met by a difficulty, arising from what Epiphanius
elsewhere says, that he did not know whether Cerinthus and
Merinthus were different persons, or only different names of
the same person.* But the existence of the very early
gospel of Merinthus, which, I believe, no one has yet under
taken to patronize, rests on as good ground as that of the
gospel of Cerinthus.
In pursuing the inquiry concerning the supposed existence
of Gnostic gospels, we have enabled ourselves to form a
correct judgment of the character and importance of all
those books which have been called apocryphal gospels, and
of their bearing on the genuineness and authenticity of those
four books which in ancient times were universally recognized
as the original histories of Christ s ministry, given by his
immediate followers, or those who derived their knowledge
from them. On the subject of apocryphal gospels, there
have been vague and incorrect notions, that have continued,
in one form or other, down to our time, among those who
have been disposed to invalidate the authority of the four
Gospels. They cannot, perhaps, be more clearly or more
briefly explained than in the words of the Jew Orobio, in his
celebrated controversy with Limborch respecting the truth
of Christianity. " There were," he says, " besides the four
Gospels many others, some of which are referred to by
* Ilseres., xxviii. 8, p. 115.
390 EVIDENCES OP THE
Jerome* and other fathers, which were the foundation of
different heresies. Such were the gospel to the Egyptians,
that to the Hebrews, that of Thomas, that of Bartholomew,!
that of the Twelve Apostles, $ that of Basilides, that of Har-
pocras, and others that it would be superfluous to mention,
every one of which had its adherents, and gave occasion to
dispute. All these gospels, conflicting with one another in
regard to the truth of the history, were in the course of time,
and by the authority of councils, rejected ; the four only being
admitted in Europe, as corresponding best with each other." ||
On the ground of such statements, it has been argued, in
effect, that there were originally many various accounts of
Christ s ministry, differing much from one another, so that
the truth was altogether unsettled ; and that our four Gospels,
which had no particular claim to credit, obtained general
currency, to the exclusion of other works of the same kind,
in consequence only of their finding favor with the prevalent
party among Christians, and hence being sanctioned by the
decrees of councils. Respecting this supposition, it is here
unnecessary to recur to that evidence for the universal recep
tion of the four Gospels by the great body of Christians,
which shows it to be altogether untenable. In the present
* The imperfect and erroneous view of the subject taken by Orobio is
sufficiently evident from this reference to Jerome. Books which could have
come into competition with the four Gospels must have been very conspicu
ous books long bef ore the time of Jerome.
f This title is first mentioned by Jerome in his Proem to Matthew s Gos
pel. The existence of any book answering to it is doubtful.
J This was another title for the Gospel of the Hebrews. See before,
p. 369, note.
By Harpocras must, it would seem, be meant Carpocrates; and Orobio
probably had in mind an indistinct recollection of the story of Epiphanius
(Haeres., xxx. 14, p. 138), that Carpocrates used the Gospel of Matthew,
corrupted, in common with the Ebionites. Except this title, and that of
" The Gospel of Bartholomew," the others enumerated by Orobio have been
already remarked upon.
|j The passage is quoted by Fabricius, i. 146.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 391
chapter, we have examined, or adverted to, every book, real
or supposed, passing under the name of a gospel, the title of
which is mentioned by any writer before Epiphariius. Among
them are the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of
Marcion. The existence of neither of these books can
weaken the proof of the authority and general reception of
the four Gospels. But it would be idle to suppose that any
other of those which have been mentioned was brought into
competition with the four Gospels as a different history of
Christ s ministry ; and still more idle to suppose this of any
book, the very title of which is not mentioned till after the
middle of the fourth century.*
The main purpose of our inquiry respecting the Gnostics
has been to determine whether they afford evidence for the
genuineness of the Gospels. That they do afford such evi
dence has abundantly appeared. But something remains to
be said. In the next chapter, we shall conclude with bring
ing into one view the facts already adduced, in connection
with others not yet adverted to, and attending to the relations
and bearings of the whole.
* A degree of confusion and misapprehension respecting the subject of
apocryphal gospels may have been produced by the fact, that Fabricius
gives an account of such gospels under fifty titles, which, as the same book
Bometimes passed under two or more different titles, he supposes may repre
sent about forty books (i. 335,* note). But in making this collection he has
taken a very wide range. He has included writings which have no claim to
the title of "gospel," either in the ancient or modern sense of the word; and
he has brought his catalogue down to the year 1600, mentioning a Historv
of Christ in Persian, published that year by the missionary Jerome Xavier,
for the benefit of his converts. Many of the titles collected by him rest on
no good authority. Some evidently had their origin in ignorance and mis
apprehension. With the exception of those which have been remarked upon,
they are to be found only in writers from Epiphanius downward. Their
alphabetical arrangement, however, tends, at first view, to give the impres
sion, that one deserves as much attention as another. But, of the works
mentioned by Fabricius, all that can with any reason be supposed to have
been extant before the middle of the third century have been taken notice
of in this chapter
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR 1HE GENU
INENESS OF THE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE GNOSTICS.
THE facts that have been brought forward show in what
manner the Gospels were regarded by the Gnostics. It has
appeared, that the theosophic Gnostics recognized the author
ity of the four Gospels in common with the catholic Chris
tians ; while the Gospel used by the Marcionites was essentially
the same with the Gospel of Luke. But we will now review
those facts in connection with some others which have not
yet been stated, and consider more particularly what infer
ences may be drawn from the whole. In pursuing the
subject, we will first confine our attention to the Marcion
ites.
An unjustifiable application of a principle common to all
the Gnostics * led the Marcionites to reject certain passages
from the text of Luke, and to decline any appeal to the
authority of the three remaining Gospels. But the very
principle on which they proceeded, that the apostles and
their followers were under the influence of Jewfsh prejudices,
implies that they recognized the genuineness of the passages,
and of the Gospels, which they rejected. It may be further
remarked, that their having recourse to the mutilation of
* See before, p. 332, seqq.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 393
Luke s Gospel shows that no other history of Christ s minis
try existed more favorable to their doctrines ; that in the
first half of the second century, when Marcion lived, there
was no Gnostic gospel in being, to which he could appeal.
The fact, that Marcion s gospel was founded on that of
Luke, proves the existence and authority of Luke s Gospel at
the t me when Marcion lived. We may therefore recur to
the reasoning which has before been used, to show that the
existence and authority of any one of the four Gospels at a
particular period implies the contemporaneous existence and
authority of the other three.* In proving their genuineness,
if that reasoning be correct, they may be regarded as virtually
one book. Had any other of the Gospels not existed together
with that of Luke at the commencement of the second cen
tury, or had it not then been regarded as of authority, it
never could afterward have attained to the high estimation in
which Luke s Gospel was held.
We will next attend to the broad distinction that was made
between the Marcionites and the theosophic Gnostics in con
sequence of the fact, that the Marcionites admitted, as of
authority among the Gospels, only their mutilated copy of
Luke. On this ground Irenseus, as we have seen,| declined
controverting their opinions in connection with those of the
other Gnostics ; and Tertullian, in confuting them, expressly
limited himself to the use of their own gospel. The distinc
tion was, that the Marcionites recognized only the authority
of their own gospel ; while the other Gnostics, as is thus
testified by their opponents, appealed equally with the catho
lic Christians to the authority of all the four Gospels.
This is the concession of their opponents. But we will go
on, and see what further evidence of the fact exists.
I have repeatedly had occasion to refer to the letter of
* See pp. 102-107. t P- 209
394 EVIDENCES OF THE
Ptolemy, the Valentinian, to Flora, in which he gives an
account of his doctrines respecting the Supreme Being and
the Creator. In this letter he says, that he shall prove what
he asserts " by the words of the Saviour, which only are an
infallible guide to the apprehension of the truth;" and he
accordingly confirms his positions throughout by quotations
from the Gospels. In the conclusion of the letter, he intro
duces the mention of those apostolic traditions to which the
Gnostics appealed, but speaks of them only as an additional
and subordinate means of knowledge. He promises to give
further explanations, founded " on the doctrine of the apostles
received by tradition ; every thing at the same time being
confirmed by the teaching of the Saviour, which must be
taken as the standard." Heracleon, another Valentinian, who
lived in the second century, and was highly esteemed, as we
are told, by those of his own sect, wrote a commentary on
the Gospel of John, which is often quoted by Origen. The
views of the Basilidians respecting the Gospels may be in
ferred from the fact, that Basilides himself wrote a commen
tary on the Gospels.* Tatian, who was a Gnostic, composed,
as we have seen, a Harmony of the Gospels. f And, in the
Doctrina Orientalis, the Gnostic writer appeals to the Gos
pels to countenance his opinions as freely as a catholic Chris
tian might have done, and appeals to no other history of
Christ. It is throughout to be kept in mind, that the theo-
sophic Gnostics, while they thus used the Gospels, used no
other books of the same class as of like authority ; that they
did not, any more than the catholic Christians, bring any
other history of Christ s ministry into competition with
them.
In treating of the doctrines of the theosophic Gnostics, 1
have incidentally given examples of the use made by them
* See before, pp. 352, 353. f See before, pp. 385-38T.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 395
of passages of th?, Gospels. Many more might be adduced.
But a particular enumeration of passages to which they
appealed is unnecessary, since their use of the Gospels is
fully acknowledged by their catholic opponents.
Irenams begins his work by charging them with deceiving
men by " corrupting the oracles of the Lord, being evil inter
preters of what has been well spoken." * He often remarks
on their ingenuity in perverting the Scriptures. Speaking
particularly of the Valentinians, he says, " You see the
method they use to deceive themselves, wresting the Scrip
tures, and endeavoring to find support in them for their
fictions." f He gives connectedly many passages from the
Gospels, which they applied to the proof of their doctrines,
and afterwards confutes their interpretations, t He speaks
of them as making use of every part of the Gospel of John.
I have already quoted a passage, in which he says, that those
heretics, in putting together detached passages of Scripture,
resemble one who should separate the stones of a mosaic
representing a king, and employ them to make the figure of a
fox or a dog ; || and another, in which he compares their abun
dant use of Scripture language to the labor of one stringing
together verses of Homer to form a cento. IT " There is such
assurance," he says, " concerning the Gospels, that the her
etics themselves bear testimony to them, and every one of
them endeavors to prove his doctrine from them. . . . As,
then, those who oppose us bear testimony in our favor, and
use these Gospels, it follows that what we have shown that
the Gospels teach is established and true." **
"Thsre could not be heresies," says Tertullian, "if the
Lib. i. Pracfat., 1, p. 2. f Lib. i. c. 9, 1, p. 43.
} Lib. i. cc. 8, 9, pp. 35-47. Lib. iii. c. 11, 7, p. 190.
|| Lib. i. c. 8, 1, p. 36.
Tl Lib. i. c. 9, 4, pp. 45, 46. Tertullian uses the same comparison, D
Prescript. Haretie., c. 39, p. 216.
** Lib. iii. c. 11. 7, pp. 189, 190.
396 EVIDENCES OF THE
Scriptures were incapable of being misinterpreted."* " They
could not venture to show themselves without some pre
tence from the Scriptures." | " The heretics plead their
cause from the Scriptures, and draw their arguments from
ihe Scriptures. Whence, indeed, could they draw their argu
ments concerning the subjects of faith, except from the books
of the faith ? " *
It appears, then, that the theosophic Gnostics abundantly
appealed to the Scriptures, and particularly to the Gospels, in
eiipport of their opinions. The passages I have quoted, and
others of a similar character, are not to be considered as mere
common testimony to this fact. They are the admissions of
their opponents. So far as there was any ground for it, the
catholic Christians were eager to charge the Gnostics with mu
tilating, rejecting, and undervaluing the writings of the New
Testament. In the case of the Marcionites, this accusation
was strongly urged. But, as respects the theosophic Gnos
tics, we have the testimony of the earliest and most elaborate
writers against them, of Irenneus and Tertullian, that they
made use of the Gospels, and other writings of the New
Testament, and constantly appealed to them for proof of
their doctrines, as freely as the catholic Christians.
The Marcionites made similar use of those portions of the
New Testament the authority of which they admitted. This
is abundantly apparent from Tertullian s whole controversy
with them ; and might be inferred simply from the fact, thai
they did acknowledge the authority of those portions which
they retained.
But the evidence which has been brought forward of the
facts just stated, however conclusive, is not perhaps the most
striking that may be adduced. There is a remarkable work
De Resurrectione Carnis. c. 40, p. 349. | Ibid., c. 63, p. 365.
De Prescript. Haeret, c. 14, p. 207.
GENUINENESS Of THE GOSPELS. 397
of Tertullian, entitled "De Proescriptione Haereticorum."
The word prcescriptio, used in this title, was a forensic term,
denoting an exception taken by a defendant to the plaintiff s
right to maintain an action. The title of Tertullian s work
might be rendered, "On the Plea in Bar against the Here
tics." Its purpose is to show that the heretics should not be
allowed to argue their cause from the Scriptures. The posi
tion which he maintains is, that the history of the catholic
doctrine, and of the doctrines of the heretics, alone determines
the former to be true, and the latter false, without further
inquiry. His argument proceeds as follows :
Christ, whoever he was, of whatever God he was the son,
whatever was the substance of his divine and of his human
nature, whatever faith he taught, whatever rewards he prom-
aed, declared, while on earth, what he was, what he had been,
the will of his Father, and the duty of man, either publicly to
the people, or apart to his disciples. He sent forth his
apostles, who had been chosen by him for this purpose, to
preach to the world the same doctrine which he had taught.
They founded churches in every city where they went,
from which other churches had been and were still derived.
These all traced back their origin to the apostles, and
formed one great apostolic Church, held together in brother
hood by the reception of the same religion handed down
to all.
But, if Christ gave authority to his apostles to preach his
religion, no other expositors of it are to be listened to. What
they preached is what he revealed; and, in order to ascertain
what they preached, we must recur to the churches which
they founded, and instructed orally and by their epistles
Whatever doctrine is held by those churches is true, as
derived from the apostles, and through them from Christ, and
through Christ from God. Every other doctrine is false.
But we, says Tertullian, hold communion with the apos
tolic churches; there is no difference of belief between us
898 EVIDENCES OF THE
and them ; and this is the proof of the truth of our doc
trines.*
The argument stated in its most concise form, it will be
perceived, is this, that it was matter of history that the
catholic churches had, from the days of the apostles, held the
same doctrines as they did in the time of Tertullian ; and
that these doctrines, therefore, were the original doctrines of
the religion derived through the apostles from Christ. It
was equally a matter of history, he continues, that the
founders of the principal heretical sects, Valentinus and Mar-
cion, for instance, had lived after the times of the apostles,
and had introduced new doctrines not before held by the
churches. If their doctrines were true, the churches had
before been in error from the beginning. " Thousands of
thousands had been baptized into a false religion." "Let
them show me," says Tertullian, " by what authority they
have come forward. . . . Let them prove themselves to be
new apostles ; let them affirm that Christ has again descended,
has again taught, has again been crucified, has again died,
and has risen again. It was thus that he formed his apos
tles ; giving them, moreover, the power of working the same
miracles which he did. I wish them to produce their mira
cles." f
The main scope of the reasoning of Tertullian is apparent.
It is, he maintains, a well-known historical fact, that the
catholic doctrine, as opposed to that of the Gnostics, has been
held from the beginning by the churches which the apostles
founded, and by all other churches in communion with them.
This fact precludes the necessity of any further argument
with those heretics. They have no claim to be heard in
appealing to the Scriptures in support of their opinions.
Tertullian remarks at length upon the various objections
which were made to his argument by different individuals, or
* Cc. 20, 21, pp. 208, 209. f Cc. 29, 30, pp. 212, 213.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 399
by the same at different times. All of them, it may be
observed, are founded on passages of the New Testament.
With the exception of the last to be here mentioned, they
have already been spoken of. The Gnostics sometimes said,
that the apostles did not know all things ; * sometimes, that
the apostles had a public and a private doctrine, and did not
communicate all truths openly to all ; t and, finally, they con
tended, that the catholic churches, from the earliest times, had
fallen into error through not understanding what the apostles
taught.
It is not necessary to dwell on the answers of Tertullian to
these objections. His main argument, considering the early
period when it was adduced, and its application as against the
doctrines of the Gnostics, is evidently conclusive. I have
given this brief account of it for .the purpose of introducing
the reason which he assigns for urging it. This reason is,
that in the controversy between the catholic Christians and
the Gnostics, when the Gnostics were allowed to appeal to
the Scriptures in proof of their doctrines, they argued so
plausibly as to leave the victory uncertain ; to make converts
of some, and to instil doubts into others.
" We come, then," he says, "to the subject proposed." " Our
opponents put forward the Scriptures, and their boldness has an
immediate effect upon some. In the first encounter, they fatigue
the strong, they take captive the weak, and dismiss others with
doubts. Here, then, I meet them at the onset : they are not to be
admitted to argue from the Scriptures." J
"Will he for the sake of whose doubts you engage in an argu-
itent from the Scriptures, be inclined in consequence more to the
tiuth or to heresy? When he sees that you make no advance;
that, the other party maintaining his ground, you both equally
deny and defend, he will surely go away from this conflict more
* See before, pp. 332, 333. f See before, pp. 327-332.
I Cap. 15, p. 207.
400 EVIDENCES OP THE
uncertain than before, and ignorant on which side the heresj
lies." *
" The appeal, therefore, is not to be made to the Scriptures,
nor is the decision of the controversy to be rested on them ; for
they will afford no victory, or an uncertain one, or one no better
than uncertain. Even though the mutual appeal to Scripture
should not leave each party on an equality, f yet the order of
things demands that that consideration should be first brought
forward which is the sole subject of the present argument, To
whom does the faith [the religion] itself belong ? Whose are the
Scriptures ? From whom, and through whom, and when, and to
whom, was the instruction delivered, by which men are made
Christians ? For, wherever it may appear that the true Christian
instruction and faith are to be found, there will be the true Scrip
tures, and their true exposition, and all true Christian traditions." J
Thus it appears, that, whatever difficulties the theosophic
Gnostics found in reconciling their doctrines with the New
Testament, they recognized the necessity of doing so ; that
they were ready to meet their opponents on this ground;
that they furnished plausible explanations of those difficulties,
and drew from the New Testament plausible arguments in
their own favor. But this is but a partial statement. The
theosophic Gnostics appealed to the Gospels as freely and as
confidently as did the catholic Christians ; contending that
they alone had the true key to their meaning, and that other
Christians, not being spiritual, could not comprehend their
hidden and higher senses. They believed, indeed, that the
apostles and evangelists were not infallible ; that they were
liable to human errors, and that they were affected by preju
dices and false opinions, common to their countrymen, which
had been implanted in their minds in childhood, had grown
witn their growth, and had not been wholly eradicated. But
* Cap. 18, p. 208.
f I adopt the reading, " ut utramque partem parem sisteret."
$ Caj . 19, p. 208.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 401
the theosophic Gnostics, who allegorized and spiritualized the
words of the Gospels, had not the same occasion to misapply
this principle as the Marcionites, who were not allegorists.
The Marcionites regarded the Gospels as colored throughout
by the Jewish prejudices of their writers. But, by taking
the work of him whom they considered as the most en
lightened of the evangelists, St. Luke, and rejecting from
it some errors, they thought themselves able to obtain a
history altogether correct ; and this was the basis of then
system.
Still, had any seemingly credible history of Christ s minis
try existed, more favorable to the opinions of the Gnostics
than the four Gospels, there can be no doubt that they would
have used that history in preference. The manner, therefore,
in which they appealed to the four Gospels, or to the history
of Christ as contained in the Gospel of Luke, without bring
ing any Gnostic history into competition with them, is proof
that no such history existed. All Christians, the catholics,
the theosophic Gnostics, the Marcionites, and, as we have
before seen, the Hebrew Christians, were equally ignorant
of any history of Christ s ministry different from that given
by the evangelists. No party relied on any other : no party
had any other to produce.
But it has been suggested, or implied, that the early
founders of the Gnostic sects drew their systems from their
philosophy, and connected them only with some general be
lief that the coming of Christ was a manifestation of the
Supreme God for the purpose of delivering men from moral
evil and its consequences ; and that it was merely by way of
reasoning ad hominem with the catholic Christians, that the
Gnostics made use of the Gospels.* Let us try the probabil-
* See, for example, Walch s Historic der Ketzereien, i. 374; Matter,
flistoire du Gnosticisme, ii. 172, 190.
40:2 EVIDENCES OP THE
ity of this supposition by applying it to a particular case,
that of the Valentinians.
We have seen, that the Valentinians so fully, and in such
various ways, professed their belief in the truth of the Gos
pels, that their opponents did not accuse them of denying it ;
though this charge would unquestionably have been brought
against them, had there been a foundation for it. But they
made use of the Gospels, it may be said, not in good faith ;
they quoted them oiily " to satisfy those who demanded
proofs from Scripture," * or undertook to explain them by
way of answering the objections of those who regarded the
Gospels as of authority. The statements already made show
that these suppositions have no probability to recommend
them ; but let us examine a little farther. According to this
hypothesis, the Valentinians did not believe the authenticity
and genuineness of the Gospels ; they did not sincerely rec
ognize their authority ; they did not believe them to favor
their own opinions; and, consequently, they did not believe
them to teach what they thought true Christianity. At the
same time, it is evident that these books were principally
relied on by their opponents as a storehouse of arguments
against them. We have, indeed, no reason to doubt that
there was a foundation for the strong language which has
been quoted from Tertullian, respecting their skilful and suc
cessful use of the Scriptures. We may believe that the
Gnostics sometimes made converts from among the catholic
Christians, and showed much talent, after the fashion of their
times, in reconciling their doctrines with the New Testament,
and in persuading themselves and others that they were indi
cated in the parables or supported by the declarations of
Christ, as recorded in the Gospels. But, after all, it is evi
dent that the Gospels do not teach the Gnostic doctrines, but
do teach what is irreconcilable with those doctrines. It is
* Walch, ubi sttpra.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 403
equally certain, that this fact was recognized by a great
majority of early believers (for the catholic Christians far
outnumbered the Gnostics), and even by a very large and
respectable portion of the Gnostics themselves, the Marcion-
ites, as appears from the expedient to which they had
recourse, of rejecting the use of three of the Gospels, and
mutilating that which they retained. Would the Valentin
inns, then, have professed to regard those books as authentic,
had there been good reasons for questioning their authen
ticity ? Is it credible, that they would, with such a consistent
show of conviction as to deceive and silence their opponents,
have professed their belief in the truth of the Gospels, had
they not believed them true? So far from it, they would
at once have seized on the triumph, or at least the advantage,
which was evidently in their power, could the genuineness
and authoiity of the books relied on by their opponents have
been fairly denied or fairly questioned. The course to be
pursued would have been clear ; and neither an honest man,
nor a controvertist of common ability, could have neglected to
take it. The Valentinians, and the other theosophic Gnos
tics, would not have persisted in dishonestly affirming or
implying their belief of the authenticity of books which they
did not believe to be authentic, and which furnished their
opponents with arguments against their doctrines, conclusive
in themselves, and by most regarded as conclusive.
Let us view the subject under another aspect. The Gos
pels were either known to Valentinus himself, or they were
not. If they were known to him, they were either regarded
by him as genuine and authentic, or they were not. He
lived at so early an age, in the first half of the second century,
that no question could have existed in his time, whether they
were entitled to that character. The fact must have been
known, either that they were, or that they were not, entitled
to it. If he regarded them as genuine and authentic, there
can be no doubt that they were so regarded by his folio wera
404 EVIDENCES OF THE
and by the great body of contemporary Christians ; and our
inquiry is at an end. Let us suppose, then, either that
they were not known to him, that they were not in existence,
or that, being known to him, they were rejected by him as
unworthy of credit. In either case, he built his system on
other foundations, and supported it by other arguments, thai,
what those books might afford. In either case, it is evident
that his followers would never have admitted or implied the
truth of the Gospels. They would never have consented to
receive, as genuine and authentic, books not known to their
master, or which he had rejected, books which they them
selves must have believed to be the fabrications of opponents
who had excluded him and them from their community, and
which furnished those opponents with the strongest arguments
against what they regarded as true Christianity. They
would not have exposed themselves to such expostulations as
those of Tertullian : " If they are heretics, they are not
Christians, not deriving their doctrine from Christ. . . . Not
being Christians, they have no property in the books of
Christians. It may justly be said to tfiem, Who are you?
"When and whence did you come ? What are you, who do
not belong to me, doing on my premises ? By what right,
Marcion, do you cut down my woods ? By what license,
Valentinus, do you divert the water of my springs? By
what authority, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks ?
How is it, that you others are sowing and pasturing here
at your pleasure ? It is my possession ; I have possessed it of
old ; I trace back my title to its original source ; I am heir
of the apostles." * To such language it would have required
neither an acute nor an angry controvertist to give the an
swer, that this disputed possession was not worth claiming,
could such an answer have been given with truth.
* De Prescript. Haeretic., c. 37, p. 215.
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 405
In examining (in the Second Part of this work) the direct
historical evidence of the genuineness of the Gospels, we
have seen, that it does not mainly consist, as in the case of
other books, of assertions and implications of individual
writers concerning their authorship. It rests on the fact, that
they were universally received, as the works of those to
whom they are ascribed, by the great body of catholic Chris
tians, at so early a period that no mistake on the subject
could have been committed ; and on another consideration of
equal weight, that this general reception of the Gospels as
genuine, wherever Christianity had been preached, is a phe
nomenon which can be accounted for only on the supposition
of their genuineness.
But, in turning from the catholic Christians to the Gnos
tics, it might not be unreasonable to apprehend, considering
the opposition in which the two parties stood to each other,
that something would appear to cloud the testimony of the
former, and perhaps to shake our confidence in it as conclu
sive. Certainly, had there been, during the first ages of
Christianity, any doubt concerning the genuineness of the
Gospels, we should have learned it from the Gnostics. But,
so far from any doubt being suggested by the examination
which we have gone through, we find the Gnostics strongly
confirming the testimony of their catholic opponents. Vak-ii-
tinus and Basilides carry us back to the earlier part of the
second century ; * and they, in common with the catholic
Christians, received the Gospels as the authentic histories ot
the ministry of Christ. About the same period, Marcion
affords his evidence to the general reception of one of the
Gospels, and consequently, as we have seen, proof of the re
ception of the other three.f On the Gospels, or, to include
the case of the Marcionites and the Hebrew Christians, on a
history of Christ, such as is found in one of the Gospels,
* See pp. 204, 205. f See before, p. 393.
406 EVIDENCES OF THE
every form of Christian faith rested as its foundation. No
history presenting a different view of his ministry was in
existence.
Here, then, we conclude our statement of the historical
evidence, both direct and subsidiary, of the Genuineness of
the Gospels. The catholic Christians. bear testimony to their
having been written by the particular individuals to whom
they are ascribed. The Gnostics confirm this testimony by
the proofs which they afford of their general reception and
authority.
We have pursued this investigation carefully and at length,
as if there was some intrinsic improbability in the proposition,
that the Gospels were written by the authors to whom they
are ascribed ; some presumption against it, such as to re
quire a patient removal of difficulties, and an accumulation of
strong evidence, to establish its truth. But, on the contrary,
it is apparent that the Gospels were written by early be
lievers in our Lord ; there is not a show of evidence that
they were written by any other believers than those to whom
they have been ascribed ; and nothing is more probable, than
that some of his immediate disciples, or of their intimate com
panions, should have left us such narratives of his life.
The Founder of our religion, whether one believe or not
that he was authorized by God to speak in his name, was
unquestionably the most wonderful individual who ever ap
peared on earth. A Jew, a Galileean, in humble life, poor,
without literary culture, without worldly power or influence ;
teaching but for a short time (probably not more than two
years) ; wandering about the shores of the Lake of Galilee and
of the Jordan ; scarcely entering Jerusalem but to be driven
away by persecution, till at last he went thither to perish
under it , collecting during his lifetime only a small body of
illiterate and often wavering followers; addressing men
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 407
whose incapacity, prejudices, or hatred continually led them
to mistake or to pervert his meaning ; surrounded, and
apparently overpowered, by his unbelieving countrymen, who
regarded him as a blasphemer, and caused him to suffer the
death of the most unpitied of malefactors, this person has
wrought an effect, to which there is nothing parallel, on the
opinions and on the condition of the most enlightened portion
of our race. The moral civilization of the world, the noblest
conceptions which men have entertained of religion, of their
nature, and of their duties, are to be traced back directly to
him. They come to us, not from the groves of the Academy,
not from the walks by the Ilissus which Aristotle frequented,
nor from the Painted Portico of Athens where Zeno taught :
but from the mountain on which Jesus delivered his first
recorded discourse ; from the synagogue and the streets of
the small town of Capernaum, of which not a ruin remains to
fix its site ; from fishing-boats on the Lake of Galilee ; from
the less inhabited tracts the deserts, as they have been
called of Palestine ; from the courts of the Jewish temple,
where he who spoke was confronting men plotting his de
struction ; from the cross of one expiring in agony amid the
savage triumph of his enemies. After witnessing such a
death, his disciples lost all their doubts. They affirmed their
Master to be the Saviour of the world, the Son of God.
They devoted themselves to labor and suffer, and, if need
were, to die, in making him known to men. What they
strove to impress upon the minds of others was what, as they
asserted, he had done and taught. They " knew nothing but
Jesus Christ and him crucified." It was the history, real or
pretended, of his ministry on earth, which was the basis of all
their teaching; the essential instruction to be first commu
nicated to all who were summoned to put their trust in him,
to take up their cross, and follow him in the new path
which he had opened from earth to heaven. Now, there can
be no supposition more irrational, than that the history of
408 EVIDENCES OF THE
Christ, which was thus promulgated by all his first disciples,
and received by all their first converts, was lost before the
beginning of the second century, and another history substi
tuted in its place. But, if the Gospels contain the history of
Christ as it was promulgated by his apostles, there can be no
ground for doubting that they were written by the authors to
whom they are ascribed, by apostles, and companions of
apostles.
To all the weight of evidence that the Gospels were written
by the authors to whom they have been ascribed, what other
account of their origin has been or may be opposed ? The
genuineness of the Gospel of John has been directly im
pugned by some modern German theologians. Their hypoth
eses are, necessarily, only developments of one essential
proposition, that this Gospel is a spurious work, fraudulently
ascribed to the apostle by its original writer, or by some
other individual or individuals. There can be no direct evi
dence of the truth of this supposition ; and with it another
must be connected, namely, that this imagined fraud was so
successful as to impose on all Christians, catholic and hereti
cal, from the beginning of the second century. But, if this
be a moral impossibility, then there is a moral certainty that
the Gospel ascribed to John was the work of that apostle.
Yet this brief statement, decisive as it may be, gives but a
very imperfect view of those facts and considerations, hereto
fore presented, which show that any other supposition is alto
gether incredible.
In respect to the other three Gospels, the attacks on their
genuineness and authenticity by many of the modern German
theologians have been more elaborate. But, if their genuine
ness be denied, there are only two fundamental suppositions,
one or the other of which must be made. One is of the same
nature with that which has been advanced concerning St.
John s Gospel. It may be asserted that each of them is a
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 409
spurious work of some one unknown author. But this suppo
sition has been generally felt to be too indefensible. Recourse
has therefore been had to different hypotheses, which may all
be resolved into one fundamental supposition, that the first
three Gospels are, respectively, aggregates of stories by differ
ent hands, brought together by different compilers. In the
First Part of this work, we have examined this supposition
under as plausible a form as any in which it has appeared ;
and, if the view there taken of the subject be correct, there is
something like mathematical demonstration of its falsity.
But so far as those hypotheses are connected, as they have
been, with the supposition that the narratives contained in
the first three Gospels are distorted and discolored by tradi
tion, there is a moral demonstration of their falsity. The
character of Jesus Christ as exhibited in any one of the first
three Gospels, or in all of them taken together, is equally
consistent and wonderful. It is, at the same time, a charac
ter to which nothing in human history, before or after, pre
sents a parallel or a resemblance. He appears as one acting
under the miraculous conviction, that he was the instrument
of God, to assure men, on His authority, of their relations to
Him and to eternity ; and this conception of his character is
fully sustained. In the midst of men who appear, as we
should expect the Jews of that age to appear, ignorant, nar
row-minded, dull in their perceptions, indocile, many of them
hating him with all the hatred of bigotry ; throughout trials
of every sort ; under external circumstances so humiliating
that we shrink from the thought of them, he shows always
the same unalterable elevation of character, requiring no
human support. We feel that he was not to be degraded by
any insult ; and that no praise could have been addressed to
him, had it come from the highest of men, which would not
have been a strange impertinence. If our natural feelings
have been unperverted, we follow him, if not with the convic
tion, that conviction has been resisted, but certainly
410 EVIDENCES OF THE
with a sentiment, continually prompting us to say., " Truly
this was the Son of God." But it is folly to suppose, that
such a portraiture of character could have been the result of
an aggregation of fabulous traditionary stories which had
been moulded by different minds, Jewish or Gentile. The
comparison is unworthy of the subject ; but it would not be
more absurd to imagine, that the finest works of ancient
plastic art, the display of perfect physical beauty in the
Apollo Belvidere, had been produced by putting together
the labors of different artists at different times, all work
ing without a model, this making one part or member, and
that another.
We may enter on the inquiry respecting the genuineness
of the Gospels merely as scholars and critics, without any
previous opinion respecting their contents. To a thinking
man, whatever may be his opinion, it must appear an object
of great curiosity to determine the authorship of books so
extraordinary, and which have had such vast influence. In
treating the historical evidence for their genuineness, we deal
with historical facts, and our reasoning is of a kind with
which we are familiar, and which is fully within the cogni
zance of our judgment. But if, from the preceding examina
tion of this evidence, it appears that the Gospels are the
works of those to whom they have been ascribed, then the
argument we have pursued, and which we ought to pursue,
me) ely as scholars and critics, or, I may better say, as intelli
gent men, capable of understanding the force of reasoning,
leads to results of the deepest moment. Upon arriving at
the end of our journey, on quitting the detail of history and
criticism, through which it has lain, considerations of another
class present themselves to view: we see rising before us
objects the most solemn and sublime ; we have been brought
to the contemplation of all that is of permanent and essential
interest to man. Let us examine the reasoning thoroughly as
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 411
logicians ; but, if it will bear this examination, then the con
clusion to which it leads is to be regarded with very different
feelings from what may have been called forth during its
process. If the Gospels were written by the authors to whom
they are ascribed, two of them by individuals who were inti
mate companions of Jesus, eye-witnesses of his ministry, who
knew the facts, whatever they were, of his public life, and
the other two by those who received their accounts immedi
ately from such eye-witnesses, then the narrative of his min*
istry contained in the Gospels is true. The apostles could
not have been deceived respecting the facts which they pro*
fess to relate. If Jesus Christ did not, by a series of miracles
performed before crowds of spectators, by his doctrines, and
by an exhibition of character altogether conformed to his
claims, give full evidence of his being authorized to speak in
the name of God, then the* Gospels are not a collection of
legends, the growth of tradition in an ignorant and marvel-
loving age, that supposition is excluded by the proof of
their genuineness: they are throughout a tissue of mon
strous and inexplicable falsehoods. If the Gospels be gen
uine, there but two conclusions which are possible. The
narrative of the public life of Jesus contained in them is
either essentially false, or it is essentially true; and, if
false, it is so thoroughly false, that we know nothing
concerning his character and actions. His immediate fol
lowers have buried his history under a mass of prodigious
fictions ; and these fictions they propagated, in the face of his
enemies and their own, among those whom they affirmed to
have witnessed the pretended events which they related.
The true history of Jesus Christ, of him who really has
wrought such vast changes in the condition of men, is un
known ; and, instead of it, we have a fiction of inexpressible
grandeur, the conception of some Jews of Galilee, fishermen,
tax-gatherers, and others, who were shamelessly and reck
lessly destitute of veracity. But we have brought the argu-
412 EVIDENCES OP THE
ment to an absurdity so repulsive, that it would be equally
offensive and unprofitable to dwell on it longer.
It follows, then, that the history of Jesus contained in the
Gospels is true. The essential facts of religion have been
expressly made known to men on the authority of God.
They are facts, glorious, solemn, overwhelming, but as real as
the ordinary objects of every-day life, certain as nothing
future in life can be. In our day, the belief of these facts is
openly rejected; the evidence of them is continually as
sailed, directly and indirectly ; baseless and thoroughly irre
ligious speculations are confidently put forth and widely
received as substitutes for Christian faith, of which, as in
mockery, they assume the name ; and there are many who
acquiesce in a general notion that religion may be true, and
who regard this notion as a source of consolation and hope,
without any such settled conviction of its truth as may essen
tially affect their characters. But if there be a God in whose
infinite goodness we and all things are embosomed ; if there
be a future life which spreads before us, and all whom we
love, exhaustless scenes of attainable happiness ; if that Infi
nite Being who so eludes the grasp of human thought, have
really brought himself into direct communication with man
kind ; if the character of Jesus Christ be not an inexplicable
riddle, but a wonderful reality, these are truths of which a
wise man may well desire fully to assure himself. And per
haps there is no way in which he may attain a stronger
feeling of certainty, than when he approaches them, as we
have done, through reasoning conversant about ordinary sub
jects of thought, requiring no exercise of judgment beyond
the common capacity of every intelligent man, not taking us
into the dim light of metaphysical inquiry, involving the use
of no uncertain language, and calling forth no doubts from
that region which lies on every side beyond the bounds of
our knowledge and our powers. The way which we have
travelled is such, that it may by contrast heighten the effect
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 413
of the prospect on which it opens. It is somewhat as if, by
an easy ascent, we found ourselves standing on a vast height,
with the unbounded ocean spreading out before us.
But, however convinced we may be of the genuineness of
the Gospels, one distinct and very important branch of the
evidence of that fact has not yet been treated. It is the evi
dence founded on the intrinsic character of the Gospels them
selves, evidence in which the proofs of their genuineness
and their truth are essentially blended together. The main
proposition to be established by it is, that the Gospels are of
such a character, that they could have been written only by
individuals of such a character, and so circumstanced, as those
to whom they are ascribed.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
NOTE A.
(See pp. 15,16, 18.)
FURTHER REMARKS ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THK
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS.
SECTION I.
On the Character and Importance of the Various Readings of tut
New Testament.
WHEN attention was first strongly directed to the number of vari
ous readings upon the Received Text of the New Testament, and
the critical edition of Mill was published, which was said to con
tain thirty thousand,* two classes of individuals were very differ
ently affected. Some sincerely religious men, among whom was
Whitby, who wrote expressly against the labors of Mill, were
apprehensive that the whole text of the New Testament, the foun
dation of our faith, would be unsettled ; while the infidels of the
age, among whom Collins was prominent, were ready, with other
feelings, to adopt the same opinion. The whole number of various
readings of the text of the New Testament that have hitherto been
noted exceeds a hundred thousand, and may perhaps amount to a
hundred and fifty thousand.
* That is to say, thirty thousand variations from the Received Text.
But, when the Received Text varies from other authorities, its readings
should also be considered as various readings of the text of the New Testa
ment. Including these, therefore, Mill s edition presents about sixty thousand
various readings.
27
418 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
But this number is, I presume, less in proportion than that of
the various readings extant upon most classic authors, when com
pared with the quantity of text examined, and the number of
manuscripts and other authorities collated in each particular case.*
* Bentley, in his "Remarks on Free-thinking," in answer to Collins,
Bays:
"Terence is now in one of the best conditions of any of the classic
writers. The oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican Library,
which comes nearest to the poet s own hand ; but even that has hundreds
of errors, most of which may be mended out of other exemplars, that are
otherwise more recent and of inferior value. I myself have collated several,
and do affirm that I have seen twenty thousand various lections in that little
author, not near so big as the whole New Testament ; and am morally sure,
that, if half the number of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that
niceness and minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New
Testament, the number of the variations would amount to above fifty
thousand.
" In the manuscripts of the New Testament, the variations have been
noted with a religious, not to say superstitious, exactness. Every difference
in spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the very order or
collocation of words, without real change, has been studiously registered.
Nor has the text only been ransacked, but all the ancient versions, the
Latin Vulgate, Italic, Syriac, ^Ethiopic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic,
and Saxon ; nor these only, but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and
Latin fathers in a course of five hundred years. What wonder, then, if, with
all this scrupulous search in every hole and corner, the varieties rise to thirty
thousand ; when, in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof the manu
scripts are numerous, the variations are as many, or more, and yet no ver
sions to swell the reckoning?
" The editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, 01
risk their own reputation, by an useless list of every small slip committed
by a lazy or ignorant scribe. What is thought commendable in an edition
of Scripture, and has the name of fairness and fidelity, would in them be
deemed impertinence and trifling. Hence the reader not versed in ancient
manuscripts is deceived into an opinion, that there were no more variations
in tne copies than what the editor has communicated. Whereas, if the like
scrupulousness was observed in registering the smallest changes in profane
authors, as is allowed, nay required, in sacred, the now formidable number
of thirty thousand would appear a very trifle.
" It is manifest that books in verse are not near so obnoxious to varia
tions as those in prose ; the transcriber, if he is not wholly ignorant and
stupid, being guided by the measures, and hindered from such alterations aa
do not fall in with the laws of numbers. And yet, even in poets, the varia-
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 419
How such an amount of various readings exists upon the text
of ancient works, we may understand, when we consider, what
every one who has had experience on the subject is aware of, that
no written copy of an exemplar of any considerable length, if
made only with ordinary care, is without variations and errors.
Notwithstanding the extreme care which has in some cases been
taken, it is doubtful whether even a printed book exists which
corresponds throughout to its proposed archetype, or which, in
other words, is wholly free from errata. There is no hazard in say
ing, that the variations in the printed copies of King James s version
of the Bible, such variations as are noted in the manuscripts of
the New Testament, are to be reckoned by thousands, and if, as
in the case of the Greek text of the New Testament, we were
to take the quotations of different writers into account, by tens of
thousands. But, in producing copies by transcription, the num
ber of errors resulting will be vastly greater than in producing the
tions are so very many as can hardly be conceived without use and experi
ence. In the late edition of Tibullus, by the learned Mr. Broukhuise, you
have a register of various lections in the close of that book, where you may
see at the first view that they are as many as the lines. The same is visible
in Plautus set out by Pareus. I myself, during my travels, have had the
opportunity to examine several manuscripts of the poet Manilius; andean
assure you that the variations I have met with are twice as many as all the
lines of the book." (pp. 93-95, 8th ed )
To take a few books immediately at hand, I perceive, by a loose compu
tation from a table at the end of Wakefield s Lucretius, that he has collected
about twelve thousand various readings of that author (exclusive of mere
differences of orthography), from five printed copies only. Weiske s edition
of Longinus presents more than three thousand various readings of the
" Treatise on the Sublime," a work of about the length of the Gospel of Mark,
collected from eight manuscripts and two early editions. And Bekker has
published variations from his text of the writings contained in his edition of
Plato, which fill seven hundred and seventy-eight crowded octavo pages,
and amount to I know not how many more than sixty thousand; the
manuscripts used on each of the different writings being on an average
about thirteen. The various readings of the New Testament, it is to be
remembered, have been collected from a very great number of manuscripts
of the original, manuscripts of numerous ancient versions, in which it is
not to be supposed that the translator always rendered in a manner scrupu
lously literal, and also from the citations of a long series of fathers, who, we
know, were not commonly attentive to verbal accuracy in quoting.
420 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
same number of copies by the press ; since far more liability to
error will exist in the case of every particular copy transcribed,
than exists in regard to a whole edition of printed copies. With
these general views, it is not necessary to dwell on the particular
causes of mistakes and errors in ancient manuscripts, which are
more numerous than may at first thought be supposed. They have
been often pointed out by different writers.
I proceed, then, to observe, that, of the various readings of
the New Testament, nineteen out of twenty, at least, are to be
dismissed at once from consideration ; not on account of their
intrinsic unimportance, that is a separate consideration, but
because they are found in so few authorities, and their origin is so
easily explained, that no critic would regard them as having
any claim to be inserted in the text. Of those which remain, a
very great majority are entirely unimportant. They consist in
different modes of spelling ; in different tenses of the same verb,
or different cases of the same noun, not affecting the essential
meaning ; in the use of the singular for the plural, or the plural
for the singular, where one or the other expression is equally
suitable ; in the insertion or omission of particles, such as uv and
<5e, not affecting the sense, or of the article in cases equally unim
portant ; in the introduction of a proper name, where, if not in
serted, the personal pronoun is to be understood, or of some other
word or words expressive of a sense which would be distinctly
implied without them; in the addition of "Jesus" to "Christ,"
or "Christ" to "Jesus;" in the substitution of one synonymous
or equivalent term for another ; in the transposition of words,
leaving their signification the same ; in the use of an uncom-
pounded verb, or of the same verb compounded with a preposition,
th3 latter differing from the former, if at all, only in a shade of
moaning ; and in a few short passages, liable to the suspicion of
having been copied into the Gospel where we find them from some
other evangelist. Such various readings, and others equally unim
portant, compose far the greater part of all, concerning which
there may be, or has been, a question whether they are to be ad
mitted into the text or not ; and it is therefore of no consequence
in which way the question has been, or may be, determined.
But after deducting from the whole amount of various readings,
first those of no authority, and next those of no importance, a
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 421
number will remain which are objects of a certain degree of curi
osity and interest. To three of them an extravagant importance
has been attached, from their supposed bearing upon the theologi
cal doctrine of the Trinity. But the principal of these, the
famous passage in the first Epistle of John (chap. v. 7), is a mani
fest interpolation. In the case of this and of most other passages,
where the true reading is a matter of any interest, we may com
monly arrive at a satisfactory judgment concerning it; and, in
regard to the cases in which we cannot, it is clear, that no opinion,
nor any inference whatever, respecting the meaning of the writer,
is to be founded on an uncertain reading.
The Received Text, as it has been called, of the New Testa
ment that is, the text which for almost two centuries, till after the
time of Griesbach, was found with little variation in the common
editions of the New Testament was formed during the sixteenth
century, with comparatively few helps, and in the exercise of no
great critical judgment. But the chief value of the immense
amount of labor which has since been expended upon the text of
the New Testament does not consist in its having effected im
provements in the Received Text. Its chief and great value
consists in establishing the fact, that the text of the New Testa
ment has been transmitted to us with remarkable integrity ; that
far the greater part of the variations among different copies are
of no authority or of no importance; and that it is a matter
scarcely worth consideration, as regards the study of our religion
and its history, whether, after making a very few corrections, we
take the Received Text formed as it was, or the very best which
the most laborious and judicious criticism might produce.
In his edition of the New Testament, Griesbach presents the
Received Text in constant comparison with his own. He notes
conspicuously, as preferable, or probable, or deserving attention,
all those variations from it which he so regards, when he docs not
admit them into his text. The comparison between all the read
ings, which have in his view any grade of probability > is thus
rendered a mere matter of ocular inspection. As a fair specimen
of the whole, I will give all those which he thus presents on the
first eight chapters of Matthew. When it may be done, I will
express the change in English ; but, in some cases, the variation is
BO trilling as to admit of no corresponding variation in a trausla-
422
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
tion. The first column of the following table contains the read
ings of the Received Text ; the second, the variations from it.
Those unaccompanied with any note (except here and there a
remark of my own) are what Griesbach has admitted into his text.
In other cases, I have noted with sufficient distinctness the degree
of probability that he assigns to them.*
RECEIVED TEXT.
Chap. i. 1.
6.
18. Jesus
19.
(generation)
(to
expose to shame)
22. rov
Chap. ii. 8. carefully search out
9. EOTJI
11. they found
15. rov
17. <m-d
18. lamentation and
22. bcl
Cliap. iii. 1. #
3 imb
8. fruits worthy
10. Kal
11. with fire
12. his wheat
Chap. iv. 4. a man
tnl (upon)
Aavtd
VARIATIONS ADOPTED OR SUGGEST
ED BY GRIESBACH.
The names of David
and Solomon differ
ently spelt.
perhaps to be omitted.
yeveais (birth)
perhaps, dEtyuarioai (to expose)
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps, search out carefully
perhaps, ioTuOrj (no change in the
sense.)
they saw
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps, OLO.
probably to be omitted.
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps, dia
ffuit worthy
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps to be omitted. (If go, it
was borrowed from Luke iii. 16,
where there is no doubt of its
genuineness.)
perhaps, the wheat
perhaps, man (6 being added be
fore UV0pW7TOf.)
probably, ev (by)
* I have used both Griesbach s last critical edition and his manual edition ;
but of course have not quoted those readings of the latter which he notices
only as on some account remarkable, and which are not such as he admits
between the lines below the text of his critical edition.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS.
423
Chap.
6. sets ("sets him on the
pinnacle of the
temple")
10. Go from me, Satan
12. Jesus
13. KaTtepvaoitp
18. Jesus
. 9. avrol
11.
(speaking
20. TJ dcKOioavvj] i>fj.(Jv
25. whilst thou art in the
way with him
27. to them of old time
28. avrf/f
81. flu
82. whoever shall put away
44. bless those who curse
you, do good to those
In the last clause, if
it be retained, for
despitefutty use you
(rather, harass you)
and
47. brethren
publicans
do thus
48. uonep
your Father in heaven
Chap. vi. 1. alms
4. ai)rbc("he will re ward
you")
openly
6. when thou prayest, thou
shalt not be
perhaps, set
Go behind me, Satan (the words
omau fwv being added by Gries-
bach.)
probably to be omitted.
probably, Katyapvaovu (a different
spelling of the name of the city,
Capernaum.)
omitted.
perhaps to be omitted. (No change
can be made in a translation.)
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps, vu&v
perhaps, whilst thou art with him in
the way
omitted.
probably, avTrjv
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps, every one putting away
probably to be omitted. (If so, it
was borrowed from Luke.)
TOif fUOOVOlV
perhaps to be omitted. (If so, it
was borrowed from Luke.)
perhaps, friends
gentiles
perhaps, do the same
perhaps, wf
probably, your heavenly Father
righteousness (The propriety of
this change is doubtful.)
perhaps to be omitted. (So as to
read " will reward you," only.)
probably to be omitted,
perhaps, when ye pray, ye shall not
be
424
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
that ("that they hare
their re ward")
6. TW (" pray to thy Fa
ther who is in se
cret")
openly
18. For thine is the king
dom and the power
and the glory for
ever. Amen.
15. their offences
16. that ("that they have
their reward ")
18. /cpu7rr (twice)
openly
21. your treasure
your heart
24. fMzuuovd
25. and what ye may drink
84. TO, (in the Common
Version rendered
" the things of")
Chap. vii. 2. avTiueTprjOfiaETat (it
shall be measured
in return)
9. IOTLV
12. ovrof (this)
14. "On ( "Because strait
is the gate ")
Chap.Yiii.2. kMv (coming)
8. Jesus
4. Mwff^f
6. TV Ij7<7ot) ("as Jesus
was entering " )
8.
18.
probably to be omitted.
that, probably to be omitted.
perhaps to be omitted. (So as to
read "pray to thy Father in
secret.")
probably to be omitted.
omitted. (When our Lord s pray
er was used in the liturgies of
the ancient Church, this doxol-
ogy was subjoined; and tran
scribers, being accustomed to it
in this connection, introduced
it into their copies.)
probably to be omitted.
that, probably to be omitted.
perhaps KpvQaiy (an improbable
suggestion.)
omitted.
perhaps, thy treasure,
perhaps, thy heart.
uauuva
probably to be omitted. (If so, it
was borrowed from Luke.)
probably to be omitted.
fteTpTjOfjoerai (it shall be measured)
perhaps to be omitted.
perhaps, OVTUC (thus)
Ti ("How straight is the gate")
perhaps, TrpoaehOwv (coming up,
namely, to him.)
perhaps to be omitted,
perhaps Mwvojyf
avrcJ ("as he was entering")
TEXT OP THE GOSPELS. 425
16. avTolf ("waited upon perhaps, airy ("waited upon
them") him")
26. avrov ("his disci- omitted ("the disciples ")
pies")
28. Gergesenfis probably, Gerasenes ; perhaps, Go-
29. Jesus omitted. [darenes.
81. suffer us to go send us
32. the herd of swine the swine
" the herd of swine " of swine, omitted.
Such are the various readings which have been represented by
other critics beside Griesbach as rendering one text different from
another in its whole conformation and entire coloring.
Of the passages of more importance in the Gospels, concerning
which there is reason to think that they did not proceed from the
evangelists, I shall speak in a following section. Those, how
ever, in the Gospel of Matthew are not various readings, nor is
there any reasonable doubt that they always made a part of our
present Greek Gospel. Whether they likewise were to be found
in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as it came from the pen of the
evangelist, is another question. But, before proceeding to its
examination, we will attend to the questions respecting the origi
nal language of Matthew s Gospel, and its use by the Hebrew
Christians.
SECTION II.
On the Original Language of Matthew s Gospel, and its Use by the
Hebrew Christians.
We believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, meaning
by that term the common language of the Jews of his time, because
such is the uniform statement of all ancient writers who advert to
the subject. To pass over others whose authority is of less weight,
he is affirmed to have written in Hebrew by Papias,* Irenaeus,f
Origen, J Eusebius, and Jerome ;|| nor does any ancient author
* See before, p. 139. t See before, p. 72. J See before, p. 82.
Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 24. Quaestiones ad Marinum, ap. Mail Scrip-
torum Veterum Nov. Collect., torn. i. p. 64.
|| The fact is stated or implied by Jerome in passages so numerous, that
it is not worth while to refer to them particularly
426 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
advance a contrary opinion. This testimony is of the more weight,
because, if there had been any prejudice on the subject, it would
have operated against the common belief, as the prejudices of
modern Christians have done. It would have led the great body
of ancient Gentile Christians, from whom we receive the account,
to prefer considering their Greek Gospel of Matthew as the origi
nal, not as a translation.
If we will not, then, reject the testimony of all Christian anti
quity to a simple fact, in which there is no intrinsic improbability,
we must believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Noth
ing has been objected to that testimony which I can regard as of
sufficient force to justify a protracted discussion. On the con
trary, it is confirmed by the corresponding evidence of the fathers, .
that the Hebrew original of Matthew was in common use (either in
a pure or a corrupt form) among Jewish Christians.
One of the last notices of the Jewish Christians in the New
Testament is in the words addressed by the other apostles to
St. Paul, during his last visit to Jerusalem : " Thou seest, brother,
what multitudes of Jews there are who believe ; and they are all
zealous for the Law. But they have heard concerning thee, that
thou art teaching all the Jews living among the Gentiles to become
apostates from Moses ; telling them not to circumcise their children,
nor to observe the ancient customs." * The same attachment to
their Law continued to distinguish the great body of Jewish Chris
tians, though there were freethinkers among them, who, as Origen
says, ** relinquished the ancient customs under the pretext of ex
positions and allegories." f Even these, however, there is no
reason to doubt, retained the rite of circumcision. And, on the
other hand, the more bigoted among them contended that the literal
observance of the Jewish Law was not only binding upon Jewish,
but equally upon Gentile Christians. As a general distinction, the
Jewish Christians believed Christ to have been only a man, in
opposition to the doctrine of his divine nature, which, in some
sense or other, began very early to be maintained by the Gentile
fathers. Some of their number at the same time received, and
others rejected, the belief of his miraculous conception. And,
* Acts xxi. 20, 21. t Origen. cont. Celsum, lib. ii. u. 3; Opp. i. 388.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 427
besides the differences which have been mentioned, the separation
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians was undoubtedly in a
great degree produced and perpetuated by the feelings with which
Jews and Gentiles had previously, for an indefinite time, regarded
each other. In the second century, the Jewish Christians, gener
ally, were considered as heretics, and denominated Ebionites.
It appears from the language in which Matthew wrote, and
from the internal character of his Gospel, that he intended it par
ticularly for Jewish Christians. Conformably to this, we have
satisfactory evidence, that, as an heretical sect, they used it exclu
sively of the other three Gospels from the second century down
wards.
Irenaeus, speaking of the Jewish Christians under the name of
Ebionites, repeatedly mentions briefly, as if it were a fact of com
mon notoriety, that they used the Gospel of Matthew alone.*
Symmachus, one of the ancient well-known Jewish translators
of the Old Testament into Greek, was an Ebionite. He wrote
commentaries in defence of the doctrine of his sect, which are
mentioned by Eusebius (with whom his translator Ilufinus is to be
compared), Jerome, and others, who speak of his reference to, or
use of, the Gospel of Matthew, without intimating his use of any
other book. Jerome says, that his commentaries were written on
the Gospel of Matthew. f
By the name of Ebionites, the Jewish Christians, generally, con
tinued to be denominated till the time of Epiphanius in the fourth
century. Epiphanius divides them into Ebionites and Nazarenes,
being the first writer who uses the latter name as that of an heret
ical sect. His unsupported authority deserves no credit, when he
* Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 26, 2; lib. iii. c. 11, 7.
t See Lardner, Works, 4to, i. 447. Eusebius (H.E., lib. vi. c. 17) says,
as I suppose his words should be literally rendered, that Symmachus main
tained his heresy, " strongly contending against the Gospel of Matthew ;"
from which, may be inferred the peculiar authority of the Gospel of Matthew
with the Ebiouites. The meaning of Eusebius apparently was, that Sym
machus contended strongly against the true sense of the Gospel of Matthew.
Rufinus, rendering the passage, as I conceive, somewhat loosely, makes
Eusebius say, that Symmachus " endeavored to maintain his heresy from
the Gospel of Matthew."
428 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
relates what is improbable, or attacks the character of those whom
he assails, or was under any temptation to falsehood. But then*
is no ground for distrusting the main truth of his assertions
respecting the use which the Hebrew Christians made of the Gos
pel of Matthew. Of those whom he calls Nazarenes, he says,
They have the Gospel of Matthew very complete ; for it is well
known, that this is preserved among them, as it was first written,
in Hebrew." * Of those whom he calls Ebionites, he says that
they used the Gospel of Matthew alone, in the original Hebrew,
calling it the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; and the truth is,
he adds, that Matthew alone, of all the writers of the New Testa
ment, composed in Hebrew. f
About the end of the fourth century, Jerome states that Mat
thew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ; and that he had obtained leave
to transcribe a copy of the Hebrew original from the Nazarenes of
Bercea in Syria, by whom it was used.f Afterwards, speaking of
this same work under the name of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, he mentions that he had translated it both into Greek
and Latin, and repeatedly observes that it was generally consid
ered (ut plerique autumant) as the Gospel of Matthew.
The original of Matthew s Gospel, being used by the Hebrew
Christians, naturally obtained the name of " the Gospel according
to the Hebrews." But copies of it were extant containing spuri
ous additions and variations. The fathers, with rare exceptions,
such as Origen and Jerome, from their ignorance of the Hebrew
could have known but little of the contents of any copy except by
report. Jerome particularizes certain additions, which he found
in that used by him. But we have no assurance, that there were
not other copies extant, even in his time, more conformed to the
original text. No father, it may safely be presumed, had collated
* Opp. i. 124. Epiphanius s want of accuracy, however, appears in what
he immediately subjoins: " But I do not know whether they take away the
genealogy from Abraham to Christ; " from which words we may conclude,
likewise, that he had not seen the book of which he speaks.
t Opp. i. 127.
J Gatal. Vir. Illust. in Matth. ; Opp. torn. iv. pars ii. col. 102.
Advers. Pelagianos, lib. iii. ; Opp. torn. iv. pars ii. col. 633. Comment
in Slaith. xii. 13; Opp. torn. iv. pars i. col. 47.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 429
different copies. But the spurious additions of which the fathers
had heard, and which a very few of their number may have seen
in some particular copy, and the omission in many copies of the
first two chapters ascribed to Matthew (of which we shall here
after speak), threw a suspicion on the work ; and, under the name
of the Gospel of the Hebrews, it came to be regarded as not a
canonical book. Hence, in modern times, the opinion has been
maintained that the Gospel of the Hebrews was originally a dif It-r
ent work from the Gospel of Matthew. This opinion has been
strengthened by a false account given by Epiphanius of the Gospel
of the Hebrews, as he pretends that it existed among those whom
he calls Ebionites.
But in regard to those interpolations and changes found in the
Gospel of the Hebrews, of which we have any authentic informa
tion, there seems to be no difficulty in explaining their origin.
The Ebionites, generally, were illiterate. Very few of them, it is
likely, were acquainted with other books than those of the Old
Testament and the Gospel of Matthew. Probably there were
none among them who were transcribers by trade, and none,
therefore, who had acquired those habits of accuracy and consider
ation, and that feeling of responsibility, which might be found in a
regular transcriber. It was to be expected, therefore, that the
Gospel of Matthew would suffer in their hands. It was, we may
suppose, carelessly copied ; the number of copies was small, and
they were not compared together for the sake of correcting one by
another; marginal additions, by a common mistake of transcribers,
of which I have before spoken, and which I shall have repeated
occasion to notice, were introduced into the text ; and it would
not be strange if there were transcribers who sometimes allowed
themselves to insert a passage which they had derived from tradi
tion, or from some other source, and which they regarded as true
and to the purpose.
Putting aside the fabulous account of Epiphanius, there are no
variations in the Gospel of the Hebrews from the Gospel of Mat
thew but such as may be thus explained. There is no appearance,
that the Jewish Christians, or any portion of them, undertook to
refashion the Gospel of Matthew. Nor are the interpolations or
changes specified such as have the appearance of being made to
favor their peculiar opinions.
430 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
In regard to the essential identity of the Gospel of the Hebrews
with the Gospel of Matthew, it is to be observed, that all the inter
polations and changes in the former, of which we have any credible
account, bear but a very small proportion to the contents of the
Gospel of Matthew. Yet it is probable that Jerome has noticed
all or nearly all the remarkable variations existing in his copy of
the Gospel of the Hebrews. It appears, therefore, that, through
out far the greater part of their contents, they coincided with each
other. This must have been the fact, or it would not have been
believed that they were originally the same book. Thus agreeing
together in far the greater part of their contents, they were the
same book. The variations found in copies of the Gospel of the
Hebrews can be considered only as variations in particular copies
of a common original. The supposition, therefore, is altogether
groundless, that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of the
Hebrews were different works, by different authors.
Matthew wrote in the native language of the Jewish Christians.
He wrote particularly for their use. There was nothing in his
Gospel to offend their national prejudices. It is not to be be
lieved, therefore, that they rejected his Gospel, and substituted an
anonymous gospel in its stead.
It was, as we have seen, the common belief of the Gentile Chris
tians, that the Jewish Christians used the original of Matthew s
Gospel in a pure or a corrupted state. The Jewish Christians,
consequently, affirmed that they used Matthew s Gospel ; for other
wise such a belief could not have prevailed. But no probable
reason can be given why one party should have affirmed this fact,
or why the other party should have believed it, except its truth.
We conclude, then, that Matthew s Gospel was originally
written in Hebrew ; and that it was preserved in this language, in
copies with a text more or less pure, by the Jewish Christians till
about the fifth century, when the traces of their existence as a
sect disappear from history.
TEXT OP THE GOSPELS. 431
SECTION III.
On some Passages in the Received Text of the Gospels, of which the
Genuineness is doubtful.
THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OP THE PRESENT GREEK GOSPEL Of
MATTHEW.
The first passage to be examined consists of the first two chap
ters of Matthew s Gospel. There is no doubt that they have
always made a part of our Greek translation ; but this does not
decide the question, whether they proceeded from the apostle.
As has been already suggested,* they may have been an ancient
document, written in Hebrew, originally a separate work, but
which, on account of its small size and the connection of its sub
ject, was transcribed into manuscripts of the Hebrew original of
Matthew, till in time it became blended with his Gospel as a part
of it, in some copies, one or more of which came into the hands of
his translator.
The first point, then, to be attended to in this inquiry is, that a
large portion of the Jewish Christians did not believe the miracu
lous conception of our Lord, and had not the account of it, that is,
the two chapters in question, in their copies of Matthew s Gospel.
There was nothing in their prejudices or habits of mind which
could have led them to reject the belief of that fact, and especially
to mutilate their Gospel in order to get rid of the account of
it. But if this be so, as it is altogether improbable that the two
chapters would be lost by accident from any number of copies, it
follows that they were an addition to the original in the copies in
which they were found, and not an omission in those in which they
were wanting.
The chapters themselves are next to be examined, in order to
determine whether the narrative contained in them is such as we
can believe to have proceeded from the apostle ; and, in doing so,
we must compare it with the account of the nativity given by
* See before, p. 16.
432 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Luke, which, there is no plausible reason for doubting, always
made a part of his Gospel. Respecting this account, however, a
few preliminary remarks are necessary.
I agree with many critics in supposing, that it existed in a
written form in Hebrew, previously to the composition of Luke s
Gospel, in which he inserted a translation of it, perhaps his own,
perhaps one already made. The language differs from that of the
rest of his Gospel, as being more conformed to the Hebrew idiom ;
and the cast of the narrative has something of a poetical and even
fabulous character, very different from the severe simplicity with
which he, in common with the other evangelists, relates events in
his own person. But his adopting this narrative proves that he
regarded it as essentially true ; and he would not have so regarded
it, had not the main fact of the miraculous birth of Jesus been
believed to be true by the apostles and other early Christians with
whom he associated. Now, considering that two, and probably
three, of the apostles * were relatives of Jesus, and that others of
their number, as John, were familiar with his mother and family,
there can be little doubt that the belief of the apostles rested on
information derived from them.
The account of Luke, then, being in its more important features
conformable to the belief of the apostles, any other account incon
sistent with this, or contradictory to it, cannot be received as pro
ceeding from an apostle. Let us apply this test to the two
chapters in question.
We are first struck with the discrepance between the two gene
alogies given ; the one by the author of those chapters, and the
other by Luke. I shall not enter into an examination of the
various attempts that have been made to show that both may be
true. They are all conjectural ; and each is exposed to particular
objections, of a nature to prevent its being received. If, for in
stance, according to a common notion, Luke had intended to give
the genealogy of Mary, he would have said so. He would not have
indicated his meaning so ambiguously and circuitously as by affirm
ing that Joseph was the son of Heli, when he meant only that he was
his son-in-law, Heli being Mary s father. But there is a general
* James the son of Alpheus and his brother Jude, and probably Simon
the Canaanite.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 433
remark which applies to them all. If Matthew were the author of
the two chapters, the genealogy given by him was regarded as cor
rect by the other apostles. So also we may infer, with equal confi
dence, that the genealogy given by Luke was regarded by them as
correct. It follows, then, that the apostles were acquainted with
two genealogies, both correct, but at firsc view irreconcilable with
each other, and the apparent contradiction of which has been re
garded since the second century as presenting a serious difliculty.
In giving either of the two, an apostle or evangelist, aware that
it might be confronted by another, entitled to equal credit, would,
we may reasonably believe, have had regard to this fact, and
inserted a few words of explanation. The supposition, it may be
added, is very unlikely, that, according to the usages of the Jews,
there should have been two modes of reckoning the descent of the
same individual, both equally proper. We know nothing to coun
tenance such an opinion.
If, then, the genealogy contained in the two chapters be irrec
oncilable with that of Luke, it cannot have proceeded from Mat
thew. The most probable conjecture, perhaps, is, that we owe
it, in common with the remainder of the two chapters, to somo
Hebrew convert, who composed the narrative shortly after the
destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, and who,
having found a genealogy of some individual by the name of
Joseph, represented as a descendant of David, mistook it for the
genealogy of Joseph the husband of Mary.
As we proceed, the discrepance between the account of the
nativity of Jesus, as contained in the two chapters, and the ac
count of Luke, continues to be very striking.
According to Luke, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Nazareth. On
the occasion of a proposed census, they both journeyed to Beth
lehem, where Jesus was born, and where he was visited by shep
herds, to whom his birth had been announced by angels. Forty
days after his birth, that is, when the days of Mary s purification,
according to the Jewish Law, had been accomplished, he was
presented in the temple, when his high destiny was publicly an
nounced. Then, after performing all the rites of the Law, Joseph
and Mary returned to Nazareth.
The author of the two chapters, without mentioning any pre
vious residence of Joseph and Mary at Nazareth, relates, that
28
434 ADDITIONAL NOTES -
Jesus was born at Bethlehem ; that certain Magi from the East,
having seen his star, came to pay him reverence ; that their in
quiries at Jerusalem concerning the new-born king of the Jewa
threw Herod and the whole city into commotion ; that they were
directed by Herod to inform him when they had found the child,
but were divinely warned not to do so ; and that Joseph was at
the same time warned that the child s life was in danger, and
directed to fly with him and his mother into Egypt, which he
accordingly did, and remained there till after the death of Herod.
In the account of Joseph s return, the writer shows that he sup
posed Bethlehem to have been his previous place of residence ; for
he represents him as prevented only by a new divine warning
from returning to that city, and as led in consequence to take up
his abode at Nazareth.
As it may be a matter of curiosity to those not familiar with the
subject, I will mention the manner in which it has been attempted
to reconcile these two accounts. Luke says (ii. 39), that after the
purification of Mary in the temple, "when they [Joseph and
Mary] had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord,
they returned to Galilee, to their own town, Nazareth." But it is
contended, that, though Luke has so expressed himself, yet the
return to Nazareth actually meant by him was that following the
flight into Egypt ; that Joseph and Mary did not go from Jerusa
lem to Nazareth, but for some reason or other went to reside at
Bethlehem ; that, during this residence at Bethlehem, the visit of
the Magi took place ; and, consequently, that it was after the mi
raculous display of angels at the birth of Jesus, and after the pre
dictions which accompanied his public presentation in the temple,
that Jerusalem was first thrown into commotion, and the jealousy
of Herod excited, by the reports and inquiries of those strangers.
This, then, is the second very improbable solution of an ap
parent contradiction between the account in the two chapters and
the account of Luke ; and it is to be observed, that the improb
ability of the truth of any narrative increases in a very rapid ratio
to the number of such solutions required.
We must consider, that, if the account of Luke respecting the
birth of Jesus be authentic in its essential features, it must have
been derived from the mother and family of Jesus, as its original
source; for they only could furnish an authentic account. But
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 435
the circumstances related in the two chapters are of such a charac
ter, that they could not have been forgotten or -omitted in their
narrative, had they taken place ; nor can we refer to the same
authentic source two narratives apparently so contradictory, which
coincide in scarcely a single circumstance, and which, in their gen
eral complexion, present an aspect so different. The account
of Luke being that received by the apostles, we cannot Lelieve
another so unlike it to have proceeded from the Apostle Mat
thew.
To the narrative in the two chapters, there are other objections,
arising from its intrinsic character. In the story of the Magi we
find represented a strange mixture of astrology and miracle. A
divine interposition is pretended, which was addressed to the
false opinions of certain Magi, respecting the significance of the
stars, and for which no purpose worthy of the Deity can be
assigned. They are represented as having been guided by a star,
which at last stood over the place where the child was ; though an
object but a little elevated in the heavens changes its apparent
position in reference to objects seen on the earth, according to the
point of view of the spectator. Distrusting, however, the guid
ance of the star, which had led them as far as Jerusalem, and
which finally, as we are told, guided them right, they are repre
sented as inquiring in that city where the object of their search
was to be found ; and, in making this inquiry, we find them using
language Where is the new-born king of the Jews ? that must
have been altogether unintelligible to those not equally favored
with themselves by a divine communication respecting his birth.
These inquiries, according to the account, excited great alarm ia
Herod, who was fast approaching the grave, worn out with insane
passions, disease, and old age ; and whose want of faith in the
Jewish religion, and natural temperament, would have led him
to regard with derision the Jewish expectations of a Messiah. He
could not have apprehended, that the remainder of his life would
be disturbed by the future claims to his throne of an infant just
born in obscurity ; and his solicitude about what might happen,
years after his death, to those of his children whom he had not
destroyed, was little likely to disturb him. Yet he is represented
as having been so carried away by fear and passion, as to act, not
only with the greatest barbarity, bat the greatest folly, to have
436 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
ordered an indiscriminate massacre, from which his intended victim
actually escaped ; when it is clear, that if the preceding circum
stances related by Luke, or even those related by the author of the
two chapters, be true, that victim had become far too conspicuous
not to be very easily identified.
But, if we reject the two chapters, a difficulty arises ; as the
original Hebrew Gospel could not have commenced with the first
words of the third chapter, "But in those days." The diffi
culty, however, is removed by considering, that these words
may have been added as a form of transition to a new subject,
when the two chapters were blended with the Gospel, and that
the Gospel may originally have begun with the words that fol
low, "John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of
Judea ; " that is, in a manner corresponding to the commencement
of Mark s Gospel. Or the first words may originally have been,
J In the days of Herod," meaning Herod the tetrarch of Galilee,
which supposition is, perhaps, countenanced by the story of Epi-
phanius, before mentioned, that the Gospel of the Ebionites began,
" In the days of Herod, king ofJudcea;" the addition of which last
words, king of Judcea, seems to have been a blunder of his own.
But the commencement of the third chapter, " In those days,"
presents a more serious difficulty upon the supposition that what
precedes was written by Matthew. The last events mentioned at
the close of the second chapter are the accession of Archelaus as
ruler of Judasa, and Joseph s going to reside at Nazareth. But it
was not in the time of those events, it was not " in those days,"
on the contrary, it was about thirty years afterward, that
John the Baptist was preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.
The reasons that have been given may, I think, satisfy us that
the two chapters in question did not proceed from the Apostle
Matthew. When we turn to the narrative of Luke, no important
difficulties will, I think, present themselves to the mind of one
who has not determined to reject the belief of all miraculous inter
position. The narrative is, as I have said, in a style rather poetical
than historical. It was probably not committed to writing till
after the death of Mary, and of all the other individuals particu
larly concerned. With its real miracles the fictions of oral tradi
tion had probably become blended ; and the individual by whom
it was committed to writing probably added what he regarded af
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 437
poetical embellishments. It is not necessary to believe, for exam
ple, that Mary and Zachariah actually expressed themselves in the
rhythmical language of the hymns ascribed to them ; or to receive
as literal history the whole account respecting the birth of John
the Baptist, or of the different appearances of an angel announcing
himself as Gabriel. With our present means of judging, however,
we cannot draw a precise line between the truth, and what has
been added to the truth. But in regard to the main event related,
the miraculous conception of Jesus, it seems to me not difficult to
discern in it purposes worthy of God. Nothing could have served
more effectually to relieve him from that interposition and embar
rassment in the performance of his high mission, to which he
would have been exposed on the part of his parents, if born in the
common course of nature. It took him from the control of Mary
and Joseph, and made them feel, that, in regard to him, they
were not to interfere with the purposes of God. It gave him an
abiding sense, from his earliest years, that his destiny on earth
was peculiar and marvellous ; and must have operated most pow
erfully to produce that consciousness of his intimate and singular
connection with God, which was so necessary to the formation of
the character he displayed, and to the right performance of the
great trust committed to him. It corresponds with his office ;
presenting him, to the mind of a believer, as an individual set
apart from all other men, coming into the world with the stamp
of God upon him, answerably to his purpose here, which was to
speak to us with authority from God.
n.
MATTHEW, CHAP. XXVIL 3-10.
In reference to the original text of our present Greek transla
tion of Matthew, I know of nothing extant in any considerable
number of copies, which can be considered as an interpolation of
any importance. The most remarkable, perhaps, is the doxology
at the end of our Lord s prayer, already noticed.* But, beside
the two chapters that have been discussed, there are other pas
sages which are liable to the suspicion of having been interpolated
* See before, p. 424.
438 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
in the copy, or in copies, of the original Hebrew, used by the
transJator.
It is to be remarked, that, for determining the text of Matthew s
Hebrew Gospel, we have but a single authority, the Greek transla
tion, the representative perhaps of but one manuscript, probably
not of many. But, where we have but a single manuscript for
determining the text of an author, and our single authority, the
Greek translation, amounts to but little more, its evidence is not
of great weight against a strong presumption of the spuriousness
of a passage.
Of the passages referred to, the genuineness of which is suspi
cious, one is the account of the conduct and fate of Judas on the
morning after the apprehension of Jesus. I will give it with the
context, Matt, xxvii. 1-11 :
" But in the morning, early, all the chief priests and the elders
of the people met in council to devise how they might procure the
death of Jesus. And, having bound him, they carried him before
Pilate the governor, to deliver him up to him. [Then Judas, who
had put him in their power, seeing that he was condemned, re
pented, and carried back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief
priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in betraying the blood of
an innocent man. But they said to him, What is that to us ? Do
you look to it. And he threw down the money in the temple, and
withdrew, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests,
taking the money, said, It is not lawful to put it into the sacred
treasury, since it is the price of blood. And, after consulting
together, they determined to purchase with it the Potter s Field, as
a burial-place for strangers. Hence that field has been called the
Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what was said by
Jeremiah the prophet : And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of him who was appraised, whom the children of Israel
appraised ; and they gave them for the Potter s Field, as the Lord
had appointed for me.] Then Jesus stood before the governor,
and the governor questioned him, saying, Art thou the king of the
Jews?"
At first view, this account of Judas has the aspect of an interpo
lation. It is inserted so as to disjoin a narrative, the different
parts of which, when it is removed, come together as if they had
been originally united. Whether it be or be not an interpolation.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 439
it is clearly not in a proper place. The whole story apparently
refers to a period subsequent to the point of time where it is intro
duced. Between the evening in which Jesus was apprehended
and early in the morning, no circumstance could have occurred
to produce a great change in such a mind as that of Judas, or in
any other. When he betrayed his Master, he knew that he was
delivering him into the hands of his enemies, whose immediate
purpose it was to take his life. As the account is now placed, it
is said, that, in the morning, Judas was affected with bitter remorse,
because he saw that " Jesus was condemned. 1 But no condemna
tion had yet been passed upon him by the Roman governor, and
Judas could have had no new conviction that the Sanhedrim would
use all their efforts to procure his death. Though it may be pos
sible to put a different meaning on the words, yet the account,
according to its obvious sense, represents Judas as having had an
interview with the chief priests and the elders (that is, with the
Sanhedrim) in the temple, which is irreconcilable with the course
of events as represented by Matthew, in the context of the pas
sage, as well as by the other evangelists. Matthew could not
have described the Sanhedrim as holding a council in 4he house of
Caiaphas, and proceeding thence to the house of Pilate, and also
as being in the temple, where Judas returned them their money,
and they deliberated what they should do with it.
The account of Judas we are considering is irreconcilable with
that given by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (chap. i. 18, 19).
Luke says :
* This man purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity, and,
falling headlong, burst asunder, so that all his bowels gushed out :
and this was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the
field was called in their language Aceldama ; that is, The Field of
Blood."
When Luke says that " this was known to all the inhabitants
of Jerusalem," we understand him as meaning that it was a com
mon report in Jerusalem, and that he himself believed it. I will
not remark on the attempts which have been made to force his
account into correspondence with that now found in Matthew s
Gospel. To me it seems clear, that, if Luke s be correct, that
which we are examining must be erroneous in every particular.
But there is no doubt that the passage quoted from the Acts
440 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
is genuine ; and Luke, in giving the common report, may be pre
sumed to have stated what was believed by the apostles, as well as
others.
In the conclusion of the account found in Matthew s Gospel,
there is an extraordinary misuse of a passage of Zechariah, which
the writer professes to quote from Jeremiah. I put out of view
the notion, that he may have found words answering to what he
has given in an apocryphal book ascribed to Jeremiah, of which
we nowhere find mention except in a single passage of Jerome,
more than three centuries after the Gospel of Matthew was
written. The mistake of the name Jeremiah for Zechariah seems
to show that the writer quoted from memory ; and this may serve
in part to explain the strange use which he makes of the words of
the latter. The changes of sense, which could not have had this
origin, may be accounted for by the allegorical and cabalistical
modes of interpreting the Old Testament that existed among the
Jews. The passage of Zechariah (chap. xi. 12, 13), may be thus
translated :
" Then I said to them, If it seem good in your eyes, give me
my wages. If not, keep them. And they weighed for my wages
thirty shekels of silver. And Jehovah said to me, Cast it into the
treasury, the goodly price at which I was valued by them. And I
took the thirty shekels of silver, and cast them into the house of
Jehovah, into the treasury." *
The word here rendered "treasury" commonly means "pot
ter ; " and the only reason for not so rendering it in the present
case is the difficulty of explaining why a potter should be spoken
of as being in the house of the Lord. In the quotation found in
Matthew, " the potter" is changed into " the Potter s Field."
The inapplicability of the words of Zechariah to the purpose for
which they are cited in the passage under consideration needs no
illustration. Similar perversions of the Old Testament, by chan
ging the words and sense of the original, may be found in the Rab
binical writings ; but no other quotation of the same character is
* I give the translation of my friend, the Rev. Professor Noyes (New
Translation of the Hebrew Prophets, iii. 210). Jehovah considers the wages
of the prophet as his own wages, and the contempt of the prophet the same
as the contempt of himself.
TEXT OP THE GOSPELS. 4 il
adduced by Matthew. If we believe the first two chapters to be
the work of another hand, we may say that he has nothing resem-
oling this quotation from Zechariah. On the contrary, in the
quotations which are found elsewhere in his Gospel, the appli
cability of the words of the original to the subject about which he
has used them is apparent. This fact indicates the habit of his
mind, from which we conclude that it is not probable the quo
tation in question was made by him.
IIL
MATTHEW, CHAP. XXVTL, PART OF VEK. 52 AND 63.
Another passage which one may believe to have been interpo
lated in the copy, or in copies, of the original Hebrew used by thp
translator, is that answering to the words of the following quota
tion which are included in brackets.
" And lo ! the veil of the temple was torn asunder from the top
to the bottom; and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were
rent, and the sepulchres laid open ; [and many bodies of saints
who slept were raised, and, leaving their sepulchres, after his res
urrection, entered the holy city and appeared to many.] "
Who, it may be asked, were these saints? Not disciples of
Christ ; for many of them had not died. Not unconverted Jews
of that time ; for to them such a title would not be applied. How
long had they lain in their sepulchres ? We cannot but suppose,
that corruption had done its work on the larger portion ; and is it
to be thought, that God would re-create, as it were, those moulder
ing bodies without some purpose far different from what can be
discerned? What purpose, indeed, can be discerned? They
appeared, it is said, to many ; but we do not find that any converts
were made in consequence, nor can we perceive that any good
whatever followed, directly or indirectly, from their appearance.
Supposing the story to be true, many to whom they did not appear
would regard it as a fable ; and its circulation would only tend to
throw discredit on the testimony to the resurrection of Christ
himself. Were those saints in fact recalled to life, and did
they die again, and their bodies resume their places, wht.u
their supposed mission to the living was accomplished? Is it
possible, if such an astonishing miracle had been performed, p
442 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
miracle more adapted to excite consternation than any in the
whole history of the evangelists, that one really acquainted with
such a fact should have known nothing of the consequences that
must have resulted from it, or that, knowing those consequences,
he should not have thought it worth while to record them ? Is it
likely, that so strange a marvel, about which all Jerusalem must
have been full of excitement, should have been mentioned but by
one evangelist, and that so slightly ? Is it credible, that when, as
far as we know, but three individuals were restored to life by
Jesus himself, and this in solemn attestation of his divine mission,
many bodies of saints should have been raised under such circum
stances as that the fact should contribute little or nothing to estab
lish the truth of our religion ?
After Chris fs resurrection, it is said, they left their sepulchres,
and went into the holy city. In this extraordinary statement we
may recognize, I think, the fabrication of some relater of the
story. He apprehended, that, if the saints were represented as
rising and appearing on the day when Christ was crucified, it
might seem to deprive him of the title of First-born from the
dead ; and therefore had recourse to the not very successful expe
dient of postponing their appearance till after his resurrection.
If these views are correct, the story must be regarded as a
fable ; probably one which, in common, perhaps, with others now
utterly forgotten, was in circulation among the Hebrew converts
after the destruction of Jerusalem. Some possessor of a manu
script of Matthew s Hebrew Gospel may be supposed to have
noted it in the margin of his copy, whence it found its way into the
text of others, one or more of which fell into the hands of the
Greek translator.
In connection with the mention of supposed interpolations in the
Gospels, I have referred to the words ascribed to our Lord, in the
fortieth verse of the twelfth chapter of Matthew.* On this pas
sage I remark below. f
* See before, p. 17, note.
t I do not speak of the passage in the text, because I do not believe it
to be an interpolation. I give the words in brackets, with those preced
ing :
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 443
IV.
TILE CONCLUSION OF MARK S GOSPEL. (CHAP. XVI 9-20.)
We pass to the Gospel of Mark. In this there is but one pas
sage that demands consideration. It consists of the last twelve
verses of his Gospel, from the ninth verse of the sixteenth chapter,
inclusive, to the end.
" A wicked and apostate race would have a sign ; but no sign will be
given it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet. [For as Jonah was three
days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so will the Son of man be
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.] "
The words of our Lord are thus reported by Luke, chap. xi. 29, 30 :
" This is a wicked race. It would have a sign ; but no sign will be given
it, except the sign of Jonah. For such a sign as Jonah was to the Ninevites
will the Son of man be to this generation."
If we regard what is given by Luke as a correct report of what was said
by Jesus, we may suppose, that the explanation of the sign of Jonah, by
a comparison of his being three days and three nights in the belly of a
fish with our Lord s being three days and three nights in a tomb, which
is found in Matthew, but not in Luke, was introduced into our Lord s
discourse during the time that it was preserved by oral tradition. His own
brief words leaving his meaning undefined, they were understood by some
as referring to the extraordinary marvel related in the story of Jonah ; and,
being so understood, this explanation became connected with them. There
seems to be no reason for supposing, that it was inserted in Matthew s Gos
pel by any other than the evangelist himself.
But it cannot readily be believed, that our Lord would have represented
his being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth as the only
sign of his divine mission to be given to the Jews. This would have been
admitting what they had just implied, that no sign of his divine mission
had already been given them.
Nor, if we regard as fabulous the story that Jonah remained alive for
three days and three nights in a fish by which he had been swallowed, is it
credible that our Lord would have referred to a fiction of this sort in the
manner represented; especially as it does not appear from the narrative con
cerning Jonah, that the supposed miracle was any sign to the Ninevites, or
was even known to them.
It may be added, that our Lord is made to say, that he would be three
days and three nights in the tomb. He was, in fact, laid in the tomb on the
night of Friday, probably late at night, and rose before the dawn of
Sunday morning; and no use of language can be produced which may justiry
the calling of such a period of time three days and three nights. Its being
444 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
It is remarkable, that while Griesbach does not, in his New
Testament, affix to them any mark of doubt, he argues at length
against their genuineness in his Commentarius Criticus. The
state of external testimony respecting them is as follows :
They are not found in the Vatican manuscript. In the Codex
Stephani rj, after the eighth verse, it is said, The following also is
extant, which words precede a short conclusion undoubtedly spu
rious, and then come the words, This also is extant; after which
so called can, I think, be accounted for only by the loose manner in which
the Jews were wont to accommodate together passages of the Old Testa
ment, and events of which they regarded those passages as descriptive,
prophetic, or typical. Of this it is not a remarkable example.
The meaning of the words of Jesus, as reported by Luke, and also by
Matthew, with the omission of those under consideration, may be thus ex
plained :
Jesus was surrounded by men full of bigotry, evil passions, and mortal
hatred towards himself, men who were resisting the strongest evidences of
his divine mission, ascribing his miracles to the agency of Satan, and de
manding in mockery some sign of hie divine mission, some manifestation of
God s power in attestation of it, as if the most striking attestations of it had
not been already given. His view turned to that destruction of their nation
which was impending over the Jews, as the punishment of their rejection of
him. No sign, he says, will be given to this wicked and apostate race, no
manifestation of God s power will be made to them which they will believe
and feel to be such, except a prophet of destruction such as Jonah was to the
Ninevites, whose warnings to pursue the train of thought which was in
the mind of our Lord will be disregarded, and whose predictions of ruin
will be accomplished.
Thus he immediately subjoins: " The men of Nineveh will rise up before
the judgment-seat with this race, and condemn it: for they reformed upon the
preaching of Jonah ; and lo ! one greater than Jonah is here."
However fabulous may be the story of Jonah, there was nothing unsuit
able to our Lord s character in thus using it. Speakers and writers of every
age and country have recurred to well-known works of fiction as readily as
to authentic history for analogies and exemplifications fitted to affect the
imaginations of their hearers or readers. It would be folly to suppose, that,
in doing so, they meant to vouch for the truth of the books which they
have thus quoted. It is only in the reasonings of divines that these facts
have been overlooked, in those reasonings in which our Lord and the
writers of the New Testament have been considered as giving their authority
for the truth and for the genuineness of all books referred to or quoted by
them.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 445
follow the twelve verses in question. In more than forty other
manuscripts, they are accompanied by various remarks, to the
effect " that they were wanting in some, but found in the ancient
copies ; " " that they were in many copies ; " * that they had been
considered spurious, and were wanting in most copies ; " " tliat they
were not in the more accurate copies ; " and, on the other hand,
" that they were generally in accurate copies."
In the other manuscripts of the Gospels boside those mentioned,
the passage in question is found without remark ; and likewise in
all the ancient versions, with the exception of the Armenian (in
the manuscripts of which, as appears, it is either omitted or
marked as of doubtful credit) , and likewise of the copy of an Arabic
version preserved in the Vatican Library.
The nineteenth verse is distinctly quoted by Irenseus as from
the Gospel of Mark ; * and the passage in question appears to
have been recognized as genuine by some other fathers. f But no
part of it is quoted by Origen. According to Eusebius, almost all
the copies of Mark s Gospel, including the most accurate, ended
with what is now the eighth verse. J Gregory of Nyssa states,
that the passage was not found in the more accurate copies ; and
Jerome says, that it was but in few, being wanting in almost all
the Greek manuscripts. || I pass over other authorities against it
of less importance.
This state of the external evidence is such as to render the
genuineness of the passage suspicious ; especially when we con
sider, that it was the natural tendency of transcribers rather to
preserve than to reject what they found in an exemplar before
them. They had the feeling, that it rendered their copy more
complete. To reject was to assume responsibility ; to retain was
yielding to authority ; and, in addition, there has always been
a strong, however irrational, sentiment, that, when there is a
doubt whether a passage may not be a portion of Sacred Writ, it
* Cent. Haeres., lib. in. c. 10, 6, p 188.
t Not, however, by Clement of Rome, nor Justin, who are cited as quot
ing it in the editions of the New Testament by Griesbach and Scholz, nor
I think, by Clement of Alexandria, who is also adduced.
| Quaestiones ad Marinum, pp. 61, 62.
Orat. ii. in Christi Resurrect.; Opp. iii. 411.
U Ad Hedibiam, de Quaestiouibus ; Opp iv. pars i. col. 172.
446 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
is profane to reject it, a sentiment of which we have had full
proof in our day ; the manifest corruptions found in the Received
Text of the New Testament being, some of them, still inserted in
editions of the -original, and all of them retained in the Common
English Version, as published by authority. The dread of taking
from Scripture any thing which might be a part of it has been far
stronger than the apprehension, at least equally reasonable, of
adding to Scripture something not belonging to it. Thus, Euse-
bius, after mentioning that some rejected the passage under con
sideration, as wanting in most copies, and among them the most
accurate, adds, that "others, not daring to reject any thing whatever
that is extant, through any circumstance, in the manuscripts of the
Gospels, say that there is here a double reading, as in many other
places, and that both are to be received, because the faithful and
pious will not undertake to decide in favor of one rather than tho
other." *
But, in addition to this common feeling, transcribers must have
been peculiarly reluctant to reject the passage before us ; for, if
struck off, it leaves the Gospel of Mark, in its conclusion, strange
ly incomplete and unsatisfactory. This, which every one feels,
must have been felt by them. It is, I conceive, the main argu
ment for the genuineness of the passage, and one which at first
view may seem almost conclusive.
Before, however, considering this argument, we will attend to
the internal character of the passage, to ascertain what proof this
may afford respecting the point at issue.
There is, then, a difference so great between the use of lan
guage in this passage, and its use in the undisputed portion of
Mark s Gospel, as to furnish strong reason for believing the pas
sage not genuine. I give examples in a note below. f
* Quaestiones ad Marinum, p. 62.
t There are various words and modes of expression peculiar to this pas
sage, not connected with the expression of any thing peculiar to its subject;
but, on the contrary, of such a character, that, if they had been familiar to
Mark, they would probably have occurred elsewhere in his writings. Such
are the following:
Ver. 9. 7rpd>rr/ aa66urov, instead of ^ilq. oa66uTcjv, the expression used by
Mark a little before, and by all the other evangelists, in speaking of the day
Hpd)T7] ca66inov occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 447
To proceed to other considerations : In the ninth verse (the
6rst of the disputed passage), Mary Magdalene is described as if
unknown to the reader, " Mary Magdalene, from whom he cast
out seven demons." Now, as she had been mentioned by Mark
several times within a few preceding pages, it is not likely that this
mode of designating her, to be expected only concerning an indi
vidual first introduced to notice, should have been used by him.
It seems to have been the work of the author of the addition,
writing with too little reference to what preceded in the Gospel.
The words ascribed to our Saviour in these verses differ so
much in their character from any elsewhere recorded as his, either
by Mark or any other of the evangelists, that it is difficult to
believe them to have been uttered by him. " And he said t his
disciples, Go to all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole
creation. He who believes and is baptized, shall be safe; he who
disbelieves, shall be condemned. And these signs shall accom
pany those who believe : in my name they shall cast out demons ;
they shall speak new languages ; they shall take up serpents ; if
they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay
their hands upon the diseased, and they shall be well." In these
words, represented as the last that Jesus addressed to his apostles,
there appears a want of that moral dignity which is characteristic
of his discourses, and which we should above all expect upon this
occasion. The particular enumeration of miracles to be performed
is not in his manner. He would not, in giving his last solemn
charge to his apostles, have turned away their thoughts from a
Ver. 10. innvrj, and ver. 11. ay-nnvoL. This use of cKelvoc, not demon
strative nor emphatical, occurs nowhere else in Mark s Gospel.
Ver. 10 The expression ol [IET avrov yevofj-evot, to denote the disciples
of Jesus, of which use of the words there is no other example in the New
Testament.
Ver. 19. 6 nvpioe, and ver. 20. rov Kvpiov. Mark in his own person no-
Mr tere else applies this title to Christ.
Passing over the words peculiar to this passage, the use of which may be
accounted for from something peculiar in its subject, the follfwing nowhere
else occur in the Gospel of Mark : 1. 7ropeio//ai, the participles of which are
used three times; 2. &euofj.nt t used as a verb, and likewise as its participle;
3. umaTEU, verb and participle; 4. fiera ravra; 6. Srepof ; 6. varepov;
7. irapaKohovdEU ; 8. fiXaTrrw ; 9. {Jvrlv; 10. iravra^ov ; 11.
12. fotfaww; 13.
448 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
consideration of their high duties to an anticipation of the various
miraculous powers which they and other believers were to possess.
Some of the miracles enumerated are of a kind very different frorr
those which he and his apostles were accustomed to perform.
They do not, like their works of mercy, bear in their very charac
ter the stamp of a divine mission. They were liable to be con
founded with the tricks of pretended magicians. Some of the
powers promised could be of no use to others, and of none to the
possessor, except in case of a rare accident. But, above all, if, as
I think is certain, miraculous powers were not granted to be
lievers generally, then this promise that they would be so granted
" These signs shall accompany those who believe" could not
have been uttered by Christ, and, we may conclude with almost
equal confidence, could not have been ascribed to him by the
evangelist.
There is, throughout these verses, an extraordinary conciseness
of narration, very different from the common manner of Mark,
who usually details facts in more words and with more circum
stances than any other of the evangelists. It is the manner of one
adding only what he thought necessary to form some proper con
clusion to the Gospel.
But on the other hand, to recur to the argument before men
tioned, it may be said, that it is incredible that Mark should have
left his Gospel with so abrupt and unsatisfactory an ending as it
must- have had, if he had broken off with the eighth verse of the
last chapter ; and that this consideration alone is sufficient to do
away the whole force of the preceding remarks. I allow it to be
incredible that Mark should thus have ended his Gospel design
edly and by choice ; but it is not incredible that he should have
been interrupted in his labors by accident. What that accident
was, must be a matter of conjecture. But there is nothing incred
ible or improbable in supposing, that some accident may have
occurred to prevent him from finishing his Gospel as he intended ;
and there are historical circumstances which afford ground for
conjecturing what that accident may have been.
According to ancient accounts, of which there is no reason for
doubting the essential correctness, the apostle Peter, near the
close of his life, went to Rome, with Mark for his companion. He
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 419
there preached the gospel, while Mark, as is related, composed, at
the request of his hearers, a written gospel, of which his preaching
was the basis. But the terrible persecution of the Christians
under Nero broke out in the year 64 ; and in that or the following
year, as appears probable, Peter was crucified. Here all authen
tic accounts of Mark end ; for the story of his going from Home
and preaching at Alexandria can be traced no higher than to a
hearsay of Eusebius, and is connected with relations of a nature
wholly to destroy its credit. In that persecution, Mark may have
perished also ; or, if he did not, the anguish of mind which he must
have suffered, or imprisonment, or a rapid flight from the city, or
some other cause connected with that period of frightful distress
and anxiety, may have prevented him from completing his work.
Copies of it, however, being taken in its imperfect state, we may
suppose, that, at an early period, some individual possessing one
of these, who was procuring new transcripts to be made, added the
brief conclusion which we now find, in order to complete the
work. As the history is in fact unfinished without it, it soon came
to be considered by very many as a part of the original Gospel, or
as a proper addition to it ; and it has thus, we may suppose, found
Tts way into a great majority of our present copies.
V.
LUKE, CHAP. IX. 55, 56.
When our Lord and his disciples were refused hospitality by
the Samaritans of a certain village, which was an act of peculiar
disrespect according to the notions of that age and country, James
and John, in common, doubtless, with the other disciples, were
indignant at such treatment. They recollected what, according to
the Jewish history, had been the dealings of prophets of old with
those who offended them ; they were disposed, on this as on other
occasions, to take the lead among the disciples ; and, under the
excitement of the moment, they addressed Jesus with the ques
tion, "Master, shall we call down fire from heaven and destroy
them ? as Elijah did.
"But he turned and rebuked them; [and said, Ye know not
of what spirit ye are. For the Son of man came not to destroy
29
450 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
men s lives, but to save them.] And they went to another vil
lage/
We can conceive of no words more appropriate to the occasion,
more suitable to the character of our Lord, or better fitted to
repress and correct the wrong feelings of his disciples. They
conveyed a reproof full of instruction, expressed at once in the
mildest and the most effectual form.
One who is not a critical student of the New Testament may
therefore be surprised to learn, that these words were probably
not in the Gospel of Luke as written by him. They are wanting
in a large majority of the oldest and most important manuscripts.
The omission of a passage which was part of the original text
of a work must be the result either of accident or of design. No
accident can be supposed which would lead to the concurrent
omission of a passage in many manuscripts, which, like those in
the present case, were written independently of one another ; that
is, of which one was not copied from another. There is only one
class of accidents of omission which admits of any particular ex
planation, such as may justify us in supposing the possibility, that
an accident of this class, affecting a particular passage, might
occur in a few unconnected copies. The omissions referred to are
those which proceed from the circumstance, that one clause ends
with the same word or the same series of syllables as another
following it, so that the eye of a transcriber may glance from the
former to -the latter ending, and omit the intervening words,
omissions in consequence of an homoioteleuton (that is, "like
ending " ), as they are technically called. But this cause of omis
sion does not exist in the passage before us.
If, then, the words ascribed to Jesus originally made a part of
Luke s Gospel, they must have been omitted by design ; and this
supposition has been resorted to. It has been suggested, that they
were struck out by catholic Christians, that the Marcionites might
not use them in defence of their opinions.*
As I have elsewhere (ante, pp. 170, 171) more fully ex
plained, the Marcionites, in common with the other Gnostics,
regarded Judaism as a very imperfect dispensation, with which
* " Orthodoxi haec videntur delevisse, ne Marcionitae haberent quo se tue-
rentur." Wetstein, ad locum.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 451
Christianity in many respects stood in contrast ; they conceived
of it as proceeding, not from the true God, but from an inferior
god, who had fashioned this material world ; and they believed,
that the apostles generally, through their Jewish prejudices, did
not fully comprehend the character of Christianity. In the pas
sage before us, our Lord is represented as saying to two of the
principal apostles, " Ye know not of what spirit ye are : " that is,
as I doubt not that the words should be understood, * Ye know
not the spirit of my religion ; " and in his own conduct he pre
sents the spirit of Christianity in contrast with what was conceived
to be the spirit of Judaism, as exemplified in the story concerning
Elijah.* The passage, therefore, is one which the Marcionites
might naturally have thought to be very much to their purpose.
But we cannot thus account for its omission. Nor can we
adopt any other supposition, which is designed to explain its
absence from so many copies, on the ground of there being some
thing obnoxious in its character.
There is no evidence, and no probability, that transcribers
among catholic Christians were accustomed to omit passages
through the influence of any theological prejudice, or because they
might seem to them to present a difficulty, of whatever kind that
might be. If such had been the fact, there must have been abun
dant evidence of it in the present state of the authorities for
settling the text of the New Testament ; but such evidence does
not exist. Catholic Christians, to say nothing of their reverence
for the Scriptures, were not so deficient in honesty and in good
sense as to adopt or countenance such a course. In regard to the
passage before us, every transcriber must have shrunk from thus
dealing with the words of Jesus himself. Without doubt, like
wise, the generality of those engaged in the transcription and sale
of books pursued their business as a trade, and troubled them
selves little about the bearing of particular passages.
But should we admit that some few transcribers were so alarmed
at the use which the Marcionites might make of the passage, that,
though they could not expunge it from the copies of the Marcion
ites, they struck it out of their own ; or that they were, for any
other reason, so scandalized at the words of our Lord, that they
* The story is told in 2 Kings, chap. i.
452 ADDITIONAL NOTES
resolved not to be concerned in preserving them, yet their mis
conduct could affect only the copies which they transcribed. li*
we suppose the omission to have been made after the controversy
with the Marcionites had commenced, it could not have affected
many thousands of copies already spread over the world, nor
those copies which might be made by more trustworthy tran
scribers ; nor could it have counteracted the constant tendency
there would have been to fill up the gap which had been left,
the tendency among transcribers, of which I have before spoken,
to insert, and not to omit. We cannot, therefore, account for the
absence of the passage from so many copies on the ground of in
tentional omission.
But it is further to be observed, that the Marcionites made no use
of the words of our Lord, though apparently so much to their pur
pose. If they had done so, we should have evidence of the fact in
the writings of their opponents, particularly of Tertullian. But
nothing to that effect appears. This i the more remarkable, as
Tertullian, in his long work against Marcici, twice notices the use
which the Marcionites made of the narrative, by contrasting the
conduct of Jesus and Elijah,* but refers to no appeal made by
them to the words of Jesus. Had those words been generally
recognized as genuine in the time of the earlier Marcionites, they
could hardly have failed to use them.
In discussing the question, whether a passage omitted in cer
tain manuscripts should or should not be considered as a part of
the original text, it has not been uncommon to array on one side
the authorities which recognize it as genuine, and on the other
side those which do not. The intrinsic value of one class of au
thorities, considered in reference to their general character, is
then weighed against that of the other class, and the passage is
judged to be genuine or not, according as either class preponder
ates, except, indeed, that a zeal for defending the Received
Text often causes the critic to lay a heavy hand upon the scale in
which are placed the authorities for retaining it. But this mode
of reasoning is wholly fallacious. If a passage be genuine, we
* Advers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 23, p. 438; c. 29, p. 446.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 453
may reasonably exj ect to find it, not in a majority of the copies
of the work to which it belongs, but in all the copies, except so
far as in particular cases a satisfactory reason may be assigned for
its omission. If there be any copy in which it is not found, this is
a fact to be accounted for. An interpolation may be extant in a
majority of copies. It may have been originally inserted incon
siderately or fraudulently. It may by mistake have been taken
from the margin into the text, a mistake of so very frequent
occurrence, that I am obliged often to refer to it.* Having been
once inserted, its spread from one copy to many is easily explained
by the uncritical habits of transcribers, and their disposition to
retain whatever they found given as a part of the text before
them. The noted passage interpolated in the Jewish Antiquities of
Josephus, in which mention is made of Jesus, is not only quoted by a
series of Christian fathers from Eusebius downward, but is extant
at the present day in all the manuscripts of that work. It appears,
therefore, that the genuineness of a passage is not established by
its being found in a majority of the most important copies of the
work of which it may be supposed to be a part. To satisfy the
conditions of proof required, it should be found in all ; unless (as
I have said) a sufficient and probable cause can be assigned for
its absence.
These are general principles of criticism, to be kept in view in
regard to the passage before us, and others which we are about to
consider. The present passage, indeed, is not found in a majority
of the most important manuscripts ; but it is found in a large ma
jority of the manuscripts of Luke s Gospel, taken indiscriminately,
and in many of the versions.
* A marginal note has crept into the text, says Porson in his Letters to
Travis (pp. 149, 150), "not merely in hundreds or thousands, but in millions
of places. Naturd, says Daille, ita comparatum est, ut auctorum jyrobatornm
libros j)lerique omnes amplos quam breves malint ; verentes scilicet, ne quid sibi
desit, quod auctoris vel sit vel esse dicatur. To the same purpose Bengelius:
Non facile pro superjluo aliquid hodie habent complurcs docti viri (he might
have added, omnesque indvcti), eddemque mente phrique quondam librarii
fuere. From this known propensity of transcribers to turn every thing into
text which they found written in the margin of their manuscripts or between
the lines, so many interpolations have proceeded, that at present the surest
canon of criticism is, Prceferatur lectio brevioi ,"
454 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Its omission in the copies in which it is not found cannot, as we
have seen, be accounted for as having been caused either by acci
dent or by design. We must conclude, therefore, that it did not
make a part of the original text of Luke s Gospel.
But, on the other hand, the words carry with them strong in
trinsic proof that they were spoken by Jesus. Nor can we
imagine any reason why, if not uttered by him, they should have
been invented and ascribed to him.
In this state of the case, the only solution of the appearances
that present themselves seems to be, that the words ascribed to
our Lord were spoken by him ; that they were preserved in the
memories of those who heard him, and communicated by them to
others ; and that, not having been recorded by Luke, they were
first written in the margin, and then introduced into the text
of his Gospel.
But the appearances are such, that, this general explanation
being given, we must enter further into particulars. The Cam
bridge manuscript and some other authorities omit only the last
words ascribed to our Lord, and preserve the first; namely, " Ye
know not of what spirit ye are." And some manuscripts, in
cluding the Vatican and the Codex Stephani J?, which omit all our
Lord s words, omit also the words, "As Elijah did." It may
seem, therefore, that the account of the words of our Lord and his
disciples was not introduced in a complete form at once, but that
the text owes its present state to marginal additions made at
three different times; first, the words, " As Elijah did" being
written down, as these are wanting in the smallest number of
manuscripts, then those first spoken by our Lord, and then his
remaining words.
VI.
LUKE, CHAP. XXII. 43, 44.
In thi Gospel of Luke there is but one other passage of any
importance, the genuineness of which there seems good reason for
doubting. It consists of the forty-third and forty-fourth verses of
the twenty-second chapter.
"And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strength
ening him. And. being in an agony, he prayed the more ear-
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 455
nestly ; and his sweat was as great drops of blood falling to the
ground."
Not to mention some other authorities of little consequence,
these verses are wanting in the Alexandrine and Vatican manu
scripts. They are likewise not in the Sahidic version. In ten
manuscripts, three of them in uncial letters, they are marked as
doubtful.
They are not quoted by Origen or by Tertullian. The fact
is remarkable, especially as regards the latter writer, in whose
earnest arguments against those heretics who denied that Christ
had a body of flesh and blood, no passage in the Gospels would
have seemed more to his purpose.
In the fourth century, Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, says, " We
ought not to be ignorant, that in very many Greek and Latin
manuscripts (in Greeds et in Latinis codicibus complurimis)
nothing is to be found concerning the coming of the angel, or the
bloody sweat." *
Jerome, in writing against the Pelagians, reproaches them with
believing that men can will what is good without the grace of God,
when even the Saviour was strengthened by an angel. " In some
copies," he says, both Greek and Latin (in quibusdam exemplari-
bus tarn Greeds quam Latinis), we find that " there appeared to
him an angel from heaven strengthening him," &c., to the end of
the passage. f Jerome was not of a temper to understate facts
from which he was reasoning ; and, when he says that it was found
in some copies, we may conclude, that it was, as Hilary says, want
ing in very many.
Epiphanius likewise reasons from the passage, his purpose being
to prove the double nature of Christ. But he says of it, "It is
found in Luke s Gospel, in those copies which have not been sub
jected to a revision ; and the holy Irenaeus, in his work against
Heresies, uses it as an argument to confute those who denied the
real body of Christ : J but orthodox persons struck it out through
fear, not understanding its bearing and its great force."
* De Trinitate, lib. x. 41 ; Opp. col. 1062.
t Adversus Pelagianos, lib. ii. ; Opp. iv. pars ii. col. 521.
t It is referred to by Irenseus, lib. iii. c. 22, 2, p. 219.
Ancorat, xxxi.; Opp. ii. 36.
466 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Epiphanius does not assert that it was found in many copies
of his time. It was found, he says, in those which had not
been revised, that is, inspected, after the transcriber had done
his work, by some person responsible for the correctness of
the text, a care which was undoubtedly taken of all copies
pretending to accuracy. It was found in so few, that, in order
to prove its genuineness, he appeals to its being quoted by
Irenaeus ; and not venturing to assert, as he undoubtedly would
have done if he had dared, that it had been expunged by heretics,
he lays the charge upon "orthodox persons, 11 a charge utterly
improbable.
After the prevalence, in the fifth century, of the MonopJiysite
heresy, the heresy which ascribed but a single nature to Christ,
and that the divine, the passage became a favorite text with the
orthodox, as proving his double nature. It had, much earlier,
been used by Irenaeus against those who denied the real body of
Christ. Thus recommended to the favor of the early Christians, and
of the orthodox of later times, it readily made its way into a great
majority of our extant authorities, assisted, doubtless, by the oper
ation of the principle which led those who had the care of the
transcription of manuscripts rather to admit what was of doubtful
credit, than to reject what might be a part of Scripture. We have
proof from writers of the ninth and tenth centuries of its use in the
Monophysite controversy, and, at the same time, of its continued
absence from many copies ; for they charge its omission upon the
Monophysite Christians of Syria and Armenia.*
The objections which present themselves to the passage, con
sidered in its intrinsic character, are the following : The agony
of Christ is represented as existing after the angel had been sent
to strengthen him. The bloody sweat described is such as we
have no authority for believing was ever produced by mere distress
of mind, if it have been by any other cause. The account appears
at variance with the character of Christ, and especially with that
calmness, self-possession, and firmness which he manifested during
the evening and night previous to his apprehension, before and
after separating from his disciples on Mount Olivet ; and with
which his expressions of great suffering, recorded by the other
* Vide Wetsten. Nov. Test., ad locum.
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 457
evangelists, present nothing inconsistent. It does not appear bow
any one could have witnessed, or become acquainted with, the
events related ; for Jesus had removed to a distance from hig dis
ciples, and, when he returned, found them asleep. There is noth
ing improbable in the supposition, that, even amid the horror of
those moments, he told them, for their benefit, in a few brief words,
what had been the purport of his prayer; and he might, indeed,
have also communicated the facts in question, supposing them to
have occurred. But had they really been made known by him,
under such circumstances, they were adapted to produce so deep
and lasting an impression upon the feelings, that an apostle, as
Matthew, could hardly have forborne to relate them. We should
expect to find them mentioned, not by one evangelist only, but
by all.
It may be observed further, that, if this passage be struck out,
the parts of the text which it separates come together, as if the
passage had been interposed between them, without any appear
ance of a chasm.
We may suppose, then, that it was a passage first written in the
margin of some very early manuscript, and subsequently, through
the mistake of transcribers, taken into the text of other copies.
The narrative perhaps owes its present form to a misunderstand
ing of language. It having been said, that Jesus, in his agony,
received strength from on high, and angels being regarded by the
Jews as the ministers of God, it was inferred, we may suppose,
that he was strengthened by the mission of an angel. There is
likewise ground for believing, that " to weep blood " was anciently
an expression for weeping bitterly, and that "to sweat blood"
was used to denote a violent struggle ; and the account before us
may have arisen from taking such figurative language in too literal
a sense.
If the passage were, as I think, originally a marginal addition,
it must have been made in an early age, and have soon been taken
into the text of some manuscripts ; for it is quoted by Justin Mar
tyr in the following words, which are remarkable from apparently
involving a reference to Luke, as one of the companions of the
apostles: "In those Memoirs which I affirm to have been com
posed by apostles of Christ and their companions, it is said
that sweat like drops of blood flowed from him while pray"
458 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
ing" * A little later, as we have seen, it was quoted by Irenseus.
It is said to have been alleged by Hippolytus, not long afterwards,
in proof of the human as well as divine nature of Christ. f But I
find no reference to its appearing in the writings of any other of
the fathers, before the notice of it already quoted from Hilary,
about the middle of the fourth century.
VII.
JOHN, CHAP. V. 3, 4.
We proceed to the Gospel of John. The first passage to be
noticed is the account of the descent of an angel into the Sheep-
pool at Jerusalem. I will give the words which are probably
spurious in their connection, putting them within brackets.
JOHN v. 1-8. " After this there was a festival of the Jews ;
and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now,- there is at Jerusalem, by
the Sheep-gate, a pool called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five
porches. In these lay a number of diseased persons, blind, lame,
withered, [waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel,
at certain times, descended into the pool, and troubled the water ;
then whoever first entered it, after the troubling of the water,
was cured of whatever disease afflicted him.] And there was a
man there who had been diseased for thirty-eight years. This
man Jesus saw lying, and, knowing that his disease had now con
tinued for a long time, said to him, Wilt thou be made well?
The sick man answered him, Master, I have no one to put me
into the pool when the water is troubled. But, while I am going,
some other descends before me. Jesus says to him, Rise, take
up thy bed, and walk."
The whole of the doubtful passage is omitted in the Vatican
manuscript, in the Ephrem as first written, in two others of less
note, in manuscripts of the Coptic version, and in some one or
more of the Sahidic ; and Nonnus, who, about the beginning of
the fifth century, wrote a metrical paraphrase of the Gospel of
* Dial, cum Tryph., p. 361.
t Hippolytus is quoted to this effect by Theodoret in his Eranistes, Dial
ii. j Opp. iv. p. 89.
TEXT OP THE GOSPELS. 459
John, says nothing of the descent of an angel, but speaks of the
water as rushing forth in spontaneous jets.
The fourth verse, beginning, For an angel, &c., is omitted in
the Cambridge manuscript and one other, and is marked as
doubtful in more than fifteen others. It is wanting in the manu
scripts of the Armenian version generally, and in several of the
old Latin versions.
On the other hand, this verse being retained, the last clause
of the third, waiting for the moving of the waters, is wanting
in the Alexandrine manuscript, as first written, the Codex Ste-
phani y, and one other.
I find no historical remarks respecting the omission or insertion
of the story of the descent of an angel. It is referred to by Ter-
tullian,* but it is not noticed in the extant works of any other Chris
tian writer before Ambrose and Chrysostom in the fourth century.
The pool spoken of in the passage appears to have been fed by
an intermitting spring. The story of the descent of the angel was
founded on the superstition of the Jews, who, in common with the
Heathens, were accustomed to ascribe any remarkable natural
phenomenon to supernatural agency. What the former accounted
for by the descent of an angel, the latter might have explained
by some mythological fable. The circumstances of the case alto
gether preclude the supposition, that, in giving this solution, there
was any pretence that the descent of the angel was visible.
In the simple narrative, which alone, I conceive, is to be
ascribed to St. John, something, as is not uncommon with the
evangelists, is left unexplained ; namely, what is meant by the
moving of the waters, and why it was supposed that then only they
had a sanative power. This, I presume, led some early possessor
or transcriber of a manuscript of his Gospel to write the popular
account in its margin, whence it was assumed into the text of
others. But for its omission, or the marks of doubt with which it
is inserted, no satisfactory reason can be given, supposing it to
have been originally written by St. John.f
* De Baptismo, c. 5, p. 226.
t In the passage the following words occur, not elsewhere used by John :
iKdexopai, STJKOTE, /care^w, and voarj/Lta, beside KIVTJOIS and /card xatpov,
the use of which in this passage alone may be accounted for by the nature
of its subject.
460 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
We have reason to believe that St. John did not adopt the
error of his countrymen respecting the agency of an angel in
the case in question, because he appears to have been free from
another much more general. He ascribes no diseases to demonia-
*al possession.
VIII.
JOHN, CHAP. VH. 53 VHI. 11.
The narrative of the woman taken in adultery is omitted in so
oiany copies, and marked as doubtful or spurious in so many
others, that, reasoning on the principles which have been laid
down, we may conclude with confidence that it was not written by
rft. John. But I perceive no ground for questioning the truth of
the account : it is related in a striking and natural manner, and
bears an intrinsic character of probability.
There are, in different copies of this narrative, great variations
of language, expressive of the same essential meaning. This may
be accounted for in several ways. We may supppose that the
story was first written in some other language than the Greek, and
translated into this by two different hands ; or that, being first
written in Greek, and then translated into Latin, it is found in .
some copies, as the Cambridge manuscript for example, retrans
lated from the Latin into the Greek; or, what is perhaps as
probable a solution as any, that it was written down in Greek by
two different individuals, from the oral narration of St. John, and
afterwards appended to his Gospel, in which it had not been
inserted by himself. The passage may be thus rendered, according
to what are perhaps the most probable readings :
"And every one went to his house; and Jesus went to the
Mount of Olives. But in the morning he was again in the temple,
and all the people came to him ; and, having sat down, he was in
structing them, when the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees
brought a woman taken in adultery, and, placing her in the midst,
said to him, Teacher, this woman was taken in the very act of
adultery ; and, in the Law, Moses commands us that such should
be stoned to death : what now dost thou say ? This they asked
with a design to ensnare him, that they might have an accusation
against him. Then Jesus, bending down, wrote with his finger
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 461
upon the ground. But, as they persisted in questioning him, he
raised his head, and said to them, Let him among you who is with
out sin cast the first stone at her. And, bending down again, he
wrote upon the ground. And, hearing this, they went out one by-
one, beginning with the oldest ; and Jesus was left alone with the
woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus, raising his head, said
to her, Woman, where are they ? Did no one sentence thee ?
She said, No one, Master. Then Jesus said to her, Neither do
I sentence thee : go and sin no more."
IX.
JOHN, CHAP. XXI. 24, 25.
It may seem that the words with which John s Gospel now
concludes could hardly have been written by the apostle. He, I
conceive, ended his Gospel thus :
" This is the disciple who testifies concerning these things, and
has written them."
The addition follows :
["And we know that his testimony is true. And there are
many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were severally
written, I do not think that the world itself would contain the
books written."]
It is hardly to be supposed, that the apostle would say of him
self, " We know that his testimony is true," subjoining immedi
ately after, I do not think." This is not the style of any writer
in speaking of himself. The extravagant hyperbole in the second
sentence, also, is foreign from the style of St. John. The passage
appears to be an editorial note, which, written probably at first
a little separate from the text, became incorporated with it at a
very early period.
According to ancient accounts, St. John wrote his Gospel at
Ephesus, over the church in which city he presided during the
latter part of his long life. It is not improbable, that, before his
death, its circulation had been confined to the members of that
church. Thence copies of it would be afterwards obtained ; and
the copy for transcription was, we may suppose, accompanied by
the strong attestation which we now find, given by the church, or
462 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
the elders of the church, to their full faith in the accounts which i
contained, and by the concluding remark made by the writer
of this attestation in his own person.
There is no external authority, properly speaking, for rejecting
this passage. In one manuscript, the last verse is omitted ; and,
in several others, it is said to have been thought by some to be an
addition. The character of the language, however, is different
from that of John.*
I have thus gone through with all the passages of length or
importance, in the Received Text of the Gospels, the genuineness
of which appears to me improbable. It is obvious, that, should
we adopt all the conclusions proposed, nothing would be detracted
from the value of the Gospels. On the contrary, we should, I
think, only remove from their text some blemishes and discord
ances by which it has been corrupted.
* The use of baa (whatever}, as equivalent simply to the relative a
(which, that), is not common, and does not occur elsewhere in John. It was
accordingly changed to a by Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril; and a is sub
stituted for it in the Vatican and other manuscripts. It is such a use of foof
as a native Greek might fall into from meeting with its frequent occurrence
in the New Testament, without appreciating its exact force. Ka$ Iv is no
where else found in what was probably written by the apostle. (It occurs
once in the Apocalypse ; and eZf icad eZf is a various reading in the inter
polated passage in the eighth chapter of his Gospel.) It is here used illogi-
cally, its proper meaning being one by one, severally ; whereas the meaning
intended is all. Oifiat (in this form) occurs nowhere else in the New Testa-
meat or Septuagint; tior is any form of olofiai elsewhere used by John.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 463
NOTE B.
(See pp. 61, 94, 100.)
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CORRESPONDENCES AMONG TH1
FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
SECTION I.
Preliminary Statement.
THE remarkable agreement among the first three Gospels has
given occasion to many attempts to explain its origin. But gen
erally, in the hypotheses that have been framed, it has not been
sufficiently kept in mind, that its occurrence with so much that is
dissimilar is one of the principal phenomena to be accounted for ;
and that, though our ultimate purpose be to solve the problem
of the correspondences among those Gospels, it must embrace
likewise a solution of their differences. Together with this, the
appearances to be explained are as follows :
Many portions of the history of Jesus are found in common in
the first three Gospels ; others are common to two of their num
ber, but not found in the third. In the passages referred to, there
is generally a similarity, sometimes a very great similarity, in the
selection of particular circumstances, in the aspect under which the
event is viewed, and the style in which it is related. Sometimes,
the language found in different Gospels, though not identical, is
equivalent, or nearly equivalent ; and, not unfrequently, the same
series of words, with or without slight variations, occurs through
out the whole or a great part of a sentence, and even in larger
portions.
The occurrence of passages verbally the same, or strikingly
coincident in the use of many of the same words, which appear
ances I shall denote by the term verbal coincidence, or verbal
agreement* particularly demands attention. In maintaining the
464 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
hypothesis that the evangelists copied from common documents,
much stress has been laid upon it; but its importance, as a
ground of argument for that hypothesis, disappears, when the
subject is more thoroughly examined, and viewed in a proper
light. By far the larger portion of this verbal agreement is found
in the recital of the words of others, and particularly of the words
of Jesus. Thus, in Matthew s Gospel, the passages verbally coin
cident with one or both of the other two Gospels amount to less
than a sixth part of its contents ; and, of this, about seven-eightlis
occur in the recital of the words of others, and only about one-
eighth in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative,
in which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, was unre
strained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark, the propor
tion of coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel
is about one-sixth, of which not one-fifth occurs in the narrative.
Luke has still less agreement of expression with the other evan
gelists. The passages in which it is found amount only to about
a tenth part of his Gospel ; and but an inconsiderable portion of
it appears in the narrative, in which there are very few instances
of its existence for more than half a dozen words together.* In
the narrative, it may be computed as less than a twentieth part.
These definite proportions are important, as showing distinctly
in how small a part of each Gospel there is any verbalcoincidence
with either of the other two ; and to how great a degree such
coincidence is confined to passages in which the evangelists pro
fessedly give the words of others, particularly of Jesus.
The proportions should, however, be further compared with
those which the narrative part of each Gospel bears to that in
which the words of others are professedly repeated. Matthew s
narrative occupies about one-fourth of his Gospel, Mark s about
one-half, and Luke s about one-third. It may easily be com
puted, therefore, that the proportion of verbal coincidence found
in the narrative part of each Gospel, compared with what exists in
the other part, is about in the following ratios : in Matthew as
one to somewhat more than two, in Mark as one to four, and in
Luke as one to ten.
* The most remarkable example is Luke ix. 16, where Luke coincides
with both Matthew and Mark, through more than half a verse.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 465
As a preliminary, then, toward accounting for the agreoment
of language in the first three Gospels, we must divide each of
them into two portions ; the one consisting of that part in which
the evangelist speaks in his own person, and the other of words
professedly not his own. Having done this, it appears from the
statements before made, that the same cause could not have
operated alone, in both these different portions, to produce coin
cidence of language. We cannot explain this phenomenon by the
supposition, that the Gospels were transcribed either one from
another, or all from common documents ; for, if such transcrip
tion had been the cause, it would not have produced results so
unequal in the different portions into which the Gospels naturally
divide themselves.
But, in regard to the words of Jesus, other causes were in
operation, that may account for the verbal coincidences among
the evangelists, in their reports of what he said. There was, in
this case, an invariable archetype, to which each writer would
endeavor to conform himself. Events may be correctly related
in many forms of language different from each other. Words
can be repeated with accuracy only in one form. But each of the
first three evangelists intended to give the words of his Master
as they were uttered by him. Nor is it to be supposed, that the
evangelist, while writing, merely recollected those words as having
been formerly uttered by Jesus, and repeated them for the first
time. He had often, without doubt, quoted them in his oral
discourses, and heard them quoted by his fellow-preachers of
Christianity. From the nature of the case, they must, many
of them, have become formularies in which the doctrines and
precepts of our religion were expressed. The agreement of the
first three evangelists, in their reports of the words of Christ, is
no greater than these considerations would lead us to anticipate.
There is no ground for any other hypothesis concerning it.
Some of the same considerations will explain also the agree
ment of the evangelists, so far as it exists, in their reports of
the words spoken by others beside their Master, particularly such
as were connected with his own, as leading to some reply or re
mark from him.
There is another case in which the first three evangelists repeat
the words of others. It is in their quotations from the Old Testa-
30
466 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
ment. These are commonly derived from the Septuagint version,
without direct reference to the Hebrew text. Those which they
have in common all appear to have been taken from that version ;
whether they are found in our Greek translation of St. Matthew s
Gospel, or in the Greek originals of Mark and Luke. Now, as
far as the evangelists verbally agree at once with the Septuagint
and each other, or as far as they verbally differ from eiich other
in their quotations, no explanation is required as regards our
present purpose. Neither circumstance can prove a connection
among them of any kind. But there are several instances in
which either two or* all three of the evangelists agree with each
other, and at the same time differ from our present copies of the
Septuagint. In regard to this fact, it is to be observed, that
the text of the Septuagint has, from various causes, undergone
very considerable changes ; and we cannot conclude, that, because
a reading is not found in any of our present copies, it was not
extant in copies in the time of the evangelists.* If there be
cases, as I believe there are, in which two or all of the evange
lists agree in a reading, not only varying from the text of our
present copies, but from that of the copies commonly used by
them, these cases may be explained by the supposition, that the
passage, having been frequently used in the oral discourses of
the apostles and their companions, had undergone a change
of its original form. This change may have been accidental, as
verbal accuracy was often neglected in such quotations ; or it
* This remark may be illustrated by the different readings of two of
our present copies in a passage (Zech. xiii. 7), which Matthew (xxvi. 31)
and Mark (xiv. 27) agree verbally in quoting, except that two words are
added by Matthew. As given by them, it is as follows: TLara^u rbv
iro!./Liva, teal dLaaKOpmadqaETai ra 7rp6/3ara (Matthew adds, rrjg Troifivrjc) .
The reading of this passage in the Vatican text of the Septuagint is,
IIardar roi)f 7roi//evof, Kai kKCTrdcare ra 7rpo/3ara. Here seems a great
variation in the evangelists; but the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint has
these words : Tlaral-ov rbv Troifieva, KCU dtaGKOpTriodfjoovrcu ra irpo^ara r^f
7roi{j.v7). Such differences of reading existing in our present copies of the
Septuagint, it is not improbable that the copies extant in the age of the
evangelists had still different readings, to which the quotations in the Gos
pels may have been conformed in some of the examples of verbal coincidence
with each other in which they differ from all existing manuscripts of the
Septuagint.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 467
may have been made intentionally, as there sometimes appear
to be reasons for it. In either case, it would be the form of
words with which the evangelists were most familiar.
The preceding remarks respecting the recital of the language
of others by the first three evangelists will hereafter receive
further illustration. I make them in this place, that they may
be kept in view during our examination of those hypotheses,
according to which the verbal coincidences and other corre
spondences among the first three evangelists are the result of
their having copied either one from another, or all from common
documents. No argument for either supposition can, I think, be
founded upon their agreement in their reports or citations of the
words of others. In this portion of their Gospels, the amount
of verbal coincidence is not greater than what the causes sug
gested might lead us to expect.
There is another consideration to be attended to, respecting
the verbal correspondence of the first three Gospels. Whether
we take the term in a stricter or looser sense, as denoting either
sameness, or great resemblance, or equivalence of language, this
correspondence does not lie together in masses. With rare ex
ceptions, it does not extend unbroken through passages of any
considerable length. It is in fragments, scattered here and there,
and interrupted by a dissimilitude of ideas and language, running
through far the greater part of each Gospel. As an example of
this intermixture in a particular passage, we may take the account
of the cure of the paralytic at Capernaum. As the verbal corre
spondence of the evangelists may be made as apparent in our
own language as in the original, I shall in this, and in other
similar cases, give the passages quoted in a translation. The
diversity of expression cannot always be equally well represented :
but this is unimportant as regards our purpose.
MATT. ix. 1-8. MARK ii. 1-12. LUKE v. 17-26.
And, going on board And again, after And it happened one
the boat, he passed over some days, he entered day, that he was teach-
and came to his own Capernaum; and the ing; and there were
city news spread that he was sitting by Pharisees and
in his house there. And teachers cf the Law,
immediately many were who had couae frora
468
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
MATT. ix. 1-8.
And lo ! they brought
to him a paralytic, laid
ou a bed.
And Jesus, perceiv
ing their faith, said to
the paralytic, Take
courage, son: thy sins
are forgiven thee.
And, behold! some
of the teachers of the
Law said within them
selves, This man blas
phemes.
And Jesus, perceiv
ing their thoughts, said,
Why are ye thinking
evil in your hearts? For
which is easier, to say,
Thy sins are forgiven,
or to say, Rise, and
walk? But that ye may
know that the Son of
man has authority on
MARK ii. 1-12.
collected, so that there
was no room for them
even before the door;
and he taught them his
doctrine.
And they came to
him bringing a paralyt
ic, borne by four men.
And, not being able to
get near him on account
of the crowd, they re
moved a part of the
awning over where he
was, and, breaking
through, let down the
bed on which the para
lytic was lying.
And Jesus, perceiv
ing their faith, said to
the paralytic, Son, thy
sins are forgiven.
But there were some
of the teachers of the
Law sitting there, who
said in their hearts,
How is it that this man
speaks such blasphe
mies? Who can for
give sins, except one,
God?
But Jesus, immedi
ately knowing in his
mind that they thus
thought within them,
said to them, Why
think ye thus in your
hearts ? Which is
easier, to say to the
paralytic, Thy sins are
forgiven, or to say,
LUKE v. 17-26.
every town of Galilea
and Judaea, and from
Jerusalem ; and the
power of the Lord was
displayed in the healing
of the sick.
And lo! some per
sons brought on a bed
a man who was a para
lytic, and were desirous
to carry him in and lay
him before Jesus. And
not finding any way to
carry him in, on account
of the crowd, they got
on the house-top, and
lowered him down from
the roof, with his bed,
into the midst before
Jesus.
And perceiving their
faith, he said, Man, thy
sins are forgiven thee.
And the teachers of
the Law, and the Phari
sees, began to say in
their hearts, Who is
this man who speaks
blasphemies ? Who can
forgive sins except God
alone?
But Jesus, knowing
their thoughts, said to
them, What are ye
thinking in your hearts ?
Which is easier, to say,
Thy sins are forgiven,
or to say, Rise and walk ?
But that ye may know
that the Son of man
has authority on earth
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.
469
MATT. ix. 1-8.
earth to forgive sins,
then he says to the par
alytic, Rise, take up thy
bed,* and go to thy
house.
And he rose up,
and went to his house.
And the multitude
who were looking on
were struck with aston
ishment, and glorified
God, who had given
such power to men.
MAKK ii. 1-12.
Rise, take up thy bed,
and walk? But that
ye may know that the
Son of man has author
ity on earth to forgive
sins, he says to the
paralytic, I say to thee,
Rise, take up thy bed,*
and go to thy house.
And he rose up im
mediately, and, taking
up his bed, he went out
before them all ;
so that they were all
full of amazement, and
glorified God, saying,
We never saw the like.
LUKE v. 17-26.
to forgive sins, he said
to the paralytic, I say
to thee, Rise, and, tak
ing up thy bed,* go to
thy house.
And directly rising
up before them, and
taking up what he was
lying upon, he went to
his house glorifying
God.
And amazement
seized upon all; and
they glorified God, and
were filled with awe,
saying, We have seen
wonderful things to
day.
Thus, in other passages, in which there is a verbal correspond
ence among the evangelists, it sometimes amounts to identity of
language, though very rarely through a whole sentence, where
they narrate in their own persons ; sometimes it presents various
shades of resemblance, but, in either case, is almost always broken
into short portions, and separated by matter in which the evange
lists diverge from each other; sometimes into real or apparent
discrepancies. It is evident, therefore, that no theory to account
for the agreement of the first three Gospels, one with another, can
be satisfactory, unless it afford, likewise, an explanation of their
want of agreement, or, in other words, of the peculiar circumstances
under which their correspondences present themselves.
We will now turn to another fact which requires our attention,
in reference to the agreement and disagreement of the first three
* The three evangelists use three different terms for bed, Matthew,
Mark, Kpd66aro<; ; and Luke,
470 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
Gospels. It is, that, in the order of events related in common by
the three evangelists, Mark and Luke differ from Matthew, and coin
cide with each other, particularly in three remarkable instances.
In the first of them, Matthew (viii. 1-4) represents the cure of
a leper as having been performed by Christ previously to his being
in Capernaum on the sabbath, as related in the eighth chapter of
his Gospel ; while Mark and Luke represent what is obviously the
same cure as having been performed by Christ after leaving the city.*
Another discrepance, which is more extraordinary, is as fol
lows. According to Matthew, Jesus, in the evening (as appears)
of the sabbath (Saturday) just mentioned, which he spent at
Capernaum, left the city, crossed the Lake of Galilee in a boat
with his disciples, miraculously stilled a tempest which befell
them on their course, arrived in the country of the Gadarenes, and
there restored sanity to two demoniacs, returned immediately
after to Capernaum, and on Monday (as appears) cured a per-
eon afflicted with palsy, called Matthew to be a disciple, was
present at an entertainment .(in Matthew s house, as we learn
from Luke), justified his disciples for not fasting, healed a
woman with an issue of blood, and restored the daughter of
Jairus to life.f On the other hand, Mark and Luke represent
the voyage across the Lake of Galilee, and the events of the
two days following, excepting the cure of the paralytic, the
call of Matthew, and the entertainment at his house, with the con
versation about fasting connected with it, J as having taken place
at a later period of Christ s ministry, after the discourse in which
he delivered a number of parables near the" shore by Capernaum.
No reason can be assigned why Matthew should not have related
all the events mentioned in their proper order. As an apostle, he
had the best means of becoming acquainted with the time and
place of different transactions. Mark and Luke, on the other
hand, were not apostles ; and in Luke s Gospel there are, beside
the present, many clear indications that he had but an imperfect
* Mark i. 40-45. Luke v. 12-15. f Matt. viii. 16 ix. 26.
J To these events they may be considered as assigning the same period
with St. Matthew, though with less definiteness. See Mark ii. 1-22; Luke
V. 17-39.
Mark iv. 35 v. 43. Luke viii. 22-56.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 471
knowledge of the succession of events, and was often uninformed
of the particular place where they occurred.*
There is, further, what seems a decisive reason for believing
* Thus, the cure of the leper, mentioned above, is represented by Matthew
(viii. 1-5) as having been performed just before our Saviour entered Caper
naum ; but the indefiniteness of Luke s information respecting the place of
its performance appears in the manner in which he introduces the account
(v. 12), "And when he was in a certain city, behold! a man full of lepro-
By." The cure of the paralytic, likewise mentioned above, we learn both
from Matthew (ix. 1) and Mark (ii. 1) was wrought at Capernaum; while
Luke (v. 16, 17), after saying, that Jesus withdrew to solitary places to pray,
immediately proceeds, without note of time or place, to introduce the narra
tive thus: "And it happened one day." So the voyage across the Lake of
Galilee to the country of the Gadarenes is related by Matthew (viii. 16, 18)
as having commenced on the evening of the sabbath when Jesus first pub
licly appeared at Capernaum, and by Mark (iv. 35) is referred (I suppose
erroneously) to the evening of the day when Jesus preached in parables;
but Luke (viii. 22) again commences this narrative in the same manner as
the last mentioned, " And it happened one day."
The want of chronological order in Luke s Gospel is a point of some
importance. It is evident, I think, in the case remarked upon in the text;
but it may be worth while to add a few more instances.
I. Matthew (iv. 18-20) and Mark (i. 16-18) relate, that Peter was called
to be a disciple before the public appearance of Jesus at Capernaum; and
that Jesus, when at Capernaum, proceeded from the synagogue to Peter s
house, where he cured his wife s mother of a fever. Luke, who mentions
the last events, represents the call of Peter as taking place subsequently,
when Jesus had left Capernaum; and describes Peter as struck with con
sternation at a miracle then performed by our Saviour (v. 1-11).
II. It is, I think, likewise evident, that Luke confounded the discourse
called the Sermon on the Mount, which Jesus, as related by Matthew, deliv
ered before his public appearance in Capernaum, with that which he ad
dressed to his apostles immediately after their appointment (Matt. chap. x.).
Luke (vi. 12-49) represents our Saviour upon this occasion, not as giving to
his newly appointed apostles the appropriate directions referring to their
peculiar duties, which according to Matthew, himself an apostle, he actually
did, but as delivering the Sermon on the Mount; at the close of which he
relates, that Jesus entered Capernaum, and cured the servant of a centurion.
To the last events, Matthew assigns the same relative order in reference to
the Sermon on the Mount. By Luke, the whole appears to have been intro
duced out of its proper place.
III. Passing over other examples, of less importance, or which cannot
be explained in so few words. I will adduce but one more.
472 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
that Matthew has not misplaced the particular events in question.
According to his narrative, it appears that they all took place
during three days, on the last of which he was called to be a
In the ninth chapter of his Gospel (ver. 51, 52), Luke says, " But, when
the time was near for his being received into heaven, he set his face steadily
to go to Jerusalem ; and sent messengers before him, who went into a village
of Samaritans to prepare for him." The journey, the commencement of
which is here mentioned, probably occurred some months before our Saviour s
crucifixion. It was, as I suppose, when he was going up to the Feast of
Tabernacles, mentioned in the seventh chapter of John s Gospel. But the
language of Luke implies that it was his last journey to Jerusalem, and is
therefore inconsistent with the supposition of any subsequent return to
Galilee. In the tenth chapter (ver. 38), we find Jesus arrived at Bethany (a
certain town, Luke says, without giving the name), the residence of Martha
and Mary, a short distance only from Jerusalem. But, in the eleventh
chapter (ver. 14-23), Luke relates the cure of a demoniac, and the reply of
Jesus to the charge that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub,
which, according to both Matthew and Mark, occurred in Galilee. In the
thirteenth chapter (ver. 22), we are told, that Jesus " went through the cities
and villages, teaching, on his way to Jerusalem; " but, in the same chapter
(ver. 31, 32), we find him still in the dominions of Herod, probably in
Peraea ; for the Pharisees are represented as telling him, for the purpose of
inducing him to leave the country, that Herod, its ruler, was desirous
of destroying him; while again, in the seventeenth chapter (ver. 11), Luke
speaks of him as on his way to Jerusalem, " passing along the confines of
Samaria and Galilee," which implies that he was journeying from Galilee.
Throughout far the greater part of Luke s Gospel, and in regard to all
but a few leading events in Christ s history, there seems to me a want of
chronological order.
I may here add, that it is far from being the fact, as might be supposed
from some of the statements on the subject, that, where Mark or Luke differ
from the arrangement of Matthew in the matter common to all three, they
uniformly agree with each other. Two examples to the contrary have been
given in this note: one, in the call of Peter; and the other, in the reply of
Jesus to the charge, that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub
(Matt. xii. 22-37; Mark iii. 11, 23-30; Luke xi. 14-23). In the account,
likewise, of the preaching of Jesus at Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 54-58; Mark
vi. 1-6; Luke iv. 16-30), and in the account of the attempt of his mother
and relations to obtain access to him while he was teaching the people
(Matt. xii. 46-50; Mark iii. 31-35; Luke viii. 19-21), Luke differs from the
arrangement of Matthew, while Mark coincide? with it. The only important
instances of the agreement of Mark and Luke, in deviating from the order
of Matthew, are mentioned in the text.
CORRESPONDENCES OP THE GOSPELS. 473
disciple. The miraculous cure of Jairus s daughter he relates as
immediately following the entertainment at his own house. But it
is impossible that his memory should have deceived him respecting
the time when such events occurred; and that he should have
imagined them to have been in so close connection with the most
important incident in his own life, if they had not taken place till
a later period of Christ s ministry. The agreement, therefore,
between Mark and Luke cannot be explained by the supposi
tion, that they observed the order of time, and that Matthew did
not ; nor can it well be regarded as a mere accident, consequent
solely upon their both being ignorant of the real succession of
events.
Beside the two already mentioned, there is another instance in
which Mark and Luke differ in common from the order of Mat
thew. They place the accounts of his disciples passing through a
field of grain on the sabbath, and of his curing on the sabbath, in
a synagogue, a man with a withered hand, before the appointment
of the apostles ; while Matthew refers both events to a subsequent
period.
Among the phenomena of agreement and disagreement in the
Gospels, the consent of Mark and Luke in differing from the
arrangement of Matthew is, perhaps, most difficult of explanation ;
but it may serve as a test of the probability of some of the
hypotheses which have been formed to account for those phe
nomena.
As regards any hypothesis intended for this purpose, beside
accounting for those phenomena, there are other conditions which
it must fulfil. It must be consistent with the historical facts
relating to the early history of the Gospels, and with the intrinsic
probabilities respecting their composition. Tt must correspond to
the habits of the age, and particularly to those of the Jews of
Palestine. If we regard the Gospels as genuine, it must accord
with the character and circumstances of the first three evangelists,
and, in any case, with the general character of the works them-
aelves. It must explain the phenomena, which constitute the
problem to be solved, consistently with all the other phenomena
which the Gospels present. These works, for instance, show that
their authors, whoever they were, had no habits of literary compo-
474 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
sition, that they were unaccustomed to commit events to writing;
and whatever supposition we may make should be consistent with
this obvious fact. And, lastly, any hypothesis, to be admissible,
must assign a reasonable motive for what it represents the authors
of the Gospels to have done ; or, to express the same thing in
other words, must not represent them as acting in a manner un
reasonable and unaccountable.
In treating of the hypotheses to be examined, I shall use lan
guage conformed to the belief of the gertuineness of the Gospels.
I have already endeavored to show, that no hypothesis for ex
plaining their correspondences is tenable upon a contrary supposi
tion ; * nor has it been common to maintain any such hypothesis
in connection with an explicit denial of their genuineness. I,
however, adopt the language in question, principally for the sake
of convenience and perspicuity, to avoid that embarrassment
and diffuseness of expression which would arise from an attempt
to present the problem to be solved, in its most general and indefi
nite form. Many, though not all, of the arguments I shall adduce
respecting the first two hypotheses examined are equally applica
ble, whoever may be considered as the authors of the Gospels ;
BO that they would lose none of their force, if the names of those
authors were denoted by algebraic symbols, carrying no associa
tions with them. The hypothesis I shall defend supposes that the
Gospels have been ascribed to their true authors ; and, if it afford
the only satisfactory solution of their correspondences, must af
ford, at the time, additional proof of that fact. But I do not, it
is to be observed, found the present inquiry upon the conclusion
which I have before endeavored to establish, that no hypothesis
can explain the correspondence of the Gospels, except upon the
supposition that they were written in the apostolic age, or, what is
equivalent, the supposition of their genuineness : on the contrary,
I trust that this conclusion will receive new confirmation froi
what follows.
With these views of the nature of the facts to be explained, of
the conditions required in their explanation, and of the form in
* See before, p. 93, seqq.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 475
which the inquiry may most conveniently be pursued, we will now
proceed to consider the different theories that have been proposed
to account for the agreement of the first three Gospels.
SECTION II.
On the Supposition that Two of the Evangelists copied, One from
his Predecessor, and the Other from Both his Predecessors.
The most obvious solution of the phenomenon in question,
which has formerly been very generally adopted, is that the evan
gelists copied one from another. In maintaining this hypothesis,
we must suppose that the latest copied from the two preceding,
and the second in order of time from his predecessor ; since there
are agreements between any two of the three Gospels for which it
will not otherwise account. To determine whether this hypothesis
be tenable, we will consider a particular form of it, which is as
plausible as any other. It is the supposition, that Luke copied
from Matthew, and Mark from both Matthew and Luke.
I. Now the first consideration is, that, when we ascribe to an
individual an action of which we have no direct proof, we must
assign some probable motive for the action ; and there appears no
reasonable inducement for Mark to have formed such a Gospel as
his own from those of Matthew and Luke. He could not have so
deceived himself as to suppose, that he was writing what, to any
class of men, would be a more valuable history of Christ than
either of theirs. He could not suppose, that it would supply the
place, or supersede the use, of either. He could not have written
his Gospel for the sake of the small additions which he has made
of original matter ; for they are so small in amount as tc render
the supposition incredible. Had it been his object to give supple
mentary matter, he might, without doubt, have collected much
more ; and, with this purpose, he would not, as he has done, have
repeated passages which, if he copied, he has only abridged.
It may perhaps be suggested, that he intended to make a
Gospel which, being more brief than the other two, might be
transcribed at less expense, and read in a shorter time ; and which
would therefore circulate more widely. But this notion, derived
476 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
from the booksellers 1 trade of modern days, is not to be transferred
to the times of the ancient Christians. Among their other sacri
fices, they would not have reckoned that of a few denarii, if given
as the extra cost of a more complete Gospel ; nor would they have
been unwilling to spare the additional half-hour required for its
reading.
II. If we suppose Mark and Luke to have copied from Mat
thew, there are discrepances between them and Matthew for which
we cannot account. The simple fact, indeed, that there are dis
crepances between two evangelists, does not prove that one may
not have copied the other ; for the later writer may have intended
to correct the mistakes of his predecessor. But the discrepances
may be of such a kind as to render this supposition improbable or
incredible. Thus, Matthew relates, that two demoniacs among the
Gadarenes were restored to sanity by Jesus, and that he gave
sight to two blind men near Jericho ; while Mark and Luke, in
each case, mention only one. The difference is of no importance,
considering them all as independent historians ; but it is highly
improbable, that Matthew would have spoken of two, if there had
been only one, or that Mark and Luke would have varied from his
account in this particular, had they been acquainted with it. In
the narrative of another fact, the withering of the barren fig-tree,
Matthew represents it as the immediate consequence of the words
of Jesus, as taking place as soon as they were uttered ; and the
astonishment and awe felt by the disciples appear in his account
as expressed at the moment: * And the disciples, seeing it, were
struck with awe, and said, How suddenly this fig-tree has with
ered ! " * It may seem, at first view, difficult to account for the
emotion of the disciples, after all the other astonishing miracles
which they had witnessed. But we may understand it, when we
consider the striking visible phenomenon presented, so different
from any which Jesus had before effected, its startling suddenness,
and the peculiar character of the miracle, unlike his former works
of mercy, a symbolical act, a visible parable, as it were, intended
to indicate the punishment about to fall upon the great body of
the Jews, to whom Jesus had "come seeking fruit, and had found
* See Matt. xxi. 18, seqq.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 477
none." * The account of Matthew is consistent and probable.
But Mark f represents the words of our Saviour as having been
uttered on one morning, and the effect of them upon th<* fig-tree
as having been first observed by his disciples the following morn
ing ; when Peter "remembered, and said to him, Master, behold!
this fig-tree which thou didst curse has withered." That the dis
ciples remarked upon the event, not only when it occurred, but
also as they were passing the tree the following morning, is not
improbable ; and it may have been on the following morning, like
wise, and not immediately after the occurrence of the event, that
our Saviour announced to them those miraculous powers, which,
if they had faith, would be granted to them, as recorded both by
Matthew and Mark. We may thus account for the manner in
which Mark has represented the transaction. But there can be
little doubt, that the astonishment of the disciples was expressed
directly after the occurrence of the miracle ; nor can we suppose,
that Mark, with the account of Matthew before him, would have
given such a one as appears in his Gospel.
The differences of narration, of which these are specimens,
afford proof, that neither Mark nor Luke copied from Matthew.
But the most striking discrepances between the evangelists regard
the chronological order of events. The voyage, before mentioned,
across the Lake of Galilee to the country of the Gadarenes, with
certain facts connected with and following it, is, as we have seen,
clearly referred by Matthew to a particular period of Christ s min
istry ; nor can there, I think, be a reasonable doubt, that he has
assigned to those events their true place. J On the contrary,
Mark explicitly and circumstantially states them as having oc
curred at a different time. After relating that Jesus taught by
the sea-side in parables, he proceeds : " And the same day, in the
evening, he said to his disciples, Let us cross to the other side ; "
and then follows an account of the voyage. Now, if Matthew s
order be correct, as we believe, Mark could have no good reason
for differing from it ; nor would he have differed from it, had he,
* See the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9), which is to b
considered as explanatory of this miracle,
t Chap. xi. 12-14, 20, seqq.
\ See before, p. 471, seqq. Mark iv. 35.
478 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
as has been supposed, taken Matthew s Gospel as his main guide
in the composition of his own.
Similar reasoning is equally conclusive against the supposition,
that Luke transcribed from Matthew s Gospel. Being evidently
unacquainted with the chronological order of many events, and
the place of their occurrence, if he had borrowed any assistance
from Matthew, he would have taken him for a guide in those
respects.
HI. Mark s Gospel, though but about three-fifths of the size of
either of the other two Gospels, has in no other respect the char
acter of an abridgment or a selection from them. On the suppo
sition, that he formed his Gospel out of the other two, there is no
principle of selection which can reasonably be ascribed to him.
A characteristic distinction between Mark and the other two evan
gelists is, that he gives comparatively but few of the declarations
and precepts of Jesus, and his Gospel is more a simple narrative
of actions and events. Now, this may be explained, if we suppose
Mark to have written his Gospel with a limited view, for the use
of individuals already instructed in Christianity, on whose minds
the words of Christ had been deeply impressed by oral teaching,
and to whom, therefore, only the framework of his history was
necessary in order to enable them to define and arrange their
recollections ; but, if we believe Mark to have been familiar with
the other two Gospels, we cannot imagine him to have believed
another history necessary for such a purpose. He must have
written his own with a view more prospective; and, this being
supposed, it is not credible that he should have thought it advi
sable to omit a large portion of the words of our Saviour, and
many striking incidents in his life, which, being in the books
before him, it would have cost him only the labor of transcription
to preserve in his own. As I have said, no rational principle
of selection can be assigned to account for what he has taken,
and what he has omitted. Should it be said, that he thought
the other Gospels would go down to posterity together with his
own, the question recurs, What was his purpose in writing?
Why did he undertake this labor, evidently foreign from his habits
of mind ?
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.
479
IV. Let us view the subject under another aspect. To the
accounts which Mark gives in common with the other evangelists,
he often adds particular circumstances not narrated by them.
But he who is acquainted with the minor particulars of an event
is, of course, well acquainted with its principal features. Now,
the knowledge of those particulars which he has added not being
derived by him from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it follows
that he was not dependent upon those Gospels for a knowledge of
the main fact itself. Sometimes Mark varies in his accounts from
one or both of the other evangelists. There is a discrepance
between them. If he used their Gospels, he would thus have
varied from them only for the purpose of giving what he believed
a more accurate account than they had done. In all such cases as
have been mentioned, it is clear that Mark, believing himself to be
fully and correctly possessed of the facts, might have written as he
has done without any knowledge of the other two evangelists.
When, with the differences that have been mentioned, there is a
striking difference of language likewise, it becomes apparent, that
Mark, in such passages, made no use of his supposed predecessors.
Of passages of this kind, I will give one as an example, placing in
parallel columns an English version of the text of the three evan
gelists, as their difference of language may be sufficiently repre
sented in a translation. The passage is an account of the curing
of the demoniac boy, immediately after our Saviour s transfigura
tion.
MATT. xvii. 14-21.
And, when they came
to the multitude,
MARK ix. 14-29.
And, when he came
to his disciples, he saw
a great multitude about
them, and the teachers
of the Law disputing
with them. And im
mediately the whole
multitude, upon seeing
him, was struck with
awe, and, running to
wards him, saluted
him. And he asked
them, What are ye dis
puting about together ?
LUKE ix. 37-43.
And, on the follow
ing day, as they were
descending the moun
tain, a great miwnude
met him.
480
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
MATT. xvii. 14-21.
a man met him; and,
falling on his knees be
fore him, said, Master,
have pity on my son,
for he is a lunatic, and
suffers grievously; for
he often falls into the
fire, and often into the
water;
and I brought him to
thy disciples, and they
could not heal him.
Then Jesus said, Un
believing and perverse
race ! how long shall I
be with you ? how long
must I bear with you ?
Bring him hither to me.
MARK ix. 14-29.
And one of the
multitude answered,
Teacher, I brought my
son to thee, who has a
dumb spirit ; and, when
it seizes him, it throws
him down, and he foams
at his mouth, and
gnashes his teeth, and
becomes insensible;*
and I spoke to thy dis
ciples to cast it out,
and they were not
able. Then Jesus said
to them, Unbelieving
race ! how long shall I
be with you ? how long
must I bear with you?
Bring him to me.
And they brought
him to him; and, as
soon as he saw Jesus,
the spirit convulsed
him ; and, falling down,
he rolled upon the
ground, foaming at his
mouth. And Jesus
questioned his father,
How long has it been
thus with him? And
he answered, From a
child. And often it
casts him into the fire
and into water, to de
stroy him. But, ifthou
canst do any thing,
have pity upon us, and
LUKE ix. 37-43.
And, behold ! a man
from the multitude cried
out, saying, Teacher, I
beseech thee to look
upon my son; for he is
my only child ; and,
behold! a spirit seizes
him, and utters a sud
den cry, and convulses
him so that he foams at
his mouth, and hardly
departs from him, leav
ing him utterly ex
hausted ; and I besought
thy disciples to cast it
out, and they could not.
Then Jesus said, Un
believing and perverse
race! how long shall I
be with you, and bear
with you? Lead thy
son hither.
And, while he was
coming, the demon
threw him down, and
convulsed him.
* Kal t-TjpatveTcu. It is impossible to determine in what sense Mark
uses this term. Perhaps it should be rendered, " and is wasting away."
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.
481
MATT. xvii. 14-21.
And Jesus rebuked
the demon, so that it
came out of him; and
the boy was well from
that hour.
Then the disciples
came to Jesus apart,
and said, Why could
we not cast it out? And
Jesus said to them,
Through your want of
faith; for I tell you in
truth, had ye faith as a
grain of mustard-seed,
should you say to this
mountain, Remove from
this place to that, it
would remove ; and
MARK ix. 14-29.
help us. Then Jesus
said to him, What
means this, If thou
canst ? All things
may be done for him
who has faith. And
immediately the father
of the child, crying
out with tears, said, I
have faith: help thou
my want of faith. Then
Jesus, seeing that the
multitude was running
together to the spot, re
buked the unclean spir
it, saying to it, Thou
dumb and deaf spirit,
I command thee, come
out of him, and enter
him no more. And
uttering a cry, and con
vulsing him much, it
came out of him. And
he was as if dead, so
that many said, He is
dead ; but Jesus, taking
him by the hand, raised
him, and he stood up.
And, after he had
entered a house, his
disciples asked him,
privately, Why could
we not cast it out?
And he said to them,
LUKE ix. 37-43.
But Jesus rebuked
the unclean spirit, and
healed the child, and
delivered him to his
father.
And all were aston
ished at this display of
the power of God.
81
482 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
MATT. xvii. 14-21. MARK ix. 14-29. LUKB ix. 37-43.
nothing would be im
possible to you. Cut it By nothing but prayer
is only through prayer and fasting can this
and fasting that this race be cast out.
race may be expelled.
In this passage, as in others, it is clear, not merely that Mark
did not copy Matthew or Luke, but that no one of the evangelists
copied either of the other two. This is not a matter of argument :
it is only the statement of a fact apparent on inspection.
V. But it may be said, that no one supposes that Mark derived
his knowledge of the events in Christ s ministry solely from the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke ; on the contrary, as a preacher of
Christianity, he must have been well acquainted with them from
other sources. Nor is it maintained, that he transcribed from one
or the other in every case where he relates the same events. But
what is contended for is, that he made use of their Gospels, partic
ularly that of Matthew, in composing his own ; and that thia
supposition is proved by the remarkable correspondences between
his Gospel and each of the other two, in various passages. These
resemblances, it may be urged, are so great as to render it
highly probable that one evangelist copied from another.
In this reasoning, it is supposed that one evangelist copied from
another, because the resemblance between them is so great. I
answer, that very few instances can be pointed out, in which this
supposition does not require a much greater resemblance than
exists ; and that most of the passages in which it is found, instead
of rendering it probable that one evangelist transcribed from
another, afford strong reasons for an opposite conclusion. I will
quote, for example, the account of the call of Matthew, the enter
tainment in his house, and the conversation occasioned by it, as
given by the three evangelists.
MATT. ix. 9-17. MARK ii. 14-22. LUKE v. 27-39.
(Ver. 9.) And Jesus, (Ver. 14.) And, as (Ver. 27.) And, after
as he was passing he was passing along, this, Jesus went out,
thence, saw a man, he saw Levi, the son of and saw a tax-gatherer,
called Matthew, sitting Alpheus, sitting to re- by the name of Levi,
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.
483
MATT. ix. 9-17.
to receive the customs ;
and said to him, Come
with me. And he arose,
and went with him.
(Ver. 10.) And while
Jesus was at table in
his house, lo! many
tax-gatherers and sin
ners, who had come,
were at table with Je
sus and his disciples.
(Ver. 11.) And the
Pharisees, seeing this,
,;aid to his disciples,
Why does your teacher
eat with these tax-
gatherers and sinners?
(Ver. 12.) But Je
sus, hearing this, said
to them, The well need
not a physician, but the
sick.
(Ver. 13.) But go
ye, and learn what this
means, I desire goodness
and not sacrifices. For I
did not come to give an
invitation to righteous
men, but to sinners.
(Ver. 14.) Then the
disciples of John came
to him, and said, Why,
when we and the Phari
sees fast often,
MARK ii. 14-22.
ceive the customs ; and
said to him, Come with
me. And he arose, and
went with him.
(Ver. 15.) And while
Jesus was at table in
his house, many tax-
gatherers and sinners
also were at table with
Jesus and his disciples;
fbr there were many
who had followed him.
(Ver. 16.) And the
teachers of the Law, and
the Pharisees, seeing
him eating with the
tax-gatherers and sin
ners, said to his disci
ples, How is it that he
is eating and drinking
with these tax-gather
ers and sinners?
(Ver. 17.) And Je
sus, hearing this, said
to them, The well need
not a physician, but the
sick.
I did not come to give
an invitation to right
eous men, but to sin
ners.
(Ver. 18.) And the
disciples of John and
the Pharisees were
keeping a fast; and
they came and said to
him, Why, when the
disciples of John and
those of the Pharisees
LUKE v. 27-39.
sitting to receive the
customs ; and said to
him, Come with me.
(Ver. 28.) And, leav
ing ever} thing, he arose
and went with him.
(Ver. 29.) And Levi
made a great entertain
ment for him in his
house; and there was a
great number of tax-
gatherers and others,
who were at table with
them.
(Ver. 30.) But their
teachers of the Law,
and the Pharisees, mur
mured at this, saying to
his disciples, Why are
ye eating and drinking
with these tax-gather
ers and sinners?
(Ver. 81.) And Je
sus, answering, paid to
them, They who are
in health need not a
physician, but the sick
(Ver. 32.) I have
not come to call right
eous men, but sinners,
to reformation.
(Ver. 33.) But they
said to him, Why, when
the disciples of John are
continually fasting and
making supplications,
484
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
MATT. ix. 9-17.
do not thy disciples
fast?
(Ver. 15.) And Je
sus said to them, Can
the companions of the
bridegroom mourn, so
long as the bridegroom
is with them ?
But the days are com
ing when the bride
groom will be taken
from them; and then
will they fast.
(Ver. 16.) No one
puts a patch of un
dressed cloth upon an
old garment; for the
piece would tear away
from the garment, and
a worse rent be made.
(Ver. 17.) Nor do
men put new wine into
old skins; for the skins
would burst, and the
wine run to waste, and
the skins would be
spoilt But they put
new wine into new
ekins, so that both may
be preserved.
MARK ii. 14-22.
are fasting, do not thy
disciples fast?
(Ver. 19.) And Je
sus said to them, Can
the companions of the
bridegroom fast, while
the bridegroom is with
them ? As long as they
have the bridegroom
with them, they cannot
fast.
(Ver. 20.) But the
days are coming when
the bridegroom will be
taken from them; and
then will they fast in
that day.
(Ver. 21.) No one
sews a patch of un
dressed cloth upon an
old garment; otherwise
the new piece would
tear away from the old
garment, and a worse
rent be made.
(Ver. 22.) And no
one puts new wine into
old skins; for the new
wine would burst the
skins, and the wine
would run to waste,
and the skins would be
spoilt. But new wine
must be put into new
at us.
LUKE v. 27-S&.
and likewise those of
the Pharisees, are thine
eating and drinking?
(Ver. 34.) But he
said to them, Can ye
make the companions
of the bridegroom fast,
while the bridegroom ia
with them?
(Ver. 35.) But the
days are coming when
the bridegroom will be
taken from them: then
will they fast in those
days.
(Ver. 36.) Then he
spake a parable to
them: No one takes a
patch from a new gar
ment to put upon an
old garment; otherwise
the new garment would
be cut, and the patch
from the new would not
match with the old.
(Ver. 37.) And no
one puts new wine into
old skins; for the new
wine would burst the
skins, and it would rnn
to waste, and the skins
would be spoilt.
(Ver. 38.) But new
wine must be put into
new skins, so that both
may be preserved.
(Ver. 39.) And no
one, after drinking old
wine, immediately wish
es for new ; for he says.
The old is better.
CORRESPONDENCES OP THE GOSPELS. 485
The preceding is a specimen of the accordance of meaning and
language which is found among the first three Gospels. It is else
where mixed with similar diversities. But a comparison of such
parallel passages from the different evangelists shows, I think,
that no one of them copied from either of the others.
As in the example given, so generally in other cases of parallel
ism among the first three Gospels, variations of expression, omis
sions, and additions occur, which are not to be accounted for on
the theory, that the evangelists copied one from another ; because
they are such as cannot be ascribed to accident, and, at the same
time, such as would not have been made by design. Thus, in the
specimen given, if either Mark or Luke had been copying from
Matthew, it is unlikely that he would have substituted the name
of Levi, by which that evangelist appears to have been known
before his becoming a disciple, for the name of Matthew, by which
he was commonly called afterwards, and which he himself had
used in this place; or that Luke, if he had Mark before him,
and had preferred the name of Levi, would have omitted the
further designation, " the son of Alpheus." Mark, if he had been
following Luke, would have retained the explicit statement of the
latter, that the entertainment, at which our Lord was present, was
made by Matthew ; and, with Matthew for his guide, he would not
have changed the clear and simple expressions used by him in
the tenth and eleventh verses for his own more diffuse, and, in the
original, more obscure language. Luke, it is evident, was, in
the corresponding verses, neither the original nor the copyist of
either. The question of the Pharisees respecting Christ s eating
with tax-gatherers and sinners is given in different terms by each
of the evangelists ; yet, if any one of them copied from either of
the others, it does not appear what motive could have induced him
to change its form. Similar remarks may be made respecting the
other variations of language among the evangelists, which occur in
this passage. But there are differences of another kind. The
first clause of the thirteenth verse of Matthew seems to me essen
tial to a full understanding of the meaning of Jesus.* But,
* The words of Matthew are these : " But Jesus, hearing this, said to
them, The well need not a physician, but the sick. Bui go ye, and learn what,
this means. / desire goodness, and not $fKr\fices. For I did not come to give
486 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
whether it oe so or not, neither Mark nor Luke, had they been
borrowing from Matthew, would have omitted it as they have
done, copying, at the same time, the words which precede and
follow. In the next verse (the eighteenth) of Mark, he states
explicitly, that the disciples of John and the Pharisees were keep
ing a fast, which is not done by the other evangelists.* It is a
circumstance which throws a strong light upon their state of feel
ing when seeing Jesus at the same time present at an entertain
ment with tax-gatherers and sinners. The fact does not appear in
the account of the other evangelists. But it is not probable, that,
if either Matthew or Luke had been transcribing from Mark s
Gospel, he would have omitted this circumstance by design, or
passed over it by accident. At the end of the fifteenth verse of
Matthew, neither Mark nor Luke, if copying his text, would have
thought it necessary to add the superfluous words, " in that day,"
or " in those days." Luke, in the thirty-sixth verse, borrowed
from neither Matthew nor Mark, and neither borrowed from him.
And, with Luke s Gospel before them, there is no likelihood that
either Matthew or Mark would have omitted the concluding words
an invitation to righteous men, but to sinners." The words in italics are
omitted by the other evangelists. But our Saviour s answer, as given by
Matthew, is, I conceive, to be thus understood: You reproach me for being
with tax-gatherers and sinners: it is fitting I should be; the well need not
a physician, but the sick. But do not think that you are less morally dis
eased than those whom you despise. You, no more than they, perform what
God requires: while you insist on ceremonies and superstitious observances,
you neglect what is essential in religion and morality. Go ye, and learn
what this means, I desire goodness, and not sacrifices. I came to give an
invitation to all to accept God s mercy; and as regards you, as well as
them, I did not come to give an invitation to righteous men, but to sinners.
* It appears from the Talmud, that the more religious Jews fasted on
Mondays and Thursdays. Thus the Pharisee mentioned in Luke xviii. 12
is represented by our Saviour as saying, " I fast twice a week." Now we
have before inferred, from the account of Matthew (see p. 470), that the
entertainment at Matthew s house took place on Monday. This accords
with Mark s account, that the disciples of John and the Pharisees were keep
ing a fast (rjaav vrjarevovTss ). This coincidence between the Gospels, to be
ascertained only by what we learn from the Talmud, deserves remark, at
one among many facts of a similar kind which serve to establish thefi
authenticity.
CORRESPONDENCES OP THE GOSPELS. 487
of Jesus, as given by Lukt (ver. 39), which accord so well witl
the context.
In order fully to estimate the force of the preceding remarks
we must recollect, that no copyist, writing in the same style witl
his original, would designedly change the ideas or expressions of
the latter, except for the sake of some real or fancied improve
ment; unless, indeed, his purpose were to conceal plagiarism, ?
purpose which no one will ascribe to the evangelists. But noth
ing, that can be supposed a real or fancied improvement, appears
in the differences that have been mentioned, or in many others
that might be specified in the parallel passages of the first three
Gospels. It is particularly improbable, that such changes should
have been made by any one of the three evangelists, since the
style and vocabulary of all are essentially the same ; and, except
so far as Luke may form a partial exception, they obviously had
little command of language. But for some strong reason, there
fore, any one of them would have copied literally the already
well-known narrative, which he found before him, except, perhaps,
that St. Luke, if he wrote last, might sometimes have retouched
the style of his predecessors. Certainly, no one of them would
have made an unimportant addition in one place, and omitted an
important passage in another ; nor so varied his own account as to
render it obscure and imperfect, requiring, in order to be fully
understood, that the Gospel from which he copied should be con
sulted as a commentary on his own. Yet, however we may
arrange the order of transcription, all this must be supposed in
reference to the two evangelists who are represented as tran
scribers, especially if the two be Mark and Luke.
These observations are applicable to a large portion of the
Gospels, but are particularly striking as regards the narrative of
the closing scenes of our Saviour s life, his death, his resurrection,
and the events subsequent. Such are the omissions and differ
ences from one another in the accounts of the three evangelists,
that, considering these alone, I cannot believe that any one of
them had seen the work of either of the others. This is a portion
of the Gospels which has been too little attended to, either by
those who suppose that the evangelists transcribed one from
another, or by those who suppose that they transcribed from
common documents
488 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
It may appear, then, that, beside the particular objections to
any particular form that may be given to the supposition that the
evangelists copied one from another, the general objections" to it
are these : There is no reasonable principle of selection on which
they can be supposed to have proceeded. They were, all of them,
as preachers of Christianity, well acquainted with the transactions
which it was their purpose to record ; their independent knowl
edge of them appears in the Gospel of each ; they had, therefore,
no occasion to copy one from another, and it is a fact, obvious
simply upon inspection, that far the greater part of each Gospel
was not thus copied. And, lastly, their Gospels generally, and
even those very passages on which this theory of transcription has
been founded, present numerous diversities of such a character as
the evangelist, whichever may be supposed the copyist, would not
have made, with the text of his predecessor, or predecessors,
before him as an archetype.
SECTION III.
On the Supposition that the First Three Evangelists made Use of
Common Written Documents.
The supposition that the first three evangelists copied one
from another has found, comparatively, but few defenders in later
times, and has been superseded, in a great degree, by the suppo
sition that they all transcribed from common written documents.
This hypothesis we have had occasion to notice in the text of
the present work.* I will state it generally, as explained by
Bishop Marsh, who may be considered as having improved upon
Eichhorn, from whom he borrowed it. The differences between
them are not such as to affect its credibility.
It is supposed, then, that there was an original narrative of the
life of Christ, an original Gospel,^ which contained, in some form
or other, all those relations that are common to our first three
Gospels. This, it is thought, was receiving continual additions
* See before, pp. 60, 61.
t I use this term, borrowed from Eichhorn, for the sake of convenience
and distinctness of expression. It is not employed by Bishop Marsh.
CORRESPONDENCES OP THE GOSPELS. 489
from its various transcribers, different in different copies. The
first three evangelists are supposed each to have used a different
copy as the basis of his Gospel. Matthew s copy, beside the
original text, contained likewise the additional matter which he
has in common with Mark alone, or with Luke alone. Mark s
copy differed from this, both in wanting the matter which is com
mon to Matthew and Luke only, and in having additional matter
not found in Matthew s copy ; namely, that which is common to
Mark and Luke only. Luke s copy, in like manner, had certain
additions, which are common to him either with Matthew or
with Mark, and wanted those passages which are found only in
the two last-mentioned evangelists.*
The Original Gospel, and the three modifications of it just
mentioned, were all written in the Syro-Chaldee, or, as it is more
popularly termed, the Hebrew language. Matthew s Gospel was
originally written in the same language. But Mark and Luke
wrote in Greek, and each translated into that language the docu
ment which he used as the basis of his Gospel. But the verbal
harmony between them in that portion of matter which consti
tuted the Original Gospel, before it had received any additions, is
believed to be greater than would result from two independent
translations of the same work. In order to account for it, there
fore, it is supposed, that the Original Gospel, before any additions
had been made to it, was translated into Greek ; and that Mark
and Luke each had a copy of this Greek translation, from which
he occasionally derived assistance in rendering his Hebrew docu
ment. Each sometimes adopted its words in the same passage ;
and in these passages they agree verbally with each other.
But besides the enlarged copy of the Original Gospel, which
was in the hands of each of the evangelists, and the Greek trans
lation of this Gospel, used by Mark and Luke, it is further
supposed that there was another document, written in Hebrew,
which was used only by Matthew and Luke ; the former incorpo
rating it into his Gospel in the original language, and the latter
* Bishop Marsh distinguishes between those additions, common to two
of the Gospels, which were made to narratives already extant in the Original
Gospel, and those additions which were made of new narratives common to
tiro of the Gospels ; but this is a distinction not important to be attended
to in reference to our present purpose.
490 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
translating it into Greek. This was a collection of precepts,
parables, and discourses, which had been delivered by Christ at
different times and on different occasions. The name of Qno-
mologia has been given it, with reference to its supposed character.
The copies of this document used by Matthew and Luke, though
generally agreeing, differed in some respects from each other.
It was not arranged with any regard to chronological order.
Matthew, being an apostle, is thought to have inserted the dif
ferent portions of it in different parts of his Gospel; "having
regard, probably, to the times and occasions when the sayings
of our Saviour were delivered." * But Luke, who was not pres
ent at their delivery, did not undertake to do this. With the
exception of only two portions, "both of which have internal
notes of time," he inserted in his Gospel the whole collection, as
he found it; and it constitutes that portion of matter which
extends from chap. ix. ver. 51 to chap, xviii. ver. 14. But by a
license which must, I think, be regarded as extraordinary and
unjustifiable, " he gave," it is said, " to the whole the form of a
narrative, in order to make it correspond with the rest of his
Gospel, which was not a collection of unconnected facts, but a
continued history." f
In order to explain the verbal harmony between our present
Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospels of Mark and Luke, it
is supposed that the translator of the former derived assistance
from the two latter Gospels, and borrowed their language in cases
where there is a correspondence of matter between them and
that of Matthew.
I will briefly recapitulate the steps in this hypothesis. The
first supposition is of an Original Gospel, written in Hebrew, and
receiving continual additions from various hands. This is sup
posed to have been used in three different forms by the first three
evangelists, being in one of its forms the basis of the work of
each. Besides this document, it is supposed that there was
another, a miscellaneous collection of discourses and sayings of
* Marsh s Dissertation, in the second part of the third volume of his
Translation of Michaelis s Introduction to the New Testament, p. 401
t Ibid., p. 402.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 491
Jesus, likewise written in Hebrew, which was used only by Mat
thew and Luke. Thus, the general correspondence of matter and
language among all three evangelists, and between any two of
the evangelists in portions peculiar to them, is thought to be
accounted for. The verbal coincidences between Mark and Luke
are explained by the supposition, that they both used a Greek
translation of the Original Gospel, made before that work had
received any additions ; and the verbal coincidences between our
present Greek Gospel of Matthew and the other two Gospels,
by the supposition, that his translator used their Gospels in ren
dering into Greek the Hebrew original of Matthew.
In maintaining this hypothesis, the genuineness of the Gospels
is asserted by Bishop Marsh ; and its other defenders have not
attempted to free it from the peculiar objections, formerly stated,*
to which it is liable, if their genuineness be denied. I shall
therefore offer some arguments in which their genuineness is sup
posed. But I think it will be perceived, that, distinct from these,
there are intrinsic and insuperable objections to the hypothesis,
both from the positions it involves, and from its being founded on
an erroneous and imperfect view of the phenomena of the Gos
pels, so that it neither explains nor is consistent with those
phenomena. What the objections are, we will now consider.
I. The imagined Original Gospel must have been a work of
the highest authority. This is implied in its having been made
the basis of our first three Gospels, and, as is supposed by
Eichhorn and Marsh, of other Gospels of a similar character.
Bishop Marsh likewise supposes, that it was " drawn up from
communications made by the apostles ; and, therefore, that it was
not only a work of good authority, but a work which was worthy
of furnishing materials to any one of the apostles who had
formed a resolution of writing a more complete history." f Eich-
born regards it as having been a work sanctioned by the apostles,
and communicated by them to the first Christian missionaries, to
guide the latter in their preaching. :
* See before, p. 96, seqq.
t Marsh s Dissertation, p. 363 comp. Illustration of his Hypothesis,
p. 15, seqq. \ Einleit. in d. N T., vol i. p. 1, seqq., p. 162, seqq.
492 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
But the language of Bishop Marsh, in calling it a work " of
good authority," 1 and " worthy of furnishing materials for an
apostle," is inadequate to express its character, if its origin, and
the use which was made of it, were such as have been supposed.
It must have been a work of the highest authority. Coming forth
under the sanction of the apostles, and founded on their commu-
nicatiois, it must have commanded universal credence among
believers. It cannot be, nor is it, supposed, that it was a private,
unpublished writing. It would not have been kept back from any
who wished to possess it. It was translated (as is part of the
hypothesis) into the Greek language ; and copies of it, therefore,
must have been widely circulating, wherever Christianity was
spread. No satisfactory account, then, can be given, I do not
say merely of the fact, that there are no historical notices of the
existence of such a work ; but of the fact, that it has not been
actually preserved, at least in its Greek translation.
It may indeed be said that it was so altered, and so blended
with various additions, in the different copies and refashionings
which were made of it, as, in this manner, to become lost as a
separate work. But those additions and alterations, according to
the hypothesis, were made by anonymous copyists. They were
supported, therefore, by no authority publicly known and ac
knowledged. No one could be certain, except through private
information, by whom they were made, or on what grounds. But
the Original Gospel, in its primary, uncorrupted state, was a
work of a very different character, carrying with it the authority
of the apostles. If we should admit, that some copies of this
document, containing certain additions, had been made by par
ticular individuals for their own use, yet there can be no reasona
ble question, that the copies in common circulation would be
conformed to the original text.
To account for its loss, therefore, as a separate work, the
opposite ground has been taken. It has been said, that " each of
the first three Gospels contained the whole of this document," and
that, consequently, whoever possessed any one of the former
possessed the whole of the latter in its primitive state, and could
therefore have had no motive for procuring a separate copy of it.*
* Marsh s Illustration of his Hypothesis, p. 54.
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 493
This is a proposition which will hereafter be examined at length ;
but I may here answer briefly, that the fact is not as stated. The
Original Gospel does not lie imbedded, in its primitive form, in
any one of the first three Gospels. We cannot strike off por
tions from either of them, so as to leave a work which, when
fairly exhibited, any one will pretend is the ancient document in
question, or any thing very like it. After the publication of
these Gospels, therefore, the Original Gospel still remained a
distinct work, and a work of the highest authority, value, and
curiosity. It was at least as much worth preserving, and as
likely to be preserved, together with those three Gospels, as any
one of the three, together with the other two. But no such work
has been preserved ; no memory of such a work can be discov
ered ; and therefore there is a strong improbability that such a
work ever existed. If, for any reason, we were to imagine, that
the disciples of Socrates sanctioned and circulated some history
of their master, which has disappeared, and of which no mention
is extant, the supposition would be less incredible. It would be
difficult to conceive of any ancient work so unlikely to be lost
and utterly forgotten, as an account of Christ, composed from the
communications of his apostles, and published under their sanc
tion, which had once been in common use among Christians.
II. Respecting the supposed additions to the Original Gospel.
Bishop Marsh says, that in process of time, as new communica
tions from the apostles and other eye-witnesses brought to light
additional circumstances or transactions, which had been unno
ticed in the Original Gospel, those who possessed copies of it
added in their manuscripts such additional circumstances and
transactions ; and these additions, in subsequent copies, were
inserted in the text.* In order to form the documents imagined
to have been used by the evangelists, five such transcriptions of
the Original Gospel are the fewest that can be supposed; and
these must have been made by transcribers who did not commu
nicate their respective additions to each other. f Eichhorn says,
that it had passed through many hands before being used by the
authors of our present Gospels ; and that its possessors, copyists,
* Dissertation, p. 366. f Ibid., p. 367.
494 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
and translators had made additions in tbeir respective copies,
either from their personal knowledge or from the information of
credible men, of circumstances or transactions which had been
omitted in those copies.* It is supposed in these representations,
that many different enlarged copies of the Original Gospel were
in common circulation, superseding the copies of it in its primi
tive state.
But to this supposition are opposed considerations which have
been already stated. Accounts claiming the highest credit, as
sanctioned by the apostles, would not have been confounded with
accounts collected by anonymous transcribers, as if the latter
were of equal authority with the former. A work of such char
acter and claims as the Original Gospel would not have been
tampered with in the manner supposed. The original life of the
Founder of our religion, proceeding from those whom he had
selected to be eye-witnesses of the truth, and circulating among
their disciples, was not a work to be subjected to a series of
interpolations so extraordinary as to be without parallel in liter
ary history, f
III. We may next observe, that the supposition that the
Original Gospel was subjected to this continual process of fan
cied improvement, and that so much care was taken by so many
transcribers to retouch and complete it, is altogether inconsist
ent with the genius and habits of the Jews of Palestine, among
whom those transcribers must have been found. The Original
Gospel is said to have been written in Hebrew, and the additions,
in its different copies, to have been made in the same language.
* Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 172, 173.
t Considerations of this sort, perhaps, induced Bishop Marsh to change
somewhat the representation which he had given, respecting the supposed
alditions to the Original Gospel, in his Dissertation on the Origin of the
first three Gospels ; and to propose another in one of his defences of that work.
In his Dissertation, he speaks, in common with Eichhorn, of those additions
as having been inserted in the text of the copies used by the evangelists ; in
his Illustration of his Hypothesis (p. 79), he supposes that they may have
been only written in the margin of their copies, each of which, accordingly,
would contain the same text of the original Hebrew document, surrounded
with difleretit sets of these " marginal additions."
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 495
But the Jews of Palestine were not writers. They had no pro
fane literature. They had scarcely any acquaintance with other
books than the books of the Old Testament. With the excep
tion of these writings, they were not in the habit of relying upon
books to preserve the memory of facts or doctrines. Their liter
ature, such as it was, connected almost solely with their religion
and laws, was, in great part, traditionary and oral. Now, under
a strong impulse, and the action of very powerful motives, writ
ers may appear among such a people, as did the evangelists and
apostles, writers discovering all that want of skill and facility
in composition which characterizes the Gospels ; but, such being
the state of letters among the Jews of Palestine, it would have
been very foreign from their habits to commit to writing, in the
margin of their manuscripts of the Original Gospel, accounts of
particular transactions and sayings, not mentioned in it. Being
unaccustomed to the use of books except those of the Old Testa
ment, and having but an imperfect sense of the utility of books,
it is not to be believed, that the possessors of that work should at
once have become so busy about correcting and completing it in
their particular copies. They never would have thought of mak
ing a record of any new fact which might have come to their
knowledge, through fear that it would be forgotten by themselves,
or that its memory would perish, unless put down in writing.
Even among readers of the present day, different as our intellect
ual habits are from those of the Jews, and accustomed as we are
to rely upon books and writings as the depositories of our knowl
edge, it is rare to make manuscript additions to a work of new
facts connected with its subject. Especially, one is not likely to
record in this manner facts of common notoriety. But those
narratives respecting Christ, which we find in the first three Gos
pels, were, without doubt, such as the apostles readily communi
cated, and such, therefore, as were familiarly known to their
converts.
IV. Let us suppose, however, that the imagined Original Gos
pel, with its various enlarged copies, may have existed. Still,
we cannot believe that the evangelists would each have made
use of such an enlarged copy of it, in the manner supposed,
as the basis of his work. According to the hypothesis, th
496 ADDITIONAL NOTES.
additional matter in the respective documents used by them had
been collected by a succession of transcribers. But the Apostle
Matthew would not have had recourse to such indirect and un
certain authority, for accounts of acts and discourses of our
Saviour, which either he himself, or the other apostles, had seen
and heard. He would not have gone among the Christian con
verts to learn from them what had been communicated to them
by himself and the other apostles, concerning the life of his Mas
ter, so that he might collect materials for his history. To admit
the hypothesis is to admit, that he, though an eye-witness and the
companion of eye-witnesses, chose to adopt the narratives of
individuals who had received their knowledge more or less re
motely from himself, and from others like himself. It is to sup
pose, that the information which had been derived from apostles
and eye-witnesses, after passing through various channels, flowed
upward to supply its source. The difficulty is essentially the
same in regard to Mark and Luke, the constant companions of
the apostles. They would not have adopted the writings supposed,
as their main authority. They would not have had recourse to
so indirect and unsatisfactory a mode of obtaining those materials
for their history, which they might have received, and which,
indeed, they could not but be continually receiving, at first hand,
from those with whom they were intimately conversant. It serves,
likewise, to aggravate the improbability of the supposition in
question, that each of the first three evangelists is represented
as having been content with one of the enlarged copies of the
Original Gospel, when there were, at least, two other different
forms of it in existence, and one does not know how many more.
We must believe them to have taken but little pains to procure
and compare documents.
V. The supposition, that the first three evangelists thus formed
their histories, is, besides, opposed to Luke s own testimony, and
to all the historical evidence which bears upon the subject. The
latter evidence is confirmed by its correspondence with what we
may reasonably suppose to have been the case. St. Luke thus
speaks in the commencement of his Gospel: "Since many have
undertaken to arrange a narrative of the events accomplished
among us, conformably to the accounts given us by those who
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 497
were eye-witnesses from the beginning, and have become ministers
of the religion, I have determined also, having accurately in
formed myself of all things from the beginning, to write to you,
most excellent Theophilus, a connected account, that you may
know the truth concerning the relations which you have heard."
In these words, Luke recognizes distinctly the accounts of the
apostles as the primary authority for the history of Jesus. To
those accounts it was the purpose of all written narratives to con
form. Having constant and direct access to this primary source
of information, it was on this, therefore, that he relied. The
composition of his own Gospel shows, that he was not satisfied
with any of the narratives extant with which he was acquainted.
They probably contained more or less error, the accounts of the
apostles having been misunderstood by the narrator. Luke,
therefore, would not adopt any one of these as his main authority.
When he speaks of the apostles, with whom he was conversant,
as the sources of information re