CHAPTER XI.STILL ASCENDING THE STREAM.

The evidence thus far has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the writing of Justin’s First Apology, the Canonical Gospels were read with the Prophets in city and country, on “the day called Sunday,” as authentic Memoirs of our Lord. Assuming the date[1]of this Apology to have been A.D. 138 or 139, the time was a little over one hundred years from the Crucifixion, and less than eighty years from the death of Mark and Luke, and all the Apostles other than John, and only forty years from his death. How long were these periods as they affect the argument from the universal reception of the Gospels in Justin’s time, and from the universal tradition in their favor which accompanied such reception? The writer has within two days (in April, 1881) met with three persons who saw Lafayette on his visit to New England in 1824. One of them distinctly remembers the sentiment[2]which Lafayette gave at Concord, and another shook hands with him. There were hundreds of Revolutionary soldiers present, some of whom the General recognized and called by name, although he had not seen their faces for more than forty years. This was in 1824. Whittier’s poem describes one of these soldiers, as he now remembers him, at the time of Monroe’s tour in 1817,sixty-four years ago:

“Once a soldier, blame him not,That the Quaker he forgot,When to think of battles won,And the red coats on the run,Laughed aloud Friend Morrison.”

“Once a soldier, blame him not,

That the Quaker he forgot,

When to think of battles won,

And the red coats on the run,

Laughed aloud Friend Morrison.”

And throughout the country there are thousands now living[A]who well knew men who were in active life during the War of the Revolution. In theGranite Monthlyfor December, 1880, was published the Diary of Rev. Timothy Walker of Concord, for the year 1780, and there were earlier Diaries kept by him which have been preserved by his descendants. The Diary of Matthew Patten of Bedford, from 1750 to 1790, is in the custody of Charles H. Woodbury, Esq., of New York. The Congregational church at Concord, of which Timothy Walker was the first pastor, November, 1880, celebrated its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. There are several towns in New Hampshire, as Londonderry, Dover, Exeter and Portsmouth, that were settled earlier than Concord; and some of them as early as 1623. The landing of the Pilgrims wastwo hundred and sixty years ago. It seems but as yesterday. A century from the Crucifixion was no longer than a century now; and as an event, to be remembered, the Crucifixion was as much greater than the Landing of the Pilgrims as the glory of the noonday sun is above that of the feeblest star in the most distant heavens. The time that has elapsed since Timothy Walker wrote Diaries which are now in existence is as long as from the Crucifixion to Justin’s Apology; more than thirty years longer than from the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to Justin’s Apology; and sixty years longer than from John’s death to Justin’s Apology. The churches in Justin’s time were not dealing with writings from a dim and misty past, or of limited or infrequent use. None were as ancient as Walker’s Diary; the last had not seen half its years; they were in all the churches, and read every Sabbath day. The argument which provesthat there was no substitution between 140 and 180 is as much more forcible to prove that there was no substitution between the years 100 and 140, or between the years 60 and 100, as those times were nearer the great events which the Gospels recorded. If, for example, there were accepted Memoirs of our Lord in the churches in the year 100, from the presumedcontinuanceof a state of things the existence of which has been proved,[3]it should bepresumedthat they remained in the churches till Justin’s time, there being no evidence to the contrary. And so there would be the same (or greater) difficulties in the way of displacement and substitution, between the year 100 and the year 140, as between the year 140 and the year 180. Justin and his contemporaries had from their own recollection,[4]or from others, whether parents, teachers, presbyters or bishops, as great facilities for knowing what Memoirs were accepted in the churches forty years before, as had Irenæus and his contemporaries in respect to the period of forty years before one hundred and eighty. And there was a succession and continued life in the churches from 100 to 140, the same as from 140 to 180. This reasoning is applicable to Clement and his contemporaries, and shows that Memoirs which were in the churches in the year 100 could not have displaced accepted and generally received Memoirs of any previous period. We know from the Epistle of Clement, as clearly as from Justin’s Apology, how Christians loved and adored their Divine Lord and Master, and how strongly attached they must have been to any Memoirs of him, which they accepted as authentic. And the testimony of Pliny is, that Christians in his day were accustomed to meet before daybreak and sing a responsive hymn to Christ as God. It is utterly incredible that accepted Memoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by presbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman Empire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences of it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of displacementand substitution, it ismorally certain there was none. John’s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came in not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the first century.Who daredto forge a spurious Gospel in his name, so soon after his death that it had obtained such a footing in the churches, at the end of forty years, as to be quoted as his production?Who, during that period, wascapableof composing it? And how were hundreds of presbyters or bishops, and churches, from Syria to Gaul, persuaded to receive a spurious Gospel, as the genuine work of the beloved disciple who was in life within the personal[4]recollections of many? It is a fact to be emphasized, that neither this Gospel, nor the others, can be assailed on historical or traditional grounds.There is but one history or traditionconcerning them. The objections to them are either negative or speculative, mere assumptions, not supported by any history or tradition.

The firstuseof the four Gospels of which there is any history, is in statements of facts found to be recorded in them, and in quotations of teachings of Christ, corresponding with them. The firstdescriptionof them after Papias, is that of “Memoirs” of Christ, “drawn up” by Apostles and companions of Apostles. The first mention of themby the names of the writers, ascribes their authorship to the men whose names they now bear. There is no history or tradition of a time when the first Gospel was ascribed to any but Matthew, or the second to any but Mark, or the fourth to any but John[5], or the third, with Acts, to any but Luke. The standing objection that none of them is mentionedby nametill the time of Theophilus, and Irenæus, and the writer of the Muratori Canon, is not of the slightest consequence as opposing evidence. For, if these Gospels were not mentioned by name, neither were any[6]others; and surely we are not expected to believe that there wereno originals, from which the many quotations, from Clement of Rome, in the year 97, down, were taken. This objection proves too much. For it proves, if itproves anything, that there werenoGospels or writings to answer to the quotations, which, under the circumstances, is a palpable absurdity. Besides, it is not true in respect to the First and Second Gospels, for Papias, certainly as early as the middle of the second century, and probably before the year 140, gave thenamesof Matthew and Mark respectively, as their authors, the latter being “the interpreter of Peter.”

[1]Judge Waite controverts the generally received opinion of the date of Justin’s First Apology. Verissimus became Cæsar in 139, but he is not addressed as Cæsar, but as “philosopher.” In reply to this, Mr. Waite says, that the same is true of the Second Apology, “which is admitted by all to have been written after 139.” In the first place, there is considerable uncertainty which of the Apologies was first written, and some critics maintain that what is called the Second was a preface to the First, and others still that it was a continuation of the First. (See introductory notice to Vol. II. of the A. N. C. L.) In the second place, the address to Urbicus in the so-called Second Apology, was not byJustin. He only gives it as the language ofone Lucius, in narrating an occurrence which, for aught that appears, may have taken place before the year 139. Mr. Waite also says that Justin would be but twenty-five years of age in 139. He might have written his Apology in 139, nevertheless. And there are many who put his birth earlier than the year 114, and some as early as the year 85. There are no certain data by which to determine the time of his birth. Again he says that Marcion did not come to Rome till about 140, and that Justin (c. 26) refers to him as being “even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some God greater than the Creator.” But Justin meant to express his abhorrence of his doctrines. He refers to him as “a man of Pontus,” and again (in c. 58) as “Marcion of Pontus,” and says the devils put him forward. He nowhere describes him as beingofRome oratRome. In his extensive travels he doubtless knew of him while he was at Pontus. Judge Waite also says that, if in the year 139, Justin would have said that Christ was born 140 years ago, instead of 150. But correcting the error for the beginning of our Era, the time would have been A.D. 146, or 144, as we allow four or six years for the error, and Justin, using round numbers, would more naturally have taken the longer period. There is nothing therefore in Judge Waite’s arguments to change the opinion in what he concedes to be “the very valuable Encyclopedia of McClintock and Strong,” and of Page, Neander, Lemisch, Roberts and Donaldson, Sears, Fisher, Eusebius, (c. 8) and many others, assigning the year 139. See also Canonicity, by Dr. Charteris (1880) p. lv. It is, however, not essential to the argument from the First Apology, whether it was written in the year 139, or 144, or 146, or even 150 of our Era. By as much as it lengthens the period from the death of John to the date of the First Apology, it shortens the time between that date and the year 180.[2]“The memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.”[A]Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at the house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of Oswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who called he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to the addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for years after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of age, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday he wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered with vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at that time but in his 8th year. SeeCongregationalist, Jan. 25, 1882.[3]See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8.[4]Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or seventy years of age, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood.[5]Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called the Alogi, or men “without understanding,” there is no allusion to the denial of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before the latter part of the fourth century.[6]As to the controverted reference in Justin’s Apology to “Memoirs of Him,” seec. 4, andc. 7, note 14. That, if correctly interpreted by Judge Waite, could only have been Mark’s Gospel.

[2]“The memories of Light Infantry Poor and Yorktown Scammel.”

[A]Rev. Simeon Parmelee, D.D., celebrated his one hundredth birthday at the house of his son-in-law Hon. E. J. Hamilton, ex-mayor of the city of Oswego, N. Y., Jan. 16, 1882. His intellect was clear, and to those who called he had an ever ready response, and replied happily and wittily to the addresses. He had been in the ministry from 1808 to 1869, and, for years after, preached occasionally. His eldest daughter is 72 years of age, and his descendants now living, number 53. Upon his 90th birthday he wrote a hymn of considerable merit. When 100 years old, he remembered with vivid freshness the Inauguration of George Washington, although at that time but in his 8th year. SeeCongregationalist, Jan. 25, 1882.

[3]See Phillips, Parker, and Greenleaf, as quoted in c. 8.

[4]Justin in his First Apology (c. 15) refers to many of sixty or seventy years of age, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood.

[5]Prof. Fisher (p. 69) says, that besides the few individuals called the Alogi, or men “without understanding,” there is no allusion to the denial of John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel by any writer, before the latter part of the fourth century.

[6]As to the controverted reference in Justin’s Apology to “Memoirs of Him,” seec. 4, andc. 7, note 14. That, if correctly interpreted by Judge Waite, could only have been Mark’s Gospel.

Back to Index Next