THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. INTRODUCTION. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. THE object of the following work is to prove the genuineness of the Gospels. In asserting their genuineness, I mean to be understood as affirming, that they remain essentially the same as they were originally written; and that they have been ascribed to their true authors. The ground which has been taken by those who have denied their genuineness, as thus explained, may appear from the following statements. The Gospels are quoted, as the undoubted works of the authors to whom they are ascribed, by an unbroken series of Christian writers, reaching back to the latter part of the second century; or in other words, to the time of Irenæus, who wrote in the last quarter of that century. But it is affirmed, that beyond his time the testimony to their genuineness fails. As we ascend to a remoter period, we come to the writings of Justin Martyr, who flourished about the middle of the second century; and to those ascribed to Apostolic Fathers, or supposed contemporaries of the Apostles. It has been affirmed that these writings, though they are commonly quoted for the purpose, afford no evidence that our present Gospels were known to their authors. In regard to the writings attributed to Apostolic Fathers, the remark is not new. It was made, for instance, by Bolingbroke, who, in his "Letters on the Study of History," has the following passage: "Writers copy one another; and the mistake that was committed, or the falsehood that was invented, by one, is adopted by hundreds. "Abbadie says, in his famous book, that the Gospel of St. Matthew is cited by Clemens, Bishop of Rome, a disciple of the Apostles; that Barnabas cites it in his epistle; that Ignatius and Polycarp receive it; and that the same fathers that give testimony for Matthew, give it likewise for Mark. Nay, your Lordship will find, I believe, that the present Bishop of London [Gibson], in his third pastoral letter, speaks to the same effect. I will not trouble you nor myself with any more instances of the same kind. Let this, which occurred to me as I was writing, suffice. It may well suffice; for I presume the fact advanced by the minister and the bishop is a mistake. If the fathers of the first century do mention some passages that are agreeable to what we read in our Evangelists, will it follow that these fathers had the same gospels before them? To say so is a manifest abuse of history, and quite inexcusable in writers that knew, or should have known, that these fathers made use of other gospels, wherein such passages might be contained; or they might be preserved in unwritten tradition. Besides which, I could almost venture to affirm, that these fathers of the first century do not expressly name the gospels we have of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." The supposition of Bolingbroke in the last sentence is true; or rather, to state the fact precisely, the Gospels are not named in the writings ascribed to fathers of the first century. In agreement with what has been quoted, the *Letter V. § 4. learned German theologian, Eichhorn, in his "Introduction to the New Testament," endeavours to prove at length that the authors of those writings did not make use of our present Gospels, but of others different from them.* Another German theologian, Less, who died about the close of the last century, wrote in defence of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament. In treating this subject, the results at which he arrives, from an examination of the writings just mentioned, are thus stated 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 that 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."+ According to this statement, it would appear that no evidence can be derived from the works ascribed to Apostolic Fathers in proof of the genuineness of the Gospels. The writings of Justin Martyr have, till of late, been appealed to confidently, as affording very early and very important evidence of this fact. Lardner states, that "he has numerous quotations of our Gospels except that of St. * Einleitung in d. N. T., i. e. Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 113, seqq. I give the pages of the first edition, which are numbered likewise in the margin of the second. + Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. p. 354. Mark, which he has seldom quoted;" that "it must be plain to all, that he owned and had the highest respect for the four Gospels;" and that he affords proof, that "these Gospels were publicly read in the assemblies of the Christians every Lord's day." "It seems extremely material to be observed," says Paley, "that in all Justin's works, from which might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ, there are but two instances in which he refers to any thing as said or done by Christ which is not related concerning him in our present Gospels; which shows that these Gospels, and these, we may say, alone, were the authorities from which the Christians of that day drew the information upon which they depended."+ It is, however, at present contended, that Justin Martyr did not quote from our four Gospels, and therefore cannot afford evidence of their genuineness. He does not mention them by name. His quotations, which agree in sense with passages found in the Gospels, he professes to take from what he calls "Memoirs by the Apostles ;" and in these quotations, there is generally a want of verbal coincidence with the passages in the Gospels to which they otherwise correspond. "Mr. Stroth," says Bishop Marsh, "has shown by very satisfactory arguments, that these Memoirs were not our four Gospels, but a single gospel, which had much matter in common with the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke; but which was not the same with any of them. Since Mr. Stroth's time the subject has been again investigated by several eminent critics; and the uniform result of their inquiries is, that Justin's 'Arouvηuovεúμara [the Memoirs in question] were not our four Gospels, but some single gospel." "If," says Bishop Marsh, in another work, "the force of Mr. Stroth's arguments be admitted, (and they seem really convincing,) we cannot produce Justin as an *Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, P. II. c. 10. + Paley's Evidences of Christianity, P. I. c. ix. s. 1. Letters to the Anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his Commentator, p. 29. evidence for the four Gospels; but, on the other hand, no inference can be deduced to their disadvantage." * The concluding remark, that no inference can be deduced to the disadvantage of the Gospels, Bishop Marsh endeavours to illustrate; but its truth will not be admitted by those who deny the genuineness of the Gospels; and the proposition does not, in itself, appear tenable. "Justin Martyr," says Eichhorn, "who was born A.D. 89, and died A.D. 163, a Samaritan, a native of Flavia Neapolis, early became converted from a heathen philosopher to a zealous Christian, and was one of the earliest Christian writers. He nowhere quotes the life and sayings of Jesus according to our present four Gospels, which he was not acquainted with. This is a very important circumstance in regard to the history of the Gospels; as he had devoted many years to travel, and resided a long time in Italy and Asia Minor.”† On the whole, it is concluded by Eichhorn and others, that our four Gospels, in their present form, were not in common use before the end of the second century. Previously to that time, it is supposed that other gospels were in circulation. "If we will not," says Eichhorn, "be influenced by idle tales and unsupported tradition, but by the only sure evidence of history, we must conclude, that, before our present Gospels, other decidedly different gospels were in circulation, and were used during the first two centuries in the instruction of Christians." He supposes these earlier gospels and our first three Gospels, namely, those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to have all had a common origin; and he gives the following account of the manner in which he conceives them to have been formed. There was, he supposes, very early in existence a short historical sketch of the life of Christ, which may be called the Original Gospel. This was, probably, provided for the *Marsh's Michaelis, vol. i. 361. |