ASCENDING THE STREAM.
Now consider the tremendous force of the proved fact that, within
forty years of the time when Justin wrote his First Apology, we reach
a period when it is no longer a debatable question whether our Gospels
are “the Memoirs” of Christ which were read with the Prophets in city
and country. The presumption of _continuance_ attaches. It has before
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the year one hundred and
forty, there were accepted “Memoirs” of our Lord, which were read with
the Prophets in all the churches. There is no evidence whatever that
those Memoirs in the intervening forty years were dropped and others
substituted for them; therefore it should be presumed that they were in
the churches in the year one hundred and eighty; and the Memoirs in the
churches at this latter period _are positively known and seen, to have
been the Canonical Gospels_. They have come closer to us, and in the
nearer vision we are able to determine their identity with the utmost
certainty. And the natural presumption that there was no substitution
within the short interval of forty years, is immensely strengthened by
the difficulties attending any attempted substitution,—difficulties so
great that they must have left unmistakable evidence of conflict upon
the page of history. The churches were very numerous, and occupied a
territory of more than two thousand miles in extent from Syria to Gaul.
Each church had its bishop or presbyter, and elders; and in each church,
once in seven days, were the Memoirs of our Lord read with the Prophets.
There were hundreds who, from their own recollections, and thousands
who, from their parents or instructors, at any given time within these
forty years, had perfect knowledge what Memoirs were thus read in the
year one hundred and forty. Young men of twenty then, were only sixty,
forty years later. Was there a substitution in those forty years, and
these bishops, and elders, and thousands of communicants every Sabbath
of all ages, not know it; or knowing it had not objected; or objecting,
and history have no record of it? Not a few of these were educated men;
and indeed all the bishops and elders may be presumed to have been as
well versed in the accepted Gospels as in the writings of the prophets.
It is to be borne in mind that we are dealing now with the question
of substitution within the short period of forty years. A _score_ of
names can be given of men living within that time or immediately after,
who, from their own recollection or from others, must have had perfect
knowledge of the whole subject: Athenagoras, a philosopher at Athens
about the year one hundred and sixty; Caius, a presbyter at Rome about
the year two hundred; Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, _cir._
173; Clement of Alexandria, who became the head of the Alexandrian
School in 187; Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, who died a martyr in 173;
Hegesippus, the historian (whose works are now lost), who died in 180;
Hermas, who was prominent toward the close of the century; Irenæus,
Bishop of Lyons; Justin himself, whose martyrdom was as late as the year
165; Leonides, the martyr; Melito, Bishop of Sardis; the world-renowned
Origen, son of Leonides; Pantænus; Polycarp; Polycrates, Bishop of
Ephesus; Pothinus the predecessor of Irenæus (and whose martyrdom was
about 167); Serapion, Bishop of Antioch; Tertullian, the eloquent Roman
lawyer of Carthage; Theophilus, the predecessor of Serapion; and Victor,
Bishop of Rome.
It may be said, and with truth, that the Fourth Gospel, whenever
introduced, came in not as a substitute, but as a supplement. The
evidence, however, is conclusive that by the year one hundred and eighty,
it had obtained as permanent a footing as either of the other Gospels.
Its reception was as hearty, and the tradition of its authorship as
strong, as in respect to the others. To infer that it was the forged
product of the period now under consideration, or any other, is as
if De Soto had concluded that the mighty stream which he discovered
hastening to the Gulf, with deep and rapid current, so wide that a
man could scarcely be seen from shore to shore, had its origin not in
far-off lakes or mountains, but in some miserable crocodile swamp of the
country he was traversing, and but just out of sight. And _who_ forged
the Fourth Gospel and imposed it as John’s upon this score of persons,
and hundreds of others? Or did these men conspire together, to deceive
themselves, the churches, and the world? What name has come down to us
from _that_ age, or any other, who was _capable_ of such an undertaking?
What _forger_ wrote those discourses of Our Lord with Nicodemus? Or those
with the women of Samaria? Or those with his disciples on the eve of
his crucifixion? Or the parable of the good Shepherd? Or that memorable
prayer recorded in the seventeenth of John? That any _sane man_ should
attribute either of these to a _criminal forger_ would be incredible, if
we were not confronted with the fact. And what sort of a man was this
forger of the Fourth Gospel? We have Baur’s conception of him as “A man
of remarkable mind, of an elevated spirit, and penetrated with a warm
adoring faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world!”
And Baur thinks it _easier_ to believe (without proof) in the existence
of this remarkable genius and elevated character, who would _invent_
fictitious discourses, _falsely_ attribute them to the Christ whom he
_adored_, and _forge_ the name of the beloved disciple, than to believe
with the whole body of the Christian Church, that the discourses and
utterances were those of our Lord![1] If John did not write the Fourth
Gospel, _who did_? Not one of those who deny his authorship, can give
an answer to this question. It is no answer to say that many in the
second century believed that Hermas (whom Paul mentions in his Epistle
to the Romans), wrote the Pastor or Shepherd of Hermas. Such was not the
universal sentiment. The work was never generally received as Scripture.
On the contrary, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, while placing
the Four Gospels in the list of canonical books universally received,
says of “The Pastor,” that it was written “very recently in our times”
by another Hermas, a brother of the Bishop of Rome, and that it was
read in “some of the churches,” not as Scripture but for “edification,”
the same as the Epistle of Clement. It was rejected by Tertullian, not
only as Apocryphal, but as hurtful. Nor is it any answer, to say that
the so-called Epistle of Barnabas was early attributed to Barnabas the
Levite. In the first place, it is by no means certain that this tradition
was unfounded. From the little we know of Barnabas, it would be rash to
conclude that he could not have written it. If uninspired, he _may_ have
written just such a book. In the second place, no one ascribed it to him
till the time of Clement of Alexandria, and it was ranked by Eusebius
among the “spurious” writings, which, however much known and read in
the church, were never regarded as authoritative. Eusebius also places
The Pastor Hermas in the list of writings whose authorship is disputed.
The Fourth Gospel rests upon an entirely different basis. There was but
_one_ tradition in respect to it, and from our first knowledge of it, it
was regarded as authoritative, and its authorship was undisputed; for
the slight exception of the few individuals, called the Alogi, is of
no account. It was included in the commentaries and harmonies to which
reference has been made; and such works would not have been written until
the books upon which they were based had been long enough in the churches
for a felt need of commentaries upon them. It was quoted as Scripture
by Theophilus, and John its author was expressly named as moved by the
Holy Ghost. In the Muratori Canon, it was placed as Scripture in the
list of Canonical books, universally received. And that it could not
have come in after the year one hundred and forty, or have been received
unless it was genuine, will be still more obvious from a more particular
consideration of some of those who accepted it. Pantænus, who was at the
head of the Alexandrian school in the year one hundred and eighty, was
(says Eusebius) distinguished for his learning. Before his conversion he
was a Stoic philosopher. After that, and before he became the head of the
Catechetical school, he traveled extensively as an Evangelist. He went as
far as the Indies, where he found that the Apostle Bartholomew, who had
preceded him, had left the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. Pantænus could
not have been ignorant of the “Memoirs,” which were accepted in Justin’s
time, and he lived until the year two hundred and twelve. We have no
_direct evidence_ from _him_; but Clement, his pupil and successor, and
noted for his learning, could not have been ignorant of the opinions
of Pantænus; and from Clement there is the strongest testimony. He
flourished between A.D. 165 and 220, and became head of the Alexandrian
School in A.D. 187. Origen, his successor, with his great genius and
acquirements, and extensive travel, and from his father Leonides, and his
predecessors Clement and Pantænus, must have been fully informed of the
“Memoirs” which were in the churches in the year one hundred and forty.
And he says, that he has “understood _from tradition_, respecting the
Four Gospels, _which are the only undisputed ones in the whole church of
God throughout the world_,” that the first was by Matthew, the second by
Mark, “who composed it as Peter explained to him,” the third by Luke, the
companion of Paul, and “last of all” John “who reclined upon the breast
of Jesus,” has left one Gospel, in which he confesses that he could write
so many that the whole world could not contain them. Tertullian, the
celebrated lawyer, says, “Of the Apostles, John and Matthew published
the faith to us.” In defending the Gospel of Luke against the mutilation
of the heretic Marcion, he positively affirms that all the churches
founded by the Apostles accepted, not Marcion’s abridgment of Luke, but a
well-known form which had been “_received from its first publication_;”
and that the other Gospels had been received from the same sources in
authenticated copies. “In his abundant writings,” says Norton,[2] “there
is not a chapter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John, from which
he does not quote,” and from most of them his quotations are numerous.
Tertullian was born at Carthage about A.D. 160, and from his conversion,
about the year one hundred and eighty-five, he entered with great
earnestness and ability into a vindication of Christianity, and the
discussion of various questions connected with it. This able advocate
could not have been misinformed of the usages of the churches less than
half a century previous to the time when he entered upon his work.
The evidence of Irenæus is still more conclusive. He was born in Syria
about A.D. 120, and he was therefore twenty years old when Justin wrote.
His teacher was Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and his immediate predecessor
at Lyons was Pothinus. Polycarp, at his martyrdom, was asked to save
his life by denying Christ. “No,” he said, “eighty and six years have I
served him and he never did me any injury; how, then, can I blaspheme
my King and my Saviour?” _Pothinus_, at _his_ martyrdom, _cir._ 177,
was more than ninety years old. The lives of these two men reached far
back into the first century. They were at, or past, middle life when
Justin wrote, and presbyters of important churches; and it is utterly
incredible that they should not have known what “Memoirs” were read in
their churches in Justin’s time. And it is _equally incredible_ that
Irenæus, the disciple of the one and the immediate successor in office
of the other, and _himself_ _twenty years old_ when Justin wrote, should
not have been as well informed upon this subject. Yet Irenæus quotes[3]
from our Gospels and Acts, as Scripture, ascribes their authorship
to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and says that such was the accepted
tradition in all the churches. After referring to the others, he says of
the Fourth Gospel: “Afterwards John, the disciple of our Lord, the same
that lay upon his bosom, also published the Gospel while he was yet at
Ephesus, in Asia” (Eu. v. 8). And again[4]: “All the Elders testify, who
were conversant with John, the disciple of our Lord, in Asia, that he
delivered these things.” About A.D. 180, in a treatise against heretics,
he appeals to the canonical Gospels with as much confidence that they
are all well known and accepted by Christians, as any would do at the
present day. Tischendorf[5] says the number of passages where Irenæus has
recourse to the Gospels is about four hundred, and about eighty of these
in John. Sanday[5] estimates the quotations from John in this treatise
at seventy-three. But Clement, and Origen, and Pantænus, and Polycarp,
and Pothinus, and Tertullian, were not better informed upon this subject
than Serapion, who so promptly suppressed the heretical Gospel of Peter,
or than Theophilus, his immediate successor, who was the first after
Papias (other than the author of the Muratorian Fragment) to mention any
of the four Gospels by name, or than the author of this Fragment, or than
many intelligent officers and members of the numerous churches from the
Euphrates to the Seine.
With such evidence and from such sources, and the entire absence of any
evidence of _substitution_, it may well be regarded as morally certain,
that none occurred. What was probable, from the _seeming_ use of the
Canonical Gospels by Justin and his contemporaries, has become _a moral
certainty_. The Memoirs which, in the year one hundred and eighty, were
universally accepted, _were the same_ that forty years before were read
with the Prophets, in city and country, in all the churches every Sabbath
day. Of this there can be no doubt. The Memoirs of the year one hundred
and eighty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS; and the Memoirs of the year one
hundred and forty, _were_ OUR CANONICAL GOSPELS. And we take our stand
with Justin, with these Gospels in our hands, only forty years from the
death of John, the beloved disciple, and at the close of a hundred years
from the crucifixion of our Lord. And still we ascend the stream.
[1] Wright’s Logic, etc., p. 187, Tischendorf, p. 43.
[2] Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, etc., Part II. c. 1; Wright, p.
187.
[3] Wright, pp. 188, 189, Tischendorf, p. 35.
[4] Stowe’s Origin, etc., p. 176.
[5] Origin, etc., p. 35; Wright, p. 189.