In doing this I shall not take the usual method of tracing the evidence for the various books in question downwards from the Apostolic time--the reader will find this treated exhaustively in "Dr. Westcott on the Canon"--but I shall trace it upwards, beginning at a time at which there cannot be the smallest doubt that the New Testament was exactly the same as that which we now possess.

For this purpose I shall take the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius as the starting-point. The reader is, of course, aware that he is the earliest ecclesiastical writer whose history has come down to us, the historians who wrote before his time being princ.i.p.ally known to us through fragments preserved in his book. He was born of Christian parents about the year A.D. 270, and died about 340. He probably wrote his history about or before the year 325.

The reader, though he may not have read his history, will be aware, from the quotations from it in "Supernatural Religion," that Eusebius carefully investigated the history of the Canon of Scripture, and also the succession of ecclesiastical writers. His history is, in fact, to a great extent, a sketch of early Church literature. In dealing with the history of the Canon, he particularly notices whether a large number of writers have quoted certain books of Scripture, of whose acceptance by the whole Church doubts were entertained. This is important, as it shows that not only himself, but the Church, during the three ages whose history he has recorded, did not receive books of Scripture except upon what they deemed to be sufficient evidence, and that evidence was the reception of each book from Apostolic times by the whole Church. I will now give the testimony of Eusebius to the authenticity of the Four Gospels.

First of all he describes the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark in the following words:--

"So greatly, however, did the splendour of piety enlighten the minds of Peter's hearers, that it was not sufficient to hear but once, nor to receive the unwritten doctrine of the Gospel of G.o.d, but they persevered, in every variety of entreaties, to solicit Mark as the companion of Peter, and whose Gospel we have, that he should leave them a monument of the doctrine thus orally communicated, in writing. Nor did they cease with their solicitations until they had prevailed with the man, and thus become the means of that history which is called the Gospel according to Mark. They say also, that the Apostle (Peter), having ascertained what was done by the revelation of the Spirit, was delighted with the zealous ardour expressed by these men, and that the history obtained his authority for the purpose of being read in the Churches. This account is given by Clement in the Sixth Book of his Inst.i.tutions, whose testimony also is corroborated by that of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis." (Bk.

ii. chap. xv. Cruse's translation.)

This is narrated as having taken place in the reign of Claudius, _i.e._, between A.D. 41 and A.D. 54.

The next Gospel whose origin he describes is that of St. Luke, in the following words:--

"But Luke, who was born at Antioch, and by profession a physician, being for the most part connected with Paul, and familiarly acquainted with the rest of the Apostles, has left us two inspired books, the inst.i.tutes of that spiritual healing art which he obtained from them. One of these is his Gospel, in which he testifies that he has recorded, 'as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word,' delivered to him, whom also, he says, he has in all things followed. The other is his Acts of the Apostles, which he composed, not from what he had heard from others, but from what he had seen himself. It is also said that Paul usually referred to his Gospel, whenever in his Epistles he spoke of some particular Gospel of his own, saying, 'according to my Gospel.'" (Bk. iii. ch. iv. Cruse's translation.)

Further on, he describes the publication of the First and Fourth Gospels, thus:--

"Of all the disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it from necessity. Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels they say that John, who, during all this time, was proclaiming the Gospel without writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. The three Gospels previously written had been distributed among all, and also handed to him; they say that he admitted them, giving his testimony to their truth; but that there was only wanting in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ among the first of His deeds, and at the commencement of the Gospel. And this was the truth. For it is evident that the other three Evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and intimated this in the very beginning of their history. For after the fasting of forty days, and the consequent temptation, Matthew indeed specifies the time of his history in these words, 'But, hearing that John was delivered up, he returned from Judea into Galilee.' Mark in like manner writes: 'But, after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before he commenced the deeds of Jesus, in much the same way designates the time, saying, 'Herod thus added this wickedness above all he had committed, and that he shut up John in prison.' For these reasons the Apostle John, it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of the time not recorded by the former Evangelists, and the deeds done by our Saviour, which they have pa.s.sed by (for these were the events that occurred before the imprisonment of John), and this very fact is intimated by him when he says, 'This beginning of miracles Jesus made,' and then proceeds to make mention of the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at that time 'baptizing at Aenon, near to Salim.' He plainly also shows this in the words, 'John was not yet cast into prison.' The Apostle, therefore, in his Gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three Evangelists mention the circ.u.mstances after that event," &c. (Bk. iii. c. xxiv.)

The last extract which I shall give is from the next chapter, when he mentions "The sacred Scriptures which are acknowledged as genuine, and those that are not:"--

"This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And here among the first must be placed _the Holy Quaternion of the Gospels_; these are followed by the Book of the Acts of the Apostles; after this must be mentioned the Epistles of Paul, which are followed by the acknowledged First Epistle of John, also the First of Peter to be admitted in like manner. After these are to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, are acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although they are well known and approved by many, is reputed that called the Epistle of James and [that] of Jude. Also the Second Epistle of Peter, and those called the Second and Third of John, whether they are of the Evangelist, or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul, and that called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter. Besides these, the books called the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Inst.i.tutions of the Apostles. Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, the Revelation of John, which some, as before said, reject, but others rank among the genuine. But there are also some who number among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly delighted." (Bk. iii. ch. xxv.)

Such are the statements of the oldest ecclesiastical historian whose work has come down to us.

With respect to the Gospels, he knows but four as canonical, and has never heard of any other as accepted by the Church. He mentions Apocryphal and disputed books. Amongst the latter he mentions the Gospel to the Hebrews as acceptable to a local church; but he is wholly ignorant of any doubt having ever been cast upon the authority of the four in any branch of the Catholic Church.

Now let the reader remember, that however Eusebius, like all other writers, _might_ be liable to be mistaken through carelessness, or prejudice, or any other cause of inaccuracy; yet that each of these statements respecting the authorship of the various Gospels is, on all principles of common sense, worth all the conjectural criticisms of the German and other writers, so copiously cited in "Supernatural Religion,"

put together.

For, in the first place, Eusebius flourished about 1500 years nearer to the original source of the truth than these critics, and had come to man's estate within 200 years of the publication of the Fourth Gospel.

Now, at a time when tradition was far more relied upon, and so much more perfectly preserved and transmitted than in such an age of printed books and public journals as the present, this alone would make an enormous difference between a direct statement of Eusebius and the conjecture of a modern theorist. But far more than this, Eusebius had access to, and was well acquainted with, a vast ma.s.s of ecclesiastical literature which has altogether perished; and the greater part of which is only known to have existed through notices or extracts to be found in his work. For instance, in a few pages he gives accounts of writings which have perished of Papias (iii. c. 39), Quadratus and Aristides (iv. ch. 3), Hegesippus (iv. ch. 8 and 22), Tatian (iv. ch. 16), Dionysius of Corinth (iv. ch. 23), Pinytus (iv. ch. 23), Philip and Modestus (ch. 25), Melito (ch. 26), Apollinaris (ch. 27), Bardesanes (ch. 30).

These are all writers who flourished in the first three quarters of the second century, and I have only mentioned those whose writings, from the wording of his notices, Eusebius appears to have seen himself.

It is clear, I repeat, that the evidence of such an one on the authorship of the Gospels is worth all the conjectures and theories of modern critics of all cla.s.ses put together.

We shall pa.s.s over very briefly the first sixty years of the third century, _i.e._ between A.D. 200 and the time of Eusebius. During these years flourished Cyprian, martyred A.D. 257; Hippolytus, martyred about A.D. 240; and Origen, died A.D. 254.

Respecting the latter, it appears from Eusebius that he published commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of the latter Eusebius says the first five books wore composed at Alexandria, but of the whole work on St. John only twenty-two books have come down to us.

(Bk. vi. ch. 24.) Now Origen was born a few years (at the most twenty) after the death of Justin; and we have seen how the author of "Supernatural Religion" evidently considers the works of Justin to be anterior to the Fourth Gospel. Is it credible, or oven conceivable, that a man of Origen's intellect, learning, and research should write twenty or thirty books of commentaries on a false Gospel which was forged shortly before his own time?

He expressly states that the Church knew of but four Gospels:--

"As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels, which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of G.o.d throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who, having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it in Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter explained to him, whom he [Peter] also acknowledged as his son in his general epistle, saying, 'The elect Church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark, my son.' And the third according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John."

Extract from Origen's first book of his commentaries on St. Matthew, quoted by Eusebius (vi. 25)

As regards Cyprian, the following quotation will suffice:--

"The Church, setting forth the likeness of Paradise, includes within her walls fruit-bearing trees, whereof that which does not bring forth good fruit is cut off and is cast into the fire. These trees she waters with four rivers, that is, with the four Gospels, wherewith, by a celestial inundation, she bestows the grace of saying baptism." Cyprian, Letter lxxii. to Jubaia.n.u.s.

As regards Hippolytus I have counted above fifty references to St.

Matthew and forty to St. John, in his work on the "Refutation of Heresies," and "Fragments." I append in a note a pa.s.sage taken from his comment on the Second Psalm, preserved to us by Theodoret. The reader will be able to judge from it from what sources he derived his knowledge of Christ. I give it rather for its devotional spirit than its evidence for the four. [126:1]

We now come to the conclusion of the second century. Between the years 180 and 200 or 210 A.D., there flourished three writers of whom we possess somewhat voluminous remains. Irenaeus, who was born about 140 at the latest, who was in youth the disciple of Polycarp, who was himself the disciple of St. John. Irenaeus wrote his work against heresies about the year 180, a little after he had succeeded Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons, and was martyred at the beginning of the next century (202).

Clement of Alexandria, the date of whose birth or death is uncertain, flourished long before the end of the second century, for he became head of the catechetical school of Alexandria about the year 190.

Tertullian was born about 150, was converted to Christianity about 185, was admitted to the priesthood in 192, and adopted the opinions of Monta.n.u.s about the end of the century.

I shall first of all give the testimony of these three writers to the universal reception of the Four Gospels by the Church, and consider to what time previous to their own day their testimony upon such a subject must, of necessity, reach.

First of all, Irenaeus, in a well-known pa.s.sage, a.s.serts that--

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are."

He then refers to the four zones of the earth, and the four princ.i.p.al winds, and remarks that, in accordance with this,

"He Who was manifest to men has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."

Then he refers to the four living creatures of the vision in the Revelation, and proceeds,--

"And, therefore, the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ is seated. For that according to John relates His original effectual and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, 'In the beginning was the word,' &c.... But that according to Luke, taking up His priestly character, commences with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to G.o.d. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew again relates His generation as a man, saying, 'The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham;' and also, 'The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.' This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity, for which reason it is, too, that the character of an humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with a reference to the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,' pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel: and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character." (Iren., Bk. iii.

ch. xi.)

Clement of Alexandria, speaking of a saying ascribed to our Lord, writes:--

"In the first place, then, in the four Gospels handed down amongst us, we have not this saying; but in that which is according to the Egyptians." (Miscellanies, iii. ch. xiii.)

Tertullian writes thus:--

"Of the Apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst, of Apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only G.o.d the Creator, and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith in which there is disagreement with Marcion." (Tertullian against Marcion, iv. c. ii.)

Such are the explicit declarations of these three writers respecting the number and authorship of the Four. I shall give at the conclusion of this section some of the references to be found in these writers to the first two or three chapters in each Gospel.

It is but very little to say that they quote the Four as frequently, and with as firm a belief in their being the Scriptures of G.o.d, as any modern divine. They quote them far more copiously, and reproduce the history contained in them far more fully than any modern divine whom I have ever read, who is not writing specifically on the Life of our Lord, or on some part of His teaching contained in the Gospels.

But I have now to consider the question, "To what time, previous to their own day, or rather to the time at which they wrote, does their testimony to such a matter as the general reception of the Four Gospels of necessity reach back?"

Clement wrote in Alexandria, Tertullian in Rome or Africa, Irenaeus in Gaul. They all flourished about A.D. 190. They all speak of the Gospels, not only as well known and received, but as being the only Gospels acknowledged and received by the Church. One of them uses very "uncritical" arguments to prove that the Gospels could only be four in number; but the very absurdity of his a.n.a.logies is a witness to the universal tradition of his day. To what date before their time must this tradition reach, so that it must be relied upon as exhibiting the true state of things?

Now this tradition is not respecting a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact--the fact being no other than the reading of the Gospels or Memoirs of our Lord in the public service of the Church. The "Memoirs of our Lord," with other books, formed the Lectionary of the Church. So that every Christian, who attended the public a.s.semblies for worship, must know whether he heard the Gospels read there or not.

Now any two men who lived successively to the age of sixty-five would be able to transmit irrefragable testimony, which would cover a hundred years, to the use of the Gospels in the lectionary of the Church.

During the last five years we have had a change in our Lectionary, which change only affects the rearrangement of the portions read each day out of the same Gospels, and every boy and girl of fifteen years old at the time would recognize the alteration when it took place. If it had occurred fifty years ago, any man or woman of sixty-five would perfectly remember the change. If it had occurred within the last hundred years, any person of sixty-five could bear testimony to the fact that, when he first began to be instructed in the nature of the Church Services he was told by his elders that up to a time which they could perfectly recollect certain selections from Scripture had been read in Church, but that at such a period during their lifetime a change had been brought about after certain public debates, and that it received such or such opposition and was not at once universally adopted, which change was the reading in public of the present selection. It is clear then, that if all public doc.u.ments were destroyed, yet any two men, who could scarcely be called old men, would be able to transmit with perfect certainty the record of any change in the public reading of Scripture during the last one hundred years.