THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF ILLINOIS 
 
 LIBRARY 
 226 
 N 82e 
 
 I8?f 
 

 
 © “ p^ © c 03 
 
 © «2 a 
 
 12 a J S o 
 
 S-, ™ -M 
 
 ,o o p^C 
 
 o3 O ’— “G G 
 
 rO 
 
 CO 
 
 a) Or^3 
 
 G c *" 
 
 O O o 
 
 £ © 
 
 rH 
 
 a cd 
 
 C3 r-P 
 'M 
 
 *T? ^ 
 3 ° 
 
 CO c/5 
 
 (72 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 Ci (X) 
 
 3 
 
 rH 
 
 co r/5 c3 
 
 p ^ 
 
 •2 <^_, T3 
 ~ © 
 CO 
 
 <D 
 
 *f S >.3 
 
 CO - . rr- 
 
 03 o;,; 
 
 (D co ^ 
 
 r-i •-H C>3 
 
 ^H • 
 
 O r- ^ 
 
 <£ ' 
 OJ 
 
 ' rH 
 
 a 
 
 CD 
 
 -c o 
 
 c5 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 cS 
 
 (D co 
 
 5 cd Hd 
 ’£ i> -r 
 
 a: 
 
 <+-. -e 
 
 o 
 
 •s> 
 
 -Si 
 
 e 
 
 ■30 
 
 4. 
 
 5?i 
 
 CD 
 
 -*- 3 03 © C/2 
 
 O © 
 
 ® T3 J5 
 
 g G-< c Cj 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 co 
 
 ^ o CD 
 
 ^3^.2 = 
 
 © 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 pG 
 
 pO 03 
 
 © 
 
 .2 O 
 
 -u 
 
 03 © 
 
 '© B 
 
 g _ . 
 
 © ri o Hn '*""' (-v '”' 
 
 G o) 4 h ^ Oh +^> 
 
 ^ 3 © 53 O _ c 
 
 3 a 2 r CS “ 
 
 r-> 03 _^> i—• 
 
 ® * 
 
 G si _, ,_, 7 : 
 
 £h P f “^ 
 
 CD 55 
 
 _ ?h J 
 
 "2 © T3 »>G - 
 
 ,2 ^ -r £>•£, a; 
 
 > © 03 _2 E 
 
 © 
 
 £ 3 W)ro © p 2 
 
 C " '—* C< El 
 
 COC^H^^^^CO 0 
 
 (—1 P -.. 
 
 ^ CD ^ 
 
 C3 co 
 
 CO 1 — 1 ^ 
 CD £Cj 
 
 - o 
 
 C *p -— 
 £ pH CO 
 
 Cj o '•—■ 
 
 <D 
 
 C co 
 CD *Z! 
 
 .2 ?- 
 ) c~~] <D 
 
 bi} 
 
 C c3 
 
 O — 
 
 O c 
 
 Cl. 
 
 K 
 
 2 ? .5® © © S 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 
 (D 
 
 <D ^ P 
 C ° S 
 
 ’£rg 2 ^ 
 
 oS .EE rG © 
 
 Sjs.S'S 
 
 tJ - o3 
 
 © "£j © £ O © 
 
 T3 _ 
 
 O g 03^ 
 
 Ifl 4 J . . 
 
 oL 03 
 
 © -e 
 
 f-i 
 
 o3 
 
 OB 0 
 
 03 .L 
 
 O 173 
 
 © C 
 
 £ &£ 
 
 © c3 
 
 a 
 
 &£) c 
 fl 03 
 03 JZ 
 
 © 
 
 03 g 
 
 S 4. 
 
 CD C h 
 
 2^5 
 
 03 
 
 G 
 o 
 © © 
 
 © 
 
 © © 
 > 03 
 
 «oO. 
 
 rG ^ © (M 
 O ^3 w 
 u - 
 
 bfiC nj; 
 
 —• ~4_L> 
 
 -G P-, O 
 
 c3 
 
 © 
 
 03 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 oj 
 
 <J 
 
 © 
 
 4h 
 
 o 
 
 bflffiJ 
 
 G «s H 
 
 03 G 
 
 p*G Eh 
 
 o 
 
 © 03 
 
 ^ *® ^ ^ • 
 gcS^-S ^ | 
 
 G. O 73 "2 -2 lo 
 
 O'EJG 4 ^ 3 ^ 
 
 -4—3 
 
 o 
 
 G ^ fn 
 
 •2 S .03 
 
 ^ ^ ^ 
 
 2 - G O 
 
 G pi © rC 
 
 o G 2 © . ._J 
 
 © O G 03 be G 
 
 4h 
 
 g'"° 
 
 2 G 
 
 © 
 
 7© 2 
 . > -p ?G 03 Jl/ JO 
 — G cj © ,— g 
 -Q 03 7 ^ 
 
 -- 03 
 
 03 03 03 
 ■ — , 43 <~| 
 
 .SP© © ^ 
 
 pG, •'" , 
 
 H-G 
 
 ^4-H 
 
 C3 O 
 
 r-< 
 
 • rH 
 
 O 
 
 O cc 
 
 PH 03 
 rO G 
 
 Ph a 
 © 
 
 © 2 03 I 
 
 2 O ^ 
 
 © •©: Jp g g © . 
 
 G g^.G GX3 
 
 03 - ^G 
 4h 
 
 bJD 2 
 
 H 
 
 „o 
 
 G " 
 
 O w 'G G 
 
 G-D Si G - G 
 
 X"^ ® — -G o 
 
 L> . O 
 
 CD 0 <+-/ K^^fH D 
 
 ©22°^ C ^G 
 
 ^“.2 & 0 ®, 3’S 
 
 03 ®G 3 °p 03 c 
 
 O - 4 —> c^ C rrr 
 
 ^ ^ ^ 03 CD ^ 
 
 co 
 
 CC 
 
 CD 
 
 £ 
 
 O • rH 
 
 CD -4-5 
 
 G PL 
 
 o G p© 
 n j © H 
 
 ^ ^ 4-, 
 
 ^ ^ U_> 
 
 § 
 
 -2 
 
 © 55 
 © 
 
 L3 
 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 03 
 
 03 -G 
 
 2 rG 
 
 03 
 
 hJj G 
 
 C t- 
 
 •Sc° 
 
 Ph o 
 a: 
 
 ___ co 
 
 T3 --- 
 
 /-n C CD ' LJ *'C 
 
 r§ S gl g :2 © 6 
 
 ^ ^ % ?nG.pq 
 
 O u/D co ^ 
 
 .® -G rK HH X c © - 
 
 ©.S .Sfl-3 
 
 c 5 .2 fj G G | 
 
 Gt.O© a o3p4) 
 
 'O 2 m pC 03 .§ 
 
 .P-.-G 03 ’— © +h o, S 
 © +h © © 
 
 4i O 2 
 
 B3^=| 
 
 r^? P 
 H-L CO 
 
 « f—• -1 > 1 -■> w is • r~“ • r— * 
 
 2 5 S)G Ug 
 
 G m 2 03 a, © 
 
 5 W 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/evidencesofgenui00nort_0 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
THE 
 
 EVIDENCES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 By ANDREWS NORTON. 
 
 Hfm&gctJ Station:. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION. 
 
 1871. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S67, by 
 THE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION, 
 
 In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 
 PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 
 
i p t-f 
 
 EDITOEIAL NOTE. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 The present edition of “ The Evidences of the Genuineness 
 of the Gospels ” contains the whole of the original work, 
 with 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 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘■i ;l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL OMISSIONS IN THE 
 
 PRESENT EDITION. 
 
 ORIGINAL EDITION. — Yol. 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. Introductoi-y 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. 
 
 Yol. 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. 
 
Vlll 
 
 OMISSIONS IN THE PRESENT EDITION. 
 
 Vol. III. 
 
 Chap. VII. (pp. 3-6G.) — On the system of the Gnostics, as 
 intended for a solution of the existence of evil in the world. 
 
 Chap. VIII. (pp. G7-1G8.) — On the peculiar speculations of tire 
 theosophic Gnostics. 
 
 Chap. IX. (pp. 160—181.)—On the opinions of the Gnostics 
 concerning the person of Christ. 
 
 Chap. X. (pp. 182-18G.) — On the opinions of the Gnostics re¬ 
 specting the design of Christianity. 
 
 Additional Notes. 
 
 Note A. (pp. iii.-xxxv.) — On the distinction made by the 
 ancients between things intelHr/ib/e 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 JYlareion. 
 
 Note I), (pp. lxi.-lxxvii.) — On the use of the words Oeug and 
 Deus. 
 
X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 EDITORIAL NOTE. 
 
 Page 
 
 Note .iii 
 
 List of the Principal Omissions in the 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 .13 
 
 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. 
 
 Fags 
 
 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 H. 
 
 Arguments drawn from other Considerations .... 35 
 
 From the high value ascribed to the Gospels by the Christians 
 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. 59 
 
 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 
 
 Tags 
 
 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 Irenaeus, 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. 
 
 Fage 
 
 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 derived from the Writings of Justin 
 Martyr.113 
 
 Account of Justin and his writings, 113, 114. — Three objec¬ 
 tions which have been made to the supposition that he quoted 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pagk 
 
 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 maimer in which 
 he speaks of the high authority and general reception among 
 Christians of those books, answering to the manner in which 
 his contemporary, Irenseus, 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 III. 
 
 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 
 
 CONTEXTS. 
 
 Fage 
 
 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 of 
 the Gospel of Matthew' only. — Inferences from their 
 NOT USING THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS. 155 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 General Account of the Gnostics. — State of Opinion 
 
 AMONG THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIANS DURING THE SEC¬ 
 OND Century..160 
 
 Meaning of the w r ord “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 
 
 Pagb 
 
 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 III. 
 
 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 Iremeus Against 
 Heretics, 206, 207.—Other works affording information re¬ 
 specting the Yalentinians, 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. — Plnlaster, 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. 
 
xv i 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 i 
 
 On the Morals of the Gnostics, and tiieir Imferfect 
 Conceptions of Christianity. 
 
 Character of the catholic Christians in the second century, 224. 
 — Two classes of Gnostics; one strict, and the other licen 
 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¬ 
 TICS . 
 
 The fact that the Gnostics have been confounded with sects not 
 Christian is evident from their origin being referred to Simon 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XVII 
 
 Page 
 
 Magus, neither Simon nor his followers being Christians, 267. 
 
 — Other pseudo-Christian sects, with whom they have been 
 confounded, 267-291: — the Carpocratians, 267-275;— pseudo- 
 Christians maintaining that the practice of scandalous immoralities 
 was a religious duty, 275, 276; — a subordinate set of Gnostics, 
 the existence of which is pretended by Epiplianius, and to 
 which he gives the name of “ Gnostics,” used, not as a generic , 
 hut 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. 
 
 On Gnosticism, considered as a Separation of Judaisji 
 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 theosopliie Gnostics, 
 
 316. — 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. 
 
 h 
 
XV111 • 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Page 
 
 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¬ 
 cerning 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 
 
 Page 
 
 ance with the four Gospels, 338.—But the subject admits 
 of further explanation, 338, 339. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 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 Irenams 
 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. — Iremeus 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, 848-350. — 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, 351. 
 
 — 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 
 fact, that Basilides wrote a Commentary on the four Gospels, 
 
 352, 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 of 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 
 theosophie 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. 
 
 xxi 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 Page 
 
 Further Remarks on the Present State of the Text 
 of the Gospels.417 
 
 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 
 
 nr. 
 
 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) . . . 443 
 
 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 
 
XXII 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 VI. 
 
 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 op the Correspondences asiong 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. 510 
 
 Section V. 
 
 Inferences from the Explanation which has been given of the 
 Correspondences among the First Three Gospels.524 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XX111 
 
 Pagb 
 
 Section YI. 
 
 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 . . 545 
 
 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 IY. 
 
 The Shepherd of Hennas. 550 
 
 Section Y. 
 
 The Epistle of Barnabas, so called.553 
 
 Section YI. 
 
 Epistles ascribed to Ignatius.560 
 
 Section VTI. 
 
 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 
 
 1 
 
4 
 
 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 his ‘-Letters on the Study of History,” has the following 
 
 passage: — 
 
 “W riters 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. 
 Matthew is cited by Clemens, Bishop of Rome, a disciple of the 
 apostles; that Barnabas cites it in his epistle; that Ignatius and 
 Polycarp 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 trcfuble 
 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 Boliiigbroke 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. 
 
 f 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 in 
 his time evangelical writings, though it cannot be shown that he 
 has quoted from them. From Poly carp’s epistle to the Pliilip- 
 pians, 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 ; v 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. 
 
 •t Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History, p. ii. c. 10. 
 
4 
 
 STATEMENT OF 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 ’ATro/j.v7](tovev(taTa 
 [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 
 reaHy 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.” % 
 
 The concluding remark, that no inference ean 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. 
 
 ‘ * I : 
 
 * Paley’s Evidences of Christianity, p. i. c. ix. s. 1. 
 
 f Letters to the Anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his 
 Commentator, p. 29. . t 
 
 J Marsh’s Michaelis, i. 361. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 * 
 0 
 
 “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 mot 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 in d. N. T., i. 78. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 140. 
 
6 
 
 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 
 the 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: 1 Thou art my beloved Son; this day have 1 be¬ 
 gotten thee. Other gospels represented the voice as having been, 
 Thou art my beloved Son, with whom I am ivell 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 
 ihee'l 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 w T as 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 and 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.” 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. 
 
 f Einleit. in d. N. T., i. 142-145. 
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 
 
 8. 
 
 “ Many ancient writers of the Church,” Eichhorn subjoins 
 in a note, “ doubted the genuineness of many parts of our 
 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 Church , whom he quotes in 
 proof of this assertion, is Faustus, the well-known Manichoean 
 of the fourth century. 
 
 In treating of the continual alterations and additions, to 
 which 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. N. T., i. 145. 
 
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 oftenerP 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 are 
 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 haul 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 Avere 
 deprived of their senses. Clement also, at the end of the second 
 century, speaks of those Avho corrupted the gospels, and ascribes 
 it to them, that at Matt. v. 10, instead of the Avords, for tlieirs is 
 the kingdom of heaven , there Avas found in some manuscripts, for 
 they shall be perfect ; and in others, for they shall have a place 
 where they shall not be persecuted?" 1 f 
 
 * Einleit. in d. N. T., i. 173, seqq. 
 
 f Ibid., pp. 652, 653, 
 
10 STATEMENT OF 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. 
 

 t 
 
 
PART I 
 
 PROOF THAT THE GOSPELS REMAIN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS 
 THEY WERE ORIGINALLY COMPOSED. 
 

 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 ✓ 
 
 * 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART I. 
 
 -•- 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 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.. 
 
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 often 
 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 
 cojher 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 tire 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 Avanting in a large number of the most im¬ 
 portant copies of it. The. passage presents one of the most difficult and 
 curious problems in the criticism of the text of the NeAv 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 whether 
 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 all, 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 
 have been confounded and lost among additions and changes, 
 till, at last, it might have appeared, to quote the language of 
 
22 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 
 be 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 he 
 could not, properly speaking, add to or corrupt the work 
 itself. His copy would have no influence upon contemporary 
 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 Montfortianns, and to another lately discovered in 
 the Vatican Library by Scholz (see his Biblischkritisehe Reise, i.e. Travels 
 for the Purpose of Biblical Criticism, p. 105). But it is not certain that 
 either of 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. 7. 
 
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 
 what 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 i& 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, in 
 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 
 founded 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. t 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 
 very few purchasers.” * 
 
 There is no reason to suppose, that Christians were more 
 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 ; t 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 
 vices.” J 
 
 Again, in addressing those who governed the Roman empire, 
 he 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. 
 t Ad Scapulam, § 2, p. 69, ed. Priorii. 
 
80 
 
 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 Sender's Ed., tom. 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 copied 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 exj)ense.* 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 Grtecos 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 
 sense, — 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, pur pur aque 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 
 first, 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 iiving 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.”* 
 In 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 
 us 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 drj/iudECTepoig. — Orig. cont. Cels., 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 did 
 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 
 
 * Theodoret. Hoeret. Fab., lib. i. c. 20; Opp. iv. 208, ed. Sirmond. 
 f Chap. xix. ver. 19. 
 
 3 
 
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 Irenaeus 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 
 books, and were everywhere spread and handed down, without 
 any essential alterations from transcribers. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. 
 
 Beside the argument already adduced, there are others, to 
 which we will now advert. 
 
 I. It would have been inconsistent with the common senti¬ 
 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¬ 
 fore, 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 wdiich 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 
 
 its 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 
 8ects afford of the genuineness of the Gospels will be considered hereafter. 
 
 * The assertion of Eichhorn, that we find no traces of our first three Gos- 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 37 
 
 apostles. He speaks particularly of tlie 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 from 
 this title, and from the authors to whom they were referred. 
 Christians would neither corrupt such works, nor suffer them 
 to 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 know whether it is 
 worth while to observe, that Eichhorn repeatedly quotes the mention by Pa- 
 pias 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. 
 
 t Dial, cum Tryph., p. 361, ed. Thirlb. 
 
 J Apolog. Prim., p. 64. § Ibid., p. 97. 
 
38 
 
 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 170, 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¬ 
 tions 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. 
 f See 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, Irenaeus, 
 “ 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.”* 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 
 w r ere 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 Irenaeus. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, his contemporary, calls the Scrip¬ 
 tures divinely inspired,H divine and holy books.** He speaks 
 of the four Gospels, in contradistinction from all other ac- 
 
 * Cont. Hseres., lib. iii. c. 1, p. 173, ed. Massuet. 
 t lb., lib. iii. c. 11, § 8, p. 190. | lb., lib. i. c. 8, § 1, p. 37 
 
 § lb., lib. ii. c. 28, § 2, p. 156. || See before, p. 8. 
 
 Stromat., lib. vii. § 16, p. 894, ed. Potter. . 
 
 ** Pzedagog., 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, f 
 
 Tertullian manifests the same reverence for the Scriptures, 
 and especially for the Gospels, as his contemporaries, Irenaeus 
 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 
 Gosj>els, 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, 
 and 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. j Apud. Euseb. H. E., lib. vi. c. 14. 
 t Advers. Marcion., lib. iv. § 5, pp. 415, 416, ed. Priorii. 
 
 § Do Prescript. Hseret, § 33, p. 216. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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: 
 “ 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., tom. xvi. § 12; Opp. iii. 734. 
 
 1 Comment, in Matt., tom. xv. § 14; Opp. iii. 671. 
 
42 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 II. About the close of the second century, different Chris¬ 
 tian 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 bom about the year 185, and flourished during 
 the first half of the third century, dying about the year 254. 
 He* was particularly skilled in the criticism of the Scriptures. 
 His labors upon the text of the Septuagint are well known. 
 He had in his possession, or had the means of consulting, 
 various 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 shalt 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, 
 such 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 as;e 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 colore. According to him, if we 
 take the quotations of Oi'igen 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 C} r prian, 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 
 an 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 
 seemed 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 order 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 he three days and three 
 nights in the earth , with his declaration to the penitent rob¬ 
 ber, This night thou shalt he 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 
 he was rather disposed to complain of the carelessness and 
 rashness of transcribers and revisers, and to exaggerate the 
 discrepancies which had been thus produced; and 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., tom. xxxii. § 19; Opp. iv. 455. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 47 
 
 scripts. He 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 
 one 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 language 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 
 been 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¬ 
 cies to schism between the Jewish and Gentile converts. 
 After the death of the apostles, and the destruction of Jeru¬ 
 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 in 
 
 * Comment, in Matt., tom. 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 I 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 age 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 their 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 w r hen 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, or 
 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 
 
56 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 judges 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 of 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, 
 their 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. 
 
 
 c 
 
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 Miqfcaelis’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 bv the first three evange¬ 
 lists, involves suppositions which cannot be admitted; that it 
 is unnecessary in order to account for the agreement of 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.”* 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. 
 
 G3 
 
 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 be considered as a direct attempt to prove the proposi¬ 
 tion. Two of them — one from Dionysius of Corinth, and the 
 other 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 
 some 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 
 
 * See 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 tvayyekiov: 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. i. 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 
 iays, 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 place where they shall not he persecuted.” * This 
 statement is erroneous. Clement does not speak of those 
 
 * See before, p. 9. 
 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 sons of God,” * — he adds, 
 “ Or, 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 thev 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 
 heaven. 
 
 t Einleit. in d. N. T., lii. 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. 
 
PART II. 
 
 -♦- 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 EVIDENCE FROM THE GENERAL RECEPTION OF 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 Irenasus. 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 Irenseus 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 
 peace 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 Avho 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 Hreres., lib. iii. c. 1, pp. 173,174. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 73 
 
 In this passage it may be observed, that Irenoeus, 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 Haeres., lib. iii. c. 11, § 8, pp. 190,191. 
 
74 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 meaning is sufficiently clear, and the want of metaphorical 
 elegance does not affect the present argument. 
 
 I pass over other passages, to be found in Lardner, in 
 which Irenaeus 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 till 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 Irenseus 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, and 
 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 heatlien. 
 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 
 
 * Contra Hseres., 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 proof 
 of his assertion.! 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.” t 
 
 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, but 
 were connected with and guided by apostles.” — “ Among the 
 apostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us. Among 
 
 * Lib. ii. § 22. f Lib. iii. § 13. ^ f Ibid., § 14. 
 
 § Evangelicum instrumentum. “ Instrumentuin ” is here used, a? it is 
 often by Tertullian, in a metaphorical sense, derived from its technical mean¬ 
 ing, as signifying a legal instrument which may be produced in evidence. 
 
t> 
 
 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 our 
 trust, by the sacred Words.” f The Christian Scriptures were 
 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.” t 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. 
 
 t 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 Irenseus 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. 
 t Stromat., lib. iv. § 1, p. 564. J Ibid., lib. iii. § 13, p. 553. 
 
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. 
 f 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 ; f 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 OF THE 
 
 put into bis hand; of the vinegar mixed with hitter 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 “ 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¬ 
 lated by the evangelists.f 
 
 That the histories of Christ referred to by Celsus were oui 
 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 OF 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.’ , 
 
 C 
 
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. It 
 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 Gospelf 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.” t — 
 “ 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. 
 
 J Comment, in Joan., tom. i. § 4; Opp. iv. p. 4. Conformably to Origen’s 
 meaning, and to the proper sense of the terms, I have rendered irpuroyiviaj/ia, 
 first fruit, and airapxfj, 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 indiscriminately called “first fruits.” By 
 TcpcjToyivvriya , 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 
 inxapxv, 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 prime 
 fruit was offered after the harvest, but the first fruit before.” 
 
 § Ibid., § 6, p. 5. |] See before, p. 32. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 
 
 nceus and Theophilus and Tertullian and Clement and Origen 
 which we bring forward : it is the testimony of thousands and 
 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 heen 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 OF THE GOSPELS. 87 
 
 contemporary with the apostles and the other disciples of 
 Christ himself, and who might have received immediate in¬ 
 struction from them. Irenseus 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¬ 
 vidual testimony of Irenceus to the genuineness of the 
 Gospels. But it is also to be regarded as a particular 
 exemplification of a general truth, about which there can 
 be no dispute, — that it needed but a single link in the chain 
 of succession, to connect the old men of the time of Irenseus 
 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 
 
 * Irensei Epist. ad Florin., apud Euseb. H. E., lib. v. c. 20; Contra Hteres., 
 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 Irenceus 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 to 
 
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 of 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 i^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 by 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/iuthor. And they 
 unanimously ascribed it to Luke. Throughout the whole of antiquity, 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 cf being 
 deserted by one and left by others, he says (iv. 11), “Luke alone is with 
 
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 books 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- 
 
 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 OF 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, or 
 from both of the others; or each writer may have made use 
 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 ? He 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 informa¬ 
 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 sacred 
 book. If the writer of the gospel ascribed to Luke intended 
 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 the time when he wrote, the gospel afterwards ascribed to 
 
96 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 
 
 merits, 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 lie 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 t£> 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, 
 probably 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. 
 
 99 
 
 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, and 
 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 
 v 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 con- 
 
 * 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 the 
 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 eaoh 
 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 acknowledge, 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., tom. 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 w r ould 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, w r e 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 plan 
 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 OP 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 shown, 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, 
 vol. 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 
 apostle 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 
 unimportant, 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 
 called 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 us.” 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. 51. 
 
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 and 
 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 lan¬ 
 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., tom. iv. § 2; Opp. iv. 93. 
 t Institut. vi. § 21. 
 
110 
 
 EVIDENCES OF TI1E 
 
 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 latter 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 Yerus, 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 OF 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 Gvcecos Oratio, Ad Grsecos Cohortatio, De Monarchia. 
 f Td ’ Ano{iV7)fiovevfiaTa tuv 'AitootoXcjv. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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, 4 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. 
 
 f The order of the Apologies in the older editions being inverted, the first 
 written is often cited as the second; as it is by Eichhorn. 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, “ On 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. 
 
 t 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, 
 w T ere 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 .f 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. 
 
 f As ’A7 tootoA(jv elsewhere, when governed by 'Anofj.vTj/j.ovEv/iaTa, denote* 
 
 the authors, and not the subjects, of these Memoirs; so, in this passage, the 
 genitive avrov must refer to him who was regarded, in a certain sense, as 
 the author of the work in question, namely, Peter, and not to the subject 
 of the work, Christ. Justin nowhere uses the expression, ’Arc ogvTjgovEVjuaTa 
 XplOTOV. 
 
 § On the preceding page. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 of 
 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., tom. 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, lie 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.” f 
 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. 
 
 * Yid. Matthaei Nov. Test. Graec&, tom. i. p. 690, n. 13. 
 
 t Marsh’s Letters, p. 31, note. Comp. Appendix to Illustration, p. 32, 
 
 seqq. 
 
 X See Thirlby’s edition, pp.-75,92,166,. 180. .. 
 
122 
 
 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 would 
 not so fail as to cause him to give a false representation of 
 them. It would have been, not a degree of accuracy that 
 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 
 
 * See 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 
 “ 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.” f 
 
 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. 
 
 t 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 
 same manner as Ju,stin. “ 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. 
 
 1 Dial, cum Tryph., 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 
 Nazar^hes, according to the Common Version, are repre¬ 
 sented as asking concerning Jesus, “ Is not this the carpen¬ 
 ter ? ” t 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 lie 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 
 sometimes 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 lie was swathed: 
 and the place which is shown is famous in that neighbor- 
 
 * Institute, lib. v. § 3. f Dial, cum Tryph., p. 333. 
 
 J 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 Soji, this 
 day have I begotten thee , as those uttered at our Saviour’s 
 baptism; and, in one place, says expressly that the woids 
 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.t 
 
 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. Cels., lib. i. § 51; Opp. i. 367. 
 
 t Dial, cum Tryph., p. 333 et p. 361. 
 
 t See Thirlby’s note, p. 333; and Griesbach’s Nov. Test., Luke iii. 22. 
 
 § Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5; v. 5. || Dial, cum Tryph., 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 fire 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; f 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 Thirlbv’s note, p. 331; and Maran’s note, p. 185 of his edition of 
 Justin. Al'O Grabe’s Spicilegium, i. 69. 
 t See Griesbach’s N. T., Matt. iii. 15. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 EVIDENCES 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 Clirist.f Ilis 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 Irenseus 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; |j and they are 
 
 * Dial, cum Tryph., p. 232. 
 
 t Fabricii Cod. Apoc. N. T., tom. i. p. 333; ed. 2da. 
 
 t Cont. Hseres., lib. v. c. 23, §§ 3, 4, p. 333. 
 
 § Comment, in Joan., tom. xix. § 2; Opp. iv. 289, where see Huet’s note. 
 || 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, 
 and what are small shall be given you in addition.” f Origen 
 quotes these words without expressly ascribing them to Christ, 
 but appearing to give them as his, and adds the following: 
 “Ask heavenly things, and w r hat 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, I 
 thirsted.” § 
 
 We know how familiarly acquainted Irenoeus, 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, in so early a 
 writer as Justin, there is so little matter additional to what is 
 
 * Fabricii Cod. Apoc. N. T., tom. i. pp. 330, 331. 
 
 f Stromat., lib. i. § 24, p. 416. Comp. lib. iv. § 6, p. 579. 
 
 t De Orat., § 2 et § 14; Opp. i. 197 et 219. 
 
 § Comment, in Matt., tom. xiii. § 2; Opp. iii. 573. 
 
132 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 contained in 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 fjrst 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 
 Old 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 Hebrew. 
 
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 alforded 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 Irenaeus. We 
 have before attended to the considerations 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,f 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.” t 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. f See before, p. 118. 
 
 J Apolog. Prim., p. 52. 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.” f And, in the last place, he 
 states, 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. 
 
 III. 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 ; ” — “ Memoirs composed by the apostles, which are 
 
 * Dial, cum Tryph., pp. 194, 195. f John v. 17. 
 
 J 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-t 
 
 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 weight}', 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 of 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 in 
 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. Irenaeus was in 
 the vigor of life before Justin’s death; and the same was 
 true of very many thousands of Chffstians living when 
 Irenasus 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 Iren reus 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 Irenreus, 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 Irenreus. 
 
 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 amonsr 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. f Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 39. 
 $ 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 w r ork 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 tw r o 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 IT. 
 
 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 OF 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 w'as 
 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. 
 
 14T 
 
 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- 
 lisrion, 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 
 lie 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 resultecTonly from such 
 a conception of it. The hypothesis, therefore, — for such an 
 
GENUINENESS OP 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 w’hich 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 idla. 
 
 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 OP 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 m. 
 
 ON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS 
 AFFORDED BY THE EARLY HERETICS. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PART in. 
 
 —♦— 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRELIMINARY REMARKS.-THE EBIONITES.-THEIR USE 
 
 OF 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 Gnostic. 
 
 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¬ 
 ness of the Gospels. 
 
 Of 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 u 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 ftieir 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 to be 
 viewed. The fact, that the Jewish Christians generally did 
 not use 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 them 
 it was communicated to the Gentiles, between whom and the 
 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 number 
 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 j 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 their 
 associates. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 GENERAL ACCOUNT OF 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, Tvootikoc (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, jn 
 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 
 b§ing 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 
 belief 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 
 harmony with many of the philosophical speculations of their 
 
 * Decline and Fall of the 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 o.ur 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. 
 
 165 
 
 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 the 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 n£w 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 OF 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 
 the 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 the 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 universal 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 169 
 
 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 Theosophic 
 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 w r ere 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- 
 
 * krjpLovpyog, 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 the 
 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. 
 
 Irenceus 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. Priorii. 
 f Cont. 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 he 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, anti 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.” $ 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 
 
 0 
 
 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 Mart. Apolog. pro Origene; in Origen. Opp. iv., Ap¬ 
 pend., p. 22. 
 
1T4 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 doctrines with different fictions. Such are the followers of Mar- 
 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, t 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 1 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 Hions, 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. 
 
 t See the Introduction to his “ Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium,” 
 and the Preface to the Second Book; Opp. iv. pp. 187-189, 218, ed. Sir- 
 mond. 
 
 t 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. 
 
 . || II Taipupa, 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. Haeretic., c. 42, pp. 217, 218. — Of the sect 
 of the Marcosians, Irenams treats at much length, probably because they pre¬ 
 vailed particularly in the part of Gaul where he resided (lib. i. c. 13, § 7, 
 p. 65). 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 them steadily, 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 Marcionites 
 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 modem 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, w r as 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. 
 
 f Institutiones Theologi* Christian* Dogmatic* a I. A. L. Wegscheider, 
 
 $ 48, not. a, p. Ill, ed. 2d*. 
 
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¬ 
 erly 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 m^y 
 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. And, 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 the 
 Gnostics. 
 
 This subject has afforded scope for an abundance of hypolh- 
 
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 their 
 way. It has been a sort of disputed province between fiction 
 and history. We may meet, on every side, w T ith 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 in the use of language. But one of the followers 
 of the latest, darkest, and most repulsivg 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. 
 f Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme (1828), tom. ii. p. 281. 
 
 | I refer to Baur, Professor of Gospel Theology in the University of 
 
181 
 
 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 To justify such eulogies as have been bestowed on them 
 by the writer first mentioned, their systems ure professedly 
 laid open; and though the end be not obtained, though noth- 
 
 TiAbingeu, 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 Gnostics 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, Schelling, 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 selt-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 OF 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 Thecetetus, 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 by 
 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 
 from 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 
 some 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, latius disputantur proesumpta, — “ 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 easier 
 fathers, whether probable or not, have been repeated without 
 examination by theological bigotry, which, connecting with 
 tlie 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 OF 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 OF 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. Irenaeus 
 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 w?th 
 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. Hseretic., c. 42, p. 218. 
 t Cont. Hasres., lib. iii. c. 15, § 2, p. 203. 
 t Stromat., lib. iv. § 1, p. 564, ed. Potter. 
 
186 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 Ilermogenes, who main- 
 ta^ied 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 
 not 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. Haeres., lib. iv. Praef. § 4, p. 228. 
 
GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 187 
 
 seems 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. Praxeam, c. 3, p. 602. 
 
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 OF THE GNOSTICS, AND THE 
 SOURCES OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. 
 
 IreNuEUS 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 Irenseus 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, 
 . who stood in a certain relation to Christianity, and who may 
 have held some opinions more or less similar to those of the 
 
 * Cont. Hares., lib. i. c. 23, § 2, p. 99; lib. iii. Praf. p. 173; lib. ii. Praf. 
 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, t 
 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. Thirlb} r . 
 
 t Chap. viii. 9-24. 
 
 t Acts viii. 9, 10. In the tenth verse, I adopt the reading, O vrig kcTLV fj 
 ivvafus tov Qeov r/ naTiovfievT] fieyahj. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 langua'ge 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 xxir. 
 
 24 
 
192 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 early history of Christianity may he classed with certain im¬ 
 postors and fanatics, not uncommon in the age in which he 
 lived, who, proceeding on the doctrines of the Pythagorean 
 Platonists (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; and, 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 OF 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 ; t 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 no 
 
 * About the end of the fourth century, Jerome, in & single passage (Opp. 
 iv. p. i. col. 114), speaks of books written by Simon : ‘ ; Qui se magnam 
 dicebat esse Dei virtutem; haec quoque inter caetera in suis voluminibus 
 scripta 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 Manichdisme, 
 i. 259, 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 -wrote 
 books explanatory of his doctrine (ibid., p. 259). 
 
 t I. Apolog., p. 39. 
 
 $ Cont. Hasres., lib. i. c. 23, §§ 1, 4, pp. 99, 100. 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 Irenceus, 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. 
 f 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.”! They worshipped, as we have seen, 
 images of Simon and Helena. Irenseus 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. Cels., 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.t 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 Irenmus, who first mentions him, as a Gnostic 
 leader, contemporary with St. John. He taught, according 
 to Irenmus, 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.f Irenseus also relates an idle 
 
 * Irengeus, 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 Praescriptione Haereticorum, is not the work of that father. In this 
 account, Dositheus is spoken of. * 
 
 $ Cont. Hasres., lib. i. c. 26, § 1, p. 105. 
 
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 
 Cerinthus 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.f 
 
 In the account given by Irenaeus 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 Homan 
 presbyter, Caius, contemporary with Irenaeus, 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 Irenaeus, 
 Cerinthus appears as an early Gnostic; but the expectation 
 
 * Cont. Haeres., lib. iii. 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 Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 28. § Ibid., etlib. 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 
 Cerinthus. On the contrary, he implies his ignorance of any 
 individuals who separated the man Jesus and the ^Eon Christ 
 in the manner in which Cerinthus and his followers are said 
 to have done by Irenseus. 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 Irenseus, 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 Irenseus, he 
 subjoins, that Cerinthus was a zealot for the Mosaic Law; t 
 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 Haeres., xxviii.; Opp. i. 110, seqq. $ Ibid., pp. 110-113. 
 
 § Ibid., p. 111. Sucli a representation, says Massuet, the Benedictine 
 editor of Irenseus, hardly obtains credit with men in their senses, vix Jidem 
 apud sobrios obtinet. See his Dissertatio Prima in Libb. Irenaei, De Cerintho, 
 n. 127, p. 53. 
 
200 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 markable even among the blunders of Epiphanius, that he 
 follows Irenceus in stating the belief of Cerinthus 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 Iren ecus 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 
 
 o 
 
 the 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., xxviii 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 
 .iEons 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 iEons 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 -Don 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 Josus 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 u 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.” f 
 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. 
 304), 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 repeats 
 his assertion. (History of the Homan 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 
 case 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 Yalentinians 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 
 of 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.” t 
 The particular dates assigned to these three bishops of Rome 
 are so various and uncertain as to make it not worth while 
 
 * Stromat., 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 secpnd century. Justin 
 Martyr, who wrote his first Apology about the year 150 , 
 twice s.peaks 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 false 
 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. 
 
 f Advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374. De Prescript. Haeret., c. 30, 
 
 p. 212 
 
206 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 “ are called Marcionites, some Yalentinians, some Basilidians, 
 some Saturnilians, 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 Marcionites 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 his Son, who was foretold by the prophets, and 
 proclaiming a certain other God beside the Maker of all 
 things, and likewise another Son.” | 
 
 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¬ 
 naeus 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 Yalentinians, 
 whom he regarded as the chief of the Gnostic sects. || “ The 
 
 doctrine of the Yalentinians,” says Irenaeus, “is a summary 
 of all heresies, and he who confutes those heretics confutes 
 every other.” H He explains at length their theory as it 
 
 * Dial, cum Tr} r ph., pp. 207-209. 
 
 t I- Apolog., p. 85; vide etiam p. 43. J I. Apolog., p. 44. 
 § Cont. Haeres., lib. iv. c. 6, § 2, p. 233. 
 
 || Ibid., lib. i. Praef. § 2, p. 8. 
 
 T Ibid., lib. iv. Praef § 2, p 227: conf. lib. ii. c. 31, § 1 , p. 163. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 Irenaeus 
 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 Irenreus, 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 Epiphanius.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 
 iEons. The writer commences by professing his intention to 
 
 * Lib i. c. 11, p. 52, seqq. f Adversus Valentinianos. 
 
 t Haeres., xxxiii. p. 216, seqq. The letter of Ptolemy is also printed in 
 
 the Appendix to Massuet’s edition of Irenaeus. 
 
 § Haeres., xxxi. p 168, seqq. Apud Irenaei Opp., ed. Massuet, p. 355. 
 
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.” 1 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. 
 f Cont. Haeres., 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, —Irenseus, 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 made 
 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 Prcescriptfone. (See p. 19G, 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 OF 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, Irenasus, 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 Manichasans, being few, easily 
 numbered, and thinly scattered in certain cities.§ In various 
 
 * Opp. (Basil., 1569) vi. col. 10. 
 
 f Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, in the fourth volume of Sir- 
 mond’s edition of his works. 
 
 J Epist. Praefat. ad Sporacium, pp. 188, 189. 
 
 § Haeret. Fab., lib. ii. Praefat. p. 218. 
 
214 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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. Praefat. p. 226; lib. iii. (adjinevi), p. 132; lib. iv. Praefat. p. 232. 
 Certain assertions, however, in the Epistles of Theodoret may appear, at 
 first sight, irreconcilable with those quoted above. In one place (Epist. 
 lxxxi., 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 * £ 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 
 Gnostic* 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 
 angr}' with me for publicly exposing their heresy, have endeavored to de¬ 
 ceive the emperor” (Epist. lxxxii. p. 955). He is here speaking, not of any 
 proper Gnostics, but of his enemies, the Eutvchiaus, at that time the domi¬ 
 nant party in the Church. With reference to their opinions respecting th« 
 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” (Haeret. 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 
 writings 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 some one of their opinions. A similar use 
 of opprobrious appellations has at all times been common. 
 
 * Cont. Cels., 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 intelligibles.” 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.! 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 Yalentinians by Irengeus, || which 
 will be hereafter explained. In reference to the doctrine of 
 the Gnostics concerning iEons, 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. \ Stromat., i. § 15, p. 357. 
 
 § Cont. Gnost., § 4, p. 202, passim. || Ibid., § 4, p. 202, § 10, p. 209. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 217 
 
 division, he says, should be as small as possible, into not more 
 than three* (the trinity of the later Platonists). 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 
 as 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 Plotinus 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, 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. 
 
 J Ibid., § 17, p. 215, seqq. § Ibid., § 14, p. 212. 
 
 || Ibid., § 15, p. 213. If 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 
 Iremeus, 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 Manichceans 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 Theodoret, they seem, 
 with the exception of some remaining Marcionites, nearly to 
 have disappeared. Indeed, according to Gregory Nazianzen, 
 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,* 
 
 * Orat. xxiii.; Opp. i 414, ed. Morelli. 
 
220 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 Cerdo, 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 Atlon, 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,! the names of ancient Gnostic sects 
 occur; but how far those to whom they were ap'plied 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 pla} r upon words expressive of the same fact is in Theodoret: 
 Hceret. Fab., lib. iv. Praefat. p. 232. f Lib. i. tit. 5. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 “ 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 Irenteus, 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 Hseres., lib. i. c. 24, § 6, p. 102. f See before, p. 208, note f. 
 J 01 ipvxt-Koi. § Doctrina Orientalis, § 56, p. 983. 
 
 || 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 OP 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¬ 
 sequent 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 Irenosus, “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 belief 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 e'very 
 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. 
 
 ♦ Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 10, § 2, p. 49: conf. § 1, p. 48. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ON THE MORALS OF 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 t was given. 
 
 * Stromat., iii. § 5, p. 529, seqq.: conf. §§ 3, 4, p. 515, seqq. 
 t From the Greek t/Kparrjc, “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. 44 Through opposition to the Creator,” he 
 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 Irenasus. 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,$ and save your 
 life by denying your faith ? 4 Far be it from me ! ’ you say ; 
 
 4 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, 44 or a disciple of Valentinus, 
 or of any other sect.” || 
 
 But generally, the accounts of the morals of the theosophic 
 Gnostics are very unfavorable. According to the statements 
 
 * Stromat., iii. § 4, p. 522. 
 
 f Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 28, § 1, pp. 106, 107. 
 
 | 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. 
 jj Homil in Ezechiel., vii. § 3; Opp. iii. 382. 
 
 15 
 
EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 of Ireneeus, 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 Irenteus, 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 Irenteus, concerning 
 their spiritual nature, appears, in its essential features, to 
 have been common to the Valentinians generally, and also 
 to the other theosophic Gnostics,f 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, thatf 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 v&ry 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. Hasres., lib. i. c. 6, p. 28, seqq. 
 
 t In addition to what has been quoted from Iremeus, 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 Irenaeus, we have no ground for ques¬ 
 tioning 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 onty, but that “ made by works 
 answering to faith in him.” $ And Ptolemy, who remodelled 
 the system of his master, taught that the fastifig 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. 
 
 f Ibid., iii. § 13, p. 553. J Ibid., iv. § 9, p. 595. 
 
 § Epist. ad Floram; apud Irenaei Opp. p. 360. 
 
228 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 theosophic Gnostics, nearly allied to the Valentinians; and 
 Irenoeus 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 w r ere 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 of their doctrines give them no license so to act.” f Thus 
 Clement, writing with less prejudice, corrects, and at the 
 same time confirms in part, the accounts of Irenaeus. 
 
 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. Hasres., lib. i. c. 24, § 5, p. 102, c. 28, § 2, p. 107. 
 
 f Stromat., iii. § 1, p. 510. J Ibid., ii. § 20, p. 490. 
 
 § Ibid., ii. § 20, pp. 490, 491: conf. iii. § 4, pp. 522, 523. 
 
 || Ibid., iii § 4, p. 525. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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.” f 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 Irenceus against the Carpocratians, a sect to be hereafter 
 mentioned. 
 
 Clement also speaks of individuals, called Antitactce 
 (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.” $ The giver of the 
 law, it seems, was, in their view, the Devil. Ptolemy, the 
 Yalentinian, 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. 
 t Ibid., iii. § 4, pp. 526, 527. 
 || Stromat., iii. § 4, p. 527. 
 
 f Ibid., iii. § 4, pp. 523, 524. 
 
 § Epist. ad Floram, pp. 357, 358, 
 
230 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 scriptiye 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¬ 
 served, that this work is addressed to an acquaintance, who bad fallen away 
 from 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 
 (TOfiuc T£ fiopiuv vno/iivovoi ); 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. 
 26, 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 
 possessed.* 
 
 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. Haeres., 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 one passage, that “ God did not care much 
 for those things.” J 
 
 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, cum Tryph., p. 207. 
 
 I .... “ non valrte haec curare dicentes Deum.” — Lib. i. c. 28, § 2, 
 p. 107. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 00 9 
 
 Zoo 
 
 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. u 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 np to sport. Nor let us commit fornication, as did 
 some of them, of whom three and twenty thousand fell in one 
 day.”t 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 ovvrjOeta, not (as in the Received Text) cvvEidqoei. 
 But which is the true reading is doubtful, and, to the present purpose, unim¬ 
 portant. 
 
 t 1 Cor. x. 7. R 
 
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,” t 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. 
 $ Acts xv. 7. 
 
 t Acts xv. 28, 29. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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. f 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 OF 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. 
 
 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 ;Ӥ 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 
 t Gal. v. 1. 
 
 t Rom. viii. 21 
 § 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.l 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 See the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
 f Rom. viii. 14, 15. 
 § 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 w r as 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, t St. Peter, like- 
 
 * Gal. v. 4. t Rom. iv. 5. 
 
 t Gal. v. 13: comp. ver. 19-21, where the apostle enumerates the works 
 of 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, t 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 of 
 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. 
 
 t James ii. 14, seqq. 
 
240 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 evidenc^, 
 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 ths 
 same confidence as is felt in ascertained truth ” (Institut., lib. ii. § 6). 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 their 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 
 
 shair 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. 
 
EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 244 
 
 i 
 
 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 OF 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.” | 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 OP 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 
 shame ; 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; ” f and 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. t 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 v 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.” } 
 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, Irenseus 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, 
 ‘P yap ttuvtuv tuv icaicuv, 
 
 J Chap. vi. 3-10. 
 
 § Lib. i. c. 4, § 3, p. 20: conf. lib. iv. c. 26, § 2, p. 262. 
 
248 
 
 EVIDENCES OF TIIE 
 
 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 tha 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 know 
 of disciples of Socrates. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 249 
 
 It has 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 
 fail 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 u those men ” were, of whom St. Paul thus speaks, 
 appears from what precedes in the Epistle. “ Put men in 
 
 * Matt. xxiv. 10-12. 
 
 t 2 Tim. iii. 1-9. 
 
250 
 
 EVIDENCES OP 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 Iiymenams 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 
 seems 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 which, 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 ; ” $ 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 destroyed.”^ — “ 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 
 
 * Jude 12: comp. 2 Pet. ii. 13, where uyaizaig seems probably the true 
 reading. 
 
 f Jude 19, oi aTcodiopifyvTee. The word kavrovg, which follows in the 
 Received Text, does not appear to be genuine, 
 t 2 Pet. ii. 1. § 2 Pet. ii. 1. Jude 4. 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 12. Jude 10. 
 
 || Jude 19. 
 
 ** 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 chyrch 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 Nicolaitans,” § — that is, thou, too, hast 
 those who eat idol-sacrifices and commit fornication. The 
 Nicolaitans are also mentioned once before ; || and this appel¬ 
 lation appears to be used ns equivalent to. “ followers of 
 Balaam,” the significance of “ Balaam ” in Hebrew, and 
 “ Nicolaus ” in Greek,-being the same. The name Nicolaitans 
 was subsequently applied to Gnostics who led licentious lives, 
 
 t Jude 11. 
 
 * 2 Pet. ii. 3. 
 
 § Rev. ii. 14, 15. 
 
 f 2 Pet. ii. 15. 
 || Rev. ii. 6. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 or; o 
 
 till at last it came to be considered as the name of a sect.* 
 This sect was then supposed to derive its origin from Nicolaus f 
 (Nicholas), one of the seven deacons appointed by the 
 apostles, f The fable — for such it is to be considered — is 
 rejected by Clement of Alexandria, who gives an account of 
 Nicolaus, 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 
 Nicolaus. 
 
 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 re pective 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. 
 
 f Ibid. f 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 tlie 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. 
 
 ft . i 
 
 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 
 
 t)f 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 and 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 less 
 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. lie might save himself by renouncing his faith, or 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 25T 
 
 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.” | The same account is given 
 
 * Scorpiace, c. 1, p. 487. f Cont. Hseres., 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 t 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 severe 
 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 receive 
 it receive it; that is, Let him who cannot receive it depart. He 
 who fears to suffer does not belong to Him who suffered. But he 
 who does not fear to suffer is perfect in love, the love of God; for 
 perfect love casts out fear. Thus it is, that many are called, hut 
 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 thus 
 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 him on our 
 side, both to speak for us when interrogated, and to aid us when 
 _ suffering.” 
 
 Tertullian, when he wrote this tract, had become a Mon- 
 tanist; and the Holy Spirit, which the Montanists believed to 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 261 
 
 * 
 
 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 
 suffering 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 1 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 naked 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 onr 
 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 be unable, 
 without an effort, to enter into their principles 'and feelings. 
 Looking, under very different circumstances, to the severe 
 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 OF 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 
 Manichmans. 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 m 
 “ tilled 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 was 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. 
 
 265 
 
 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 Irenas us 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 Epiphanes, 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 
 “ 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. Haeres., lib. i. c. 25, pp. 103-105, c. 28, § 2, p. 107; lib. ii. cc. 
 
 31-33, pp. 164-168. 
 
 t Stromat., iii. § 2, pp. 511-515. 
 
 § p. 512. 
 
 t Stromat., iii., vbi supra. 
 
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 doctripes 
 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 
 
 Irenoeus 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.f 
 
 Respecting their other opinions, Irenoeus 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 Phcedrus, 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 reminiscenced 
 
 Irenoeus, attributing Gnostic conceptions to the Carpocra¬ 
 tians, goes on to say, tliat t 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. 
 
 | Ibid., lib. i. c. 25, § 1, p. 103. 
 
 § Plato in Phsedro, p. 245, seqq. (I refer here, as elsewhere, to the pages 
 
 of Henry 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 Timaeus, p. 41, seqq. 
 But his imaginations at different times were not unfrequently at variance 
 with each other. — The words of Plato, in his Phoedrus, 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. t; 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 icho is discoursing of the truth ” (p. 247). 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 271 
 
 Jesus being thus excellent, “ power was sent it by God to 
 enable it to escape the Makers of the world, and 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- 
 nes. 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 his con¬ 
 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 
 dark 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 Irenreus, “ 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 the 
 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. 
 
 278 
 
 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,f 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus, that the soul would 
 not obtain its final liberation from matter till it had been 
 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.J A strong 
 doubt may at once arise whether such a doctrine could have 
 been professed by any individuals; and the idea of acting 
 upon it, to its full extent, appears altogether monstrous and 
 incredible. Irenaeus 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 Phaedrus and the Banquet. 
 
 f Cont. Hares., 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 OF 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 Irena3us, 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 attenr 
 tion. 
 
 That they did hold some doctrine of this kind, and that he 
 did not essentially mistake their meaning, may appear from 
 various consjderations. 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; 
 
 * Dc Anima, c. 35, p. 291. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 275 
 
 and notes the same perversion of Scripture that is mentioned 
 by Irenseus. 
 
 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 
 state, 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. Irenseus 
 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 they 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, § 5, p. 104. 
 
 f 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 
 Irenoeus 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 
 
 * Hseres., xxvi.; Opp. i. 82. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 277 
 
 particular names, as referred to their respective leaders, he 
 says, that beside 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. Irenaeus 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 “ Irenasus 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 Irenaeus, 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. 
 
 f 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 and his Gnostics; and who 
 says (Opp. i. pp. 77, 82), that the latter had their origin from the Nico- 
 laltans. 
 
 [| Hseres., 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 
 tliere 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 Manich^e et du Manich&sme, tom. 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 (Haeres., xxvi. § 4, 
 Dp. 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, whose 
 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 \yas 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 
 
 * Hasres., xxvi. § 17, pp. 99, 100. 
 t Ibid., § 9, p. 90. 
 
 t Ibid., § 2, p. 84. 
 § Ibid., § 3, p 84. 
 
280 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 drew near to hearken, and it spoke to me, and said, ‘I 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 Sa'is: “ I 
 am all that has been, is, or will be; ” t Isis being here per- 
 
 * Plutarch, de Iside et Osiride, § 53. Moral., tom. ii. pp. 526, 527, ed. 
 Wyttenbach. 
 
 f 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 iEgyptiorum, pars i. lib. i. c. 3, § 7, and 
 Mosheim’s notes in his Latin translation of Cudworth’s Intellectual System, 
 tom. i. p. 510, seqq , and p. 522, ed. secund. In the last note, Mosheim gives 
 the correct 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 or 
 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 modern 
 theist into their words; and he confounds together the doctrines of those wbo 
 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 $ 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 iikeinTriq, 
 which is used metaphorically to signify an inciter or leader. Perhaps the 
 emperor wrote the word in Greek letters. But after all, in using the expres¬ 
 sions which he does, mathematicus , liaruspex , aliptes, he may have had in 
 mind a line in Juvenal’s description of a needy Greek adventurer (Sat. iii. 
 76),‘‘Grammaticus, rhetor, geometres, pictor, aliptes;” and may thus, in 
 employing the word aliptes , have intended only an expression of contempt. 
 
 i 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 OF 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 ocpig, 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.* Irenteus, in one of the last chapters of 
 his first book,f 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 Irenseus 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 Irenceus 
 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. X See p. 276. 
 
 § See the account of Irenaeus, as before referred to, lib. i. c. 30 ; and that 
 
284 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 Ca'inists and the Ophians.” t 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. vii. 
 pp. 722, 723; lib. iii. p. 455. 
 
 * Eusebii Prasparatio Evangelica, lib. i. c. 10. * 
 
 f Stromat., vii. § 17, p. 900. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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, 
 tjiat 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. 
 f 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 Irenoeus 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 Ireneeus by which the Serpent is identified 
 with _ the Devil-t The same inconsistency exists in the 
 relation of the author of the Addition to Tertullian, who fol¬ 
 lows Irenoeus in part, but affirms that the Ophians placed the 
 Serpent above Christ, t 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 Irenseus, 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 tom. iii., lib. i. p. 229. Haeres., xxxvii. §§ 1, 2, pp. 268, 269, 
 
 § 5, pp. 271, 272. 
 
 t Ibid., §§ 4, 5, pp. 271, 272. J Apud Tertullian., Opp. § 47, p. 220. 
 
 § Haeret. 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, X 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 Cels., lib. vi. § 28; Opp. i. 651. t Ibid., p. 652. 
 
 $ Ibid., § 24, p. 648. § Ibid., § 26, p. 650. 
 
288 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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.t 
 
 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.” I 
 
 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 
 (’Oyiuvoi) ; by Epiphanius, and some Latin writers who 
 mention them, Ophites (’Oyizcu). 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. IT 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 OF 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 Irenaeus and subsequent writers on the 
 other, concerning the relation in which the Ophians stood to 
 Christianity. Irenaeus 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 Origen 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 Irenseus 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 Irenaeus. 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. 
 19 
 
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 
 
 * Irenaeus, 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 witli 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 soft, 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 Carne Christi, c. 24, p. 325. 
 
292 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 
 those whom we have called pseudo-Christians. 
 
 But how, it may be asked, came the pseudo-Christians to 
 be 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 Ifave 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 VI. 
 
 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 Irenmus, “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 allegorically, 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. 
 
 X De Pra>criptione Hsereticorum, c. 42, p. 217. 
 
 § Cont. Hoeres.*, lib. iii. c. 12, § 12, p. 198. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 295 
 
 prophecies concerning him literally. He then proceeds 
 thus:— 
 
 “ The heretics, too, when they read, A fire has blazed from my 
 wrath ;* — I am a jealous God, requiting the sins of fathers upon 
 children to the third and fourth generation; f — I repent that I 
 have anointed Saul to be king; £ — I 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 wrought; || 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.” f f 
 
 “ 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. f 1 Sam. xv. 11. 
 
 § Isa. xlv. 7. || Amos iii. 6, so quoted by Origen. 
 
 Micah i. 12. ** 1 Sam xvi 14. 
 
 ft De Principus, 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 Yalentinian, respecting 
 the Jewish Law, we have a detailed account in his Letter to 
 Flora, which he seems to have intended as a sort of introduc¬ 
 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 ; hut 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 Ptolem}’-, 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. 
 
 
298 
 
 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 
 Je\ys 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. 
 It 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. 262. 
 
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 Tryph., 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 wbth 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 worthv 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 tomb? 
 Are not those humiliations ground for concluding,f 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. 
 
 t “An hae sunt pusillitates quae jam praejudicare 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. o03 
 
 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. 
 
I 
 
 304 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 used by God to effect his purposes are such as in the view 
 of man may appear unworthy, incongruous, and contemptible. 
 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.”! 
 
 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. t Advers. Marcion., lib. v. c. 5, p. 467. 
 
 I Ibid , lib. ii. c\ 18, seqq. 
 
GENUINENESS OP 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 hitter that, they could not 
 drink them; hut 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 allegorically 
 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 mani&re d’expli- 
 quer la Bible, c’est que l’on fait de son texte la me me 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 l’on trouve a propos; et Ton y trouveroit 
 dgalement son compte, quand il auroit dit tout le contraire.” — Bibliotheque 
 TJniverselle, tom. xii. p. 20. 
 
 * Ei r5e rj noifiVTj r/ uTJ.rjyopovuhrj Trpog tov K vptov ovdev u21o ?} 
 uyilri Tig uvdptJTruv koriv, k. t. 2.. — Stromat. i. p. 421. The same use of 
 u2.fojyopeu, 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 auy 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.” \ After quoting the 
 
 * On this subject, see (in the “Bibliotheque Choisie,” tom. vii. p. 88, seqq.) 
 the remarks of Le Clerc, who, in the compass of a few pages, treats it with his 
 customary clearness and judgment. 
 
 t Legis Allegoriae, lib. ii. Opp. i. 70, ed. Mangey. 
 
 $ De Agricultural, 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 ? ” f Many similar passages occur in 
 his writings. $ 
 
 Nor was the allegorical mode of understanding the Jewish 
 Scriptures introduced by Philo. He celebrates the Thera- 
 peutse, 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 Allegorise, lib. ii. Opp. i. 70, lib. iii. 88. Quod 
 Deterius Potiori 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 thus 
 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,f will be thought to 
 have then saved the people ; and thus we shall understand 
 
 * De Specialisms Legibus. Opp. ii. 329. 
 
 f Isa. xxvii. 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 of 
 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. Hmres., lib. iv. c. 31, § 1, p. 268. 
 
 $ Tertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. ii. c. 21, p. 392; lib. iii. cc. 4, 5, pp. 
 398, 399. Origen. Comment, in Matt., tom. xv. § 3, Opp. iii. 655. In Epist. 
 ad Romanos, lib. ii. Opp. iv. 494, 495. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 311 
 
 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, 
 “ 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 allesrorists 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 OF 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.” T[ 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. Cels., § 48, p. 540; § 60, p. 542. 
 
 f Praefat. in lib. de Interpret. Nomin. Hebraeor. Opp. ii. 3. 
 
 t See p. 103. § Lev. xi. 14. Deut. xiv. 13. || Gen. xvii. 12, 14. 
 
 TT 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 GOSPEL!?. 
 
 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.” t 
 
 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, $ 
 . . . 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. 
 
 H Philo de Migratione Abrabami, 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 ; f 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 ; hut 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 divine 
 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. t 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 
 ypciuga , 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. 
 
 315 
 
 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,” lie 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 landf 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. f Psalm ci. 8. 
 
 X Ex decimo Stromatum Origen. Lib. (apud Hieronymi Comment, in Ed. 
 
 ad Galat., Opp. iv. pars 1, coll. 294, 295), Origenis Opp. tom. i. p. 41. 
 
 § See pp. 295, 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- 
 
a 
 
 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 317 
 
 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 heretical 
 
818 
 
 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. 
 
 *T * 
 
 ■, • * -_ « • 
 
 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 view, 
 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 relatiye 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 aeternae morti 
 involveret lapsus Adae absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? . . . 
 Pecretum quidem horribile fateor.” — “Whence is it, that the fall ol Adam 
 involved so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, without 
 remedy, except that it so seemed good to God? ... It is a horrible decree, 
 I confess.” — Institut., lib. iii. c. 23, § 7. 
 
 21 
 
Q 09 
 
 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 
 speculations 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 sefcts. 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 doctrina sapientum, templa serena,” — 
 
 to the serene temples, well fortified, built up by the learning 
 of the wise, — 
 
 “ Dappicere unde queas alios, passimque videre 
 Errare atque viam palenteis quaerere vitae,” — 
 
 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 mischievous^ 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 OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 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 texts 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 
 of misinterpretation would apply as well in the one case as 
 the other, and furnish a similar harvest of apparent proofs. 
 
 * Tertisllian. advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374; lib. iv. c. 1, p. 413, 
 
 c. 6, p. 41& 
 
326 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 atfords 
 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 Irenams. 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 iEons 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 iEon 
 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. 
 
 r,27 
 
 fused a foreign meaning into the words. Irenaeus, 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, shoulcl 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.$ 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 by 
 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 Irenteus, 
 
 * Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 8, § 1, p. 36. —For aocpLa, in the last sentence, I 
 
 adopt the reading, tyavTaoig,, or (j)avTu<7fiaTi . See Massuet’s note. 
 
 f Ibid. | 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.”f 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. 
 
 Irenaeus earnestly opposes the doctrine of a secret oral 
 tradition. ^ 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 Pnescriptione Hicreticorum, cap. 25, p. 210. 
 t Clement. Al. Stromat., vii. § 17, p. 898. § Ibid., p. 900. 
 
 || Acts i. 26. Cont. Hseres., lib. iii. capp. 2-4, pp. 174-179. 
 
329 
 
 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 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 (yvcocng) which the Gnostics gave to their specula¬ 
 tions, he supposed was to be attained only by those who 
 were in his view true Gnostics (jvcootcaol), 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. 
 
 f Stromat., i. p. 322. Etiam apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. ii. c. 1. 
 
 f Stromat., i. p. 323. § Lib. iii. c. 3, § 1, p. 175. 
 
 [| Ibid., c. 4, § 2, p. 178. 
 
330 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 
 Irenasus 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 thiit 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 yvuaig [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*!atter 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 Irenoeus, u 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. 
 
 t Ibid., c. 13, § 1, p. 200. § Advers. Marcion., lib. iii. c. 5, p. 399. 
 
 || Chap. ii. 11, seqq. 
 
 Advers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 3, pp. 414, 415; lib. i. c. 20, p. 375: conf. 
 De Praescript. 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 
 them 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.” % But the theosophic Gnostics did not stop here. 
 Irenseus, 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. f De Prescript. Haeretic., c. 22, p. 209. 
 $ Paedagogus, lib. i. c. 6, pp. 128, 129. 
 
334 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 saying that they, being not only wiser 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 [as 
 the -ZEon 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 discpurses 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 
 Irenoeus, 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. Irenreus 
 elsewhere (lib. i. c. 7, § 3, p. 34) gives a similar account of their opinions re¬ 
 specting the preaching oj[ 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 to 
 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 have, 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.” 
 
386 
 
 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” (ob ipsissimo Dei ore jluxisse ), 
 “ 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.” t 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 tnay 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- 
 
 * Institute, lib. iii. c. 2, § 34. 
 
 t Ibid., lib. i. c. 7. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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. 
 
 4 
 
 But a question may be virtually settled without all the 
 explanation having been given which is necessary to our 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 have 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 
 ba'is 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, ?n vol. iii. of the former editions of the Genu¬ 
 ineness of the Gospels: “ On the Gospel of Marcion.” 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 Apocrvphus 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 bv 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 OF THE 
 
 I begin by stating the most important considerations re¬ 
 specting the question proposed ; and I hope to be. excused for 
 some 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, lias 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; and, 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 appear that the Yalentinians, 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 
 ^vill 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 tligy 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 
 Manichasans, called a gosjiel, 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 lie called “ The Gospel of the Jansenists.” [j 
 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. 
 
 II Fabricius, i. 339, note. 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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 catholic 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. f Irenaeus, lib. i. c. 31, § 1, p. 112. 
 
 \ Hseres , xxvi. § 2, p. 83. 
 
846 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 where, throughout his writings, ascribes to the Gnostics the 
 use 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, Irenseus speaks of what he calls a 
 “ 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 
 as regards the present subject. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 347 
 
 ing Irenaeus, says, “Valentinus likewise lias 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 lour 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 Irenseus, 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. Haeretic., 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¬ 
 naeus 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 Irenaeus, affords proof, by his silence con¬ 
 cerning it in his writings against the Valentinians, 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 superiore 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. 
 
 849 
 
 And they produce,” adds Irenaeus, “a fabrication to this 
 effect, calling it ‘ The Gospel of Judas.’ ” * The account of 
 Irenceus is repeated by Epiphanius and Theodoret. 
 
 If there were such a book as Irengeus 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 “ Nicolai tans ” 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.! 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: 
 
 “ 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. Haeres., lib. i. c. 31, pp. 112, 113. t See pp. 252, 253. 
 f Jude, yer. 11. — See p. 252. 
 
350 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 Nicolaitans, 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-t 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. Irenteus 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 Nicolaitans mentioned in the Apoca¬ 
 lypse, says: “Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitofc; Caiana haeresis dicituri”— De 
 Prescript. Haeretic., c. 33, p. 214. 
 
 t See p. 174, note; and p. 288. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 851 
 
 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 Basilidians 
 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 thorn 
 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 OF 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 f 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 
 
 * Hornil. i. in Lucam. Origen, Opp. iii. 933. 
 t Expositio Evang. Luete, lib. i. Opp. i. 1265, ed. Benedict, 
 t Comment, in Matth. Proem., Opp. tom. iv. para i. p. 2. 
 
 § Stromat., iv. § 12, pp. 599, COO. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 853 
 
 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,” and 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 
 
354 
 
 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 the 
 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, ‘ 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. f Ibid., § 9, pp. 539, 540. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 355 
 
 44 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, 4 I have done well in not bearing children,’ as if there 
 were something improper in it, the Lord replied, 4 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. 
 
 44 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, 
 4 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 44 saying of the Lord,” without 
 reference to any book, in a spurious work called the 44 Second 
 Epistle of Clement,” of Rome. § 
 
 The words in the passage first quoted || occur in the Doc- 
 
 * Stromat., iii. § 9, p. 541. f Ibid., § 13, p. 553. 
 
 $ See the context of the passage in Clement, p. 554, and Beausobre, His- 
 
 toire du Manicheisme, tom. ii. pp. 135, 136. 
 
 § The words are found at the end of the fragment of this epistle which 
 remains. 
 
 || 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, like 
 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 Theophylact-t 
 
 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.” t 
 
 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. 9S5. f Fabricius, i. 335*, note, 
 
 t Hoeres., lxii. § 2, Opp. i. 513, 514. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 35T 
 
 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 (olyai), 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 argument 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 haver 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-t 
 
 * See pp. 130, 131. — Fabricius, i. 321*, seqq. Jones, i. 405, seqq. 
 t Clement (Stromat., v. § 10, p. 684) is treating of the hidden wisdom on 
 
GENUINENESS OF 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], hut 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 yap <j>0ovuv, (prjoi, napyyyeiTiSV 6 K vptog tv tlvl 
 zvayyt)d(g” k. t. /I. I suppose the words “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 (pTjcri, says, 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” {TiaXiv 6 
 7Tpo<f>r/T7jg.) 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 Theaetetus ; 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.’ ” J 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. 
 J Ibid., vii. § 13, p. 882. 
 
 t Ibid., iii. § 4, p. 523. 
 
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; ’ | 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 mania nostra contrectavemnl de verbo vita.” 
 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 Irenasus 
 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 gospe' called “ The Gospel ac¬ 
 cording to Peter,” a tract, of which Eusebius gives the follow¬ 
 ing account.! 
 
 u 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 d 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 *ve do that of 
 Christ; but we reject, with good reason, the writings which 
 falsely bear their names, well knowing that such hrra not 
 
 * See before, p. 328. 
 
 t Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. c. 12. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 / 
 
 363 
 
 been handed down to us. I, 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 fielg <5e, ufiektyol, KaraXalSd/jCEvoi otto tag rjv aipeoeug 6 
 M apKcavog, ical kavrC) rjvavnovTO, fir/ vowv u e?iu?lEc, u fiadrjcrEode £% &v vfilv 
 typacprj. ’E dvvrjQTjfxEV yup Trap* uXXov, k. t. 7i. I would read the first words 
 as follows: 'H/zaf (5e, uSetyoi, KaTE/idpo/Mv <frt o/iola^ tjv alpeaeug 6 M upKiov, 
 of nai eavrC) iivclvtiovto, k. t. A. 
 
 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 Docetre. 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 have 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 
 hook; 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. 
 
 365 
 
 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 Serapion 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., tom. x., Opp. iii. 462, 463. 
 f See the Preface to the third volume of De la Rue’s edition of Origen. 
 
 i 
 
866 
 
 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 ajjpeared 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. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 367 
 
 There is no reason, as I conceive, to suppose that the apoc¬ 
 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 Timanis 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. 
 
 * Iustitut., lib. iv. c. 21. 
 
EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 368 
 
 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 of 
 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 
 \t 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 lrenasus, 
 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 Yalen- 
 tinian gospel, which there is no evidence that the Yalentinians 
 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 tlie author of the Homilies on Luke adds three other 
 titles of books of which he gives no account.* These are all 
 tin* 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 bookf 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. tom. 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 theJTwelve 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 
 
870 
 
 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 ; ” f — 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 Sr. 
 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 Jam' j s, 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 .”$ 
 
 * 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 
 Nativitj 7 of Mary. In what is supposed to be the oldest manuscript it 
 runs thus: “A Narration and Histor}' how the superholy Mother of God 
 (tj v-nepayia G eoroKog) 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. 
 
 f The word in the original, adetyoi, 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. 
 
872 
 
 EVIDENCES OF TIIE 
 
 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.! 
 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.! 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 w x as 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. 
 
 \ In his tract De Carne Christi. 
 
 § “ II convient toutefois qu’il est de la foi catholique, que Marie est 
 demeurde Vierge aprds l’enfantement comme devant.” (Fleury, Hist. 
 Ecclds. 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 lajdunt; 
 simili, inquam, et altiori modo Jesus Christus ex materno alvo, sine ullo 
 maternae virginitatis detrimento, editus est, ipsius enim incorruptam virgini- 
 tatem verissimis laudibus celebramus.” 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 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, t 
 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, Hseres., xxiv. § 12, 
 p. 94. 
 
 f 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 Maria et de Infantia Salvatoria.” 
 
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. J 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. 
 
 f See Fabricius, i. 131, seqq ; Thilo, lxxix. seqq. 
 
 t 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. Thev have a tino-e 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,! 
 and others have been current among Mahometan writers, t 
 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. 
 
 f 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, 461, which is referred to in the 
 Koran (chap 3, vol. i. p. 59, and chap. 5, vol. i. p. 139). 
 
 $ See Sike’s notes (republished by Thilo). 
 
 § Arabic Gospel, c. 49. Gospel of Thomas, c 14. 0 
 
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 
 Irenteus. 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, 
 Irenseus 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.” t 
 
 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 Irenasus, in his long article on the sect, nor 
 
 * Thilo, p. xxxii. seqq. f Ibid., p. cv. seqq. 
 
 J Cont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 20, p. 91. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 377 
 
 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 Irenseus. 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,f and of three in the Greek, t 
 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. 
 
 f Cc. 48, 49. t 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 Armenian 
 legend, entitled I'Evangile 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, 4 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, 4 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, 4 1 will not say 
 A, till you tell me why the first letter is made as it is.’ But his master 
 growing angry, he said to him, 4 1 will instruct you, then. The first letter 
 
 * The title is so rendered by Chardin. 
 
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 , tom. 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 essentially 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). 
 
 * Hseres., 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 hook 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 propriet} r 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 Arimath'ea, 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 
 Ages. 
 
 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 Censurce 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 w r hat 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 t6 enter into some 
 further explanation respecting it. There has been, as I conceive, a great 
 confusion of ideas concerning it, arising from the erfor 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. 
 
 381 
 
 many others, to all which a common answer is to he 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 (Gestn 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 Avork 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. It may even be that Gregory himself furnished him with the 
 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 (Acta, in Latin, or, as 
 written in Greek letters, V Afcra). 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 passed 
 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 (Hceres., 1-, Opp i. 420), there 
 were extant among Christians, in the fourth century, other spurious Acts ot 
 
/ 
 
 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 Fabrieius, 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 undoubted^ 
 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 legendarv fable. There 
 is no inscription to Tiberius, nor any address to him throughout the book. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 383 
 
 the 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, —qualia demens vEgyptus 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 not 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 having any thing to do with it. 
 Nor does it appear, that the title, “Acts of Pilate,” was 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 gesta et 
 dicta sunt de Jesu a Judceis ), and put all the words in the public books of his 
 Praetorium.” This story, and the words “omnia quae gesta ,” 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 
 transubstantiation. 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 
 alio 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 
 previously 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. 6, seqq. 
 
 f Cerinthi Evangelium. 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 Irenaeus, became an ascetic, and a Gnostic of the 
 Yalentinian school. Respecting his Diatessaron, Theodo¬ 
 re!, 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 k 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, t 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. f Hseret. Fab , lib. i n. 20, Opp. iv. 208. 
 
 t 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.t 
 
 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 (Ha?res., 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 4 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 ‘or 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¬ 
 erl v 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; ami that, 
 instead of/card 'EJpafoty, “according to the Hebrews,” we should read 
 /card ’E yK(jaTlTag, “ 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 
 likely to make particular use of his Diatessaron; and this therefore might 
 naturally be called by some “ The Gospel according to the Encratites.” 
 
 * Haeres., xxviii. § 5, p. 113. | Hseres., xxx. § 14, p. 138. 
 
 / 
 
388 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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-t 
 
 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- 
 liorn 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 and 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 
 INI ary. 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 .evange- 
 liurn infantice (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. Afnong those 
 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. 109. \ See pp. 199, 200. 
 
 § Haeres., li. § 7, p. 428. • 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 889 
 
 us 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 wi-th 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 
 
 * Hseres., xxviii. § 8, p. 115. 
 
390 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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,f 
 that of the Twelve Apostles, f 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 before the time of Jerome. 
 
 t This title is first mentioned bv Jerome in his Proem to Matthew’s Gos¬ 
 pel. The existence of any book answering to it is doubtful. 
 
 f 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 
 (Han-es., 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. 
 
 || 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 Epiphanius. 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 
 sometimes passed under two or more different titles, he supposes may repre¬ 
 sent about fortj r 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 History 
 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 Avith 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 THE 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 Jewish 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 time 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,f 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, w r hich 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, 358. 
 
 t See before, pp. 385-387. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 895 
 
 of passages of the 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. 
 
 Irenceus begins his work by charging them with deceiving 
 men by “ corrupting the oracles of the Lord, being evil inter¬ 
 preters of what hns 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. $ 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.Y “ 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.” ** 
 
 “ There could not be heresies,” says Tertullian, “ if the 
 
 * Lib. i. Praefat., § 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. 
 
 H Lib. i. c. 9, § 4, pp. 45, 46. Tertullian uses the same comparison, De 
 Praescript. Haeretic., 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.” f — “ The heretics plead their 
 cause from the Scriptures, and draw their arguments from 
 the 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 
 support 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 Irenoeus 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, that 
 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. 
 J De Prescript. Heeret., c. 14, p. 207. 
 
 f Ibid., c. 63, p. 365. 
 
GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 397 
 
 of Tertullian, entitled “De Prasscriptione Hmreticorum.” 
 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- 
 sed, 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 
 
398 
 
 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, u 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.” t 
 
 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 irw- 
 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, 2Q9. 
 
 t 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.” % 
 
 “Will he for the sake of whose doubts you engage in an argu¬ 
 ment from the Scriptures, be inclined in consequence more to the 
 truth 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. 
 J Cap. 15, p 207. 
 
 f See before, pp. 327-332. 
 
400 
 
 EVIDENCES OF THE 
 
 uncertain than before, and ignorant on which side the heresy 
 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,! 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, bv 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.” ! 
 
 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 fals-e opinions, common to their countrymen, which 
 had been implanted in their minds in childhood, had grown 
 with their growth, and had not been wholly eradicated. But 
 
 * Cap. 18, p. 208. 
 
 t I adopt the reading, “ ut utramque partem parem sisteret.” 
 t Cap. 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 theii 
 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 Plebrew 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, Watch’s Historic der Ketzereien, i. 374; Matter, 
 Histoire du Gnosticisme, ii. 172, 190. 
 
 26 
 
402 
 
 EVIDENCES OF 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 only “ 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 
 tfiem ; 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 
 
 * Watch, ubi supra. 
 
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- 
 ians, 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 authority 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 followers, 
 
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, lie built his system on 
 other foundations, and supported it by other arguments, than 
 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 ihem, 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, 
 Valentinfis, 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. Valen¬ 
 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.| 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. 
 
 t 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. 
 
 t 
 
 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 Galilaean, 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 OF 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 Uissus which Aristotle frequented, 
 nor from the Painted Portico of Athens where Zeno taught: 
 but from the mountain on which Jesus delivered his first 
 
 j 
 
 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, 
 merely 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 OF 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 OF 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. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 . • .. 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 4 
 
 .. 
 
 * 
 
 ’ 
 
 : . £ \hm 
 
 • , 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 - - . 
 
 
 
 • \ 
 
 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Note A. 
 
 (See pp. 15,16,18.) 
 
 FURTHER REMARKS OK THE PRESENT STATE OF THE 
 
 TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 —♦- 
 
 Section I. 
 
 On the Character and Importance of the Various Readings of the 
 
 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 tfie 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, 
 says: — 
 
 “ 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 sa} r superstitious, exactness. Every difference 
 in spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the very order ox- 
 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, iEthiopic, 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 moi'e, and yet no ver¬ 
 sions to swell the reckoning ? 
 
 “ The editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, or 
 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 the 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 as 
 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 
 11 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 
 tie, 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, 
 the latter differing from the former, if at all, only in a shade of 
 meaning; 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 Griesb’ach, 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 does not 
 admit them into his text. The comparison between all the read¬ 
 ings, w r hich 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 
 so trifling as to admit of no corresponding variation in a transla- 
 
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. A a6ld 
 
 6. ’LoXopuvra 
 
 18. Jesus 
 
 yivvpmc ( generation) 
 
 19. 7r apadeLyfidTiocu [to 
 
 expose to shame) 
 
 22. tov 
 
 Chap. ii. 8. carefully search out 
 9. EOTTJ 
 
 11. they found 
 15. TOV 
 
 17. vno 
 
 18. lamentation and 
 22. km 
 
 Chap. iii. 1. & 
 
 3 V7TO 
 
 8. fruits worthy 
 
 10 . Kal 
 
 11. with fire 
 
 12. his wheat 
 Chap. iv. 4. a man 
 
 km [upon) 
 
 VARIATIONS ADOPTED OR SUGGEST¬ 
 ED BY GRIESBACH. 
 
 The names of David 
 and Solomon differ¬ 
 ently spelt, 
 perhaps to be omitted. 
 yevEOig [birth) 
 
 perhaps, detypanaai [to expose) 
 
 Aatud 
 2 o/Mpuva 
 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps, search out carefully 
 perhaps, eotuOt) (no change in the 
 sense.) 
 they saw 
 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps, dm 
 probably to be omitted, 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps, 6ia 
 fruit worthy 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps to be omitted. (If so, 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 UVdpUTTOC.) 
 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 
 
 6. sets {“sets him on the 
 pinnacle of the 
 temple ”) 
 
 10. Go from me, Satan 
 
 12. Jesus 
 
 13. KaTrepvaovfi 
 
 18. Jesus 
 
 Chap. v. 9. avTol 
 
 11. tpevtiopevot (speaking 
 
 falsely) 
 
 20. rj diKaioovvrj vp&v 
 
 25. whilst thou art in the 
 way with him 
 
 27. to them of old time 
 
 28. avryg 
 
 31. on 
 
 32. whoever shall put away 
 
 44. bless those who curse 
 
 you, do good to those 
 who hate you 
 In the last clause, if 
 it be retained, for 
 roiig [uoovvTag 
 despitefully use you 
 (rather, harass you) 
 and 
 
 47. brethren 
 publicans 
 do thus 
 
 48. tioftep 
 
 your Father in heaven 
 
 Chap. yi. 1. alms 
 
 4. avrbg (“ he will reward 
 you”) 
 openly 
 
 6. when thou prayest, thou 
 shalt not be 
 
 perhaps, set 
 
 * 
 
 Go behind me, Satan (the words 
 omocj fiov being added by Gries- 
 bacli.) 
 
 probably to be omitted, 
 probably, K a<j>apvaovp (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, vptiv y binaioovvy 
 perhaps, whilst thou art with him in 
 the way 
 omitted, 
 probably, avrrjv 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps, every one putting away 
 probably to be omitted. (If so, it 
 was borrowed from Luke.) 
 
 rolg pioovoiv 
 
 perhaps to be omitted. (If so, it 
 was borrowed from Luke.) 
 
 perhaps, friends 
 gentiles 
 
 perhaps, do the same 
 perhaps, ug 
 
 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. 
 
 &v 
 
 that (“ that they have 
 their reward ”) 
 
 6. tu) (“ pray to thy Fa¬ 
 ther who is in se¬ 
 cret ”) 
 openly 
 
 13. 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. KpvnTu (twice) 
 
 openly 
 
 21. your treasure 
 your heart 
 
 24. pappuva 
 
 25. and what ye may drink 
 
 34. ra (in the Common 
 Version rendered 
 “ the things of”) 
 Chap. vii. 2. avTipcTpTjOijoETai (it 
 shall be measured 
 in return) 
 
 9. ’taTLV ■ 
 
 12. ovrog (this) 
 
 14. "On ( “Because strait 
 is the gate ”) 
 
 Chap. viii. 2. kAduv (coining) 
 
 3. Jesus 
 
 4. Mw ar/g 
 
 5. tu ’bjoov (“as Jesus 
 
 was entering ” ) 
 
 8. hbyov 
 
 13. inaTovTapxu 
 
 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 Kpv<paiu (an improbable 
 suggestion.) 
 omitted. 
 
 perhaps, thy treasure, 
 perhaps, thy heart. 
 pauuva 
 
 probably to be omitted. (If so, it 
 was borrowed from Luke.) 
 probably to be omitted. 
 
 peTprjdhoerac (it shall be measured) 
 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps, ovrug (thus) 
 
 T i (“How straight is the gate”) 
 
 perhaps, irpoae'kQuv (coming up, 
 namely, to him.) 
 perhaps to be omitted, 
 perhaps M uvagg 
 avTu (“as he was entering”) 
 
 Xoyu 
 
 enaTOVTupxy 
 
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 425 
 
 15. avrolg (“ waited upon 
 them ” ) 
 
 25. avrov (“ his disci¬ 
 ples ”) 
 
 28. Gergesenes 
 
 29. Jesus 
 
 31. suffer us to go 
 
 32. the herd of swine 
 
 “ the herd of swine ” 
 
 perhaps, avry (“ waited upon 
 him”) 
 
 omitted (“the disciples ”) 
 
 probably, Gerasenes; perhaps, Ga- 
 omitted. \darenes. 
 
 send us 
 the swine 
 
 of swine, omitted. 
 
 Such are the various readings which have been represented by 
 other critics beside Gricsbach 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,^ Eusebius, § and Jerome ;|| nor does any ancient author 
 
 * See before, p. 139. f See before, p. 72. J See before, p. 82. 
 
 § Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 24. Qucestiones ad Marinum, ap. Maii Scrip- 
 torum Veterum Nov. Collect., tom. 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 particularl)'. 
 
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. f Origen. cont. Celsum, lib. ii. n. 3; Opp. i. 388. 
 
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 427 
 
 •e 
 
 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. 
 
 Irenasus, 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 Rufinus 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. 
 f 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 Ebionites. 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 there, 
 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 
 Beroea in Syria, by whom it was used4 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 iminediatety 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 Catal. Yir. Illust. in Matth.; Opp. tom. iv. pars ii. col. 102. 
 
 § Advers. Pelagianos, lib. iii.; Opp. tom. iv. pars ii. col. 533. Comment, 
 in Matth. xii. 13; Opp. tom. 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 differ¬ 
 ent work from the Gospel of Matthew. This opinion has been 
 strengthened by a false account given byEpiphanius 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 acquaiaited 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 OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 431 
 
 Section III. 
 
 On some Passages in the Received Text of the Gospels , of which the 
 
 Genuineness is doubtful. 
 
 I. 
 
 THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF 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. 
 
 483 - 
 
 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 first view irreconcilable with 
 each other, and the apparent contradiction of which has been re¬ 
 garded since the second century as presenting a serious difficulty. 
 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 some 
 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 Bethlebem; 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, Jews 
 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 believe 
 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-horn 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 in 
 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,-but the greatest folly, — to have 
 
486 
 
 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.- 31 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 : 11 that is, in a manner corresponding to the commencement 
 of Mark’s Gospel. Or the first words may originally have been,' 
 • “In the days of Herod,” meaning Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, 
 which supposition is, perhaps, countenanced by the story of Epi- 
 plianius, before mentioned, that the Gospel of the Ebionites began, 
 “ In the days of Herod, king of Judcea 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 Judrna, 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 Judma. 
 
 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 as 
 
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 487 
 
 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. 
 
 II. 
 
 MATTHEW,. CHAP. XXVII. 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 
 translator. 
 
 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 thev said to him, What is that to us P 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 teas 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 
 infers 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. 11 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 the 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, 11 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 ifi 
 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 OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 441 
 
 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¬ 
 bling 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. 
 
 . • * * 
 
 III. 
 
 MATTHEW, CHAP. XXVn., PART OF VER. 52 AND 53. 
 
 Another passage which one may believe to have been interpo¬ 
 lated in the copy, or in copies, of the original Hebrew used by the 
 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, when 
 their supposed mission to the living was accomplished? Is it 
 possible, if such an astonishing miracle had been performed,—a 
 
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 of nothing to estab¬ 
 lish the truth of our religion ? 
 
 After Christ's 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-bom from the 
 dead; and therefore had recourse to the not very successful expe¬ 
 dient of postponing their appearance till after his resurreotion. 
 
 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. 
 
 THE CONCLUSION OF MAKE’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 raee. 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 be 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 mav j ustify 
 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 Xew 
 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 
 Stepkani v, 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 v r ere resisting the strongest evidences of 
 his divine mission, ascribing his miracles to the agency of Satan, and de¬ 
 manding in mockery some sign of his 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 Jew's, as the punishment of their rejection of 
 him. No sign, he says, w ill be given to this wicked and apostate race, no 
 manifestation of God’s power v r ill be made to them which they will believe 
 and feel to he such, except a prophet of destruction such as Jonah was to the 
 Ninevites, whose w-arnings— to pursue the train of thought which was in 
 the mind of our Lord — will be disregarded, and wdiose 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.” 
 
 Hov'ever 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 OP THE GOSPELS. 
 
 445 
 
 follow the twelve verses in question. In more than forty other 
 manuscripts, they arc 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 ; n “ that they 
 were not in the more accurate copies;” and, on the o.ther hand, 
 “ that they were generally in accurate copies.” 
 
 In the other manuscripts of the Gospels beside 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 Irenaeus 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. % 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 Gi'eek 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 
 
 * Cont. Haeres., lib. iii. c. 10, § 6, p. 188. 
 
 ' f 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, 
 t think, by Clement of Alexandria, who is also adduced. 
 
 | Quaestiones ad Marinum, pp. 61, 62. 
 
 § Orat. ii. in Christi Resurrect.; Opp. iii. 411. 
 
 || Ad Hedibiam, de Qusestionibus; 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 the 
 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 
 
 * Qusestiones 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. npuTy caftSurov, instead of pta caSSuruv, the expression used by 
 Mark a little before, and by all the other evangelists, in speaking of the day. 
 HpuTTj aa66uiov occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. 
 
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 447 
 
 To proceed to other considerations: In the ninth verse (the 
 first of the disputed passage), Mary Magdalene is described as if 
 unknown to the reader, — “ Mary Magdalene, from whom he cast 
 out seven demons. 1 ’ 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 to 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: m 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 
 
 t 
 
 Yer. 10. htiF.LVT}, and ver. 11. kukelvol. This use of EKSivog, not demon¬ 
 strative nor emphatical, occurs nowhere else in Mark’s Gospel. 
 
 Yer. 10. The expression ol /iet’ avrov jEvopEvot to denote the disciples 
 of Jesus, of which use of the words there is no other example in the Hew 
 Testament. 
 
 Yer. 19. 6 nvpiog, and ver. 20. tov nvp'iov. Mark in his own person no¬ 
 where else applies this title to Christ. 
 
 Passing over the words peculiar to this passage, the use of which may be 
 accounted fbr from something peculiar in its subject, the following nowhere 
 else occur in the Gospel of Mark:. 1. rcopEvopac, the participles of which are 
 used three times; 2. deua/inu, used as a verb, and likewise as its participle; 
 3. umareu, verb and participle; 4. / ietu, ravra; 5. trepog ; G. varepov; 
 7 . 7iapaKO?ipv0eu) ; 8 . SXutctu ; . 9 . pev ovv; 10 . navraxov ; 11 . cvvepyio); 
 12 6e6ai6u ; 13. hi:aKo}jivOiu. 
 
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 from 
 those which he and his apostles were accustomed to perforin. 
 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 11 — 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 foi 
 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. 
 
 449 
 
 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 
 umler 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 Rome 
 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 
 : ts way into a great majority of our present copies. 
 
 y. 
 
 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 thqse 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 Marcionitfes, 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.”— VVetstein, 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; 11 that is, 
 as I doubt not that the words should be understood, “ Ye know 
 not the spirit of my religion; 11 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. If 
 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 tendencv 
 
 7 v 
 
 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 is the more remarkable, as 
 Tertullian, in his long work against Marcion, 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 expect 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. Na turd, says Daille, ita comparatum. est, ut auctorum probatorum 
 libros plerique 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 superfiuo aliquid hodiediabent complut'es docti viri (he might 
 have added, omnesque indocti), eademque mente plerique 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 brevior." 
 
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 v, 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. XXH. 43,44. 
 
 In the 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 bis 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. 
 
 f Adversus Pelagianos, lib. ii.; Opp. iv. pars ii. col. 521. 
 
 J It is referred to by Irenaeus, lib. iii. c. 22, •§ 2, p. 219. 
 
 § Ancorat., § xxxi.; Opp. ii. 36. 
 
456 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Epiphanius does not assert tliat 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 
 Irenseus; 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,”—a charge utterly 
 improbable. 
 
 After the prevalence, in the fifth century, of the ■Monophysite 
 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 Irenseus 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 how 
 any one could have witnessed, or become acquainted with, the 
 events related; for Jesus had removed to a distance from his 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, |hen, 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 Mm wMle pray - 
 
458 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 ing.' 1 ' 1 * A little later, as we have seen, it was quoted by Irenaeus. 
 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 Sahidie; 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.; Opp. iv. p. 89. • 
 
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 459 
 
 Jolin, 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 7/, 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: 
 
 indexogat, dr/Kore, narexu, and vbar\fia ,— beside k'ivtjow and /card naipov , 
 
 « 
 
 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¬ 
 cal possession. 
 
 yin. 
 
 JOHN, CHAP. VII. 53—Vm. 11. 
 
 The narrative of the woman taken in adultery is omitted m so 
 many 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 
 3t. 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 Avas first Avritten in some other language than the Greek, and 
 translated into this by tAvo 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, ivhat is perhaps as 
 probable a solution as any, that it Avas Avritten doAvn in Greek by 
 tAvo different individuals, from the oraL narration of St. John, and 
 afterAvards appended to his Gospel, in Avhich it had not been 
 inserted by himself. The passage may be thus rendered, according 
 to Avhat are perhaps the most probable readings : — 
 
 “And every one Avent 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 doAvn, he Avas in¬ 
 structing them, Avhen the teachers of the Laiv and the Pharisees 
 brought a Avoman taken in adultery, and, placing her in the midst, 
 said to him, Teacher, this Avoman Avas taken in the very act of 
 adultery; and, in the LaAv, Moses commands us that such should 
 be stoned to death: Avhat iioav dost thou say ? This they asked 
 Avith a design to ensnare him, that they might have an accusation 
 against him. Then Jesus, bending doAvn, 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 Ms 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 hi^ 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 it 
 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 bv 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 ( ichatever), as equivalent simply to the relative d 
 (which, that), is not common, and does not occur elsewhere in John. It was 
 accordingly changed to d by Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril; and u is sub¬ 
 stituted for it in the Vatican and other manuscripts. It is such a use of oaog 
 as a native Greek might fall into from meeting with its frequent occurrence 
 in the New Testament, without appreciating its exact force. KaJ’ bv is no¬ 
 where else found in what was probably written by the apostle. (It occurs 
 once in the Apocalypse; and dg /caJ’ elg 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. Oifiai (in this form) occurs nowhere else in the New Testa¬ 
 ment or Septuagint; nor 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 THE 
 . FIRST THREE GOSPELS. 
 
 -4- 
 
 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. 
 
 r 
 
 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-eighths 
 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 verbal coincidence 
 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 tern 
 
 * 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 agreement 
 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 conc'erning 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 \erbally agree at once with the Septuagint 
 and each other, or as far as they verbally differ from each otWhr 
 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 lias, 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: lJaru^a) rdv 
 7 TOLfiiva, Kdl dLaoKopmodTjoETaL tu irpofidTd (Matthew adds, r?/f 7 iOt./ivr]g). 
 The reading of this passage in the Vatican text of the Septuagint is, 
 n dTdijdTE rove TTOipivap, Kdl ekcttuogte tu npofiara. Here seems a great 
 variation in the evangelists; but the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint has 
 these words: ndra£ov rdv ttol/ievg, Kdl diarsKOpTncdrjOovTdL tu ■npofidTd rr/g 
 ■KOL/j-vrig. 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. 
 
 4-67 
 
 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. 
 
 And, going on board 
 the boat, he passed over 
 and came to his own 
 city 
 
 Mark ii. 1-12. 
 
 And again, after 
 some days, he entered 
 Capernaum; and the 
 news spread that he was 
 in his house there. And 
 immediately many were 
 
 Luke v. 17-26. 
 
 And it happened one 
 day, that he was teach¬ 
 ing; and there were 
 sitting by Pharisees and 
 teachers of the Law, 
 who bad come from 
 
468 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Matt. ix. 1-8. 
 
 And lo! they brought 
 to him a paralytic, laid 
 on 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 Galilee 
 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 sa}'s 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. 
 
 Mark 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, 
 kTuvij; Mark, Kpu66arog; and Luke, k\lvl6lov. 
 
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¬ 
 son 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,:f —as having taken place 
 at a later period of Christ’s ministry, aftej^ the discourse in which 
 he delivered a number of parables near the shore by Capernaum. § 
 Ko 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 
 hgnd, 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. 
 
 f 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 
 
 O 
 
 * 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¬ 
 sy.” 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 (5. 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 b}^ 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. T 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 
 Pera?a; 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 Matthe^ 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 mqfher 
 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 coincides 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 OF 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. It 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¬ 
 selves. It must explain the phenomena, which constitute the 
 problem to be solved, consistently with all the other phenomena 
 which the Gospels present. These wc^ks, 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 genuineness 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 dilfuseness 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 ; 
 so 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 fron? 
 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 to 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! 11 * 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 the 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 .X 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 be 
 considered as explanatory of this miracle, 
 f Chap. xi. 12-14, 20, seqq. 
 
 X See before, p. 471, seqq. 
 
 § Mark ir. 35, 
 
4T8 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 as lias 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. 
 
 III. 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 lie 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 Ghrist 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. 
 
 470 
 
 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 evangelist's. 
 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 disciple?, 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 multitude 
 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, if thou 
 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. 
 
 * K at Zrjpa'ivETcu. 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. 
 
 31 
 
482 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Matt. xvii. 14-21. 
 
 nothing would be im¬ 
 possible to you. But it 
 is only through prayer 
 and fasting that this 
 race may be expelled. 
 
 Mark ix. 14-29. 
 
 By nothing but prayer 
 and fasting can this 
 race be cast out. 
 
 Luke ix. 37-43. 
 
 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, this 
 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. 
 
 (Yer. 9.) And Jesus, 
 as he was passing 
 thence, saw a man, 
 called Matthew, sitting 
 
 Mark ii. 14-22. 
 
 (Yer. 14.) And, as 
 he was passing along, 
 he saw Levi, the son of 
 Alpheus, sitting to re- 
 
 Luke v. 27-39. 
 
 (Ver. 27.) And, after 
 this, Jesus went out, 
 and saw a tax-gatherer, 
 by the name of Levi. 
 
483 
 
 CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 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, 
 said 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. Fori 
 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 every thing, he arose 
 and went with him. 
 
 (Ver. 29.) And Lev^ 
 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. 31.) And Je¬ 
 sus, answering, said to 
 them, They who are 
 in health need not a 
 physician, but the sick. 
 
 9 
 
 (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 ? 
 
 (Vev. 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. 
 
 (Yer. 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. 
 
 (Yer. 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 
 skins, so that both may 
 be preserved. 
 
 Mark ii. 14-22. 
 
 are fasting, do not thy 
 disciples fast? 
 
 (Yer. 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. 
 
 (Yer. 20.) But the 
 days are coming when 
 the bridegroom will be 
 taken from them; and 
 then will they fast in 
 that daj\ 
 
 (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. 
 
 (Yer. 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 
 skins. 
 
 Luke v. 27-39. 
 
 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 is 
 with them? 
 
 (Yer. 35.) But the 
 days are coming when 
 the bridegroom will be 
 taken from them: then 
 will they fast in those 
 days. 
 
 (Yer. 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 run 
 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 OF 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. But go ye, and learn what 
 this means , ''I desire, goodness , and not sacrifices' For I did not come to give 
 
486 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 whether it be 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- 
 inn- 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 represen'ed by our Saviour as saying, “I fast twice a week.” Now we 
 have before inferred, from the account of Matthew (see p. £70), 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 (goav vgorevovreg). This coincidence between the Gospels, to be 
 ascertained only by what we learn from the Talmud, deserves remark, as 
 one among many facts of a similar kind Avliich serve to establish their 
 authenticity. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 487 
 
 of Jesus, as given by Luke (ver. 39), which accord so well with 
 the context. 
 
 In order fully to estimate the force of the preceding remarks, 
 we must recollect, that no copyist, writing in the same style with 
 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,—a 
 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 mar 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 ,f 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. 
 
CO2EESP0XDEXCES 07 7HZ GOSPELS. 
 
 459 
 
 from its virou; transcribers, oifferent in different eerie;. The 
 first three evangelists ire supposed each to hive used i di derent 
 copy is the basis of his Gospel. Matthew's copv. beside the 
 original .text, contained likewise the additional matter which be 
 uus in common with Mark sloae. or with Lake alone, Mark's 
 copy itfmr i from mis. bom in — anting tie matter which is com- 
 ei::. to Matt new and Luke only, and in having additional matter 
 not foun I in Matthew's copy: namely, that whi n is common to 
 Mark ana Lake only. Lute's copy, in lice manner, ual certain 
 additions, which are common to him either with Matthew or 
 wim Mark. ant wanted those tassnge= which are found only in 
 the two last-mentioned evangelists.* 
 
 Tie Original Gosneh and the three modifications of it mst 
 mentioned, were a*, written in the Syro-Chai lee. or. as it is more 
 popularly termed, the Hebrew language. Matthew’s Gospel was 
 originally written in the same language. But Mark and Lake 
 wrote in Greek, uni cam translate d into that language the doc a- 
 merit which he used as the basis of his Gospel. Bat the verba! 
 harmony between them in that portion of matter which consti¬ 
 tuted the Original Gospel, before it nab receiveI any additions, is 
 believe I to be greater than would result from two it tetter ten 
 translations o: tie same work. In order to account for it. there- 
 fere. it is sunt tset. that the Original GospeL before any ad actions 
 Lad been male to it. was translate 1 into Greek: and that Mark 
 ant Luke each bat a copy of this Greek translation, from which 
 hr occasionally derived assistance it rendering bis Hebrew docu¬ 
 ment. Each sometimes adopted its words in the same passage: 
 ant in these passages they agree verbally with each ether. 
 
 But besides tne enlarged copy of the Original Gospel, which 
 was in the hands of earn of the evangelists, ant 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 i: into his Gospel in aim original language, and the latter 
 
 * Boh: 7 Marsh distinguishes between these aiiititrs. c:m:: rc wj 
 :* tire dels w titi: were utaie t: narratives a'ready enter: in the Origr ai 
 Gcste.. art tics ideations which were traie c-r new narratives common to 
 two cf the ; -t-ris: hr: tics is a distinction r>r: important to be attended 
 ro in rearer to cur present prrp«>se- 
 
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 Ono- 
 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¬ 
 horn 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. 16, seqq. J 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,” 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¬ 
 nications, 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. 
 
 403 
 
 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 their 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. 
 
 f Considerations of this sort, perhaps, induced Bishop Marsh to change 
 somewhat the representation which he had given, respecting the supposed 
 additions 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 Eiehhorn, 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 different 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 Gt>s- 
 pel, with its various enlarged copies, may have existed. Still, 
 we cannot believe that the evangelists would each ha\e made 
 use of such an enlarged copy of it, in the manner supposed, 
 as the basis of his work. According to the hypothesis, the 
 
406 
 
 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. 
 
 Y. 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 
 lalter 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 respecting the history of Christ, 
 and of his own diligence in collecting information, we cannot 
 believe, that all he meant was, that he had obtained two of the 
 previous documents referred to by him, which had passed through 
 the hands of several transcribers, who had enlarged them with 
 new matter; and that he contented himself with translating these 
 documents, and making a few additions and perhaps corrections.- 
 We learn from Luke, that the written accounts of the ministry 
 of Christ, which were in the possession of some Christians at the 
 time when he wrote, were founded, directly or indirectly, upon 
 the oral accounts of the apostles. Without such express infor¬ 
 mation, we might have concluded, beforehand, that this must have 
 been the fact. The apostles must have been continually called 
 upon to relate the actions and discourses of Christ; and their 
 conversation and preaching must have afforded, to one conver¬ 
 sant with them, authentic materials for such a history as we find 
 in any of our first three Gospels. That such were the materials 
 principally used by Luke, we may conclude from what has been 
 said. That Mark thus derived his information is stated by Papias, 
 who wrote, probably, not more than about sixty years after the 
 evangelist. According to him, Mark accompanied Peter, who, 
 it would appear, was not able to use the Greek language with 
 freedom, as his interpreter; and wrote down from memory those 
 
 82 
 
498 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 actions and discourses of Christ which the apostle had narrated 
 in his preaching.* The account of Irenseus is the same : “ Mark,” 
 he says, “the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us 
 in writing what Peter had preached; and Luke, the companion of 
 Paul, recorded the Gospel preached by him.” f Clement of Alex¬ 
 andria J and Tertullian,§ with other later fathers, make similar 
 statements respecting the Gospels of Mark and Luke. But it is 
 unnecessary to multiply quotations; since the fact cannot be dis¬ 
 puted,- that it is the uniform testimony of ancient writers, that 
 the narratives contained in the first three Gospels were such as 
 had been orally related by the apostles, and that Matthew wrote 
 down wliat lie had preached, and Mark and Luke what they had 
 heard. 
 
 VI. There are two aspects under which the character of the 
 supposed Original Gospel has been presented, both equally re¬ 
 quired by the hypothesis, but irreconcilable with each other. 
 
 On the one hand, it appears as a work drawn up from com¬ 
 munications made by the apostles, sanctioned by them, circulating 
 widely among Christians, so as very early to be translated into 
 Greek, and forming the basis of three out of four of those histo¬ 
 ries of Christ which alone obtained general reception among 
 Christians as the foundation of their faith. It seems impossible 
 that such a work should have perished, and all memory of it have 
 been lost. 
 
 But the hypothesis equally demands, that a different view 
 should be given of it, according to which the writing in question 
 was only a brief abstract of some of the principal events in 
 Christ’s ministry. It contained what the three evangelists have 
 in common; that is, those passages in which they all coincide with 
 one another in presenting the same sense, though, perhaps, in 
 different words. There have been very vague notions of what 
 may be called common in the contents of the first three Gospels; 
 but in the sense just explained, which is required by the hypothe¬ 
 sis, the matter common to those Gospels would not form a work 
 of half the size of Mark’s Gospel. Accordingly, Bishop Marsh 
 
 * See before, p. 139. f See before, p. 72. J See before, p. 78. 
 § Advers. Marc., lib. iv. c. 5, p. 416. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 499 
 
 calls the supposed document “the first sketch of a narrative of 
 Christ’s ministry,”* and says, “It must not be considered as a 
 finished history, but as a document containing only materials for 
 a history; and, as those materials were probably not all commu¬ 
 nicated at the same time, we must suppose that they were not 
 all placed in exact chronological order.” f They are supposed 
 to have been in the order in which Mark and Luke coincide, in 
 opposition to Matthew. According to Eichhorn, it was a “ rough 
 sketch,” “defective,” “imperfect,” “unfinished;” to the text of 
 which the briefest narratives that can be selected by comparing 
 together the parallel passages of the first three Gospels, and 
 those of which the clauses are least connected, approximate most 
 nearly. J 
 
 Now, as the former account of the book seemed to make it 
 incredible that such a work should have perished, so this last 
 account appears to render it equally incredible that such a work 
 should have existed. According to this view of it, it must have 
 been more like, a collection of memoranda for a history, than a 
 history itself. No reasonable purpose of a work of this kind can 
 be imagined. It could not have been to aid the memory of the 
 apostles and the first preachers of Christianity, and their imme¬ 
 diate converts. The'facts minuted down in it were not likely to 
 slip from their recollection. It could not have been to convey 
 instruction to those who had no other or no adequate means of 
 obtaining a knowledge of the history of Jesus. It Avas much too 
 meagre for this purpose. It Avas in no respect adapted to such 
 an end. It must have required a perpetual commentary to render 
 it intelligible. Such a work must have been equally worthless 
 to any class of readers for whom one may fancy it to have been 
 intended. 
 
 It may be worth Avhile to add the remark, that, if the apostles 
 collectively had been concerned in the preparation of any history 
 of Jesus, there is no part of it to which Ave may reasonably sup¬ 
 pose they Avould have gi\ r en more attention than to the narrative 
 of the death and resurrection of their Master. In regard to 
 these events, there Avas a special reason for comparing together 
 
 * Dissertation, p. 196. t Ibid., p. 362. 
 
 X Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 169, seqq., 188. 
 
500 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 their separate knowledge, as different circumstances had been 
 witnessed by different individuals. But, throughout that portion 
 of the history which follows the apprehension of Jesus, there is 
 scarcely a ground for a pretence, that traces of a common docu¬ 
 ment may be discovered. 
 
 VII. But, in the last place, the hypothesis in question does 
 not correspond to, and explain, the phenomena presented by 
 the first three Gospels. That it does correspond to them is re¬ 
 garded by its defenders as the main proof of its truth. If this 
 proof fail, therefore, the hypothesis must fall at once, without the 
 pressure of those objections which have been urged against it. 
 
 We may observe, then, that in order to render probable the 
 existence of the supposed Original Gospel, used as a document 
 by the first three evangelists^ we should be able, in each of 
 their Gospels, to discover certain portions which would easily 
 separate from the rest of the work, and which, when arranged 
 in order, would compose such a document as is imagined to have 
 existed. This document, as disengaged from each of the Gos¬ 
 pels, should agree with itself in ideas and in expression, without 
 any other differences than might fairly be accounted for as in¬ 
 tentional improvements. The case should be similar in regard 
 to those additions to this document which were used in common 
 by any two of the evangelists. These results are what we might 
 expect from the use supposed of common written documents. 
 According to the hypothesis, their language was, in great part, 
 faithfully copied or translated; they resembled the Gospels in 
 their modes of conception and narration, and generally in their 
 use of words ; and therefore no deviations from them would be 
 made, except for what*was esteemed at least a good reason. 
 The coincidence among the first three evangelists is thought to 
 be such as can be accounted for only by the supposition of their 
 having copied common written documents. But, upon this sup¬ 
 position, it would be unreasonable to believe, that they did 
 not uniformly copy those documents, except where they found 
 sufficient cause for alteration. The same may be said of the tran¬ 
 scribers, who are imagined to have intervened between the com¬ 
 position of the Original Gospel and that of our first three Gospels ; 
 and to have gradually enlarged the former by their additions, till 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 501 
 
 it assumed the three different forms in which it was used by the 
 evangelists. They would not have struck off from the text of 
 their fundamental document, a work of the highest authority, 
 into mere wanton or unimportant variations. If such a docu¬ 
 ment, therefore, had ever existed, and had been used as the basis 
 of our first three Gospels, each of them would have contained 
 it in something very like its original form. We should still be 
 able to separate it from the additional matter which had gathered 
 round it. But, as has been before said, no such restoration of 
 the Original Gospel can be effected. No such common docu¬ 
 ment, serving as a basis of each of the first three Gospels, can 
 be discovered by a comparison of them with each other. Yet 
 the defenders of the hypothesis, having recognized that the resto¬ 
 ration of the Original Gospel is essential to the proof of its ever 
 having existed, have spoken as if this restoration might be, and 
 had been, effected. 
 
 Eichliorn affirms, that, by comparing the first three Gospels 
 together, “we are able, even now, to separate the earlier Life 
 of Jesus (the Original Gospel) from all subsequent additions, 
 and, collecting it out of those Gospels, to restore it again free 
 from all the traditions of later times ; 11 * and he himself under¬ 
 takes its restoration.! Bishop Marsh says respecting Eichhorn’s 
 attempt, that “he has investigated the contents of the assumed 
 original document as it existed in its primitive state.” — “The 
 principle which he adopts in this investigation is the following: 
 that all those portions which are common to all three evangelists 
 were originally contained in the common document.”—“Hence, 
 according to Eichhorn, the original document contained the fol¬ 
 lowing sections, which are common to all the three evangelists.” 
 He then gives a table of the contents of forty-two sections (after¬ 
 wards enlarged by Eichhorn to forty-four), in which the evan¬ 
 gelists relate, in common, the same transactions; and adds: 
 “These were the contents, according to Eichhorn’s hypothesis, 
 of the original document supposed to have been used by St. 
 Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. They contain a short but 
 well-connected representation of the principal transactions of 
 Christ, from his baptism to his death; they are such as might be 
 
 * Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 145. 
 
 f Ibid., i. pp. 186-304. 
 
502 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 expected in the first sketch of a narrative of Christ’s ministry.” * 
 This language is exceedingly vague; since, in the forty-two or 
 forty-four sections of Eichhorn, the parallel passages of the three 
 evangelists vary much from each other, and it cannot be deter¬ 
 mined, therefore, what Bishop Marsh meant by “portions com¬ 
 mon to all three evangelists,” or what he asserts to have been 
 the contents of the original document. Elsewhere he affirms, 
 that “the whole of the document in its primitive state w'as [is] 
 contained in each of the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and 
 St. Luke.” f Eichhorn’s general notion is, that, through a com¬ 
 parison of the parallel passages of the first three Gospels, we may 
 disengage a brief original narrative, the common basis of all, by 
 taking only those parts of such passages as are common to all, 
 and combining them together. But his attempt to accomplish 
 this, if the design were not avowed, might be considered as an 
 argument to prove its impracticability. Of this, however, no 
 other proof is necessary than what any concordance of the Gos¬ 
 pels may furnish. The passages of the three evangelists, which 
 are coincident or equivalent, in that strict sense of the terms 
 which reasoning on this subject requires, are too few, and too 
 much broken into fragments, to serve for the construction of 
 an Original Gospel. The fact may be considered as acknowl¬ 
 edged by Eichhorn himself in the very commencement of his 
 undertaking; for he says, “ We are seldom able to determine, as 
 to the words, how much originally belonged to the primitive text, 
 since we are acquainted with it only through translations ” (the 
 Original Gospel having been written in Hebrew, while our present 
 Gospels are in Greek). “We must almost always be content 
 with determining which of the evangelists retains it in the purest 
 state.” % The mention of translations in this passage is one of 
 those insertions of an irrelevant thought by which a writer con¬ 
 fuses his conceptions, and disguises them from himself and others. 
 What is required for the proposed restoration of the Original 
 Gospel is, that certain passages should be selected from each 
 
 * Dissertation, pp. 192-196. 
 
 t Defence of the Illustration, p. 38. See also a passage to the same 
 effect, quoted from him before, on p. 492. 
 
 J Einleit. in d. N T., i. 188. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 503 
 
 of the three Gospels, equivalent in their direct meaning to passages 
 that may be selected from the other two, and capable of being 
 put together into a regular narrative of the ministry of Jesus. 
 If in each of the Gospels were incorporated a correct transla¬ 
 tion of such a narrative, this might easily be done. 
 
 But all that has been actually performed is little more than 
 the simple operation of distinguishing the parallel passages of the 
 first three Gospels, and then arranging in a table the titles of 
 their subjects, in the order of Mark and Luke. The Original 
 Gospel, it is concluded, consisted of accounts of facts and dis¬ 
 courses, related in those passages, arranged in this order. But 
 no one will pretend, when the statement is brought distinctly to 
 this point, that there may be found in each Gospel a series of 
 words coincident in meaning with a similar series to be found in 
 each of the other two, which may therefore be considered as 
 representing the text of the Original Gospel. The error has 
 been in considering as common to the three Gospels narratives 
 different from each other, because they relate in common to the 
 same events. Identity of subject has been confounded with 
 identity of form and circumstance. 
 
 The accounts in the first three Gospels, which relate to the 
 same events, are in no case strictly the same. They are corre¬ 
 sponding accounts, resembling each other more or less closely, 
 sometimes presenting very striking coincidences, and, at other 
 times, diverging into real or apparent discrepances. Throughout 
 those writings, the narratives of the same events present such 
 variations from each other as show, that the authors of the 
 Gospels did not respectively copy them from the same written 
 archetype, but were independent narrators. To this fact we will 
 now attend. 
 
 To the supposition, that any one of the first three evangelists 
 copied from either of the others, it has been considered as a 
 strong objection, that in this case, when we find differences in 
 the relation of the same events, we must view them as intentional 
 alterations, that often no purpose of such alterations can be 
 discovered, and, consequently, it is improbable that they would 
 intentionally be made. But it does not seem to have been 
 observed, that the hypothesis of a common document is exposed 
 
504 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 equally to this objection. We can no more account for the 
 variations of the evangelists from the text of the Original Gospel, 
 than, upon the other supposition, we can account for their varia¬ 
 tions one from another. If it be said, that the alterations in 
 question were not made by the evangelists, but by that series of 
 transcribers who are imagined to have intervened between the 
 composition of the Original Gospel and that of our tirst three 
 Gospels, this is merely throwing back the difficulty, without 
 removing it. The objection is, not that these alterations were 
 made by any particular individuals, but that they were made at 
 all. At the same time, if it be supposed that those previous 
 transcribers made wanton or unreasonable changes in the text 
 which they were copying, the authority of their copies is still 
 further diminished; and it becomes still more improbable, that 
 these copies should have been used by the evangelists in the 
 manner supposed. 
 
 It is to be observed, that it is not the importance of the changes 
 from the text of the original document, that one or more of the 
 evangelists must have made or adopted, which is the point to be 
 considered ; because, for important changes, a reason might exist: 
 but that it is the trifling nature of many of these variations which 
 renders it improbable that they would have been made. With 
 these views, let us compare together the different accounts of 
 the cure of Peter’s wife’s mother, and of many others at Caper¬ 
 naum, as related by the three evangelists. 
 
 Matt. viii. 14-16. 
 
 And Jesus, going to 
 the house of Peter, 
 
 saw his wife’s mother 
 lying sick with a fe¬ 
 ver. 
 
 And he touched her 
 hand, and the fever 
 left her; and she rose 
 
 Mark i. 29-34. 
 
 And immediately, 
 upon their going out 
 of the synagogue, they 
 went to the house of 
 Simon and Andrew, 
 with James and John. 
 And Simon’s wife’s 
 mother lay sick with a 
 fever; and they imme¬ 
 diately spoke to him 
 about her. And he 
 went to her, and raised 
 her up, taking hold of 
 
 Luke iv. 38-41. 
 
 And, leaving the 
 synagogue, he entered 
 the house of Simon. 
 
 And Sitpon’s wife’s 
 mother was laboring 
 under a great fever. 
 And they entreated him 
 for her sake. And, 
 standing over her, he 
 rebuked the fever, and 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 505 
 
 Matt. viii. 14-16. 
 
 up, and attended upon 
 them. 
 
 And, when it was 
 evening, they brought 
 to him many demoni¬ 
 acs; and he cast out 
 the spirits with a word, 
 and healed all those 
 who were diseased. 
 
 Mark i. 29-34. 
 
 her hand; and the fever 
 immediately left her, 
 and she attended upon 
 them. 
 
 And when it was 
 evening, the sun. hav¬ 
 ing set, they brought 
 to him all who were 
 diseased, and the de¬ 
 moniacs. And the 
 whole city was col¬ 
 lected about the door. 
 And he healed many 
 who were sick with va¬ 
 rious diseases, and cast 
 out many demons. And 
 he did not suffer the de¬ 
 mons to speak, because 
 they knew him. 
 
 Luke iv. 38-41. 
 
 it left her; and, rising 
 up directly, she attend¬ 
 ed upon them. 
 
 And, when the sun 
 had set,' all who had 
 with them persons ill 
 with various diseases 
 brought them to him; 
 and he laid his hands 
 upon every one of them, 
 and healed them. And 
 demons departed from 
 many, crying out, and 
 saying, Thou art the 
 Son of God. And he 
 rebuked them, and did 
 not allow them to speak, 
 because they knew him 
 to he the Messiah. 
 
 If we imagine an original narrative as the basis of these three 
 accounts, it is evident, that two at least of the evangelists, or 
 their predecessors, must have varied from it in a manner for 
 which no satisfactory reason can be given. It will simplify our 
 language on the subject, and the result of the argument will be 
 the same, to speak of these variations as made by the evangelists 
 themselves. 
 
 It is not probable, then, that Matthew, if he had found the 
 name of Simon in a document sanctioned by the other apostles, 
 would have altered it to Peter; or that Mark or Luke would 
 have changed Peter to Simon. If the written account, which 
 Luke was following, had simply said, that Peter’s wife’s mother 
 was lying sick with a fever, there is no likelihood that he would 
 have changed the expression, so as to say, that she was “labor¬ 
 ing under a great fever; ” or, if this had been the original 
 statement, no reason can be given why Matthew and Mark should 
 have substituted words less strong. With a written account for 
 their guide, neither Mark nor Luke would have thought it neces¬ 
 sary to insert the circumstance, that her friends requested the 
 miraculous aid of Jesus. Nor, if this had stood in the original 
 
506 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 narrative, could there have been any cause for the omission of 
 it by Matthew. “And he touched her hand,” says Matthew; 
 “And he went to her, and raised her up, taking hold of her 
 hand,” says Mark; “And, standing over her, he rebuked the 
 fever,” says Luke: whichever of these may be fancied the ori¬ 
 ginal expression, it would be difficult to suggest a cause, why 
 two of the evangelists changed it for another. Luke says, 
 “And he rebuked the fever,” which words are neither in 
 Matthew nor in Mark; yet they are not likely to have been 
 inserted by Luke, or to have been omitted by the other two 
 evangelists in transcribing from the supposed document. Nor 
 would Mark, I think, if he had been copying a previous account, 
 have interposed his favorite word “ immediately” three times, in 
 so short a narrative.* 
 
 In the account of the cures performed in the evening, Mark 
 and Luke add circumstances not mentioned by Matthew, — re¬ 
 specting the ‘ crowd about the door, the exclamations of the 
 demoniacs, and the silence imposed on them by Jesus; but, 
 in regard to these circumstances, there is no appearance, that 
 the two evangelists used any common written authority. Nor 
 is any solution to be given of their other variations in this 
 account, from Matthew arid from each other, upon the suppo¬ 
 sition, that a narrative of the supposed Original Gospel was 
 taken by each as the basis of his own. 
 
 I have selected this example merely for its brevity. It may 
 serve as a specimen of those appearances which run through all 
 the parallel passages of the three evangelists, and which show 
 that they did not transcribe or translate from any common written 
 document, because, upon this supposition, the passages must be 
 regarded as presenting evident variations from the text of that 
 document, which it is not to be believed that any copyist, and 
 especially copyists like the evangelists, would have made. I 
 will give a single other specimen, without any critical remarks 
 upon it, which, like the former, I select for its shortness. 
 
 * The word evOeuc, immediately , occurs, according to Schmidt’s Con¬ 
 cordance, forty times in Mark’s Gospel; that is, as many times as in all 
 the other books of the New Testament. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 507 
 
 Matt. xii. 46-50. 
 
 And while he was 
 yet addressing the mul¬ 
 titude, lo! his mother 
 and kinsmen stood with¬ 
 out, wishing to speak 
 with him. 
 
 And some one said to 
 him, Lo! thy mother 
 and kinsmen stand 
 without, wishing to 
 speak with thee. But 
 he answered him who 
 told .him, Who is my 
 mother? and who are 
 my kinsmen? And, 
 stretching forth his 
 hand toward his dis¬ 
 ciples, he said, Lo! my 
 mother and my kins¬ 
 men! For whoever 
 may do the will of my 
 Father in heaven is 
 my kinsman, and kins¬ 
 woman, and mother. 
 
 Mark iii. 31-35. 
 
 Then his mother 
 and his kinsmen came, 
 and, standing without, 
 sent to him to call him. 
 And the multitude were 
 sitting round him; and 
 some said to him, Lo! 
 thy mother and kins¬ 
 men and kinswomen 
 are without, wishing 
 for thee. And he an¬ 
 swered them, Who is 
 my mother? or my 
 kinsmen? And,looking 
 round upon those who 
 were sitting about him, 
 he said, Behold! my 
 mother and my kins¬ 
 men ! For whoever 
 may do the will of 
 God is my kinsman, 
 and kinswoman, and 
 mother. 
 
 Luke viii. 19-21. 
 
 Then his mother and 
 
 kinsmen came to where 
 
 he was, and were not 
 
 able to get to him for the 
 
 crowd. And this was 
 < 
 
 told him by some who 
 said, Thy mother and 
 kinsmen stand without, 
 desirous to see thee. 
 But he answered them, 
 
 My mother and my 
 kinsmen are those who 
 hear the teaching of 
 God, and obey it. 
 
 “The difference of expression,” says Eichhorn, “and the 
 identity of the train of thought, assure us that we here read 
 three different Greek translations of the same Hebrew text.” * 
 It is evident, that, in this remark, resemblance and general 
 equivalence of ideas are confounded with identity. The passages 
 present no appearances, which do not accord with the suppo¬ 
 sition, that each of the evangelists, independently of any written 
 document, was recording, conformably to his own conception 
 of it, a well-known transaction, that had been often orally re¬ 
 lated ; but it is impossible, that their three varying accounts 
 should have been founded upon one original written narrative, 
 from which its transcribers and translators did not depart with¬ 
 out some reasonable motive. 
 
 We proceed to another consideration. The verbal coincidences 
 
 * Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 248. 
 
508 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 between Mark and Luke are supposed to Lave been produced by 
 the circumstance, that, in translating the same Hebrew docu¬ 
 ment, both evangelists derived assistance from a Greek transla¬ 
 tion of it, which had been made before the composition of their 
 works. But the verbal coincidence between Mark and Luke 
 is not great. It consists, for the most part, of single clauses or 
 sentences, rarely extending unbroken through two whole sen¬ 
 tences together. It amounts in all to less than the twelfth part 
 of Mark’s Gospel. A similar objection, therefore, to that which 
 we have just been considering, presents itself to this supposition. 
 It requires, to render it probable, much more identity of language 
 than exists between the evangelists, unless we imagine them to 
 have departed, without reason, from their common help, the 
 former Greek translation. It represents both the evangelists as 
 going through this Greek translation, picking out a few sentences 
 and clauses of sentences here and there, and these, as far as we 
 can judge, the renderings of passages that offered no peculiar 
 difficulty, and. after copying perhaps a dozen words, resuming 
 their own language. The evangelists would not have had re¬ 
 course to a translation so defective as to afford them such scanty 
 assistance. 
 
 I will mention one other characteristic of the Gospels, which 
 seems wholly irreconcilable with the hypothesis we are consider¬ 
 ing. It is the uniform and distinguishing style of conception, 
 narration, and language apparent in each. The Gospel of Luke, 
 according to the hypothesis, must be a compound of materials 
 furnished by at least five different writers,—the author of the 
 Original Gospel, the compiler who made the additions to it which 
 Luke has in common with Matthew alone, the compiler who made 
 the additions which he has in common with Mark alone, the 
 author of the imagined Gnomologia, and himself. I mention 
 Luke’s Gospel as the more striking case, because we have this 
 in the original; whereas Matthew’s Gospel, being extant only in 
 a translation, there is one particular, its uniformity in the use 
 of language, from which we cannot argue with the same con¬ 
 fidence. But Matthew’s Gospel is distinguished by other well 
 defined features, though, according to the hypothesis, it was 
 composed of as various materials as those of Luke’s Gospel. So 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 509 
 
 also was that of Mark, except that he is not thought to have 
 used the Gnomologia. But throughout each of the Gospels, 
 except in the account of the miraculous conception by Luke, of 
 which I have already spoken, and in some few passages, before 
 noticed, which lie under the suspicion of* being spurious, there 
 is no diversity of character betraying the work of different hands. 
 The uniform texture of each Gospel shows it not to be a piece 
 of patchwork. Each proves itself to be the production of a 
 single writer, by discovering throughout the workings of an in¬ 
 dividual mind. 
 
 Notwithstanding, therefore, the ingenuity and labor with which 
 the hypothesis in question has been defended, I believe the objec¬ 
 tions to which it is exposed occur, in a more or less definite form, 
 to almost every one who has examined it. It supposes an Origi¬ 
 nal Gospel, sanctioned by the apostles; yet, had such a work 
 existed, we cannot believe, that, even if the Hebrew original had 
 perished, its Greek translation would have been lost, and no 
 memory of the book remain. It supposes this book to have 
 been treated in a manner without a parallel in literary history, 
 and wholly inconsistent with the authority which must have been 
 ascribed to it. It implies a solicitude about the finishing and 
 refashioning of writings, altogether inconsistent with the char¬ 
 acter and habits of the Jews of Palestine. It requires us to 
 believe, that the evangelists copied into their histories the col¬ 
 lections of anonymous individuals; when one of them was an 
 eye-witness of the events which he related, and the other two were 
 in habits of continual intercourse with those who, like him, 
 were the primary sources of information respecting the history 
 of Jesus, and the business of whose lives was to afford this 
 information to others. It is inconsistent with the account which 
 Luke gives of the manner in which he procured the materials 
 for his Gospel, and with the historical notices which we have of 
 the composition of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, — notices 
 which, so far as they represent these Gospels as containing what 
 the apostles had before delivered orally, are confirmed by their 
 intrinsic probability. And it fails of its proposed object. It 
 does not explain the phenomena of the agreement and disagree¬ 
 ment of the first three Gospels; but, on the other hand, it is 
 
510 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 wholly irreconcilable with the appearances those Gospels present. 
 For it supposes, that an original document was so used as the 
 basis of the first three Gospels, that it is still preserved in each; 
 while, in fact, no such document can be discovered. On the 
 contrary, in the unsuccessful attempts made to restore this docu¬ 
 ment, it becomes necessary to represent it as so brief, defec¬ 
 tive, and unsatisfactory, that we cannot believe such a work 
 existed, because we can discern no purpose for which it could 
 have been intended. The hypothesis implies, that the corre¬ 
 spondences of the three Gospels may be separated from their 
 differences by a sort of mechanical process, so that the former 
 may afterward be brought together and form a connected whole; 
 while, in fact, the one and the other are blended so intimately 
 as continually to appear together in the same narrative. In 
 attempting to account for the correspondences of these books 
 with each other, it presents a solution which requires much more 
 correspondence than exists. And, in the last place, the number 
 of writers whom it represents as contributing materials for the 
 Gospels is irreconcilable with the individuality of character evi¬ 
 dent in each of them. 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 Proposed Explanation of the Correspondences among the First 
 
 Three Gospels. 
 
 What account, then, is to be given of the striking corre¬ 
 spondences, in matter and language, which exist among the first 
 three Gospels ? I answer, that the phenomenon may, I think, 
 be explained by the following considerations: — 
 
 The discourses of the apostles and first preachers of Christianity 
 must have consisted, in great part, of narratives concerning the 
 life of Jesus. In calling men to receive his religion, they must 
 have made known to them who he was, what he had done, and 
 what he had taught and commanded. All the information which 
 we now derive from the first three Gospels must have been orally 
 communicated by them over and ovSr again. They must have 
 related his miracles, to show on what grounds he claimed divine 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 511 
 
 authority; and the other events of his life, to illustrate his charac¬ 
 ter. In teaching their disciples, they would quote his own words, 
 as the most authoritative expression of the truths which he made 
 known, and as affording the most satisfactory information respect¬ 
 ing his doctrines and commands. In these words of Jesus his 
 religion was embodied; they dwelt in the minds and hearts of his 
 apostles; they would be continually on their lips; and, in quoting 
 them for the instruction of their converts, they would often be led 
 to relate the occasion on which they were uttered. 
 
 By far the greater part of our Lord’s ministry had been passed 
 at a distance from Jerusalem, either in Galilee or elsewhere; 
 accounts of it had been brought to that city only by report, and 
 had, doubtless, been mixed with many errors, through the mis¬ 
 takes and overheated imaginations of one class of relaters, and 
 the bitter prejudices of another. At Jerusalem the twelve apos¬ 
 tles generally resided for some years after Christ’s ascension; and 
 it must have been one main part of their duty to present to those 
 who were willing to listen a true account of their Master’s actions, 
 in contradiction to such false reports as had prevailed. . 
 
 Another cause, which must have led the apostles to narrate 
 events in the life of their Master, was their applying to him pas¬ 
 sages in the Old Testament which they regarded as prophetical. 
 In doing so, they must have given an account of the facts to which 
 they believed such passages to relate. The applications of sup¬ 
 posed prophecies, that we find in the Gospel of Matthew, would 
 be unintelligible without the narratives with which they are con¬ 
 nected ; and the same would equally be the case with an oral as 
 with a written discourse. 
 
 But, in speaking of the occasions which must have continually 
 led the apostles and first preachers of Christianity to give accounts 
 of the ministry of Jesus, we must not forget the intense curiosity 
 that would be felt, by all but his determined enemies, respecting 
 the wonderful transactions of his life ; and the deep interest which 
 every true convert to his religion must have had to learn what 
 might be known concerning him, and to be able, upon the highest 
 authority, to separate the truth- from falsehood. The. apostles, 
 and other eye-witnesses of the ministry of Jesus, possessed knowl¬ 
 edge of the greatest curiosity and interest; they were most ready 
 to communicate it; and there can be.no doubt, that they were 
 
512 • 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 often called upon to make suck communication, or, in other 
 words, that they often had occasion to repeat narratives of the 
 same events which we now find recorded in the first three Gos¬ 
 pels. 
 
 It was required in an apostle, that he should have been a com¬ 
 panion of Jesus during his ministry, “from the baptism of John 
 to that day on which he was taken up ; 11 and the ground of this 
 requisition evidently was, that an apostle must be one who was 
 able to state upon his own knowledge the events in the public life 
 of his Master. Thus St. John says to those whom he addressed 
 in his Epistle: “What took place from the beginning, what we 
 have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have be¬ 
 held, and our hands have handled, concerning the life-giving 
 doctrine, —for Life has been revealed, and we saw and bear tes¬ 
 timony, and announce to you that Eternal Life which was with 
 the Father, and has been revealed to us,—what we have seen 
 and heard, we announce to you, so that you may share with us.” 
 And St. Luke, whose words may again be quoted, in commencing 
 his Gospel, refers directly to the sources, and the only sources, 
 from which an authentic written narrative of the life of Jesus 
 could be derived: “Since many,” he says, “have undertaken to 
 arrange a narrative of the events accomplished among us, con¬ 
 formably to the accounts given us by those who were eye-witnesses 
 from the beginning, and have become ministers of the religion, I 
 have determined also, having accurately informed 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.” * Luke’s own 
 
 * Different interpreters have understood some of the expressions in this 
 passage in different ways, but with variations that do not affect the main 
 purpose for which I have quoted it. I have adopted that sense of the words 
 which seems to me most probable. In the last clause, my rendering is dif¬ 
 ferent from any that I recollect to have seen (“that you may know the 
 truth concerning the relations you have heard”). Most modern expositors 
 agree in effect with the Common Version, in understanding St. Luke as 
 meaning, “ that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein 
 thou hast been instructed;” that is, that thou mightest know that they are 
 certain. But the words of Luke are, Iva eTuyvuc nepl uv KarrjxfjdTjg Xoyuv 
 r tjv uo<paXeiav; and I conceive Xoyuv in the genitive to depend upon irept,’ 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 513 
 
 Gospel, and all the other compilations which he mentions, were, 
 according to him, founded upon information derived from the 
 * apostles, and perhaps other preachers of the religion, who had 
 been eye-witnesses of the ministry of Christ; that is, upon their oral 
 narratives. This source was always open; and, from the nature 
 of the case, any account of Christ’s ministry by a Christian, 
 written in the apostolic age, must have been intended to embody 
 such narratives,—the narratives of those who alone could bear 
 personal testimony to the facts related; narratives which, we 
 cannot doubt, had been orally communicated many times before 
 they were committed to writing by any one of the evangelists. 
 
 In confirmation of the supposition, that those narratives con¬ 
 cerning Jesus, which we now find in the three Gospels, were first 
 orally communicated by the apostles, and preserved in the mem¬ 
 ory of their disciples, it is superfluous to appeal to the custom of 
 the Jewish Rabbis, who communicated their traditions orally to 
 their disciples, and required that they should be committed to 
 memory. These traditions formed an amount of matter which, 
 in the age of the apostles, probably exceeded, very many times, 
 
 and not upon uotyakuav . The obvious meaning of St. Luke, if his words 
 are to be thus constructed, is, that he wrote in order that Theophiius might 
 know Ti/v uotpaTieiav, “ what was to be relied upon,” that is, “the truth,” in 
 relation to the accounts he had heard. This meaning seems best to suit the 
 c< ntext. A proper cause is assigned for the composition of an accurate his¬ 
 tory by one who had diligently inquired into the facts; while, if the 
 object of Luke had only been to assure Theophiius of the certainty of what 
 he had already heard, it may seem that his simple affirmation would have 
 been most to the purpose. To an unbeliever or a sceptic of those times, the 
 mere history of Luke would have afforded no new evidence. A believer, as 
 there is no reasonable doubt that Theophiius was, had been already con¬ 
 vinced of the truth of Christianity; and if the term Tioyoi is, as I conceive, 
 to be understood in the sense of “ narratives ” re>pecting the life of Christ, 
 St. Luke surely did not mean to vouch for the truth of all that Theophiius 
 might have heard. Many incorrect and false accounts respecting Christ 
 must have been in circulation in the times of the apostles, — accounts 
 which first were contradicted by their oral narratives, and afterwards by the 
 written narratives of the evangelists; and it is, I think, a want of attention 
 to this fact which has prevented the words of Luke from being correctly 
 understood 
 
 38 
 
614 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 the contents of any one of the Gospels. Other historical parallels, 
 as they are called, have been suggested. But it implies a very 
 imperfect comprehension of the state of mind which must have * 
 existed in the apostles and their disciples, to suppose, that their 
 remembrance of the events in the life of Jesus depended upon an 
 effort of recollection. Their strongest and holiest feelings were 
 
 associated with those events: the vivid memorv of them was for 
 
 • •/ 
 
 ever present to their minds, their spring of action by day, and 
 their meditation by night. We must not suppose, that the narra¬ 
 tive of events the most wonderful that man ever witnessed, and of 
 words the most weighty that man ever heard, was taught and 
 learnt like a schoolboy’s task or the traditions of the Rabbis. 
 From the manner in which the Rabbis taught, we learn only that 
 the Jews were accustomed to oral instruction, and hence mav 
 more readily familiarize ourselves with the conception, that long 
 portions of the history of Christ, or perhaps a general account 
 of his ministry, were sometimes orally communicated by the apos¬ 
 tles at once. 
 
 The business of the apostles and first teachers of Christianity 
 was to preach Christ, to make him known. To him they constantly 
 directed the view of-their disciples. What he taught was the 
 religion of which they were the ministers; his miracles were proofs 
 of Its divinity; his virtues were held forth by them as the example 
 after which his followers were to form themselves. As religious 
 instructors, they taught nothing upon their own authority. The 
 Gospels are not now more essential to our knowledge of Chris¬ 
 tianity, than must have been their oral accounts of Jesus to the 
 first converts. 
 
 We conclude, then, that portions of the history of Jesus, longer 
 or shorter, were often related by the apostles; and it is evident, 
 that the narrative, at each repetition by the same individual, would 
 become more fixed in its form, so as soon to be repeated by him 
 with the same circumstances and the same turns of expression. 
 Especially would no one vary from himself in reporting the words 
 of his Master. 
 
 We have next to consider, that the apostles, generally, would 
 adopt a uniform mode of relating the same events. The twelve 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 515 
 
 apostles, who were companions of our Saviour, resided together at 
 Jerusalem, we know not for how long a period, certainly for 
 several years, acting and preaching in concert. This being the 
 case, they would confer together continually; they would be 
 present at each other’s discourses, in which the events of their 
 Master’s life were related; they would, in common, give instruc¬ 
 tion respecting his history and doctrine to new converts, especially 
 to those who were to go forth as missionaries. From all these 
 circumstances, their modes of narrating the same events would 
 become assimilated to each other. Particularly would their lan¬ 
 guage be the same, or nearly the same, in quoting and applying 
 passages of the Old Testament as prophetical, and in reciting the 
 words of Jesus, whose very expressions they must have been de¬ 
 sirous of retaining. But the verbal agreement among the first 
 three Gospels is found, as we have seen, principally where the 
 evangelists record words spoken by Christ or by others, or allege 
 passages from the Old Testament. Elsewhere there is often much 
 resemblance of conception and expression, but, comparatively, 
 much less verbal coincidence. 
 
 Previously, then, to the composition of the first three Gospels, 
 we may believe that the narratives which they contain had as¬ 
 sumed, in the manner explained, a form more or less definite. 
 Matthew, an apostle, would commit to writing those narratives 
 which he and the other apostles had been accustomed to communi¬ 
 cate orally. Mark and Luke, who derived their knowledge from 
 the apostles, would record those narratives which they had heard 
 from them. But, if the accounts of the apostles had been com¬ 
 mitted to writing by ever so many different historians, still, the 
 written agreeing with the oral accounts, and the oral accounts 
 agreeing with each other, all those accounts must have had a 
 striking correspondence. But, however definite might be the 
 form which any oral narrative had assumed, still there would be 
 variations of language, and minor circumstances would be omitted 
 or inserted, as it was orally related by different individuals, or by 
 the same individual at different times, or recorded by different 
 writers. We should expect, therefore, to find in histories in 
 which these narratives were collected, such intermingled agree¬ 
 ments and variations as'appear in the first three Gospels. Thus, 
 
516 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 then, generally, may the resemblance between the first three Gos¬ 
 pels be explained. In the oral narratives of the apostles, we find 
 their common archetype, — an archetype, from its very nature, 
 partly fixed and partly fluctuating, and such, therefore, as is 
 required to account at once for their coincidence and their diver¬ 
 sity.* 
 
 * There are several remarks, which, to avoid breaking the connection of 
 the text, I have here thrown into a note. 
 
 1. It deserves observation, that, with the exception of the history of the 
 last days of our Saviour’s life, the accounts of his ministry in the first three 
 evangelists relate to events which took place either in Galilee, or elsewhere, 
 at a distance from Jerusalem. With this part of his ministry the inhabitants 
 of Jerusalem, and the strangers who resorted there, being least acquainted, 
 the apostles would be most frequently called upon to give information 
 respecting it. How little was correctly known among the great body of the 
 inhabitants of Jerusalem concerning the ministry of Jesus, appears incident¬ 
 ally from two passages in different evangelists. Upon his entry into that 
 city, “ The multitude that was with him,” says John (xii. 17, 18), “bore tes¬ 
 timony, that he had called Lazarus from the tomb, and raised him from the 
 dead. On this account, also, the multitude came out to meet him, because 
 they heard that he had performed this miracle.” His many preceding mira¬ 
 cles, it appears, would not have drawn upon him such attention. Matthew 
 says (xxi. 10, 11): “As he was entering Jerusalem, the whole city was in 
 commotion; saying, Who is he? And the multitudes ” (among whom there 
 
 were many, without doubt, who had followed him from Galilee) “ said, This 
 
 » 
 
 is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.” Thus, in the accounts of 
 Christ’s ministry in Galilee, and of some very striking discourses which he 
 delivered during his last days in Jerusalem, we find remarkable # correspond- 
 euces among the first three evangelists, because these accounts were of a 
 character to be often repeated by the apostles; while, in the relation of the 
 minor circumstances attending his crucifixion and resurrection, there is much 
 diversity, because, however important were the main events, his crucifixion 
 was universally known, and it was universally known that the apostles 
 affirmed his resurrection, and the minor circumstances attending those 
 events were not adapted to convey any general instruction, and were there¬ 
 fore, as v r e may suppose, little dwelt upon by the apostles. In general 
 we may remark, that according as what is related was adapted to take a 
 strong hold upon the mind, and tvas likely to be often brought forward in 
 the oral discourses of the apostles, the greater is the correspondence among 
 the evangelists. 
 
 2. In accounting for the resemblance among the first three Gospels, w r e 
 are led to consider the difference between them and the Gospel of John. To 
 explain it, we may observe, that this Gospel is not properly a history of the 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 517 
 
 But, in order fully to explain the verbal coincidences among 
 the three Gospels, we must take into view some other considera¬ 
 tions. Iiow is it, that there is an agreement in the use of the very 
 same'Greek words throughout many passages? We will first, 
 
 ministry of Jesus. It supposes that history, as recorded in the first three 
 Gospels, to be already known: it is founded upon it, and supplementary to 
 it It relates principally to what took place at Jerusalem, where our Saviour 
 spent but a small portion of his ministry. It consists, in great part, of con¬ 
 nected discourses of Jesus with the unbelieving Jews, and with his apostles, 
 of which much has special and immediate reference only to the character 
 and circumstances of those immediately addressed. It did not, like the 
 narrative contained in the first three Gospels, constitute that elementary 
 instruction in the history of Jesus, which was the first want of the converts 
 to the new religion. Like the Epistles of the apostles, it implies that this 
 had been already received. 
 
 3. But, it may be asked, if it was a principal business of an apostle to 
 give information concerning the public life, the actions, and the discourses 
 of Jesus, how was St. Paul qualified for his office? I answer, that, during 
 the first part of his ministry, St. Paul, for some years, had Barnabas for a 
 companion, whom we find very early associated with the apostles,*' and 
 a very earnest preacher of Christ. Three years after his conversion, before 
 he had properly assumed the office of an apostle, he was with Peter fifteen 
 days at Jerusalem.f He travelled first with Mark, and afterwards with 
 Luke, both historians of Christ, and had at command means of informa¬ 
 tion similar to what they possessed. Though, before his conversion, an 
 enemy of Christ, yet, bein^ an enemy full of intelligence and zeal, it is 
 probable that he was then as well acquainted with his history as any one 
 not an immediate disciple. Jesus was watched, during his ministry, by 
 Pharisees and teachers of the Law, some of whom came for that purpose 
 from Jerusalem to Galilee. | St. Paul, therefore, was not likely to be igno¬ 
 rant concerning his deeds and sayings at the time of his own conversion, 
 though the whole aspect under which he regarded them was changed by 
 that event. Full as he then was of sorrow and veneration, and entire 
 devotedness to the cause of Christ, and surrounded as he was by abundant 
 means of informing himself concerning his character and history, and of 
 correcting all his former misapprehensions respecting what he had said and 
 done, there is nothing strange in supposing that he availed himself of those 
 means; nay, it would be an incredible supposition, that he did not. In his 
 Epistles, we find repeated references to the history of Jesus as it is related 
 in the first three Gospels. The account of the last supper of our Lord is 
 given by him in words, the greater part of which are identical with those of 
 Luke. 
 
 % 
 
 * Acts iv. 36 
 
 t Gal. i. 18. 
 
 $ Luke v. 17. 
 
518 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 attend to this agreement between Mark and Luke, both of whom 
 originally wrote in the Greek language. This is to be explained 
 by the fact, that, though the native language of the apostles \\;as 
 Hebrew, yet a great part of their conversation and discourses 
 must have been in Greek. In Greek they must have addressed 
 all who were not Jews; and to a large proportion even of Jews, 
 the Hellenists, born and educated in foreign countries, the Greek 
 was more familiar than the language of their nation. Many for¬ 
 eigners and Hellenists dwelt in Jerusalem, or resorted thither 
 occasionally. The great national feasts, in particular, drew to 
 that city Jews who usually resided in foreign countries. A con¬ 
 siderable portion of the early Christians in Jerusalem was com¬ 
 posed of Hellenists; * and with Hellenists St. Paul there disputed 
 after his conversion, f We find mention of various synagogues, in 
 that city, of foreign Jews, who associated together according to 
 the countries from which they came ; f and many of the natives of 
 Palestine were sufficiently acquainted with the Greek language to 
 use it for the purposes of communication. With the exception of 
 St. Luke and St. Paul, the apostles and evangelists were unedu¬ 
 cated men ; yet all the writings which they have left us, except the 
 Gospel of Matthew, were composed in Greek. There would even 
 have been no strangeness, it appears, in addressing a promiscuous 
 multitude at Jerusalem in the Greek language; for, upon the. 
 occasion of the tumult at the apprehension of St. Paul in that city, 
 we are told only that he was heard with the more attention 
 because he spoke in Hebrew. § As, therefore, the apostles wrote 
 in Greek, so we may reasonably believe, that, while residing 
 together in Jerusalem, they often taught in Greek, in the presence 
 of each other; and that thus their expressions in this language, as 
 well as in the Hebrew, became assimilated. We may in this 
 manner explain whatever verbal agreement exists between St. 
 Mark and St. Luke; especially as it is principally found in pas¬ 
 sages in which it was particularly to be expected, in reports of the 
 words of our Saviour and others, and in quotations from the Old 
 Testament. Their whole verbal coincidence in narrative does 
 not, I believe, exceed the amount of more than six or eight verses 
 of average length. 
 
 * Acts vi. 1, seqq. f Acts ix. 29. J Acts vi. 9. § Acts xxii. 2. 
 
 * 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OE THE GOSPELS. 
 
 519 
 
 The Gospel of Matthew, having been originally written in 
 Hebrew, was probably translated into Greek some time about the 
 close of the first century. The verbal coincidences of its transla¬ 
 tion with the Gospels of Mark and Luke admit of one, and I 
 think onlv one, satisfactory solution. The original of Matthew 
 agreed with them essentially in many narratives and many sayings 
 and discourses of Christ. These, or portions of these, were the 
 same, except their expression in different languages; and the 
 manner of their expression in the Greek language had been fixed 
 by the Greek Gospels of Mark and Luke. But these Gospels 
 being known to the translator of Matthew, when his original 
 corresponded with them sufficiently, he was led to adopt their 
 expressions.* 
 
 One phenomenon in the Gospels still remains to be noticed. It 
 is the agreement of Mark and Luke in their chronological misar- 
 rangement of some of the events which the first three evangelists 
 relate in common. On the hypothesis of an Original Gospel, it is 
 supposed that this misarrangement existed in that Gospel, and 
 was copied from it by Mark and Luke, who were themselves igno¬ 
 rant of the true order of events, but was corrected by Matthew, 
 who, as an apostle, was better informed. This, however, is only 
 removing one difficulty by creating another; for it would be 
 strange, that a misarrangement, which any apostle might have 
 corrected, should exist in a work prepared under the direction of 
 the apostles, and sanctioned by them, especially in a work so brief 
 as to seem intended rather for a memorandum of the chronological 
 series of events in Christ’s ministry than for any other purpose. 
 The explanation that has been proposed of the agreement among 
 the Gospels, in the character of their narratives and their use of 
 language, involves no solution of this difficulty. Admitting the 
 truth of that explanation, the misarrangement in question becomes 
 a separate and independent, though not very important, problem, 
 requiring a solution of its own. But, in our ignorance respecting 
 
 * I remarked in the first edition, that “the credit of this explanation 
 belongs to Bishop Marsh.” I have since observed that Grotius (introduc. 
 ad Comment, in Matthaeum) says: “Marci libro Graeco usus mihi videtur 
 quisquis is fuit Matthoei Graecus interpre3.” — Note iy Second Edition. 
 
520 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 all but the leading events of the apostolic age, whatever cause for 
 it we may assign must be only conjectural. 
 
 One solution that has occurred to me is immediately connected 
 with the account which has been given of the origin of the agree¬ 
 ment among the Gospels: it is. that the correspondence in the 
 arrangement of Mark and Luke had its source in the oral preach¬ 
 ing and discourses of the apostles. It is not probable, that the 
 apostles often, if ever, undertook to recite in one discourse, or 
 in a connected series of discourses, all the transactions of the 
 ministry of Jesus related by any one of the first three evangelists. 
 According to the particular occasion presented, or the special 
 object which they had in view, they would group together events, 
 sayings, and discourses particularly adapted to their purpose. 
 They would class their accounts of their Master, not narrate them 
 chronologically. To this mode of teaching we may perhaps 
 look as the occasion of the agreement between Mark and Luke 
 in the displacing of some events, and as the occasion, likewise, of 
 the general want of chronological arrangement in Luke, and of the 
 existence of something of a systematical, founded upon a chrono¬ 
 logical, arrangement in Matthew. 
 
 This general solution may be accepted as probable, whether we 
 can or cannot discover any special cause which might have affected 
 the arrangement of those particular events to which Mark and 
 Luke agree in giving a place different from that assigned to them 
 by Matthew. It may therefore be scarcely worth while to enter 
 into the inquiry, whether such causes can be conjectured. Yet it 
 seems to me that they may be; and, as the subject will occupy but 
 little space, I will venture to suggest them. 
 
 The most important instance of misarrangement, in which 
 Mark and Luke both differ from Matthew, is in the place which 
 they assign to the voyage to Gennesaret, with the miracles ac¬ 
 companying and following it.* According to them, these events 
 took place immediately after the delivery of the parable of the 
 sower, and some other striking parables and sayings of Jesus. 
 These parables and sayings are of a general character, relating to 
 
 * See before, p. 470, seqq. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 521 
 
 the reception of the new religion, to the importance of listening 
 to its truths, to its future rapid growth, and to the blessedness of 
 its disciples. They are of the kind that might be repeated, by 
 the apostles and first preachers of Christianity, to an audience 
 who had collected to listen and to inquire, but many of whom had 
 not yet professed themselves Christians. After having, in the 
 words of their Master, warned such an audience, that the seed 
 might fall on good ground or on bad; that they should give heed 
 to what they heard; that the religion, which was but in its begin- 
 ning, was, through the power of God, to extend itself widely; 
 that to every one who had, more should be given ; and that the 
 disciples of Jesus were to him as his dearest relatives,* —it would 
 be natural to mention some of those displays of divine power upon 
 which this new teacher founded his claims to divine authority: 
 and perhaps no more striking series of miracles could have been 
 selected, than his commanding the winds and waves to be still; 
 his giving sanity to a raging demoniac, under circumstances so 
 extraordinary; the cure of a woman, long diseased, by her merely 
 touching his garment; and his restoring life to the daughter of 
 Jairus. It is thus, perhaps, that we may explain how the relation 
 of some of the most remarkable miracles of Jesus came to be 
 connected with the recital of some of his parables and sayings, 
 in which he set before men the importance of listening to the truths 
 which he taught. They were, in consequence, thus connected by 
 Mark and Luke; and the mistake into which Mark has particu¬ 
 larly fallen, of supposing that the voyage to Gennesaret imme¬ 
 diately followed the delivery of those parables,f was facilitated by 
 the circumstance, that they were actually delivered from a vessel 
 on the lake near the shore at Capernaum, and that Jesus imme¬ 
 diately after left that city4 
 
 We pass to another of the chronological discrepances among the 
 evangelists. Matthew relates, that Jesus, previously to his entering 
 Capernaum on a certain sabbath, cured a leper; while Mark and 
 Luke relate this cure as having been performed when Jesus had left 
 Capernaum, § after the sabbath just mentioned, upon which day 
 
 * Mark iv. 1-32. Luke viii. 4-21. 
 % Matt. xiii. 1, 53 
 
 t See before, p. 477. 
 § See before, p 470. 
 
522 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 he appears, from all the evangelists, first to have publicly preached 
 in that city. Perhaps this disagreement may be thus explained. 
 As Jesus, during his ministry in Galilee, fixed on Capernaum as 
 his chief place of residence, setting out on his journeys from it 
 and returning to it, we may suppose the apostles to have been 
 accustomed to begin some short narrative of his ministry with the 
 mention of this fact, and an account of his first appearance in 
 Capernaum as a public teacher. No particular miracle, except 
 this cure of a leper, is related by either of the first three evange¬ 
 lists as having been performed by Jesus before that event; and 
 this miracle is related by Matthew as taking place on the morning 
 of the same day. As, then, a brief oral account of Christ’s 
 preaching in Galilee would naturally commence with the mention 
 of Capernaum as his chief place of residence, and as this would 
 lead to an account of the first day of his public ministry spent in 
 tliJlt city, the miracle of the cure of the leper, which preceded his 
 entrance into it, must either have been passed over in silence, or 
 introduced subsequently into the narrative. I suppose the latter 
 course to have been adopted, on account of its being a miracle 
 which excited particular attention, and to which particular impor¬ 
 tance had been attached; as appears from its being related circum¬ 
 stantially by all three of the evangelists, and from the fact that 
 Mark and Luke represent it as a special cause why great multi¬ 
 tudes flocked to Jesus. The particular impression which this 
 miracle produced may be ascribed to its probably being the first, 
 or one of the first, that Jesus performed in Capernaum or its im¬ 
 mediate neighborhood, and therefore the first that most of the 
 spectators of it had witnessed; to the horror with which leprosy 
 was regarded among the Jews; to the confidence manifested by 
 Jesus in putting his hand upon the infectious sufferer; to the 
 incurable state of the disease by natural means, — for he “ was full 
 of leprosy;”* and to the circumstance of our Saviour’s sending 
 the man to the priests, who were already his enemies, that they 
 might certify, in effect, that a miracle had been performed. 
 
 In the only remaining case of any importance, in which Mark 
 and Luke agree together in differing from the arrangement of 
 
 * Luke v. 12. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 523 
 
 Matthew, the application of the general solution that has been 
 proposed is obvious. According to this, narratives bearing upon 
 the same point would be brought together in the oral discourses 
 of the apostles. Now, there are two narratives, one relating to 
 the disciples of Jesus plucking ears of grain on the sabbath, and 
 the other to the miraculous cure of a man with a withered hand, 
 likewise on the sabbath, which stand in immediate connection in 
 all three evangelists. But, by Mark and Luke, an earlier period 
 is assigned to these events than by Matthew.* They record 
 them immediately after their account of the conversation with the 
 disciples of John and the Pharisees concerning fasting, which 
 occurred at Capernaum. The two narratives were, I believe, 
 brought into connection with this account of our Saviour’s <1 is- 
 course concerning fasting, from the circumstance, that all three 
 relations bear directly on the same subject, the worthless charac¬ 
 ter of the ceremonial and superstitious observances of the Jews. 
 In the one case, Jesus gave them to understand his estimate of 
 their stated weekly fasts; and, in the other, of their bigotry about 
 the keeping of the sabbath. 
 
 Thus the phenomenon of the misarrangement of events by Mark 
 and Luke, in opposition to Matthew, may be accounted for. But' 
 another solution of it may likewise be given. Among the narra¬ 
 tives relating to Jesus, mentioned by Luke in the beginning of his 
 Gospel, there may have been one which had obtained more credit 
 and a wider circulation than any other. Now, without supposing 
 Mark or Luke to have drawn their narratives from it, or to have 
 relied upon it as an authority for individual facts, or to have used 
 its language, except so far as it coincided with forms of expres¬ 
 sion already familiar to them, they still may both have used it as 
 a guide in respect to the succession of those events, with the true 
 order of which it appears that they both were acquainted. It 
 is to be observed, that it is only their coincidence with each other 
 that presents any difficulty. The misarrangement in any one 
 narrative which they may be supposed to have used in common 
 requires no particular explanation. 
 
 * See before, p. 473. 
 
524 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 To return, then, to our general position, we suppose that the 
 correspondences among the first three Gospels are to be explained 
 by the fact, that the oral narratives of the apostles were their 
 common archetype. Upon the supposition that those Gospels are 
 genuine, it may be worth while to observe how little is assumed in 
 coming to this conclusion, of which there can be any reasonable 
 doubt. A great part of the oral discourses of the apostles must 
 have been historical; for the acts and words of Jesus were the 
 foundation of all that they taught, and the first object of the 
 faith of their converts. And, when one of their number and two 
 of their constant companions committed to writing accounts of 
 their common Master, it could not be otherwise than that these 
 written accounts should strikingly correspond with those which 
 had been orally delivered, and consequently with each other. 
 
 Section V. 
 
 Inferences from the Explanation which has been given of the Cor¬ 
 respondences among the First Three Gospels. 
 
 The appearances which the first three Gospels present, when 
 compared together, are adapted to excite our curiosity and inter¬ 
 est, because they are of so remarkable a character as to imply, that 
 some extraordinary cause must have operated to produce them, 
 and that the discovery of this cause will throw light on the early 
 history of Christianity. Let us see, then, what, if we have rea¬ 
 soned correctly, may be inferred from the preceding investigation. 
 
 The conclusion, that no one of the first three evangelists copied 
 from either of the other two, is important, as showing that their 
 Gospels afford three distinct sources of information concerning the 
 life of Jesus. The evangelists, therefore, in their striking corre¬ 
 spondence in the representations of his character, miracles, and 
 doctrines, must be considered as strongly confirming each other’s 
 testimony.. Nothing but reality, nothing but the fact that Jesus 
 had acted and taught as they represent, would have stamped his 
 character and story so definitely and vividly on the minds of indi¬ 
 viduals ignorant of each other’s writings, and enabled them to 
 give narratives, each so consistent with itself, and all so accordant 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 525 
 
 with one another. A false story concerning an imaginary charac¬ 
 ter would have preserved no uniform type. It would have varied 
 in its aspect according to the different temperament and talents, 
 the conceptions and purposes, of its various narrators. 
 
 We may next observe, that, if the notion that one evangelist 
 copied from another be given up, then the accordance among the 
 first three Gospels proves them all to have been written at an 
 early period, when the sources of authentic information were yet 
 fully accessible, and before any interval had elapsed, during which 
 the thousand exaggerations, perversions, and fables, to which the 
 wonderful history of Jesus was particularly exposed, had had time 
 to flow in, and to change its character as it might appear in differ¬ 
 ent narratives. • 
 
 If the evangelists did not copy one from another, it follows 
 that the first three Gospels must all have been written about the 
 same period; since, if one had preceded another by any consider¬ 
 able length of time, it cannot be supposed that the author of the 
 later Gospel would have been unacquainted with the works of his 
 predecessor, or would have neglected to make use of it; especially 
 when we take into view, that its reputation must have been well 
 established among Christians. Whatever antiquity, therefore, we 
 can show to belong to any one of the first three Gospels, the same, 
 or nearly the same, we may ascribe to the other two. Now, Luke, 
 in the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of his Gospel 
 in terms which imply that this work had been completed but a 
 little while before; and, in the Acts, he brings down the history 
 to the end of the second year of Paul’s residence at Rome, which 
 was some time after the sixtieth year of our era. According, like¬ 
 wise, to the remarks formerly made respecting the Gospel of 
 Mark,* it must have been written about the year 65, when St. 
 Peter is supposed to have suffered martyrdom at Rome. We may 
 conclude, therefore, that no one of the first three Gospels was 
 written long before or long after the year 60. 
 
 Again, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew; and the 
 
 * See p. 449. 
 
526 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 present Greek translation of it was extant very early in the second 
 century. But, before tliis time, the Gospels of Mark and Luke 
 were in existence, and probably in extensive circulation ; for we 
 cannot account for the remarkable coincidence of language be- 
 tween our Greek translation of Matthew and those Gospels, ex¬ 
 cept by the supposition, that the translator, through his familiarity 
 with them, was led to adopt their expressions when suitable tor his 
 purpose. 
 
 We have seen, that the evangelists copied neither one from 
 another, nor from common written documents, such as have been 
 imagined. But if the supposition of an Original Gospel, receiving 
 constant additions and alterations from successive transcribers, be 
 unfounded, the notion connected with it, of the •corruption of our 
 present Gospels by similar additions and alterations, loses all 
 appearance of probability. The former supposition has served to 
 introduce the latter, has been blended with it, and has been re¬ 
 garded as affording the chief evidence of its truth. But, the whole 
 theory concerning an Original Gospel falling to the ground, the 
 notion of any such corruption of our present Gospels as has been 
 supposed is left, unsupported by a plausible argument, to its in¬ 
 trinsic incredibility. 
 
 With that theory is likewise connected the supposition, that 
 other more ancient gospels were in common use among Christians 
 after the apostolic age, and before the late period, when, as it has 
 been pretended, our present Gospels first came into general use. 
 These more ancient gospels, it may be recollected, are imagined 
 to have been, in common with our first three Gospels, derived from 
 the Original Gospel; and all the books of this class are supposed 
 to have agreed with, and differed from, one another in much the 
 same manner as do now the three Gospels which alone remain. 
 As there was nothing, according to the theory, to stop this process 
 of refashioning the Original Gospel, and the consequent multipli¬ 
 cation of new gospels, more or less varying from one another, till 
 about the close of the second century, when it is admitted that our 
 present Gospels had assumed nearly the form they now possess, 
 and had obtained general reception, it follows that many different 
 compilations must have been in common use before. The infer- 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 527 
 
 ence, considered m its various other bearings, is incredible; but, 
 if the theory of an Original Gospel be false, no compilations of the 
 sort described could have existed. 
 
 A different ground, it is true, may be taken: the notion, that 
 those earlier gospels descended, in common with our own, from an 
 Original Gospel, may be abandoned ; and it may still be maintained, 
 that there were histories of Christ, — such, fiat instance, as those 
 mentioned in the introduction to Luke’s Gospel, —not only prior to 
 our present Gospels, but in common use among Christians after the 
 apostolic age, and during a great part of the second century. The 
 supposition of gospels in common use before those which we now 
 possess is thus presented in its simplest form, unembarrassed with 
 any hypothesis respecting the mode of their formation. I shall 
 here view it in reference only to the investigation in which we 
 have been engaged. 
 
 The proposition, that our present Gospels, about the end of 
 the second century, took the place of other gospels, which had 
 before been regarded as of authority, cannot be made plausible, 
 except on the theory of an Original Gospel, from which our pres¬ 
 ent Gospels and those other gospels were equally derived. It is 
 only by representing the supposed earlier gospels as works of the 
 same character with those now extant, derived in a similar manner 
 from the same source, so that all were but refashionings of the 
 same original document or documents, that any plausibility can 
 be given to the supposition, that our present Gospels, on the 
 ground of their being more complete works of the same class, 
 superseded those earlier narratives, which are imagined to have 
 been comparatively imperfect. But when it is agreed, that those 
 more ancient gospels, upon the supposition that any such were in 
 common use during the second century, were not branches, grow¬ 
 ing with our present Gospels from a common stock, an Original 
 Gospel, but were distinct works, permanent in their form, having 
 each a proper individuality, then we perceive at once, that books 
 which, since the apostolic age, had been in common use among 
 Christians as authentic histories of their Master, could not have 
 been displaced and annihilated by a new set of books, introduced 
 about the end of the second century. It would be as easy to be¬ 
 lieve, that a new growth might spring up under a forest in full 
 
528 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 vigor, and overshade and choke the trees which, for more than a 
 century, had been taking root in the soil. 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 Illustration of the First Three Gospels to be derived from the Cir¬ 
 cumstances connected with their Composition. 
 
 •% , 
 
 The view we have taken of the origin of the correspondences 
 among the first three Gospels is important as regards the explana¬ 
 tion of those Gospels, particularly that of Luke. It opens a new 
 source of illustration. 
 
 The apostles, familiar as they were with the words of their 
 Master, and continually using them in their discourses, would 
 often quote them disjoined from their original connection. They 
 would blend together those uttered at different times in relation 
 to the same subject; and they would likewise naturally apply to 
 new occasions his striking expressions and figurative language, so 
 as sometimes to divert his words, more of less, from their primi¬ 
 tive meaning, or at least from their primary reference. But 
 these characteristics of their preaching would be likely to produce 
 an effect on works bearing such a relation to it as we suppose the 
 three Gospels to have done. 
 
 This effect is less obvious jn the Gospel of Matthew than in 
 that of Luke. But in Matthew’s Gospel we find, I believe, what 
 may be called a systematic, though quite natural arrangement, 
 connected with his general regard to chronological order. When 
 some striking occasion presented itself, he seems, in a few 
 instances, to have brought together sayings of our Lord which 
 he viewed as related to each other, but which were uttered at dif¬ 
 ferent times. 
 
 Thus, in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew appears to have 
 intended to give a general view of our Lord’s teaching, and, taking 
 for his basis what was spoken on that occasion, to have connected 
 with it other precepts and declarations, which, if I may so speak, 
 had been attracted to and associated with that discourse, through 
 their bearing on its.main purpose or on particular subjects intro- 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 529 
 
 duCed into it. In consequence, some of our Lord’s words, as there 
 given, belong, as may seem, to a later period of his ministry; some 
 appear to have been called forth by particular occasions which 
 afterwards occurred; and precepts which were accommodated to, 
 and limited by, the peculiar and temporary circumstances of those 
 who had devoted themselves to him as his disciples, and which 
 perhaps were not addressed to them till their number was in¬ 
 creased, and their conceptions of their new duties were more 
 enlarged, are blended with precepts of universal obligation. 
 
 But perhaps the most important example of this characteristic 
 of his Gospel is to be found in the prophecy, as given by him, of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the coming of the Son of 
 man. This appears, from a comparison with Luke, to be a 
 compilation of several discourses,* the bearing and purport of 
 all of which are not to be correctly comprehended without re¬ 
 garding them in connection with the occasions on which Luke 
 reports them to have been delivered. It is to be recollected, that, 
 according to the Gospel of Mark,I Matthew was not present at 
 this discourse. 
 
 The effect resulting from the manner in which the apostles, 
 in their teaching, may be supposed to have used the words of 
 their Master, is little, if at all, to be discerned in the Gospel 
 of Mark. His account of the sayings of our Lord is much 
 more limited than that of either Matthew or Luke; and gen¬ 
 erally, of those which he reports, the relation to the circum¬ 
 stances which called them forth, and the relation to each other, 
 appear to have been well settled. The influence of the oral 
 teaching of the apostles on the construction of his Gospel seems to 
 have extended little further, than to affect directly or mediately its 
 chronological arrangement, as formerly suggested. :j: 
 
 But the operation of those characteristics, which have been ex¬ 
 plained, of the oral teaching of the apostles on the Gospel of Luke, 
 
 * Compare Luke xvii. 22-37 and xxi. 5-36 with Matt. xxiv. 1-42; 
 Luke xii. 35-48 with Matt. xxiv. 42-51; and Luke xix. 11-27 with Matt, 
 xxv. 14-30. 
 
 1 Chap. xiii. 3. \ See before, p. 520, seqq. 
 
 34 
 
530 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 was, I conceive, so great, that this Gospel, in consequence, pre¬ 
 sents throughout remarkable appearances, to which we will now 
 attend. The proof of the correctness of the views of it which we 
 are about to take must be drawn principally from a comparison of 
 it with the Gospel of Matthew, though Mark may afford occa¬ 
 sional assistance. 
 
 I. In the first place, Luke has sometimes, I think, given the 
 words of Jesus in such a connection, that they have a meaning 
 which he did not express, though it be one which he might havo 
 expressed. The following is an example : — 
 
 According to Matthew, Jesus, in forewarning his apostles of 
 the persecution which they would endure from the enemies of his 
 religion, tells them that in this they would be like him, that their 
 treatment would be similar to his own, and charges them not to be 
 deterred by it from proclaiming the truths which he had taught 
 them. He says (x. 26-28) : — 
 
 “ Fear them not, then. For there is nothing covered which is 
 not to be unveiled, nor any thing secret which is not to be made 
 known. What I tell you in darkness, speak in the light; and 
 what is whispered in your ear, proclaim on the house-tops. And 
 fear not those who may kill the body, but cannot kill the soul: 
 rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in'hell.” 
 
 The passage goes on with the'words, “Are not two sparrows 
 sold for a penny ? ” and those which follow. 
 
 Here, when it is said, “For there is nothing covered which 
 is not to be unveiled,” the meaning is, that there were no secrets 
 in his religion. It was to be fully proclaimed. Nothing was 
 to be kept concealed through fear of men. Thus, Mark, after 
 relating the parable of the sower, and its explanation to the dis¬ 
 ciples, represents our Lord as saying,* “ Is the lamp brought 
 to be put under the measure or the bench, and not to be set on 
 its stand? Nothing is hidden but that it may be made known, 
 nor was any thing concealed but that it might be brought to 
 light;” which words are, I think, to be understood thus: — I 
 have not come to keep back the truths of religion, but to reveal 
 
 * Mark iv. 21, 22. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 531 
 
 them. There is nothing in my discourses intended to hide them; 
 there was nothing intended to conceal them in the parable you 
 have just heard: on the contrary, my modes of speaking are 
 adopted, because they are most likely effectually to impress these 
 truths upon the minds of such hearers as I address. 
 
 Luke has one passage * similar to the last. But, in another 
 place, he ascribes these words to Jesus (xii. 1-5): — 
 
 “He said to his disciples, Above all things, beware of the 
 leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For every thing 
 covered shall be laid open, and every thing concealed made 
 known. What ye have spoken in darkness will be heard in light, 
 and what ye have whispered in closets proclaimed upon house-tops. 
 
 “But I say to you, my friends, be not afraid of those who kill 
 the body, and after this can do nothing more; but I will instruct 
 you whom to fear: fear Him who, after having killed, hath power 
 to cast into hell.” 
 
 This passage Continues, like that in Matthew, “Are not five 
 sparrows sold for two pennies ? ” &c. 
 
 The first part of this passage, it is evident from the turns 
 of expression and from its connection with what follows, Avas 
 intended to be a report of the same words of Jesus which are 
 given by Matthew. There seems no ground for doubt, that 
 their true sense and proper bearing appear in Matthew; but, if 
 this be so, their meaning Avas misapprehended by Luke. This 
 may have arisen from the circumstance, that these striking Avords 
 had, previously to the composition of his Gospel, been sometimes 
 separated from their original connection* and applied to the 
 subject of hypocrisy, to which they so well admit of being accom¬ 
 modated. 
 
 The following is another example of the same kind: — 
 
 In Matthew, we find these words in the Sermon on the 
 Mount: f — 
 
 “Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there re¬ 
 member that thy brother has a charge against thee, leave there 
 thy giftFefore the altar, and go aAvay; first reconcile thy brother 
 to thee, and then come and offer thy gift. Show thy good-will 
 
 * Luke viii. 16-18. 
 
 t Matt. v. 23-26. 
 
532 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 towards him who has this charge against thee,* quickly, whilst 
 thou art in the way with him; f lest he bring thee before the 
 judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be 
 cast into prison. Truly, I say to thee, thou wilt not come out 
 thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” 
 
 This is the conclusion of a passage in which our Saviour warns 
 his followers, in the most solemn manner, against being angry 
 without cause, and expressing ill-will to others even by injurious 
 language. The words which immediately precede are these: 
 “ Whoever shall call his brother a reprobate shall be punishable 
 by the fire of hell.” It was common among the Jews to repre¬ 
 sent a sin or an injury under the figure of a debt; and the 
 whole passage, therefore, is closely connected. He who has in¬ 
 jured his brother is directed not even to worship God till he 
 has effected a reconciliation. He is to show his good-will toward 
 him quickly, lest he should be called to suffer the full punish¬ 
 ment of his offence. 
 
 In Luke, the last part of the passage under consideration ap¬ 
 pears in quite another connection, and with a different meaning.^ 
 
 “Hypocrites! Ye can judge correctly of the appearances of 
 the earth and sky: how is it that ye do not judge correctly of the 
 present time P Why, even from yourselves, do you not decide 
 on what is right? For, as thou art going with thy adversary 
 to the magistrate, strive on the way that he may lest thee go free, 
 lest he drag thee before the judge, and the judge deliver thee 
 over to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell 
 thee, that thou wilt nt)t come out thence till thou hast paid the 
 uttermost farthing.” 
 
 Here our Saviour is represented as reproaching the bigoted 
 Jews for their blindness to the character of the times, by which 
 
 * The word translated “adversary,” in the Common Version, properly 
 means adversary in a suit at law; and the person here intended by the 
 term is the same as “ thy brother who has a charge against thee.” 
 
 t The conception appears to be of the person who has injured his brother, 
 meeting him in the public way, as he himself, having left the altar, is seek¬ 
 ing him. The words, however, may be understood as they are by Luke,— 
 “Whilst thou art on the way with him,” that is, to the judge; the literal 
 meaning being, “ before thou art called to account for thy sin against him.” 
 
 $ Luke xii. 66-59. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 533 
 
 is meant, to those proofs of a divine interposition which his minis¬ 
 try was continually affording. Even if these proofs were less 
 striking, they might judge from themselves what it was right for 
 them to do; which was to secure the favor of God, and to obtain 
 from him pardon of their sins by reformation. Otherwise, they 
 would be acting as one who should make no effort to propitiate 
 his creditor (as he might do), and who, in consequence, should 
 be condemned to imprisonment till the full amount of his debt 
 was paid; that is, they would remain exposed to the full punish¬ 
 ment of their sins. The figurative language here used is illus¬ 
 trated by that of the parable * concerning the servant, to whom 
 his master first forgave a debt, and afterward enforced its pay¬ 
 ment, on account of the cruelty of that servant toward one of 
 his fellows. “ And his master, being angry with him, delivered 
 him to the executioners of the law, till he should pay all that 
 he owed.” 
 
 It is true, that Jesus may have used the same or similar words 
 and figures in different senses on different occasions. But, as 
 regards this passage in Luke, there is not merely the fact, that 
 the words are found in Matthew with another connection and 
 meaning; but the obscurity of the passage itself, the want of 
 obvious adaptation of one part to another, and the difficulty in 
 discovering the relations of the ideas, serve to show, that ex¬ 
 pressions have been brought together which were not originally 
 connected. 
 
 II. Luke’s Gospel presents cases of another kind, in which, 
 though the meaning of the words of our Saviour is not changed 
 essentially, or perhaps not at all, yet, through some leading asso¬ 
 ciation in the mind of the evangelist, they are brought together 
 in a new connection, and applied to a subject to which they did 
 not primarily relate. Thus, after the appointment of the apostles, 
 Matthew represents their Master as giving them directions appro¬ 
 priate to their peculiar duties. For these, Luke has substituted 
 a series of more general declarations and precepts, taken prin¬ 
 cipally from the Sermon on the Mount. Yet it will be perceived 
 by one who reads his collection attentively, that he had, through- 
 
 * Matt, xviii. 23-35. 
 
534 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 out, the peculiar case of the apostles in his.mind, and regarded 
 the words which he has given as specifically referring to them. 
 In this respect, the discourse has the character which is shown in 
 the first words of it, as compared with those in Matthew. Instead 
 of “ Blessed are the poor in spirit, 11 Luke gives, as a direct 
 address to the apostles, “Blessed are ye poor. 11 
 
 From inattention to this circumstance, there has been sup¬ 
 posed to bo a want of connection in the discourse, which does 
 not appear when it is viewed under its proper aspect. This 
 may be illustrated in that portion of it which has been regarded 
 as least coherent. 
 
 After inculcating virtues which were peculiarly required in the 
 apostles,—love of enemies, irresistance to injury, disregard of 
 their private rights, universal benevolence and kindness, free¬ 
 dom from hasty judgment, and the doing good to others in full 
 measure, — the discourse thus proceeds to enforce the necessity 
 of their rightly apprehending and fully performing their own 
 duty in order to qualify them to be teachers of others.* * * § 
 
 “ Then he spoke to them in a figure : —Can the blind lead the 
 blind P Will they not both fall into a ditch ? f A disciple is not 
 above his teacher, but every one properly prepared will be as 
 his teacher. J Why dost thou look at the straw in thy brother’s 
 eye, and not consider the beam in thine own eye ? Or how canst 
 thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me take out the straw which 
 is in thine eye, whilst thou perceivest not the beam which is in 
 thine own eye? Hypocrite! first.put the beam out of thine own 
 eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to take the straw out of thy 
 brother’s eye. § No good tree produces bad fruit, nor does a 
 bad tree produce good fruit; for every tree is known by its 
 fruit. Men do not gather figs from thorns, nor grapes from a 
 bramble. [| The good man, out of the good storehouse of his 
 
 * Luke vi. 39-45. 
 
 f See Matt. xv. 14, whence it appears that this language was used 
 by Jesus concerning the false teaching of the Pharisees. 
 
 i Comp Matt. x. 24; John xiii. 16 and xv. 20. 
 
 § Comp. Matt. vii. 3-5. 
 
 || See Matt. vii. 16-18, where this figurative language is connected 
 with the direction to “beware of false teachers and Matt. xii. 33, where 
 Jesus demands that the test here given should be applied to his own teach¬ 
 ing and character. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 535 
 
 mind, produces what is good; and the bad man, out of the bad 
 storehouse of his mind, produces what is bad: for the mouth 
 speaks from the fulness of the mind. 11 * 
 
 These sayings are all connected together, and connected with 
 the rest of the discourse, as all relating to the character required 
 in a moral and religious teacher. That the tone which runs 
 through them is not altogether what we might expect in an 
 address of Jesus to his apostles, is to be accounted for by the 
 fact, that their original reference was dilferent from what is here 
 assigned them. Their application, likewise, is to be conceived 
 of as hypothetical, not direct; as pointed against faults of char¬ 
 acter which the apostles were to avoid, not which they were 
 supposed to have. 
 
 With one exception, these sayings, though their reference is 
 changed, retain their original meaning. The exception to which 
 I refer is in the words, “A disciple is not above his teacher; 
 but every one properly prepared will be as his teacher; 11 the 
 meaning of which, in their present connection, is, that he will 
 be as his teacher in ability to communicate instruction: but this 
 is not the sense of the corresponding passages of Matthew and 
 John, which have been noted in the margin. There the meaning 
 is, that the apostles must not expect to be better treated than 
 their Master, and must be as ready to humble themselves as 
 he was. 
 
 III. Occasionally, St. Luke, after giving the words of our 
 Saviour on some particular occasion, seems to have subjoined 
 other words, uttered by him at a different time, as a sort of 
 commentary on what he then said, or on the incident related, 
 without intending that the latter words should be conjoined with 
 the preceding as forming one discourse, but also without suffi¬ 
 ciently discriminating them; so that a degree of confusion and 
 obscurity is produced. 
 
 Thus, the parable of the dishonest steward f is concluded with 
 exhortations to the proper use of riches, ending with the declara¬ 
 tion, “Ye cannot be servants of God and of Mammon. 11 After 
 which, the narrative of Luke thus proceeds: j: — 
 
 * Comp. Matt. xii. 34, 35. f Luke xvi. 1-13. $ Luke xvi. 14-18. 
 
536 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 “And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, 
 and scoffed at him. And he said to them, Ye make yourselves 
 appear righteous in the sight of men, but God knows your 
 hearts. For what is highly exalted among men is an abomina¬ 
 tion before God. 
 
 “ The Law and the Prophets were till John. Since then the 
 kingdom of God has been announced, and every one is forcing 
 into it. But heaven and earth may pass away more easily than 
 one tittle fall from the Law. 
 
 “Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits 
 adultery; and he who marries her who was put away commits 
 adultery.” 
 
 After this follows the parable of Dives and Lazarus. 
 
 Here, at first view, no connection appears; but the train 
 of thought admits of an explanation upon the principle just 
 stated. 
 
 St. Luke having recorded the declaration of Jesus, that the 
 Pharisees, who were highly exalted among men, were an abomina¬ 
 tion before God, his thoughts turned to that part of their char¬ 
 acter on which they particularly prided themselves, —their strict 
 observance of the Law, that is, the ceremonies and rites of 
 the Law; and this led him to insert those words of his Master 
 which announced that these ceremonies and rites were abolished 
 by Christianity, that they were virtually abrogated when John 
 proclaimed the kingdom of heaven. But witli these words, as 
 uttered by Jesus, was connected an incidental or parenthetical 
 remark, which is thus given by Matthew:* “From the days 
 of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven is forcing 
 . its way, and the violent are seizing upon it .” I refer to the last 
 words, which are thus expressed by Luke: “and every one is 
 forcing into it.” In these words I suppose Jesus to have referred 
 to those many Jews, who, possessed with false notions of the 
 character of the Messiah, as a deliverer from the tyranny of 
 the Romans, and ready for deeds of violence, were eager to 
 enlist as his followers, striving to force themselves upon him 
 without any of the dispositions which he required in his disciples. 
 The words in question, as given by Luke, are out of place, and 
 
 * Matt. xi. 12. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 537 
 
 appear only in consequence of their original connection with 
 those which precede. 
 
 But, having introduced this mention of the abolition of the 
 ritual Law, Luke proceeds to limit the language in which it is 
 expressed, by another declaration of our Lord: “Heaven and 
 earth may pass away more easily than one tittle fall from the 
 Law.” “The Law” is a term used in the New Testament in 
 various senses, and with a very different force and bearing in 
 different connections. In the mouth of a Jew, it denoted, in one 
 of its meanings, the whole of religion as understood by him. The 
 Law, or the Law of God, —for the terms were equivalent, — was 
 his religion. In this sense the expression might be “the Law” 
 simply, or “the Law and the Prophets.” By our Saviour, either 
 term was used in an analogous sense, to denote those essential 
 truths of religion and morality, which alone constitute the Old 
 Testament, or any part of it, a book of religious instruction, and 
 entitle it to be called by the name of “the Law.” These, the 
 true Law of God, could never be abrogated. Heaven and earth 
 might pass away, but they would remain unchangeable. Using 
 the term in this meaning, he declares, “ that to do to others as we 
 would that they should do to us is the Law and the Prophets,” — 
 that is, a summary of all the social duties taught by them; and, 
 elsewhere, that the whole Law and the Prophets depend on love 
 to God and love to man. This was the Law from which not the 
 smallest letter nor tittle could pass away ; and this Law the Phari¬ 
 sees, instead of observing, were continually violating, and were 
 thus an abomination before God. 
 
 The passage respecting divorce is introduced with reference to 
 the sanction which the Pharisees gave to the greatest license, in 
 this respect, on the part of the husband. No instance, perhaps, 
 could have been chosen which would have presented in stronger 
 contrast their avowed morality with the morality taught by 
 Christ. 
 
 The parable of Dives and Lazarus has no relation to the Phari¬ 
 sees ; for, considering their austerity of manners, Jesus could not 
 have typified them by one who “ feasted sumptuously every day.” 
 It was suggested to the recollection of the evangelist by the dis¬ 
 course of our Saviour respecting the use and misuse of wealth, 
 which gave occasion to all on which we have been remarking. 
 
538 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 IY. In other instances, St. Luke has given fragments of what 
 was said by our Saviour at a particular time, omitting the con¬ 
 necting and explanatory passages: so that, though the sense of 
 every part might be clear to his own mind, or to the minds of those 
 possessed of the information current among the first Christians, 
 yet it is not, at the present day, discernible from his Gospel alone ; 
 and we learn it only by a comparison of his accounts with those 
 of Matthew. 
 
 Matthew has preserved the striking and appropriate discourse 
 delivered by Jesus, when, after his curing a demoniac, the Phari¬ 
 sees said, “This man casts out demons only through Beelzebub, 
 the prince of demons.”* In immediate connection, the evangel¬ 
 ist proceeds thus : f “ Then some of the teachers of the Law and 
 the Pharisees spoke, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from 
 thee. But he answered them, A wicked and apostate race would 
 have a sign; but no sign will be given it, except the sign of 
 Jonah the prophet.” Jesus then speaks in strong figurative 
 language of the depravity and indocility of the race with whom 
 he had to do, concluding thus : % — 
 
 “When an unclean spirit has gone out of a man, it passes 
 through desert places in search of rest, and finds it not. Then it 
 says, I will return to my house whence I came out; and, upon 
 returning, it finds the house unoccupied, swept, and put in order. 
 Then it .goes and brings with it seven other spirits worse than 
 itself, and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of 
 that man is worse than the first. So will it be with this evil 
 race.” 
 
 The evil race spoken of was the great body of the Jews. The 
 nation is compared to an incurable madman, who, after an interval 
 of quiet, relapses into more violent insanity. The figure was 
 suggested by the cure of the demoniac, which gave occasion to 
 the discourse. To understand its application, we must consider, 
 that the Jews, since their return from the Babylonish captivity, 
 had not fallen into idolatry, and did not regard themselves as 
 exposed to punishment from God. They thought themselves 
 much better than their countrvmen of former times. They said, 
 “ If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have 
 
 * See Mutt. xii. 22-37. f Matt. xii. 38, seqq. f Mutt. xii. 43-45. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 589 
 
 been partners with them in slaying the prophets.” * But they 
 hated, and were about to cause the death of, Jesus, the greatest 
 of God’s messengers to their nation, and to display their enmity 
 toward his disciples, as their fathers had persecuted and put to 
 death their religious teachers. They were about to manifest, in 
 a manner still more outrageous, the same disobedience which 
 their predecessors had shown. The interval of seeming amend¬ 
 ment in the nation was no real change for the better. The evil 
 spirit had returned, and found his house prepared for his recep¬ 
 tion, and entered in with seven other spirits worse than himself. 
 
 In Luke, the passage remarked upon appears almost in the 
 same words.f But, after giving a portion of our Saviour’s first 
 reply to the Pharisees, he immediately subjoins this passage, 
 separated from its proper connection, and without any thing to 
 explain it; for even the last sentence, “ So will it be with this 
 evil race,” is omitted. It would be impossible, from Luke’s Gos¬ 
 pel alone, to determine its reference and ultimate meaning. 
 
 V. In one instance, a portion of the Sermon on the Mount, 
 we have found a discourse of Jesus referred by Luke to an occa¬ 
 sion on which it was not delivered. Another striking example 
 of the same kind occurs, I believe, in the discourse consisting of 
 a series of denunciations against the Pharisees. This has the 
 appearance of having been one of the last and most solemn acts 
 of the ministry of Jesus. It is represented by Matthew as hav¬ 
 ing been delivered by him at Jerusalem, only two days before 
 his death, in the temple, which he had then entered for the last 
 time, amid a concourse of people, among whom many of the 
 Pharisees were standing as listeners. According to Matthew, he 
 concluded it thus : J — 
 
 “Jerusalem! Jerusalem! who killest the teachers and stonest 
 those who are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy 
 children together as a bird gathers her young under her wings; 
 and ye would not! Behold ! your house is left you deserted. 
 For I declare to you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall 
 say, Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord. 
 
 “ And Jesus went out, and left the temple.” 
 
 * Matt, xxiii. 30. 
 
 f Luke xi. *24-26. J See Matt, xxiii. 13-39. 
 
540 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 The words of Jesus, just quoted, are misplaced by Luke, and 
 their meaning obscured in consequence.* It is obvious what a 
 most striking conclusion they form to the discourse, if we regard 
 it as it appears in Matthew. 
 
 Till his business on earth drew towards its accomplishment, it 
 would not have been the part of wisdom in Jesus to exasperate 
 to the uttermost the passions of the Pharisees, especially under 
 circumstances which put his life in their power. Nor till his 
 apostles and other followers had been formed to their duties, as 
 far as might be, by his personal influence, would it have been 
 prudent to place them in such open and irreconcilable opposition 
 to those whose sanctity, and whose authority as religious teachers, 
 had been so reverenced by their countrymen. But the deadly 
 hatred of the Pharisees was no longer to be avoided: it was to 
 be encountered; and his followers had received, and were just 
 about to receive in his resurrection from the dead, evidence 
 which could leave no doubt in their minds of his divine mission. 
 Accordingly, though in Matthew’s account of the preaching of 
 Jesus we find previously strong expressions of censure upon the 
 Pharisees or upon some of their number, yet there is nothing at 
 once so plain and unreserved in its meaning, so direct and gen¬ 
 eral in its application, so terrible in its reproaches and denuncia¬ 
 tions, and pronounced So formally and solemnly to a public 
 assembly representing the whole Jewish nation. Every thing 
 now conspired to give weight to his words. The utterance of 
 them appears not as an incidental act of his ministry, but as 
 purposed beforehand, as a main object of it; as a testimony 
 delivered in the name of God, not against the character of the 
 Pharisees alone, but against hypocrisy and bigotry, whatever 
 forms they might assume. 
 
 All, therefore, according to the narrative of Matthew, is con¬ 
 sistent. But Luke represents a considerable part of this discourse 
 against the Pharisees as having been uttered somewhere at a 
 distance from Jerusalem, at a private house, — the house of 
 a Pharisee, who had, at least with a show of hospitality invited 
 Jesus as a guest.f The occasion, likewise, assigned by Luke, 
 does not seem such as the discourse required. The evangelist 
 
 * See Luke xiii. 34, 35. 
 
 t Luke xi. 37-52. 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 541 
 
 says: “Now, while he was teaching, a Pharisee asked him to 
 dine with him. And he entered, and placed himself at table. 
 But the Pharisee wondered, when he saw that he did not wash 
 his hands before dinner [conformably to a ceremony of the 
 Jews, !o which they attached great importance]. But the Lord 
 said to him, Now, you Pharisees make clean the outside of the 
 cup and dish, but ye are full within of rapacity and wicked¬ 
 ness.” And then follows, with some variation in the report, 
 a great part of the discourse which is given by Matthew as de¬ 
 livered in the temple at Jerusalem. The misplacing of this 
 discourse by Luke may be accounted for by the supposition, that 
 Jesus did, on the occasion to which this evangelist has referred 
 it, make some comments on the superstitious observances of the 
 Pharisees, and speak of their worthlessness, contrasting it with 
 the importance of justice, mercy, and truth. 
 
 VI. One other characteristic of Luke’s Gospel remains’ to be 
 mentioned. He gives different discourses of Jesus, with so 
 slight a form of transition from one to another, or perhaps with¬ 
 out any, that they all appear, at first view, either to form but one 
 discourse, or to have been delivered consecutively. Some dis¬ 
 courses of our Lord, we may suppose, had been blended together 
 in the oral teaching of the apostles, as relating to the same 
 subject, or as illustrating each other; and some may have been 
 narrated without mention of the occasion on which they were 
 delivered, this occasion not being of particular interest. As Luke 
 was unacquainted with the chronological order and original rela¬ 
 tion of these discourses, he has collected and placed them miscel¬ 
 laneously, without carefully separating one from anothef. An 
 example of this is furnished by that portion of his Gospel which 
 begins with the fourteenth verse of the eleventh chapter, and 
 ends with the ninth verse of the thirteenth chapter. 
 
 This view of the formation and character of Luke’s Gospel 
 may assist us in understanding it, and solve some difficulties with 
 which we might otherwise be embarrassed. But the considera¬ 
 tion of the phenomena that have been pointed out v leads to a 
 further conclusion. It is difficult to state them without implying 
 the circumstances in which they had their origin. They are 
 
542 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 accounted for at once, if we suppose, that the apostles, regarding 
 the Avords of their Master as embodying the truths of his religion, 
 were accustomed to bring them together in different forms, to 
 
 O O 7 
 
 apply them on various occasions, and sometimes to change their 
 original sense, and adapt striking expressions to a neAV subject; 
 and that, such being the case, they Avere collected and arranged 
 by one Avho, like St. Luke, Avas not personally conversant Avith 
 Jesus, but derived his information from the preaching and con¬ 
 versation of his immediate folloAvers. This solution explains all 
 the appearances presented, and I knoAV of no other Avhich Avill 
 explain them. But this solution rests on the belief, that the 
 Avords recorded in the first three Gospels Avere uttered by Jesus. 
 
 Section VII. 
 
 Concluding Remarks. 
 
 It has been my purpose to shoAv, that, when we consider the 
 agreements and differences among the first three Gospels, Ave 
 find their character to be such as cannot be accounted for by the 
 supposition, that the evangelists copied either one from another, 
 or all from common Avritten documents. Some common arche¬ 
 type, however, they must haA r e had: the corresponding passages 
 Avhiyh we find in them, if they did not previously exist in a 
 determinate written form, must have existed orally in forms 
 nearly resembling those Avhich they noAv present; and this suppo¬ 
 sition of a model, partly fixed by a regard to truth and by 
 frequent repetition, and partly fluctuating through the changes 
 of or&l narration, is the only one that accounts satisfactorily for 
 the phenomena presented. 
 
 But the narratives which the evangelists have thus transmitted 
 to us were the original accounts of the apostles and first preachers 
 of Christianity. This appears from the accordance of the Gospels 
 with each other in the \ r iew A\Lich they present of the marvellous 
 character and ministry of Christ. Accounts so Avonderful, es¬ 
 pecially if one fancy them unfounded in truth, Avould have been 
 distorted in many different ways, Avith or Avithout some dishonest 
 purpose, if abandoned to oral tradition, floating through different 
 countries, and received and transmitted by thousands of new 
 
CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 543 
 
 converts. We cannot suppose, that, after the apostolic age, 
 three unconnected writers, founding their narratives upon oral 
 accounts alone, would have harmonized together as do the three 
 evangelists.* The agreement and difference among these Gos- 
 pels present a very extraordinary, or rather a unique, phenome¬ 
 non, which requires a peculiar cause for its solution; and this 
 cause is, I think, to be found only in the fact, that they were all 
 based upon unwritten narratives, which had, as yet, lost nothing 
 of their original character; and which, therefore, were the narra¬ 
 tives, true or false, of the first preachers, of the religion. 
 
 In reading those Gospels, therefore, we are, in effect, listening 
 to the yery words of the apostles ; we are, if I may so speak, intro¬ 
 duced into their presence, to receive their testimony concerning 
 deeds and words which they affirm that they saw and heard, and 
 miracles of such a character, that it would be idle to suppose them 
 deceived or mistaken in their reports. The question, then, con¬ 
 cerning the truth of Christianity, under this aspect of its evidences, 
 lies within a narrow compass. Realize, as far as you,can, the 
 characters and circumstances of the apostles; place yourselves, in 
 imagination, in their presence; attend to their testimony; and 
 search for every motive and feeling that might lead them, all 
 in common, at the hazard of every worldly good, to persist in 
 asserting the truth of stories which they knew, and thousands 
 of their hearers knew, and all might know, to be false. Just 
 so far as any probable motive may be assigned for such conduct, 
 just so far, and no further, may the truth of Christianity be 
 rendered doubtful. 
 
 Thus, if we have reasoned rightly, an inquiry which might, at 
 first view, seem to many a matter of curiosity rather than of great 
 interest, has led us to some important conclusions ; among which the 
 most remarkable is, that the very structure of the first three 
 Gospels affords, when they are compared together, proof of the 
 history they contain, and, consequently, of the miraculous origin 
 of our religion. Such a result from a proper examination, and a 
 correct view, of the very peculiar phenomena of those Gospels, 
 was perhaps to be expected. 
 
 * See before, p. 98, seqq. 
 
544 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Whether we regard the history of Christ as true or false, there 
 can be no question, that the establishment of Christianity is the 
 most memorable event in the history of our race, that which has 
 produced the greatest and most permanent effects upon the char¬ 
 acter and condition of men. To produce such results, some most 
 extraordinary cause or causes must have been in operation. But 
 if the account of those causes which we, as Christians, receive, be 
 not true, the whole early history of Christianity will assume a new 
 aspect. Imagine fraud, enthusiasm, mistake, singular combina¬ 
 tions of circumstances, — all or any thing that can be moulded into 
 a plausible scheme to account for the origin and rapid progress of 
 our religion; still, if it was not, as represented, a religion from 
 God, established by miraculous proof, all its original bearings 
 upon every individual, and every subject with which it had rela¬ 
 tion, must have been essentially different from what we conceive 
 them to have been. As we suppose the religion true or false, we 
 are obliged to suppose causes in action of the most opposite char¬ 
 acter, — the power of God in one case, and fraud and delusion, or 
 error, of whatever kind it may be fancied, in the other. But those 
 causes by which Christianity was established, let us suppose them 
 what we will, must have stamped their own character ineffaceably 
 upon whatever was subjected to their operation. If Christianity 
 were false, we should find clear marks of falsehood in the history 
 of Jesus; in the conduct, preaching, and writings of those teachers 
 who immediately succeeded him; in the accounts of its propaga¬ 
 tion ; in the direct and indirect notices of its early converts; in its 
 real or pretended bearings upon the history of the times; and 
 especially in its doctrines and morals. We should distinguish, at 
 first sight, such an attempt to counterfeit the power and wisdom 
 of God. But truth is always consistent, and discovers itself in all 
 its aspects and connections; and hence it is, that we can investi¬ 
 gate scarcely any subject relating to the early history of our re¬ 
 ligion, without some new confirmation of our faith. Though many 
 parts of this history are lost, yet many remain, spread over 
 a wide field, so that we may pursue our inquiries through various 
 and very different paths, all terminating in the same conclusion, 
 — the divine origin of Christianity. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 515 
 
 Note C. 
 
 (See p. 142.) 
 
 ON THE WRITINGS ASCRIBED TO APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 —♦— 
 
 Section I. 
 
 Purpose of this Note. 
 
 The purpose of this'note is to give some account of the “ Writings 
 of the Apostolical Fathers,” so called, and, on the one hand, to 
 explain why I have not referred to them as affording proof of the 
 genuineness of the Gospels, and, on the other hand, to show that 
 they do not, as has been pretended,* furnish any evidence that 
 other gospels were in common use before those which we now 
 possess. 
 
 They are called Writings of Apostolical Fathers because they 
 are, or have been supposed to be, writings of individuals who 
 were conversant with some one or more of the apostles. I limit 
 the term in the following remarks to those about the genuineness, 
 or very early date, of which any controversy may be supposed to 
 remain ; and, in treating this subject, I am compelled, as will be 
 perceived, to differ from Gardner, a writer never to be spoken of 
 without respect, and consequently from Paley, who follows him, in 
 my views of the works themselves, and of their importance 5s 
 regards our general subject. 
 
 Though these writings have been considered as among the ear¬ 
 liest memorials of Christianitv, vet it is remarkable how unsettled 
 are the questions concerning their genuineness, antiquity, and 
 value, and how little they have been attended to by many of those 
 who seemed particularly called upon to investigate the subject. 
 The few remarks that Lardner has made concerning the authority 
 
 * Eiclihorn’s Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 113-140. See before, pp. 61, 62. 
 
 35 
 
546 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 of those which he quotes in proof of the credibility of the Gospels 
 are far from being satisfactory; and the same may be said, on the 
 other hand, of the observations of Priestley in his “ History of 
 Early Opinions,” by which he would invalidate their authority. 
 The German theologian Sender, dogmatizing, as usual, without, 
 assigning reasons for his opinion, pronounces them all spurious, 
 or of doubtful credit.* Little is to be learnt from the late eccle¬ 
 siastical histories of Neander and Gieseler. Olshausen, a modern 
 German writer of reputation, in his work on the genuineness of 
 the Gospels, declines discussing the genuineness of the writings in 
 question, as having no bearing on his main inquiry; but affirms 
 them all, except “ The Second Epistle of Clement,” so called, to 
 be among the oldest Christian writings extant.f And some other 
 modern German theologians quote them almost indiscriminately, 
 as if they were works of established authority. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the apparently unsettled state of opinion 
 respecting these writings, I think we may arrive at some definite 
 and satisfactory conclusions concerning them, f 
 
 Section II. 
 
 The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians . Another 
 
 Epistle ascribed to Clement. 
 
 I 
 
 The first work we shall notice is the Epistle of Clement of 
 Rome, written in the name of the church at Rome, where he was 
 bishop or presiding officer, or perhaps only a distinguished pres¬ 
 byter, to the. church at Corinth, upon occasion of some dissensions 
 which there prevailed. Only a single manuscript copy of the work 
 is extant, at the end of the Alexandrine manuscript of the Scrip- 
 
 * Comment. Historici de Antiquo Christianorum Statu, tom. i. pp. 39, 40. 
 t Die Echtlieit der vier canonischen Evangelien erwiesen, p. 411. 
 
 \ A translation of the writings in question was published by Archbishop 
 Wake, in 1693, under the title of “ The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical 
 Fathers,” See., with a preliminary discourse. It has since been several times 
 reprinted; one edition having appeared at New York in 1810. But the 
 work is poorly executed. The preliminary discourse is deficient in good 
 sense, and the translations in correctness and in appropriateness of language. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 547 
 
 tures. This copy is considerably mutilated; in some passages the 
 text is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected 
 of being interpolations. 
 
 The evidence for the genuineness of this Epistle — that is, for 
 the fact, that the Epistle, as now extant, was in the main written 
 by Clement — seems to be full and satisfactory. 
 
 Irenseus, appealing to the doctrines of Clement, as opposed to 
 those of the Gnostics, says that Clement had seen the apostles, and 
 had been connected with them, and that, when he became bishop, 
 their preaching was still sounding in men’s ears, and many were 
 living who had been taught by them; and then proceeds to allege 
 the Epistle in question, describing it as written by the church 
 of Rome to that of Corinth, and giving a general account of its 
 character.* * * § 
 
 Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth about the year 170, wrote seven 
 Epistles, now lost, to different churches. One of these was ad¬ 
 dressed to the church at Rome, in which he said to them, as he is 
 quoted by Eusebius, “To-day is the Lord’s day, in which we 
 have publicly read your Epistle; the reading of which, as well as 
 of that formerly written from you by Clement, will be to us a con¬ 
 stant source of instruction.” f 
 
 The Epistle is abundantly quoted, as the work of Clement of 
 Rome, by Clement of Alexandria. It is mentioned several times, 
 with high praise, by Eusebius, who says that its genuineness was 
 unquestioned; and that it had been formerly, and was even in his 
 day, publicly read in many churches.J Photius, in the ninth 
 century, gives a particular criticism upon it; and, before his time, 
 there is no donbt that our present manuscript copy was written. § 
 
 Though the sentiments of this Epistle are commendable, it 
 appears to be the work of an author of very moderate ability. 
 There are no expressions of personal feeling to give it life and 
 interest. It has the air of a homily addressed to the Corinthians 
 on general topics, such as humility, order, peace, freedom from 
 
 * Contra Hawes., lib. iii. c. 3, § 3, p. 176. 
 
 f Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. c. 23. 
 
 I Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 16 et c. 38. 
 
 § For a full account of the authorities in proof of the genuineness of this 
 Epistle, see the Veterum Testimonia, in the edition of the Patres Apostolici 
 by Cotclier and Le Clerc, tom. i. pp. 128-132. 
 
548 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 envy and angry passions, repentance, and Christian charity, which 
 were adapted to the state of things existing among them. Its anti¬ 
 quity, and the circumstances attending its composition, were prob¬ 
 ably the principal causes of the notoriety and favor it obtained. 
 
 There seems no reason for questioning, that it was written by 
 a person named Clement, who held a place in the church at Rome, 
 which afterwards caused him to be entitled bishop, and who had 
 been conversant with apostles. He was supposed by some of the 
 ancients to be the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to 
 the Philippians (iv. 3) as a fellow-laborer with him; but this is 
 doubtful. Of the bearing of this work on the evidence for the 
 genuineness of the Gospels, I shall speak hereafter. 
 
 There was another work, of which a fragment only is extant, 
 that in the fourth century was by some ascribed to Clement, and 
 called his “ Second Epistle to the Corinthians.” At the present 
 day, it is generally agreed that it was not written by him. It is 
 first mentioned by Eusebius, who does not regard it as Clement’s 
 work, and says that it was quoted by no ancient writer.* It was 
 evidently a work of very little note or credit; and there is no 
 ground for supposing it to have been in existence much before the 
 time when Eusebius mentions it. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth 
 about the year 170, speaks of the Epistle Qf Clement to the Chris¬ 
 tians of that city in such a manner as distinctly proves that he 
 knew nothing of any second epistle. 
 
 Eichhorn, in endeavoring to prove that the apostolical fathers 
 had gospels different from the four Gospels, makes much use 
 of this fragment; though he does not maintain, that the work, of 
 which it was a part, was written by Clement, nor adduce any 
 argument to show that it was written before the end of the second 
 century.f It contain* various quotations of words of Christ, most 
 of which there is no difficulty in supposing to be cited, strictly or 
 loosely, from our present Gospels. But, in one place, Peter is 
 represented as interposing a question not mentioned in the Gos¬ 
 pels ; and, in another, a passage is quoted from an apocryphal 
 book, called the Gospel of the Egyptians, of which I have else¬ 
 where given an account. J 
 
 * Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 38. t Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 122-131. 
 
 t In part iii. chap. viii. of this work. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 549 
 
 The quotation of an apocryphal book by an early Christian 
 writer, or his introducing a relation of something concerning the 
 history of Christ not found in the Gospels, has no bearing to prove 
 that the Gospels were not regarded by his contemporaries and by 
 himself with the highest respect as the authentic histories of Jesus, 
 We find such passages after the period when there is no question 
 that the Gospels were so esteemed. But, in respect to the partic¬ 
 ular case before us, it is an obvious oversight to attempt to prove 
 that the apostolical fathers used, not our present Gospels, but 
 apocryphal gospels, from a work which it is not pretended was 
 written by an apostolical father, and for the existence of which 
 we have no proof before the fourth century. 
 
 Section III. 
 
 The Epistle of Poly carp to the Philippians. 
 
 What may next be mentioned is an Epistle by Polycarp, Bishop 
 of Smyrna, to the church at Philippi. A portion of it only is 
 extant in Greek : the remainder is furnished by an old Latin trans¬ 
 lation. Polycarp died a martyr in the second century. Respect¬ 
 ing the precise time of his death, the data are, I think, too 
 uncertain to afford ground for any of the different computations 
 which have been made. Irenasus twice mentions having known 
 him when he himself was a young man. He speaks of his dis¬ 
 tinct recollection of his person, his manners, his way of life, and 
 of his public discourses, in which Polycarp, he says, reported the 
 words of John and of other hearers of the Lord with whom he had 
 been conversant, and their accounts respecting the miracles and 
 doctrine of the Lord, all corresponding to the Scriptures. Ire- 
 nseus relates that he suffered martyrdom when a very old man. 
 To his Epistle to the Philippians he refers, in connection with 
 his reference to that of Clement of Rome, as giving proof of 
 the opposition between the doctrine of Polycarp and that of the 
 heretics.* 
 
 This Epistle is mentioned by other ancient writers, nor is there 
 
 * Contra Hseres., lib. iii. c. 3, § 4. Epist. ad Florinum, ip. Euseb. Hist. 
 Eccles., lib. v. c. 20. 
 
550 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 any reason to doubt its genuineness ; except that a passage appears 
 to have been interpolated near its conclusion, inconsistent with 
 what is found in the preceding part of the Epistle, and fraudulently 
 intended to give countenance to certain Epistles forged in the 
 name of Ignatius, to be mentioned hereafter.* 
 
 The Epistle of Polycarp is a general exhortation to Christian 
 duties. It does not appear to have had any specific purpose, but 
 to have been occasioned by a request of the Philippians that he 
 would write to them, — a request which" not improbably had its 
 origin merely in their respect for his age and eminence. It is 
 founded on the writings of the New Testament, and pervaded with 
 conceptions, turns of expression, and quotations, borrowed from 
 them. I shall speak of it again in connection with the Epistle of 
 Clement. 
 
 • 
 
 Section IV. 
 
 The Shepherd of Ilermas. 
 
 There is a work called “ The Shepherd of Hernias,” which has 
 been regarded by some as the production of a fanatic, who ima¬ 
 gined that he saw visions, or of an impostor, pretending to have 
 
 * The passage referred to is what is now numbered as the thirteenth 
 section. In this, epistles of Ignatius are mentioned as sent by Polycarp to 
 the Philippians, annexed to his own. 
 
 In the body of the Epistle (§ 9), Polycarp says to the Philippians, “I 
 exhort you all to obey the doctrine of righteousness, and to exercise all 
 patience, such as ye saw before your eyes, not only in those blessed men, 
 Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, but also in others who w r ere of your num¬ 
 ber, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles; being persuaded that 
 they all ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are 
 with the Lord, with whom they were fellow-sufferers, in the place that was 
 due to them.” 
 
 When this passage was written, it is evident that Ignatius was dead; nor 
 is his death spoken of as if it w r ere a recent event. But the author of the 
 interpolation, overlooking this passage, and referring to the story, that Igna¬ 
 tius, after leaving Smyrna, passed through Philippi on his way to suffer 
 martyrdom at Rome, makes Polycarp request the Philippians to communi¬ 
 cate to him any certain information they might have concerning Ignatius 
 himself, and those who were with him: Et de ipso Ignatio, et de his qui 
 cum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis significate.” 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 551 
 
 seen them. But I discern in the book no marks of fanaticism or 
 imposture. It seems to me to belong to the same clas^ of writings 
 as “The Tablet of Cebes,” “ The Vision concerning Piers Plough- 
 man,” or, to take a more familiar example, Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s 
 Progress,” or, more generally, to the class of works of fiction, 
 especially those written in the first person. The author, like 
 Bunyan, describes himself as having witnessed a succession of 
 visions, and also as having received various communications, which 
 he was commanded to publish. His representing an angel as 
 having appeared to him under the likeness of a shepherd gives its 
 title to the work. Its allegories are not suited to the taste of 
 modern times, but were adapted to engage the attention, and affect 
 the minds, of readers in the age when it. was composed. 
 
 By some, both in ancient and modern times, the writer has 
 been supposed to be the Hernias mentioned by St. Paul in his 
 Epistle to the Romans, chap. xvi. 14. 
 
 This book, for a considerable period, obtained great favor and 
 authority with many in ancient times. It was especially acceptable 
 to the fathers of the Alexandrine school. It is once quoted by 
 Irenceus. Clement of Alexandria often quotes it as a book of 
 high authority. Origen, in one place, says that he thinks it was 
 the work of the Hernias mentioned by St. Paul, that it seems to' 
 him a very useful writing, and that he thinks it divinely inspired. 
 Elsewhere he quotes it often, but sometimes with such qualifying 
 expressions as “ if that writing is to be received.” Once he men¬ 
 tions it as “ despised by some ; ” and once, in citing it, he speaks of 
 “ venturing to use a certain book, which circulates in the churches, 
 but is not acknowledged as divine by all.” 
 
 Tertullian once notices the book slightingly before he became a 
 Montanist; afterwards he speaks of it with reprobation, because it 
 contradicted the severe doctrine, which he then held, that there 
 was no repentance for Christians guilty of unchastity. Yet, even 
 in expressing his own ill opinion of it, he implies that it had been 
 regarded by some as having a claim to canonical authority. I 
 would give up the point, he says, “if that writing, the Shepherd, 
 deserved to be inserted in the divine Document ” (that is, among 
 the books of Scripture) ; “ if it had not been judged by every 
 council, even of your churches ” (those of the catholic Christians, 
 in contradistinction to the Montanists), “ as apocryphal and false.” 
 
552 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Eusebius speaks of it as reported to be tbe work of the 
 Hernias mentioned by St. Paul. He reckons it among those 
 writings which were “ not genuine” Scripture (h role v6i9occ); but 
 says, that it was “judged by some a very necessary book, espe¬ 
 cially for those who are in want of elementary instruction, so that 
 at the present day, as we know, it is even publicly read in 
 churches, and I have observed that some very ancient writers 
 make use of it.” * * * § 
 
 There is perhaps nothing in the contents of the book incon¬ 
 sistent with the belief of its having been written in the first cen¬ 
 tury ; but there is evidence to the contrary which can hardly be set 
 aside. It is mentioned in the fragment of an account of canonical 
 and uncanonical books, or “ Canon,” as it may be called, found 
 by Mura tori in a manuscript of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, 
 and published by him in 1740, in his “ Antiquitates Italicae Medii 
 7Evi.”f The author of this Canon says of it, that “ it was written 
 very lately, in our own times, by Hernias, while his brother Pius 
 presided over the church at Rome as bishop; and so it ought to 
 be read, but not publicly in the church to the people; ” adding, 
 that it could not be ranked among the writings either of the 
 prophets or of the apostles. J The date that has been assigned for 
 the death of Pius is the year 142. The same account of the 
 authorship of the book is given in a Latin poem, “ Against Mar- 
 cion,” of uncertain age and by an unknown writer, published in 
 editions of the works of Tertullian. In this, Hermas, the brother 
 of Pius, is called the Angelical Shepherd, who spoke the words 
 committed to him. § This opinion respecting the author of the 
 Shepherd seems to have prevailed, after the fifth century, among 
 the writers of the Latin Church. The book gradually fell into 
 neglect; the original was lost; and only a few manuscripts of a 
 Latin translation of it are now remaining. 
 
 * For the references to the passages above quoted, see the Yeterum Tes- 
 timonia in the Patres Apostolici, or in Fabricii Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test., 
 pars iii. pp. 738-763. 
 
 t Vol. iii. pp. 853, 854. 
 
 t It should be observed, that the volume of Lardner’s “ Credibility ” 
 which contains the article on Hermas appeared before Muratori published 
 this Canon. 
 
 § Lib. iii. ad Jinem; Tertulliani Opp., p. 635, ed. Priorii. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 553 
 
 The writer of the Canon published by Muratori speaks of 
 himself as having lived in the time of Pius and his brother, Hermas, 
 and affirms that the Shepherd had been composed by the latter 
 not long before.he himself wrote. There is here no ground for 
 the suspicion of falsehood; and there seems to be but little prob¬ 
 ability of mistake. The writer could hardly have committed so 
 gross an error concerning a work which, according to his own 
 account, was famous and highly esteemed by many, as to represent 
 it to have been written by. a well-known individual of his own 
 time, when in fact it had been in existence from the first century. 
 We mav therefore conclude, that it was not written till towards the 
 middle of the second century: and we must ascribe the acceptance 
 which it so early found, partly to its stories and allegorical repre¬ 
 sentations, — tor even rude attempts in a new form of art are likely 
 to be favorably received; partly to an opinion, suggested by the 
 general aspect of the book, that it was divinely inspired, — for, in 
 the first ages of Christianity, men’s notions of inspiration were very 
 vague and comprehensive; and partly to the mistake of supposing 
 that it was written by one who lived in the times of the apostles. 
 
 The work is of some interest, from its illustrating, in a certain 
 degree, the opinions, feelings, and taste of the early Christians. 
 But, as regards the direct historical evidence for the genuineness 
 of the Gospels, it is of no importance. No book is cited in it by 
 name. There are no evident quotations from the Gospels, and 
 nothing that one can suppose to be borrowed from any apocryphal 
 history of Christ. 
 
 Section Y. 
 
 The Epistle of Barnabas, so called. 
 
 There is an Epistle extant which has been ascribed to Barnabas, 
 the companion of St. Paul. It is several times expressly quoted 
 as his work by Clement of Alexandria, who entitles the author 
 “ Barnabas the Apostle.” It is once mentioned by Origen, in his 
 work against Celsus, under the title of the “Catholic [that is, 
 General] Epistle of Barnabas,” as containing a passage on which 
 Celsus might have founded a charge made by him, that the apostles 
 were “ infamous men, the vilest tax-gatherers and sailors ; ” which 
 charge is, as we shall see, abundantly countenanced by the. pas- 
 
554 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 gage referred to. Origen uses no expression of respect in quoting 
 it; and his calling it the “Epistle of Barnabas” only shows that it 
 passed under that title, and does not prove that he himself believed 
 Barnabas to be its author. According to the Latin translations 
 of two of his works by Rufinus, Origen has quoted this Epistle 
 once elsewhere, and perhaps alluded to it in another passage, but 
 still, I think, without any particular expression of respect. The 
 Epistle is afterwards mentioned by Eusebius, who classes it 
 among books not canonical, or not genuine Scripture ( kv to'lq vo$ols). 
 After him, Jerome ascribes it to Barnabas, reckoning it among the 
 Apocryphal Scriptures; that is, as is here meant by him, among 
 writings entitled to respect, though not canonical. The book 
 appears to be mentioned by no other writer during the first four 
 centuries ; * * * § but in the Apostolical Constitutions there is a passage 
 evidently taken from it.f Though so early recommended to notice 
 by the quotations of Clertient of Alexandria as the work of Bar¬ 
 nabas the apostle, it seems never to have obtained much favor 
 among the great body of Christians. Clement himself, in one 
 place, rejects a fiction found in the work, J and, in another, appears 
 unsatisfied with one of its expositions. § He has adduced it, 
 therefore, not as a work of conclusive authority, nor has he 
 quoted it for historical facts, but only for expressions of senti¬ 
 ment and opinion. Among the great multitude of volumes which 
 that very learned father has cited in his writings, there must have 
 been many in regard to the authorship of which he trusted to their 
 titles, or to very slight information ; nor is it doubted, that, in 
 doing so, he has been led into manv mistakes. In assijjninjr the 
 present work to Barnabas, he may have been deceived by a title 
 prefixed to some copy of it through the misjudgment of a former 
 proprietor, or to several copies, fraudulently, to promote their 
 sale; or it may have been written by some individual of the name 
 of Barnabas, and Clement may have hastily concluded that the 
 author thus named was the companion of St. Paul. In ancient 
 times, the.genuineness of books as a matter of literary interest was 
 
 * See the Veterum Testimonia, in the Patres Apostolici. 
 
 t See Dallaeus, De Pseudepigraphis Apostolicis, lib. ii. c. 4, pp. 265, 266. 
 
 I Paedagog., ii. 10, p. 188: comp. Epist. Barnab., c. 10. 
 
 § Stromat., ii. 15, p. 889. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 555 
 
 much less carefully investigated than at the present day; and 
 Clement was not distinguished from other ancient writers by par¬ 
 ticular attention to the subject. His authority, probably, was the 
 principal means of procuring for the so-called “Epistle of Bar¬ 
 nabas” the notice it afterwards obtained. 
 
 But the author of this work does not write in the name of 
 Barnabas, nor in any way identify himself with him; and there are 
 decisive reasons for believing Barnabas not to have been its 
 author.* Its most distinguishing characteristic is its being thor¬ 
 oughly imbued with the allegorizing spirit of the Alexandrine 
 school, which may in some degree have recommended it to Clem¬ 
 ent. Though of a very far inferior character, it has in this 
 respect, and in its general design, some resemblance to the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. The style of reasoning and interpretation is so 
 foreign from all our present intellectual habits, that it may have 
 been spoken of too contemptuously; but it is unquestionably the 
 work of a writer deficient in good sense. The allegorical inter¬ 
 pretations of the Old Testament are very forced and mean ; yet 
 after one of the poorest, in which he teaches that the number of 
 the persons circumcised by Abraham, which he falsely supposes to 
 have been three hundred and eighteen, Avas typical of the cross 
 and of the first two Greek letters of the name of Jesus, he sub¬ 
 joins: “ He who has implanted in us the gift of teaching knows 
 that no one has learnt from me a more genuine doctrine. But I 
 know that ye are Avorthy of it.” f We can hardly suppose this to 
 have been Avritten by Barnabas, one high in honor among the first 
 preachers of Christianity, the associate of St. Paul in his labors. 
 Christianity was not established in the Gentile world by the 
 preaching of such “ genuine doctrines.” The allegories in the 
 Epistle, founded upon the Mosaic Havs respecting clean and 
 unclean food, are mixed up with strange fables respecting animals. 
 The Avhole tone of it is Ioav and trivial, expressing no Avarmth 
 of feeling, and not adapted to excite any. And to mention one 
 other particular passage, that referred to by Origen in his Avork 
 
 * I should have considered the point so Avell settled, that Barnabas av:is 
 not its author, as to render it unnecessary to enter into any argument on the 
 subject, had I not observed that several of the modern German scholars are 
 disposed to attribute it to him. 
 
 t Cap. 9 
 
556 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 against Celsus, the writer, laboring after emphatic language, 
 says that Jesus chose for his apostles men “who were sinners 
 beyond all sin; 11 a declaration too foolishly extravagant for us 
 to believe that it proceeded from a contemporary and friend of the 
 apostles. 
 
 But it may be said, that we know too little of Barnabas person¬ 
 ally to determine, from the inferior character of the Epistle, that 
 it might not have been written by him. I answer, that we know 
 much concerning him. From the few notices of him that St. Luke 
 has given, we learn that he was greatly trusted by the apostles, 
 and had great influence with them; that he was one of the earliest 
 of those preachers by whom Christianity was spread through the 
 world; that, with the exception of St. Paul, he apparently did 
 more than any other in the accomplishment of this work; that, in 
 the commencement of St. Paul’s ministry, he was, as it were, his 
 patron; that he was open, manly, and strong-minded, taking St. 
 Paul and bringing him to the apostles, when the other disciples 
 were all afraid of him, and with him maintaining the claims of the 
 Gentiles against the prejudices of his countrymen; and that he 
 was full of zeal and disinterestedness in the cause in which he was 
 engaged, giving up his property to supply those who were in need, 
 and devoting all his powers to its promotion. Considering what 
 he was and what he effected, there can be no doubt that he com¬ 
 prehended and felt the essential truths of our religion, and 
 Avas well able to impress them on the hearts and minds of others. 
 When, with such a conception of him distinctly before us, Ave 
 come to the reading of his pretended Epistle, it requires but little 
 knoAvledixe of human nature to enable us to determine that it is 
 not his Avork. It may seem only to imply the ability to distinguish 
 between the miserable composition of some Alexandrine sophist, 
 and the Avords of one full of the spirit and power of Christianity. 
 No incongruity would be more gross than to ascribe such an 
 Epistle to St. Paul; and it seems scarcely less incongruous to 
 ascribe it to Barnabas. 
 
 To proceed to another argument: Barnabas Avas a JeAv by 
 birth; but the author of the Epistle uniformly blends himself Avith 
 the Gentile Christians as one of their number. It may be possible 
 to evade the force of particular passages to this effect, one after 
 another; but the whole impression from the manner in Avhich he 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 557 
 
 speaks is, that he was a Gentile by birth, and, I think, a Gentile 
 convert. In addition to this, he does not write in the Hebraistic 
 style of the New Testament. He discovers no Jewish sentiments 
 or affections, no interest in or sympathy with the Jewish nation. 
 He writes of them with the harsh feelings of a Gentile. No Jew 
 could or ought so to have alienated himself from his countrymen. 
 Between the state of mind expressed by the writer, and the strong 
 emotion with which St. Paul speaks of his “great grief and con¬ 
 tinual pain of heart for his brethren, his natural kinsmen,” the 
 contrast is much too striking to allow of our attributing the Epistle 
 to Barnabas, especially when we remember that this work is 
 imagined to have been written by him immediately after those 
 overwhelming calamities which the Jews brought upon themselves 
 through their unbelief. 
 
 As appears from the work itself (c. 16), it was written after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70). It cannot be proved, 
 that, in the common course of nature, Barnabas might not have 
 survived that event; but there is no doubt, that, if he did so, he 
 must have been far advanced in life. That one who had com¬ 
 posed nothing before should then set about the composition of a 
 writing at all resembling that ascribed to Barnabas is very im¬ 
 probable ; and still more improbable is it, that in a work addressed 
 by Barnabas, under such circumstances, to his fellow-Christians, 
 there should be no recurrence to his past history, no expression 
 of those deeply affecting recollections that must have pressed upon 
 his mind, no reference to his old age, nor any trace of emotion in 
 contemplating the ruin which God had inflicted upon his nation, 
 the hard but successful struggles of the true faith, and his own 
 solitary state, as one of the few survivors of that noble company 
 of apostles and martyrs, who had been bound together by such 
 strong sympathies in suffering and joy. Nothing of all this 
 appears in the Epistle. It might have been written as a task by a 
 dull pupil in a rhetorician’s school. 
 
 Barnabas, as I have said, may have survived the destruction 
 of Jerusalem, though it is for various reasons unlikely that he did 
 so: but, were it the fact, it would not prove that he might have 
 been the author of the Epistle; for the Epistle was not written, as 
 has been affirmed, shortly after that event. This Appears from 
 the passage in which the event is referred to; from which it also 
 
558 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 appears, that the writer was neither Barnabas nor any other Jew. 
 The Jewish temple having been destroyed, the author represents 
 the Gentiles as building up in its stead a spiritual temple to God. 
 Its destruction, he says, was predicted in the Old Testament, and 
 “ it has taken place. For, they [the Jews] going to war, it was 
 destroyed by their enemies; and now will the very ministers of 
 their enemies rebuild it.” The Jews going to rear, it ivas destroyed 
 by their enemies, —the writer would not thus have spoken of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, had it been a recent event, fresh in the 
 minds of men; nor would he, if a Jew, have classed himself, as he 
 immediately does, with the very ministers of the enemies of his 
 nation, converted Gentiles, who were to form the new temple, — 
 ‘‘we,” he says, “whose hearts, before we believed in God, were 
 full of idolatry, a habitation of demons, but in whom God now 
 dwells.” 
 
 We conclude, then, that the Epistle was not written by Bar¬ 
 nabas ; and, this being the case, we have no ground for assigning 
 to it an earlier date than is required by the circumstance of its 
 being quoted by Clement of Alexandria; that is, we may suppose 
 it to have been written about the middle of the second century. 
 We may derive an argument for its not being in existence before 
 this period, from the fact, that it is not noticed by Iremeus or 
 Tertullian, the latter of whom speaks of the Epistle to the He¬ 
 brews as written by Barnabas, — calling it the “Epistle of Bar¬ 
 nabas,”— without intimating a knowledge of any other ascribed 
 to him.* A considerable part of the Epistle is controversial, 
 directed against the unbelieving Jews, and having, therefore, the 
 same character as Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, which 
 was written about the period just mentioned. But, from the 
 destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) till the reign of Antoninus Pius 
 (a.d. 138-161), the state of the Jews, including the Jewish Chris¬ 
 tians, was such, that there is little likelihood that religious contro¬ 
 versies existed between them and the Gentile Christians, or that 
 the notice of the latter was at all directed to their pretensions. 
 The wrath of the Roman empire had fallen upon and blasted the 
 nation, and continued to pursue it, as if to exterminate the race. 
 They became objects of general aversion and hatred. As an odious 
 
 * De Pudicitia, c. 20. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 559 
 
 and degraded class, they were everywhere exposed to insult and 
 cruelty. The capitation-tax, the didrachm, which they had been 
 accustomed to pay for the service of the temple, was required by 
 Titus, in bitter mockery, for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. 
 Under Domitian, the impositions upon them were made more 
 severe by the brutality with which they were enforced, — Procter 
 cceteros Judaicus Jiscus acerbissime actus est , says Suetonius; 
 and it became a common source of revenue to charge them 
 with crimes for the sake of seizing upon their property.* They 
 were forbidden by the edicts of the Roman emperors to circumcise 
 their children. They existed throughout the empire only as 
 suppressed rebels, often breaking out into open war, and perpe¬ 
 trating and suffering terrible massacres; till at last the vengeance 
 of Adrian was directed upon Judaea, and renewed, as far as there 
 were objects for it, the desolation of Titus. Under such circum¬ 
 stances, we can hardly suppose the Jews to have been so interested 
 in the religious controversy with the Gentile Christians, as to give 
 occasion for such works as the Dialogue with Trypho, or the 
 Epistle of Barnabas. But under the first Antoninus, the successor 
 of Adrian, the prohibition to circumcise their children was re¬ 
 voked, the wiser policy of conciliation was adopted toward them, 
 they enjoyed a respite from their sufferings; and, as during his 
 reign the Dialogue with Trypho was written, so also, we may 
 suppose, was the Epistle of Barnabas. 
 
 To those who believe that the doctrine of the pre-existence 
 of Christ did not begin to prevail among the Orthodox Christians 
 till toward the middle of the second century, its introduction into 
 this Epistle may afford another argument for the date assigned 
 to it. 
 
 But, whatever weight there may be in these considerations, it 
 is to be remembered, that, if the Epistles be not the work of 
 Barnabas, we have no ground whatever for supposing it written 
 earlier than the period mentioned; and there is no ground, there¬ 
 fore, for classing it with writings of apostolical fathers. Its 
 internal character is an objection, not merely to its having been 
 
 * To such an extent was this practice carried, that, when it was abol¬ 
 ished by Nerva, a coin was struck, bearing the inscription, “ Fisci Judaici 
 Calumnia sublata S.C.” 
 
560 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 written by Barnabas, but by any one who had been conversant 
 with apostles. 
 
 The Epistle is now extant, partly in the Greek original, and 
 partly in an old Latin translation ; the beginning of the former 
 and the end of the latter being lost. The texts of both, in the 
 few manuscripts in which they are extant, are very corrupt; and, 
 in the forms in which they have been printed, both lie under the 
 suspicion of having been interpolated and altered by transcribers. 
 
 The Epistle contains three passages corresponding to passages 
 in the Gospels.* There is one which Eichhorn thinks was taken 
 from an apocryphal history of Christ, f It is as follows: “So 
 they, he says, who would see me, and attain my kingdom, must 
 receive me through affliction and suffering.”;]: But there seems 
 no difficulty in regarding this as intended to express the sense of 
 various passages in the Gospels. There is another professed quo¬ 
 tation, that would seem to have been more to Eichhorn’s purpose, 
 which, however, may admit of a similar explanation. “As the 
 Son of God says, Let us resist all iniquity, and hate it.” § But, 
 as regards both these passages, it is further to be observed, that 
 the writer of the Epistle is extremely inaccurate in his professed 
 quotations, so as often to cite the Old Testament for words and 
 facts not to be found in it. || But, as these citations do not prove 
 that he had any other copy of the Old Testament than that in 
 common use, so neither do the two passages in question prove 
 that he had any other copy of the New Testament. We cannot 
 infer from them that he quoted any apocryphal writing; and, 
 could this be shown, it would be a fact of no moment. 
 
 Section VI. 
 
 Epistles ascribed to Ignatius. 
 
 We come now to seven Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, said to 
 be a bishop of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom soon after the 
 
 * See Lardner’s article on Barnabas; Credibility, part ii. chap. i. 
 t Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 117, 118. J Cap. 7. § Cap. 4. 
 
 || See the examples adduced by Jones in his New and Full Method of 
 settling the Canonical Authority of the N.T., vol. ii. chap. xli. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 561 
 
 close of the first century. These Epistles exist in two forms, in 
 one of which they are shorter than in the other. The shorter 
 Epistles have either been abridged from the longer, with some 
 changes of expression, or the longer have been interpolated, and 
 altered in other respects from the shorter. It is the genuineness 
 of the shorter Epistles that is generally contended for by those 
 who suppose one or the other set to have been written by Igna¬ 
 tius. The story connected with them is, that he was sent by the 
 personal order of the Emperor Trajan from Antioch, by a land 
 journey, to Rome, there to be exposed to wild beasts; and that 
 on his way he wrote six of these Epistles to different churches, 
 and one to Polycarp. 
 
 But the seven shorter Epistles, the genuineness of which is 
 contended for, come to us in bad company; not only that of their 
 seven larger brethren, but that of eight other Epistles ascribed 
 to Ignatius, which the learned have almost unanimously pro¬ 
 nounced to be spurious. In ancient times, supposititious works, 
 and those of little credit, were not uncommonly refashioned, or 
 gave occasion to others of a similar character; while the un¬ 
 doubted genuineness of a work prevented such changes and 
 imitations. The name of Ignatius, it is apparent, was a favorite 
 among the fabricators of spurious writings, probably because 
 hardly any thing was known of him with certainty. 
 
 There is, as it seems to me, no reasonable doubt, that the seven 
 shorter Epistles ascribed to Ignatius are, equally with all the rest, 
 fabrications of a date long subsequent to his time. Some, who 
 have felt the strong objections to which their genuineness is ex¬ 
 posed, have adopted the notion of their being interpolated, or 
 have suggested that this might be the case. But I believe, that, 
 if there be any thing in them which Ignatius said or wrote, it is 
 this which may be considered as interpolated, having been intro¬ 
 duced by the author of the Epistles to give credit to his forgery. 
 The design of this forgery appears to have been to strengthen 
 the domination of priests, and especially of bishops ; to confirm the 
 doctrine of the deity of Christ, according to the writer’s concep¬ 
 tions of it; and to bear down the Gnostics and other heretics, 
 by the pretended authority of an ancient martyr. 
 
 The genuineness of these Epistles has been so ably discussed, 
 and they have, in my opinion, been so satisfactorily proved to 
 
 36 
 
562 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 be spurious, that 1 shall make only a few general remarks upon 
 the subject.* 
 
 The state of the external testimony is such as to create a 
 strong presumption of their being fabricated. The passage near 
 the conclusion of the Epistle of Polycarp in its Latin translation, 
 in which epistles of Ignatius are mentioned, is of such a character 
 as at once to raise a suspicion of its having been interpolated 
 to countenance the fraud, f No epistles of Ignatius are men¬ 
 tioned by Irenaeus, Clement, or Tertullian; and the absence of 
 such mention, under the circumstances of the case, is all but 
 decisive proof, that the seven Epistles did not exist in their day. 
 Especially the fact, that Irenaeus does insist at length upon the 
 evidence against the doctrines of the Gnostics to be derived from 
 the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, without mentioning those 
 of Ignatius, which the occasion must have forced upon his notice, 
 and which might have seemed written expressly for his purpose, 
 shows, either that these Epistles were not then extant, or that lie 
 did not recognize them as genuine ; and of these inferences there 
 is abundant reason to adopt the first. % Origen is adduced as 
 
 * The subject is to be studied in the work of Dailfe, “De Scriptis quae 
 sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antioeheni Nominibus circumferuntur; ” 
 in which, however, it is to be observed, that he blends together objections 
 both to the shorter and longer Epistles, it not being settled in his time which 
 set was to be defended; — in Bishop Pearson’s reply to Dailfe, entitled “ Vin- 
 diciae Ignatianae; ” — and in Larroque’s answer to Pearson (which I have not 
 been able to procure), “ Observationes in Ignatianas Pearsonii Vindicias, 
 necnon in Beverigii Annotationes.” Most readers, however, will find enough 
 to satisfy them in Chauncy’s “Complete View of Episcopacy, as exhibited 
 from the Fathers of the Christian Church until the Close of the Second 
 Century,” — the work of an able and learned theologian of this country, 
 which, though the controversy that produced it is obsolete, still retains 
 value, from the information it affords concerning Christian antiquity. It 
 is striking, and, to a scholar, almost affecting, that such a work should 
 have been produced among us at a time (but little more than fifty years 
 Since) when, as the author mentions, there was a want of types and skill to 
 print the Greek citations in Greek letters. 
 
 t See before, p. 550. 
 
 X There is a passage in Irenaeus (lib. v. c. 28, § 4), which Eusebius 
 (H.E., iii. 36) adduces in proof of his having quoted these Epistles, and 
 which has been insisted upon by their defenders in modern times.' It is as 
 follows: “As one among us said, when condemned to the wild beasts on 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 563 
 
 twice quoting them: but one of the quotations appealed to is in 
 a work * of which we have only a translation by Rufinus, who so 
 altered and interpolated the writings of Origen which he rendered, 
 that his translations, where a reasonable doubt may arise of the 
 genuineness of a particular passage, are not considered as of 
 authority to prove what Origen wrote; and the other is found 
 in a work of which the genuineness is doubtful, a homily, f 
 which those who contend for its genuineness suppose to have 
 been written down by some hearer clandestinely, without Origen’s 
 consent; J and in the copies of which, thus particularly exposed 
 to interpolation from not having any claim to be regarded as the 
 precise words of the author, it may have been subsequently in¬ 
 troduced. 
 
 But there is, after all, nothing improbable in the supposition, 
 that some spurious epistle or epistles ascribed to Ignatius existed 
 in the time of Origen. This may, indeed, seem more likely than 
 that the seven contested Epistles should have been produced in 
 a body at a later period, without any thing previously existing 
 to suggest or to countenance their fabrication. They, as we have 
 seen, gave occasion to fifteen spurious epistles, which followed 
 them; and we may reasonably conjecture, that they would not, 
 some centuries after the death of Ignatius, have been put forward 
 as written by him, if no one had before heard of an epistle as¬ 
 cribed to Ignatius. 
 
 The first writer by whom the seven Epistles are expressly 
 
 account of his testimony for God, I am the grain of Christ [or God], and am 
 ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread of God.” 
 These words are found in the Epistle to the Romans ascribed to Ignatius 
 (§ 4). By Jerome they are said to have been spoken at the time of his 
 martyrdom. Supposing that Irenams referred to Ignatius, which has been 
 assumed on the one hand, and admitted on the other, without, I think, any 
 sufficient proof, there is no good reason for believing that he quoted the 
 words of the Epistle. The turn of expression, on the contrary, would lead 
 us to suppose that he referred to spoken words; and the forger of these 
 Epistles, for the purpose of giving them credit, would naturally have recourse 
 to the artifice of introducing into them words that had been ascribed to 
 Ignatius, or which might be fancied to be his. 
 
 * Prolog, in Cantic. Canticorum; Opp. iii. 30. 
 
 f Homil. in Lucam vi.; Opp. iii. 938. 
 
 $ See Delarue’s Preface to the third volume of Origen’s Works, pp. iv., v. 
 
564 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 mentioned is Eusebius; * and by him in such a way as, I think, 
 to leave it doubtful whether he believed their genuineness. He 
 begins his account of the martyrdom of Ignatius with the words, 
 “ It is reported ,”f and speaks of him as “ still very famous with 
 many; 17 while, except the honorable mention of him as an ex¬ 
 ample of patience in the genuine portion of the Epistle of Poly¬ 
 carp, his name does not occur in the extant writings of any 
 preceding father, unless the passages ascribed to Origen are 
 genuine. Eusebius was not of a character to expose himself 
 to odium by directly expressing his disbelief of a fabrication 
 intended to strengthen the poAver of the priesthood. 
 
 The story connected Avith the pretended composition of these 
 Epistles is very improbable; but on this it is unnecessary to 
 dAvell. Their internal character affords, in my opinion, the clearest 
 evidence of forgery. A series of anachronisms runs through them. 
 They suppose a priesthood with distinctions and poAvers Avhich 
 did not exist till long after the time of Ignatius. The implicit 
 submission of the laity to the clergy in all spiritual matters is 
 a constant topic, and is inculcated in language foolish and ex¬ 
 travagant even to profaneness. A single example may suffice: 
 “Do ye all folloAv your bishop, as Jesus Christ did the Father, 
 and the presbytery, as the apostles; and reverence the deacons 
 as the command of God. 71 J To give such an exhortation to 
 Christians at the present day Avould not be more absurd than it 
 would have been to address it to those of the primitive age, 
 Avhen Ignatius is supposed to have lived. There is a similar 
 anachronism in the language concerning the theological doctrine 
 of the deity of Christ. And the repeated references to the 
 opinions of the Docetae imply, that those opinions had acquired 
 a notoriety and importance about the end of the first century, 
 which is inconsistent Avith the statements of the early fathers bA r 
 whom they Avere controverted, who refer their rise to the times 
 of Adrian and Antoninus Pius. 
 
 I doubt Avhether any book, in its general tone of sentiment 
 and language, ever betrayed itself as a forgery more clearly 
 than do these pretended Epistles of Ignatius. The style, which 
 
 * Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 36. 
 J Epist. ad Smyrnseos, § 8. 
 
 t Aoyof <T ££«. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 565 
 
 is barbarous and obscure, is, at the same time, ridiculously in¬ 
 flated and artificial.* There is no natural expression of feeling. 
 The sentiments ascribed to Ignatius present a rude caricature 
 of a very weak, half-crazy, vain-glorious bigot. Take the concep¬ 
 tion on which the Epistles are founded, — that of an aged Chris¬ 
 tian bishop, who had been a companion of apostles, torn from 
 his people by an order of the emperor in person, sent a long 
 journey under a guard of brutal soldiers, to suffer, at its termina¬ 
 tion, a barbarous death, continuall^receiving, on his way, all the 
 consolations and supports which the sympathy of his fellow- 
 Christians could afford him, and addressing to them, under such 
 circumstances, his last exhortations,—take this conception, and 
 one can hardly imagine that the outline could be filled up, as it is 
 by the forger of these Epistles, so that not a feeling of interest 
 or respect should be excited for the supposed sufferer. No writer 
 of a fustian tragedy ever more grossly misrepresented human 
 nature, or put more extravagant rant into the mouth of his 
 principal personage.f 
 
 I conceive these Epistles in their shorter form to have been 
 fabricated about the beginning of the fourth century, the date 
 
 * The following account of the star said to have appeared to the Magi 
 may serve as an illustration of the character of the forger of these Epistles, 
 and of his style of writing, though of this it is not the most remarkable 
 specimen that might be given: — 
 
 “A star shone forth in the heavens, brighter than all the stars, and its 
 light was unspeakable; and its novelty produced perturbation. And the 
 other stars, together with the sun and moon, became a choir to that star; 
 and that surpassed them all in its light, and there was trouble among men 
 whence came this strange novelty. Hence all magic was dissolved, and 
 every bond of wickedness done away, ignorance was overthrown, the old 
 kingdom was destroyed, God being manifested in a human form for the 
 newness of eternal life, and that which was perfected by God received 
 dominion. Hence all things were in commotion, because the destruction of 
 death was preparing.” — Epist. ad Ephesios , § 19. 
 
 “ Mirurn hcec potuisse videri temere scripta, absurda , indicia ,”— “It is 
 wonderful that this account can have appeared unfounded, absurd, unheard 
 of.” So says Cotelier, in his note on the passage, referring to expressions of 
 Bailie. Bishop Pearson (Yindic. Ignat., pars ii. c. 10) defends it as credible; 
 saying, that there were “ two phases of the star, one in the East, and the 
 other at Jerusalem,” and that the account refers to the former. 
 
 t See particularly the whole of the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
566 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 assigned to them by Daille; but it is doubtful, whether, in this 
 form, their text remains the same as it originally appeared. They 
 are of no value as regards the direct historical evidence for the 
 genuineness of the Gospels. But Eichlrorn, though he admits that 
 they were not the work of Ignatius, says that “they are an 
 ancient though much-interpolated book,” * and insists on one 
 passage, as proving that the apostolical fathers quoted apocry¬ 
 phal gospels, f 
 
 Section YII. 
 
 Concluding Remai'ks respecting the Evidence for or against the 
 Genuineness of the Gospels to he derived from the Writings 
 before mentioned. 
 
 From the writings ascribed to apostolical fathers, if our pre¬ 
 ceding conclusions be correct, we have to except the Second 
 Epistle of Clement, so called, of the existence of which we have 
 no proof before the fourth century; the Shepherd of Hennas, 
 which was written not long before the middle of the second cen¬ 
 tury ; what is named the Epistle of Barnabas, which was not the 
 work of Barnabas the apostle, and the composition of which may 
 likewise be referred to about the middle of the second century; 
 and the spurious Epistles of Ignatius, the fabrication of a much 
 later age. 
 
 We have, then, remaining only the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 
 and that of Polycarp, of which I shall speak hereafter. 
 
 The writings first mentioned are unimportant as affording di¬ 
 rect historical evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels. Sup¬ 
 posing the Gospels to have been in common use among Christians 
 at the time of their composition, there can indeed be little doubt 
 that they contain quotations from and references to them. But 
 the Gospels are not spoken of nor described: there is nothing 
 in the writings themselves clearly to designate the source or 
 sources of those quotations and references; nor are the words 
 alleged introduced under such circumstances, and so strikingly 
 correspondent with the words of the evangelists, as to satisfy us, 
 
 * Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 131. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 132. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 from these considerations alone, that they must have been taken 
 from the Gospels. 
 
 But it has been maintained, that these writings not only afford 
 no proof of this fact, but that they, together with the Epistles of 
 Clement and Polycarp, show that gospels different from those we 
 now have were in common use among the companions and imme¬ 
 diate successors of the apostles. Eichhorn contends, that “ the 
 apostolical fathers, from Barnabas, and Clement of Rome, down 
 to Polycarp, used in their writings, genuine and spurious [that is, 
 in those which they did and in those which they did not write], 
 texts of the Life of Jesus in many respects different from those 
 of our Matthew, Mark, and Luke.” * This extraordinary propo¬ 
 sition is maintained by arguments corresponding to its character; 
 for these arguments are founded principally on passages in works 
 which Eichhorn does not suppose to be genuine, and which, from 
 the very circumstance of their being spurious, we may infer 
 could not even have been in existence during the lifetime of those 
 to whom they are ascribed. As regards the Epistles of Clement 
 and Polycarp, his great argument for maintaining that their 
 authors quoted histories of Christ different from the canonical 
 Gospels is, that words of Jesus are brought together which do 
 not in those Gospels stand in immediate connection, and that 
 there is sometimes a want of verbal correspondence. The force 
 of this mode of reasoning has already been sufficiently examined. 
 Enough, likewise, has been said respecting the theory of an 
 Original Gospel, and of such modifications of it as the apostolical 
 fathers are imagined to have quoted; and this theory may now be 
 dismissed from consideration. 
 
 The Epistles of Clement and Polycarp both contain words of 
 Jesus quoted in such a manner, and so correspondent to words 
 reported by Matthew and Luke,f that, if taken from any book, 
 we may, in this stage of the argument, conclude, without hesita¬ 
 tion, that they were taken from the Gospels. But a doubt arises, 
 whether those words might not have been received immediately 
 by oral communication from apostles and other immediate disci¬ 
 ples of Jesus; especially when we recollect, that Irenaeus says 
 
 * Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 114. 
 
 t See Lardner. 
 
568 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 that he had heard Polycarp repeating the oral relations of John, 
 and of other hearers of the Lord, concerning the doctrine and 
 miracles of Jesus, all conformably to the Scriptures, that is, to 
 the Gospels, f The knowledge which Polycarp derived from the 
 hearers of our Lord, Clement may have received in the same 
 manner; and therefore, though we may appeal to their writings 
 as proving the authenticity of the Gospels, we cannot appeal to 
 them as affording direct proof of the genuineness of the Gospels. 
 
 The manner in which the writings ascribed to apostolical fa¬ 
 thers have been adduced in proof of the genuineness of the Gospels 
 is the result, as it seems to me, of an imperfect view of the 
 nature of that proof. The mode of reasoning by which we may 
 establish the genuineness of the Gospels has been regarded as 
 much more analogous than it is to that by which we prove histori¬ 
 cally the genuineness of other ancient books; that is to say, 
 through the mention of their titles and authors, and quotations 
 from and notices of them, in individual, unconnected writers. 
 This mode of reasoning is, in its nature, satisfactory; and would 
 be so in its application to the Gospels, if the question of their 
 genuineness did not involve the most momentous of all questions 
 in the history of our race, — whether Christianity be a special 
 manifestation of God’s love toward man, or only the most re¬ 
 markable development of those tendencies to fanaticism which 
 exist in human nature. Reasoning in the manner supposed, we 
 find their genuineness unequivocally asserted by Irenaeus; we 
 may satisfy ourselves that they were received as genuine by Jus¬ 
 tin Martyr; we find the Gospels of Matthew and Mark mentioned 
 in the beginning of the second century by Papias; and to the 
 genuineness of St. Luke’s Gospel we have his own attestation in 
 the Acts of the Apostles. Confining ourselves to this narrow 
 mode of proof, we arrive at what in a common case would be a 
 satisfactory conclusion. But, when we endeavor to strengthen 
 this evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to apostolical 
 fathers, we in fact weaken its force. At the very extremity of 
 the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are 
 attaching defective links which will bear no weight. 
 
 o o 
 
 * See before, p. 549. 
 
APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 569 
 
 But the direct historical evidence for the genuineness of the 
 Gospels, as it has been the purpose of this volume to show, is of 
 a very different kind from what we have just been considering. 
 It consists in the indisputable fact, that, throughout a community 
 of millions of individuals, scattered over Europe, Asia, and 
 Africa, the Gospels were regarded with the highest reverence as 
 the works of those to whom they are ascribed, at so early a 
 period that there could be no difficulty in determining whether 
 they were genuine or not, and when every intelligent Christian 
 must have been deeply interested to ascertain the truth. And 
 this fact does not merely involve the testimony of the great body 
 of Christians to the genuineness of the Gospels: it is in itself a 
 phenomenon admitting of no explanation, except that the four 
 Gospels had all been handed down as genuine from the apostolic 
 age, and had everywhere accompanied our religion as it spread 
 through the world. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INDEX I. 
 
 [The dates following fl. are in general taken from Cave.] 
 
 Abbadie, J., quoted, 2. 
 
 Abstinence practised by the Gnostics, 
 221, 224 ff. 
 
 Achamoth, 334, 356. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles, Paley’s com¬ 
 parison of the, with the Epistles 
 of Paul, 90. Their authenticity, 
 90 n. 
 
 Acylinus, 215, 218. 
 
 Adamantius, his “ Dialogue concern¬ 
 ing the Right Faith in God,” 212, 
 213. 
 
 Adelphius, 215, 218. 
 
 A£ons, 174, 202, 207, 208, 216, 220, 
 326, 334. 
 
 Agrippa Castor ( fl. 135), 352. 
 
 Alexander the Paphlagonian (fl. 
 110), 192. 
 
 Alexandrine text of the New Testa¬ 
 ment, 45. 
 
 Aliptes, Hadrian’s use 'of the word, 
 282 n. 
 
 Allegorical interpretation, 294, 305- 
 316, 326. 
 
 Alogi, The, 388. 
 
 Ambrose, Bp. of Milan {fl. 374), 352, 
 362,"459. 
 
 Ananias, translator of “ The Gospel 
 of Nicodemus,” 379 n. 
 
 ’ATrapp?, Meaning of, 82. 
 
 Apocalypse, Authorship of the, 118. 
 Its date, 252. 
 
 Apocryphal gospels, The, 54, 338- 
 391. (For details see “Contents,” 
 pp. xix, xx.) 
 
 Apollonius of Tyana (b. cir. 4 b.c.), 
 192. 
 
 Apostles, The, charged by the Gnos¬ 
 tics with Jewish errors, 333-335. 
 Their discourses chiefly narratives 
 
 of Christ’s life, 510-514. Taught 
 in Greek, 518. Christ’s instruc¬ 
 tions to, 530, 531, 533-535. 
 
 Apostles’ Creed, The, 185. 
 
 “ Apostles, Memoirs by the,” 61, 
 114-117. 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions cited, 554. 
 
 Apostolical Fathers, On the writings 
 ascribed to the, 545-569; whether 
 they afford any evidence of the 
 genuineness of the Gospels, 1-3, 
 142 n., 566-569. 
 
 Aristobulus {fl. 180), 311. 
 
 Aristotle, 270. 
 
 Arnobius {fl. 303) does not cite any 
 book of Scripture, 125. 
 
 Artemon { fl. 210), Heresy of, 41. 
 
 Asceticism, 354-356. Of some of the 
 Gnostics, 221, 224 ff. See also Li¬ 
 centiousness. 
 
 Athenagoras {fl. 177), 124. 
 
 Augustin {fl. 396) quoted, 128. His 
 “ Catalogue of Heresies,” 212. 
 
 Authority as a foundation of belief, 
 239, 240. 
 
 Bardesanes {fl. 172), 214 n. 
 
 Barnabas {fl. 34), What is known 
 concerning, 157, 517 n., 556. The 
 Epistle ascribed to, 3, 553-560. 
 The Gospel ascribed to, 369. 
 
 Bartholomew, The Gospel of, 390. 
 
 Basil of Caesarea {fl. 370), the first 
 to propound the Catholic doctrine 
 of tradition, 331 n. 
 
 Basilides {fl. 112), 405. A disciple 
 of Glaucias, 204, 328. Wrote a 
 commentary on the Gospels, 352, 
 394. 
 
572 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Basilidians, 174, 220. Mentioned by 
 Justin, 205, 206. Few in number, 
 221. Their morals, 228. The 
 Gospel said to be used by the, 
 351-353. 
 
 Baur, F. C., his “ Christian Gnosis ” 
 criticised, 180-182 n. 
 
 Beausobre, I. de, on Simon Magus, 
 193 n. Quoted, 278. 
 
 Belief and credit distinguished, 384. 
 
 Bengel, J. A.,, quoted, 453 n. 
 
 Bentley, R., Extract, on various 
 readings, from his “ Remarks on 
 Free-thinking,” 418 n. 
 
 Boanerges, the name, mentioned by 
 Justin, 118. 
 
 Bolingbroke, Lord, on the Apostolic 
 Fathers, 2. 
 
 Bury, A., his Naked Gospel, 344. 
 
 Cainites, 277, 284, 348-350. 
 
 Caius, the Roman presbyter ( JI . 
 210), on Cerinthus, 197, 198. 
 
 Calvin, J., quoted, 321 n. On re¬ 
 nouncing human reason, 335, 336. 
 
 Calvinism, 321. 
 
 Capernaum, Different accounts of 
 the cure of the leper at, 521, 522. 
 
 Carpocratians, 220. Account of the, 
 267-276. Improperly classed with 
 the Gnostics, 268, 277. Their 
 morals, 229, 271-276. 
 
 Cassianus, Julius ( Ji . 174), on celib¬ 
 acy, 355. 
 
 Catholic Church, Errors of the, 321. 
 
 'Its theory' of tradition, 331 n. Its 
 claim to infallibility, 335. 
 
 Celsus {fl. 150?), 314. Quoted, 9, 
 215. Misquoted by Eichhorn, 63. 
 Account of his Avork against Chris¬ 
 tianity, 78-81. Calls the Simonians 
 a Christian sect, 194, 195. Also 
 the Opliians, 287, 288. Opposes 
 allegorical interpretation, 311. 
 
 Cerdo, 220. 
 
 Cerinthus (fl.' 80), The gospel used 
 by, 6, 61, 62, 198, 387-389. His 
 doctrines, 196-200. Not conspic¬ 
 uous, 198-200. 
 
 Cerinthians, 220. 
 
 Chauncy, C., his “ Complete View 
 of Episcopacy,” 562 n. 
 
 Christ, Consistency in the Gospel 
 representation of, 53, 54. Called 
 a magician, 126. Born in a cave, 
 127. Justin’s account of his bap¬ 
 tism, 128, 129. A maker of 
 
 ploughs and yokes, 127. Sayings 
 attributed to him not recorded in 
 Gospels, 130, 131, 354-356. Dis¬ 
 tinguished from the man Jesus, by 
 Cermthus, 196, 199, 200; and by 
 other Gnostics, 290, 291; St. John 
 does not allude to this doctrine, 
 202. The Carpocratian doctrine 
 concerning, 270, 271. His differ¬ 
 ent knowledge as God and as man, 
 334. His brothers, 365, 371, 432. 
 Gospels of the Infancy of, 374- 
 384. His descent into Hell, 380 n. 
 Date of his death, 382 n. Geneal¬ 
 ogies of, 432, 433. His wonder¬ 
 ful character, 406, 407, 409. The 
 first three Gospels relate chiefly 
 to his ministry in Galilee, 516 n. 
 
 Christianity, Present state of belief 
 in, 149. Contrasted Avith Pagan 
 philosophy, 164 ff. Not derived 
 from any previous system, 168. 
 Divinity of, 248. 
 
 Christians, The early, their number 
 in the lid century, 28-31. (The 
 early heretics not included under 
 this term, 35 n.) Their reverence 
 for the Scriptures, 35-41, 58. Di¬ 
 vided into Jewish and Gentile, 
 51, 107, 108. Are all Avitnesses to 
 the genuineness of the Gospels, 
 83-85; their means and motives 
 for determining it, 85-87. Their 
 intellectual and moral character, 
 88, 89, 102. Their faith in Christi¬ 
 anity identical Avith their belief in 
 the Gospel, 91-93. Their condi¬ 
 tion betAveen the death of St. John 
 and the time of Justin, 138. Their 
 belief influenced by their circum¬ 
 stances, 167, 168. The earliest 
 con\ T erts had few opportunities for 
 getting correct notions of Christi¬ 
 anity, 243. False teachers among, 
 244-252. Not continuously per¬ 
 secuted, 256. See also Fathers, 
 Gnostics, Heretics, JeAvish Chris¬ 
 tians. 
 
 Chrysostom ( fl . 398), 459. A hom¬ 
 ily ascribed to, quoted, 382 n. 
 Rejects the miracles of the Infancy, 
 378. 
 
 Church, No unh'ersal, before the 
 Hid century, 24, 25. 
 
 Cicero’s Epistles to Atticus, 146. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria (JI . 192), 
 210, 213. His account of the 
 words spoken at Christ’s baptism, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 573 
 
 6,128. Date of his death, 7. Gives 
 various readings of Matt. v. 10; 
 9, 65. His reverence for the Scrip¬ 
 tures, 39. On certain paraphrases 
 of the Gospels, 65, 66. Evidences 
 of the genuineness of the Gospels 
 afforded by him, 77, 78. On the 
 source of the Gospels of Mark and 
 Luke, 78, 498. His inaccuracy in 
 quotation, 120. Sayings ascribed 
 to Christ by, 130, 131. Quoted, 
 185. Does not mention Dositheus, 
 196 n.; nor Cerinthus, 198; nor 
 the Clementine Homilies, 298; 
 nor the Epistles ascribed to' Igna¬ 
 tius, 562; nor any gospel of Basi- 
 lides, 351; but quotes his com¬ 
 mentary, 352. On Valentinus and 
 Marcion, 204, 227; the followers 
 of Prodicus, 216; the Basilidians, 
 228; the morals of the heretics, 
 224, 231, 232, 275; the Nicolaitans, 
 253; martyrdom, 258; the Carpo- 
 cratians, 268-273; the Ophians, 
 284, 286, 288. His use of uXXrj- 
 ■yopeio, 306. States that the Gnos¬ 
 tics claimed Matthias as a leader, 
 328. On secret tradition, 329. 
 On the pretensions of the Gnostics, 
 333, 335. On the Gospel accord¬ 
 ing to the Egyptians, 353-357. 
 An interpolation in, 359 n. His 
 “ Hypotvposes ” quoted, 360, 361. 
 On “The Preaching of Peter,” 
 367. Countenances the doctrine 
 of the virginity of Mary after child¬ 
 birth, 372. Wrongly supposed to 
 recognize Mark xvi. 19 as gen¬ 
 uine, 445 n. Quotes the “ Shep¬ 
 herd of Hennas,” 551. On the 
 Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, 553, 
 554. 
 
 Clement of Rome ( jl . 98 ?), First Epis¬ 
 tle of, 3, 546-548. Second Epis¬ 
 tle falsely ascribed to, 355, 548. 
 Wrongly said to quote Mark xvi. 
 
 * 19, 445 n. 
 
 Clementine Homilies, 367. On the 
 Jewish Law, 186. On Simon Ma¬ 
 gus, 195. Account of the, 298, 299. 
 
 Cneph, 284. 
 
 Collins, Anthony, 417, 418 n. 
 
 Community of goods and women, 
 268, 272, 273. 
 
 Confucius, 268. 
 
 Controversy, Theological, 325. 
 
 Correspondences of the first three 
 Gospels, 463-544. 
 
 Cotelier, J. B., quoted, 565 n. 
 
 Credit and belief distinguished, 384. 
 Credulity of mankind, 383, 384. 
 
 Cud worth. R., criticised, 281 n. 
 Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage {jl- 248), 
 his quotations from the Gospels, 
 125. 
 
 Dailt^, J., quoted, 453 n. On the 
 Epistles of Ignatius, 562 n., 565 n., 
 566. 
 
 Demiurgus, The, 170. 
 
 Diatessaron. See Tatian. 
 
 Dion Cassius, quoted, 107 n. 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria {jl. 247) on 
 Cerinthus, 197, 198. 
 
 Dionysius, Bp. of Corinth { jl. 170), 
 quoted, 8. Denounces the cor- 
 ruptors of the Scriptures, 38, 62. 
 Quotes the First Epistle of Clem¬ 
 ent of Rome, 547, 548. 
 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, inaccu¬ 
 rate in quotation, 121. 
 
 Divorce sanctioned by the Pharisees, 
 537. 
 
 Docetas, 202, 214 n., 363. The name 
 defined,171. 
 
 “Doctrina Orientalis,” 208 n., 221, 
 394. Quoted, 356. 
 
 Doctrines, Origin of false, 162, 165, 
 167. 
 
 Dositheus, a pretended Messiah, 196. 
 
 Ebion, 197 n. 
 
 Ebionites, or Jewish Christians, 108, 
 184, 213, 388. The Gospel of the, 
 6, 9, 155-159, 427-430, 436. See 
 also Jewish Christians. 
 
 Egvpt, Pseudo-Christians in, 282. 
 Allegorical meaning of, 313. 
 
 Egyptian worship impure, 276. 
 Egyptian pantheism, 279. Egyp¬ 
 tian mythology confused, 281. 
 
 “Egvptians, The Gospel according 
 to “the,” 77, 354-358, 548. 
 
 Eichhorn, J. G., 115 n. Denies that 
 the Apostolic Fathers and Justin 
 Martyr used our Gospels, 2, 5, 60. 
 His theory of the origin of the Gos¬ 
 pels, 5-9, 488-491; refuted, 24-27, 
 60-67, 491-510. His inconsisten¬ 
 cy, 52, 53, 66. On Tatian’s Diates¬ 
 saron, 386. An oversight of, 388 
 n. On the Apostolical Fathers, 
 545, 567. His use of Clement’s 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 
574 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 548. On the Epistle of Barnabas, 
 560. On the Ignatian Epistles, 
 566. 
 
 Encratites, 224, 225, 386, 387 n. 
 
 Ephesus, Books of magic burnt in, 33. 
 
 Epiphanes (Jl. 137), his work “ Con¬ 
 cerning Justice,” 268, 269. His 
 doctrines, 272. Taught promis¬ 
 cuous intercourse of the sexes, 272, 
 273, 275. 
 
 Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis (Jl. 368), 
 212, 213. Quotes the Gospel of 
 the Ebionites, 6, 436. His account 
 of the Ebionites inaccurate, 156. 
 His story about St. John and 
 Ebion, 197 n. His blunders about 
 Cerinthus, 199, 200. His extracts 
 from writings of certain Valentin- 
 ians, 207, 210. His character as 
 an author, 211, 278. His use of 
 the term “Gnostics” as a specific 
 name, 276-279. On “The Gospel 
 of Eve,” 279-283; “of Perfec¬ 
 tion,” 345; “of Judas,” 349; “of 
 Cerinthus,” 387-389. “ The Egyp¬ 
 tian Gospel,” 356. His errors 
 about the Ophians, 283, 288. Does 
 not mention a gospel of Basil ides, 
 351. On the miracles of the In¬ 
 fancy, 378. On the “Acts of Pi¬ 
 late,” 381 n., 382 n. On the use 
 of the Gospel of Matthew by the 
 Ebionites and Nazarenes, 427, 428. 
 On the genuineness of Luke xxii. 
 43, 44; 455, 456. 
 
 Eternal Gospel, The, 344. 
 
 Eusebius of Caesarea (Jl. 315), 213, 
 425. The first to mention Tatian’s 
 Gospel, 32. His mention of Jus¬ 
 tin, 135. Quotes Papias, 139. His 
 ignorance about the Gnostics, 277. 
 On Agrippa Castor, 352. His ac¬ 
 count of Serapion’s tract on “ The 
 Gospel according to Peter,” 362. 
 His mention of that Gospel, 365; of 
 other apocryphal gospels, 351, 366. 
 On the “Acts of Pilate,” 381 n. 
 On the use of the Gospel of Mat¬ 
 thew by Symmachus, 427 n. On 
 the genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20; 
 445, 446. On Mark’s preaching at 
 Alexandria, 449. On the Epistles 
 of Clement, 547, 548. On the 
 “ Shepherd of Hernias,” 552. On 
 Barnabas, 554. On the Ignatian 
 Epistles, 562 n., 564. 
 
 Eusebius of Emesa (Jl. 341), 213. 
 
 Eutychians, 214 n. 
 
 Eve, The Gospel of, 279-283, 345. 
 Evil, Gnosticism an attempt to ex 
 plain the existence of, 187. 
 
 Fabricius, J. A., Account of his 
 “ Codex Apocryphus Novi Testa- 
 menti,” 341 n. 
 
 Fathers of the Church, The, inaccu¬ 
 rate in quotation, 119-121. The 
 earlier and later Fathers should be 
 distinguished, 210. 
 
 Faustus, the Manichaean, 8. 
 
 Felix, Minutius, (Jl. 220) affords no 
 evidence for the Gospels, 125. 
 
 Folly, The history of, might be more 
 instructive than our Histories of 
 Philosophy, 337. 
 
 Gennesaret, Different dates as¬ 
 signed in the Gospels to the voyage 
 to, 520, 521. 
 
 Gentile Christians, Feelings of, to¬ 
 wards the Jewish Christians, 108. 
 
 Genuineness of books, Ancient want 
 of curiosity as to the, 554. 
 
 German philosophy, 182 n. 
 
 Gibbon, E., on the population of the 
 Roman Empire, 28. On the Gnos¬ 
 tics, 161, 180. Follows Jerome in 
 a misstatement, 203 n. 
 
 Gibson, E., Bp., Third letter of, 2. 
 
 Gieseler, J. C. L., 546. 
 
 Glaucias, 204, 328. 
 
 “ Gnomologia,” 490, 508, 509. 
 
 Gnostics, 160-413. For details see 
 the “ Contents,” pp. xii.-xviii. 
 
 Gospel, rd evayyeAiov, Use of the 
 word, 64, 82 n., 116, 136, 279, 343, 
 344. 
 
 “Gospel according to the Twelve 
 Apostles, The,” 369 n. 
 
 “ Gospel of Perfection. The,” 345. 
 
 “ Gospel of the Infancy, The,” 22. 
 
 Gospels, The number of copies of the, 
 used iri the lid century, 31-33; 
 their cost, 31. The order in which 
 the}’ were written, 78, 82. Their 
 literary style, 109. Read in the 
 churches on the Lord’s day, 116, 
 133, 136. 
 
 For further details see the “ Con¬ 
 tents,” pp vii.-xxi. See also Eich- 
 horn, and “Original Gospel.” 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzus (Jl. 370) on 
 the decline of the Gnostics, 220. 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa (Jl. 370), 445. 
 
INDEX 
 
 575 
 
 Gregory of Tours ( Jl . 573), 380 n., 
 381 n. 
 
 Griesbach, J. J., 202 n. An extrava¬ 
 gant assertion of, 45 n. His edition 
 of the New Testament, 421. List 
 of various readings in Matt, i.-viii., 
 422—425. On Mark xvi. 9-20; 444. 
 
 Grotius, H., quoted, 519 n. 
 
 Hahn, August, 341 n. 
 
 Harpocras, a mistake for Carpocrates, 
 390 n. 
 
 “ Hebrews, The Gospel of the,” 6. 
 According to Eiclihorn derived 
 from the “ Original Gospel,” 61; 
 but really the Hebrew original of 
 Matthew, 61, 156, 340, 427-430, 
 436. Not Tatian’s Diatessaron, 
 387. 
 
 Hegelianism, 180, 181 n. 
 
 Helena and Simon Magus, 190-195. 
 
 Hell, The Harrowing of, 380 n. 
 
 Hellenistic Greek the language of the 
 Gospels, 50-52, 109. 
 
 Hellenists, 518. 
 
 Heracleon, Commentary of, on John, 
 208, 209, 394. Quoted, 227. On 
 martyrdom, 258. 
 
 Heretics, How the Gospels were re¬ 
 ceived by the, 155 ff. The term 
 defined by Origen, 173; equivalent 
 to “ Gnostics,” 185. 
 
 Hernias ( Jl . dr. 150), The “Shep¬ 
 herd” of, 3, 550-553. 
 
 Hermogenes (n. 170) on Evil, 186. 
 
 Hierocles (Jl. 302), 192. 
 
 Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers (Jl. 354), 128. 
 Quoted, 455. 
 
 Hippolvtus, Bp. of Ostia (Jl. 220), 
 458/ 
 
 Homer, 110. 
 
 Hypostatize, Use of the term, 174 n. 
 
 Idolatry, 233-235. 
 
 Ignatius (Jl. 101), The Epistles as¬ 
 cribed to, 3, 203 n., 550, 560-566. 
 
 Illumination, Spiritual. See Reason. 
 
 Interpolations, how detected, 52. In ' 
 the Gospels, 16-19, 35, 36, 48, 49, 
 431-462; their origin, 18. What 
 evidence is necessary to prove the 
 genuineness of a passage, 452-454. 
 
 Interpretation of the Scriptures, Ra¬ 
 tional principles of, neglected, 324, 
 325. See also Allegorical interpre¬ 
 tation. ! 
 
 Intuition. See Reason. 
 
 Irenseus (Jl. 180 a.d., 1, 34), 213. 
 The first to speak of the four Gos¬ 
 pels, 7. On the general reception 
 of the Gospels, 34; his testimony 
 to their genuineness, 39, 71-74; his 
 account of their publication, 72, 
 498; of their characteristics, 73. 
 Quotes Papias, 130. On the Gnos¬ 
 tics, 172-395, passim. On the Mar- 
 cosians, 175, 376; the Valentinians, 
 185, 204, 206, 207, 226; their Gos¬ 
 pel, 346-348, 350, 351. Derives 
 the Gnostics from Simon Magus, 
 189, 193-195. Does not mention 
 Dositheus, 196 n. On Cerinthus, 
 196-200; the Marcionites, 209, 393; 
 the Basilidians, 221, 228; the unity 
 of the church, 222; the Encratites, 
 225; the fees accepted by the Gnos¬ 
 tics for teaching their doctrines, 
 247; the Gnostic avoidance of mar¬ 
 tyrdom, 257; the Carpocratians, 
 268-277; the Gnostic aversion to 
 the Law of Moses, 294. Does not 
 notice the Clementine Homilies, 
 298. On the Ophians, 283-289. 
 His allegorical interpretations, 306 
 n. On the types in the Old Tes¬ 
 tament, 310; secret oral tradition, 
 328-334; the Gospel of Judas, 348- 
 350; the Gnostic perversions of 
 Scripture, 395; the Hebrew origi¬ 
 nal of Matthew, 425, 427. Quotes 
 Luke xxii. 43, 44; 456. On the 
 Epistle of Clement to the Corin¬ 
 thians, 547. On Polycarp, 549. 
 Quotes “ The Shepherd of Her¬ 
 nias,” 551. Does not mention the 
 Epistle of Barnabas, 558; nor the 
 Ignatian Epistles, 562. 
 
 Isidore, the Gnostic (Jl. 135), 228. 
 
 Isis, What is symbolized by, 280. 
 In inscriptions, 280, 281 n. 
 
 Isocrates, quoted inaccurately by 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 121. 
 
 James the Less, The Protevangelion 
 ascribed to, 370-374. 
 
 Jerome, St. (fl. 378), on books as¬ 
 cribed to Simon, 193 n. A mis¬ 
 statement of, 203 n. His opinion 
 of Origen, 312. The translation of 
 the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary 
 ascribed to, 374. On the Hebrew 
 i original of Matthew, 425, 428. On 
 
576 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Symmachus. 427. On the genu¬ 
 ineness of Mark xvi. 9-20; 445: 
 of Luke xxii. 43, 44; 455. On the 
 Epistle of Barnabas, 554. Gives 
 the words of Ignatius at his mar- 
 
 o 
 
 tvrdom, 563 n. Other citations, 
 352, 356, 362, 365, 369. 
 
 Jesus, The man, distinguished from 
 the iEon Christ by Cerinthus, 196, 
 199, 200. St. John does not ad¬ 
 vert to this doctrine, 202. See also 
 Christ. 
 
 Jews, Proselytes of the, 107 n. Their 
 law and history a stumbling-block 
 to Gentile Christians, 188. Gnos¬ 
 ticism as a separation of Christi¬ 
 anity from Judaism, 294. Their 
 national blindness, 532, 538. Their 
 false notions of the Messiah, 536. 
 “ The Law,” 537. Their condition, 
 70-138 a.d., 558, 559. 
 
 Jewish Christians, Their early sepa¬ 
 ration from the Gentile Christians, 
 51, 108, 157, 234-236. Called 
 Ebionites, 108. Used the Hebrew 
 original of Matthew, 108, 425-430. 
 Cerinthus said by Epiphanius to 
 be their leader, 199. Did not recog¬ 
 nize St. Paul as an Apostle, 369 n. 
 Their doctrines, 426. See also 
 Ebionites. 
 
 John the Baptist, 134. 
 
 John the Evangelist, supposed by 
 Justin to be the author of the Apoc¬ 
 alypse, 118. Spent his last days 
 among the Gentiles, 157. Sur¬ 
 vived the other Apostles, 158. 
 And Cerinthus, 197. A Gospel of 
 the Infancy ascribed to, 376. 
 
 John, the Gospel of, Interpolations 
 in, 17, 458-462. Its style, 50. 
 Mentioned and characterized by 
 Irenoeus, 72, 73. Composed last, 
 78, 82. Origen on a disagree¬ 
 ment between it and the other Gos¬ 
 pels, 103. Used by Justin, 134. 
 Does not allude to the Gnostics, 
 202. Its genuineness, 408. Its 
 character, 516 n. 
 
 John the Presbyter, quoted, 139. 
 
 Jones, Jeremiah, “The Canonical 
 Authority of the New Testament,” 
 by, criticised, 341 n. 
 
 Josephus perhaps mentions Simon 
 Magus, 191. The interpolated men¬ 
 tion of Jesus in, 453. 
 
 Judaism. See Jews. 
 
 Judas, The Gospel of, 345, 349-350. 
 
 Jude, The Epistle of, not genuine, 
 
 201, 250. 
 
 Justin Martyr (Jl . cir. 150 a d., 1 , 5), 
 213. His mention of the Gospels, 
 3-5, 37. The “ Memoirs by the 
 Apostles,” 4, 6, 9, 457; said by 
 Eichhorn to be derived from the 
 “Original Gospel,” 61; were the 
 “ Gospels” of Irenaeus, 137. Evi¬ 
 dence of the genuineness of the 
 Gospels derived from his writings, 
 112-137. Sketch of, 113. The 
 order of his “ Apologies ” inverted, 
 115 n. His inaccuracy in quota¬ 
 tion, 121-123. Gives accounts con¬ 
 cerning Christ not to be found in 
 the Gospels, 125-130. His account 
 of Simon Magus, 190, 193. On 
 Cerinthus, 199. On the Gnostics, 
 205, 206. On eating idol-sacri¬ 
 fices, 232. Calls the God of the 
 Old Testament the Logos, 300,301. 
 His allegorical interpretations of 
 the Old Testament, 306 n., 309. 
 Does not mention a secret tradition, 
 329. Refers to the Acts of Pilate, 
 381 n. Does not recognize Mark 
 xvi. 9-20 as genuine, 445 n. 
 
 Justinian, Code of, 220. 
 
 Juvencus (Jl. 330), 128. 
 
 Kaye, J., Bishop, on Clement’s view 
 of Gnosis and tradition, 331 n. 
 
 Lactantius (Jl. 303), on the style 
 of the Scriptures, 109. On (Jy- 
 prian, 125. Does not speak of the 
 Gospels, 125. The words spoken 
 at Christ’s baptism, 128. On the 
 obstinate belief of the Pagans, 240 
 n. On “ The Preaching of Peter,” 
 367. 
 
 Lardner, N., quoted, 3. On the 
 Apostolical Fathers, 545, 546. On 
 Hermas, 552 n. 
 
 Larroque, M., 562 n. 
 
 Latimer, H. “ Though I cannot ar¬ 
 gue for my religion, I can die for 
 it,” 259. 
 
 Law, Christ’s use of the word, 537. 
 
 Le Clerc, J., on allegorical interpre¬ 
 tation, 306 n., 307 n. 
 
 Leper at Capernaum, Different ac¬ 
 counts of the cure of the, 521, 522. 
 
 Less, G., on the testimony of the 
 Apostolic Fathers to the books of 
 the New Testament, 3. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 577 
 
 Letter and spirit, 314 n., 335, 336. 
 
 Liberty, Christian, what‘it is, 236, 
 237. How to be attained, 237, 238. 
 The doctrine perverted, 238^-239. 
 
 Licentiousness of the Gnostics, 208 
 n., 225-229, 233, 234, 272. Ac¬ 
 counted a religious duty, 273-276. 
 
 Locke, J., misrepresented by Weg- 
 scheider and others, 178. 
 
 Logos, 134. Represented as the God 
 of the Old Testament, 300-303. 
 Justin Martyr’s reference to the, 
 300. Tertullian’s account of the, 
 301-303. The eternal Logos dis¬ 
 tinguished from the incarnate by 
 Clement, 361. 
 
 Longinus, Various readings in the 
 “Treatise on the Sublime’’ of, 
 419 n. 
 
 Lucan, The followers of, charged 
 with altering the Gospel-history, 
 64. 
 
 Lucian of Samosata, 192. 
 
 Lucretius, Various readings in, 419 n. 
 
 Luke, the Evangelist, 517. The au¬ 
 thor of the Acts, 90 n. Not a Gen¬ 
 tile, 107 n. On Barnabas, 556. 
 
 Luke, the Gospel of, Interpolations 
 in, 17, 48, 49, 449-458. Marcion 
 used a mutilated copy of, 62, 337, 
 345. Tertullian on the genuine¬ 
 ness of, 40, 76. Records the gospel 
 preached by Paul, 72, 102. Char¬ 
 acterized by Irenseus, 73. Praised 
 by St. Paul, 82. Discrepancies 
 between it and Matthew, 104. 
 Luke’s testimony to its genuine¬ 
 ness, 139. Its account of the Na¬ 
 tivity compared with Matthew’s, 
 432-436. The proportion of pas¬ 
 sages coincident with the other 
 Gospels, 464. Differs from Mat¬ 
 thew and agrees with Mark in the 
 order of events, 470-473. Not 
 copied from Matthew, 475-488; 
 nor from an “ Original Gospel,” 
 488-510. Explanation of its cor¬ 
 respondences with the other Gos¬ 
 pels, 510-524. Date of its compo¬ 
 sition, 525. Illustration of, from 
 the circumstances of its composi¬ 
 tion, 528-542. 
 
 Magi, The story of the, criticised, 
 435. Description of the star, quo¬ 
 ted from an Ignatian epistle, 565 n. 
 Manes, 214 n. 
 
 Manichaeans, The, 219. The Gospel 
 used by, 344. 
 
 Manilius. Various readings in, 419 n. 
 
 Manuscripts, Alterations in, 8, 23, 
 24, 62. How many MSS. of the 
 Gospel have been examined, 19. 
 
 Marcion (Ji. 130), 363, 398, 405. Ac¬ 
 counts of, 204, 205, 209, 210, 294. 
 IIis objections to the Old Testa¬ 
 ment answered by Tertullian, 303, 
 304. Rejected allegorical inter¬ 
 pretation, 310, 316. His “Anti¬ 
 theses,” 325. On the Jewish 
 errors of the Apostles, 332, 333. 
 A poem against, quoted, 552. 
 
 Marcion, The Gospel of, 6. Was a 
 mutilated copv of Luke, 40, 42, 
 62, 64, 209, 210, 332, 340, 345, 392, 
 393, 401, 405. Derived by Eich- 
 horn from the “ Original Gospel,” 
 61. Contained in Thilo’s “ Codex 
 Apocryphus,” 341 n. 
 
 Marcionites, The, 184. Their doc¬ 
 trines, 170-174. Mentioned by 
 Justin, 205, 206. Their number, 
 214 n., 219-222. Their asceticism, 
 221,224, 225. Courted martyrdom, 
 258. Used Luke and ten-Epistles 
 of Paul, 337; and no apocryphal 
 Gospels, 343. Their contempt for 
 Judaism, 401, 450. Do not quote 
 the interpolation in Luke ix. 55, 
 56; 452. 
 
 Marcosians, The, 376, 378. Irenseus 
 on,175 n. 
 
 Marginal readings often introduced 
 into the text by copyists, 18, 453 n. 
 
 Mark, the Evangelist, 157, 517 n. 
 
 Mark, The Gospel of, said to be cited 
 by the Apostolic Fathers, 2. In¬ 
 terpolation in, 17, 443-449. Found¬ 
 ed on the narrative of Peter, 37, 
 72, 78, 82, 102, 118, 139, 448, 449. 
 Its character, 48, 73,134, 479. The 
 proportion of passages coincident 
 with the other Gospels, 464. Dif¬ 
 fers from Matthew and agrees with 
 Luke in the order of events, 470- 
 473. Not copied from Matthew 
 and Luke, 475-488; nor from an 
 “Original Gospel,” 488-510. Ex¬ 
 planation of its correspondences 
 with the other Gospels, 510-524. 
 Date of its composition, 525. Its 
 arrangement, 529. 
 
 Marsh, H., Bishop, 115 n., 519 n. 
 Quoted, 3, 4. His theory of the 
 origin of the Gospels, 60, 488 ff. 
 
 37 
 
578 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Martyrdom avoided by the Gnostics, 
 256-259; but not by the Marcion- 
 ites, 258. Tertullian on, 259-261, 
 263. Origen on, 261, 262. 
 
 Mary, Gospels of the Nativity of, 
 370-374. A virgin after child¬ 
 birth, 372. 
 
 Massuet, R., quoted, 199 n. 
 
 Matter, J., on the Gnostics, 180. 
 
 Matthew, the Evangelist, The “ Gos¬ 
 pel of the Nativity of Mary” as¬ 
 cribed to, 374; also a Gospel of 
 the Infancy, 376. 
 
 Matthew, The Gospel of, said to be 
 cited by the Apostolic Fathers, 2. 
 Originally written in Hebrew, 15, 
 56, 72, 82, 108, 139, 156, 425-430, 
 519, 525. Interpolations in, 16, 
 17, 48, 56, 431-442. Testimony of 
 Papias to, 37. Characterized by 
 Iremeus, 73. Written before the 
 other Gospels, 78. Discrepances 
 between it and Luke, 104. The 
 Hebrew original used by the 
 Jewish Christians, 108, 425-430. 
 Justin’s agreement with, in cita¬ 
 tions from the Old Testament, 132 
 n. Resembles Luke, 140. LLed 
 in part by the Cerinthians, 387- 
 389. List of various readings in 
 ch. i.-viii. of, 422-425. The pro¬ 
 portion of passages coincident with 
 the other Gospels, 464. In the 
 order of events Mark and Luke 
 differ from, more than from each 
 other, 470-473, 520, 528, 529. The 
 supposition that they copied from 
 him, 475-488; that all copied from 
 an Original Gospel, 488-510. Ex¬ 
 planation of the correspondences, 
 510-524. 
 
 Matthias, the Apostle, claimed as a 
 leader by the Gnostics, 328. The 
 Gospel according t >, 360-362. 
 
 “Memoirs by the Apostles, The.” 
 See Justin. 
 
 Menander the successor of Simon 
 Magus, The doctrines of, 196. 
 
 Merinthus, 388, 389. 
 
 Methodius ( Jl . 290), 128. 
 
 Michaelis. J. I)., 60. 
 
 Mill, J., his edition of the New Tes¬ 
 tament, 417. 
 
 Millennium, The, 197,198. Quotation 
 from Papias about, 130. 
 
 Minutius lulix. See Felix. 
 
 Miracles, 147-151, 322 
 
 “Money clangers, Be good,” 130. 
 
 Monophysite heresy, 456. 
 
 Montanists. 260. 
 
 Mosheim, J. L. von, his notes to Cud- 
 worth, 281 n. 
 
 MuraWri, L. A., Quotation from a 
 Canon discovered by, 552, 553. 
 
 Nazarf.nes, 427, 428. 
 
 Neander, J. A. W., 546. 
 
 New Testament, Genuineness of the 
 books of the, 89-91. Allegorically 
 interpreted by the theosophicGnos¬ 
 tics, 326. See also Gospels, Vari¬ 
 ous readings. 
 
 Nicodeinus, The Gospel of, 379 — 
 383 n. 
 
 Nicola'ifans, 277 n., 349. Means fol¬ 
 lowers of Balaam in the Apoca¬ 
 lypse, 252; afterwards supposed to 
 be a Gnostic sect, 253. 
 
 Noimus, 458. 
 
 Old Testament, The, reverenced 
 by the early Christians, 37, 38; who 
 adopted Jewish notions concerning 
 it, 317-319. Aversion of the Gen¬ 
 tiles to, 188. Views of the Gnos¬ 
 tics on, 294-298, 316, 317; of the 
 Fathers, 298-306, 309-315 ; of Phi¬ 
 lo, 307. 
 
 Olshausen, FI., on the Apostolical 
 Fathers, 516. 
 
 Onesimus, A Gospel of the Infancy 
 ascribed to, 376. 
 
 Ophians, The, 277. Their doctrines, 
 283-287. Origen’s account of, 283. 
 287, 288; its disagreement from 
 that of Irenseus, 289-293 
 
 Oral tradition, 98, 99, 328-334. 
 
 Origen {jl. 230), 210, 213, 215. On 
 the general use of the Gospels, 32. 
 His reverence f r the Scriptures, 
 41. On the various readings in 
 the Gospels, 43-47. Sketch of, 
 81. On the discrepances between 
 the Gospels, 103. On the style of 
 the Scriptures, 109. His accuracy 
 in quotation, 120. ■ On the cave of 
 the Nativity, 127. Sayings as- 
 . cribed to Christ by, 130, 131. Un¬ 
 like Tertullian. 186. His definition 
 of a heretic, 173. On the Simo- 
 nians, 194, 195, 208. On Dosi- 
 theus, 196. Does not name Cerin- 
 thus, 198. On Heracleon, 208. Not 
 the author of “ A Dialogue on the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 579 
 
 Right Faith in God,*’ 212. On the 
 morals of the Gnostics, 225. On 
 martyrdom, 261, 262. On the 
 Opliians, 283, 286-291. On allegor¬ 
 ical interpretation, 294, 311-315; a 
 specimen of his interpretation, 305 
 n. On the Gnostics’ rejection of 
 Judaism, 295. The Homilies on 
 Luke ascribed to, 365, 3T4; quoted 
 on the Gospel of the Basilidians, 
 351-353. On “The Gospel ac¬ 
 cording to Peter,” 365; the Pro- 
 tevangelion of James, 370, 371; 
 the Hebrew original of Matthew, 
 425. Does not quote Mark xvi. 
 9-20; 445: nor Luke xxii. 43, 44; 
 455. On the “Shepherd of Her¬ 
 nias,” 551; and the Epistle of Bar¬ 
 nabas, 553. Quotes Ignatius, 562. 
 
 “Original Gospel,” The! according to 
 Eiclihorn’s theory, 5-9, 60-63, 488- 
 510. 
 
 Orobio, I., quoted, 389. 
 
 Osiris, What is symbolized by, 280. 
 
 Paganism, how believed, 240 n. 
 Impurities of, 276. 
 
 Palev, W., on Justin Martyr, 3. 
 His “ Horae Paulinae,” 90. On the 
 Apostolical Fathers, 545. 
 
 “ Pallavicini, The New Gospel of 
 Cardinal,” 344. 
 
 Pantheism, 279, 280. 
 
 Papias ( Ji . 110 V), mentions the Gos¬ 
 pels of Matthew and Mark, 36, 
 37, 139, 497; the Hebrew original 
 of Matthew, 57, 425. Quoted by 
 Irenseus, 130. 
 
 Paraphrases of the Gospels, 66. 
 
 Patriarch, 282 n. 
 
 Paul the Apostle, 157, 204, 550 m., 
 556. Testimony of the Apostolic 
 Fathers to the genuineness of his 
 Epistles, 3. Paley’s comparison 
 of his Epistles with the Acts of the 
 Aposties, 90. The genuineness of 
 three Epistles disputed, 90. Does 
 not allude to the Gnostics, 201. 
 His opponents, 245-250. Called 
 the Apostle of the Heretics, 332; 
 yet' charged by the Gnbstics with 
 Jewish errors, 333. Ten Epistles 
 used by the Marcionites, 337. 
 Not recognized as an Apostle by 
 the Hebrew Christians, 369 n. 
 How qualified to be an Apostle, 
 517 n. 
 
 Pearson, .T., Bishop, 562 n., 565 n. 
 
 Persecutions of the early Christians 
 not continuous, 256. See also Mar¬ 
 tyrdom. 
 
 Peter, the Apostle, 157, 204, 517 n. 
 The Gospel of Mark founded on 
 his oral narrative. — See Mark. 
 His rebuke of Simon Magus, 193. 
 The Second Epistle of, spurious, 
 201, 250. In the Clementine Hom¬ 
 ilies, 299: in the Second Epistle 
 of Clement, 548. “ I he Preach¬ 
 
 ing of Peter,” 367. Serapion’s ac¬ 
 count of the Gospel according to, 
 362-366. 
 
 Pharisees, The, sanction divorce, 537. 
 Christ’s denunciations against, 
 539-541. 
 
 Philaster, Bishop of Brescia {JI. 380), 
 on heresies, 212. 
 
 ilo ( Ji. 40), his allegorical inter¬ 
 pretations, 306-309, 311, 313. 
 
 Philosophy, Pagan, contrasted with 
 Christianity, 164 ft*. Modern, 166. 
 
 Phoenicians, 2*4. 
 
 Photius (A. 858), 135, 361, 547. 
 
 “ Pilate, The Acts of,” 380-383 n. 
 
 Pius, Bishop of Rome (d . 142), 
 552. 
 
 Plato, 169, 177, 182, 216, 268, 275, 
 360, 367. Quoted by Justin, 122. 
 His doctrine of pre-existence, 270. 
 Impurity in, 273. Various read¬ 
 ings in, 419 n. 
 
 Platonists, The later, 160, 166, 184, 
 192, 268, 269, 271, 273. Their re¬ 
 semblance to some German meta¬ 
 physicians. 182 n. 
 
 Plautus, Number of the various read¬ 
 ings in, 419 n. 
 
 Pleroma, 170, 174, 196, 290, 297, 327, 
 334. 
 
 Pliny on the number of the Chris¬ 
 tians, 28. 
 
 Plotinus {JI. 260), a theurgist, 192. 
 On the Gnostics, 215-218. 
 
 Plutarch quoted. 280. 
 
 Polvcarp {Ji. 108 ?), his Epistle to the 
 Philippians, 3; to the Corinthians, 
 549. A disciple of St. John, 87. 
 The story about St. John and Ce- 
 rinthus, 197. His supposed men¬ 
 tion of the Epistles of Ignatius, 
 562. 
 
 Porphyry ( JI . 270) on the Gnostics, 
 215, 216. On licentiousness and 
 abstinence, 230. 
 
 Porson, R., quoted, 453 n. 
 
580 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Postel, G., An apocryphal gospel 
 discovered by, 370-374. 
 
 Pre-existence, 270, 273. 
 
 Prices of books in the lid century, 
 31 n. 
 
 Priestley, J., classed by Hahn among 
 Atheists, 178. On the Apostolical 
 Fathers, 546. 
 
 Proclus (a. 485), 280 n. Atheurgist, 
 192. 
 
 Prodicus (fl. 190), Licentious doc¬ 
 trines of, 208 n., 216, 228. 
 
 Proselytes, Jewish, 107 n. 
 
 UpcjToyevvrjiua, Meaning of, 82 n. 
 
 Ptolemy the Valentinian (_/?. 140), 
 his letter to Flora, 207. His opin¬ 
 ion of the Jewish law, 221, 296- 
 298. His teaching, 227, 394. His 
 inconsistency, 297 n. 
 
 Pythagoras, 2/0. 
 
 Quotation, Ancient writers inac¬ 
 curate in, 119-121. 
 
 Rabbis, 130, 514. 
 
 Randolph, J., Bishop, 60 n. 
 
 Rapin, R., his “ Gospel of the Jansen- 
 ists,” 344. 
 
 Reason and intuition, or spiritual 
 illumination, as sources of religious 
 knowledge, 241, 290, 323, 335, 336. 
 
 Received Text of the New Testa¬ 
 ment, The, characterized, 421. 
 
 Revelation, The Book of, ascribed by 
 Justin to St. John, 118; by Caius 
 to Cerinthus, 197. 
 
 Revolutions in religion usually ac¬ 
 companied by excesses, 242. 
 
 Rufinus ( ji . 390), 427. 
 
 Sabbath, 134. 
 
 Sais, 280 n. 
 
 Same, Divine honors paid to Epi- 
 phanes in, 269. 
 
 Saturnilians, 206. 
 
 Scioppius, C., quoted, 344. 
 
 Scythianus, 344 n. 
 
 Sender, J. S., on the Apostolical 
 Fathers, 546. 
 
 Septuagint, The, quoted by the 
 Evangelists, 466. 
 
 Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (^.190), 
 on the “ Gospel according to Pe¬ 
 ter,” 362-366. 
 
 Serpent, The, how regarded by the 
 
 Ophians, 283-286. A symbol of 
 the beneficent power in nature, 
 
 284. 
 
 Seth regarded as the progenitor of 
 the spiritual among men, 174 n., 
 
 288. 
 
 Sethians, The, not a sect, 174 n., 
 288. 
 
 Sike, H., 374. 
 
 Simon Magus (Acts viii. 9-24), 189- 
 195, 299. 
 
 Simonians, 220. 
 
 Sophia the mother of the Creator, 
 
 285. 
 
 Spirit, The, and the letter. See 
 Letter. 
 
 Spiritual illumination. See Reason. 
 Stoics, 165. 
 
 Strauss, D. F., on the miracles, 149. 
 Quotes the apocryphal gospels, 
 379 n. 
 
 Stroth, F. A., on “ The Memoirs by 
 • the Apostles,” 4. Dissertation by, 
 115. 
 
 Suetonius, quoted, 559. 
 Swedenborgianism, 322. 
 
 Symmachus the Ebionite ( ft. 201), 
 427. 
 
 Talmud, The, cited, 486 n. 
 
 Tatian ( jft . 172), The Diatessnron of, 
 6, 32, 61, 62, 124, 386, 394; two 
 hundred copies found in use by 
 Theodoret, 32; said not to be de¬ 
 rived from the Gospels now extant, 
 .61. Does not mention the Gospels 
 by name, 124. Of the school of 
 Valentinus, 227. 
 
 , Tennemann, W. G., quoted, 182 n. 
 
 Terence, Twenty thousand various 
 readings in, 418. 
 
 Tertullian ( jft . 200), 337, 343. On the 
 number of the Christians, 29. His 
 testimony to the genuineness of the 
 Gospels, 40. On the Gnostics, 172, 
 175, 183-185, 294. Wrote against 
 Hermogenes, 186; and Praxeas, 
 187. Unlike Origen, 186. Be¬ 
 comes a Montanist, 187. On the 
 Simonians, 195. On heresies, 196 
 n., 210. Does not name Cerinthus, 
 198. On the Valentinians, 207. 
 On the Marcionites, 209, 210; and 
 their morals, 225. His “Antidote 
 against Scorpions,” 257, 259. His 
 treatise “ConcerningFlight in Per¬ 
 secution,” 259. On the immoral- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 581 
 
 ity of the Carpocratians, 274, 275. 
 Does not notice the Ophians, 288; 
 nor the Clementine Homilies, 298. 
 On the Gnostic distinction of Jesus 
 and Christ, 290. Regards the Logos 
 as the God of the Old Testament, 
 301-303. On “the foolish things 
 of the world,” 304 His allegorical 
 interpretations of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment, 306 n., 310,311. On tradition, 
 329. On St. Paul, 332. On the 
 Gnostic disregard of the Apostles, 
 333. Mentions no apocryphal gos¬ 
 pel, 345, 350. Denies the virginity 
 of Mary after childbirth, 372. Re¬ 
 fers to the Acts of Pilate, 381 n. 
 On the Marcionites, 393, 396, 452. 
 On the use of the Gospels by here¬ 
 tics, 404. Analysis of his “ De 
 Prsescriptione Haereticorum,” 397- 
 400. Does not quote Luke xxii. 
 43, 44; 455. Refers to the descent 
 of the angel at the pool of Bethes 
 da, 459. On the sources of the 
 Gospels of Mark and Luke, 498. 
 On the Shepherd of Hernias, 551. 
 Does not mention the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, 558; nor of Ignatius, 
 562. 
 
 Tertullian, The Addition to, on the 
 Ophians, 283, 286. On the Gospel 
 of Valentinus, 346-348. 
 
 Tethians a misreading for Sethians, 
 174. 
 
 Thebes, 110 
 
 Theodas, 204, 328. 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 220 n., 
 44£ n. Destroys two hundred 
 copies of Tatian’s Diatessaron, 32, 
 33, 386. On the Gnostics, 174, 
 213, 214. On the Ophians, 283, 
 286. On the Gospel of Judas, 349. 
 Mentions no gospel of the Basi- 
 lidians, 351. 
 
 Theodotus ( Jl. 192), 208 n., 221. 
 
 Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch ( jl . 
 168), quotes the Gospels, 74, 124. 
 
 Theophylact ( jl . 1077), 356. 
 
 Therapeutae, their allegorical inter¬ 
 pretations, 308. 
 
 Theurgy, 192. 
 
 Thilo, J. C., his “ Codex Apocryphus 
 Novi Testament!,” 341 n. 
 
 Thomas, The Gospel according to, 
 374, 379. 
 
 Thucydides, 146. 
 
 Tibullus, Various readings in, 419 n 
 
 Titus Bostrensis, 356. 
 
 Tradition, A secret, its need asserted 
 by the Gnostics, 327, 328. De¬ 
 fended by Clement, 329-331. Ori¬ 
 gin of the theory of, 330. 
 
 “Traditions, The,” 360-362. 
 
 Transcription of MSS., Errors arising 
 in, 44, 429, 450-452, 456. 
 
 Trent, The Catechism of the Couucil 
 of, quoted, 372 n. 
 
 Typhon, What is symbolized by, 280. 
 
 Valentinians, The, 220, 228, 257. 
 Charged with altering the G< spel 
 liistorv, 64. Their doctrines, 170- 
 175, 204-209, 226, 227. Their at¬ 
 tempts to make converts, 185. Ac¬ 
 count of, 206-209. Divided man¬ 
 kind into three classes, 221. Their 
 view of the Old Testament, 316. 
 Used no apociyphal gospels, 343. 
 The gospel ascribed to, by Irenams, 
 346-348, 350. 
 
 Valentinus (jl. 120), 202, 209 n., 214 
 n., 328, 398, 402-405. Quoted, 227. 
 
 Various readings of the New Testa¬ 
 ment, their character and impor¬ 
 tance, 417-425. 
 
 Vopiscus quoted, 282. 
 
 Wake, W., Archbp., his “Apostolical 
 Fathers” criticised, 546 n. 
 Wetstein, J. J.. quoted, 450 n. 
 Whitby, D., 417. 
 
 Xavier, J., his history of Christ, 391 
 n. 
 
 Xenophon, quoted by Justin, 122. 
 
 Zoroaster, Works ascribed to, 215 
 n., 216, 218. 
 
INDEX II 
 
 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED OR CITED. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 Gen. ix. 4. . . 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Matt. viii. 1-5 . 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 ... 471 
 
 xvii. 12,14 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 312 
 
 1-4 . 
 
 
 
 ... 470 
 
 Exod. xv. 23-27 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 305 
 
 14-16 
 
 
 
 . 504, 505 
 
 Lev. vi. 24-30 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 312 
 
 16-ix. 26 
 
 
 ... 470 
 
 xi 14 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 312 
 
 16, 18 
 
 
 
 ... 471 
 
 xvii. 10-13 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 235 
 
 ix. 1-8 . 
 
 
 
 . . 467-469 
 
 xxiii. 10-20 
 
 • • • 
 
 82 
 
 1 . . 
 
 
 
 ... 471 
 
 Num. xviii. 12, 13 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 82 
 
 9-17 . 
 
 
 
 . . 482-484 
 
 Deut. xiv. 13 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 312 
 
 x. . . . 
 
 
 
 ... 471 
 
 xviii. 4 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 82 
 
 24 . . 
 
 
 
 . . . 534 
 
 1 Sam. xv. 11 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 295 
 
 26-28 . 
 
 
 
 . . . 530 
 
 xvi. 14 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 295 
 
 xi. 12 . . 
 
 
 
 . . . 536 
 
 2 Kings i. 10-14 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 451 
 
 27 . . 
 
 
 
 ... 136 
 
 Ps. ci. 8 ... . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 315 
 
 • xii. 22-37 
 
 
 
 . 472, 538 
 
 cxxxvii. 8, 9 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 315 
 
 33 . . 
 
 
 
 ... 534 
 
 Prov. iv. 25, 26 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 75 
 
 34, 35 
 
 
 
 • • • 53o 
 
 Isa. xxiv. 16 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 359 
 
 38 . . 
 
 
 
 ... 538 
 
 xxvii. 1 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 309 
 
 40 . 
 
 
 
 17, 442, 443 
 
 xlv. 7 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 295 
 
 43-45 
 
 
 
 ... 538 
 
 Jer. xv. 14 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 295 
 
 46-50 
 
 
 
 . 472, 507 
 
 . . . 521 
 
 Ezek. xx. 11, 25 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 314 
 
 xiii. 1. 53 
 54-58 
 
 
 
 Amos iii. 6 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 295 
 
 
 
 ... 472 
 
 ]\Iic. i. 12 . . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 295 
 
 xv. 14 . . 
 
 
 
 ... 534 
 
 Zech. xi. 12, 13 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 440 
 
 xvii. 14-21 
 
 
 
 . . 479-482 
 
 xiii. 7 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 466 
 
 xviii. 23-35 
 
 
 
 . . . 533 
 
 Matt, i.-viii. . . 
 
 
 422-425 
 
 xix. 4-8 . 
 
 
 
 ... 296 
 
 i., ii. . . 
 
 16, 79, 
 
 431-437 
 
 19 . 
 
 
 
 . . 41, 44 
 
 i. 1-17 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 80 
 
 xxi. 18 ff. 
 
 
 
 ... 476 
 
 i. 1 . . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 73 
 
 xxiii. 13-39 
 
 
 
 ... 539 
 
 iii. 15 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 129 
 
 xxiv. 1-51 
 
 
 
 . . . 529 
 
 iv. 18-20 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 471 
 
 10-12 
 
 
 
 ... 249 
 
 V. 8 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 227 
 
 xxv. 14-30 
 
 
 
 ... 529 
 
 10 . . 
 
 
 . 9, 65 
 
 xx vi. 31 . 
 
 
 
 ... 466 
 
 17,18 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 242 
 
 xxvii. 3-10 
 
 
 
 17, 437-441 
 
 19,20 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 243 
 
 52-53 
 
 
 
 17, 441, 442 
 
 23-26 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 531 
 
 xxviii. 2 . 
 
 
 
 ... 80 
 
 25 . . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 274 
 
 Mark i 1-3 . . 
 
 
 
 ... 73 
 
 28, 32 . 
 
 • • • 
 
 . 75 
 
 11 . . 
 
 
 
 . . . 6 
 
 vi. 13 . . 
 
 • * • 
 
 . 48 
 
 16-18 . 
 
 
 
 ... 471 
 
 vii. 3-5, 16-18 . . . 
 
 . 534 
 
 29-34 . 
 
 
 
 . 504,505 
 
INDEX. 583 
 
 Page Page 
 
 Mark i. 40-45 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 470 
 
 Luke xii. 1-5 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 # # 
 
 531 
 
 ii. 1-22 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 470 
 
 24, 27 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 79 
 
 1 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 471 
 
 xii. 35-48 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 529 
 
 1-12 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 467-469 
 
 56, 59 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 # , 
 
 532 
 
 14-22 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 482-484 
 
 xiii. 6-9 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • \ 
 
 477 
 
 iii. 11, 23-30 . 
 
 • 
 
 . . 472 
 
 22 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 472 
 
 16, 17 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 118 
 
 31, 32 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 472 
 
 31-35 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 472, 5Q7 
 
 34, 35 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 , # 
 
 540 
 
 iv. 1-32 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 521 
 
 xvi. 1—18 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 , , 
 
 535 
 
 21, 22 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 530 
 
 xvii. 11 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 472 
 
 35-v. 43 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 470 
 
 22-37 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 529 
 
 35 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 471, 477 
 
 xviii. 12 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 486 
 
 vi. 1-6 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 472 
 
 xix. 11-27 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • a 
 
 529 
 
 3 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . 79, 127 
 
 xxi. 5-36 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 529 
 
 vii. 3-9 . 
 
 
 
 . . 296 
 
 end . 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 48 
 
 ix. 14-29 . 
 
 
 
 479-482 
 
 xxii. 43, 44 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 17 
 
 , 454- 
 
 -458 
 
 x. 50 . . 
 
 
 
 . . 41 
 
 44 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 # # 
 
 118 
 
 xi. 12-14, 2C 
 
 *ff. * 
 
 • 
 
 . . 477 
 
 xxiv. 4 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 . # 
 
 80 
 
 xiii. 3 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 529 
 
 Jolin i. 1-3 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 . 73 
 
 , 75 
 
 xiv. 27 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 466 
 
 14,20 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • • 
 
 134 
 
 xvi. 5 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . . 80 
 
 iii. 3, 4 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 135 
 
 9-20 
 
 • • 
 
 17, 443-449 
 
 28 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 # , 
 
 134 
 
 Luke i. 1-4 . . 
 
 
 • 
 
 497, 512 
 
 v. 3, 4 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 17 
 
 , 458- 
 
 -460 
 
 1 . . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 351, 388 
 
 17 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • . 
 
 135 
 
 5—ii. 52 . 
 
 
 • 
 
 . . ' 49 
 
 vii. 53-viii. 
 
 11 
 
 • 
 
 
 460, 
 
 461 
 
 9 . . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 73 
 
 xii. 17, 18 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 , . 
 
 516 
 
 31, 32 . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . 115 
 
 xiii. 16 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • , 
 
 534 
 
 ii. 7 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . . 127 
 
 xv. 20 . . 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • . 
 
 534 
 
 39 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . . 434 
 
 xx. 12, 27 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 « • 
 
 80 
 
 iii. 22 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . . 128 
 
 xxi. 10, 11 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • a 
 
 516 
 
 23-38 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 80, 432 ff. 
 
 24, 25 
 
 • 
 
 
 17 
 
 , 461, 
 
 462 
 
 iv. 16-30 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 472 
 
 Acts i. 18, 19 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 439 
 
 38-41 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 504, 505 
 
 26 . . . 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • . 
 
 32S 
 
 V. 1-11 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 471 
 
 iv. 36 . . 
 
 • 
 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 517 
 
 12-15 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 470 
 
 vi. 1 if., 9 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 # • 
 
 518 
 
 12 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 471, 522 
 
 5 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • # 
 
 253 
 
 16, 17 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 471 
 
 viii. 9-24 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 • . 
 
 190 
 
 17-39 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 470 
 
 ix. 29 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 518 
 
 17-26 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 467-469 
 
 xiii. 33 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 # # 
 
 128 
 
 17 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 517 
 
 xv. 1 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 199 
 
 27-39 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 482-484 
 
 7 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 234 
 
 vi. 12-49 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 471 
 
 10 . ' . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • . 
 
 236 
 
 39-45 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 534 
 
 28, 29 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 230, 
 
 234 
 
 viii. 4-21 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 521 
 
 xix 19 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 33 
 
 16-18 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 531 
 
 xxi. 20, 21 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 156, 
 
 426 
 
 19-21 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 472, 507 
 
 xxii. 2 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 a . 
 
 518 
 
 22-56 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 470 
 
 Rom. iv. 5 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 « # 
 
 238 
 
 22 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 471 
 
 vi. 1 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 , , 
 
 239 
 
 ix. 16 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . . 464 
 
 viii. 14, 15 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 237 
 
 37-43 . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 479-482 
 
 21 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 236 
 
 51, 52 . 
 
 • • 
 
 
 . . 472 
 
 xvi 14 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 551 
 
 65, 56 . 
 
 • • 
 
 18, 449-454 
 
 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 304 
 
 x. 22 . . 
 
 * • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 303 
 
 ii. 6 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 328 
 
 38 . . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 472 
 
 14 . . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 323 
 
 xi. 14-23 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 472 
 
 viii. 1 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 235 
 
 24-26 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 539 
 
 4, 10 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 234 
 
 29, 30 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 443 
 
 7 . 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 233 
 
 37-52 . 
 
 • • 
 
 • 
 
 . . 540 
 
 x. 7, 8 , 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • • 
 
 233 
 
584 
 
 INDEX 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 1 Cor. x. 20, 21 . . 
 
 ... 234 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 3-10 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 247 
 
 xv. 12 ... 
 
 
 2 Tim. ii. 14-23 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 250 
 
 2 Cor. 
 
 ... 244 
 
 iii. 1-9 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 249 
 
 ii. IT ... . 
 
 ... 245 
 
 iv. 11 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 90 
 
 iii. 6 . . . . 
 
 
 Titus i. 10, 11 . 
 Philem. 24 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 246 
 
 17 ... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90 
 
 xi. 7, 12, 20-22 
 
 . . . 246 
 
 Heb. i. 5 . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 128 
 
 13, 15 . . 
 
 ... 245 
 
 v. 5 . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 128 
 
 Gal. i. 18. 
 
 ... 517 
 
 James ii. 14 fr. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 239 
 
 iii. 3 .... 
 
 ... 237 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 16 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 239 
 
 iv. 3-9 .... 
 
 
 v. 13 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 82 
 
 v. 1. 
 
 ... 236 
 
 2 Pet. ii. 1, 12, 13, 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 251 
 
 4, 13, 19-21 . 
 
 . . . 238 
 
 3, 15 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 252 
 
 19 .... 
 
 . 238, 314 
 
 1 John i. 1-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 512 
 
 Eph. i. 23 .... 
 
 ... 174 
 
 1 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 360 
 
 iii. 19 ... . 
 
 ... 174 
 
 ii. 19, 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 203 
 
 Phil. iv. 3 .... 
 
 ... 548 
 
 iv. 2, 3 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 # 
 
 202 
 
 Col. i. 19. 
 
 ... 174 
 
 v. 7 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 23, 
 
 421 
 
 ii. 9. 
 
 ... 174 
 
 Jude 4, 10, 12, 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 251 
 
 iv. 11 .... 
 
 .. . . 107 
 
 11 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 252, 
 
 349 
 
 14 .... 
 
 1 Tim. iii. 16 . . . 
 
 ... 90 
 
 . . . 165 
 
 Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 252 
 
 THE END. 
 
 
 Cambridge: Press of John Wilson & Son. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I t- 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .