EXTERNAL PROOFS OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF OUR FOUR GOSPELS.
We have now shown that Justin Martyr, the principal witness brought
forward by the author of "Supernatural Religion" to discredit the Four
Evangelists, either made use of the very books which we now possess, or
books which contain exactly the same information respecting our Lord's
miraculous Birth, Death, Resurrection, and moral teaching. We have seen,
also, that Justin gives us, along with the teaching of the Synoptics,
that peculiar teaching respecting the pre-existent Divine nature of
Jesus which, as far as can be ascertained, was to be found only in the
Fourth Gospel, and which is consequently called Johannean; and that,
besides this, he refers to the history, and adopts the language, and
urges the arguments which are to be found only in St. John.
We have also shown that there are no internal considerations whatsoever
for supposing that Justin did not make use of the Fourth Gospel.
Instead, for instance, of the doctrine of St. John being a development
of that held by Justin Martyr, the facts of the case all point to the
contrary.
We must now see whether there is external evidence which makes it not
only probable, but as certain as any fact in literary history can be,
that Justin must have known and made use of our present Evangelists;
that if he was a teacher in such an acknowledged centre of
ecclesiastical information or tradition as Rome, and _appears_ to quote
our Gospels (with no matter what minor variations and inaccuracies), he
did actually quote the same and no other; and if his inaccuracies, and
discrepancies, and omissions of what we suppose he ought to have
mentioned, were doubled or trebled, it would still be as certain as any
fact of such a nature can be, that he quoted the Four Evangelists,
because they must have been read and commented on in his day and in his
church as the Memoirs of the Apostles, which took their place by the
side of the prophets of the Old Testament in the public instruction of
the Church. In order to this I shall have to examine the external
evidence for the Canon of the New Testament--so far, that is, as the
Four Gospels are concerned.
In doing this I shall not take the usual method of tracing the evidence
for the various books in question downwards from the Apostolic time--the
reader will find this treated exhaustively in "Dr. Westcott on the
Canon"--but I shall trace it upwards, beginning at a time at which there
cannot be the smallest doubt that the New Testament was exactly the same
as that which we now possess.
For this purpose I shall take the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius as
the starting-point. The reader is, of course, aware that he is the
earliest ecclesiastical writer whose history has come down to us, the
historians who wrote before his time being principally known to us
through fragments preserved in his book. He was born of Christian
parents about the year A.D. 270, and died about 340. He probably wrote
his history about or before the year 325.
The reader, though he may not have read his history, will be aware, from
the quotations from it in "Supernatural Religion," that Eusebius
carefully investigated the history of the Canon of Scripture, and also
the succession of ecclesiastical writers. His history is, in fact, to a
great extent, a sketch of early Church literature. In dealing with the
history of the Canon, he particularly notices whether a large number of
writers have quoted certain books of Scripture, of whose acceptance by
the whole Church doubts were entertained. This is important, as it shows
that not only himself, but the Church, during the three ages whose
history he has recorded, did not receive books of Scripture except upon
what they deemed to be sufficient evidence, and that evidence was the
reception of each book from Apostolic times by the whole Church. I will
now give the testimony of Eusebius to the authenticity of the Four
Gospels.
First of all he describes the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark in the
following words:--
"So greatly, however, did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds
of Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor
to receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of God, but they
persevered, in every variety of entreaties, to solicit Mark as the
companion of Peter, and whose Gospel we have, that he should leave
them a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated, in
writing. Nor did they cease with their solicitations until they had
prevailed with the man, and thus become the means of that history
which is called the Gospel according to Mark. They say also, that
the Apostle (Peter), having ascertained what was done by the
revelation of the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour
expressed by these men, and that the history obtained his authority
for the purpose of being read in the Churches. This account is given
by Clement in the Sixth Book of his Institutions, whose testimony
also is corroborated by that of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis." (Bk.
ii. chap. xv. Crusé's translation.)
This is narrated as having taken place in the reign of Claudius, _i.e._,
between A.D. 41 and A.D. 54.
The next Gospel whose origin he describes is that of St. Luke, in the
following words:--
"But Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician,
being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly
acquainted with the rest of the Apostles, has left us two inspired
books, the institutes of that spiritual healing art which he
obtained from them. One of these is his Gospel, in which he
testifies that he has recorded, 'as those who were from the
beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,' delivered to
him, whom also, he says, he has in all things followed. The other is
his Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, not from what he had
heard from others, but from what he had seen himself. It is also
said that Paul usually referred to his Gospel, whenever in his
Epistles he spoke of some particular Gospel of his own, saying,
'according to my Gospel.'" (Bk. iii. ch. iv. Crusé's translation.)
Further on, he describes the publication of the First and Fourth
Gospels, thus:--
"Of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have
left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook
it from necessity. Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel
in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations,
committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the
want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark and
Luke had already published their Gospels they say that John, who,
during all this time, was proclaiming the Gospel without writing, at
length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three
Gospels previously written had been distributed among all, and also
handed to him; they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony
to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the
account of the things done by Christ among the first of His deeds,
and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. For
it is evident that the other three Evangelists only wrote the deeds
of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,
and intimated this in the very beginning of their history. For after
the fasting of forty days, and the consequent temptation, Matthew
indeed specifies the time of his history in these words, 'But,
hearing that John was delivered up, he returned from Judea into
Galilee.' Mark in like manner writes: 'But, after John was delivered
up, Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before he commenced the
deeds of Jesus, in much the same way designates the time, saying,
'Herod thus added this wickedness above all he had committed, and
that he shut up John in prison.' For these reasons the Apostle John,
it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of
the time not recorded by the former Evangelists, and the deeds done
by our Saviour, which they have passed by (for these were the events
that occurred before the imprisonment of John), and this very fact
is intimated by him when he says, 'This beginning of miracles Jesus
made,' and then proceeds to make mention of the Baptist, in the
midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at that time 'baptizing at
Aenon, near to Salim.' He plainly also shows this in the words,
'John was not yet cast into prison.' The Apostle, therefore, in his
Gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into
prison, but the other three Evangelists mention the circumstances
after that event," &c. (Bk. iii. c. xxiv.)
The last extract which I shall give is from the next chapter, when he
mentions "The sacred Scriptures which are acknowledged as genuine, and
those that are not:"--
"This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary
statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And
here among the first must be placed _the Holy Quaternion of the
Gospels_; these are followed by the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles; after this must be mentioned the Epistles of Paul, which
are followed by the acknowledged First Epistle of John, also the
First of Peter to be admitted in like manner. After these are to be
placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall
offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, are
acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although they are
well known and approved by many, is reputed that called the Epistle
of James and [that] of Jude. Also the Second Epistle of Peter, and
those called the Second and Third of John, whether they are of the
Evangelist, or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious
must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul, and that
called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter. Besides these, the books
called the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Institutions
of the Apostles. Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear
right, the Revelation of John, which some, as before said, reject,
but others rank among the genuine. But there are also some who
number among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which
those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly
delighted." (Bk. iii. ch. xxv.)
Such are the statements of the oldest ecclesiastical historian whose
work has come down to us.
With respect to the Gospels, he knows but four as canonical, and has
never heard of any other as accepted by the Church. He mentions
Apocryphal and disputed books. Amongst the latter he mentions the Gospel
to the Hebrews as acceptable to a local church; but he is wholly
ignorant of any doubt having ever been cast upon the authority of the
four in any branch of the Catholic Church.
Now let the reader remember, that however Eusebius, like all other
writers, _might_ be liable to be mistaken through carelessness, or
prejudice, or any other cause of inaccuracy; yet that each of these
statements respecting the authorship of the various Gospels is, on all
principles of common sense, worth all the conjectural criticisms of the
German and other writers, so copiously cited in "Supernatural Religion,"
put together.
For, in the first place, Eusebius flourished about 1500 years nearer to
the original source of the truth than these critics, and had come to
man's estate within 200 years of the publication of the Fourth Gospel.
Now, at a time when tradition was far more relied upon, and so much more
perfectly preserved and transmitted than in such an age of printed books
and public journals as the present, this alone would make an enormous
difference between a direct statement of Eusebius and the conjecture of
a modern theorist. But far more than this, Eusebius had access to, and
was well acquainted with, a vast mass of ecclesiastical literature which
has altogether perished; and the greater part of which is only known to
have existed through notices or extracts to be found in his work. For
instance, in a few pages he gives accounts of writings which have
perished of Papias (iii. c. 39), Quadratus and Aristides (iv. ch. 3),
Hegesippus (iv. ch. 8 and 22), Tatian (iv. ch. 16), Dionysius of Corinth
(iv. ch. 23), Pinytus (iv. ch. 23), Philip and Modestus (ch. 25), Melito
(ch. 26), Apollinaris (ch. 27), Bardesanes (ch. 30).
These are all writers who flourished in the first three quarters of the
second century, and I have only mentioned those whose writings, from the
wording of his notices, Eusebius appears to have seen himself.
It is clear, I repeat, that the evidence of such an one on the
authorship of the Gospels is worth all the conjectures and theories of
modern critics of all classes put together.
We shall pass over very briefly the first sixty years of the third
century, _i.e._ between A.D. 200 and the time of Eusebius. During these
years flourished Cyprian, martyred A.D. 257; Hippolytus, martyred about
A.D. 240; and Origen, died A.D. 254.
Respecting the latter, it appears from Eusebius that he published
commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of the latter
Eusebius says the first five books wore composed at Alexandria, but of
the whole work on St. John only twenty-two books have come down to us.
(Bk. vi. ch. 24.) Now Origen was born a few years (at the most twenty)
after the death of Justin; and we have seen how the author of
"Supernatural Religion" evidently considers the works of Justin to be
anterior to the Fourth Gospel. Is it credible, or oven conceivable, that
a man of Origen's intellect, learning, and research should write twenty
or thirty books of commentaries on a false Gospel which was forged
shortly before his own time?
He expressly states that the Church knew of but four Gospels:--
"As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels,
which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God
throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the
same that was once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus
Christ, who, having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it
in Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter
explained to him, whom he [Peter] also acknowledged as his son in
his general epistle, saying, 'The elect Church in Babylon salutes
you, as also Mark, my son.' And the third according to Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from
the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John."
Extract from Origen's first book of his commentaries on St. Matthew,
quoted by Eusebius (vi. 25)
As regards Cyprian, the following quotation will suffice:--
"The Church, setting forth the likeness of Paradise, includes within
her walls fruit-bearing trees, whereof that which does not bring
forth good fruit is cut off and is cast into the fire. These trees
she waters with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels,
wherewith, by a celestial inundation, she bestows the grace of
saying baptism." Cyprian, Letter lxxii. to Jubaianus.
As regards Hippolytus I have counted above fifty references to St.
Matthew and forty to St. John, in his work on the "Refutation of
Heresies," and "Fragments." I append in a note a passage taken from his
comment on the Second Psalm, preserved to us by Theodoret. The reader
will be able to judge from it from what sources he derived his knowledge
of Christ. I give it rather for its devotional spirit than its evidence
for the four. [126:1]
We now come to the conclusion of the second century. Between the years
180 and 200 or 210 A.D., there flourished three writers of whom we
possess somewhat voluminous remains. Irenaeus, who was born about 140 at
the latest, who was in youth the disciple of Polycarp, who was himself
the disciple of St. John. Irenaeus wrote his work against heresies about
the year 180, a little after he had succeeded Pothinus as Bishop of
Lyons, and was martyred at the beginning of the next century (202).
Clement of Alexandria, the date of whose birth or death is uncertain,
flourished long before the end of the second century, for he became head
of the catechetical school of Alexandria about the year 190.
Tertullian was born about 150, was converted to Christianity about 185,
was admitted to the priesthood in 192, and adopted the opinions of
Montanus about the end of the century.
I shall first of all give the testimony of these three writers to the
universal reception of the Four Gospels by the Church, and consider to
what time previous to their own day their testimony upon such a subject
must, of necessity, reach.
First of all, Irenaeus, in a well-known passage, asserts that--
"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in
number than they are."
He then refers to the four zones of the earth, and the four principal
winds, and remarks that, in accordance with this,
"He Who was manifest to men has given us the Gospel under four
aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."
Then he refers to the four living creatures of the vision in the
Revelation, and proceeds,--
"And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things, among
which Christ is seated. For that according to John relates His
original effectual and glorious generation from the Father, thus
declaring, 'In the beginning was the word,' &c.... But that
according to Luke, taking up His priestly character, commences with
Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made
ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again
of the younger son. Matthew again relates His generation as a man,
saying, 'The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of
David, the Son of Abraham;' and also, 'The birth of Jesus Christ was
on this wise.' This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity, for which
reason it is, too, that the character of an humble and meek man is
kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences
with a reference to the prophetical spirit coming down from on high
to men, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it
is written in Esaias the prophet,' pointing to the winged aspect of
the Gospel: and on this account he made a compendious and cursory
narrative, for such is the prophetical character." (Iren., Bk. iii.
ch. xi.)
Clement of Alexandria, speaking of a saying ascribed to our Lord,
writes:--
"In the first place, then, in the four Gospels handed down amongst
us, we have not this saying; but in that which is according to the
Egyptians." (Miscellanies, iii. ch. xiii.)
Tertullian writes thus:--
"Of the Apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith
into us; whilst, of Apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it
afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith,
so far as relates to the one only God the Creator, and His Christ,
how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and
the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the
order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the
essential matter of the faith in which there is disagreement with
Marcion." (Tertullian against Marcion, iv. c. ii.)
Such are the explicit declarations of these three writers respecting the
number and authorship of the Four. I shall give at the conclusion of
this section some of the references to be found in these writers to the
first two or three chapters in each Gospel.
It is but very little to say that they quote the Four as frequently, and
with as firm a belief in their being the Scriptures of God, as any
modern divine. They quote them far more copiously, and reproduce the
history contained in them far more fully than any modern divine whom I
have ever read, who is not writing specifically on the Life of our Lord,
or on some part of His teaching contained in the Gospels.
But I have now to consider the question, "To what time, previous to
their own day, or rather to the time at which they wrote, does their
testimony to such a matter as the general reception of the Four Gospels
of necessity reach back?"
Clement wrote in Alexandria, Tertullian in Rome or Africa, Irenaeus in
Gaul. They all flourished about A.D. 190. They all speak of the Gospels,
not only as well known and received, but as being the only Gospels
acknowledged and received by the Church. One of them uses very
"uncritical" arguments to prove that the Gospels could only be four in
number; but the very absurdity of his analogies is a witness to the
universal tradition of his day. To what date before their time must this
tradition reach, so that it must be relied upon as exhibiting the true
state of things?
Now this tradition is not respecting a matter of opinion, but a matter
of fact--the fact being no other than the reading of the Gospels or
Memoirs of our Lord in the public service of the Church. The "Memoirs of
our Lord," with other books, formed the Lectionary of the Church. So
that every Christian, who attended the public assemblies for worship,
must know whether he heard the Gospels read there or not.
Now any two men who lived successively to the age of sixty-five would be
able to transmit irrefragable testimony, which would cover a hundred
years, to the use of the Gospels in the lectionary of the Church.
During the last five years we have had a change in our Lectionary, which
change only affects the rearrangement of the portions read each day out
of the same Gospels, and every boy and girl of fifteen years old at the
time would recognize the alteration when it took place. If it had
occurred fifty years ago, any man or woman of sixty-five would perfectly
remember the change. If it had occurred within the last hundred years,
any person of sixty-five could bear testimony to the fact that, when he
first began to be instructed in the nature of the Church Services he was
told by his elders that up to a time which they could perfectly
recollect certain selections from Scripture had been read in Church, but
that at such a period during their lifetime a change had been brought
about after certain public debates, and that it received such or such
opposition and was not at once universally adopted, which change was the
reading in public of the present selection. It is clear then, that if
all public documents were destroyed, yet any two men, who could scarcely
be called old men, would be able to transmit with perfect certainty the
record of any change in the public reading of Scripture during the last
one hundred years.
But, supposing that instead of a change in the mere selections from the
Gospels, the very Gospels themselves had been changed, could such a
thing have occurred unnoticed, and the memory of it be so absolutely
forgotten that neither history nor tradition preserved the smallest hint
of it at the end of a short century?
Now this, and far more than this, is what the author of "Supernatural
Religion" asks his readers to believe throughout his whole work.
We have seen how, before the end of this century, no other authoritative
memoirs of Christ were known by the Church, and these were known and
recognized as so essential a part of the Christian system, that their
very number as four, and only four, was supposed to be prefigured from
the very beginning of the world.
Now Justin lived till the year 165 in this century. He was martyred when
Irenaeus must have been twenty-five years old. Both Clement and
Tertullian must have been born before his martyrdom, perhaps several
years, and yet the author of "Supernatural Religion" would have us
believe that the books of Christians which were accounted most sacred in
the year 190, and used in that year as frequently, and with as firm a
belief in their authenticity as they are by any Christians now, were
unused by Justin Martyr, and that one of the four was absolutely unknown
to him--in all probability forged after his time.
We are persistently told all this, too, in spite of the fact that he
reproduces the account of the Birth, Teaching, Death, and Resurrection
of Christ exactly as they are contained in the Four, without a single
additional circumstance worth speaking of, making only such alterations
as would be natural in the reproduction of such an account for those who
were without the pale of the Church.
But even this is not the climax of the absurdity which we are told that,
if we are reasonable persons, we must accept. It appears that the
"Memoirs" which, we are told, Justin heard read every Sunday in the
place of assembly in Rome or Ephesus which he frequented, was a
Palestinian Gospel, which combined, in one narrative, the accounts of
the Birth, Life, Death, and moral Teaching of Jesus, together with the
peculiar doctrine and history now only to be found in the Fourth Gospel.
Consequently this Gospel was not only far more valuable than any one of
our present Evangelists, but, we might almost say, more worthy of
preservation than all put together, for it combined the teaching of the
four, and no doubt reconciled their seeming discrepancies, thus
obviating one of the greatest difficulties connected with their
authority and inspiration; a difficulty which, we learn from history,
was felt from the first. And yet, within less than twenty years, this
Gospel had been supplanted by four others so effectually that it was all
but forgotten at the end of the century, and is referred to by the first
ecclesiastical historian as one of many apocrypha valued only by a local
Church, and has now perished so utterly that not one fragment of it can
be proved to be authentic.
But enough of this absurdity.
Taking with us the patent fact, that before the end of the second
century, and during the first half of the third, the Four Gospels were
accepted by the Church generally, and quoted by every Christian writer
as fully as they are at this moment, can there be the shadow of a doubt
that when Justin wrote the account of our Lord's Birth, which I have
given in page 22, he had before him the first and third Evangelists, and
combined these two accounts in one narrative? Whether he does this
consciously and of set purpose I leave to the author of "Supernatural
Religion," but combine the two accounts he certainly does.
Again, when, in the accounts of the events preceding our Lord's Death,
Justin notices that Jesus commanded the disciples to bring forth an ass
and its foal (page 33), can any reasonable man doubt but that he owed
this to St. Matthew, in whose Gospel alone it appears?
Or when, in the extract I have given in page 20, he notices that our
Lord called the sons of Zebedee Boanerges, can there be any reasonable
doubt that he derived this from St. Mark, the only Evangelist who
records it, whose Gospel (in accordance with universal tradition), he
there designates as the "Memoirs of Peter?"
Or again, when, in the extract I have given in page 34, he records that
our Lord in His Agony sweat great drops [of blood], can there be a doubt
but that he made use of St. Luke, especially since he mentions two or
three other matters connected with our Lord's Death, only to be found in
St. Luke? Or, again, why should we assume the extreme improbability of a
defunct Gospel to account for all the references to, and reminiscences
of, St. John's Gospel, which I have given in Sections VIII. and IX. of
this work?
So far for Justin Martyr.
We will now turn to references in three or four other writers.
In the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons we find the following:--
"And thus was fulfilled the saying of our Lord: 'The time shall come
in which every one that killeth you shall think that he offereth a
service to God.'"
This seems like a reference to John xvi. 2. The words, with some very
slight variation, are to be found there and not to be found elsewhere.
The letter of the Churches was written about A.D. 178 "at the earliest,"
we are told by the author of "Supernatural Religion." Well, we will make
him a present of a few years, and suppose that it was written ten or
twelve years later, _i.e._ about A.D. 190. Now we find that Irenaeus had
written his great work, "Against Heresies," before this date. Surely,
then, the notion of the writer of "Supernatural Religion," that we are
to suppose that this was taken from some lost Apocryphal Gospel when
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, had actually used a written Gospel which
contains it, refutes itself.
We turn to Athenagoras.
We find in his work, "Plea (or Embassy) for the Christians" (ch. x.),
the following:--
"But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father in idea and in
operation, for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things
made, the Father and the Son being one [I and My Father are one],
and the Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, in
oneness and power of spirit," &c. (John xiv. 10.)
Again (ch. xii.):--
"Men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who
are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they
know God and His Logos." [This is life eternal, that they may know
Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.]
Can the writer of "Supernatural Religion" be serious when he writes, "He
nowhere identifies the Logos with Jesus?" Does the writer of
"Supernatural Religion" seriously think that a Christian writer, living
in 177, and presenting to the emperor a plea for Christians, would have
any difficulty about identifying Jesus with that Son of God Whom he
expressly states to be the Logos of God?
The following also are seeming quotations from the Synoptics in
Athenagoras.
"What, then, are those precepts in which we are instructed? 'I say
unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse, pray for them
that persecute you, that ye may be sons of your Father which is in
the heavens, who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.'
"'For if ye love them which love you, and lend to them which lend to
you, what reward shall ye have?'
"'For whosoever, He says, looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath
committed adultery already in his heart.'
"'For whosoever, says He, putteth away his wife and marrieth
another, committeth adultery.'"
When we consider that in the time of Athenagoras, or very soon after,
there were three authors living who spoke of the Gospels in the way we
have shown, and quoted them in the way we shall now show, why assign
these quotations to defunct Gospels of whose contents we are perfectly
ignorant, when we have them substantially in Gospels which occupied the
same place in the Church then as now?
NOTE ON SECTION XIX.
I have asserted that the three authors, Tertullian, Clement of
Alexandria, and Irenaeus, all flourishing before the close of the second
century, quote the four Gospels, if anything, more frequently than most
modern Christian authors do. I append, in proof of this, some of the
references in these authors to the first two or three chapters of our
present Gospels.
IRENAEUS.
Matthew, i.
"And Matthew, too, recognizing one and the same Jesus Christ,
exhibiting his generation as a man from the Virgin ... says, 'The
book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of
Abraham.' Then, that he might free our mind from suspicion regarding
Joseph, he says, 'But the birth of Christ was on this wise: when His
mother was espoused,'" &c. (iii. xvi.)
Then he proceeds to quote and remark upon the whole of the remainder of
the chapter.
"Matthew again relates His generation as a man." For remainder, see
page 128.
"For Joseph is shown to be the son of Joachim and Jeconiah, as also
Matthew sets forth in his pedigree." (iii. 21, 9.)
"Born Emmanuel of the Virgin. To this effect they testify that
before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore
remained in virginity, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."
(iii. 21, 4.)
"Then again Matthew, when speaking of the angel, says, 'The angel of
the Lord appeared to Joseph in sleep.' (iii. 9, 2.)
"The angel said to him in sleep, 'Fear not to take to thee Mary, thy
wife'" (and proceeding with several other verses of the same
chapter). (iv. 23, l.)
Matthew, ii.
"But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the East, exclaimed,
'For we have seen His star in the East, and are come to worship
Him.'" (iii. 9, 2.)
"And that having been led by the star unto the house of Jacob to
Emmanuel, they showed, by those gifts which they offered, who it was
that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be
buried for the human race; gold, because He was a king," &c., &c.
(iii. 9, 2)
"He, since He was Himself an infant, so arranging it that human
infants should be martyrs, slain, according to the Scriptures, for
the sake of Christ." (iii. 16, 4.)
Matthew, iii.
"For Matthew the apostle ... declares that John, when preparing the
way for Christ, said to them who were boasting of their relationship
according to the flesh, &c., 'O generation of vipers, who hath shown
you to flee from ... raise up children unto Abraham.' (iii. 9, 1.)
"As John the Baptist says, 'For God is able from these stones to
raise up children unto Abraham.'" (iv. 7, 2.)
There are no less than six quotations or references to the ninth and
tenth verses of this chapter, viz., iv. 24, 2; v. 34, 1; iv. 8, 3; iv.
36, 4; v. 17, 4.
"Now who this Lord is that brings such a day about, John the Baptist
points out when he says of Christ, 'He shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost and with fire, having His fan in His hand,'" &c. (iv. 4,
3.)
"Having a fan in His hands, and cleansing His floor, and gathering
the wheat,'" &c. (iv. 33, 1.)
"Who gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff
with fire unquenchable." (iv. 33, ll.)
"Then, speaking of His baptism, Matthew says, 'The heavens were
opened, and He saw the Spirit of God,'" &c. (iii. 9, 3.)
Mark, i.
"Wherefore Mark also says, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ the Son of God, as it is written in the prophets.'" (iii. 16,
3.)
"Yea, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son, 'We know Thee
who Thou art, the Holy One of God.'" (iv. 6, 6.)
Mark iv. 28.
"His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush
forth, and the earth gives 'first the blade, then the ear, then the
full corn in the ear.'" (iv. 18, 4.)
Luke, i.
"Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what
he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, 'Even
as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were
eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word.'" (iii. 14, 2.)
Another reference to same in preface to Book iv.
"Luke, also, the follower and disciple of the Apostles, referring to
Zacharias and Elizabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was
born, says, 'And they were both righteous before God, walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,'", &c. (iii.
10, 1.)
"And again, speaking of Zacharias, 'And it came to pass, that while
he executed the priest's office,'" &c. (_Ibid._)
"And then, speaking of John, he (the angel) says: 'For he shall be
great in the sight of the Lord,'" &c. (_Ibid._)
"In the spirit and power of Elias." (iii. 10, 6.)
"Truly it was by Him of whom Gabriel was the angel who also
announced the glad tidings of His birth ... in the spirit and power
of Elias." (iii. 11, 4.)
"But at that time the angel Gabriel was sent from God, who did also
say to the Virgin, 'Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with
God.'" (iii. 10, 2.)
"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest," &c.
(iii. 10, 2.)
"And Mary, exulting because of this, cried out; prophesying on
behalf of the Church, 'My soul doth magnify the Lord.'" (iii. 10,
2.)
"And that the angel Gabriel said unto her, 'The Holy Ghost shall
come upon thee,'" &c. (iii. 21, 4.)
"In accordance with this design Mary the Virgin is found obedient,
saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to
Thy word.'" (iii. 22, 4.)
"As Elizabeth testified when fitted with the Holy Ghost, saying to
Mary, 'Blessed art thou among women,'" &c. (iii. 21, 5.)
"Wherefore the prophets ... announced His Advent ... in freeing us
from the hands of all that hate us, that is, from every spirit of
wickedness, and causing us to serve Him in holiness and
righteousness all our days.'" (iv. 20, 4.)
Luke, ii.
"Wherefore Simeon also, one of his descendants, carried fully out
the rejoicing of the patriarch, and said, 'Lord, now lettest Thou
Thy servant,'" &c. (iv. 7, l.)
"And the angel in like manner announced tidings of great joy to the
shepherds who were keeping watch by night." (iv. 7, 1.)
"Wherefore he adds, 'The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising
God for all which they had seen and heard.'" (iii. 10, 4.)
"And still further does Luke say in reference to the Lord, 'When the
days of purification were accomplished they brought Him up to
Jerusalem to present Him before the Lord.'" (iii. 10, 5.)
"They say also that Simeon, 'Who took Christ into his arms and gave
thanks to God,'" &c. (i. 8, 4.)
"They assert also that by Anna, who is spoken of in the Gospel as a
prophetess, and who after living seven years with her husband,
passed all the rest of her life in widowhood till she saw the
Saviour." (i. 8, 4.)
"The production, again, of the Duodecad of the aeons is indicated by
the fact that the Lord was twelve years of age when He disputed with
the teachers of the law," &c. (i. 3, 2.)
"Some passages, also, which occur in the Gospels receive from them a
colouring of the same kind, as the answer which He gave His mother
when He was twelve years old, 'Wist ye not that I must be about My
Father's business?'" (i. 20, 2.)
Luke, iii.
"For because He knew that we should make a good use of our substance
which we should possess by receiving it from another, He says, 'He
that hath two coats let him impart to him that hath none, and he
that hath meat let him do likewise.'" (iv. 30, 3.)
"For when He came to be baptized He had not yet completed His
thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age;
for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it." (ii.
22, 5.)
John, i.
"[John] thus commenced his teaching in the Gospel, 'In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,'" &c.
(iii. 11, 1.)
"He (St. John) expresses himself thus: 'In the beginning was the
Word,'" &c. (i. 8, 5.)
"Thus saith the Scripture, 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens
made,' &c. And again, 'All things were made by Him, and without Him
was nothing made that was made.'" (i. 22, 1.)
"For he styles Him 'A light which shineth in darkness, and which was
not comprehended by it.'" (i. 8, 5.)
"And that we may not have to ask 'Of what God was the Word made
flesh?' He does Himself previously teach us, saying, 'There was a
man sent from God whose name was John. The same came as a witness
that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but
that he might testify of the Light.'" (iii. 11, 4.)
"While the Gospel affirms plainly that by the Word, which was in the
beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, was
made flesh and dwelt among us." (iii. 11, 2.)
To John i. 14, "The Word was made flesh," the references are absolutely
innumerable. Those I have given already will suffice.
"For this is the knowledge of salvation which was wanting to them,
that of the Son of God, which John made known, saying, 'Behold the
Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of
whom I said, After me cometh a Man Who was made before me, because
He was prior to me.'" (iii. 10, 2.)
"By whom also Nathaniel, being taught, recognized Him; he to whom
also the Lord bare witness that he was an Israelite indeed, in whom
was no guile. The Israelite recognized his King, therefore did he
cry out to Him, 'Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King
of Israel.'" (iii. 11, 6.)
John, ii.
"But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the
moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the
marriage." (iii. 11, 5.)
"As also the Lord speaks in reference to Himself, 'Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' He spake this,
however, it is said, of the temple of His body." (v. 6, 2.)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Matthew, i.
"And in the gospel according to Matthew the genealogy which begins
with Abraham is continued down to Mary, the mother of the Lord.
'For,' it is said, 'from Abraham to David are fourteen generations,
and from David to the carrying away into Babylon," &c.
(Miscellanies, i. 21.)
Matthew, iii.
"For the fan is in the Lord's hand, by which the chaff due to the
fire is separated from the wheat." (Instructor, i. 9.)
Matthew, iv.
"Therefore He Himself, urging them on to salvation, cries, 'The
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.'" (Exhortation to Heathen, ch. ix.)
Matthew, v.
"And because He brought all things to bear on the discipline of the
soul, He said, 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth.'" (Miscellanies, iv. 6.)
Mark, i.
"For he also 'ate locusts and wild honey.'" [In St. Matthew the
corresponding expression being 'His food was locusts and wild
honey.'] (Instructor, ii. 11.)
Luke, iii.
"And to prove that this is true it is written in the Gospel by Luke
as follows: 'And in the fifteenth year, in the reign of Tiberius
Caesar, the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias.'
And again, Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years
old,' and so on." (Miscellanies, i. 21.)
There are at least twenty more references to the accounts of the
preaching of St. John in the third of St. Matthew, first of St. Mark,
and third of St. Luke, in Clement's writings, which I have not given
simply because it is difficult to assign the quotation to a particular
Evangelist, as the account is substantially the same in the three.
Luke xii. 16-20.
"Of this man's field (the rich fool) the Lord, in the Gospel, says
that it was fertile, and afterwards, when he wished to lay by his
fruits and was about to build greater barns," &c. (Miscellanies,
iii. 6.)
Luke xiii. 32.
"Thus also in reference to Herod, 'Go tell that fox, Behold, I cast
out devils,'" &c. (Miscellanies, iv. 6.)
Luke xiv. 12, 13.
"He says accordingly, somewhere, 'When thou art called to a wedding
recline not on the highest couch.' ... And elsewhere, 'When thou
makest a dinner or a supper,' and again, 'But, when thou makest an
entertainment, call the poor.'" (Instructor, ii. 1.)
Luke, xv. Parable of Prodigal Son.
"For it were not seemly that we, after the fashion of the rich man's
son in the Gospel, should, as prodigals, abuse the Father's gifts."
(Instructor, ii. ch. i.)
John, i.
"You have then God's promise; you have His love: become partakers of
His grace. And do not suppose the song of salvation to be new, as a
vessel or a house is new; for ... in the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Exhortation to
Heathen, ch. i.)
"For He has said, 'In the beginning the Word was in God, and the
Word was God." (Instructor, viii.)
"Wherefore it (the law) was only temporary; but eternal grace and
truth were by Jesus Christ. Mark the expressions of Scripture; of
the law only is it is said 'was given;' but truth, being the grace
of the Father, is the eternal work of the Word, and it is not said
to _be given_, but _to be_ by Jesus, _without whom nothing was_."
(Instructor, i. 7.)
"The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three
of the fairest ornaments ... with authority of utterance, for He is
God and Creator; for all things were made by Him, and without Him
was not anything made: and with benevolence, for He alone gave
Himself a sacrifice for us, 'For the Good Shepherd giveth His life
for the sheep.'" (John x. 11.) (Instructor, i. 11.)
"For the darkness, it is said, comprehendeth it not." (Instructor,
ii. 10.)
"Having through righteousness attained to adoption, and therefore
'have received power to become the sons of God.'" (Miscellanies, iv.
6.)
"For of the prophets it is said, 'We have all received of His
fulness,' that is, of Christ's." (Miscellanies, i. 17.)
"And John the apostle says, 'No man hath seen God at any time. The
only begotten God,' [oldest reading,] 'who is in the bosom of the
Father, He hath declared Him." (Miscellanies, v. 12.) John, iii.
"He that believeth not is, according to the utterance of the
Saviour, condemned already." (Miscellanies, iv. 16.)
"Enslaved as you are to evil custom, and clinging to it voluntarily
till your last breath, you are hurried to destruction; because light
has come into the world, and men have loved the darkness rather than
the light." (Exhortation to Heathen, 10.)
"'I must decrease,' said the prophet John." (Miscellanies, vi. II.)
TERTULLIAN.
Matthew, i.
"There is, first of all, Matthew, that most faithful chronicler of
the Gospel, because the companion of the Lord; for no other reason
in the world than to show us clearly the fleshy original of Christ,
he thus begins, 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son
of David the son of Abraham.'" (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xxii.)
"It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when
tracing down the Lord's descent from Abraham to Mary, says, 'Jacob
begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, _of whom_ was born Jesus." (On
the Flesh of Christ, ch. xx.)
"You [the heretic] say that He was born _through_ a virgin, not _of_
a virgin, and _in_ a womb, not _of_ a womb; because the angel in the
dream said to Joseph, 'That which is born in her is of the Holy
Ghost.'" (_Ibid._ ch. xx.)
Matthew, ii.
"For they therefore offered to the then infant Lord that
frankincense, and myrrh, and gold, to be, as it were, the close of
worldly sacrifice and glory, which Christ was about to do away." (On
Idolatry, ch. ix.)
Mark i. 4.
"For, in that John used to preach 'baptism _for_ the remission of
sins,' the declaration was made with reference to a future
remission." (On Baptism, x.)
Mark i. 24.
"This accordingly the devils also acknowledge Him to be: 'We know
Thee Who Thou art, the Son of God.'" (Against Praxeas, ch. xxvi.)
Let the reader particularly remark this phrase. Tertullian quotes the
last clauses differently from the reading in our present copies, "The
Holy One of God." If such a quotation had occurred in Justin, the author
of "Supernatural Religion" would have cited the phrase as a quotation
from a lost Gospel, and asserted that the author had not even seen
St. Mark.
Luke, i.
"Elias was nothing else than John, who came 'in the power and spirit
of Elias.'" (On Monogamy, ch. viii.)
"I recognize, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to a
virgin; but when he is blessing her, it is 'among women.'" (On the
Veiling of Virgins, ch. vi.)
"Will not the angel's announcement be subverted, that the Virgin
should 'conceive in her womb and bring forth a son?' ... Therefore
even Elizabeth must be silent, although she is carrying in her womb
the prophetic babe, which was already conscious of his Lord, and is,
moreover, filled with the Holy Ghost. For without reason does she
say, 'And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should
come to me?' If it was not as her son, but only as a stranger, that
Mary carried Jesus in her womb, how is it she says, 'Blessed is the
fruit of thy womb?'" (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xxi.)
"Away, says he [he is now putting words into the mouth of the
heretic], with that eternal plaguy taxing of Caesar, and the scanty
inn, and the squalid swaddling clothes, and the hard stable. We do
not care a jot for that multitude of the heavenly host which praised
their Lord at night. Let the shepherds take better care of their
flock ... Spare also the babe from circumcision, that He may escape
the pains thereof; nor let Him be brought into the temple, lest He
burden His parents with the expense of the offering; nor let Him be
handed to Simeon, lest the old man be saddened at the point of
death." (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. ii.)
"This He Himself, in those other gospels also, testifies Himself to
have been from His very boyhood, saying, 'Wist ye not, says He, that
I must be about my Father's business?'" (Against Praxeas, xxvi.)
John, i.
"In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony
to the Old Testament ... it is therein plainly revealed by Whom He
made all things. 'In the beginning was the Word,'--that is, the same
beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the
earth--'and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,'" &c.
(Against Hermogenes, ch. xx.)
I give only one reference to the first few verses, as the number in
Tertullian's writings is enormous.
"It is written, 'To them that believed on Him, gave He power to be
called Sons of God.'" (On Prayer, ch. ii.)
"But by saying 'made,' he [St. Paul] not only confirmed the
statement 'the Word was made flesh,' but he also asserted the
reality," &c. (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xx.)
John, ii.
"[He Jesus] inaugurates in _water_ the first rudimentary displays of
His power, when invited to the nuptials." (On Baptism, ch. ix.)
The twenty-first chapter of the "Discourse against Praxeas" is filled
with citations from St. John. I will give a small part.
"He declared what was in the bosom of the Father alone; the Father
did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded
by another statement: 'No man hath seen God at any time.' Then
again, when He is designated by John as 'the Lamb of God.' ... This
[divine relationship] Nathanael at once recognized in Him, even as
Peter did on another occasion: 'Thou art the Son of God.' And He
affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions,
for He answered Nathanael, 'Because I said I saw thee under the
fig-tree, dost thou believe?' ... When He entered the temple He
called it 'His Father's house,' [speaking] as the Son. In His
address to Nicodemus He says, 'So God loved the world,' &c....
Moreover, when John the Baptist was asked what he happened [to know]
of Jesus, he said, 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all
things into His Hands. He that believeth,' &c. Whom, indeed, did He
reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not 'the Messias which is
called Christ?' ... He says, therefore, 'My meat is to do the will
of Him that sent me, and to finish His work,'" &c. &c. (Against
Praxeas, ch. xxi.)