(C.) The Atonement.

[177]Gal. 4. 4.

Therefore, man's rank in the universe is not affected by the insignificance of this earth. Where else shall we find a personal being with attributes superior to those of man? Where else indeed shall we find a personal being at all? The only answer Science can give isnowhere. But if so, man's position in the universe is one of unique pre-eminence. And it is this inherent greatness of man, as it has been called, which justifies the Incarnation.He is worthy that Thou should'st do this for him.

Moreover when we consider God the Son as the Divine Person who is speciallyimmanentin nature, and who has been evolving the universe through countless ages from its original matter into higher and higher forms of life, there seems a special fitness in its leading up to such a climax as the Incarnation. For then by becoming Man, He united Himself with matter in its highest and most perfect form. Thus the Incarnation,like the Nebula theory in astronomy, or the process of Evolution, if once accepted, throws a new light on the entire universe; and it has thus a grandeur and impressiveness about it, which to some minds is very attractive. On the whole, then, we decide that the doctrine is certainly not incredible, though it no doubt seems improbable.

We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, which is that Christ's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin, and thus reconciled (or made 'at-one') God the Father and sinful man. And though not actually stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the words,Was crucified also for us, andWho suffered for our salvation.

The chief difficulty is of course on moral grounds. The idea of atonement, it is said, or of one man being made to suffer as a substitute for another, and thus appeasing the Deity, was well-nigh universal in early times, and is so still among savage nations. Such a sacrifice, however, is a great injustice to thevictim; it ascribes an unworthy character to God, as aJudge, Who can be satisfied with the punishment of an innocent man in place of the guilty one; and it has a bad influence on thesinner, allowing him to sin on with impunity, provided he can find another substitute when needed.

The answer to this difficulty is, that it takes no account of the most important part of the Christian doctrine, which is thewillingnessof the Victim. According to Christianity, Christ was a willing Sacrifice,Who freely laid down His life;[178]while the human sacrifices just alluded to were not willing sacrifices, since the victims had no option in the matter. And, as we shall see, this alters the case completely both in regard to the victim himself, the judge, and the sinner.

[178]E.g., John 10. 18.

It is plain that his willingness does away with the injustice altogether. There is no injustice in accepting a volunteer for any painful office, provided he thoroughly knows what he is doing, for he need not undertake it unless he likes. If, on the other hand, we deny the voluntary and sacrificial character of Christ's death, and regard Him as merely a good man, then there certainly was injustice—and very great injustice too, that such a noble life should have ended in such a shameful death.

Next as to the Judge. It will be seen that a willing sacrifice, though it does not satisfy hisjustice, makes a strong appeal to hismercy; at least it would do so in human cases. Suppose for instance a judge had before him a criminal who well deserved to be punished, but a good man, perhaps the judge's own son, came forward, and not only interceded for the prisoner, but was so devotedly attached to him as to offer to bear his punishment (pay his fine, for instance), this would certainly influence the judge in his favour. It would show that he was not so hopelessly bad after all. Mercy and justice are thus both facts of humannature; and it is also a fact of human nature, that the voluntary suffering, or willingness to suffer, of a good man for a criminal whom he deeply loves, does incline man to mercy rather than justice.

Now, have we any reason for thinking that God also combines, in their highest forms, these two attributes of mercy and justice? Certainly we have; for, as shown inChapter V., the goodness of God includes bothbeneficenceandrighteousness; and these general terms, when applied to the case of judging sinners, closely correspond to mercy and justice. God, as we have seen, combines both, and both are required by the Christian doctrine. Mercy alone would have forgiven men without any atonement; justice alone would not have forgiven them at all. But God is both merciful and just, and therefore the idea that voluntary atonement might incline Him to mercy rather than justice does not seem incredible.

And this is precisely the Christian doctrine. The mercy of God the Father is obtained for sinful man by Christ's generous sacrifice of Himself on man's behalf; so that, to put it shortly,God forgives sins for Christ's sake. And it should be noticed, the idea of sins beingforgivenwhich occurs all through the New Testament, and is alluded to in the Apostles' Creed, shows that Christ's Atonement was not that of a mere substitute, for then no forgiveness would have been necessary. If, for example, I owe a man a sum of money, and a friend pays it for me, I do not ask the man to forgive me the debt; I have no need of any forgiveness. But if, instead of payingit, he merely intercedes for me, then the man may forgive me the debt for my friend's sake.

And in this way, though Christ did not, strictly speaking, bear man'spunishment(which would have been eternal separation from God), His sufferings and death may yet have procured man'spardon; He suffered on our behalf, though not in our stead. And some Atonement was certainly necessary to show God'shatred for sin, and to prevent His Character from being misunderstood in this respect. And it probably would have been so, if men had been forgiven without any Atonement, when they might have thought that sin was not such a very serious affair after all.

Lastly, the willingness of the victim affects the sinner also. For if the changed attitude of the judge is due, not to his justice being satisfied, but to his mercy being appealed to, this is plainly conditional on amoral changein the sinner himself. A good man suffering for a criminal would not alter our feelings towards him, if he still chose to remain a criminal. And this exactly agrees with the Christian doctrine, which is that sinners cannot expect to avail themselves of Christ's Atonement if they wilfully continue in sin; so thatrepentanceis a necessary condition of forgiveness. Therefore instead of having a bad influence on the sinners themselves; it has precisely the opposite effect.

And what we should thus expect theoretically has been amply confirmed by experience. No one willdeny that Christians in all ages have been devotedly attached to the doctrine of the Atonement. They have asserted that it is the cause of all their joy in this world, and all their hope for the next. Yet, so far from having had a bad influence, it has led them to the most noble and self-sacrificing lives. It has saved them fromsin, and not only the penalties of sin, and this is exactly what was required. The greatness of man's sin, and the misery it causes in the world, are but too evident, apart from Christianity. Man is indeed both the glory and the scandal of the universe—thegloryin what he was evidently intended to be, and thescandalin what, through sin, he actually became. And the Atonement was a 'vast remedy for this vast evil.' And if we admit theend, that man had to be redeemed from sin, impressed with the guilt of sin, and helped to resist sin; we cannot deny the appropriateness of themeans, which, as a matter of fact, has so often brought it about.

This completes a brief examination of the moral difficulties connected with the Atonement; and it is clear that thewillingnessof the Victim makes the whole difference, whether we regard them as referring to the Victim himself, the Judge, or the sinner.

The last great Christian doctrine is that of the Resurrection. According to Christianity, all men are to rise again, with their bodies partly changed and rendered incorruptible; and the Resurrection of Christ's Body was both a pledge of this, and also to some extent an example of what a risen body would be like.He was thus, as the Bible says, thefirstbornfrom the dead.[179]Now this wordfirstbornimplies, to begin with, that none had been so born before, the cases of Lazarus, etc., being those ofresuscitationand notresurrection; they lived again to die again, and their bodies were unchanged. And it implies, secondly, that others would be so born afterwards, so that our risen bodies will resemble His. The Resurrection of Christ is thus represented not as something altogether exceptional and unique, but rather as the first instance of what will one day be the universal rule. It shows us the last stage in man's long development, what he is intended to become when he is at length perfected. We will therefore consider first Christ's Resurrection, and then man's resurrection.

[179]Col. 1. 18; Rev. 1. 5; 1 Cor. 15. 20; Acts. 26. 23.

Now according to the Gospels, Christ's Risen Body combined material and immaterial properties in a remarkable manner. Thus He could be touched and eat food, and yet apparently pass through closed doors and vanish at pleasure; and this is often thought to be incredible. But strictly speaking it is notincredible; since no material substance (a door or anything else) issolid. There are always spaces between the molecules; so that for one such body to pass through another is no more difficult to imagine, than for one regiment to march through another on parade. And if a regiment contained anything like as many men, as there are molecules in a door, it would probably look just as solid.

Moreover Christ's risen Body, though possessing some material properties, is represented to have beenspiritualas well. And the nearest approach to a spiritual substance of which we have any scientific knowledge is theether, and this also seems to combine material and immaterial properties, being in some respects more like a solid than a gas. Yet it can pass through all material substances; and this certainly prevents us from saying that it is incredible that Christ's spiritual Body should pass through closed doors.

Indeed for all we know, it may be one of the properties of spiritual beings, that they can pass through material substances (just as the X-rays can) and be generally invisible; yet be able, if they wish, to assume some of the properties of matter, such as becoming visible or audible. In fact, unless they were able to do this, it is hard to see how they could manifest themselves at all. And a slight alteration in the waves of light coming from a body would make it visible or not to the human eye. And it is out of the question to say that God—the Omnipotent One—could not produce such a change in a spiritual body. While for such a body to become tangible, or to take food, is not really more wonderful (though it seems so) than for it to become visible or audible; since when once we pass the boundary between the natural and the supernatural everything is mysterious.

It may of course be replied that though all this is not perhaps incredible, it is still most improbable; and no doubt it is. But what then? We have no adequatemeans of judging, for the fact, if true, is, up to the present, unique. It implies anewmode of existence which is neither spiritual nor material, though possessing some of the properties of each, and of which we have no experience whatever. So we are naturally unable to understand it. But assuming the Resurrection of Christ to be otherwise credible, as it certainly is if we admit His Incarnation and Death, we cannot call it incredible, merely because the properties of His risen Body are said to be different from those of ordinary human bodies, and in some respects to resemble those of spirits. It is in fact only what we should expect.

Next as to man's resurrection. The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of thebodymust not be confused with that of the immortality of thespirit, discussed inChapter VI., which is common to many religions, and is certainly not improbable. But two objections may be made to the resurrection of the body.

The first is that it isimpossible, since the human body decomposes after death, and its molecules may afterwards form a part of other bodies; so, if all men were to rise again at the same time, those molecules would have to be in two places at once. But the fallacy here is obvious, for the molecules composing a man's body are continually changing during life, and it is probable that every one of them is changed in a few years; yet the identity of the body is not destroyed. This identity depends not on the identityof the molecules, but on their relative position and numbers so that a man's body in this respect is like a whirlpool in a stream, the water composing which is continually changing, though the whirlpool itself remains. Therefore the resurrection need not be a resurrection ofrelics, as it is sometimes called. No doubt in the case of Christ it was so, and perhaps it will be so in the case of some Christians, only itneednot be so; and this removes at once the apparent impossibility of the doctrine.

Secondly, it may still be objected that the doctrine is extremelyimprobable. And no doubt it seems so. But once more we have no adequate means of judging. Apart from experience, how very unlikely it would be that a seed when buried in the ground should develop into a plant; or that plants and trees, after being apparently dead all through the winter, should blossom again in the spring. Thus everything connected with life is so mysterious that we can decide nothing except by experience. And therefore we cannot say what may, or may not happen in some future state, of which we have no experience whatever. Indeed, if man's spirit is immortal, the fact that it is associated with a body during its life on this earth makes it not unlikely that it will be associated with a body of some kind during its future life. And that this body should be partly spiritual, and so resemble Christ's risen body, is again only what we should expect. Thus, on the whole, the doctrine of the Resurrection is certainly credible.

We have now examined the four great doctrines of Christianity, the others either following directly from these, or not presenting any difficulty. And though, as we have shown, not one of these doctrines can be pronouncedincredible, yet some of them, especially those of the Incarnation and the Atonement, certainly seemimprobable. This must be fully and freely admitted. At the same time, it is only fair to remember that this improbability is distinctly lessened by the three following considerations.

First, in regard to all these doctrines we have noadequatemeans of deciding what is or is not probable. Reason cannot judge where it has nothing to judge by; and apart from Christianity itself, we know next to nothing as to what was God's object in creating man. If, then, these doctrines are true, their truth depends not on reason, but on revelation. All reason can do is to examine most carefully the evidence in favour of the alleged revelation. Of this we should expect it to be able to judge, but not of the doctrines themselves. We are hence in a region where we cannot trust to our own sense of the fitness of things; and therefore the Christian doctrines must not be condemned merely because we think them contrary to our reason. Moreover many thoughtful men (including Agnostics) do not consider them so. Thus the late Professor Huxley once wrote, 'I have not the slightest objection to offera priorito all the propositions of the Three Creeds. The mysteries of theChurch are child's play compared with the mysteries of Nature.'[180]

[180]Quoted with his permission in Bishop Gore's Bampton Lectures, 1891, p. 247, 1898 edition.

And this brings us to the next point, which is that manyotherfacts which are actually true appear equally improbable at first sight; such, for instance, as the existence of the ether, or the growth of plants. Apart from experience, what an overwhelming argument could be made out against such facts as these. Yet they concern subjects which are to a great extent within our comprehension, while Christianity has to do with the nature and character of a God Who is admittedly beyond our comprehension. May not the difficulties in both cases, but especially in regard to the latter, be due to ourignoranceonly? The Christian doctrines, we must remember, do not claim to have been revealed in all their bearings, but only in so far as they concern ourselves.

Thirdly, it should be noticed that, though individually these doctrines may seem improbable, yet, when considered as a whole, as in all fairness they ought to be, there is a complete harmony between them. Their improbability is notcumulative. On the contrary, one often helps to explain the difficulties of another. This has been recognised by most writers, including many who can scarcely be called theologians. Thus the great Napoleon is reported to have said, 'If once the Divine character of Christ is admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision and clearness of algebra; so that we arestruck with admiration at its scientific connection and unity.'[181]

[181]Beauterne, Sentiment de Napoleon 1ersur le Christianisme, new edition, Paris, 1864, p. 110.

In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that we are only now considering thecredibilityof Christianity, and not trying to make out that it appears a probable religion, at first sight, which it plainly does not. Only its improbability is not so extremely great as to make it useless to consider the evidence in its favour. This is especially so when we remember that this improbability must have seemed far greater when Christianity was first preached than it does now, when we are so accustomed to the religion. Yet, as a matter of fact, the evidence in its favour did outweigh every difficulty, and finally convince the civilised world. What this evidence is we proceed to inquire.

(A.) The Undisputed Testimony.End of second century; Irenæus, his evidence of great value.(B.) The almost Undisputed Testimony.(1.) Justin Martyr,A.D.150, refers to some ApostolicMemoirs, which were publicly read among Christians; and his quotations show that these were our Four Gospels.(2.) Tatian, Justin's disciple,A.D.175, wrote the Diatessaron, or harmony of Four Gospels.(3.) Marcion,A.D.140, wrote a Gospel based on St. Luke's.(C.) The Disputed Testimony.(1.) Papias, mentions the first two Gospels by name.(2.) Aristides,A.D.125, alludes to some Gospel as well known.(3.) The Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Twelve, seem to contain references to our Gospels.

(A.) The Undisputed Testimony.

End of second century; Irenæus, his evidence of great value.

(B.) The almost Undisputed Testimony.

(1.) Justin Martyr,A.D.150, refers to some ApostolicMemoirs, which were publicly read among Christians; and his quotations show that these were our Four Gospels.

(2.) Tatian, Justin's disciple,A.D.175, wrote the Diatessaron, or harmony of Four Gospels.

(3.) Marcion,A.D.140, wrote a Gospel based on St. Luke's.

(C.) The Disputed Testimony.

(1.) Papias, mentions the first two Gospels by name.

(2.) Aristides,A.D.125, alludes to some Gospel as well known.

(3.) The Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Twelve, seem to contain references to our Gospels.

Having shown in the last chapter that the Christian Religion iscredible, we have next to consider what evidence there is in its favour. Now that it was founded on the alleged miracles and teaching of Christ, and chiefly on His Resurrection, is admitted by everyone. So we must first examine whether we have any trustworthy testimony as to these events;more especially whether the Four Gospels, which appear to contain such testimony, are genuine. By theFour Gospels, we of course mean those commonly ascribed to SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and by their beinggenuine, we mean that they were written, or compiled by those persons. And we will first consider theexternal testimonyborne by early Christian writers to these Gospels, leavingthe internal evidencefrom the Books themselves for the next chapter.

It may be mentioned at starting that we have no complete manuscripts of the Gospels earlier than the beginning of the fourth century; but there is nothing surprising in this, as for the first two centuries books were generally written onpapyrus, an extremely fragile material. Therefore, with the exception of some fragments preserved in Egypt, all documents of this period have entirely perished. A much better material,vellum, began to take the place of papyrus in the third century; but did not come into common use till the fourth. Moreover, during the persecutions, which occurred at intervals up to the fourth century, all Christianwritingswere specially sought for, and destroyed. So the absence of earlier manuscripts though very unfortunate, is not perhaps unnatural; and it is anyhow no worse than in the case of classical works. I have seen it stated, for instance, that there are no manuscripts of either Cicero, Cæsar, Tacitus, or Josephus, within 800 years of their time.

Passing on now to the testimony of early writers; we need not begin later than the end of the secondcentury; since it is admitted by everyone that our Four Gospels were then well known. They were continually quoted by Christian writers; they were universally ascribed to the authors we now ascribe them to; and they were always considered to be in some sense divinely inspired.

As this is undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence; but one writer deserves to be mentioned, which isIrenæus, Bishop of Lyons. His works date from aboutA.D.185; and he not only quotes the Gospels frequently (about 500 times altogether), but shows there were onlyfourof acknowledged authority. Since the fanciful analogies he gives for this, likening the four Gospels to the four rivers in Paradise, and the four quarters of the globe, render it certain that the fact of there being four, neither more nor less, must have been undisputed in his day.

Moreover he had excellent means of knowing the truth; for he was born in Asia Minor, aboutA.D.130, and brought up under Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. And in later years he tells us how well he remembered his teacher. 'I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse—his going out, too, and his coming in—his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance.'[182]

[182]Irenæus, Fragment of Epistle to Florinus. The translations here and elsewhere are from the Ante-Nicene Christian Library.

The importance of this passage, especially in regard to the Fourth Gospel, can scarcely be exaggerated. For is it conceivable that Irenæus would have ascribed it to St. John, unless his teacher Polycarp had done the same? Or is it conceivable that Polycarp, who personally knew St. John, could have been mistaken in the matter? The difficulties of either alternative are very great; yet there is no other, unless we admit that St. John was the author.

It should also be noticed that Irenæus, when discussing two readings of Rev. 13. 18, supports one of them by saying that it is foundin all the most approved and ancient copies; and was also maintained by menwho saw John face to face.[183]He had thus some idea as to the value of evidence; and he is not likely to have written as he did about the Four Gospels, unless he had seen of them equallyapproved and ancientcopies.

[183]Irenæus, Bk. 5. 30.

We next come to the testimony of some earlier writers, which was formerly much disputed, but is now admitted by nearly all critics.

By far the most important of these isJustin Martyr; whose works—twoApologies(or books written in defence of Christianity) and aDialogue—date from aboutA.D.145-50. He was no ordinary convert, but a philosopher, and says that before he became a Christian, he studied various philosophical systems and found them unsatisfactory; so we may be surethat he did not accept Christianity without making some inquiries as to the facts on which it rested.[184]And as his father and grandfather were natives of Palestine, where he was born, he had ample means of finding out the truth.

[184]Dial., 2.

Now Justin does not allude to any of the Evangelists by name, but he frequently quotes from the 'Memoirs of the Apostles,' which he says were sometimes calledGospels,[185]and were publicly read and explained in the churches, together with the Old Testament Prophets. And he gives no hint that this was a local or recent practice, but implies that it was the universal and well-established custom. These Memoirs, he tells us,[186]were writtenby the Apostles and their followers, which exactly suits our present Gospels, two of which are ascribed to Apostles (St. Matthew and St. John), and the other two to their immediate followers (St. Mark and St. Luke). And as Justin was writing for unbelievers, not Christians, there is nothing strange in his not mentioning the names of the individual writers.

[185]Apol. 1. 66; Dial., 100.

[186]Dial., 103.

He has altogether about sixty quotations from these Memoirs, and they describe precisely those events in the life of Christ; which are recorded in our Gospels, with scarcely any addition. Very few of the quotations however are verbally accurate, and this used to be thought a difficulty. But as Justin sometimes quotes the same passage differently, it is clear that he was relying on his memory; and had not looked up the reference, which in those days of manuscripts, without concordances, must have been a tediousprocess. Also when quoting the Old Testament, he is almost equally inaccurate. Moreover later writers, such as Irenæus, who avowedly quoted from our Gospels, are also inaccurate in small details. It is hence practically certain that Justin was quoting from these Gospels.

And this is strongly confirmed by Justin's disciple,Tatian. He wrote a book aboutA.D.175, discovered last century, called theDiatessaron, which, as its name implies, was a kind of harmony ofFourGospels. It was based chiefly on St. Matthew's, the events peculiar to the others being introduced in various places. And its containing nearly the whole ofSt. John'sGospel is satisfactory; because it so happens that Justin has fewer quotations from that Gospel, than from the other three. We may say then with confidence, that our four Gospels were well known to Christians, and highly valued by them, in the middle of the second century.

Another important witness is Marcion. He wrote (not later thanA.D.140), a kind of Gospel, so similar to St. Luke's that one was evidently based on the other. And though his actual work is lost, Tertullian (aboutA.D.200) quotes it so fully that it is fairly well-known; and that St. Luke's is the earlier is now admitted by critics of all schools. Therefore as Matthew and Mark are generally allowed to be earlier than Luke, this shows that all these Gospels were in circulation beforeA.D.140.

We pass on now to the testimony of still earlier writers, all of which is more or less disputed by some critics.

And first as to Papias. He was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (about a hundred miles from Ephesus) early in the second century; and only a few fragments of his writings have been preserved by Irenæus and Eusebius. We learn from the former that he was a disciple of St. John and a companion of Polycarp; and considering that Irenæus was himself Polycarp's pupil, there is no reason to doubt this.[187]Now Papias tells us himself what were his sources of information: 'If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.'

[187]Irenæus, Bk. 5. 33.

He had thus very good means of knowing the truth, for though the Apostles themselves were dead, two of Christ's disciples (Aristion and the presbyter John) were still alive when he made his inquiries. And he refers to the first two Gospels by name. He says, 'Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best hecould.' And 'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter.'[188]

[188]Eusebius, Hist., iii. 39.

And his testimony in regard toSt. Matthewis specially important, because in the passage just quoted he says that he had spoken to those who had known St. Matthew personally; and had carefully questioned them about what he had said. And this makes it difficult to believe that he should have been mistaken as to his having written the Gospel. Nor is it likely that the work of St. Matthew known to Papias was different from the Gospel which we now have, and which was so frequently quoted by Justin a few years later. Whether Papias was acquainted with the Third and Fourth Gospels cannot be decided for certain, unless his works should be recovered; but there are slight indications that he knew them.

Next as to Aristides. He was a philosopher at Athens, and addressed an Apology to the Emperor, Hadrian, inA.D.125, which was recovered in 1889. He has noquotationfrom the Gospels, but what is equally important, he gives a summary of Christian doctrine, including the Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-Birth, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ; and says that it istaught in the Gospel, where men canreadit for themselves. And this shows that some Gospel,containing this teaching, was then in existence, and easily accessible.

The last group of writers to be examined are those who lived soon after the Apostles. The chief of these arePolycarpof Smyrna, the disciple of St. John, martyred inA.D.155, when he had been a Christian 86 years;Ignatiusof Antioch, also martyred in his old age, aboutA.D.110;Clementof Rome, perhaps the companion of St. Paul;[189]and the writers of the so-calledEpistle of Barnabas, andTeaching of the Twelve Apostles. Their dates are not known for certain, but it is now generally admitted by rationalists as well as Christians that they all wrote beforeA.D.120, and probably before 110. Thus theEncyclopædia Biblica(articleGospels) dates their works, Polycarp 110; Ignatius (7 Epistles) before 110; Barnabas, probably before 100; Clement 95; Teaching 80-100.

[189]Phil. 4. 3.

Now none of these writers mention the Gospels byname; but this is no argument to show that they were not quoting them, because the same writers, when admittedly quoting St. Paul's Epistles, also do it at times, without in any way referring to him. And later Christian writers do precisely the same; the Gospels are often not quoted by name, but their language is continually employed, much as it is by preachers at the present day. If, then, we find in these writers passages similar to those in our Gospels, the inference is that they are quoting from them; and, as a matter of fact, we do find such passages, thoughthey are not numerous. A single example may be given from each.

Polycarp.'But being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching; Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; and once more, Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'[190]

[190]Polycarp, ch. ii.; Luke 6. 36-38; Matt. 5. 3, 10.

Ignatius.'For I know that after His Resurrection also, He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit."'[191]

[191]Ignatius to Smyrnæans, ch. iii.; Luke 24. 39.

Barnabas.'Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, Many are called, but few are chosen.'[192]

[192]Barnabas, ch. iv.; Matt. 22. 14.

Clement.'Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said, Woe to that man! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about (his neck), and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones.'[193]

[193]Clement, ch. xlvi.; Luke 17. 1. 2.

Teaching.'Having said beforehand all these things,baptize ye in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in living water.'[194]

[194]Teaching, ch. vii.; Matt. 28. 19.

The passage from Barnabas deserves special mention, since here we have words which only occur in our Gospels, introduced with the phraseas it is written, which is only used of Scripture quotations. And this shows conclusively that at the time of the writer, some Gospel containing these words must have been well known, and considered of high authority. And the attempts to explain it away as being from the Book of Esdras,[195]where the words are, 'There be many created, but few shall be saved;' or else as an error on the part of the writer, who thought they came somewhere in the Old Testament, are quite inadmissible.

[195]2 Esdr. 8. 3.

But it may be said, may not all these quotations be from someLost Gospel? Of course they may. It is always possible to refer quotations not to the only book in which we know they do occur, but to some imaginary book in which they might occur. There is, however, no need to do so in this case, as all the evidence points the other way. Though, even if we do, it does not materially affect the argument; for while it weakens the evidence for our Gospels, it increases that for thefactswhich they record; and this is the important point.

Suppose, for instance, the passage in Ignatius was not taken from St. Luke's, but from someLostGospel. It could not then be quoted to show that St. Luke's Gospel was known to Ignatius. But it would afford additional evidence that Christ really did rise fromthe dead, that when He appeared to His Apostles, they at first thought He was a spirit; and that He took the obvious means of convincing them, by asking them to handle His Body. All this would then be vouched for, not only by St. Luke's Gospel; but also by someotherearly Christian writing, which as Ignatius quotes it inA.D.110 must certainly have been written in the first century, and must have been considered by him as conclusive evidence. For he is careful to distinguish between what he thusknows(that Christ had a Body after His Resurrection) and what he merelybelieves(that He has one now). And the same applies in other cases.

And if it be further urged that these writers would have referred more frequently to the Gospels, had they really known them, we must remember that their writings are generally short; and while a single quotation proves the previous existence of the document quoted, ten pages without a quotation do not disprove it. Moreover when they refer to the sayings of Christ, or the events of His life, they always do so without the slightest hesitation; as if everyone acknowledged them to be true. And as we have seen, their allusions often begin with the wordsrememberorbe mindful of, clearly showing that they expected their readers to know them already. Hence some books must then have existed which were well known, containing a life of Christ; and the improbability of these having perished, and a fresh set of Gospels having been published in a few years, is very great.

And the evidence in regard to theThirdGospel isparticularly strong, since it was addressed to Theophilus, who was clearly a prominent convert; and he must have known from whom the book came, even if for some reason this was not stated in the heading. And as he is not likely to have kept it secret, the authorship of the book must have been well known to Christians from the very beginning. Therefore the testimony of early writers, like Irenæus, who always ascribed it to St. Luke, becomes of exceptional value; and makes it almost certain that he was the author.

We may now sum up theexternal testimonyto the Four Gospels. It shows that at thebeginningof the second century they were well known to Christian writers, and this alone would necessitate their having been written in the first century, or at all events beforeA.D.110. And thanks to modern discoveries, especially that of theDiatessaron, this is now generally admitted. It may indeed be considered as one of the definite results of recent controversies. But if so, it is, to say the least, distinctly probable that they were written by the men to whom they have been universally ascribed. We have thus strong external testimony in favour of the genuineness of the Four Gospels.

Back to Index Next