the fact itself can hardly be disputed. In the year A.D. 177, under
Marcus Aurelius, a severe persecution broke out on the banks of the
Rhone in the cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its
extent and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the
Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest extant
historical notice of Christianity in Gaul. A contemporary record of the
martyrdoms on this occasion is preserved in the form of a letter from
the persecuted Churches, addressed to 'the brethren that are in Asia and
Phrygia' [252:2]. The communities thus addressed, it will be observed,
belong to the district in which St John's influence was predominant, and
which produced all the writers of his school who have been discussed in
the preceding papers--Polycarp, Papias, Melito, Apollinaris, Polycrates.
Of the references to the Canonical Scriptures in this letter I shall
speak presently. For the moment it is sufficient to say that the very
fact of their addressing the communication to these distant Churches
shows the closeness of the ties which connected the Christians in Gaul
with their Asiatic brethren. Moreover, in the body of the letter it is
incidentally stated of two of the sufferers, that they came from Asia
Minor--Attalus a Pergamene by birth, and Alexander a physician from
Phrygia who 'had lived many years in the provinces of Gaul;' while
nearly all of them bear Greek names. Among these martyrs the most
conspicuous was Pothinus, the aged bishop of Lyons, who was more than
ninety years old when he suffered. A later tradition makes him a native
of Asia Minor [253:1]; and this would be a highly probable supposition,
even if unsupported by any sort of evidence. Indeed it is far from
unlikely that the fact was stated in the letter itself, for Eusebius has
not preserved the whole of it. But whether an Asiatic Greek or not, he
must have been a growing boy when St John died; and through him the
Churches of Southern Gaul, when they first appear in the full light of
history, are linked directly with the Apostolic age.
Immediately after this persecution the intimate alliance between these
distant parts of Christendom was manifested in another way. The
Montanist controversy was raging in the Church of Phrygia, and the
brethren of Gaul communicated to them their views on the controverted
points [253:2]. To this communication they appended various letters of
the martyrs, 'which they penned, while yet in bonds, to the brethren in
Asia and Phrygia.' About the same time the martyrs sent Irenæus, then a
presbyter, as their delegate with letters of recommendation to
Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, for the sake of conferring with him on this
same subject [253:3].
Some twenty years later, as the century was drawing to a close, another
controversy broke out, relating to the observance of Easter, in which
again the Asiatic Churches were mainly concerned; and here too we find
the Christians of Gaul interposing with their counsels. When Victor of
Rome issued his edict of excommunication against the Churches of Asia
Minor, Irenæus wrote to remonstrate. The letter sent on this occasion
however did not merely represent his own private views, for we are
especially told that he wrote 'in the name of the brethren in Gaul over
whom he presided.' Nor did he appeal to the Roman bishop alone, but he
exchanged letters also with 'very many divers rulers of the Churches
concerning the question which had been stirred' [254:1].
Bearing these facts in mind, and inferring from them, as we have a right
to infer, that the Churches of Gaul for the most part inherited the
traditions of the Asiatic school of St John, we look with special
interest to the documents emanating from these communities.
The Epistle of the brotherhoods in Vienne and Lyons, already mentioned,
is the earliest of these. The main business of the letter is a narrative
of contemporary facts, and any allusions therefore to the Canonical
writings are incidental.
But, though incidental, they are unequivocal. Of the references to St
Paul, for instance, there can be no doubt. Thus the martyrs and
confessors are mentioned as 'showing in very truth that _the sufferings
of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which
shall be revealed in us_,' where a sentence containing fourteen words in
the Greek is given _verbatim_ as it stands in Rom. viii. 18. Thus again,
they are described as 'imitators of Christ, _who being in the form of
God thought it not robbery to be equal with God_,' where in like manner
a sentence of twelve words stands _verbatim_ as we find it Phil. ii. 6.
No one, I venture to think, will question the source of these passages,
though they are given anonymously and without any signs of quotation.
Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that when Attalus the martyr is
called 'the pillar and ground' ([Greek: stulon kai hedraiôma]) of the
Christians at Lyons, the expression is taken from 1 Tim. iii. 15; or
that when Alcibiades, who had hitherto lived on bread and water,
received a revelation rebuking him for 'not using _the creatures of
God_, in obedience to which he 'partook of all things freely and _gave
thanks_ to God,' there is a reference to 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. These passages
show the attitude of the author or authors of this letter towards St
Paul; but I have cited them also as exhibiting the manner of quotation
which prevails in this letter, and thus indicating what we are to expect
in other cases.
From the third and fourth Gospels then we find quotations analogous to
these.
Of Vettius Epagathus, one of the sufferers, we are told, that though
young he 'rivalled the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias ([Greek:
sunexisousthai tê tou presbuterou Zachariou marturia]), for verily
([Greek: goun]) he had _walked in all the commandments and ordinances of
the Lord blameless_.' Here we have the same words and in the same order,
which are used of Zacharias and Elisabeth in St Luke (i. 6). Moreover,
it is stated lower down of this same martyr, that he was 'called the
paraclete (or advocate) of the Christians, having the Paraclete in
himself, the Spirit more abundantly than Zacharias.' This maybe compared
with Luke i. 67, 'And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy
Ghost.'
The meaning of the expression 'The testimony of Zacharias' ([Greek: tê
tou Zachariou marturia]) has been questioned. It might signify either
'the testimony borne to Zacharias,' _i.e._ his recorded character, or
'the testimony borne by Zacharias,' _i.e._ his martyrdom. I cannot doubt
that the former explanation is correct; for the connecting particle
([Greek: goun]) shows that the assertion is intended to find its
justification in words which immediately follow, '_he walked in all the
commandments_,' etc. I need not however dwell on this point, for the
author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself adopts this rendering [255:1].
Yet with an inconsistency, of which his book furnishes not a few
examples, though he not only adopts this rendering himself, but silently
ignores the alternative, he proceeds at once to maintain a hypothesis
which is expressly built upon the interpretation thus tacitly rejected.
An early tradition or conjecture identified the Zacharias, who is
mentioned in the Gospels as having been slain between the temple and the
altar (Matt. xxiii. 35), with this Zacharias the father of the Baptist.
And in the extravagant romance called the Protevangelium, which is
occupied mainly with the birth, infancy, and childhood of our Lord, the
Baptist's father is represented as slain by Herod 'at the vestibule of
the temple of the Lord' [256:1]. Our author therefore supposes that
these Christians of Gaul are quoting not from St Luke, but from some
apocryphal Gospel which gave a similar account of the martyrdom of
Zacharias.
Whether this identification which I have mentioned is true or false it
is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire. Nor again do I care to discuss
the question whether or not the authors of this letter accepted it, and
so believed the Baptist's father to have fallen a martyr. I am disposed
on the whole to think that they did. This supposition, which however
must remain uncertain, would give more point to the parallelism with
Vettius Epagathus. But it is a matter of little or no moment as regards
the point at issue. The quotation found in St Luke's Gospel has
(according to the interpretation which our author rightly receives) no
reference whatever to the martyrdom; and therefore affords no ground for
the assumption that the document from which it is taken contained any
account of or any reference to the death of the Baptist's father.
But, granting that the writers of this letter assumed the identification
(and this assumption, whether true or false, was very natural), our
Third Gospel itself does furnish such a reference; and they would thus
find within the limits of this Gospel everything which they required
relating to Zacharias. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ indeed
represents the matter otherwise; but then he has overlooked an important
passage. With a forgetfulness of the contents of the Gospels which ought
surely to suggest some reflections to a critic who cannot understand how
the Fathers, 'utterly uncritical' though they were, should ever quote
any writing otherwise than with the most literal accuracy, he says,
'There can be no doubt that the reference to Zacharias in Matthew, in
the Protevangelium, and in this Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, is not
based upon Luke, _in which there is no mention of his death_' [257:1].
Here and throughout this criticism he appears to have forgotten Luke xi.
51, 'the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the
temple.' If the death of the Baptist's father is mentioned in St
Matthew, it is mentioned in St Luke also.
But, if our author disposes of the coincidences with the Third Gospel in
this way, what will he say to those with the Acts? In this same letter
of the Gallican Churches we are told that the sufferers prayed for their
persecutors 'like Stephen the perfect martyr, _Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge._' Will he boldly maintain that the writers had before them
another Acts containing words identical with our Acts, just as he
supposes them to have had another Gospel containing words identical with
our Third Gospel? Or will he allow this account to have been taken from
Acts vii. 60, with which it coincides? But in this latter case, if they
had the second treatise which bears the name of St Luke in their hands,
why should they not have had the first also?
Our author however does not stop here. He maintains that these same
writers quoted not only from a double of St Luke, but from a double of
St John also [258:1]. 'That was fulfilled,' they write, 'which was
spoken by the Lord, saying, _There shall come a time in which whosoever
killeth you will think that he doeth God service_,' where the words of
St John (xvi. 2) are exactly reproduced, with the exception that for
'There cometh an hour when' ([Greek: erchetai hôra hina]) they
substitute 'There shall come a time in which' ([Greek: eleusetai kairos
en hô]. This substitution, which was highly natural in a quotation from
memory, is magnified by our author into 'very decided variations from
the Fourth Gospel.' He would therefore assign the quotation to some
apocryphal gospel which has perished. No such gospel however is known to
have existed. Moreover this passage occurs in a characteristic discourse
of the Fourth Gospel, and the expression itself is remarkable--far more
remarkable than it appears in the English version ([Greek: latreian
prospherein tô Theô]), not 'to do God service,' but 'to offer a religious
service to God'). I may add also that the mention of the Spirit as the
Paraclete, already quoted, points to the use of this Gospel by the
writers, and that the letter presents at least one other coincidence
with St John. Our author certainly deserves credit for courage. Here, as
elsewhere, he imagines that, so long as he does not advance anything
which is demonstrably impossible, he may pile one improbability upon
another without endangering the stability of his edifice.
But even if his account of these evangelical quotations could survive
this accumulation of improbabilities, it will appear absolutely
untenable in the light of contemporary fact. Irenæus was the most
prominent and learned member of the Church from which this letter
emanated, at the very time when it was written. According to some modern
critics he was the actual composer of the letter; but for this there is
no evidence of any kind. According to our author himself he was the
bearer of it [259:1]; but this statement again is not borne out by
facts. There can be no doubt however, that Irenæus was intimately mixed
up with all the incidents, and he cannot have been ignorant of the
contents of the letter. Now this letter was written A.D. 177 or, as our
author prefers, A.D. 178, while Irenæus published his third book before
A.D. 190 at all events, and possibly some years earlier. Irenæus in
this book assumes that the Church from the beginning has recognized our
four Canonical Gospels, and these only. The author of _Supernatural
Religion_ maintains on the other hand that only twelve years before, at
the outside, the very Church to which Irenæus belonged, in a public
document with which he was acquainted, betrays no knowledge of our
Canonical Gospels, but quotes from one or more Apocryphal Gospels
instead. He maintains this though the quotations in question are
actually found in our Canonical Gospels.
Here then the inference cannot be doubtful. But what must be the fate of
a writer who can thus ride roughshod over plain facts, when he comes to
deal with questions which demand a nice critical insight and a careful
weighing of probabilities?
From this letter relating to the martyrdoms in Vienne and Lyons, we are
led to speak directly of the illustrious Gallican father, whose name has
already been mentioned several times, and who is the most important of
all witnesses to the Canonical writings of the New Testament.
The great work of Irenæus is entitled _Refutation and Overthrow of
Knowledge falsely so called_, and consists of five books. The third book
was published during the episcopate of Eleutherus, who was Bishop of
Rome from about A.D. 175 to A.D. 190; for he is mentioned in it as still
living [260:1]. It must therefore have been written before A.D. 190. On
the other hand it contains a mention of Theodotion's version of the LXX
[260:2]; and Theodotion's version is stated not to have been published
till the reign of Commodus (A.D. 182-190). Unfortunately Epiphanius, the
authority mainly relied on by our author and others for this statement,
contradicts himself in this same passage, which is full of the grossest
chronological and historical blunders [260:3]. No stress therefore can
be laid on his statement; nor indeed can we regard its truth or
falsehood as of any real moment for our purpose. It is immaterial
whether the third book dates from the earlier or later years of
Eleutherus. As the several books were composed and published separately,
the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has a right to suppose, though he
cannot prove, that the fourth and fifth were written during the
episcopate of Victor (A.D. 190-198 or 199). But in his partiality for
late dates he forgets that the weapon which he wields is double-edged.
If the fourth and fifth books 'must,' as he confidently asserts, have
been written some years after the third, it follows by parity of
reasoning, that the first and second must have been written some years
before it. Yet, with a strange inconsistency, he assumes in the very
same sentence that the two first books cannot have been written till the
latest years of Eleutherus, because on his showing the third must date
from that epoch [261:1].
With the respective dates of the several books however we need not
concern ourselves; for they all exhibit the same phenomena, so far as
regards the attitude of the author towards the Canonical writings of the
New Testament. On this point, it is sufficient to say that the authority
which Irenæus attributes to the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,
the Epistles of St Paul, several of the Catholic Epistles, and the
Apocalypse, falls short in no respect of the estimate of the Church
Catholic in the fourth or the ninth or the nineteenth century. He treats
them as on a level with the Canonical books of the Old Testament; he
cites them as Scripture in the same way; he attributes them to the
respective authors whose names they bear; he regards them as writings
handed down in the several Churches from the beginning; he fills his
pages with quotations from them; he has not only a very thorough
knowledge of their contents himself, but he assumes an acquaintance with
and a recognition of them in his readers [262:1].
In the third book especially he undertakes to refute the opinions of his
Valentinian opponents directly from the Scriptures. This leads him to be
still more explicit. He relates briefly the circumstances under which
our Four Gospels were written. He points out that the writings of the
Evangelists arose directly from the oral Gospel of the Apostles. He
shows that the traditional teaching of the Apostles has been preserved
by a direct succession of elders which in the principal Churches can be
traced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely
with the Evangelical and Apostolic writings. He maintains on the other
hand, that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent
growth. He assumes throughout, not only that our four Canonical Gospels
alone were acknowledged in the Church in his own time, but that this had
been so from the beginning. His Valentinian antagonists indeed accepted
these same Gospels, paying especial deference to the Fourth Evangelist;
and accordingly he argues with them on this basis. But they also
superadded other writings, to which they appealed, while heretics of a
different type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the
exclusion of all others. He therefore urges not only that four Gospels
alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature
of things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four
regions of the world, and four principal winds; and the Church
therefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be
supported by four Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is
represented as seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as
four living creatures, each different from the other. These symbolize
the four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. The
predominance of the number four again appears in another way. There are
four general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It is
therefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number
of the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all the other works of
God, so also we may expect to find it in the case of the Gospel.
What is the historical significance of this phenomenon? Can we imagine
that the documents which Irenæus regards in this light had been
produced during his own lifetime? that they had sprung up suddenly
full-armed from the earth, no one could say how? and that they had taken
their position at once by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the
Prophets, as the very voice of God?
The author of _Supernatural Religion_ seems to think that no explanation
is needed. 'The reasons,' he writes, 'which he [Irenæus] gives for the
existence of precisely that number [four Gospels] in the Canon of the
Church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers,
and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments'
[263:1]. Accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of Irenæus,
but treats it as if it were not. He does not see that there is all the
difference in, the world between the value of the same man's evidence as
to matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of
his facts. He does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy
analogies are _pro tanto_ an evidence of the firm hold which this
quadruple Gospel, as a fact, had already obtained when he wrote. Above
all, I must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of
Irenæus in the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is
unconscious of the historical background which it implies. It is this
last consideration which led me to speak of Irenæus as the most
important witness to the early date and authorship of the Gospels, and
to which I wish to direct attention.
The birth of Irenæus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by Dodwell,
and as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, while other
writers again have adopted intermediate positions. I must frankly say
that the very early date seems to me quite untenable. On the other hand,
those who have placed it as late as A.D. 140 have chosen this date on
the ground of the relation of Irenæus to Polycarp in his old age
[264:1], and on the supposition that Polycarp was martyred about A.D.
167. Since however it has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered
A.D. 155 or 156 [264:2], it may be presumed that these critics would now
throw the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther
back, _i.e._ to about A.D. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it
should not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion which I
have thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention [265:1], he was
probably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date of his birth is a
matter of comparatively little moment. The really important fact is,
that he was connected directly with the Apostles and the Apostolic age
by two distinct personal links, if not more.
Of his connection with POLYCARP I have already spoken [265:2]. Polycarp
was the disciple of St John; and, as he was at least eighty-six years
old when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he must have been close upon
thirty when the Apostle died. Irenæus was young when he received
instruction from Polycarp. He speaks of himself in one passage as 'still
a boy,' in another as 'in early life.' If we reckon his age as from
fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the
expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. At all
events, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's
conversations; he recalled not only the substance of his discourses, but
his very expressions and manner; more especially he states that he
remembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with John and
other personal disciples of Christ together with their account of the
Lord's life and teaching; and he adds that these were 'altogether in
accordance with the Scriptures' [265:3].
But Irenæus was linked with the Apostolic age by another companionship
also. He was the leading presbyter in the Church of Lyons, of which
POTHINUS was bishop, and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the
latter in A.D. 177 or 178. With Pothinus therefore he must have had
almost daily intercourse. But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety
years old, and must have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St
John died. Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already
seen [265:4], that like Irenæus himself Pothinus came originally from
Asia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influential
position would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past
history of the Church; and, whether he was uncritical or not (of which
we are ignorant), he must have known whether certain writings attributed
to the Evangelists and Apostles had been in circulation as long as he
could remember, or whether they came to his knowledge only the other
day, when he was already advanced in life.
In one passage in his extant work, Irenæus gives an account of
elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself
'listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to those who had been
disciples,' _i.e._ personal followers of Christ [266:1]. It seems most
natural to identify this anonymous elder with Pothinus. In this case the
'disciples' whom he had heard would be such persons as Aristion and John
the presbyter, who are mentioned in this same way by Papias; while under
the designation of 'those who had seen the Apostles' Polycarp more
especially might be intended. But, if he were not Pothinus, then he
forms a third direct link of connection between Irenæus and the
Apostolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse of
Irenæus with him was frequent and intimate. 'The elder,' writes
Irenæus, 'used to say,' 'The elder used to refresh us with such
accounts of the ancient worthies,' 'The elder used to discuss.' Indeed
the elaborate character of these discourses suggests, as I have stated
in a former paper [266:2], that Irenæus is here reproducing notes of
lectures which he had heard from this person. With the references direct
or indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I am not
concerned here; nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has
been said in a previous paper [266:3]. I wish now merely to call
attention to these discourses as showing, that through his intercourse
with this elder Irenæus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of
the earlier Church with regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic
writings.