CHAPTER X.ASCENDING THE STREAM.

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

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

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

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

[1]Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 187, Tischendorf, p. 43.[2]Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, etc., Part II. c. 1; Wright, p. 187.[3]Wright, pp. 188, 189, Tischendorf, p. 35.[4]Stowe’s Origin, etc., p. 176.[5]Origin, etc., p. 35; Wright, p. 189.

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

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

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

[4]Stowe’s Origin, etc., p. 176.

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

Back to Index Next