Before we pass on to the last evidences offered by Paley, which

necessitate a closer investigation into the value of the testimony borne

by the patristic, to the canonical, writings, it will be well to put

broadly the fact, that these Fathers are simply worthless as witnesses

to any matter of fact, owing to the absurd and incredible stories which

they relate with the most perfect faith. Of critical faculty they have

none; the most childish nonsense is accepted by them, with the gravest

face; no story is too silly, no falsehood too glaring, for them to

believe and to retail, in fullest confidence of its truth. Gross

ignorance is one of their characteristics; they are superstitious,

credulous, illiterate, to an almost incredible extent. Clement considers

that "the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future

resurrection" by the following "fact," among others: "Let us consider

that wonderful sign which takes place in Eastern lands--that is, in

Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is

called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years.

And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it

builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into

which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But, as the flesh

decays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by

the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has

acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its

parent, and, bearing these, it passes from the land of Arabia into

Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And in open day, flying in the

sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and, having

done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect

the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the

500th year was completed" (1st Epistle of Clement, chap. xxv.). Surely

the evidence here should satisfy Paley as to the truth of this story:

"the open day," "flying in the sight of all men," the priests inspecting

the registers, and all this vouched for by Clement himself! How reliable

must be the testimony of the apostolic Clement! Tertullian, the

Apostolic Constitutions, and Cyril of Jerusalem mention the same tale.

We have already drawn attention to that which _was seen by_ the writers

of the circular letter of the Church of Smyrna. Barnabas loses himself

in a maze of allegorical meanings, and gives us some delightful

instruction in natural history; he is dealing with the directions of

Moses as to clean and unclean animals: "'Thou shalt not,' he says, 'eat

the hare.' Wherefore? 'Thou shalt not be a corrupter of boys, nor like

unto such.' Because the hare multiplies, year by year, the places of its

conception; for as many years as it lives, so many _foramina_ it has.

Moreover, 'Thou shalt not eat the hyaena.'... Wherefore? Because that

animal annually changes its sex, and is at one time male, and at another

female. Moreover, he has rightly detested the weasel ... For this animal

conceives by the mouth.... Behold how well Moses legislated" (Epistle of

Barnabas, chapter x.). "'And Abraham circumcised ten and eight and three

hundred men of his household.' What, then, was the knowledge given to

him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The

ten and the eight are thus denoted--Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have

Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace by the letter T,

he says also Three Hundred. He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two

letters, and the cross by one.... No one has been admitted by me to a

more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are

worthy" (Ibid, chapter ix.). And this is Paley's companion of the

Apostles! Ignatius tells us of the "star of Bethlehem." "A star shone

forth in heaven above all other stars, and the light of which was

inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all

the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this

star" (Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. xix.). Why should we accept

Ignatius' testimony to the star, and reject his testimony to the sun and

moon and stars singing to it? Or take Origen against Celsus: "I have

this further to say to the Greeks, who will not believe that our Saviour

was born of a virgin: that the Creator of the world, if he pleases, can

make every animal bring forth its young in the same wonderful manner.

As, for instance, the _vultures propagate their kind in this uncommon

way,_ as the best writers of natural history do acquaint us" (chap,

xxxiii., as quoted in "Diegesis," p. 319). Or shall we turn to Irenæus,

so invaluable a witness, since he knew Polycarp, who knew John, who knew

Jesus? Listen, then, to the reminiscences of John, as reported by

Irenæus: "John related the words of the Lord concerning the times of the

kingdom of God: the days would come when vines would grow, each with

10,000 shoots, and to each shoot 10,000 branches, and to each branch

10,000 twigs, and to each twig 10,000 clusters, and to each cluster

10,000 grapes, and each grape which is crushed will yield twenty-five

measures of wine. And when one of the saints will reach after one of

these clusters, another will cry: 'I am a better cluster than it; take

me, and praise the Lord because of me.' Likewise, a grain of wheat will

produce 10,000 ears, each ear 10,000 grains, each grain ten pounds of

fine white flour. Other fruits, and seeds, and herbs in proportion. The

whole brute creation, feeding on such things as the earth brings forth,

will become sociable and peaceable together, and subject to man with all

humility" ("Iren. Haer.," v., 33, 3-4, as quoted in Keim's "Jesus of

Nazara," p. 45). What trust can be placed in the truth of facts to which

these men pretend to bear witness when we find St. Augustine preaching

that "he himself, being at that time Bishop of Hippo Regius, had

preached the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to a whole

nation of men and women that had no heads, but had their eyes in their

bosoms; and in countries still more southerly he preached to a nation

among whom each individual had but one eye, and that situate in the

middle of the forehead" ("Syntagma," p. 33, as quoted in "Diegesis," p.

257).

Eusebius tells us of a man, named Sanctus, who was tortured until his

body "was one continued wound, mangled and shrivelled, that had entirely

lost the form of man;" and, when the tormentors began again on the same

day, he "recovered the former shape and habit of his limbs" ("Eccles.

Hist," bk. v., chap. i.). He then was sent to the amphitheatre, passing

down the lane of scourgers, was dragged about and lacerated by the wild

beast, roasted in an iron chair, and after this was "at last

dispatched!" Other accounts, such as that of a man scourged till his

bones were "bared of the flesh," and then slowly tortured, are given as

history, as though a man in that condition would not speedily bleed to

death. But it is useless to give more of these foolish stories, which

weary us as we toil through the writings of the early Church. Well may

Mosheim say that the "Apostolic Fathers, and the other writers, who, in

the infancy of the Church, employed their pens in the cause of

Christianity, were neither remarkable for their learning nor their

eloquence" ("Eccles. Hist," p. 32). Thoroughly unreliable as they are,

they are useless as witnesses of supposed miraculous events; and, in

relating ordinary occurrences, they should not be depended upon in any

matter of importance, unless they be corroborated by more trustworthy

historians.

The last point Paley urges in support of his proposition is, that the

accounts contained in "the historical Books of the New Testament" are

"deserving of credit as histories," and that such is "the situation of

the authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed that, if any one of

the four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose." This brings us,

indeed, to the crucial point of our investigation, for, as we can gain

so little information from external sources, we are perforce driven to

the Christian writings themselves. If they break down under criticism as

completely as the external evidences have done, then Christianity

becomes hopelessly discredited as to its historical basis, and must

simply take rank with the other mythologies of the world. But before we

can accept the writings as historical, we are bound to investigate their

authenticity and credibility. Does the external evidence suffice to

prove their authenticity? Do the contents of the books themselves

commend them as credible to our intelligence? It is possible that,

although the historical evidence authenticating them be somewhat

defective, yet the thorough coherency and reasonableness of the books

may induce us to consider them as reliable; or, if the latter points be

lacking from the supernatural character of the occurrences related, yet

the evidence of authenticity may be so overwhelming as to place the

accuracy of the accounts beyond cavil. But if external evidence be

wanting, and internal evidence be fatal to the truthfulness of the

writings, then it will become our duty to remove them from the temple of

history, and to place them in the fairy gardens of fancy and of myth,

where they may amuse and instruct the student, without misleading him as

to questions of fact.

The positions which we here lay down are:--

_a_. That forgeries bearing the names of Christ, and of the apostles,

and of the early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church.

_b_. That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the

apocryphal writings.

_c_. That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings

were selected.

_d_. That before about A.D. 180 there is no trace of _four_ Gospels

among the Christians.

_e_. That before that date Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not

selected as the four evangelists.

_f_. That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned about

that date were the same as those we have now.

_g_. That there is evidence that two of them were not the same.

_h_. That there is evidence that the earlier records were not the

Gospels now esteemed canonical.

_i_. That the books themselves show marks of their later origin.

_j_. That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidence

against their authenticity.

_k_. That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1)

the miracles with which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions of

each by the others, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, the

doctrines, the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of

the Gospels; so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of

older materials.

Paley begins his argument by supposing that the first and fourth Gospels

were written by the apostles Matthew and John, "from personal knowledge

and recollection" ("Evidences," p. 87), and that they must therefore be

either true, or wilfully false; the latter being most improbable, as

they would then be "villains for no end but to teach honesty, and

martyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage" (Ibid, page

88). But supposing that Matthew and John wrote some Gospels, we should

need proof that the Gospels which we have, supposing them to be copies

of those thus written, have not been much altered since they left the

apostles' hands. We should next ask how Matthew can report from

"personal knowledge and recollection" all that comes in his Gospel

_before he was called from his tax-gathering_, as well as many incidents

at which he was not present? and whether his reliability as a witness is

not terribly weakened by his making no distinction between what was fact

within his own knowledge, and what was simple hearsay? Further, we

remark that some of the teaching is the reverse of teaching "honesty,"

and that such instruction as Matt. v. 39-42 would, if accepted, exactly

suit "villains;" that the extreme glorification of the master would

naturally be reflected upon "the twelve" who followed him, and the

authority of the writers would thereby be much increased and confirmed;

that pure moral teaching on some points is no guarantee of the morality

of the teacher, for a tyrant, or an ambitious priest, would naturally

wish to discourage crime of some kinds in those he desired to rule; that

such tyrant or priest could find no better creed to serve his purpose

than meek, submissive, non-resisting, heaven-seeking Christianity. Thus

we find Mosheim saying of Constantine: "It is, indeed, probable that

this prince perceived the admirable tendency of the Christian doctrine

and precepts to promote the stability of government, by preserving the

citizens in their obedience to the reigning powers, and in the practice

of those virtues that render a State happy" ("Eccles. Hist," p. 87). We

discover Charlemagne enforcing Christianity among the Saxons by sword

and fire, hoping that it would, among other things, "induce them to

submit more tamely to the government of the Franks" (Ibid, p. 170). And

we see missionaries among the savages usurping "a despotic dominion over

their obsequious proselytes" (Ibid, p. 157); and "St. Boniface," the

"apostle of Germany," often employing "violence and terror, and

sometimes artifice and fraud, in order to multiply the number of

Christians" (Ibid, p. 169). Thus do "villains" very often "teach

honesty." Nor is it true that these apostles were "martyrs [their

martyrdom being unproved] without the least prospect of honour or

advantage;" on the contrary, they desired to know what they would get by

following Jesus. "_What shall we have_, therefore?... Ye which have

followed me shall sit upon twelve thrones" (Matt. xix. 27-30); and,

further, in Mark ix. 28-31, we are told that any one who forsakes

anything for Jesus shall receive "an hundredfold _now in this time,"_ as

well as eternal life in the world to come. Surely, then, there was

"prospect" enough of "honour and advantage"? These remarks apply quite

as strongly to Mark and Luke, neither of whom are pretended to be

eye-witnesses. Of Mark we know nothing, except that it is said that

there was a man named John, whose surname was Mark (Acts xii. 12 and

25), who ran away from his work (Acts xv. 38); and a man named Marcus,

nephew of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), who may, or may not, be the same, but

is probably somebody else, as he is with Paul; and one of the same name

is spoken of (2 Tim. ii.) as "profitable for the ministry," which John

Mark was not, and who (Philemon 24) was a "fellow-labourer" with Paul in

Rome, while John Mark was rejected in this capacity by Paul at Antioch.

Why Mark, or John Mark, should write a Gospel, he not having been an

eye-witness, or why Mark, or John Mark, should be identical with Mark

the Evangelist, only writers of Christian evidences can hope to

understand.

A. _That forgeries, bearing the names of Christ, of the apostles, and of

the early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church_.

"The opinions, or rather the conjectures, of the learned concerning the

time when the books of the New Testament were collected into one volume,

as also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different.

This important question is attended with great and almost insuperable

difficulties to us in these latter times" (Mosheim's "Eccles. Hist.," p.

31). These difficulties arise, to a great extent, from the large number

of forgeries, purporting to be writings of Christ, of the apostles, and

of the apostolic Fathers, current in the early Church. "For, not long

after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and

doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by

persons whose intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings

discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all;

productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent

men, as the writings of the holy apostles" (Ibid, p. 31). "Another

erroneous practice was adopted by them, which, though it was not so

universal as the other, was yet extremely pernicious, and proved a

source of numberless evils to the Christian Church. The Platonists and

Pythagoreans held it as a maxim, that it was not only lawful, but even

praiseworthy, to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a lie, in

order to advance the cause of truth and piety. The Jews, who lived in

Egypt, had learned and received this maxim from them, before the coming

of Christ, as appears incontestably from a multitude of ancient records;

and the Christians were infected from both these sources with the same

pernicious error, as appears from the number of books attributed falsely

to great and venerable names, from the Sibylline verses, and several

suppositious productions which were spread abroad in this and the

following century. It does not, indeed, seem probable that all these

pious frauds were chargeable upon the professors of real Christianity,

upon those who entertained just and rational sentiments of the religion

of Jesus. The greatest part of these fictitious writings undoubtedly

flowed from the fertile invention of the Gnostic sects, though it cannot

be affirmed that even true Christians were entirely innocent and

irreproachable in this matter" (Ibid, p. 55). "This disingenuous and

vicious method of surprising their adversaries by artifice, and striking

them down, as it were, by lies and fiction, produced, among other

disagreeable effects, a great number of books, which were falsely

attributed to certain great men, in order to give these spurious

productions more credit and weight" (Ibid, page 77). These forged

writings being so widely circulated, it will be readily understood that

"It is not so easy a matter as is commonly imagined rightly to settle

the Canon of the New Testament. For my own part, I declare, with many

learned men, that, in the whole compass of learning, I know no question

involved with more intricacies and perplexing difficulties than this.

There are, indeed, considerable difficulties relating to the Canon of

the Old Testament, as appears by the large controversies between the

Protestants and Papists on this head in the last, and latter end of the

preceding, century; but these are solved with much more ease than those

of the New.... In settling the old Testament collection, all that is

requisite is to disprove the claim of a few obscure books, which have

but the weakest pretences to be looked upon as Scripture; but, in the

New, we have not only a few to disprove, but a vast number to exclude

[from] the Canon, which seem to have much more right to admission than

any of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament; and, besides, to

evidence the genuineness of all those which we do receive, since,

according to the sentiments of some who would be thought learned, there

are none of them whose authority has not been controverted in the

earliest ages of Christianity.... The number of books that claim

admission [to the canon] is very considerable. Mr. Toland, in his

celebrated catalogue, has presented us with the names of above

eighty.... There are many more of the same sort which he has not

mentioned" (J. Jones on "The Canon of the New Testament," vol. i., pp.

2-4. Ed. 1788).

The following list will give some idea of the number of the apocryphal

writings from which the four Gospels, and other books of the New

Testament, finally emerge as canonical:--

GOSPELS.

1. Gospel according to the Hebrews.

2. Gospel written by Judas Iscariot.

3. Gospel of Truth, made use of by the Valentinians.

4. Gospel of Peter.

5. Gospel according to the Egyptians.

6. Gospel of Valentinus.

7. Gospel of Marcion.

8. Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles.

9. Gospel of Basilides.

10. Gospel of Thomas (extant).

11. Gospel of Matthias.

12. Gospel of Tatian.

13. Gospel of Scythianus.

14. Gospel of Bartholomew.

15. Gospel of Apelles.

16. Gospels published by Lucianus and Hesychius

17. Gospel of Perfection.

18. Gospel of Eve.

19. Gospel of Philip.

20. Gospel of the Nazarenes (qy. same as first)

21. Gospel of the Ebionites.

22. Gospel of Jude.

23. Gospel of Encratites.

24. Gospel of Cerinthus.

25. Gospel of Merinthus.

26. Gospel of Thaddaeus.

27. Gospel of Barnabas.

28. Gospel of Andrew.

29. Gospel of the Infancy (extant).

30. Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts of Pilate and Descent

of Christ to the Under World (extant).

31. Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (extant).

32. Gospel of the Nativity of Mary (extant).

33. Arabic Gospel of the Infancy (extant).

34. Syriac Gospel of the Boyhood of our Lord Jesus (extant).

MISCELLANEOUS.

35. Letter to Agbarus by Christ (extant).

36. Letter to Leopas by Christ (extant).

37. Epistle to Peter and Paul by Christ.

38. Epistle by Christ produced by Manichees.

39. Hymn by Christ (extant).

40. Magical Book by Christ.

41. Prayer by Christ (extant).

42. Preaching of Peter.

43. Revelation of Peter.

44. Doctrine of Peter.

45. Acts of Peter.

46. Book of Judgment by Peter.

47. Book, under the name of Peter, forged by Lentius.

48. Preaching of Peter and Paul at Rome.

49. The Vision, or Acts of Paul and Thecla.

50. Acts of Paul.

51. Preaching of Paul.

52. Piece under name of Paul, forged by an "anonymous writer in Cyprian's

time."

53. Epistle to the Laodiceans under name of Paul (extant).

54. Six letters to Seneca under name of Paul (extant).

55. Anabaticon or Revelation of Paul.

56. The traditions of Matthias.

57. Book of James.

58. Book, under name of James, forged by Ebionites.

59. Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas.

60. Acts of John.

61. Book, under name of John, forged by Ebionites.

62. Book under name of John.

63. Book, under name of John, forged by Lentius.

64. Acts of Andrew.

65. Book under name of Andrew.

66. Book, under name of Andrew, by Naxochristes and Leonides.

67. Book under name of Thomas.

68. Acts of Thomas.

69. Revelation of Thomas.

70. Writings of Bartholomew.

71. Book, under name of Matthew, forged by Ebionites.

72. Acts of the Apostles by Leuthon, or Seleucus.

73. Acts of the Apostles used by Ebionites.

74. Acts of the Apostles by Lenticius.

75. Acts of the Apostles used by Manichees.

76. History of the Twelve Apostles by Abdias (extant).

77. Creed of the Apostles (extant).

78. Constitutions of the Apostles (extant).

79. Acts, under Apostles' names, by Leontius.

80. Acts, under Apostles' names, by Lenticius.

81. Catholic Epistle, in imitation of the Apostles of

Themis, on the Montanists.

82. Revelation of Cerinthus, nominally apostolical.

83. Book of the Helkesaites which fell from Heaven.

84. Books of Lentitius.

85. Revelation of Stephen.

86. Works of Dionysius the Areopagite (extant).

87. History of Joseph the carpenter (extant).

88. Letter of Agbarus to Jesus (extant).

89. Letter of Lentulus (extant).

90. Story of Veronica (extant).

91. Letter of Pilate to Tiberius (extant).

92. Letters of Pilate to Herod (extant).

93. Epistle of Pilate to Cæsar (extant).

94. Report of Pilate the Governor (extant).

95. Trial and condemnation of Pilate (extant).

96. Death of Pilate (extant).

97. Story of Joseph of Arimathraea (extant).

98. Revenging of the Saviour (extant).

99. Epistle of Barnabas.

100. Epistle of Polycarp.

101-15. Fifteen epistles of Ignatius (see above, pages 217-220.)

116. Shepherd of Hermas.

117. First Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement (possibly partly

authentic).

118. Second Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement.

119. Apostolic Canons of Clement.

120. Recognitions of Clement and Clementina.

121-122. Two Epistles of St. Clement of Rome (written in Syriac).

123-128. Six books of Justin Martyr.

129-132. Four books of Justin Martyr.

The above are collected from Jones' On the Canon, Supernatural Religion,

Eusebius, Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, Cowper's Apocryphal Gospels,

Dr. Giles' Christian Records, and the Apostolic Fathers.

After reading this list, the student will be able to appreciate the

value of Paley's argument, that, "if it had been an easy thing in the

early times of the institution to have forged Christian writings, and to

have obtained currency and reception to the forgeries, we should have

had many appearing in the name of Christ himself" ("Evidences," p. 106).

Paley acknowledges "one attempt of this sort, deserving of the smallest

notice;" and, in a note, adds three more of those mentioned above. Let

us see what the evidence is of the genuineness of the letter to Agbarus,

the "one attempt" in question, as given by Eusebius. Agbarus, the prince

of Edessa, reigning "over the nations beyond the Euphrates with great

glory," was afflicted with an incurable disease, and, hearing of Jesus,

sent to him to entreat deliverance. The letter of Agbarus is carried to

Jesus, "at Jerusalem, by Ananias, the courier," and the answer of Jesus,

also written, is returned by the same hands. The letter of Jesus runs as

follows, and is written in Syriac: "Blessed art thou, O Agbarus, who,

without seeing me, hast believed in me! For it is written concerning me,

that they who have seen me will not believe, that they who have not seen

me may believe and live. But in regard to what thou hast written, that I

should come to thee, it is necessary that I should fulfil all things

here, for which I have been sent. And, after this fulfilment, thus to be

received again by Him that sent me. And after I have been received up, I

will send to thee a certain one of my disciples, that he may heal thy

affliction, and give life to thee, and to those who are with thee."

After the ascension of Jesus, Thaddaeus, one of the seventy, is sent to

Edessa, and lodges in the house of Tobias, the son of Tobias, and heals

Agbarus and many others. "These things were done in the 340th year"

(Eusebius does not state what he reckons from). The proof given by

Eusebius for the truth of the account is as follows: "Of this also we

have the evidence, in a written answer, taken from the public records of

the city of Edessa, then under the government of the king. For, in the

public registers there, which embrace the ancient history and the

transactions of Agbarus, these circumstances respecting him are found

still preserved down to the present day. There is nothing, however, like

hearing the epistles themselves, taken by us from the archives, and the

style of it, as it has been literally translated by us, from the Syriac

language" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. i., chap. xiii.). And Paley calls this

an attempt at forgery, "deserving of the smallest notice," and dismisses

it in a few lines. It would be interesting to know for what other

"Scripture," canonical or uncanonical, there is evidence of authenticity

so strong as for this; exactness of detail in names; absence of any

exaggeration more than is implied in recounting any miracle; the

transaction recorded in the public archives; seen there by Eusebius

himself; copied down and translated by him; such evidence for any one of

the Gospels would make belief far easier than it is at present. The

assertion of Eusebius was easily verifiable at the time (to use the

favourite argument of Christians for the truth of any account); and if

Eusebius here wrote falsely, of what value is his evidence on any other

point? A Freethinker may fairly urge that Eusebius is _not_ trustworthy,

and that this assertion of his about the archives is as likely to be

false as true; but the Christian can scarcely admit this, when so much

depends, for him, on the reliability of the great Church historian, all

whose evidence would become worthless if he be once allowed to have

deliberately fabricated that which did not exist.

We have already noticed the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and

pointed out the numerous forgeries circulated under their names, and the

consequent haze hanging over all the early Christian writers, until we

reach the time of Justin Martyr. Thus we entirely destroy the whole

basis of Paley's argument, that "the historical books of the New

Testament ... are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of Christian

writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the Apostles,

or who immediately followed them" ("Evidences," page 111;) for we have

no certain writings of any such contemporaries. In dealing with the

positions _f_. and _h_., we shall seek to prove that in the writings of

the Apostolic Fathers--taking them as genuine--as well as in Justin

Martyr, and in other Christian works up to about A.D. 180, the

quotations said to be from the canonical Gospels conclusively show that

other Gospels were used, and not our present ones; but no further

evidence than the long list of apocryphal writings, given on pp. 240-243

is needed in order to prove our first proposition, that _forgeries,

bearing the name of Christ, of the apostles, and of the early fathers,

were very common in the primitive Church_.

B. "_That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the

apocryphal writings_." "Their pretences are specious and plausible, for

the most part going under the name of our Saviour himself, his apostles,

their companions, or immediate successors. They are generally thought to

be cited by the first Christian writers with the same authority (at

least, many of them) as the sacred books we receive. This Mr. Toland

labours hard to persuade us; but, what is more to be regarded, men of

greater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expressions of the like

nature. _Everybody knows_ (says the learned Casaubon against Cardinal

Baronius) _that Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the

rest of the primitive writers, were wont to approve and cite books which

now all men know to be apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus_ (says his

learned annotator, Sylburgius) _was too much pleased with apocryphal

writings_. Mr. Dodwell (in his learned dissertation on Irenæus) tells us

that, _till Trajan, or, perhaps, Adrian's time, no canon was fixed; the

supposititious pieces of the heretics were received by the faithful, the

apostles' writings bound up with theirs, and indifferently used in the

churches._ To mention no more, the learned Mr. Spanheim observes, _that

Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen very often cite apocryphal books under

the express name of Scripture_.... How much Mr. Whiston has enlarged the

Canon of the New Testament, is sufficiently known to the learned among

us. For the sake of those who have not perused his truly valuable books

I would observe, that he imagines the 'Constitutions of the Apostles' to

be inspired, and of greater authority than the occasional writings of

single Apostles and Evangelists. That the two Epistles of Clemens, the

Doctrine of the Apostles, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of

Hermas, the second book of Esdras, the Epistles of Ignatius, and the

Epistle of Polycarp, are to be reckoned among the sacred authentic books

of the New Testament; as also that the Acts of Paul, the Revelation,

Preaching, Gospel and Acts of Peter, were sacred books, and, if they

were extant, should be of the same authority as any of the rest" (J.

Jones, on the "Canon," p. 4-6). This same learned writer further says:

"That many, or most of the books of the New Testament, have been

rejected by heretics in the first ages, is also certain. Faustus

Manichæus and his followers are said to have rejected all the New

Testament, as not written by the Apostles. Marcion rejected all, except

St. Luke's Gospel. The Manichees disputed much against the authority of

St. Matthew's Gospel. The Alogians rejected the Gospel of St. John as

not his, but made by Cerinthus. The Acts of the Apostles were rejected

by Severus, and the sect of his name. The same rejected all Paul's

Epistles, as also did the Ebionites, and the Helkesaites. Others, who

did not reject all, rejected some particular epistles.... Several of the

books of the New Testament were not universally received, even among

them who were not heretics, in the first ages.... Several of them have

had their authority disputed by learned men in later times" (Ibid, pp.

8, 9).

If recognition by the early writers be taken as a proof of the

authenticity of the works quoted, many apocryphal documents must stand

high. Eusebius, who ranks together the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of

Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the

Institutions of the Apostles, and the Revelation of John (now accounted

canonical) says that these were not embodied in the Canon (in his time)

"notwithstanding that they are recognised by most ecclesiastical

writers" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. iii., chap. xxv.). The Canon, in his

time, was almost the same as at present, but the canonicity of the

epistles of James and Jude, the 2nd of Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of John,

and the Revelation, was disputed even as late as when he wrote. Irenæus

ranks the Pastor of Hermas as Scripture; "he not only knew, but also

admitted the book called Pastor" (Ibid, bk. v., chap. viii.). "The

Pastor of Hermas is another work which very nearly secured permanent

canonical rank with the writings of the New Testament. It was quoted as

Holy Scripture by the Fathers, and held to be divinely inspired, and it

was publicly read in the churches. It has place with the Epistle of

Barnabas in the Sinaitic Codex, after the canonical books"

("Supernatural Religion," vol. i., p. 261).

The two Epistles of Clement are only "preserved to us in the Codex

Alexandrinus, a MS. assigned by the most competent judges to the second

half of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, in which these

Epistles follow the books of the New Testament. The second Epistle ...

thus shares with the first the honour of a canonical position in one of

the most ancient codices of the New Testament" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., p.

220). These epistles are, also, amongst those mentioned in the Apostolic

Canons. "Until a comparatively late date this [the first of Clement]

Epistle was quoted as Holy Scripture" (Ibid, p. 222). Origen quotes the

Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture, and calls it a "Catholic Epistle"

(Ibid, p. 237), and this same Father regards the Shepherd of Hermas as

also divinely inspired. (Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels," vol. i.,

p. 341). Gospels, other than the four canonical, are quoted as authentic

by the earliest Christian writers, as we shall see in establishing

position _h_; thus destroying Paley's contention ("Evidences," p. 187)

that there are no quotations from apocryphal writings in the Apostolical

Fathers, the fact being that such quotations are sown throughout their

supposed writings.

It is often urged that the expression, "it is written," is enough to

prove that the quotation following it is of canonical authority.

"Now with regard to the value of the expression, 'it is written,' it may

be remarked that in no case could its use, in the Epistle of Barnabas,

indicate more than individual opinion, and it could not, for reasons to

be presently given, be considered to represent the opinion of the

Church. In the very same chapter in which the formula is used in

connection with the passage we are considering, it is also employed to

introduce a quotation from the Book of Enoch, [Greek: peri hou gegraptai

hos Henoch legei], and elsewhere (c. xii.) he quotes from another

apocryphal book as one of the prophets.... He also quotes (c. vi.) the

apocryphal book of Wisdom as Holy Scripture, and in like manner several

unknown works. When it is remembered that the Epistle of Clement to the

Corinthians, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas itself, and

many other apocryphal works have been quoted by the Fathers as Holy

Scripture, the distinctive value of such an expression may be

understood" (Ibid, pp. 242, 243). "The first Christian writers ... quote

ecclesiastical books from time to time as if they were canonical"

(Westcott on "The Canon," p. 9). "In regard to the use of the word

[Greek: gegraptai], introducing the quotation, the same writer

[Hilgenfeld] urges reasonably enough that it cannot surprise us at a

time when we learn from Justin Martyr that the Gospels were read

regularly at public worship [or rather, that the memorials of the

Apostles were so read]; it ought not, however, to be pressed too far as

involving a claim to special divine inspiration, as the same word is

used in the epistle in regard to the apocryphal book of Enoch; and it is

clear, also, from Justin, that the Canon of the Gospels was not yet

formed, but only forming" ("Gospels in the Second Century," Rev. W.

Sanday, p. 73. Ed. 1876). Yet, in spite of all this, Paley says, "The

phrase, 'it is written,' was the very form in which the Jews quoted

their Scriptures. It is not probable, therefore, that he would have used

this phrase, and without qualification, of any books but what had

acquired a kind of Scriptural authority" ("Evidences," p. 113).

Tischendorf argues on Paley's lines and says that "it was natural,

therefore, to apply this form of expression to the Apostles' writings,

as soon as they had been placed in the Canon with the books of the Old

Testament. When we find, therefore, in ancient ecclesiastical writings,

quotations from the Gospels introduced with this formula, 'it is

written,' we must infer that, at the time when the expression was used,

the Gospels were certainly treated as of equal authority with the books

of the Old Testament" ("When Were Our Gospels Written?" p. 89. Eng. Ed.,

1867). Dr. Tischendorf, if he believe in his own argument, must greatly

enlarge his Canon of the New Testament.

Paley's further plea that "these apocryphal writings were not read in

the churches of Christians" ("Evidences," p. 187) is thoroughly false.

Eusebius tells us of the Pastor of Hermas: "We know that it has been

already in public use in our churches" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. iii., ch.

3). Clement's Epistle "was publicly read in the churches at the Sunday

meetings of Christians" ("Sup. Rel," vol. i., p. 222). Dionysius of

Corinth mentions this same early habit of reading any valued writing in

the churches: "In this same letter he mentions that of Clement to the

Corinthians, showing that it was the practice to read in the churches,

even from the earliest times. 'To-day,' says he, 'we have passed the

Lord's holy-day, in which we have read your epistle, in reading which we

shall always have our minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also,

from that written to us before by Clement'" (Eusebius' "Eccles. Hist.,"

bk. iv., ch. 23). So far is "reading in the churches" to be accepted as

a proof, even of canonicity, much less of genuineness, that Eusebius

remarks that "the disputed writings" were "publicly used by many in most

of the churches" (Ibid, bk. iii., ch. 31). Paley then takes as a further

mark of distinction, between canonical and uncanonical, that the latter

"were not admitted into their volume" and "do not appear in their

catalogues," but we have already seen that the only MS. copy of

Clement's first Epistle is in the Codex Alexandrinus (see ante p. 246),

while the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas find their place

in the Sinaitic Codex (see ante p. 246); the second Epistle of Clement

is also in the Codex Alexandrinus, and both epistles are in the

Apostolic constitutions (see ante p. 247). The Canon of

Muratori--worthless as it is, it is used as evidence by

Christians--brackets the Apocalypse of John and of Peter ("Sup. Rel.,"

vol. ii., p. 241). Canon Westcott says: "'Apocryphal' writings were

added to manuscripts of the New Testament, and read in churches; and the

practice thus begun continued for a long time. The Epistle of Barnabas

was still read among the 'apocryphal Scriptures' in the time of Jerome;

a translation of the Shepherd of Hermas is found in a MS. of the Latin

Bible as late as the fifteenth century. The spurious Epistle to the

Laodicenes is found very commonly in English copies of the Vulgate from

the ninth century downwards, and an important catalogue of the Apocrypha

of the New Testament is added to the Canon of Scripture subjoined to the

Chronographia of Nicephorus, published in the ninth century" ("On the

Canon," pp. 8, 9). Paley's fifth distinction, that they "were not

noticed by their [heretical] adversaries" is as untrue as the preceding

ones, for even the fragments of "the adversaries" preserved in Christian

documents bear traces of reference to the apocryphal writings, although,

owing to the orthodox custom of destroying unorthodox books, references

of any sort by heretics are difficult to find. Again, Paley should have

known, when he asserted that the uncanonical writings were not alleged

as of authority, that the heretics _did_ appeal to gospels other than

the canonical. Marcion, for instance, maintained a Gospel varying from

the recognised one, while the Ebionites contended that their Hebrew

Gospel was the only true one. Eusebius further tells us of books

"adduced by the heretics under the name of the Apostles, such, viz., as

compose the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthew, and others beside

them, or such as contain the Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew and John,

and others" ("Eccles. Hist," bk. iii., ch. 25. See also ante p. 246). It

is hard to believe that Paley was so grossly ignorant as to know nothing

of these facts; did he then deliberately state what he knew to be

utterly untrue? His last "mark" does not touch our position, as the

commentaries, etc., are too late to be valuable as evidence for the

alleged superiority of the canonical writings during the first two

centuries. The other section of Paley's argument, that "when the

Scriptures [a very vague word] are quoted, or alluded to, they are

quoted with peculiar respect, as books _sui generis_" is met by the

details given above as to the fashion in which the Fathers referred to

the writings now called uncanonical, and by the evidence adduced in this

section we may fairly claim to have proved that, so far as external

testimony goes, _there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the

apocryphal writings_.

But there is another class of evidence relied upon by Christians,

wherewith they seek to build up an impassable barrier between their

sacred books and the dangerous uncanonical Scriptures, namely, the

intrinsic difference between them, the dignity of the one, and the

puerility of the other. Of the uncanonical Gospels Dr. Ellicott writes:

"Their real demerits, their mendacities, their absurdities, their

coarseness, the barbarities of their style, and the inconsequence of

their narratives, have never been excused or condoned" ("Cambridge

Essays," for 1856, p. 153, as quoted in introduction of "The Apocryphal

Gospels," by B.H. Cowper, p. x. Ed. 1867). "We know before we read them

that they are weak, silly, and profitless--that they are despicable

monuments even of religious fiction" (Ibid, p. xlvii). How far are such

harsh expressions consonant with fact? It is true that many of the tales

related are absurd, but are they more absurd than the tales related in

the canonical Gospels? One story, repeated with variations, runs as

follows: "This child Jesus, being five years old, was playing at the

crossing of a stream, and he collected the running waters into pools,

and immediately made them pure, and by his word alone he commanded them.

And having made some soft clay, he fashioned out of it twelve sparrows;

and it was the Sabbath when he did these things. And there were also

many other children playing with him. And a certain Jew, seeing what

Jesus did, playing on the Sabbath, went immediately and said to Joseph,

his father, Behold, thy child is at the water-course, and hath taken

clay and formed twelve birds, and hath profaned the Sabbath. And Joseph

came to the place, and when he saw him, he cried unto him, saying, Why

art thou doing these things on the Sabbath, which it is not lawful to

do? And Jesus clapped his hands, and cried unto the sparrows, and said

to them, Go away; and the sparrows flew up and departed, making a noise.

And the Jews who saw it were astonished, and went and told their leaders

what they had seen Jesus do" ("Gospel of Thomas: Apocryphal Gospels,"

B.H. Cowper, pp. 130, 131). Making the water pure by a word is no more

absurd than turning water into wine (John ii. 1-11); or than sending an

angel to trouble it, and thereby making it health-giving (John v. 2-4);

or than casting a tree into bitter waters, and making them sweet (Ex.

xv. 25). The fashioning of twelve sparrows out of soft clay is not

stranger than making a woman out of a man's rib (Gen. ii. 21); neither

is it more, or nearly so, curious as making clay with spittle, and

plastering it on a blind man's eyes in order to make him see (John ix.

6); nay, arguing _à la_ F.D. Maurice, a very strong reason might be made

out for this proceeding. Thus, Jesus came to reveal the Father to men,

and his miracles were specially arranged to show how God works in the

world; by turning the water into wine, and by multiplying the loaves, he

reminds men that it is God whose hand feeds them by all the ordinary

processes of nature. In this instructive miracle of the clay formed into

sparrows, which fly away at his bidding, Jesus reveals his unity with

the Father, as the Word by whom all things were originally made; for

"out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and

every fowl of the air" (Gen. ii. 19) at the creation, and when the Son

was revealed to bring about the new creation, what more appropriate

miracle could he perform than this reminiscence of paradise, clearly

suggesting to the Jews that the Jehovah, who, of old, formed the fowls

of the air out of the ground, was present among them in the incarnate

Word, performing the same mighty work? Exactly in this fashion do

Maurice, Robertson, and others of their school, deal with the miracles

of Christ recorded in the canonical gospels (see Maurice on the

Miracles, Sermon IV., in "What is Revelation?"). The number, twelve, is

also significant, being that of the tribes of Israel, and the local

colouring--the complaining Jews and the violated Sabbath--is in perfect

harmony with the other gospels. The action of Jesus, vindicating the

conduct complained of by the performance of a miracle, is in the fullest

accord with similar instances related in the received stories. It is,

however, urged that some of the miracles of Jesus, as given in the

apocrypha, are dishonouring to him, because of their destructive

character; the son of Annas, the scribe, spills the water the child

Jesus has collected, and Jesus gets angry and says, "Thou also shalt

wither like a tree;" and "suddenly the boy withered altogether" (Ap.

Gos., p. 131). This seems in thorough unity with the spirit Jesus showed

in later life, when he cursed the fig-tree, because it did not bear

fruit in the wrong season, and "presently the fig-tree withered away"

(Matt. xxi. 19). Or a child, running against him purposely, falls dead;

or a master lifting his hand against him, has the arm withered which

essays to strike. Later, of Judas, who betrays him, we read that,

"falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels

gushed out" (Acts i. 18); while, in the Old Testament, which speaks of

Christ, we are told, in figures, we learn that, when Jeroboam tried to

seize a prophet, "his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up, so

that he could not pull it in again to him" (1 Kings xiii. 4). If

destructiveness be thought injurious when related of Jesus, what shall

we say to the wanton destruction of the herd of swine which Jesus filled

with devils, and sent racing into the sea? (Matt. viii. 28-34.) The

miracle the child works to rectify a mistake of his father's in his

carpenter's business, taking hold of some wood which has been cut too

short and lengthening it, is certainly not more silly than the miracle

worked by the man when money is short, and he (Matt. xvii. 24-27) sends

Peter to catch a fish with money in its mouth (why not, by the way, have

fished directly for the coin? it would be quite as possible for a coin

to transfix itself on a hook, as for a fish, with a piece of money in

its mouth, to swallow a hook). Other miracles recorded in the apocryphal

gospels, of healing and of raising the dead, are identical in spirit

with those told of him in the canonical. We may also remark that, unless

there were some received traditions of miracles worked by Jesus in his

household, there is no reason for the evident expectation of some help

which is said to have been shown by Mary when the guests want wine at

the wedding (John ii. 3-5). That verse 11 states that this was his first

miracle is only one of the many inconsistencies of the gospel stories.

Passing from these gospels of the infancy to those which tell of the

sufferings of Jesus, we shall find in the "Gospel of Nicodemus, or Acts

of Pilate," much that shows their full accordance with the received

writings of the New Testament. This point is so important, as equalising

the canonical and uncanonical gospels, that no excuse is needed for

proving it by somewhat extensive extracts. The gospel opens as follows:

"I, Ananias, a provincial warden, being a disciple of the law, from the

divine Scriptures recognised our Lord Jesus Christ, and came to him by

faith; and was also accounted worthy of holy baptism. Now, when

searching the records of what was wrought in the time of our Lord Jesus

Christ, which the Jews laid up under Pontius Pilate, I found that these

Acts were written in Hebrew, and by the good pleasure of God I

translated them into Greek for the information of all who call on the

name of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the government of our Lord Flavius

Theodosius, the 17th year, and in the 6th consulate of Flavius

Valentinianus, in the 9th indiction." It may here be noted for what it

is worth that Justin Martyr (1st Apology, chap, xxxv.) refers the Romans

to the Acts of Pilate as public documents open to them, which is

testimony far stronger than he gives to any canonical gospel. "In the

15th year of the government of Tiberius Cæsar, King of the Romans, and

of Herod, King of Galilee, the 9th year of his reign, on the 8th before

the calends of April, which is the 25th of March; in the consulship of

Rufus and Rubellio; in the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, when Joseph

Caiaphas was high priest of the Jews. Whatsoever, after the cross and

passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour God, Nicodemus recorded

and wrote in Hebrew, and left to posterity, is after this fashion"

("Apocryphal Gospels," B.H. Cowper, pp. 229, 230). In the first chapter

we learn how the Jews came to Pilate, and accuse Jesus, "that he saith

he is the son of God and a king; moreover, he profaneth the Sabbaths,

and wisheth to abolish the law of our fathers." After some conversation,

Jesus is brought, and in chap. 2 we read the message from Pilate's wife,

and "Pilate, having called the Jews, said to them, Ye know that my wife

is religious, and inclined to practise Judaism with you. They said unto

him, Yea, we know it. Pilate saith to them, Behold my wife hath sent to

me, saying, Have nothing to do with this just man, for I have suffered

very much because of him in the night. But the Jews answered, and said

to Pilate, Did we not tell thee that he is a magician? Behold, he hath

sent a dream to thy wife." The trial goes on, and Pilate declares the

innocence of Jesus, and then confers with him as in John xviii. 33-37.

Then comes the question (chaps, iii. and iv.): "Pilate saith unto him,

What is truth? Jesus saith to him, Truth is from heaven. Pilate saith,

Is truth not upon earth? Jesus saith to Pilate, Thou seest how they who

say the truth are judged by those who have power upon earth. And,

leaving Jesus within the prætorium, Pilate went out to the Jews, and

saith unto them, I find no fault in him." The conversation between

Pilate and the Jews is then related more fully than in the canonical

accounts, and after this follows a scene of much pathos, which is far

more in accord with the rest of the tale than the accepted story,

wherein the multitude are represented as crying with one voice for his

death. Nicodemus (chap. v.) first rises and speaks for Jesus: "Release

him, and wish no evil against him. If the miracles which he doth are of

God, they will stand; but, if of men, they will come to nought... Now,

therefore, release this man, for he is not deserving of death." Then

(chaps. vi., vii., and viii.): "One of the Jews, starting up, asked the

governor that he might say a word. The governor saith, If thou wilt

speak, speak. And the Jew said, I lay thirty-eight years on my bed in

pain and affliction. And when Jesus came, many demoniacs, and persons

suffering various diseases, were healed by him; and some young men had

pity on me, and carried me with my bed, and took me to him; and when

Jesus saw me, he had compassion, and said the word to me, Take up thy

bed, and walk; and I took up my bed and walked. The Jews said to Pilate,

Ask him what day it was when he was healed. He that was healed said, On

the Sabbath. The Jews said, Did we not tell thee so? that on the Sabbath

he healeth and casteth out demons? And another Jew, starting up, said, I

was born blind; I heard a voice, but saw no person; and as Jesus passed

by, I cried with a loud voice, Have pity on me, Son of David, and he had

pity on me, and placed his hands upon my eyes, and immediately I saw.

And another Jew, leaping up, said, I was a cripple, and he made me

straight with a word. And another said, I was a leper, and he healed me

with a word. And a certain woman cried out from a distance, and said, I

had an issue of blood, and I touched the hem of his garment, and my

issue of blood, which had been for twelve years, was stayed. The Jews

said, We have a law not to admit a woman to witness. And others, a

multitude, both of men and of women, cried and said, This man is a

prophet, and demons are subject unto him. Pilate said to those who said

that demons were subject to him, Why were your teachers not also subject

to him? They say unto Pilate, We know not. And others said, That he

raised up Lazarus from the sepulchre, when he had been dead four days.

And the governor, becoming afraid, said to all the multitude of the

Jews, Why will ye shed innocent blood?" The story proceeds much as in

the gospels, the names of the malefactors being given; and when Pilate

remarks the three hours' darkness to the Jews, they answer, "An eclipse

of the sun has happened in the usual manner" (chap. xi.). Chap. xiii.

gives a full account of the conversation between the Jews and the Roman

soldiers alluded to in Matt. xxviii. 11-15. The remaining chapters

relate the proceedings of the Jews after the resurrection, and are of no

special interest. There is a second Gospel of Nicodemus, varying on some

points from the one quoted above, which assumes to be "compiled by a

Jew, named Aeneas; translated from the Hebrew tongue into the Greek, by

Nicodemus, a Roman Toparch." Then we find a second part of the Gospel of

Nicodemus, or "The Descent of Christ to the Under World," which relates

how Jesus descended into Hades, and how he ordered Satan to be bound,

and then he "blessed Adam on the forehead with the sign of the cross;

and he did this also to the patriarchs, and the prophets, and martyrs,

and forefathers, and took them up, and sprang up out of Hades." This

story manifestly runs side by side with the tradition in 1. Pet. iii.

19, 20, wherein it is stated that Jesus "went and preached unto the

spirits in prison," and that preaching is placed between his death (v.

18) and his resurrection (v. 21). The saving by baptism (v. 21) is also

alluded to in this connection in Nicodemus, wherein (chap, xi.) the dead

are baptised. The Latin versions of the Gospels of Nicodemus vary in

details from the Greek, but not more than do the four canonical. In

these, as in all the apocryphal writings, there is nothing specially to

distinguish them from the accepted Scriptures; improbabilities and

contradictions abound in all; miracles render them all alike incredible;

myriad chains of similarity bind them all to each other, necessitating

either the rejection of all as fabulous, or the acceptance of all as

historical. Whether we regard external or internal evidence, we come to

the same conclusion, _that there is nothing to distinguish the canonical

from the uncanonical writings_.

C. _That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings

were selected_. Tremendously damaging to the authenticity of the New

Testament as this statement is, it is yet practically undisputed by

Christian scholars. Canon Westcott says frankly: "It cannot be denied

that the Canon was formed gradually. The condition of society and the

internal relations of the Church presented obstacles to the immediate

and absolute determination of the question, which are disregarded now,

only because they have ceased to exist. The tradition which represents

St. John as fixing the contents of the New Testament, betrays the spirit

of a later age" (Westcott "On the Canon," p. 4). "The track, however,

which we have to follow is often obscure and broken. The evidence of the

earliest Christian writers is not only uncritical and casual, but is

also fragmentary" (Ibid, p. 11). "From the close of the second century,

the history of the Canon is simple, and its proof clear... Before that

time there is more or less difficulty in making out the details of the

question.... Here, however, we are again beset with peculiar

difficulties. The proof of the Canon is embarrassed both by the general

characteristics of the age in which it was fixed, and by the particular

form of the evidence on which it first depends. The spirit of the

ancient world was essentially uncritical" (Ibid, pp. 6-8). In dealing

with "the early versions of the New Testament," Westcott admits that "it

is not easy to over-rate the difficulties which beset any inquiry into

the early versions of the New Testament" ("On the Canon," p. 231). He

speaks of the "comparatively scanty materials and vague or conflicting

traditions" (Ibid). The "original versions of the East and West" are

carefully examined by him; the oldest is the "Peshito," in Syriac--i.e.,

Aramæan, or Syro-Chaldaic. This must, of course, be only a translation

of the Testament, if it be true that the original books were written in

Greek. The time when this version was formed is unknown, and Westcott

argues that "the very obscurity which hangs over its origin is a proof

of its venerable age" (Ibid, p. 240); and he refers it to "the first

half of the second century," while acknowledging that he does so

"without conclusive authority" (Ibid). The Peshito omits the second and

third epistles of John, second of Peter, that of Jude, and the

Apocalypse. The origin of the Western version, in Latin, is quite as

obscure as that of the Syriac; and it is also incomplete, compared with

the present Canon, omitting the epistle of James and the second of Peter

(Ibid, p. 254). All the evidence so laboriously gathered together by the

learned Canon proves our proposition to demonstration. But, it is

admitted on all hands, that "it is impossible to assign any certain time

when a collection of these books, either by the Apostles, or by any

council of inspired or learned men, near their time, was made.... The

matter is too certain to need much to be said of it" (Jones "On the

Canon," vol. i, p. 7). Jones adds that he hopes to confute "these

specious objections ... in the fourth part of this book," in which he

endeavours to prove the Gospels and Acts to be _genuine_, so that it

does not much matter when they were collected together. In the time of

Eusebius the Canon was still unsettled, as he ranks among the disputed

and spurious works, the epistles of James and Jude, second of Peter,

second and third of John, and the Apocalypse ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. iii.,

chap. 25). It is not necessary to offer any further proof in support of

our position, _that it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical

writings were selected._

D. _That before about_ A.D. 180 _there is no trace of_ FOUR _gospels

among the Christians_. The first step we take in attacking the four

canonical gospels, apart from the writings of the New Testament as a

whole, is to show that there was no "sacred quaternion" spoken of before

about A.D. 180, i.e., the supposed time of Irenæus. Irenæus is said to

have been a bishop of Lyons towards the close of the second century; we

find him mentioned in the letter sent by the Churches of Vienne and

Lyons to "brethren in Asia and Phrygia," as "our brother and companion

Irenæus," and as a presbyter much esteemed by them ("Eccles. Hist." bk.

v., chs. 1, 4). This letter relates a persecution which occurred in "the

17th year of the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Verus," i.e., A.D. 177.

Paley dates the letter about A.D. 170, but as it relates the persecution

of A.D. 177, it is difficult to see how it could be written about seven

years before the persecution took place. In that persecution Pothinus,

bishop of Lyons, is said to have been slain; he was succeeded by Irenæus

(Ibid bk. v., ch. 5), who, therefore, could not possibly have been

bishop before A.D. 177, while he ought probably to be put a year or two

later, since time is needed, after the persecution, to send the account

of it to Asia by the hands of Irenæus, and he must be supposed to have

returned and to have settled down in Lyons before he wrote his

voluminous works; A.D. 180 is, therefore, an almost impossibly early

date, but it is, at any rate, the very earliest that can be pretended

for the testimony now to be examined. The works against heresies were

probably written, the first three about A.D. 190, and the remainder

about A.D. 198. Irenæus is the first Christian writer who mentions

_four_ Gospels; he says:--"Matthew produced his Gospel, written among

the Hebrews, in their own dialect, whilst Peter and Paul proclaimed the

Gospel and founded the church at Rome. After the departure of these,

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in

writing what had been preached by him. And Luke, the companion of Paul,

committed to writing the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the

disciple of our Lord, the same that lay upon his bosom, also published

the Gospel, whilst he was yet at Ephesus in Asia" (Quoted by Eusebius,

bk. v., ch. 8, from 3rd bk. of "Refutation and Overthrow of False

Doctrine," by Irenæus).

The reasons which compelled Irenæus to believe that there must be

neither less nor more than four Gospels in the Church are so convincing

that they deserve to be here put on record. "It is not possible that the

Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since

there are four zones [sometimes translated 'corners' or 'quarters'] of

the world in which we live, and four Catholic spirits, while the Church

is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and grounding of

the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting she

should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and

vivifying men afresh. From which fact it is evident that the Word, the

Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the Cherubim, and contains all

things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four

aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.... For the Cherubim too were

four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son

of God.... And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things,

among which Christ Jesus is seated" ("Irenæus," bk. iii., chap, xi.,

sec. 8). The Rev. Dr. Giles, writing on Justin Martyr, the great

Christian apologist, candidly says: "The very names of the Evangelists

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by him--do not occur

once in all his works. It is, therefore, childish to say that he has

quoted from our existing Gospels, and so proves their existence, as they

now are, in his own time.... He has nowhere remarked, like those Fathers

of the Church who lived several ages after him, that there are _four_

Gospels of higher importance and estimation than any others.... All this

was the creation of a later age, but it is wanting in Justin Martyr, and

the defect leads us to the conclusion that our four Gospels had not then

emerged from obscurity, but were still, if in being, confounded with a

larger mass of Christian traditions which, about this very time, were

beginning to be set down in writing" ("Christian Records," pp. 71, 72).

Had these four Gospels emerged before A.D. 180, we should most certainly

find some mention of them in the Mishna. "The Mishna, a collection of

Jewish traditions compiled about the year 180, takes no notice of

Christianity, though it contains a chapter headed 'De Cultu Peregrino,

of strange worship.' This omission is thought by Dr. Paley to prove

nothing, for, says he, 'it cannot be disputed but that Christianity was

perfectly well known to the world at this time.' It cannot, certainly,

be disputed that Christianity was _beginning_ to be known to the world,

but whether it had yet emerged from the lower classes of persons among

whom it originated, may well be doubted. It is a prevailing error, in

biblical criticism, to suppose that the whole world was feelingly alive

to what was going on in small and obscure parts of it. The existence of

Christians was probably known to the compilers of the Mishna in 180,

even though they did not deign to notice them, but they could not have

had any knowledge of the New Testament, or they would undoubtedly have

noticed it; if, at least, we are right in ascribing to it so high a

character, attracting (as we know it does) the admiration of every one

in every country to which it is carried" (Ibid, p. 35).

There is, however, one alleged proof of the existence of four, and only

four, Gospels, put forward by Paley:--Tatian, a follower of Justin

Martyr, and who flourished about the year 170, composed a harmony or

collection of the Gospels, which he called Diatessaron, of the Four.

This title, as well as the work, is remarkable, because it shows, that

then, as now, there were four and only four, Gospels in general use with

Christians ("Evidences," pp. 154, 155). Paley does not state, until

later, that the "follower of Justin Martyr" turned heretic and joined

the Encratites, an ascetic and mystic sect who taught abstinence from

marriage, and from meat, etc.; nor does he tell us how doubtful it is

what the Diatessaron--now lost--really contained. He blandly assures us

that it is a harmony of the four Gospels, although all the evidence is

against him. Irenæus, as quoted by Eusebius, says of Tatian that "having

apostatised from the Church, and being elated with the conceit of a

teacher, and vainly puffed up as if he surpassed all others," he

invented some new doctrines, and Eusebius further tells us: "Their chief

and founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection of

Gospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is

the Gospel by the four, or the Gospel formed of the four" ("Eccles.

Hist," bk. iv., ch. 29). Could Eusebius have written that Tatian formed

this, _I know not how_, if it had been a harmony of the Gospels

recognised by the Church when he wrote? and how is it that Paley knows

all about it, though Eusebius did not? And still further, after

mentioning the Diatessaron, Eusebius says _of another of Tatian's

books_: "This book, indeed, appears to be the most elegant and

profitable of all his works" (Ibid). More profitable than a harmony of

the four Gospels! So far as the name goes, as given by Eusebius, it

would seem to imply one Gospel written by four authors. Epiphanius

states: "Tatian is said to have composed the Gospel by four, which is

called by some, the Gospel according to the Hebrews" ("Sup. Rel.," vol.

ii., p. 155). Here we get the Diatessaron identified with the

widely-spread and popular early Gospel of the Hebrews. Theodoret (circa

A.D. 457) says that he found more than 200 such books in use in Syria,

the Christians not perceiving "the evil design of the composition;" and

this is Paley's harmony of the Gospels! Theodoret states that he took

these books away, "and instead introduced the Gospels of the four

Evangelists;" how strange an action in dealing with so useful a work as

a harmony of the Gospels, to confiscate it entirely and call it an evil

design! To complete the value of this work as evidence to "four, and

only four, Gospels," we are told by Victor of Capua, that it was also

called Diapente, i.e., "by five" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., p. 153). In

fact, there is no possible reason for calling the work--whose contents

ate utterly unknown--a _harmony_ of the Gospels at all; the notion that

it is a harmony is the purest of assumptions. There is some slight

evidence in favour of the identity of the Diatessaron with the Gospel of

the Hebrews. "Those, however, who called the Gospel used by Tatian the

Gospel according to the Hebrews, must have read the work, and all that

we know confirms their conclusion. The work was, in point of fact, found

in wide circulation precisely in the places in which, earlier, the

Gospel according to the Hebrews was more particularly current. The

singular fact that the earliest reference to Tatian's 'harmony' is made

a century and a half after its supposed composition, that no writer

before the 5th century had seen the work itself, indeed, that only two

writers before that period mention it at all, receives its natural

explanation in the conclusion that Tatian did not actually compose any

harmony at all, but simply made use of the same Gospel as his master

Justin Martyr, namely, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, by which

name his Gospel had been called by those best informed" ("Sup. Rel.,"

vol. ii., pp. 158, 159). As it is not pretended by any that there is any

mention of _four_ Gospels before the time of Irenæus, excepting this

"harmony," pleaded by some as dated about A.D. 170, and by others as

between 170 and 180, it would be sheer waste of time and space to prove

further a point admitted on all hands. This step of our argument is,

then, on solid and unassailable ground--_that before about_ A.D. 180

_there is no trace of FOUR Gospels among the Christians_.

E. _That, before that date, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not

selected as the four evangelists._ This position necessarily follows

from the preceding one, since four evangelists could not be selected

until four Gospels were recognised. Here, again, Dr. Giles supports the

argument we are building up. He says: "Justin Martyr never once mentions

by name the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This circumstance

is of great importance; for those who assert that our four canonical

Gospels are contemporary records of our Saviour's ministry, ascribe them

to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and to no other writers. In this they

are, in a certain sense, consistent; for contemporary writings [?

histories] are very rarely anonymous. If so, how could they be proved to

be contemporary? Justin Martyr, it must be remembered, wrote in 150; but

neither he, nor any writer before him, has alluded, in the most remote

degree, to four specific Gospels, bearing the names of Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John. Let those who think differently produce the passages in

which such mention is to be found" ("Christian Records," Rev. Dr. Giles,

p. 73). Two of these names had, however, emerged a little earlier, being

mentioned as evangelists by Papias, of Hierapolis. His testimony will be

fully considered below in establishing position _g_.

F. _That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned about that

date were the same as those we have now._ This brings us to a most

important point in our examination; for we now attack the very key of

the Christian position--viz., that, although the Gospels be not

mentioned by name previous to Irenæus, their existence can yet be

conclusively proved by quotations from them, to be found in the writings

of the Fathers who lived before Irenæus. Paley says: "The historical

books of the New Testament--meaning thereby the four Gospels and the

Acts of the Apostles--are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of

Christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the

Apostles or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and

regular succession from their time to the present." And he urges that

"the medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, the

most unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and is

not diminished by the lapse of ages" ("Evidences," pp. 111, 112). The

writers brought in evidence are: Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius,

Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, and the epistle from Lyons

and Vienne. Before examining the supposed quotations in as great detail

as our space will allow, two or three preliminary remarks are needed on

the value of this offered evidence as a whole.

In the first place, the greater part of the works brought forward as

witnesses are themselves challenged, and their own dates are unknown;

their now accepted writings are only the residuum of a mass of

forgeries, and Dr. Giles justly says: "The process of elimination, which

gradually reduced the so-called writings of the first century from two

folio volumes to fifty slender pages, would, in the case of any other

profane works, have prepared the inquirer for casting from him, with

disgust, the small remnant, even if not fully convicted of spuriousness;

for there is no other case in record of so wide a disproportion between

what is genuine and what is spurious" ("Christian Records," p. 67).

Their testimony is absolutely worthless until they are themselves

substantiated; and from the account given of them above (pp 214-221, and

232-235), the student is in a position to judge of the value of evidence

depending on the Apostolic Fathers. Professor Norton remarks: "When we

endeavour to strengthen this evidence by appealing to the writings

ascribed to Apostolical Fathers, we, in fact, weaken its force. At the

very extremity of the chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest,

we are attaching defective links, which will bear no weight"

("Genuineness of the Gospels," vol. i., p. 357). Again, supposing that

we admit these witnesses, their repetition of sayings of Christ, or

references to his life, do not--in the absence of quotations specified

by them as taken from Gospels written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and

John--prove that, because similar sayings or actions are recorded in the

present canonical Gospels, therefore, these latter existed in their

days, and were in their hands. Lardner says on this point: "Here is,

however, one difficulty, and 'tis a difficulty which may frequently

occur, whilst we are considering these very early writers, who were

conversant with the Apostles, and others who had seen or heard our Lord;

and were, in a manner, as well acquainted with our Saviour's doctrine

and history as the Evangelists themselves, unless their quotations or

allusions are very express and clear. The question, then, here is,

whether Clement in these places refers to words of Christ, written and

recorded, or whether he reminds the Corinthians of words of Christ,

which he and they might have heard from the Apostles, or other

eye-and-ear-witnesses of our Lord. Le Clerc, in his dissertation on the

four Gospels, is of opinion that Clement refers to written words of our

Lord, which were in the hands of the Corinthians, and well known to

them. On the other hand, I find, Bishop Pearson thought, that Clement

speaks of words which he had heard from the Apostles themselves, or

their disciples. I certainly make no question but the three first

Gospels were writ before this time. And I am well satisfied that Clement

might refer to our written Gospels, though he does not exactly agree

with them in expression. But whether he does refer to them is not easy

to determine concerning a man who, very probably, knew these things

before they were committed to writing; and, even after they were so,

might continue to speak of them, in the same manner he had been wont to

do, as things he was well informed of, without appealing to the

Scriptures themselves" ("Credibility," pt. II., vol. i., pp. 68-70).

Canon Westcott, after arguing that the Apostolic Fathers are much

influenced by the Pauline Epistles, goes on to remark: "Nothing has been

said hitherto of the coincidences between the Apostolic Fathers and the

Canonical Gospels. From the nature of the case, casual coincidences of

language cannot be brought forward in the same manner to prove the use

of a history as of a letter. The same facts and words, especially if

they be recent and striking, may be preserved in several narratives.

References in the sub-apostolic age to the discourses or actions of our

Lord, as we find them recorded in the Gospels, show, as far as they go,

that what the Gospels relate was then held to be true; but it does not

necessarily follow that they were already in use, and were the actual

source of the passages in question. On the contrary, the mode in which

Clement refers to our Lord's teaching--'the Lord said,' not

'saith'--seems to imply that he was indebted to tradition, and not to

any written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which are

still found in our Gospels. The main testimony of the Apostolic Fathers

is, therefore, to the substance, and not to the authenticity, of the

Gospels" ("On the Canon," pp. 51, 52). An examination of the Apostolic

Fathers gives us little testimony as to "the substance of the Gospels;"

but the whole passage is here given to show how much Canon Westcott,

writing in defence of the Canon, finds himself obliged to give up of the

position occupied by earlier apologists. Dr. Giles agrees with the

justice of these remarks of Lardner and Westcott. He writes: "The

sayings of Christ were, no doubt, treasured up like household jewels by

his disciples and followers. Why, then, may we not refer the quotation

of Christ's words, occurring in the Apostolical Fathers, to an origin of

this kind? If we examine a few of those quotations, the supposition,

just stated, will expand into reality.... The same may be said of every

single sentence found in any of the Apostolical Fathers, which, on first

sight, might be thought to be a decided quotation from one of the

Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. It is impossible to

deny the truth of this observation; for we see it confirmed by the fact

that the Apostolical Fathers do actually quote Moses, and other old

Testament writers, by name--'Moses hath said,' 'but Moses says,'

etc.--in numerous passages. But we nowhere meet with the words, 'Matthew

hath said in his Gospel,' 'John hath said,' etc. They always quote, not

the words of the Evangelists, but the words of Christ himself directly,

which furnishes the strongest presumption that, though the sayings of

Christ were in general vogue, yet the evangelical histories, into which

they were afterwards embodied, were not then in being. But the converse

of this view of the case leads us to the same conclusion. The

Apostolical Fathers quote sayings of Christ which are not found in our

Gospels.... There is no proof that our New Testament was in existence

during the lives of the Apostolical Fathers, who, therefore, could not

make citations out of books which they had never seen" ("Christian

Records," pp. 51-53). "There is no evidence that they [the four Gospels]

existed earlier than the middle of the second century, for they are not

named by any writer who lived before that time" (Ibid, p. 56). In

searching for evidence of the existence of the Gospels during the

earlier period of the Church's history, Christian apologists have

hitherto been content to seize upon a phrase here and there somewhat

resembling a phrase in the canonical Gospels, and to put that forward as

a proof that the Gospels then were the same as those we have now. This

rough-and-ready plan must now be given up, since the most learned

Christian writers now agree, with the Freethinkers, that such a method

is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Yet, again, admitting these writers as witnesses, and allowing that they

quote from the same Gospels, their quotations only prove that the

isolated phrases they use were in the Gospels of their day, and are also

in the present ones; and many such cases might occur in spite of great

variations in the remainder of the respective Gospels, and would by no

means prove that the Gospels they used were identical with ours. If

Josephus, for instance, had ever quoted some sentences of Socrates

recorded by Plato, that quotation, supposing that Josephus were

reliable, would prove that Plato and Socrates both lived before

Josephus, and that Plato wrote down some of the sayings of Socrates; but

it would not prove that a version of Plato in our hands to-day was

identical with that used by Josephus. The scattered and isolated

passages woven in by the Fathers in their works would fail to prove the

identity of the Gospels of the second century with those of the

nineteenth, even were they as like parallel passages in the canonical

Gospels as they are unlike them.

It is "important," says the able anonymous writer of "Supernatural

Religion," "that we should constantly bear in mind that a great number

of Gospels existed in the early Church which are no longer extant, and

of most of which even the names are lost. We will not here do more than

refer, in corroboration of this fact, to the preliminary statement of

the author of the third Gospel: 'Forasmuch as many ([Greek: polloi])

have taken in hand to set forth a declaration of those things which are

surely believed among us, etc.' It is, therefore, evident that before

our third synoptic was written, many similar works were already in

circulation. Looking at the close similarity of the large portions of

the three synoptics, it is almost certain that many of the [Greek:

polloi] here mentioned bore a close analogy to each other, and to our

Gospels; and this is known to have been the case, for instance, amongst

the various forms of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews,' distinct

mention of which we meet with long before we hear anything of our

Gospels. When, therefore, in early writings, we meet with quotations

closely resembling, or, we may add, even identical with passages which

are found in our Gospels--the source of which, however, is not

mentioned, nor is any author's name indicated--the similarity, or even

identity, cannot by any means be admitted as evidence that the quotation

is necessarily from our Gospels, and not from some other similar work

now no longer extant; and more especially not when, in the same

writings, there are other quotations from apocryphal sources different

from our Gospels. Whether regarded as historical records or as writings

embodying the mere tradition of the early Christians, our Gospels cannot

for a moment be recognised as the exclusive depositaries of the genuine

sayings and doings of Jesus; and so far from the common possession by

many works in early times of such words of Jesus, in closely similar

form, being either strange or improbable, the really remarkable

phenomena is that such material variation in the report of the more

important historical teaching should exist amongst them. But whilst

similarity to our Gospels in passages quoted by early writers from

unnamed sources cannot prove the use of our Gospels, variation from them

would suggest or prove a different origin; and, at least, it is obvious

that quotations which do not agree with our Gospels cannot, in any case,

indicate their existence" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., pp. 217-219).

We will now turn to the witness of Paley's Apostolic Fathers, bearing

always in mind the utter worthlessness of their testimony; worthless as

it is, however, it is the only evidence Christians have to bring forward

to prove the identity of their Gospels with those [supposed to have

been] written in the first century. Let us listen to the opinion given

by Bishop Marsh: "From the Epistle of Barnabas, no inference can be

deduced that he had read any part of the New Testament. From the genuine

epistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred that

Clement had read the first Epistle to the Corinthians. From the Shepherd

of Hermas no inference whatsoever can be drawn. From the Epistles of

Ignatius, it may be concluded that he had read St. Paul's Epistle to the

Ephesians, and that there existed in his time evangelical writings,

though it cannot be shown that he has quoted from them. From Polycarp's

Epistle to the Philippians, it appears that he had heard of St. Paul's

Epistle to that community, and he quotes a passage which is in the first

Epistle to the Corinthians, and another which is in the Epistle to the

Ephesians; but no positive conclusion can be drawn with respect to any

other epistle, or any of the four Gospels" (Marsh's "Michaelis," vol.

i., p. 354, as quoted in Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels," vol. i.,

p. 3). Very heavily does this tell against the authenticity of these

records, for "if the four Gospels and other books were written by those

who had been eye-witnesses of Christ's miracles, and the five Apostolic

Fathers had conversed with the Apostles, it is not to be conceived that

they would not have named the actual books themselves which possessed so

high authority, and would be looked up to with so much respect by all

the Christians. This is the only way in which their evidence could be of

use to support the authenticity of the New Testament as being the work

of the Apostles; but this is a testimony which the five Apostolical

Fathers fail to supply. There is not a single sentence, in all their

remaining works, in which a clear allusion to the New Testament is to be

found" ("Christian Records," Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 50).

Westcott, while claiming in the Apostolic Fathers a knowledge of most of

the epistles, writes very doubtfully as to their knowledge of the

Gospels (see above p. 264), and after giving careful citations of all

possible quotations, he sums up thus: "1. No evangelic reference in the

Apostolic Fathers can be referred certainly to a written record. 2. It

appears most probable from the form of the quotations that they were

derived from oral tradition. 3. No quotation contains any element which

is not substantially preserved in our Gospels. 4. When the text given

differs from the text of our Gospels it represents a later form of the

evangelic tradition. 5. The text of St. Matthew corresponds more nearly

than the other synoptic texts with the quotations and references as a

whole" ("On the Canon," p. 62). There appears to be no proof whatever of

conclusions 3 and 4, but we give them all as they stand. But we will

take these Apostolic Fathers one by one, in the order used by Paley.

BARNABAS. We have already quoted Bishop Marsh and Dr. Giles as regards

him. There is "nothing in this epistle worthy of the name of evidence

even of the existence of our Gospels" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i., p. 260).

The quotation sometimes urged, "There are many called, few chosen," is

spoken of by Westcott as a "proverbial phrase," and phrases similar in

meaning and manner may be found in iv. Ezra, viii. 3, ix. 15 ("Sup.

Rel.," vol. i., p. 245); in the latter work the words occur in a

relation similar to that in which we find them in Barnabas; in both the

judgment is described, and in both the moral drawn is that there are

many lost and few saved; it is the more likely that the quotation is

taken from the apocryphal work, since many other quotations are drawn

from it throughout the epistle. The quotation "Give to every one that

asketh thee," is not found in the supposed oldest MS., the Codex

Sinaiticus, and is a later interpolation, clearly written in by some

transcriber as appropriate to the passage in Barnabas. The last supposed

quotation, that Christ chose men of bad character to be his disciples,

that "he might show that he came not to call the righteous, but

sinners," is another clearly later interpolation, for it jars with the

reasoning of Barnabas, and when Origen quotes the passage he omits the

phrase. In a work which "has been written at the request, and is

published at the cost of the Christian Evidence Society," and which may

fairly, therefore, be taken as the opinion of learned, yet most

orthodox, Christian opinion, the Rev. Mr. Sanday writes: "The general

result of our examination of the Epistle of Barnabas may, perhaps, be

stated thus, that while not supplying by itself certain and conclusive

proof of the use of our Gospels, still the phenomena accord better with

the hypothesis of such a use. This epistle stands in the second line of

the Evidence, and as a witness is rather confirmatory than principal"

("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 76. Ed. 1876). And this is all that

the most modern apologetic criticism can draw from an epistle of which

Paley makes a great display, saying that "if the passage remarked in

this ancient writing had been found in one of St. Paul's Epistles, it

would have been esteemed by every one a high testimony to St. Matthew's

Gospel" ("Evidences," p. 113).

CLEMENT OF ROME.--"Tischendorf, who is ever ready to claim the slightest

resemblance in language as a reference to new Testament writings, admits

that although this Epistle is rich in quotations from the Old Testament,

and here and there that Clement also makes use of passages from Pauline

Epistles, he nowhere refers to the Gospels" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. i. pp.

227, 228). The Christian Evidence Society, through Mr. Sanday, thus

criticises Clement: "Now what is the bearing of the Epistle of Clement

upon the question of the currency and authority of the Synoptic Gospels?

There are two passages of some length which are, without doubt,

evangelical quotations, though whether they are derived from the

Canonical Gospels or not may be doubted" ("Gospels in the Second

Century," page 61). After balancing the arguments for and against the

first of these passages, Mr. Sanday concludes: "Looking at the arguments

on both sides, so far as we can give them, I incline, on the whole, to

the opinion that Clement is not quoting from our Gospels; but I am quite

aware of the insecure ground on which this opinion rests. It is a nice

balance of probabilities, and the element of ignorance is so large that

the conclusion, whatever it is, must be purely provisional. Anything

like confident dogmatism on the subject seems to me entirely out of

place. Very much the same is to be said of the second passage" (Ibid, p.

66).

The quotations in Clement, apparently from some other evangelic work,

will be noted under head _h_, and these are those cited in Paley.

HERMAS.--Tischendorf relinquishes this work also as evidence for the

Gospels. Lardner writes: "In _Hermas_ are no express citations of any

books of the New Testament" ("Credibility," vol. i. pt. 2, p. 116). He

thinks, however, that he can trace "allusions to" "words of Scripture."

Westcott says that "The _Shepherd_ contains no definite quotation from

either Old or New Testament" ("On the Canon," p. 197); but he also

thinks that Hermas was "familiar with" some records of "Christ's

teaching." Westcott, however, does not admit Hermas as an Apostolic

Father at all, but places him in the middle of the second century. "As

regards the direct historical evidence for the genuineness of the

Gospels, it is of no importance. No book is cited in it by name. There

are no evident quotations from the Gospels" (Norton's "Genuineness of

the Gospels," vol. i, pp. 342, 343).

IGNATIUS.--It would be wasted time to trouble about Ignatius at all,

after knowing the vicissitudes through which his supposed works have

passed (see ante pp. 217-220); and Paley's references are such vague

"quotations" that they may safely be left to the judgment of the reader.

Tischendorf, claiming two and three phrases in it, says somewhat

confusedly: "Though we do not wish to give to these references a

decisive value, and though they do not exclude all doubt as to their

applicability to our Gospels, and more particularly to that of St. John,

they nevertheless undoubtedly bear traces of such a reference" ("When

were our Gospels Written," p. 61, Eng. ed.). This conclusion refers, in

Tischendorf, to Polycarp, as well as to Ignatius. In these Ignatian

Epistles, Mr. Sanday only treats the Curetonian Epistles (see ante, p.

218) as genuine, and in these he finds scarcely any coincidences with

the Gospels. The parallel to Matthew x. 16, "Be ye, therefore, wise as

serpents and harmless as doves," is doubtful, as it is possible "that

Ignatius may be quoting, not directly from our Gospel, but from one of

the original documents (such as Ewald's hypothetical 'Spruch-Sammlung'),

out of which our Gospel was composed" ("Gospels in the Second Century,"

p. 78). An allusion to the "star" of Bethlehem may have, "as it appears

to have, reference to the narrative of Matt, ii... [but see, ante, p.

233, where the account given of the star is widely different from the

evangelic notice]. These are (so far as I am aware) the only

coincidences to be found in the Curetonian version" (Ibid, pp. 78, 79).

POLYCARP.--This epistle lies under a heavy weight of suspicion, and has

besides little worth analysing as possible quotations from the Gospels.

Paley quotes, "beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into

temptation." Why not finish the passage? Because, if he had done so, the

context would have shown that it was not a quotation from a gospel

identical with our own--"beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us

into temptation, as the Lord hath said, The spirit, indeed, is willing,

but the flesh is weak." If this be a quotation at all, it is from some

lost gospel, as these words are nowhere found thus conjoined in the

Synoptics.

Thus briefly may these Apostolic Fathers be dismissed, since their

testimony fades away as soon as it is examined, as a mist evaporates

before the rays of the rising sun. We will call up Paley's other

witnesses.

PAPIAS.--In the fragment preserved by Eusebius there is no quotation of

any kind; the testimony of Papias is to the names of the authors of two

of the Gospels, and will be considered under _g_.