THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
THEIR
GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY, HISTORIC VERITY, AND INSPIRATION,
WITH SOME
PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
BY
WILLIAM NAST, D. D.
A REVISED EDITION OF THE AUTHOR'S GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST
VOLUME OF HIS COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
CINCINNATI:
PUBLISHED  BY  POE & HITCHCOCK.
R. P. THOMPSON, PRINTER.
1866.




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866,
BY POE & HITCHCOCK,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio.




INTiODTUCTORY NOTICE.
THE appearance of Dr. Nast's "General Introduction to the Gospel Records" in the present form, is
necessitated by the fact that several institutions of
learning have adopted it as a text-book of Christian
evidences, and that it has also been introduced by the
bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church into the
course of ministerial study. The present form will
meet the wants of the student, and it is hoped also
will lead to a much wider circulation among general
readers. After the high authorities who have already
pronounced favorably on the valuable character of
this work, in its relation to the evidences of Christianity, and especially since its adoption as a text-book
by the Board of Bishops, it is needless for us to commend it.
It is not designed to be an exhaustive discussion
of the evidences of Christianity. Originally intended
to be used only as introductory to the author's Commentary, it treats chiefly of those subjects which are
most intimately connected with the historical verity
of the Gospel Records. The whole argument revolves about the personality of our Lord and Savior;
and herein are found its strength and opportuneness.
The surest argument for the divine origin of Christianity is Christ himself. His life, as contained in the
Gospels, being demonstrated as a historical reality,
3




4              INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
all else follows. If the Gospels, examined by the acknowledged laws of historical criticism, are proved
to be genuine and authentic historical records, the
history which they contain is itself a Divine revelation in the person of Jesus Christ, a personality utterly inexplicable without the admission of a supernatural and Divine element.  Nor can any better
evidence be offered for the historical verity of these
sacred records than the character of the wonderful
Being whose history they relate.  The Christ described by the Evangelists could not possibly have
been conceived by them, if they had not seen and
heard what they record of him, and if so, his personality is historically proved, and that personality
is God manifest in the flesh.
The opportuneness of this argument is seen in the
fact that the great battle of infidelity in our day is
raging about the person of Christ, so that the author's argument is not only the strongest that can
be presented, but is also the one that brings him directly into antagonism  with the most recent phases
and objections of skepticism. This treatise, therefore,
commends itself to the reader as the embodiment of
the results of the most recent criticism  of the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel Records, and as
a fresh, and in many respects original consideration
of the most recent objections of rationalism and infidelity. We have only to add that the author has in
this edition made some valuable additions from Dr.
Tischendorfs lately-published essay, entitled, "When
were our Gospels Composed?"  These are inserted in
Part II, chapter 1.
I. W. WILEY.




C ONTENTS.
PART I.
THE GENUINENESS OR INTEGRITY OF THE SACRED TEXT.
PAGE.
1. INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS................................................. 11
CHAPTER I.
THE HISTORY  OF THE TEXT.
# 2. The Change of the Original Text with regard to its outward
Appearance....................................... 13
~ 3. Some General Remarks on the Existing Manuscripts of the
New     Testament.............................................................  16
~ 4. A Consideration of the Variety of Readings presented by the
Manuscripts of the New Testament................................ 20
CHAPTER II.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY  OF SUCCESS IN AN  ESSENTIAL MUTILATION  OR
CORRUPTION  OF THE GOSPEL RECORD.
3 5. Argument from  the Agreement of the Respective Copies of
the Four Gospels......................................................... 27
6. Arguments drawn from Other Considerations...................... 33
PART II.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.
7. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.............................. 45
CHAPTER 1.
THE OUTWARD  HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES.
8. The Testimony of the Apostolic Fathers....................... 47
9. The  Testimony of the  Fathers in the Sub-Apostolic Age,
from   A. D. 120- 70.................................................   64
K




6                                 CONTENTS.
PACE.
# 10. The Formation  of a Canon of the universally-acknowledged
Books of the New  Testament at the Close of the Second
Century............................................................... 78
11. The Early Versions of the  New  Testament.................                          85
# 12. The Testimony of Heretical and Apocryphal Writings......... 91
13. The Testimony of Heathen  Adversaries.............................120
CHAPTER II.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCES.
14. The  Peculiar  Dialect  of  Greek  in  which  the  Evangelists
have written..........................................................    125
15. Some other Characteristics of the Style in which the Gospels
are written...............................................................138
~ 16. The Frequent Allusions of the Evangelists to the History of
their Times...............................................................141
~ 17. The Relation of the  Four Gospels  to Each Other and  to  the
Acts of the Apostles...................................................162
Q 18. The Authenticity  of the Gospels-a  Postulate of Reason, as
it alone  accounts  for  the  Existence  of  the  Christian
Church, and  for some  of Paul's  Epistles, whose  authenticity is universally  admitted.......................................167
~ 19. The Absurdity of the Mythical Theory..............................197
PART III.
THE HISTORIC VERITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.
2 20. INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS..................................................199
CHAPTER I.
A. CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
AGAINST THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.
# 21. The  Alleged  Discrepancies  or  Contradictions  in  the  Four
G ospels....................................................................200
# 22. The  Assumption  that Miracles  are  Impossible and  Unsusceptible  of Proof..........................................       205
23. The  Alleged   Lack   of  Sufficient  Testimony  by  Profane
W  riters.......................................................... 219




CONTENTS.                                  7
CHAPTER II.
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.
PAGE.
~ 24. The Evangelists were in a Condition to inform themselves
accurately and thoroughly concerning theThings which
they Record................................................... 224
~ 25. The Evangelists exhibit in their Narratives no Symptoms of
Mental Derangement which might have made them Victims  of  Delusion.................................... 225: 26. The Evangelists can not be charged with having had any
Motive or Design to impose upon the World a Report of
what, if it did not take place, they must have known to
be  false........................227
CHAPTER III.
THE DIVINE  SEAL STAMPED UPON THE GOSPEL HISTORY BY ITS
SUBJECT-THE  PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.
g 27. The Verity of the Gospel History best accredited by the Personality  of  Jesus  Christ.............................................231
~ 28. The admitted Outer Conditions of the Life of Jesus-leaving its astounding Results, as well as the unlimited Scope
of the Mind of Jesus and the Perfect Symmetry of his
Character, utterly inexplicable, without the admission of
a Supernatural and Divine Element..............................235
# 29. The Sinlessness of Jesus-the Idea of which could not have
been Conceived by the Evangelists, if they had not seen
it actualized in his Life-incontestably proving that he
was not a mere Man...................................................256
g 30. The Miracles Wrought on and Performed by Jesus, the Natural and Necessary Outflow of his historically-proved
Personality, and, at the same time, the Ground and Warrant of all other true Miracles Preceding and Succeeding
his Appearance  on  Earth............................................290
PART IV.
THE ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM  ON THE INSPIRATION  OF
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
# 31. The Relation which the Authenticity and Credibility of the
Gospel Records bear to their Inspiration.......................305




8                               CONTENTS.
PAGE.
# 32. The Peculiar Agreement and Disagreement of the first three
Evangelists in their Narratives, and the Various Explanations of this Singular Phenomenon............................309
~ 33. A Consideration of the Inspired Character of the Synoptical
Gospels on the  Ground of their being chiefly the Result
of the Oral Teaching of the Apostles............................327
PART V.
REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
# 34. The Condition of the World, Jewish, Greek, and Roman, at
the Advent of Christ..................................................349
~ 35. The Chronology and Harmony of the Gospel Narratives......362
A. The Date of the Birth of Christ............................364
B. The Duration  of our Lord's Ministry, and the Date of
his  Death..................................................................369




PART I.
THE GENUINENESS OR INTEGRITY OF THE SACRED TEXT.








THE
GOSPEL RECORDS.
PART I.
THE GENUINENESS OR INTEGRITY OF THE SACRED TEXT.
~1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
IT is to be regretted that nearly all English writers
on the Evidences are in the habit of using the words
"genuine" and "authentic" as synonyms, and sometimes even of attaching to the word "authentic" the
popular sense of "true" or "credible," by which the
whole argumentation is obscured. A book is to be
called genuine, if it has remained in all material
points the same as it was when it proceeded from its
author. It is authentic, if it has proceeded at all from
the person whose name it bears, or, where the name
of the author was not assigned with certainty at the
time of its origin, if it originated at the time and
under the circumstances it professes to have done. A
book may be genuine and authentic, and yet its contents may lack credibility.
We propose, in the order named, to inquire into the
genuineness, the authenticity, and the credibility of
the Gospel records, and then to consider their inspired
character. The object of Part I is to show that the
11




12             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
text of the four canonical Gospels has been preserved
in its integrity-is genuine or uncorrupted. The investigation into the genuineness or integrity of the
inspired writings is legitimate and of great importance. For though we may have the most satisfactory
proofs that they proceeded at first from the apostles
or evangelists whose names they bear, they may have
been so altered since that time as to convey to us very
false information with regard to their original contents. It is admitted on all hands that the original
manuscripts disappeared at a very early time, owing
to the frailty of the material on which the apostles
wrote, and to the frequent use which was made of
them by being read in the Churches and constantly
transcribed, and that, in common with all other ancient writings, the original text of the New Testament
has been exposed to the accidents to which all works
preserved bytranscription are liable. We will, therefore, consider, first, the history of the text, as the German writers call it-that is, the changes to which the
original was unavoidably subjected in the process of
transcription-and then prove that all these changes
have not impaired the integrity of the original.




THEIR GENUINENESS.                13
CHAPTER I.
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT.
~ 2. THE CHANGE OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WITH REGARD TO ITS
OUTWARD APPEARANCE.
INASMUCH as our present mode of publishing books
is very different from that of ancient times, we can
not but expect that the outward appearance of the
original text underwent great changes by being tran
scribed from century to century, and a consideration
of these external changes claims our attention first.
The following points are of general interest:
1. The authors of the New  Testament used the
charta-6 /riprqs, 2 John, 12-paper made of layers
of the papyrus, a plant that was very common in
Egypt. Of this paper there were, in the apostles'
times, several kinds in use, differing from each other
in strength and durability. Of the existing manuscripts, however, none are written on papyrus, but on
vellum or parchment and on paper of later origin.
Vellum was the most durable, but also the most costly
material.  The manuscripts on paper are of a date
posterior to the seventh century.
2. As to the external form of the manuscripts, the
ancients made use of rolls in their writings; yet as
this form was unhandy in several respects, the custom
arose to write on large sheets, which were folded up
like maps in an atlas, four, five, six, or eight fold, of
different sizes. This is the form  of all manuscripts
extant.




14             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
3. The Greek manuscripts were mostly written without division of words, in capital letters-which, in the
time of Jerome, were called uncials-till the ninth
century, when the so-called cursive handwriting —that
is, writing with small letters, and capitals only at the
head of certain words-came into use, as requiring
less space and being better adapted for fast writing.
The separation of words from each other by a point
or empty space did not become general before the
ninth century.
4. Punctuation marks were seldom  used by the
ancients. The numerous mistakes of the fathers, or
their uncertainty, how particular passages were to be
read and understood, clearly prove that there was no
regular or accustomed system of punctuation in use
in the fourth century. Toward the middle of the fifth
century Euthalius, of Alexandria, wrote the Pauline
epistles, and afterward the Gospels, stichometrically;
that is, in lines regulated by the sense, so that each
terminated where some pause was to be made; when
the line was not filled, the remainder was, at first, left
empty, but afterward, in order to save space, it was
filled up, and a point was made to indicate the pause.
The lines of the books were generally numbered and
the number marked at the end. Although some full
points are to be found in the Codex Alexandrinus, the
Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Beze —as they also
are in inscriptions four hundred years before the
Christian era-yet there is abundant evidence that
our present system  of Greek punctuation was not
folly adopted before the ninth century.
5. The same remarks apply to the accents, spiritusbreathings-and the so-called iota subscriptum. The
accents were gradually introduced. Some of the oldest




THEIR GENUINENESS.                15
manuscripts have them, others not, and it is only toward the end of the tenth century that they became
general.  The rough breathing-spiritus asper-was
anciently a full letter in the form of the Latin H, and
so it is found on monuments-e. gr., Hot —=t. Afterward the first half of the letter (1) was used for the
rough breathing, and the other half (1) for the smooth
breathing, and from these two signs the modern form
of breathings (") arose.  According to the oldest
manuscripts, it seems that the writers of the New
Testament did not use these two signs, at least not
uniformly.  The iota subscriptum was anciently written as a letter in the line-iota postscriptum-afterward
entirely omitted, but came into general use as iota
subscriptum with the introduction of the cursive characters.  Whether a word was originally meant for
duor, aruj, or av'y, must be determined by the context
alone.
6. Our present division of the sacred text into chapters and verses is of still more recent date. The first
general division was made in the thirteenth century,
in all probability, by the Cardinal Hugo Carensis, and.
the latter by Robert Stephanus in 1551, after a variety of other divisions had been in partial use before.
Tertullian already speaks of capitula in portions of
the New Testament Scriptures. But this division did
neither extend over all the books of the New Testament, nor was it in general use, as far as it went. In
early use was the division into xsedaata, portions much
smaller than our chapters and larger than our verses.' The Gospel of Matthew had 355 such xesa2ata, that of
Mark 234, that of Luke 341, that of John 231, altogether 1,162. This division was introduced by Ammonius, of Alexandria, in his Gospel Harmony — r




16             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
ead -reosapwv   yriAov-and afterward completed by
Eusebius. A later division was that into rzAot —tituliintroduced in the fifth century. The Gospel of Matthew was divided into 68, that of Mark into 48, that
of Luke into 83, and that of John into 18 such tituli.
Our present division has, of course, no claims whatever to the authority of the text, and being, in a
number of instances, certainly faulty, the reader must
take care not to be misled by it; yet, as it is in universal use, and is of great advantage for the purpose
of reference, it is not expedient to make a change.
Besides the older divisions, which we have named, selections of the New Testament Scriptures-pericopwewere made for the public reading on each Sunday in
the ecclesiastical year. The time and manner of their
introduction are uncertain. Those from the Acts and
the Epistles were probably first introduced by Euthalius; but those from the Gospels were undoubtedly
earlier, at least in the Latin Church. These selections
were often bound up separately, in their regular order,
and are also of moment in Biblical criticism.
7. The inscriptions or titles of the various books of
the New Testament, it is generally admitted, were not
originally written by the apostles, but were subsequently added as the seal which the Church stamped
upon them in settling the canon. The subscriptions
annexed to some of the Epistles are manifestly spurious. They are altogether wanting in some ancient
manuscripts of the best note, and in others they are
greatly varied. Some contain false assertions.
~ 3. SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON THE EXISTING MANUSCRIPTS.
1. The autographs-manuscripts of the New Testament which were written either by the apostles them



THEIR GENUINENESS.                17
selves or by amanuenses under their immediate inspection, (Rom. xvi, 22; Gal. vi, 11; 2 Thess. iii, 17;
1 Cor. xvi, 21,) have long since perished, and we have
no information whatever concerning their history. It
has been thought that Ignatius and Tertullian appealed to them. Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphians says that he heard some say: "If I do not
find it v rTosq apyaiotq, I do not believe it in the Gospel;" but TO ap,%ata can here mean only the Old Testament writings, since the context shows, that the
objection quoted came from Judaizers, who were unwilling to believe any thing in the Gospels that was
not contained in the Old Testament.  Tertullian appeals to the autenticce literce of the apostles as being
read at his time in the Churches at Corinth, Philippi,
Ephesus, etc. From  this passage it might seem  as
if the autographs were referred to; but from another
passage in the same author it plainly appears, that
not autographs, but correct copies of them, in the
original language, made and preserved by the respective Churches, were meant. If the autographs had
existed at that time, the Church fathers would certainly have appealed to them in their controversies
with the heretics on the genuineness of disputed
passages.
2. No existing manuscript of the New Testament
can be traced higher than the fourth century. The
number of manuscripts that have thus far become
known is about seven hundred. They belong to different centuries, from  the fifth, perhaps the fourth,'down to the sixteenth, and are accordingly written in
different characters, the oldest in uncials, by far the
mnost in cursive letters, partly without, partly with
divisions into words and sections, with or without
2




18             TIIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
accents, and with punctuation marks of different
kinds. These very points, the shape of the letters,
the material, and orthography furnish the principal
data for determining the time and country, when and
where the manuscripts were made. Sometimes other
internal data are furnished by the manuscripts, giving,
in a few instances, the name of the copyist and the
year when the manuscript was made, or containing
menologies, in which the festival days of the saints
are mentionedon which certain portions of Scripture
are to be read in the Churches. As these menologies
often designate such days as were celebrated in honor
of certain saints from otherwise known dates, in certain countries, they furnish important data for determining the time and place when and where the
manuscript was made.
3. Very few manuscripts contain the whole either
of the Old or of the New  Testament. By far the
greater part-five hundred-have only the four Gospels, because they were most frequently read in the
Churches; two hundred the Acts and catholic,epistles; three hundred the Pauline epistles, and one
hundred the Apocalypse. Almost all of them, especially the more ancient manuscripts, are imperfect,
either from the injuries of time or from neglect. All
manuscripts, the most ancient not excepted, have erasures and corrections; which, however, were not always effected so dextrously but that the original
writing may sometimes be seen.
4. Before the invention of paper, the great scarcity
of parchment in different places induced many persons to obliterate the works of' ancient writers, in
order to write in their place another work. Such
manuscripts are termed Codices Paci.p_-sesti or Re



THEIR GENUINENESS.                 19
scripti. In general, a Codex Rescriptus is easily known,
as it rarely happens that the former writing is so completely erased as not to exhibit some traces; in a few
instances both writings are legible.  Very valuable
discoveries have been made in these rewritten manuscripts.
5. Besides the manuscripts which contain the whole
New Testament, or certain books of it in full, there
are others which contain only the selections or pericopce; they are called Codices Ecclesicstici or Lectionaria. These selections were often prefaced with some
remarks respecting the day on which they were to be
read, and such remarks have, in some instances, crept
into the text.
6. Some manuscripts have not only the Greek t6xt,
but are accompanied with a version, which is either
interlined or in a parallel column; these are called
Codices Bilingues.  The greatest number is in Greek
and Latin; and the Latin version is, in general, one
of those which existed before the time of Jerome.
7. A comparative description of the different manuscripts, and an account of the various critical methods
adopted to arrange them in certain classes or families,
can be of interest and profit only to the professional
scholar, but does not lie within our scope, and is to
be sought in the special works on Biblical Text Criticism.  Yet a few words of explanation may be expected by the general reader on the critical references
of various readings, which he will find in the footnotes of the text in the author's Commentary.  The
manuscripts in uncials have, since Wetstein, been
designated with the capital letters of the Latin alphabet, and where these do not suffice, with the Greek
capitals; those  in cursive characters-minuscles



20             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
with the common Arabic ciphers. But as the manuscripts of both kinds-the uncial and cursive-are
divided into four classes, namely, into codices, containing the Gospels, the Acts and catholic epistles, the
Pauline epistles, and the Apocalypse, both the capital
letters and ciphers commence in them  four times
anew.  Thus, a codex, that contains the whole New
Testament, comes up in the four classes with the capital or cipher peculiar to each class. As these two
marks, capitals and ciphers, often vary in the different
classes in the same manuscripts, and as new documents are constantly coming into the lists, it is necessary to notice-when they are simply quoted with
their capitals or ciphers-to which book of the LNew
Testament the quotations refer, in order to find them
in the lists of the codices.
4. A CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIETY OF READINGS PRESENTED BY THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Alarming as it may appear to the simple, pious
Christian, to be told of fifty thousand up to one
hundred and fifty thousand different readings, as they
have been variously estimated, in the books of the
New Testament, and much as infidels have boasted
of this discovery, a slight examination of the matter
will not only completely remove all apprehensions,
but furnish us with the most conclusive proof that
Divine Providence has provided the very best security
for the integrity of the documents, upon which our
faith rests.
In the first place, the number of various readings,
great as it appears, is really less, in proportion, than
that of the various readings extant in most classic
authors, when compared with the quantity of text




THEIR GENUINENESS.                21
examined, and the number of manuscripts and other
authorities collated in each particular case. Nineteen
out of twenty, at least, are to be dismissed at once
from consideration, because they are found in so few
authorities, and their origin is so easily explained,
that no critic would regard them as having any claim
to be inserted in the text.  Of those which remain, a
very great majority are entirely unimportant. They
consist in transpositions or omissions of letters, the use
of different grammatical forms, the exchange of' synonymous words and transpositions of words in sentences; and a very small number affects the sense of
all. Only six passages have been discovered where a
vital doctrine is affected by the different readings;
but even in these instances the doctrine itself is not
periled, because it is plainly taught in other passages.
The great value of the immense amount of labor,
which has been expended for nearly a century upon
the received text of the New Testament, consists not
so much in the emendations of that text, as in establishing the fact, that the original text has been transmitted to us with remarkable integrity, that far the
greater part of the variations among different copies
are of no authority or of no importance, and that some
of them are so trifling as not to admit of being made
apparent in a translation.
The condition of the text, then, is such as we have
to expect from the human agents through whom the
documents were transmitted to posterity.  The copyist was naturally exposed to mistakes of the eye by
the unbroken current uncials-capitals; thus letters
of similar form were interchanged, some words were
omitted, others written twice, others transposed, and
sometimes whole sentences were erroneously divided.




22.            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Those who copied from  dictation-a common practice-were liable to errors by confounding sounds.
]Mistakes were also made, at a later period, by writing
out abbreviations. Again, some words had been left
out, and then were set as glosses in the margin; the
copyist wishing to restore the original text, inserted
the gloss or glosses in the text, but often in the wrong
place. Errors of this kind are more frequent in the
manuscripts of the New Testament than in those of
other ancient writings, because the former were more
fiequently copied than the latter, and there were,
therefore, more intermediate links between the autographs and the later copies.  Other corruptions of
the text arose fiom the efforts to correct it or make it
plainer by removing the peculiarities of the New
Testament diction, or by the reception of glosses into
the text, which had at first been written in the margin to explain a difficulty, especially in the synoptical
Gospels. The higher the authority of these writings
rose, the more natural became the desire of the later
copyist to amend a supposed error of an earlier one.
To have prevented such variations of the original
text would have required such a continuous miracle
on the part of God, as would not have been in accordance with God's dealings with man, nor consistent
with the freedom  of human agency. "They," says
Dr. Hill, in his Lectures on Divinity, "who seem to
think that the all-ruling providence of God should
have preserved every copy of the original from any
kind of vitiation, forget the extent of the miracle
which they ask, when they demand, that all who ever
were employed in copying the New Testament should
at all times have been effectually guarded by the
Spirit of God from negligence, and their works kept




THEIR GENUINENESS.               23
safe from the injuries of time. They forget, moreover,
that the very circumstance to which they object has,
in the wisdom of God, been highly favorable to the
cause of truth. The infidel has enjoyed his triumph
and has exposed his ignorance. Men of erudition
have been encouraged to apply their talents to a subject which opens so large a field for their exercise.
Their research and their discoveries have demonstrated the futility of the objection, and have shown
that the great body of the people in every country,
who are incapable of such research, may safely rest
in the Scriptures as they are, and that the most
scrupulous critics, by the inexhaustible sources of correction which lie open to them, may attain nearer to
an absolute certainty with regard to the true reading
of the books of the New Testament, than of any other
ancient book in any language. If they require more,
their demand is unreasonable; for the religion of
Jesus does not profess to satisfy the careless, or to
overpower the obstinate, but rests its pretensions
upon evidence sufficient to bring conviction to those
who with honest hearts inquire after the truth, and
are willing to exercise their reason in attempting to
discover it."
The Church was at all times enabled to ascertain,
in all essential points, the true text of the New Testamnent writings, by means of the great number of
old manuscripts of the very ancient versions, which
were made from copies much nearer the original manuscripts than any that we have, and of the many
quotations with which the works of the Christian
fathers and other early writers abound. For a full
description of these means, as well as for the rules in
using them, the canons of criticism, which have been




24             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
investigated and digested by many learned men, we
must again refer the reader to the elaborate works
that have been written on this subject. We will
only add, that it may please Divine Providence to
bring to light ancient documents, not yet discovered,
an instance of which we have had but a few years
ago in the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, by
Tischendorf. However that may be, with the apparatus and the clearly-ascertained principles of criticism  which we possess now, we may confidently
indulge the hope of recovering the original purity of
the text, where it is yet obscured. With regard to
the duty of the critical examination of the correctness of the received text, the eminent English commentator, Dr. Ellicott, makes, in the recently-published "Aids to Faith," the following remarks, which
must commend themselves to every candid mind:
"Let the interpreter be seduced by no timidity or
prejudices from  ascertaining the true text. Let him
not fall back upon the too often repeated statement,
that, as readings affect no great points of doctrine,
the subject may be left in abeyance. It is, indeed,
most true, that different readings of such a character
as 1 Tim. iii, 16, or interpolations such as I John v,
7, are few and exceptional. It is, indeed, a cause for
devout thankfulness, that out of the vast number of
various readings so few affect vital questions; still
it is indisputably a fact, that but few pages of the
New Testament can be turned over without our finding points of the greatest interest affected by very
trivial variations of reading. On the presence or
absence of an article in John v, 1, the whole chronology of our lord's ministerial life may be said
almost entirely to depend. A very slight alteration in




THEIR GENUINENESS.              25
Mark vii, 31, would indicate a fact of deep historical
interest, and is of very great significance in reference
alike to commands subsequently given to the apostles to preach the Gospel, and to former prohibitions.
(Matt. x, 5.)  The absence of two words in Eph. inow rendered somewhat more probable by the testimony of the Codex Sinaiticus-gives a fresh aspect
to an important Epistle, disposes at once of several
prima facie difficulties, and, further, must be taken
greatly into account in the adjustment of some subordinate, but interesting questions with which the
Epistle has been thought to stand in connection.
(Col. iv, 16.) The presence or absence of a few words
in Matt. xxviii, 9, affects considerably our ability to
remove one of the many seeming discrepancies in the
narratives of the first hours of the morn of the resurrection. We could multiply such examples; but
perhaps enough has been said. There are, indeed,
several grounds for thinking that there is an improved
feeling on the whole subject; and there seem some
reasons for hoping that, though no authoritative revision is likely to take place, nor, at present, perhaps,
even to be desired, yet that the time is coming when
there will be a considerable agreement on many of
the results of modern criticism."
3




26            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
CHAPTER  II.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF SUCCESS IN AN ESSENTIAL MUTILATION OR CORRUPTION OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.
WE have seen that there is nothing in the various
readings to shake our faith in the integrity of the
sacred text. On the contrary, the very disagreement
of the manuscripts shows that there could have been
no collusion; but that the manuscripts were written,
independently of each other, by persons separated by
distance of time, remoteness of place, and diversity
of opinion. This extensive independency of manuscripts on each other is the effectual check of willful
alteration; which, whenever attempted, must have
been immediately corrected by the agreement of
copies from various and distant regions out of the
reach of the interpolator. We are aware that we here
enter upon an argumentation, where the question of
genuineness coincides with that of authenticity. This,
however, does not militate against the distinction
which we have made between the two terms. We
may use an argument for the genuineness of the
Gospel Records, though it may also apply to their
authenticity, and in doing so we furnish the reader
with.a natural transition and proper introduction to
Part II.
The arguments which prove the Gospel Records to
have remained uncorrupted have been set forth with
peculiar force and clearness by Prof. A. Norton, in
his "Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels," a




THEIR GENUINENESS.               27
work truly classic, but so learned and expensive as
to be found only in the library of the professional
scholar, and unadapted for general circulation in the
orthodox Churches on account of the theological
stand-point which the author occupies as a Unitarian.
Yet the manner in which he presents the arguments
on the uncorrupted preservation of the Gospel Records
is unsurpassed, and we can do our readers no better
service than to give them  in his own language,
though in a condensed form and separated from those
arguments that bear only on the authenticity of the
records, which the author does not sufficiently distinguish from genuineness in the strict sense in which
we have defined this word.
~ 5. ARGUMENT FROM THE AGREEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE COPIES
OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
That the Gospels have not been corrupted, but have
remained essentially the same as they were originally
composed, appears, in the first place, from the agreement among our present manuscript copies. These
were written in different countries, and at different
periods. They have been found in places widely remote from each other; in Asia, in Africa, and from
one extremity of Europe to the other. Besides these
manuscripts of the Greek text there are many manuscripts of ancient versions of the Gospels in different
languages of each of the three great divisions of the
world just mentioned. There are, likewise, many
manuscripts of the works of the Christian Fathers
abounding in quotations from  the Gospels; and especially manuscripts of ancient commentaries on the
Gospels, such as those of Origen, who lived in the
third century, and of Chrysostom, who lived in the




28             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
fourth; in which we find' the sacred text quoted, as
the different portions of it are successively the subjects of remark.
Now, all these different copies of the Gospels, or
parts of the Gospels, so numerous, so various in their
character, so unconnected, offering themselves to notice in parts of the world so remote from each other,
concur in giving us essentially the same text. They
vary, indeed, more or less from each other; but their
variations have arisen from the common accidents of
transcription; or, as regards the versions, partly from
errors of translations; or in respect to the quotations
by the Fathers, from the circumstance, that in ancient
as in modern times the language of Scripture was
often cited without regard to verbal accuracy, in
cases where no particular verbal accuracy was required. The agreement among the extant copies of
any one of the Gospels, or of portions of it, is essential; the disagreements are accidental and trifling,
originating in causes which, from the nature of things,
we know must have been in operation. The same
work every-where appears; and, by comparing together different copies, we are able to ascertain the
original text to a great degree of exactness. But as
these professed copies thus correspond with each
other, it follows that they must all be derived from
one original manuscript, and that such manuscript
has been faithfully copied.
Let us now consider the supposition that one transcriber, in one part of the world, would have made
certain alterations in his copy, and inserted certain
narratives which he had collected; and another, in
another place, would have made different alterations,
and inserted different narratives. Such copies, upon




THEIR GENUINENESS.               29
the supposition that this imagined license continued,
would, when again  transcribed, have been  again
changed and enlarged. Copies would have been continually multiplying, diverging more and more from
the original and from each other. No generally-received text would have existed; none, therefore, could
have been preserved and handed down. Instead of
that agreement among the copies of each Gospel
which now exists, we should have found every-where
manuscripts, presenting us with different collections
of narratives and sayings, and differing, at the same
time, in their arrangement of the same facts and in
their general style of expression. The copies of these
writings would have presented the same phenomena
as those of some of the apocryphal books, as, for instance, that called the Gospel of the Infancy, which
appears in several different forms, this collection of
fables having been remodeled by one after another
according to his fancy. It is, moreover, to be taken
into consideration, that the transcriber of a manuscript, making such alterations as the hypothesis
supposes, could by doing so not corrupt the work itself. His copy could have had no influence upon the
numerous cotemporary copies in which the true text
might be preserved, or into which different alterations might be introduced. It is quite otherwise
since the invention of printing. He who now introduces a corruption into the printed edition of a work,
introduces it into all the copies of that edition; and
if it be the only edition, into all the copies of that
work.
It is evident, from  the preceding statements, that
the existing copies of each of the Gospels have been
derived from some common exemplar, faithfully fol



30             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
lowed by transcribers. But it may be said that this
exemplar was not the original work, as it proceeded
from the hand of the Evangelist; that the lineage of
our present copies is not to be traced so high; but
that, at some period, the course of corruption which
has been described was arrested, and a standard text
was selected and determined upon, which has served
as an archetype for all existing copies, but that this
text, thus fixed as the standard, had already suffered
greatly from the corruptions of transcribers, and was
very different from the original. According to Eichhorn, the Church selected, at the end of the second
and the beginning of the third century, out of the
many Gospels then extant, four, which had the greatest marks of credibility and the necessary completeness for common use, and labored to procure their
general reception among Christians, with the suppression of all other Gospels. In order properly to
judge of this supposition, let us first inquire whether,
at the time named, "the Church" had the power to
do what is ascribed to her. There was no single
ecclesiastical government which extended over Christians, or over a majority of Christians, or over any
considerable portion of their number. They had no
regular modes of acting in concert, nor any effectual
means whatever of combining together for a common purpose. Neither the whole body, nor a majority of Christians, ever met by delegation to devise
common measures. Such an event did not take place
till a hundred and twenty years after the end of the
second century, when Christianity had become the
established religion of the Roman Empire, and the
first general council, that of Nice, was called together
by the Emperor Constantine. At the time of which




THEIR GENUINENESS.               31
we are speaking, the Christians were disturbed and
unsettled by frequent cruel persecutions. Exclusively
of those generally considered heretics, they were
alienated from each other by differences of religious
opinion; for it was before the end of the second
century that Victor, Bishop of Romne, had excommunicated the Eastern Churches. This was the state of
the Church at the end of the second century, and yet
it is supposed that she came to an agreement to select four out of the many manuscript Gospels then
in existence, all of which had been exposed to the
license of transcribers. Of these four no traces are
said to be discovered before that time; but it was,determined to adopt them  for common use, to the
prejudice, it would seem, of others longer known.
There was, as it is supposed, a universal and silent
compliance with this proposal. Copies of the four
new manuscripts and translations of them were at
once circulated through the world. All others ceased
to be transcribed, and suddenly disappeared from
common notice.  Copyers were at the same time
checked in their former practice of licentious alteration. Thus a revolution was effected in regard to the
most important sacred books of the Christians, and
at the same time better habits were introduced among
the transcribers of those books.
Now, who can suppose that any such series of
events took place at the end of the second century?
It is intrinsically incredible. lIet us consider for a
moment what an effort would be required, and what
resistance must be overcome, in order to bring into
general use among a single nation of Christians at
the present day, not other Gospels, but simply a new
and better translation of our present Gospels. In




32             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the case under consideration, allowing the supposed
change to have been possible, it must have met with
great opposition; it must have provoked much discussion; there must have been a great deal written
about it at the time; it must have been often referred
to afterward, especially in the religious controversies
which took place; it would have been one of the
most important events in the history of Christians,
and the account of the transaction must have been
preserved. That there are no traces of it whatever
is alone conclusive evidence that it never took place.
Lastly: our present Gospels, it is conceded, were
in common use among Christians about the end of
the second century.  The number of manuscripts
then in existence bore some proportion to the number of Christians. The number of Christians can be
safely set down at three millions. As few possessions
could have been valued by a Christian so highly as
a copy of the records of that Gospel, for which he
was exposing himself to the severest sacrifices, and
as a common copy of the Gospels could not have
been very expensive, to judge from a remark of Juvenal respecting the cost of books in ancient times,
there can be little doubt that copies of the Gospels
were owned by a. large portion of Christians; and,
in supposing one copy for every fifty Christians, the
estimate is probably much within the truth. This
proportion would give us sixty thousand copies of
the Gospels for three millions of Christians. But
whether more or less, if there had been important
discrepancies among the large number of copies, in
common use and dispersed over the world, no series
of events could either have destroyed the evidence
of these discrepancies or could have produced the




THEIR GENUINENESS.               33
present agreement among existing copies, derived, as
they are, from those in use at the period in question.
The agreement, then, at the end of the second century, among the numerous copies of the respective
Gospels, proves that an archetype of each Gospel
had been faithfully followed by the transcribers.
This archetype, as we have seen, there is no ground
for imagining to have been any other than the original work of the author of that Gospel. It follows,
therefore, that in the interval between the composition of these works and the end of the second century, their text did not suffer, as has been fancied,
from the licentiousness of transcribers.
6. ARGUMENTS DRAWN FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
1. It would have been inconsistent with the common sentiments and practice of mankind for transcribers to make such alterations and additions as
have been imagined in the sacred books which they
were copying. Such license has never been attributed to the transcribers of the ancient classics, and
what we apprehend so little concerning other writings, is still less to be apprehended concerning the
Gospels, on account of their sacred character. Let
us adduce a few testimonies in proof of this fact,
and in refutation of the assertion made by Eichhorn,
that, "before the invention of printing, in transcribing a manuscript, the most arbitrary alterations were
considered as allowable, since they affected only an
article of private property, written for the use of an
individual."
Justin Martyr, in the dialogue which he represents
himself as having held with Trypho, an unbelieving




34            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Jew, charges the Jews with having expunged certain
passages of the Old Testament relating to Christ.
To this Trypho answers that the charge seems to
him  incredible.  Justin replies, "It does seem incredible; for to mutilate the Scriptures would be a,more fearful crime than the worship of the golden
calf, or than the sacrifice of children to demons, or
than slaying the prophets themselves."  Is it credible
that, when such sentiments existed with regard to
the heinousness of attempting an adulteration of the
Old Testament writings, the Christian Churches would
suffer a tampering with their own sacred books?
Some of the heretics in the second century made,
or were charged with making, alterations in the
Christian Scriptures, in order to accommodate them
to their own opinions.  Of such corruptions of
Scripture Dionysius, who was Bishop of Corinth
about the year 170, thus speaks: "II have written
epistles at the desire of the brethren.  But the
apostles of the devil have filled them with darnel,
taking out some things and adding others. Against
such a woe is denounced. It is not wonderful, therefore, that some have undertaken  to corrupt the
Scriptures of the Lord, since they have corrupted
writings not to be compared with them."  The
meaning of Dionysius is, that the persons spoken of
having shown their readiness to commit such a crime,
it was not strange that they should even corrupt the
Scriptures, these being works of much higher authority than his epistles, and from  the falsification of
which more advantage was to be gained. From the
manner in which Dionysius denounces the guilt of
some "apostles of the devil," in corrupting the Scriptures, we may confidently infer that the Christian




THEIR GENUINENESS.                35
Churches were not guilty of such a practice.  And
yet this very passage of Dionysius is quoted by
Eichhorn  in support of his supposition.  Equally
groundless is his appeal to a saying of Celsus.
"Celsus," says he, "objects to the Christians that
they had changed their Gospels three and four times
and oftener, as if they were deprived of their senses."
If the charge of Celsus were correctly represented,
the first obvious answer would be, that such a charge
is as little to be credited, upon the mere assertion of
Celsus, as various other calumnies of that writer
against the Christians, which no one at the present
day believes. But Celsus does not say what he is
represented as saying. He does not bring the charge
against the Christians generally, but against some
Christians.  His words are preserved in the work
composed by Origen, in reply to Celsus; and, correctly rendered, are as follows: "Afterward Celsus
says, that some believers, like men driven by drunkenness to commit violence on themselves, have altered
the Gospel history, since its first composition, three
times, four times, and oftener, and have refashioned
it, so as to be able to deny the objections made
against it." To this the whole reply of Origen is as
follows: "I know of none who have altered the Gospel history, except the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, and I think also those of Lucan. But this
affords no ground for reproach against the religion
itself, but against those who have dared to corrupt
the Gospels. And as it is no reproach against philosophy that there are Sophists, or Epicureans, or
Peripatetics, or any others, who hold false opinions,
so also it is no reproach against true Christianity that
there are those who have altered the Gospels and in



36             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
troduced heresies foreign from the teaching of Jesus."
It is evident that Origen regarded the words of Celsus not as a grave charge against the whole body of
Christians, but as a mere declamatory accusation,
which he was not called upon to repel by any elaborate reply.  Celsus compares the conduct of those
whom  he charges with altering the Gospels to that
of men impelled by drunkenness to commit violence
on themselves. To this comparison no objectien is to
be made; for the question, whether the early Christians altered the Gospels, really resolves itself into
the question, whether they acted like men intoxicated
to the evident ruin of their cause.
To return, then, to the positive testimonies against
the supposition of a corruption of the Gospel Records
having been suffered by the Christian Churches-" we
have not received," says Irenaeus, (contra HTer.,. 1. ii,
c. 1,) "the knowledge of the way of our salvation by
any others than those through whom the Gospel has
come down to us, which Gospel they first preached,
and afterward, by the will of God, transmitted to us
in writing, that it might be the foundation and pillar
of our faith."  He immediately proceeds to speak
particularly of the composition of the four Gospels,
referring them to the authors to whom they are commonly ascribed. These books he afterward represents as the most important books of Scripture, (Ib.,
1. iii, c. 11, ~ 8,) and the Scriptures he calls "oracles
of God."  (Ib., 1. i, c. 8, ~ 1.)  He says, "We know
that the Scriptures are perfect, as dictated by the
Logos of God and his Spirit." (Ib., 1. ii, c. 28, ~ 2.)
Clement, of Alexandria, also calls the Scriptures
divinely inspired, and.speaks of the four Gospels, in
contradistinction from all other accounts of Christ, as




THEIR GENUINENESS.              37
having been handed down to the Christians of his
age. (Stromat., 1. iii, ~ 13.) Tertullian manifests the
same reverence for the Scriptures, and especially for
the Gospels, as his cotemporaries, Irenaeus and Clement. He, like them, quotes the Gospels as works of
decisive authority, in the same manner as any modern theologian might do. He wrote much against
the heretic Miarcion, whom he charges with having
rejected the other Gospels, and having mutilated the
Gospel of Luke, to conform it to his system. This
leads him to make some statements which have a
direct bearing on the present subject. "I affirm,"
says Tertullian, "that not only in the Churches
founded by apostles, but in all which have fellowship with them, that Gospel of Luke, which we so
steadfastly defend, has been received from its first
publication."  "The same authority," he adds, "of
the apostolic Churches will support the other Gospels, which, in like manner, we have from them, conformably to their copies."  (Adv. Marcion, 1. iv, ~ 5.)
"They," he says, "who were resolved to teach otherwise than the truth, were under a necessity of new
modeling the records of the doctrine."  "As they
could not have succeeded in corrupting the doctrine
without corrupting its records, so we could not have
preserved and transmitted the doctrine in its integrity, but by preserving the integrity of its records."
(De Proeser. Haeret., ~ 28.)
The passages quoted show the state of opinion and
feeling among Christians during the first two centuries, and it is clear that those who entertained these
sentiments would neither make nor permit intentional alterations in the Gospels.
2. About the close of the second century, different




38             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Christian writers express strong censure of the multilations and changes which they charge some heretics,
particularly Marcion, with having made in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament. Some
passages to this effect have been quoted; it is unnecessary to adduce others, because the fact is well
known and universally admitted. But if our Gospels had not existed in their present form till the
close of the second century, if before that time their
test had been fluctuating, and assuming in different
copies a different form, such as transcribers might
choose to give it, those by whom  they were used
could not have ventured to speak with such confidence of the alterations of the heretics.
3. We happen to have, in the words of a single
writer, decisive evidence that no such differences as
would imply a mutilation or corruption of the text
ever existed in the manuscripts of the canonical Gospels. Origen was born A. D. 185, and flourished
during the first half of the third century.  lie was
particularly skilled in the criticism of the Scriptures.
He had the means of consulting various manuscripts
of the Gospels, of which he made a critical use, noticing their various readings. His notices are principally found in his Commentaries on the Gospels. If
transcribers had indulged in such licentious alterations as have been supposed, he could not have been
ignorant of them. But the various readings he adduces give a convincing proof that the manuscripts
of his time differed, to say the least, as little from
each other as the manuscripts now extant, and, consequently, that before his time there was the same
care to preserve the original text as there has been
since. This conviction is not weakened by a passage




THEIR GENUINENESS.               39
in his writings, which may seem at first view to favor
the opposite opinion. Origen expresses his doubts
in the genuineness of the words, "Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself," (Matt. xix, 19,) and says:
"But if it were not that in many other passages there
is a difference among copies, so that all those of the
Gospel of Matthew do not agree together, and so also
as it regards the other Gospels, it might well seem
irreverent in any one to suspect that the precept has
been inserted here without its having been mentioned
by the Savior. But it is evident that there exists
much difference among copies; partly from the carelessness of some transcribers, partly from the rashness of others in altering improperly what they find
written, and partly from those revisers who add or
strike out according to their own judgment."  (Con.
in Matt., tom. xv, ~ 14.) In this passage there is no
reference to the intentional corruptions of the heretics, in which case another Greek word would have
been used for "altering" and for "revisers;" it refers
only to the well-known, common causes of error in
the transcription of manuscripts. We learn from it
that transcribers were sometimes careless; that they
sometimes improperly altered from conjecture a reading in the copy before them, which they fancied to
be erroneous; and that those whose business was to
revise manuscripts after transcription, for the purpose
of correcting errors, did sometimes, in the want of
proper critical apparatus, rely too much upon their
mere judgment concerning what was probably the
true text. His language in speaking of the difference among the manuscripts is even not as strong as
that used by some modern critics concerning the disagreement among our present copies, which we know




40            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
does not involve any essential mutilation or corruption. The passage of Origen, then, shows, on the one
hand, that he did not regard the Gospels as having
been exposed to any other causes of error than those
common in the transcription of manuscripts; on the
other hand, that he had no disposition to keep out of
view or to extenuate the differences among the copies extant in his time. We may, therefore, be satisfied that none of more importance existed than what
we find noticed by him.
We may reason in a similar manner from all the
notices in ancient writers relating to the text of the
Gospels. Nothing can be alleged from their writings
to prove any greater difference among the copies extant in their time than what is found among those
which we now possess. It may here be proper to
refer to an objection which Eichhorn makes. tHe
says: "Clement, of Alexandria, at the end of the
second century, speaks of those who corrupted the
Gospels, and ascribes it to them; that at Matthew v,
10, instead of the words,'for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven,' there was found in some manuscripts,'for
they shall be perfect;' and in others,'for they shall
have a place where they shall not be persecuted.'" This
statement is erroneous. Clement does not speak of
those who corrupted, but of those who paraphrased
the Gospels; nor does he give the words alleged by
him, as various readings in manuscripts of the Gospels.  Quoting the original text incorrectly, from
memory, in these words, "blessed are they who are
persecuted for righteousness' sake, for they shall be
called the sons of God," he adds, "or as some, who
have paraphrased the Gospels, express it: Blessed
are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,




THEIR GENUINENESS.               41
for they shall be perfect; and blessed are they who
are persecuted for my sake, for they shall attain a
place where they shall not be persecuted." Clement
evidently expresses no indignation against those of
whom he speaks, as he would have done if the passages quoted had assumed three such different forms
in the manuscripts which he had seen; for that
would prove a general license of corruption in his
time.
4. If our present Gospels had been the result of
successive additions, made by different hands to a
common basis, there would have been a marked diversity of style in different portions of the same
Gospel, so that these works would have been very
unlike what they are now. We should have perceived clear traces of different writers, having greater
or less command of expression, and accustomed to a
different use of language. But when we examine the
Gospels, there is nothing which discovers marks of
their having been subjected to such a process of interpolation. On the contrary, there is decisive evidence that each is the work of an individual, and
has been preserved, as it was written by him. The
dialect, the style, and the modes of narration in the
Gospels, generally, have a very marked and peculiar
character. Each Gospel, also, is distinguished from
the others by individual peculiarities in the use of
language, and other characteristics exclusively its
own.
5. In those cases in which we have good reason to
suspect an ancient writing of being spurious altogether, or of having received spurious additions, the
fact is almost always betrayed by something in the
character of the writing itself. Spurious works and
4




42            THE GOSPEL RECORDS.
interpolations in authentic works are discovered by
something not congruous to the character of the pretended author, by a style different from his own, by
an implied reference to opinions or events of a later
age, or by some other bearing and purpose not consistent with the time when they are pretended to
have been written. Traces of the times when they
were really composed are almost always apparent.
This must have been the case with the Gospels if
they had been subjected to alterations and additions
from different editors and transcribers with different
views and feelings, more or less affected by opinions
and circumstances which had sprung up in their own
times. But no traces of a later age than that which
we assign for their composition appear in the Gospels.




PART II.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.








PART II.
TIE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.
~ 7. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
BY the authenticity of the Gospels we understand
that they were written by the men whose names they bear,
who were partly eye-witnesses, partly persons cotemporaneous with the events narrated. To declare the Gospels
authentic in this sense has been pronounced by infidels to be "an assumption originating from the titles
which the Biblical books bear in our canon."  We
grant that little reliance can be placed on these titles
or headings, but it is absurd to say that these headings originated the belief that the books were written by the men whose names they bear; for before
the titles were attached, the belief must have existed. There is not the slightest pretense for insinuating that there was ever any doubt as to the authorship of any one of the historical books of the New
Testament; which are as uniformly ascribed to the
writers whose names they bear as the "Return of
the Ten Thousand" to Xenophon, or the "Lives of
the CGesars" to Suetonius.  There is, indeed, far
more and stronger testimony concerning the authenticity of the four Gospels than exists with respect to
45




46             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the works of almost any classical writer; for it is a
rare occurrence for classical works to be distinctly
quoted, or for their authors to be mentioned by name
within a century of the time of their publication.




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              47
CHAPTER I.
THE OUTWARD HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES.
~ 8. THE TESTIMONY OF THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS,
BY the Apostolical Fathers we understand those
early Christian writers who lived wholly or in part
in the very age of the apostles, and were more or
less conversant with them. These are: Clement, of
Rome, mentioned (Phil. iv, 3) as a fellow-laborer of
Paul, afterward Bishop of Rome; Barnabas, of Cyprus. frequently mentioned in the New Testament as
a co-laborer of Paul; Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch in
Syria; Polycarp, a disciple of John, ordained by him
Bishop of Smyrna, where he died a martyr.  Of
these Apostolical Fathers we have only a few writings and some fragments.
The learned Dr. Lardner has carefully collated all
the passages in which these writers have made any
allusion to the canonical books of the New Testament. Their allusions to the Epistles are far more
numerous and direct than those to the Gospels. The
latter have been subjected by Eichhorn and others
to a very rigid scrutiny, for the purpose of destroying the evidence they furnish that our Gospels were
known to the Apostolical Fathers. It is said, that
"by far the greater part of them are so general in
the allusions they are supposed to make to passages
occurring in the Gospels, that no weight can be attached to them."  To this it might be sufficient to




48             THE -GOSPEL RECORDS:
reply, that the very peculiarity of these allusions,
instead of invalidating the evidence, furnishes a very
strong argument in favor of the existence of the
Gospels in their day. " When does an author," says
Dr. W. L. Alexander, in his Christ and Christianity,
"feel himself at liberty to deal in general allusions
to other writings, and, instead of formally citing them,
to invigorate his own style, or point his own sentences, by a few words borrowed from  them, or a
passing hint at something they contain?  Is it not
when he may safely take for granted the familiarity
of his readers with the authors he thus passingly
lauds? and does not this feature in the writings of
any author invariably prompt the inference, that he
has assumed the fact of such familiarity?.
What confirms this inference is, that exactly in the
same way of general allusion and partial citation do
these Apostolic Fathers frequently make use of the
writings of the Old Testament and of the Epistles of
the New."
It is true, that with the exception of the direct
appeals to Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians, by Clement, Ignatius, and
Polycarp, the Apostolic Fathers bear no formal testimony of the existence of the canonical books of the
New Testament; but their indirect testimony is sufficiently strong to satisfy every reasonable demand.
How fully it accords with the very nature of their
position is very clearly set forth by Westcott, in his
excellent work on the Canon of the New Testament,
from which we shall draw most of what we have to
say in this whole chapter.
"That the Apostolical Fathers," he says, "do not
appeal to the Apostolic Writings more frequently




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              49
and more distinctly, springs from the very nature of
their position. Those who had heard the living voice
of apostles were unlikely to appeal to their written
words. It is an instinct which always makes us prefer any personal connection to the more remote relationship of books.....  The words of Scripture
are inwrought into the texture of the books, and not
parceled out into formal quotations. They are not
arranged with augmentative effect, but used as the
natural expression of Christian truths. Now, this
use of the Holy Scripture shows at least that they
were even then widely known, and so guarded by a
host of witnesses-that their language was transferred into the common dialect-that it was as familiar to those first Christians as to us, who use it as
unconsciously as they did in writing or conversation.
If the quotations of the Old Testament in the Apostolic Fathers were uniformly explicit and exact, this
mode of argument would lose much of its force.
With the exception of Barnabas, it does not appear
that they have made a single reference by name to
any one of the books of the Old Testament. Clement uses the general formula,'It is written,' or, even
more frequently,'God saith,' or, simply,'One saith.'
The two quotations from the Old Testament in Ignatius are simply preceded by'It is written.' Exactness of quotation was foreign to the spirit of their
writing."
Respecting the coincidences between the Apostolic
Fathers and the canonical Gospels, in particular, Mr.
Westcott says: "From the nature of the case, casual
coincidences of language can not be brought forward
in the same manner to prove the use of a history
as of a letter. The same facts and words, especially
5




50             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
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 that what
they relate was then so far held to be true; but it
does not necessarily follow that they were already in
use, and the precise source of the passage 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 referred to tradition, and not
to any written accounts, for words most closely resembling those which are still found in our Gospels.
The testimony of the Apostolic Fathers is to the
substance, and not to the authenticity of the Gospels.
And in this respect they have an important work to
do. They witness that the great outlines of the life
and teachings of our Lord were familiarly known to
all from the first: they prove that Christianity rests
truly on a historic basis.  The'Gospel' which the
Fathers announce includes all the articles of the ancient creeds.' Christ,' we read,'our God, the eternal
Word, the Lord and Creator of the world, who was
with the Father before time began, at the end humbled himself, and came down from heaven, and was
manifested in the flesh, and was born of the Virgin
Mary, of the race of David, according to the flesh;
and a star of exceeding brightness appeared at his
birth. Afterward, he was baptized by John, to fulfill
all righteousness; and then, speaking his Father's
message, he invited not the righteous, but sinners, to
come to him. At length, under Herod and Pontius
Pilate, he was crucified, and vinegar and gall was offered him to drink. But on the first day of the week
he rose from the dead, the first-fruits of the grave;




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              51
and many prophets were raised by him for whom they
had waited.. After his resurrection he ate with his
disciples, and showed them that he was not an incorporeal spirit. And he ascended into heaven, and sat
down on the right hand of the Father, and thence he
shall come to judge the quick and the dead.' Such,
in their own words, is the testimony of the earliest
Fathers to the life of the Savior. Round these facts
their doctrines are grouped; on the truth of the incarnation, and the passion, and the resurrection of
Christ, their hopes were. grounded."
Mr. Westcott, in conclusion, makes the following
remarks on the age of the Apostolic Fathers: "If
the extent of the evidence of the Apostolic Fathers
to the books of the New Testament is exactly what
might be expected from  men who had seen the
apostles, who had heard them, and who had treasured up their writings as the genuine records of their
teaching, the character of their evidence is equally in
accordance with their peculiar position. It will be
readily seen that we can not expect to find the New
Testament quoted in the first age as authoritative, in
the same manner as the Old Testament. There could
not, indeed, be any occasion for an appeal to the testimony of the Gospels, when the history of the faith
was still within the memory of many; and most of
the epistles were of little use in controversy, for the
earliest heretics denied the apostleship of St. Paul.
The Old Testament, on the contrary, was common
ground; and the ancient system  of Biblical interpretation furnished the Christian with ready arms.
When these failed it was enough for him to appeal
to the death and resurrection of Christ, which were
at once the sum and the proof of his faith..




52             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
The successors of the apostles did not, we admit,
recognize that the written histories of the Lord, and
the scattered epistles of his first disciples, would form
a sure and sufficient source and test of doctrine, when
the current tradition had grown indistinct or corrupt. Conscious of a life in the Christian body, and
realizing the power of its Head, as later ages can not
do, they did not feel that the apostles were providentially charged to express once for all in their
writings the essential forms of Christianity, even as
the prophets had foreshadowed them.... But
they had certainly an indistinct sense that their
work was essentially different from that of their predecessors. They attributed to them power and wisdom to which they themselves made no claim. Each
one of those teachers, who stood nearest to the writers
of the New Testament, plainly contrasted his writings
with theirs, and definitely placed himself on a lower
level."
To these general remarks we add the positive results which the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers
gives us. In the letters which Ignatius composed
while he was conveyed to Rome, between the years
107 and 115, there are found unmistakable references
to John vi, 41, 48, 51, 54, and to Matt. iii, 15, xvi, 26.
In like manner, the short letter of Polycarp, written
soon after the death of Ignatius, about 115, refers to
Matt. vi, 13, and xxvi, 41. Polycarp quotes also from
the first Epistle of John the words: "Every one that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
is antichrist." This is of importance, inasmuch as
the Epistle and the Gospel of John must have been
the work of one and the same author. The authentication of the Epistle, therefore, serves at the same




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              53
time for that of the Gospel. But a testimony of
Polycarp respecting the writings of John, considering the intimate relation in which he stood to that
apostle, possesses a value so extraordinary as hardly
to admit any further objection against the authenticity of the fourth Gospel.
A  testimony of the highest significance to the
authenticity of the Gospels has lately been rendered
by the epistle of Barnabas, for which we are indebted to the important discovery of the Sinai M1anuscript, by Dr. Tischendorf. For two centuries past
the Christian Church has occupied itself much with
this epistle; but, unfortunately, in all the manuscripts of the Greek text extant in European libraries, the first five chapters.are wanting. An ancient,
but very imperfect, Latin translation alone supplied
the defect. In this Latin translation there is the following passage: "Let us, therefore, beware that we
be not found, as it is written,'many called, but few
chosen.'"  The expression, "as it is written," is used
throughout the New  Testament when a quotation
is made from the Old Testament Scriptures. To the
writings composed by apostles this formula could
evidently not be applied before these writings had
attained a footing of equal authority with those of
the Old Testament. If we find, therefore, in the
ancient writings of the Church passages quoted from
the Gospels with the same formula, then it follows
that, at the time when these writings were composed,
the Gospels must have had a co-ordinate authority
with the Old Testament. To obviate this conclusion,
Dr. Credner asserted "the argument was not valid
before the formula could be found in the original
Greek text." And in the order of Divine Providence,




54            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the entire epistle of Barnabas, in the original Greek
text, was discovered among the old parchment books
of a Greek convent, in an Arabian desert, and the
original text now gives the proof that the important
formula, "as it is written," was prefixed to the passage quoted from  Matthew by the author of the
epistle, and not by the tranlator. This result is of
no small importance, for the epistle of Barnabas can
not be placed later than at the beginning of the
second century. Opinion formerly wavered between
the first and second decades of years in that century,
but the Sinai Manuscript has induced most scholars
to go back to the last decade of years in the first
century. In this venerable work, which, at the close
of the second century, Clement, of Alexandria, reckoned as a part of Holy Scripture, there are found
several obvious references to the Gospel of Matthew;
and one with the formula accustomed to be employed
only for citations from Holy Writ. Hence, it follows
that at the beginning of the second century the
Gospel of Matthew possessed already the authority
of sacred Scripture. This fact becomes the more significant if it can be proven, as we shall show in the
course of our investigation, by the testimony of
Justin and Irenaeus, and even by that of heretics,
that the Gospel of Matthew could not be taken into
the number of the sacred books by itself alone, but
only in connection with the other three Gospels.
We must not pass over to the next section without
considering the testimony of Papias, who has been
erroneously supposed to have been a pupil of the
apostle John, and, therefore, has been reckoned, by
some, among the Apostolic Fathers, and whose testimony has been perverted by those who deny the




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.               55
apostolic origin of our Gospels. Dr. Tischendorf, in
his lately-published essay, "When were our Gospels
Composed?" sets the whole question in the clearest
light:
"The obscurity which rests upon the man himself,
as well as upon his testimony, disqualifies him to become an independent witness, or even to be placed in
antagonism to other witnesses; yet this has happened.
Through Eusebius, (iii, 39,) we know that he wrote
a work in five books, which he styled, "An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord." In collecting materials for this work, he entertained the idea that his
purpose would be better served by the living word
of tradition than by what he might find in'books.'
His sources of information, therefore, according to
his assurance, were such oral reports as were capable
of being traced to the apostles. His own language
in regard to these sources is as follows:'I shall collect what I have learned from the elders (presbyters) and  have-retained in memory, at the same
time confirming their truth by my own explanations.'
Again:'Also when I fell in with any one who had
had intercourse with the elders, I made inquiry concerning the communications of the elders; what Andrew  or Peter had said, or what Philip, or what
Thomas, or James, or what John or Matthew, or
what any other of the disciples of the Lord.' Who
the elders referred to in these words were is not entirely clear. Those men of letters who would make
the term refer to the apostles themselves are certainly in the wrong. We are rather to understand
by it venerable men who had had personal inter-' We quote from the translation, by Dr. H. Smith, Professor in Lane Theological Seminary. See the "Eclectic," No. 10, 1866.




56             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
course with the apostles. So Eusebius, whose judgment rested upon a knowledge of the entire work of
Papias, understood the word, and expressed himself
upon the point in still more definite terms. He testifies expressly that Papias by no means claims to be
a man who had himself heard and seen the holy
apostles, but a pupil of Aristion, and of the presbyter, or elder, John, to whose testimony also he most
frequently appealed. Even Eusebius regarded it as
an error in Ireneus, that he had characterized him
as a'hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp,'
a passage in which Ireneus must have confounded
presbyter John, mentioned by Papias as his teacher,
with the apostle of the same name.  This is confirmed by the circumstance that IrenTeus derives an
extravagant' tradition touching the millennial kingdom  expressly,'from  the mouth of the elders, who
had seen John, the disciple of the Ilord.' In this
passage, beyond doubt, Ireneus distinguishes the
elders from the apostles; but since he appeals to
Papias for the tradition concerning the millennial
kingdom, he leaves no room to doubt that the elders
of whom  he speaks were no others than those mentioned by Papias.
"According to Eusebius, Papias declared that he
learned much more in the form of oral tradition,'also some unheard-of (strange)* parables and teachings of the Lord, and some other matter partaking
too much of the fabulous.' Of this character, Eusebius pronounces the doctrine of a millennial kingdom, which, after the resurrection of the dead, in a
sensuous way, should exist upon this earth. Eusebius
*The Greek word has both senses. Eusebius appears to have expressed by it
his own judgment touching the pretended discourses of our Lord.




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             57
thereupon remarks that Papias, as a man of very limited intelligence, which his whole book proves, had
gathered them from misunderstood expressions of the
apostles. He then proceeds to say that still other
reports, springing from Aristion and the presbyter
John, are to be found in the book of Papias, but
refers those who feel an interest in them to the book
itself. He then remarks that he will add to his previous quotations his tradition concerning Mark. His
language is:'And this said the presbyter: Mark,
the interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully what
he remembered; not, however, in the order in which
Christ had spoken or acted, for neither had he heard
the Lord nor did he follow him; but, as already said,
Peter, who delivered his discourses according to occasion, but did not wish to collect, in an orderly way,
the discourses of the Lord. Mark, therefore, was
not in fault when he wrote down any thing as he remembered it. On one thing only was he intent, not
to omit any thing which he had heard, and not to
falsify any thing.'  To this statement of Papias,
Eusebius immediately annexes another concerning
Matthew, proceeding to say:'This, then, Papias
writes concerning Mark, but of Matthew he says:
Now Matthew wrote the discourses of the Lord in
the Hebrew language, but each one interpreted them
as he could.' In these sentences there is much which
is obscure. It is doubtful, for instance, whether we
have rightly translated the expression,'the discourses
of the Lord;' for that which Papias had previously
spoken  concerning  Mark-we mean  the words,'which Christ had spoken or acted-makes it probable that discourses and actions both are to be understood. Now, do these statements of the presbyter




58             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
and Papias refer to our two Gospels which are named
after Matthew and Mark?  Even if the expression'discourses of the [Lord' should be correct, it can not
thence be inferred that a historical clothing of the
discourses is excluded, for neither Eusebius nor any
theologian of Christian antiquity has supposed that
the expressions of' Papias stand opposed to the two
Gospels. If, on the other hand, any in our time have
built upon this-the conclusion that our Gospel of
Mark is to be regarded as the proper book of Mark
only in the second degree, and that it sprung from a
later revision of the book written by Mlark-this supposition is obviously nothing but a groundless speculation. It serves only to deliver over our investigations touching the origin and mutual relations of our
first three Gospels a prey to endless conjectures. This
is true of Mark, and it is not less true of Matthew.
The statement of Papias concerning the latter has
its point in this: that he ascribes to Matthew only a
Hebrew text. If there is any truth in this statement,
then, especially if we accept the other, that every
one interpreted it as he could, a wide field of conjecture is opened between the primeval Hebrew text
and the Greek text in our possession. That Hebrew
text must have been lost in the very earliest times,
for not a single one of the earliest Church Fathers
had seen or used it. For our part, we are fully satisfied, and rest quietly in the conviction, that the
supposition of a primary Hebrew text of Matthew,
on the part of Papias, originated entirely in a misconception. Perfectly to establish the truth of this
conviction would require an elaborate and learned
discussion, for which this is not the proper place.
We will barely indicate to the reader the source of




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              59
the error into which Papias fell.  We learn even
from the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians the existence of vexatious party strifes arising from Judaizing
teachers. After the destruction of Jerusalem they
seem to have manifested themselves with ever-increasing violence.  There were two chief parties.
One, which we may call that of the Nazarenes, was
of a more simple character than the other, that of
the Ebionites.  Both used a Gospel named after
Matthew; the first in the Hebrew, the other in the
Greek language. That they did not hesitate to alter
the text which came into their hand according to
their own taste, is a fact springing from their very
posture-that of mere arbitrary sects; and what has
come to our actual knowledge on the subject proves
at once a very great similarity to our Matthew, and
an arbitrary departure from him in particular passages. When now, at a later day, it was repeated
that the Nazarenes, who had sprung from the oldest
Christian stock, possessed a Matthew  in Hebrew,
what was more natural than that the one or the other
should assume, perhaps in accordance with the pretense of the sect itself, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and that the Greek text was a translation?
How widely these texts differed from each other was
a matter which no one knew accurately or inquired
into. Moreover, the remote position of the sect of
the Nazarenes, who resided chiefly near the Dead
Sea, would not prompt such an investigation.
"In this explanation of the statement of Papias,
we are supported by Jerome. Jerome, who-a singular accomplishment in his day-was acquainted with
Hebrew, in the fourth century actually got possession
of the Hebrew Gospel of the [Nazarenes, and at once




60             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
cried out that he had the original Hebrew text of
Matthew. After a closer investigation, however, he
said only that many held this Hebrew text to be the
real Matthew.  He translated it into Greek and
Latin, and published some observations derived from
it. From  these observations of Jerome, as well as
from other ancient sources, it can now be proved
that the view  of Papias, shared by many learned
men in modern times, that the so-called Hebrew
Gospel is more ancient than our Matthew, must be
directly reversed; for that Hebrew book was rather
borrowed from our Greek Matthew, with arbitrary
variations of the text. The same remarks are applicable to the Greek text of the Hebrew  Gospel,
already mentioned, which was used by the iEbionites. In a word, this was better known in the
Church than the Hebrew, simply because it was
Greek; but in the earliest times it was also regarded
as only another text of Matthew. With this agrees
what Papias has written concerning the various interpretations of Matthew.
"But we have something more to say of Papias
and his compilation. As touching his efforts in collecting materials, he wrote that he believed he should
be less aided by that which was found in books.
What books?  Did he refer to our Gospels?  From
the expression, this is not impossible, but, from the
whole character of his book, it is very improbable;
for manifestly he aimed, on the basis of what at that
time-perhaps A. D. 130 or 140-was still orally related concerning the Savior, to produce a kind of
supplement of the Gospels. These last, therefore, he
could not have regarded as sources-as presenting
materials for his collection. By the books referred




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             61
to, he must rather have understood the unauthorized
apocryphal delineations of Christ, so many of which
made their appearance from  the earliest times onward. These he placed in contrast with his oral
sources, the genuineness of which appeared to him
perfectly established, since, equally with the Gospels
themselves, they had been derived from the apostles,
although through the testimony of the elders.
"Now, can any important historical information
touching our Gospels be derived from all that Papias
and his book have to offer upon the subject? Even
though a man of intellect, with much to support him,
has actually answered this question in the affirmative,
we can not but give it an unconditional denial. The
-judgment of Eusebius, touching the man, that he
was a person of limited understanding, is confirmed
by the fact that his pretended enrichment of evangelical literature was entirely disregarded by the
Church. What value would not a single parable of
the Lord have had, if it could lay claim to credibility? But no one has taken the least notice of all
those described by Papias.  The fabulous character
of which Eusebius, a man not distinguished for critical acumen, speaks, without doubt belonged to the
entire work.
"Nevertheless, in our century, Papias has grown
into a torch-bearer, and that, too, among men who
claim  special eminence in acute criticism.  Why?
Papias is silent in respect to the Gospel of John. This
silence is arrayed by Strauss, Renan, and other critics
of like spirit, in opposition to the faith of the Church
touching the genuineness of John's Gospel, as a fact
suggesting the very gravest doubts. It is maintained
that Papias could have known nothing of John's




62             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Gospel, because he does not mention it. Of course,
herewith would be gained nothing less than a decisive testimony against the genuineness of this Gospel; for Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, resided in
the vicinity of Ephesus, whence the Gospel of John
must have gone forth to the world, and the earliest
information places the martyr-death of Papias at the
same time with that of Polycarp; that is, in the sixteenth year of the second century.
"Now, a more groundless and frivolous affirmation
could hardly be made, than that the silence of Papias concerning the Gospel of John yields "a strong
proof against its genuineness."  For, in the first
place, to bear a testimony concerning John's Gospel,
is a matter entirely aside from the plan and object
of Papias; in the second place, from the circumstance
that Eusebius has quoted nothing from the book of
Papias concerning the Gospel of John, we are by no
means able to infer that nothing in reference to John
existed in that book. The notices touching Mark
and Matthew are not given by Eusebius as testimonies for the genuineness of their Gospels, but on
account of particular circumstances mentioned in
them. Concerning John, therefore, and this is the
only conclusion yielded by the silence of Eusebius,
no similar notices were found. But Eusebius is as
silent concerning the writings of Luke and  the
Pauline Epistles, in citing from Papias, as concerning
John's Gospel. Is it not an absurdity to suppose
that Papias knew  nothing of all these?  Yet this
absurd affirmation must necessarily be made, side by
side, with that concerning John's Gospel.
"But we have not yet mentioned that Eusebius,
at the conclusion of his article concerning Papias,




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              63
observes that he cited proof-texts from the 1st Epistle
of John and the 1st Epistle of Peter. Does not this
make against us, if we deny any significance to his
silence concerning Luke, Paul, and the Gospel of
John?  No, the reverse.  The genuineness of the
four Gospels and of the Pauline Epistles was doubted
by no one in the Church; therefore Eusebius could
not have conceived the idea of gathering ancient
testimonies to establish it. The case was different
with the Catholic Epistles, with the Apocalypse, and
with the Epistle to the Hebrews. To collect ancient
witnesses to these writings was a matter of importance to him. But may it not be alleged that this is
a mere arbitrary representation? We have at hand
two vouchers for the correctness of our view, which
will entirely exclude the charge of arbitrariness. Of
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, Eusebius (iv, 14)
says nothing, except that it contains proof-texts from
the 1st Epistle of Peter, and yet this very letter is
full of citations from Paul. In like manner he proceeds to say (iv, 26) that Theophilus, in his book to
Autolycus, used the Apocalypse, and makes no mention of the fact that these very books distinguish
themselves by the citation of a passage from John's
Gospel containing even a mention of the name of
John. All this, a blind zeal against the Gospel of
John has overlooked. One thing in this connection
we must not leave untouched. Eusebius testifies that
Papias used the 1st Epistle of John. Now, inasmuch
as, upon grounds of the most convincing power, that
Epistle and Gospel must have had the same author,
the testimony of Papias to the Epistle is at the same
time a testimony for the Gospel of John."




64             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
~ 9. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS IN THE SUB-APOSTOLIC
AGE, FROM A. D. 120-170.
In this age the Church had to maintain its ground
amid systematic persecution, organized heresies, and
philosophic controversy. The apostolic tradition was
insufficient to silence or condemn false teachers who
had been trained in the schools of Athens or Alexandria, but new champions were raised up to meet
the emergency; and some of these did not scruple to
maintain the doctrines of Christianity in the garb of
philosophers. As Christianity was shown to be the
true completion of Judaism before the Church was
divided from  the Synagogue, so it was well that it
should be clearly set forth as the center to which old
philosophers converged before it was declared to supersede them. This, then, was one great work of the
time, that apologists should proclaim Christianity to
be the Divine answer to the questionings of heathendom, as well'as the antitype to the law and to the
hope of the prophets. To a great- extent the task
was independent of the direct use of Scripture.
Those who discharged it had to deal not so much
with the words as with the thoughts of the apostles,
not so much with the records as with the facts of
Christ's life. Even the later apologists abstained
from quoting Scripture in their addresses to heathens;
and the practice was still more alien from the object
and position of the earliest. The arguments of philosophy and history were brought forward first, that
men might be better prepared for the light of revelation. The literature of this age included almost every
form of prose composition-letters, chronicles, essays,
apologies, visions, tales; but although it was thus




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              65
varied, the fragments of it which are left scarcely do
more than witness to its extent. Omitting what can
be gathered from the scanty fragments of the Athenian Apologists, Quadratus and Aristides, from the
letter to Diognetus, from the Jewish Apologists, from
Dionysius, Hermas, Hegesippus, etc., we will confine
ourselves to the all-sufficient testimony of Justin
Martyr, to whom  the first rank must be assigned
among the apologetical writers of the second century.
He was of Greek descent, but his family had been
settled for two generations in the Roman colony of
Flavia Neapolis, near the site of the ancient Sichem,
where he was born at the close of the first century.
He died as martyr in the year 166. After he had, as
as a heathen, successively sought after truth in the
various philosophical systems, he became, in the thirtieth year of his life, a convert to Christianity, which,
while continuing to wear his philosopher's cloak, he
enthusiastically defended by writings and discussions.
Eusebius has given a list of such books of his as
had come to his own knowledge. Of the writings
which bear his name now, two, Apologies and the
Dialogue with Trypho, are genuine beyond all doubt.
They exhibit a mass of references to the Gospel narratives. The first thing that must strike any one
who examines a complete collection of the passages
in question is the general coincidence in range and
contents with our Gospels. Nothing, for instance,
furnished wider scope for apocryphal narratives than
the history of the infancy of our Lord; yet Justin's
account of the infancy is as free from legendary admixture as it is full of incidents recorded by the
Evangelists. He does not appear to have known any
thing more than they knew. The style and language
6




66             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of the quotations which he makes from  Christ's
teaching agree no less exactly with those of the
Evangelist. He quotes frequently from memory; he
interweaves the words which we find separately given
by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; he condenses, combines, transposes the language of our Lord as they
have recorded it; he makes use of phrases characteristic of different Gospels; yet, with very few exceptions, he preserves through all these changes the
marked peculiarities of the New Testament phraseology, without the admixture of any foreign element.
We have observed that the quotations from the Gospel history in the early Fathers are almost uniformly
anonymous; the words of Christ were as a living
voice in the Church, apart from any written record.
Justin likewise habitually represents Christ as speaking, and not the Evangelist as relating, his discourses;
but he is the first who distinctly refers to what he
calls " The Memoirs of the Apostles," in which he
found written "all things concerning Jesus Christ."
The peculiar objects which he had in view in his
extant writings did not suggest, even if they did not
exclude, any minute description of these records. It
would have added nothing to the vivid picture of
Christianity which he drew for the heathen to have
quoted with exact precision the testimony of this or
that apostle, even if such a mode of quotation had
been usual. One thing they might require to know,
and that he tells them that the words of Christ were
still the text of Christian instruction, that the "Memoirs of the Apostles" were still read, together with
the writings of the prophets, in their weekly services, (Ap., i, 87.) So, on the other hand, the great
difficulty in a controversy with a Jew was to show




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.               67
that the humiliation and death of Christ were reconcilable with the Messianic prophecies.  The chief
facts were here confessed; and in other points it was
enough for the apologist to assert, generally, that the
Memoirs which he quoted rested upon apostolic authority, (Dial., c. 103.) The manner in which Justin
alludes to the Memoirs of the Apostles in his first
Apology, and in his Dialogue with Trypho, confirms
what has just been said. If his mode of reference
were not modified by the nature of the subject, it
would surely have been the same in both. As it is,
there is a marked difference, and exactly such as
might have been expected. In the Apology, which
contains nearly fifty allusions to the Gospel history,
he speaks only twice of the apostolic authorship of
his Memoirs, and in one other place mentions them
generally.  (Ap., i, 86; 87; 33.)  In the Dialogue,
which contains about seventy allusions, he quotes
them  ten times as "the Memoirs of the Apostles,"
and in five other places as "the Memoirs."
This difference is still more striking if examined
closely. Every quotation of our Lord's words in the
Apology is simply introduced by the phrases, " Thus
Christ said," or "taught," or "exhorted."  His words
were their own witness. For the public events of his
life Justin refers to the Enrollment of Quirinius, and
the Acts of Pilate. He quotes the "Gospels" only
when he must speak of things beyond the range of
common history. Standing before a Roman emperor
as the apologist of the Christians, he confines himself,
as far as possible, to common ground; and if he is
compelled for illustration to quote the books of the
Christians, he takes care to show  that they were
recognized by the Church, and no private documents




68            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of his own. Thus, in speaking of the Annunciation,
he says: "And the angel of God, sent to the Virgin
at that season, announced to her glad tidings, saying,
Behold thou shalt conceive of the Holy Spirit, and
bear a son, and he shall be called the Son of the
Highest; and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he
shall save his people from their sins, as those who
have written memoirs of all things concerning our
Savior Jesus Christ taught us, whom  we believed,
since also the prophetic Spirit said that this would
come to pass."  (Ap., i, 33.) So, again, when explaining the celebration of the Eucharist, he adds:
" The apostles, in the Memoirs made by them, which
are called Gospels, have handed down that it was
thus enjoined on them."  (Ap., i, 66.) And once
more, when describing the Christian service, he notices that "the Memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as the time
admits." (Ap., i, 67.)
There is no further mention of the Memoirs in the
Apology. In the Dialogue the case was somewhat
different. Trypho was himself acquainted with the
Gospel, (Dial., c. 10,) and Justin's language becomes
proportionally more exact. The words of our Lord
are still quoted very often, simply as His words,
without any acknowledgment of a written record;
but from time to time, when reference is made to
words of more special moment, so to speak, it is
added that they are so "written in the Gospel." In
one passage the contrast between the substance of
Christ's teaching and the record of it is brought out
very clearly. After speaking of the death of John
the Baptist, Justin adds: "Wherefore also our Christ
when on earth told those who said that Elias must




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             69
come before Christ:' Elias indeed will come, and will
restore all things; but I say to you that Elias has
come already, and they knew him not, but did to him
whatsoever they listed.' And it is written,'Then
understood the disciples that he spake to them concerning John the Baptist.'" (Dial., c. 49; Matt. xvii,
13.) In another place it appears that Justin refers
particularly to one out of the Memoirs. " The mention of the fact," he says, "that Christ changed the
name of Peter, one of the apostles, and that the event
has been written in his (Peter's) Memoirs, together
with His having changed the name of two other
brethren, who were sons of Zebedee, to that of Boanerges, tended to signify that He was the same through
whom  the surname Israel was given to Jacob, and
Joshua to Hoshea."  (Dial., c. 106; Mark iii, 16, 17.)
Now, the surname given to James and John is only
found at present in one of our Gospels, and there
it is mentioned in immediate connection with the
change of Peter's name. That Gospel is the Gospel
of Mark, which, by the universal voice of antiquity,
was referred to the authority of Peter. That Justin
found in his Memoirs facts at present peculiar to
Luke's narrative, is equally clear. "And Jesus, as he
gave up his spirit upon the cross," he writes, "said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, as I
learned from the Memoirs."
But this is not all: in his Apology, Justin speaks
of the Memoirs generally as written by the apostles.
In the Dialogue his words are more precise: "In the
Memoirs, which I say were composed by the apostles
and those who followed them, [it is written] that
sweat as drops (of blood) streamed down (from
Jesus), as He was praying and saying, Let this cup,




70             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
if it be possible, pass away from me." The description, it will be seen, precedes the quotation of a passage found in Luke, the follower of an apostle, and
not an apostle himself. Some such fact as this is
needed to explain why Justin distinguishes at this
particular time the authorship of the records which
he used. And no short account would apply more
exactly to our present Gospels than that which he
gives. Two of them were written by apostles, two
by their followers. There were many apocryphal
gospels, but it is not known that any one of them
bore the name of a follower of the apostles. The
application of Justin's words to our Gospels seems
indeed absolutely necessary when they are compared
with those of Tertullian, who says, (Adv. Marcion, iv,
2:) "We lay down as a principle, first, that the Evangelic Instrument has apostles for its authors, on
whom this charge of publishing the Gospel was imposed by the Lord himself: that if [it includes the
writings of] apostolic men also, still they were not
alone, but [wrote] with [the help of] apostles and
after [the teachings of] apostles..... In fine,
John and Matthew out of the number of the apostles
implant faith in us, Luke and Mark out of the number of their followers refresh it." This, then, is the
sum of what Justin says of the Memoirs of the apostles. They were many, and yet one: they were called
gospels: they contained a record of all things concerning Jesus Christ: they were admitted by Christians generally: they were read in their public services: they were of apostolic authority, though not
exclusively of apostolic authorship: they were composed in part by apostles, and in part by their followers. And further than this, we gather that they




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              71
related facts only mentioned at present by one or
other of the Evangelists: that thus they were intimately connected with each one of the synoptic Gospels: that they contained nothing, as far as Justin
expressly quotes them, which our Gospels do not
now substantially contain. Up to this point of our
inquiry the identification of his Memoirs with our
Gospels seems to be as reasonable as it is natural.
But on the other hand, it is said that there are objections to this identification; first, that Justin no
where mentions the Evangelists by name. It has
been already shown that there were peculiar circumstances in Justin's case which rendered any definite
quotation of the Evangelists unlikely and unsuitable,
even if such a mode of quotation had been common
at the time. But in fact, when he referred to written
records of Christ's life and words he made an advance
beyond which the later Apologists rarely proceeded.
Tatian, his scholar, has several allusions to passages
contained in the Gospels of Matthew and John, but
they are all anonymous. Athenagoras quotes the
words of our Lord, as they stand in Matthew, four
times, and appears to allude to passages in Mark and
John, but he no where mentions the name of an
Evangelist. Theophilus, in his books to Autolycus,
cites five or six precepts from "the Gospel," or the
"Evangelic Voice," and once only mentions John as
" a man moved by the Holy Spirit," quoting the prologue to his Gospel; though he elsewhere classes the
Evangelists with the prophets as all inspired by the
same Spirit. The usage of Tertullian is very remarkable. In his other books he quotes the Gospels continually, and, though rarely, mentions every
Evangelist by name; but in his Apology, while he




72             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
gives a general view of Christ's life and teaching, and
speaks of the Scriptures as the food and the comfort
of the Christian, he no where cites the Gospels, and
scarcely exhibits any coincidence of language with
them. Clement of Alexandria, as is well known,
investigated the relation of the synoptic Gospels to
that of John, and his use of the words of Scripture
is constant and extensive; and yet in his "Exhortation to Gentiles," while he quotes every Gospel,
and all, except Mark, repeatedly, he only mentions
John by name) and that but once. (Protrep., ~ 59.)
Cyprian, in his address to Demetrian, quotes words
of our Lord as given by Matthew and John, but says
nothing of the source from which he derived them.
At a still later time Lactantius blamed Cyprian for
quoting Scripture in a controversy with a heathen;
and though he shows in his Institutions an intimate
acquaintance with the writings of the Evangelists, he
mentions John only by name, quoting the beginning
of his Gospel. Arnobius, again, makes no allusion to
the Gospels; and Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe
most of what is known of the history of the New
Testament, though he quotes the Gospels eighteen
times in his "Introduction to Christian Evidences,"
(Praeparatio Evangelica,) yet always does so without referring to the Evangelist of whose writings he
made use.
It has been objected, secondly, that Justin's citations differ considerably from the corresponding passages in the Gospels. But they differ simply from
his having sometimes combined two passages from
different Gospels into one, or from his having given
the substance of the passage rather than the exact
words; for both of which practices he has the exam



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                 73
pie of the apostle Paul in his citations from the Old
Testament.  Such modes of dealing with books are
common to writers of all ages; and, as Justin exhibits the same practice in reference to the Old Testament, and to profane writers, it is groundless to urge
the trifling discrepancies which exist between his
quotations and the received text of the Evangelists
as any  evidence  that it was not from  them   he
quoted.*
The last-and, if it could be substantiated, the
most weighty-objection to our identifying Justin's
Memoirs of the Apostles with our four Gospels is the
allegation, that he introduced' apocryphal additions
into his narrative.  Some of his quotations, it is said,
exhibit coincidences with fragments of heretical gospels.  That quotations made by memory from  the
written Gospels should exhibit some points of partial resemblance to apocryphal gospels is very natural.
For these apocryphal gospels were not mere creations of the imagination, but narratives based on the
original oral Gospel, of which the written  Gospel
was the authoritative record. The same cause might,
therefore, very naturally lead to the introduction
of a common word, a characteristic phrase, or a supplementary  trait.  But it is further objected that
Justin's quotations differ not only in language, but
also in  substance, from  our Gospels; that he attributes sayings to our Lord which they do not contain, and narrates events which are either not mentioned by the Evangelists, or recorded by them with
serious variations from  his account.  It is enough to'All the quotations of Justin have been subjected to a thorough critical
examination by Mr. Westcott in his "Canon," a work not published in this
country, and to which we are indebted for most of the historical testimonies
contained in this Part.
7




74            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
answer, that he never does so when he proposes to
quote the Apostolic Memoirs. Like other early Fathers, he was familiar by tradition with the words of
our Lord which are not embodied in the Gospel.
Like them, he may have been acquainted with details of His life treasured up by such as the elder of
Ephesus, who might have heard John.  But whatever use he makes of this knowledge, he never refers to the Apostolic Memoirs for any thing which is
not substantially found in our Gospels.
Justin's account of the baptism, which might seem
an exception to this statement, really confirms and
explains it. It is well known that there was a belief
long current, that the heavenly voice addressed our
Lord in the words of the Psalm, which have ever
been applied to him: "Thou art my Son; this day
have I begotten thee." Augustine mentions the reading as current in his time; and the words are found
at present in the Cambridge MS., (D,) and in the old
Latin version. Justin might then have found them
in the MS. of Luke, which he used; but the form of
his reference is remarkable. When speaking of the
temptation he says: "For the devil, of whom I just
now spoke, as soon as he [Christ] went up from the
River Jordan,-when the voice had been addressed
to him,'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten
thee,'-is described in the Memoirs of the Apostles
as having come to him and tempted him, so far as to
say to him, Worship me."  The definite quotation is
of that which is confessedly a part of the Evangelic
text; it is evident, from the construction of the sentence, that Justin gives no authority for the disputed
clause.
This apparent mixture of two narratives is still




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              75
more remarkable in the mode in which Justin introduces the famous legend of the fire kindled in Jordan when Christ descended into the water: "When
Jesus came to the Jordan, where John was baptizing,
when he descended to the water, both a fire was
kindled in the Jordan, and the apostles of Christ
himself recorded that the Holy Spirit as a dove
lighted upon him."  Here the contrast is complete.
The witness of the apostles is claimed for that which
our Gospels relate; but Justin affirms, on his own
authority, a fact which, however significant in the
symbolism of the East, is yet without any support
from the canonical history.
Justin lived at the period of transition from a traditional to a written Gospel, and his testimony is
exactly fitted to the position which he held. He refers to books, but more frequently he appears to bring
forward words which were currently circulated rather
than what he had privately read. In both respects
his witness to our Gospels is most important. For it
has been shown that his definite quotations from the
Memoirs are so exactly accordant with the text of
the Synoptists, as it stands now, or as it was read at
the close of the second century, that there can be no
doubt that he was familiar with their writings as
well as with the contents of them. And the wide
and minute agreement of what he says of the life
and teachings of our Lord with what they record of
it, proves that his knowledge of the Gospel history
was derived from a tradition they had molded and
controlled, if not from  the habitual and exclusive
use of the books themselves.
He states in his First Apology, (A. D. 138,) that
"the Memoirs of the Apostles," called Gospels, " were




76            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
read every Sunday in the Christian assemblies in
connection with the writings of the prophets."  Now,
who can suppose that in Justin's time other Gospels
besides our own-which latter we know, with absolute
certainty, that they were acknowledged as sacred
and canonical a few decades after Justin-could have
been in the sacred use of the Church? Is it possible
to suppose, that within twenty or thirty years after
his death, these Gospels should have been replaced
by others similar and yet distinct? that he should
speak of one set of books, as if they were permanently incorporated into the Christian services, and
that those who might have been his scholars should
speak exactly in the same terms of another collection, as if they had had no rivals within the orthodox
pale? that the substitution should have been effected
in such a manner that no record of it has been preserved, while smaller analogous refdrms have been
duly chronicled? The complication of historical difficulties is overwhelming; and the alternative is that
which has already been justified on critical grounds,
the belief that when  Justin  spoke of apostolic
memoirs or gospels, he meant the Gospels which
were enumerated in the early anonymous canon, and
whose mutual relations were eloquently expounded
by Irenaeus.
This, then, appears to be established, both by external and internal evidence, that Justin's "gospels"
can be identified with those of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke. If his references to John are not so frequent,
this follows from the character of the fourth Gospel.
It was unlikely that he should quote its peculiar
teaching in apologetic writings addressed to Jews
and heathen; and at the same time he exhibits types




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             77
of language and doctrine which, if not immediately
drawn from John, yet mark the presence of his influence and the recognition of his authority. The
sentence, which is entirely peculiar to John, "And
the Word was made flesh," reappears unmistakably
in several passages. The answer which, according
to Justin, the Baptist gives to the interrogating messengers of the Jews, "I am not Christ, but the voice
of a preacher," is a clear quotation from John i, 20,
23. The words of the prophet Zachariah, (xii, 10,)
John quotes in a manner no where else to be found;
and since Justin does the same, he must be considered dependent upon John. Finally, we find in Justin's First Apology (A. D. 138) the following: "Christ
has said, Except ye be born again, ye can not enter
the kingdom  of heaven. But that it is impossible
that those who have once been born should enter
again into their mother's womb, is clear to every
man."  This is certainly a plain reference to our
Lord's conversation with Nicodemus in John iii.
In addition to the Gospels, the Apocalypse is the
only book of the New Testament to which Justin
alludes by name. Even that is not quoted, but appealed to generally, as a proof of the existence of prophetic power in the Christian Church. But it can
not be concluded from  his silence that Justin was
either unacquainted with the Acts and the Epistles,
or unwilling to make use of them. His controversy
against Marcion is decisive as to his knowledge of
the greater part of the books, and various Pauline
forms of expression and teaching show that the apostle
of the Gentiles had helped to mold his faith and
words.




78            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Q 10. THE FORMATION OF A CANON OF THE UNIVERSALLYACKNOWLEDGED BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AT THE
CLOSE OF THE SECOND CENTURY.
The Latin fragment on the Canon, first published
by Mluratori, was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan in a MS. of great antiquity, which
purported to contain the writings of Chrysostom.
It is mutilated both at the beginning and end; and
is disfigured throughout by gross inaccuracies and
barbarisms, due in part to the ignorance of the transcriber, and in part to the translator of the original
text; for there can be little doubt that it is a version
from the Greek. But, notwithstanding these defects,
it is of the greatest interest and importance. That
this catalogue was written soon after the time of the
Roman Bishop Pius, (A. D. 142-157,) consequently
about A. D. 170, and in all probability at Rome, we
may infer from the fact that the author of the catalogue says: "The Shepherd was written very lately,
in our time, by Hermes, in the city of Rome, while
Pius, his brother, occupied the Episcopal Chair." Internal evidence fully confirms its claims to this high
antiquity; and it may be regarded, on the whole, as
a summary of the opinion of the Western Church on
the Canon shortly after the middle of the second century. The fragment commences with the last words
of a sentence which evidently referred to the Gospel
of Mark. The Gospel of Luke, it is then said, stands
third in order-in the Christian Canon-having been
written by "Luke the physician," the companion of
Paul, who, not being an eye-witness, based his narrative on such information as he could obtain, beginning from  the birth of John. The fourth place is




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.               79
given to the Gospel of John. Though there is no
trace of any reference to Matthew, it is impossible
not to believe that it occupied the first place among
the four Gospels of the anonymous writer. Assuming
this, it is of importance to notice that he regards
our canonical Gospels as essentially one in purpose,
contents, and inspiration. He draws no distinction
between those which were written from  personal
knowledge, and those which rested on the teaching
of others. He alludes to no doubt as to their authority, no limit as to their reception, no difference as to
their usefulness. "Though various points are taught
in each of the Gospels, it makes no difference to the
faith of believers, since, in all of them, all things are
declared by one informing Spirit concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, the conversation
[of our Lord] with his disciples, and his double advent, at first in humility, and afterward in royal
power as he will yet appear." This first recognition
of the distinctness and unity of the Gospels, of their
origin from human care and Divine guidance, is as
complete as any later testimony.  The fragment
lends no support to the theory which supposes that
they were gradually separated from the mass of similar books.  Their peculiar position is clear and
marked; and there is not the slightest hint that it
was gained after a doubtful struggle or only at a late
date. Admit that our Gospels were regarded from
the first as authoritative records of Christ's life, and
then this new testimony explains and confirms the
fragmentary notices which alone witness to the earlier
belief; deny it, and the language of one who had
probably conversed with Polycarp at Rome becomes
an unintelligible riddle.




80            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Ireneus died as a martyr A. D. 202. About the
year 177 he succeeded Photinus in the Bishopric of
Lyons. In his youth he had sat at the feet of the
venerable, aged Polycarp, who in his time had been
a disciple of the Evangelist John, and he had, moreover, been acquainted with other eye-witnesses of
the Gospel history. In his letter to Florinus, (see
Euseb. Hist., Eccl. v, 20,) he thus writes: "I saw
thee, when I was yet young, with Polycarp, in Asia
Minor, when thou wast living in the splendor of the
Imperial Court, and wast at pains to secure his
approbation.  For what happened at that period
I remember better than what has recently occurred.
That which we receive in youth grows with ourselves, and clings to us firmly. And so I am able
now to tell where the blessed Polycarp sat in his addresses; how he came in and went out; how he lived,
and how he looked; what discourses he held to the
people; how he spoke of his intimate intercourse
with John, and with others who had seen the lord,
and quoted their own discourses; how he rehearsed
what"he had heard from those who, with their own
eyes, had seen the Light of the World, in full agreement with the Scripture."
Surely, the testimony of Ireneus on the authenticity of our Gospels, involving that of Polycarp, must,
in the judgment of every sober-minded, candid critic,
far outweigh all the scruples raised by skepticism.
In his work against the heretics he availed himself
throughout of our Gospels, naming each Evangelist.
The number of passages in which this is done
amounts, according to Tischendorf, to about four
hundred, of which more than eighty are quotations
from the Gospel of John. He, moreover, expressly




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              81
asserts that there exist, of necessity, four Gospels, precisely four, neither more nor less, comparing this fact
with the four quarters of the globe, the four principal winds, the four faces of the cherubim. He says,
the four Gospels are the four pillars of the Church
spread over the earth's surface, recognizing in their
quadruplicity a special decree of the Creator. Such
a testimony is utterly irreconcilable with the notion
that our Gospels began to acquire their authority in
the time of Irenaeus himself, and that to the three
elder a latter fourth was at that time striving to attach itself. It is asserted by the Critical School of
Baur that the Gospel of John made its first appearance about the year 150, and that Polycarp never
spoke of it to Irenaus. If this were the case, how
is it conceivable that Irenaeus should have believed
this work, which appeared as the most sublime legacy of John to the Christian Church, to be genuine,
and should have employed it as a sacred and safe
weapon in his conflict witli men who dealt in corrupt scriptures and apocryphal writings? Though
Irenams has not given us a professed catalogue of the
books of the New  Testament, we learn from  his
treatise that he received, as authentic and canonical
Scriptures, not only the four Gospels, but also the
Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans,
the Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
and Colossians, the First and Second Epistles to the
Thessalonians, the two  Epistles to Timothy, the
Epistle to Titus, the two Epistles of Peter, and the
First and Second Epistles of John. Can it be supposed, with reason, that forgeries came into use in
the time of Irenaeus, which he must have been able
to detect by his own knowledge? that they were




82             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
received without suspicion or reserve in the Church
over which he presided? Is it possible that he decided otherwise than his first master, when he speaks
of the tradition of the apostles by which the canon
of the Scripture was determined? (Adv. Hser., iv,
33, 8.) He appeals to the known succession of teachers in the Churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus,
who held fast, up to his own time, the doctrine
which they had received from the first age; and is it
possible that he used writings, as authentic and
authoritative, which were not recognized by those
who must have had unquestionable means of deciding on their apostolic origin?
A coteimporary of Irenseus was Clement of Alexandria; he was trained in the school of Pantsenus,
who was personally connected with some immediate
disciples of the apostles. He distinguishes the Gospel
from the other writings of the New Testament, which
he calls 6 ano-rol2o, and sometimes a,.o-roioc, but
combines them "as Scriptures of the [Lord," with the
Law and the Prophets, and as "ratified by the authority of one Almighty Power."
Tertullian, a presbyter of the Church of Carthage,
was born 160, and died about the year 220. He became a Montanist about the year 200. But his testimony to the authority of the canonical Scriptures is
exactly the same before and after he embraced the
tenets of Montanus. In his numerous works, we find
many hundred passages of our Gospels cited as decisive proof-texts; from  the Gospel of John alone,
over two hundred. He-uniformly recognizes the four
Gospels as written by the Evangelists to whom we
ascribe them; distinguishing Matthew and John as
apostles, and Mark and Luke as apostolical men, and




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              83
asserting the authority of their writings as inspired
books, acknowledged by the Christian Church from
their original date. (Adv. Marcion, I, c. iv, 2.) He
notices particularly the introduction of the word Testament for the earlier word "Instrument," as applied
to the dispensation and the record, (Adv. Mlarcion,
iv, 1,) and appeals to the New Testament, as made
up of "the Gospels" and "Apostles."  (Adv. Prax.,
15.)  This comprehensive testimony extends to the
four Gospels, the Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, thirteen
Epistles of Paul, and the Apocalypse.  "Tertullian,"
remarks Dr. Tischendorf, "presents an irrefragable
principle by which the truth of the several parts of
the Christian Canon and-a point on which he insists
most earnestly-the genuineness of the apostolic
writings are to be tested. He shows and demands
that a testimony which now passes for truth should
bear this test: that it was regarded as truth in former
days; that from  this previous authority we are to
ascend to the apostles themselves; but that apostolic
genuineness is to be measured by the testimony of
the Apostolic Churches, the Churches which were
founded by the apostles in person. (See Adv. Marcion,
iv, 5.) Is it at all credible that this acute man should
have fallen into an uncritical carelessness just at this
point; his reception, namely, and defense of the genuineness of the four Gospels? The passages just referred to are in his famous work against Marcion,
who, following the bent of his heretical humor, had
arbitrarily tampered with the Evangelical text. Of
the four Gospels he had entirely suppressed three,
and in the fourth, Luke, he had made such changes
as suited him.  Now Tertullian, in his work against
him, appeals expressly to the testimony of the Apos



84             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
tolic Churches for the four collective Gospels. Is this
assurance in the mouth of a man like Tertullian to
pass for nothing?  At the time when he wrote it,
scarcely more than a hundred years had yet passed
since the death of John. At that time the testimony
of the Apostolic Church of Ephesus, to which he appeals-a Church in which John had long labored,
and in whose bosom he died-was, in fact, perfectly
decisive, as touching the genuineness or the spuriousness of the Gospel of John; and the task of ascertaining the judgment and testimony of this Church
was perfectly easy. In this connection, it is a point
not to be overlooked that we have not here to do
with a mere man of letters, dealing in learned observations, but with a man with whom  this was a
question of deep and holy solemnity touching his
faith; yea, touching the salvation of his soul. The
foundation Scriptures of Christianity, claiming for
themselves an apostolic origin, books which even at
that time awoke the universal opposition of that
wordily wisdom, from whose school Tertullian himself
had proceeded, is it possible to believe that he would
have accepted these books with an unscrupulous
credulity? But now, since he, in addition, expressly
assures us that in his decisive defense of the apostolic
origin of all four of the Gospels, he goes back to the
warrant of the Apostolic Churches, it would plainly
fall into the category of contemptible quibbling, to
pretend to cherish doubts touching his conscientious
investigation of the apostolic origin of the Gospels."
All the Fathers, at the close of the second century,
from opposite quarters of Christendom, agree in appealing to the testimony of antiquity as proving the
authenticity of the Gospels, and other books which




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.               85
they used as Christian Scriptures. The appeal was
made at a time when it was easy to try its worth.
The links which connected them  with the apostolic
age were few and well known; and, if they had not
been continuous, it would have been easy to expose
the break. But their appeal was never gainsayed.
We need, therefore, not descend to later testimonies.
Let us, in conclusion, bear in mind that the admitted universal reception of the Gospels, toward the
close of the second century, conveys to us the testimony of a communion not only fully qualified to arrive at a sound judgment on the authenticity of the
Gospels, but also deeply interested in ascertaining
the truth upon the question at issue, inasmuch as the
early Christians, by believing the Gospels to be the
authentic productions of the men whose names they
bear, exposed themselves to the fiercest persecutions-from  which it follows that they must have
come to them with an evidence of their authenticity
such as could not be gainsayed.
~ 11. THE EARLY VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Of the utmost importance is the fact that already
in the second half of the second century our four
Gospels had received a common translation into
Latin, as well as into Syriac.
THE PESHITO.
Almost universal opinion assigns the Peshito, or
"simple" Syriac, (Aramaic,) version to the most remote Christian antiquity. The Syriac Christians of
Malabar even now claim for it the right to be considered as an Eastern original of the New Testament;




86              THE GOSPEL -RECORDS:
and though their tradition is wholly unsupported by
external evidence, it is not, to a certain extent, without all plausibility. The dialect of the Peshito, even
as it stands now, represents in part, at least, that
form  of Aramaic which was current in Palestine.
In this respect it is like the Latin Vulgate, which,
though revised, is marked by the provincialisms of
Africa. Both versions appear to have had their origin in districts where their languages were spoken
in. impure dialects, and afterward to have been corrected and brought nearer to the classical standard.
In the absence of an adequate supply of critical materials it is impossible to construct the history of
these recensions in the Syriac; the analogy of the
Latin. is at present our only guide. But if a conjecture be allowed, it is probable that the various
facts of the case are adequately explained by supposing that versions of separate books of the New
Testament were first made and used in Palestine,
perhaps within the apostolic age, and that shortly
afterward these were collected, revised, and completed
at Edessa. Many circumstances combine to give support to this belief. The early condition of the Syrian
Church, its wide extent and active vigor, lead us to
expect that a version of the Holy Scriptures into the
common dialect could not have been long deferred;
and the existence of an Aramaic Gospel was in
itself likely to suggest the work. Differences of style,
no less than the very nature of the case, point to
separate translations of different books; and, at the
same time, a certain general uniformity of character
bespeaks some subsequent revision. Whatever may
be thought of the alleged intercourse of Abgarus
with our blessed Lord, Edessa itself is signalized in




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              87
early Church history by many remarkable facts. It
was called the "holy" and "blessed" city, (Horme
Syriacse;) its inhabitants were said to have been
brought over by Thaddeus, in a marvelous manner,
to the Christian faith; and, "from that time forth,"
Eusebius adds, (Euseb., H. E., ii, 1,) "the whole
people of Edessa has continued to be devoted to the
name of Christ, exhibiting no ordinary instance of
the goodness of the Savior;" in the seaond century
it became the center of an  important Christian
school, and long afterward retained its preeminence
among the cities of this province. As might be expected, tradition fixes on Edessa as the place whence
the Peshito took its rise. Gregory Bar Hebroeus, one
of the most learned and accurate of Syrian writers,
relates that the New Testament Peshito was "made
in the time of Thaddeus, and Abgarus, King of
Edessa;" when, according to the universal opinion
of ancient writers, the apostle went to proclaim
Christianity in Mesopotamia.
No other direct historical evidence remains to determine the date of the Peshito; and it is impossible to supply the deficiency by the help of quotations occurring in early Syrian writers. No Syrian
works of a very early period exist. Still it is known
that books were soon translated from  Syriac into
Greek, and while such an intercourse existed it is
scarcely possible that the Scriptures remained untranslated.  Again, the controversial writings of
Bardesanes necessarily imply  the existence of a
Syriac version of the Bible. Tertullian's example
may show that he could hardly have refuted Marcion
without the constant use of Scripture. And more
than this, Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus "made




88             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
and especially from [writings in] the Hebrew language, showing thereby that he was a Christian of
Hebrew descent."  (Euseb., H. E., iv, 22.)  This testimony is valuable as coming from  the only Greek
writer likely to have been familiar with Syriac literature: and may we not see in the two Gospels thus
mentioned, two recensions of Matthew-the one disfigured by apocryphal traditions, and the one written
in the dialect of Eastern Syria?  Ephrem  Syrus,
himself a deacon of Edessa, treats the version in
such a manner as to prove that it was already old in
the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of established authority, calling it "Our Version " he speaks
of the "Translator" as one whose words were familiar, (Horae Syriacse;) and, though the dialects of
the East are proverbially permanent, his explanations show that its language, even in his time, had
become partially obsolete.  Another circumstance
serves to exhibit the venerable age of this version.
It was universally received by the different sects
into which the Syrian Church was divided in the
fourth century, and so has continued current even
to the present time.  The respect in which the
Peshito was held was further shown by the fact that
it was taken as the basis of other versions in the
East. The text, even in its present corrupt state,
exhibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient
Greek MSS., and the earliest quotations. The very
obscurity which hangs over its origin is a proof of
its venerable age, because it shows that it grew up
spontaneously among Christian congregations, and
was not the result of any public labor. It is almost
universally referred to the end of the second century,




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              89
but some competent scholars have fixed its date
within the first half of the second century.
THE OLD LATIN VERSION.
At first it is natural to look to Italy as the center
of the Latin literature of Christianity, and the original source of that Latin version of the Holy Scriptures which, in a later form, has become identified
with the Church of Rome, yet, however natural such
a belief may be, it finds no support in history. Rome
itself, under the emperors, was well described as a
"Greek city;" and Greek was its second language.
As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer population-every-where the great bulk of the early
Christians-was Greek, either in descent or in speech.
Among the names of the fifteen bishops of Rome, up
to the close of the second century, four only are
Latin; but in the next century the proportion is
nearly reversed. When Paul first wrote to the Roman Church he wrote in Greek; and in the long list
of salutation to its members, with which the Epistle
is concluded, only four Latin names occur. Shortly
afterward, Clement wrote to the Corinthians in Greek
in the name of the Church of Rome; and at a later
date we find the bishop of Corinth writing in Greek
to Soter, the ninth in succession from Clement. Justin, Hermas, and Tatian published their Greek treatises at Rome. The Apologies to the Roman emperors
were in Greek. Modestus, Caius, and Asterius Urbanus bear Latin names, yet their writings were
Greek. Meanwhile, however, though Greek continued to be the natural, if not the sole language of the
Roman Church, the seeds of Latin Christianity were
rapidly developing in Africa. Nothing is known in
8




90             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
detail of the origin of the African Churches. At the
close of the second century Christians were found in
that country in every place and of every rank. They
who were but of yesterday, Tertullian says about the
year 200, (Apol., i, 37,) already fill the palace, the senate, the forum, and the camp, and leave their temples
only to the heathen.  To persecute the Christians
was even then to decimate Carthage.  These fresh
conquests of the Roman Church preserved their dis.
tinct nationality in their language. Carthage-the
second Rome-escaped the Graecism of the first. In
Africa Greek was no longer a current dialect. A
peculiar form of Latin, vigorous, elastic, and copious,
however far removed from  the grace and eloquence
of a classical standard, fitly expressed the spirit of
Tertullian.  It is, then, to Africa we must look for
the first traces of the "Itala."  "Before the end of
the- second century it had already acquired," says
Tischendorf, "a degree of public authority for the
Latin translator of the great Greek work of Irensus
against the heretics, who is to be placed at about the
close of the second century-and this translator is
followed by Tertullian in his citations from Irenseusas well as Tertullian himself, at the close of the same
century, follow the text of the Itala. This authority
of the Latin translation of the Gospels, at the end of
the second century, necessarily presupposes that at
that time it had an age of several decades of years."
Not only is the character of the version itself a proof
of its great antiquity, but the mutual relations of different parts of it show that it was made originally by
different hands; and if so, that it was coeval with the
introduction of Christianity into Africa, and the result of the spontaneous efforts of African Christians.




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                91
~ 12. THE TESTIMONY OF APOCRYPHAL AND HERETICAL
WRITINGS.
Before we inquire into the relation which the
heretical and apocryphal writings bear to our canonical Gospels, let us take a survey of the heretical sects
which arose in the first two centuries, and their relation to the great body of Christians called the Catholic Christians, or the Catholic Church. They may
be arranged under two great principles: " That wellknown pharisaical Judaism  whose shibboleth was
that the Gentiles should be constrained to observe
the ceremonial law, and which continued to attack
Paul in his missionary labors, produced Ebionism, in
the general sense of this term; the desire to amalgamate with Christianity Grecian and Oriental theosophy, and an opposition to Judaism, inclusive of
the Old Testament, on the part of Gentile philosophers converted to Christianity, introduced Gnosticism. These two directions were, however, also combined into a Gnostic-Ebionism, a system  for which
the doctrines of the Essenes seem to have served as a
point of transition and connecting link. This'opposition of science falsely so called' (1 Tim. vi, 20)
began to intrude into Christianity during the latter
years of Paul's labors. Against it Paul uttered a
prophetic warning in his farewell address at lTiletus.
(Acts xx, 29, 30.)  Afterward he opposed it in the
Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, and.
especially in his pastoral letters, even as Peter combated it in his First Epistle. It assumed many and
varied forms. It appeared in the shape of Oriental
theosophy, magic, and theurgy, in voluntary asceticismm. with reference to meats and marriage, in fan



92            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
cied mysteries about the nature and subordination of
heavenly powers and spirits, and in the transformation of certain fundamental doctrines of Christianity-such as that of the resurrection, 2 Tim. ii, 18into a mere idealism. These seeds of evil had already
borne abundant fruit when John came to take up his
residence in Asia Minor. Accordingly, in his First
Epistle, the apostle opposed the growing heresy, and
more especially that form of Gnosis, in which the incarnation of God in Christ was denied." (See Kurtz's
Church History, pp. 71 and 72.)
The Ebionites proper-as distinguished from  the
Nazarenes, who, though they held themselves bound
still to observe the ceremonial law, believed in the
Divinity of Christ, and did not reject Paul entirelydeemed the observance of the ceremonial law indispensably necessary for salvation; they saw in Jesus
nothing but a human Messiah, whom, at his baptism,
God had endowed with supernatural powers. His
Messianic activity they limited to his teaching, by
which he had enlarged and perfected the law, adding
to it new and more strict commandments. The death
of Christ was an offense to them, under which they
consoled themselves with the promise of his return,
when they expected that he would set up a terrestrial kingdom. They, of course, repudiated the apostle Paul entirely, and in order to have some basis for
their monstrous heresies, they mutilated and interpolated the Gospel of Matthew. A similar position to
the Gospels was taken by the Gnostics. Though their
doctrines were as irreconcilable with the contents of
our Gospels as those of the Ebionites, they did not
assail their authenticity, but rejected them only as
carnal apprehensions of Jesus and his doctrine, while




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              93
Marcion boldly mutilated the Gospel of Lule, and declared this to be the only true Gospel. With regard
to the evidence the Gnostics give for the authenticity
of our Gospels, they may be divided into two principal classes: the theosophic (or Valentinian) Gnostics,
and the Miarcionites.
Now, if it can be proved that the theosophic Gnostics appealed to our canonical Gospels as freely and
confidently as did the Catholic Christians, that they
did not pretend to possess any Gospel, in any way
contradictory to the account of Christ's ministry contained in our Gospels, and that the Gospel used by
the Marcionites was essentially the same with that of
Luke, we have an argument of uncommon strength
in favor of the authenticity of our Gospels. For these
early heretics were, in their opinions and feelings, so
widely separated from the Catholic Christians, that
they present themselves as an independent class of
witnesses, and they lived at a time, when, upon the
supposition that our Gospels were not written by the
authors whose names they bear, it must have been
very easy to them to prove the fact. Could they have
rejected the authority of the Gospels on this ground,
they would certainly have done it. And had they
done so, it is altogether incredible that the fact should
not have been conspicuous throughout the controversial writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the two principal writers against the Gnostics. From their works
it does not appear that the Valentinians, the Marcionites, or any other Gnostic sect, adduced in support
of their opinions a single narrative relating to the
public ministry of Christ, besides what is found in
the Gospels, or that any sect appealed to the authority of any history of our Lord's ministry besides the




94             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Gospels, except so far as the Marcionites, in their use
of the interpolated and mutilated copy of Luke's
Gospel, may be regarded as forming a verbal exception. The Fathers were eager to urge against the
Gnostics the charge of corrupting and perverting the
Scriptures, and of fabricating apocryphal writings,
but they never brought forward the far graver allegation, that the Gnostics pretended to set up other
histories of Christ in opposition to those received by the
great body of Christians. Had they been guilty of
this, the fact neither would nor could have remained
unnoticed. On the contrary, Irenseus says: "There
is such assurance concerning the Gospels, that the
heretics themselves bear testimony to them, so that
each one of them, taking the Gospels as his startingpoint, endeavors thereby to maintain his own teaching." (Adv. Iser., III, xii, 7.) And Tertullian says:
" They profess to appeal to the Scriptures; they urge
arguments from  the Scriptures-as if they could
draw  arguments about matters of faith from  any
other source than the records of faith." (De Praescr.
Hoer., c. xiv.)  He takes in this treatise, moreover,
especial pains to prove that they had no right at all
to appeal to the Scriptures as they do.
But the question naturally arises, how could the
Gnostics defend their strange doctrines, and yet appeal to our Gospels?  This important question is
more fully answered by Mr. Norton than by any other
writer on this subject. We will, therefore, give to
the reader the benefit of a brief condensation of his
argument: 1. The theosophic Gnostics, in common
with the Catholic Christians, applied the allegorical
mode of interpretation to the New Testament. Neglecting the proper meaning of words, they educed




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              95
from  them  mystical senses. Their whole system of
interpretation was, besides, arbitrary, and unsupported by any correct principle. The vocabulary of
the theosophic Gnostics, like that of other erring
sects, consisted, in great part, of words from  the
New  Testament, on which they had imposed new
senses. It thus became easy for them, on the one
hand, to find supposed references to their theory;
and, on the other, to explain away much that was
inconsistent with it. Like other false expositors of
Scripture, they detached particular passages from
their connection, and infused a foreign meaning into
the words. Irenseus, after saying they appealed to
unwritten tradition as a source of their knowledge,
goes on to remark, that, "twisting, according to the
proverb, a rope of sand, they endeavor to accommodate, in a plausible manner to their doctrines, the
parables of the Lord, the declarations of the prophets,
or the words of the apostles, so that their fiction may
not seem to be without proof. But they neglect the
order and connection of the Scriptures, and disjoin,
so far as they are able, the members of the truth.
They transpose and refashion, and, making one thing
out of another, they deceive many by a fabricated
show of the words of the Lord which they put together. (Cont. HETeres., lib. I, c. viii, ~ 1.) 2. They
maintained a principle similar to a fundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholics; namely, that religious
truth could not be learned from the Scriptures alone,
without the aid of the oral instructions of Christ and
his apostles, as preserved by tradition.  "When,"
says Irenseus, "they are confuted by proofs from the
Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not correct, nor of authority;




96             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
they say that they contain contradictions, and that
the truth can not be discovered from them by those
who are ignorant of tradition. For that it was not
delivered in writing, but orally; whence Paul said,'We speak wisdom  among the perfect, but not the
wisdom of this world."' (Lib. III, c. ii, ~ 2.)  " The
heretics," says Tertullian, "pretend that the apostles
did not reveal all things to all, but taught some doctrines openly to every one, some secretly and to a few
only."  (De Proescr. Hoer., c. xxv.)  What was peculiar in their own doctrines they regarded as that
esoteric teaching which had come down to them by
oral tradition. This notion of a secret tradition is
not found in Justin Martyr, Irenueus, or Tertullian.
When the two latter speak of tradition, they mean
that traditionary knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christianity which necessarily existed among
Christians. It is described by Irenaeus as a "tradition manifest throughout the world, and to be found
in every Church."  (Lib. III, c. iii, ~ 1.) By it, he
says, a knowledge of our religion was preserved
without books among believers in barbarous nations.
(Ibid., c. iv, ~ 2.) At the end of about a century
from the preaching of the apostles, there must have
been, throughout the communities which they had
formed, a general acquaintance with what they had
taught, even had no written records of our religion
been extant. In regard likewise to facts-important
in their reference to Christianity, as, for example, the
genuineness of the books of the New Testament-the
Christians of the last half of the second century
must have relied on the testimony of their predecessors. It is this traditionary knowledge concerning Christianity-not secret, but open to all-which




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              97
Irenseus and Tertullian appeal to with justifiable confidence in their reasoning against the heretics, when
they distinguish between the evidence from tradition
and the evidence from  Scripture. 3. In connection
with their notion of a secret tradition, some of the
Gnostics said, according to Irenueus, "that the apostles, practicing  dissimulation, accommodated their
doctrine to the capacity of their hearers, and their
answers to the previous conceptions of those who
questioned them, talking blindly with the blind,
weakly with the weak, and conformably to their
error with those who were in error; and that thus
they preached the Creator to those who thought the
Creator was the only God, but to those able to comprehend the unknown Father, they communicated
this unspeakable mystery in parables and in enigmas."  (Lib. III, cap. v, ~ 1.)'Some," says Irenmeus,
"impudently contend that the apostles, preaching
among the Jews, could not announce any other God
but him in whom the Jews had believed."  (Ib., cap.
xii, ~ 6.)  4. Some of the Gnostics, especially the
Marcionites, maintained that Paul was far superior to
the other apostles in the knowledge of the truth"the hidden doctrine having been manifested to him
by revelation." (Ibid., c. xiii, ~ 1.) They represented the other apostles as having been entangled
by Jewish prejudices from which he was in a great
measure free. Marcion regarded the Gospels as expressing the false Jewish opinions of their writers.
But among the Gospels he conceived that there was
ground for making a choice; and he selected for his
own use, and that of his followers, the Gospel of
Luke. This he further adapted to his purpose by
rejecting from  it what he viewed as conformed to
9




98             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
those opinions.  Nor did he consider Paul himself as
wholly free from Jewish errors, but likewise struck
out, from those of his epistles which he used, the passages in which he thought them  to be expressed.
Sometimes, according to Irenueus, the Gnostics apparently, without making an exception in favor of
Paul, charged the apostles generally with Jewish
errors and ignorance concerning the higher truths
and mysteries of religion.  "All those," he says,
"who hold pernicious doctrines have departed in
their faith from him who is God, and think that they
have found out more than the apostles, having discovered another God. They think that the apostles
preached the Gospel while yet under the influence of
Jewish prejudices, but that their own faith is purer,
and that they are wiser than the apostles."  He
states that Marcion proceeded on these principles in
rejecting the use of some of the books of Scripture,
and of portions of those which he retained. (Lib.
III, c. xii, ~ 12.)  "The heretics," says Tertullian,
"are accustomed to affirm that the apostles did not
know all things; while, at other times, under the influence of the same madness, they turn about and
maintain  that the apostles did indeed  know  all
things, but did not teach all things to all."  (De
Prsescr. -tser., c. xxii.)  5. Add to this the belief of
the theosophic Gnostics in their own infallible spiritual knowledge. This they conceived of as the result of their spiritual nature. "They object to us,"
says Clement of Alexandria, "that we are of another
nature, and unable to comprehend their peculiar doctrines." (Stromat., vii, ~ 16.)
After these introductory remarks we will proceed
to the examination of the testimony of heretical




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              99
writers, as Westcott gives it in his Canon, and we
shall find it strictly analogous to that of the Fathers
in its progressive development. As the New Testament recognizes the existence of parties and heresies
in the Christian society from its first origin, so the
earliest false teachers witness more or less clearly to
the existence and reception of our canonical Gospels.
SIMON MAGUS AND CERINTHUS.
The heretics that arose in the apostolic age were
Simon Magus and Cerinthus. The former seems to
have been the first representative of the antichristian
element of the Gentile world, the latter that of the
antichristian element in Judaism. In the lately-discovered parts of a work of Hippolytus, a disciple of
Irenseus, (Philosophumena, or a refutation of all heresies, book VI,) there are preserved several quotations from a writing named "The Great Announcement," which contains an account of the revelation
Simon Magus professed to be intrusted with, and
which seems to have been compiled from  his oral
teaching by one of his immediate followers. In the
fragments, which Hippolytus quotes of this work,
there are coincidences with words recorded in the
Gospel of Matthew. Reference is also made to the
First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians in terms
which prove that it was placed by the author on the
same footing as the books of the Old Testament.
"The Cerinthians," Epiphanius says, "make use of
Matthew's Gospel, (the Gospel according to the tiebrews,) like the Ebionites, on account of the human
genealogy, though their copy is not entire..
The apostle Paul they entirely reject on account of
his opposition to circumcision."  But of the most




100            TIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
importance is the relation of Cerinthus to John.
While we find in the New Testament no reference to
the later developments of Gnosticism by Valentinus
or Marcion-another proof of the authenticity of the
apostolical writings, for if they had been written after
the apostolical age, an entire ignoring of the heresies
of the second century would be inexplicable-some
of the prominent features in the false systems of
Simon lMagus and of Cerinthus are exposed in the
Epistle to the Hebrews and in the introduction to
John's Gospel. Nothing, indeed, can be more truly
opposite to Cerinthianism than the theology of John.
The character of his Gospel was evidently influenced
by prevailing errors; though it is not a mere controversial work, we can not but feel that it was written
to satisfy some pressing want of the age, and to meet
some false philosophy, which had already begun to
fashion a peculiar dialect. Cerinthus upheld a ceremonial system, and taught only a temporary union of
the Logos with the man Jesus. St. John proclaimed
that Judaism had passed away, and set forth clearly
the manifestation of the Eternal Word in His historic
Incarnation. The teaching of John is doubtless far
deeper and wider than was needed to meet the errors
of Cerinthus, but it has a natural connection with
the period in which he lived.
THE OPHITES.
This sect, into which some Christian ideas were
infused, Hyppolytus places in the age next succeeding that of the apostles. Although they are said to
have made use of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and of the Gospel of Thomas, the passages
given from their books contain clear references to




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             101
the Gospels of' Matthew, Luke, and John, and to
several Epistles. Ireneus speaks of the Ophites as
the first source of the Valentinian school, the original "hydra-head from which its manifold progeny
was derived."
BASILIDES.
He stood at the head of one of the Gnostic sects,
and lived, according to Eusebius, (Hist. Ecc., IV, 7,)
not long after the times of the apostles. He is said
to have been a younger cotemporary of Cerinthus,
and a follower of Menander, who was himself the
successor of Simon Magus. Clement of Alexandria
and Jerome fix the period of his activity in the time
of Hadrian, and he found a formidable antagonist in
Agrippa Castor. All these circumstances combine to
place him in the generation next after the apostolic
age, between Clement of Rome and Polycarp. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius give
specimens of the teaching of Basilides, exactly accordant with the more important quotations of Hippolytus. The mode in which the books of the New
Testament are treated in these fiagments, show that
the earliest heretics sought to recommend their doctrines by forced explanations of apostolic language.
And more than this, they contain the earliest undoubted instances in which the Old and New Testaments are placed on the same level; the Epistles of
Paul are called "Scripture," and quotations from
them are introduced by the well-known form: " It is
written."  Since Basilides lived on the verge of the
apostolic times, it is, however, not surprising that he
claimed other sources of Christian doctrine besides
the canonical books. The belief in Divine inspira



102            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
tion was still fresh and real; and Eusebius. relates
that he set up imaginary prophets, Barcabbas and
Barcoph, (or Parchor,) "names to strike terror into
the superstitious." At the same time he appealed to
the authority of Glaucias, who is said to have been,
like Mark, an interpreter of Peter.; he also made use
of certain "Traditions of Matthias,"  which claimed
to be grounded on private intercourse with the Savior.  The author of the Homilies on Luke, which
have been ascribed to Origen, speaks of a " Gospel
according to Basilides."  But there is no mention of
it by Ireneus or by Clement of Alexandria, nor by
Epiphanius, nor by  Eusebius, nor by Theodoret.
Why should we not have heard as much of a gospel
written by Basilides as of the defective Gospel of
Luke used by the Marcionites?  The notion that
Basilides wrote a gospel probably arose from the fact
that he wrote a commentary on the Gospels. However that may be, he admitted the historic truth of
all the facts contained in the canonical Gospels, and
used them  as scripture.  In the fragments of his
writings which we find in Hippolytus, there are definite references to the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and
John, as well as to several Epistles; and Bunsen is
of opinion, "that his whole metaphysical development
is an attempt to connect a cosmogonic system with
John's prologue and with the person of Christ."
(Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. I, p: 87.)  We possess in
Basilides a witness to the existence of these Gospels
as early as between 128 and 130 A. D.
VALENTINUS.
Shortly after Basilides began to propagate his
doctrines, another system arose at Alexandria. Its




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             103
author, Valentinus-after the example of the Christian
teachers of his age-went to Rome, which he chose
as the center of his labors. Irenaeus relates, that
"he came there during the episcopate of Hyginus,
was at his full vigor in the time of Pius, and continued there till the time of Anicetus."  His testimony, therefore, in point of age, is as venerable as
that of Justin, and he is removed, by one generation
only, from  the time of John.  Just as Basilides
claimed, through Glaucius, the authority of Peter,
Valentinus professed to follow the teaching of Theodas, a disciple of Paul. This circumstance is important; for it shows that at the beginning of the
second century, alike within and without the Church,
the sanction of an apostle was considered to be a
sufficient proof of Christian doctrine. The fragments
of his writings which remain show the same natural
and trustful use of Scripture as any other Christian
works of the same period.  He cites the Epistle to
the Ephesians as "Scripture," and refers clearly to
the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. The Valentinians, however, are said to have added a new
gospel to the other four: " Casting aside all fear, and
bringing forward their own compositions, they boast
that they have more gospels than there really are.
For they have advanced to such a pitch of daring as
to entitle a book, which was composed by them not
long since,'the Gospel of Truth,' though it accords
in no respect with the Gospels of the apostles; so
that the Gospel, in fact, can not exist among them
without blasphemy. For if that which is brought
forward by them is the Gospel of Truth, and still is
unlike those which are delivered to us by the apostles-they, who please, can learn how from the writ



104            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
ings themselves-it is shown at once that that which
is delivered to us by the apostles is not the Gospel
of Truth." (Iren. Adv. Haer., III, xi, 11, 9.) What,
then, was this gospel? If it had been a history of our
Blessed Lord, and yet wholly at variance with the
canonical Gospels, it is evident that the Valentinians
could not have received these-nor, indeed, any one
of them-as they undoubtedly did. And here, then,
a new light is thrown upon the character of some of
the early apocryphal gospels, which has been in part
anticipated by what was said of the gospel of Basilides.  The gospel of Basilides or Valentinus contained their system of Christian doctrine, their view
of the Gospel, philosophically, and not historically.
The writers of these new gospels in no way necessarily interfered with the old. They sought, as far as
we can learn, to embody their spirit and furnish a
key to their meaning, rather than to supersede their
use. The Valentinians had more gospels than the
Catholic Church, since they accepted a doctrinal
gospel.
The titles of some of the other Gnostic gospels confirm what has been said.  Two are mentioned by
Epiphanius in the account of those whom he calls
"Gnostics," as if that were their specific name, the
Gospel of Eve, and the Gospel of Perfection. Neither
of these could be historic accounts of the life of
Christ, and the slight description of their character
which he adds, illustrates the wide use of the word
"gospel."  The first was an elementary account of
Gnosticism, "based on foolish visions and testimonies," called by the name of Eve, ds though it had
been revealed to her by the serpent. The second was
"a seductive composition." (Epiph. HUer., xxvi, 2.)




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             105
The analogy of the title of this "( Gospel of Perfection"
leaves little doubt as to the character of the "Gospel
of Truth."  Puritan theology can furnish numerous
similar titles. And the partial currency of such a
book among the Valentinians offers not the slightest
presumption against their agreement with catholic
Christians on the exclusive claims of the four Gospels
as records of Christ's life. These they took as the
basis of their speculations; and by the help of commentaries endeavored to extract from them the principles which they maintained.
HERACLEON.
Origen says that " he'was reported to have been a
familiar friend of Valentinus," (Comm. in Joan., tom.
ii, ~ 8.)  Assuming this statement to be true, his
writings can not well date later than the first half of
the second century; and he claims the title of the
first commentator on the New  Testament.  Fragments of his commentaries on the Gospels of Luke
and John have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The fragments contain allusions
to the Gospel of Matthew, to the Epistles of Paul to
the Romans, and Corinthians, (I,) and to the Second
Epistle to Timothy; but the character of the Coinmentary itself is thq most striking testimony to the
estimation in which the apostolic writings were held.
The sense of the inspiration of the Evangelists-of
some providential guidance by which they were led
to select each fact in their history, and each word in
their narrative-is not more complete in Origen.
The first commentary on the New Testament exhibits
the application of the same laws to its interpretation
as were employed in the Old Testament. The slight



106           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
est variation of language was held to be significant.
Numbers were supposed to conceal a hidden truth.
The whole record was found to be pregnant with
spiritual meaning, conveyed by the teaching of
events in themselves real and instructive. It appears,
also, that differences between the Gospels were felt,
and an attempt made to reconcile them, (Orig. in
Joan., x, ~ 21;) and it must be noticed that authoritative spiritual teaching was not limited to our
Lord's own words, but the remarks of the Evangelist
also were received as possessing an inherent weight.
The introduction of commentaries implies the strongest belief in the authenticity and authority of the
New Testament Scriptures; and this belief becomes
more important when we notice the source from
which they were derived.  They took their rise
among heretics, and not among catholic Christians.
Just as the earliest Fathers applied themselves to the
Old Testament, to bring out its real harmony with
the Gospel, heretics endeavored to reconcile the Gospel with their own systems.  Commentaries were
made where the want for them was pressing.  But
unless the Gospels had been generally accepted, the
need for such works would not have been felt. Heracleon was forced to turn and modify much that he
found in John, which he would not have done if the
book had not been raised above all doubt. And his
evidence is the more valuable because it appears that
he had studied the history of the apostles.
PT O L E A A US.
Ptolemeus, like Heracleon, was a disciple of Valentinus. Epiphanius has preserved an important letter
which Ptolemneus addressed to an "honorable sister




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             107
Flora," in which he maintains the imperfect character of the Law. In proof of this doctrine he quoted
words of our Lord recorded by Matthew, the prologue to John's Gospel, and passages from  Paul's
Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, (I,) and Ephesians. Many other fragments of the teachings, if not
of the books, of Ptolemneus have been preserved by
Irenoeus, (Adv. HUer., I, lsqq; and though they are
full of forced explanations of Scripture, they recognize, even in their wildest theories, the importance
of every detail or doctrine. He found support for
his doctrine in the parables, the miracles, and the
facts of our Lord's life, as well as in the teaching of
the apostles. In the course of the exposition of his
system quotations occur from the four Gospels, and
from  the Epistles of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, (I,) Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians.
THE MARCOSIANS.
The Marcosians," Irenseus writes, " introduce with
subtilty an unspeakable multitude of apocryphal and
spurious writings, (rpapai,) which they forged themselves to confound the foolish and those who know
not the Scriptures (ypadlrLara) of truth." (Adv. Hser.,
I, xx, 1.) In the absence of further evidence, it is
impossible to pronounce exactly on the character of
these books; it is sufficient that they did not supplant
the canonical Scriptures. At the same time their appearance in this connection is not without importance. Marcus, the founder of the sect, was probably
a native of Syria; and Syria, it is well known, was
fertile in those religious tales which are raised to
too great importance by the title of gospels. Whatever the apocryphal writings may have been, the




108            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
words of Irenseus show that they were easily distinguishable from Holy Scripture; and the Marcosians
themselves bear witness to the familiar use of our
Gospels. The formularies which Marcus instituted
contain references to the Gospel of Matthew, and
perhaps to the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Adv. Haer.,
I, xiii, 3.) The teaching of his followers offers coincidences with all four Gospels. These Gospel quotations present various remarkable readings, but there
is no reason to suppose that they were borrowed
from  any other source than  the canonical books.
Ireneus evidently considered that they were taken
thence; and while he accuses the Marcosians of
"adapting" certain passages of the Gospels to their
views, the connection shows that they tampered with
the interpretation and not with the text.
MARCION.
Hitherto the testimony of heretical writers to the
New Testament has been confined to the recognition
of detached parts, by casual quotations or characteristic types of doctrine. Marcion, on the contrary,
fixed a definite collection of apostolic books as the
foundation of his system. Paul only, according to
him, was the true apostle; and Pauline writings
alone were admitted into his canon. This was divided into two parts: " The Gospel" and " The Apostolicon." The Gospel was a recension of Luke, with
numerous omissions and variations from the received
text. The Apostolicon contained ten epistles of Paul,
excluding the pastoral epistles and that to the Hebrews. Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming
that Marcion altered the text of the books which he
received to suit his own views; and they quote many




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             109
various readings in support of their assertion. Those
which occur in the Epistles are certainly insufficient
to prove the point. With the Gospel the case was
different. The influence of oral tradition, by the
form  and use of the written Gospels, was of long
continuance.  The personality of their authors was,
in some measure, obscured by the character of their
work. The Gospel was felt to be Christ's Gospelthe name which Marcion ventured to apply to his
own-and not the particular narration of any Evangelist. And such considerations as these will explain, though they did not justify, the liberty which
Marcion allowed himself in dealing with the text of
Luke. There can be no doubt that Luke's narrative
lay at the basis of his Gospel; but it is not equally
clear that all the changes which were introduced
into it were due to Marcion himself. Some of the
omissions can be explained at once by his peculiar
doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary corrections,
and must be considered as various readings of the
greatest interest, dating, as they do, from a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession.
TATIAN.
The history of Tatian throws an important light
on that of Marcion. Both were naturally restive, inquisitive, impetuous. They were subject to the same
influences, and were for a while, probably, resident in
the same city.  (Tat. ad Gr., 18; Just. Ap., i, 26.)
Both remained for some time within the Catholic
Church, and then sought the satisfaction of their peculiar wants in a system of stricter discipline and
sterner logic. Both abandoned the received canon
of Scripture; and together they go far to witness to




110            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
its integrity.  While they witness to the existence of
a critical spirit among Christians of the second century, they point to a Catholic Church as the one
center from which their systems diverged.
The earliest mention of the Diatessaron of Tatian
is in Eusebius.  "Tatian," he. says, "the former
leader of the Encratites, having put together, in
some strange fashion, a combination and collection
of the Gospels, gave this name of the Diatessaron, and
the work is still partially current."  The words evidently imply that the canonical Gospels formed the
basis of Tatian's Harmony. The next testimony is
that of Epiphanius, who writes that " Tatian is said
to have been the author of the Harmony of the four
Gospels, which some call the Gospel according to the
Hebrews."  (Epiph. IHer., xlvi, 1.)  The express
mention of the four Gospels is important as fixing
the meaning of the original titles. Not long afterward, Theodoret gives a more exact account of the
character and common use of the book. "Tatian
also composed the gospel called'Diatessaron,' and
all the other passages which show that Christ was
born of David according to the flesh. This was used
not only by the members of his own party, but even
by those who followed the Apostolic doctrine, as
they did not perceive the evil design of the composition, but used the book in their simplicity for its
conciseness. And I found also myself more than two
hundred such books in our Churches, (in Syria,)
which had been received with respect; and having
gathered all together, I caused them to be laid aside,
and introduced in their place the Gospels of the four
Evangelists."  (Theod. Haer., lib. I, 20.)  Not only,
then, was the Diatessaron grounded on the four can



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                            11
onical Gospels, but in its general form it was so orthodox  as to  enjoy  a  wide  ecclesiastical popularity.
The heretical character of the book was not evident
upon the surface of it, and consisted rather in faults
of defect than in erroneous teaching. Theodoret had
certainly  examined  it, and  he, like  earlier writers,
regarded it as a compilation from the four Gospels.
He speaks of omissions which  were, in  part at least,
natural in a Harmony, but notices no such apocryphal additions as would have found place in any
gospel not derived from canonical sources.
THE APOCRYPHA OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
In   the  preceding   quotations  from   the  heretical
writings  various  gospels  have  been  referred  to  and
characterized, such as the Gospel according to the
Hebrews,* the Ebionite Gospel, the Gospel of Corinth;
In order to enable the reader to make a comparison between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of Matthew, we will copy a few quotations. The following quotation is made by Origen, (Comm. on Matt., tom.
XVI,  14:)
" Another rich man said to him, Master, what good thing shall I do to live?
He said to him: Fulfill the law and the prophets. He answered him: I have
fulfilled them. He said to him: Go, sell all that thou possessest and distribute
to the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head,
and it did not please him. And the Lord said to him: How sayest thou, I have
fulfilled the law and the prophets, since it is written in the law, thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself; and lo! many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are
clothed in filth, dying of hunger; and thy house is full of many goods, and
nothing at all goes out of it to them! And he turned and said to Simon, his
disciple, who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Jonas, it is easier for a camel
to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
heaven."
In Jerome we find the following quotations:
" So the mother of the Lord, and his brethren said to him: John the Baptist
is baptizing for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But
he said to them: What sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized
by him?  Unless, perchance, this very word which I have spoken is (a sin of)
ignorance." (Hieron. Adv. Pelag., III, 2.)
" Now, it came to pass when the Lord had come up out of the water, the Holy
Spirit with full stream came down and rested upon him, and said to him: My




112                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
all of which were falsifications and mutilations of a
translation  of the original Greek  Gospel of Matthew
into Aramaic Hebrew, or such as the mutilated edition of Luke's Gospel by Marcion.
Of a somewhat different character is the so-called
"Gospel according  to  the  Egyptians."   On  this Mr.
Norton remarks: "It was an anonymous book extant in the second  century, and  probably  written  in
Egypt, in the dark and mystical style that prevailed
in that country. In judging of its importance we
must compare the writers who recognize its existence
with the far greater number to whom  it was unknown, or whowere not led by any circumstance to
mention it. It was a book of which we should have
been ignorant, but for a few incidental notices afforded by writers, none of whom give evidence of
having seen it.  Neither Clement nor any other
writer speaks of it as a  Gnostic gospel.   The  GnosSon, in all the prophets I was waiting for thee, that thou shouldest come, and I
might rest in thee. For thou art my rest; thou art my first-born Son, who
reignest forever." (Hieron. in Isaiah, IV, xi, 2.)
"Now the Lord, when he had given the cloth to the servant of the priest,
went to Janes and appeared to him. For James had taken an oath that he
would not eat bread from that hour on which he had drunk the cup of the Lord,
till he saw him risen from the dead. Again, a little afterward, the Lord says,
Bring a table and bread. Immediately, it is added, he took bread, and blessed,
and brake, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My brother, eat
thy bread, for the Son of man has risen from the dead." (Hieron. de Vir.,
Illust., II.)
" In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use," says Jerome, on
Matt. xii, 13, "the man with the withered hand is described as a mason, who
sought the help of Christ with words to this effect: I was a mason, seeking a
livelihood by the labor of my hand. I pray thee, Jesus, to restore to me my
health, that I may not beg my bread in disgrace."
These extracts show us clearly how little any other age than that of the
apostles was able to originate or even to reproduce the simple grandeur of inspired language, and what might have been expected from writings founded on
tradition, even when shaped after an apostolic pattern. In no sense can the
apocryphal gospels of the Judaizing sects bear any comparison with ours,
neither in form nor in matter. They are destitute of spirit, life, good taste,
sublimity, and authority.




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             113
tics did not appeal to it in support of their fundamental doctrines; for had they done so, we should
have been fully informed of the fact. The only argument for believing it to have been a history of
Christ's ministry is, that it contained a narrative of
a pretended conversation of Christ with Salome, but
that might as well have been inserted in a merely
doctrinal book. And if the book had been a historical gospel, the representation of Christ-to judge
from the words ascribed to him in the conversation
with Salome-must have been so foreign in its character from  that in our Gospels, that it could not
have existed in the last half of the second century
without having been an object of far greater attention than what this book received."
The same may be said concerning the so-called
"Gospel according to Peter."  From  the account
which Serapion, Bishop of Antioch about the close of
the second century, gives of it, as quoted by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl., lib. VI, c. xii,) it appears clearly
that it did not pretend to be a history of Christianity. Had this been the case, Serapion could not
have regarded it with such indifference as he first
manifested. It is impossible that the existence of
such a history should not have been notorious, that
it should not have been a frequent subject of remark.
When we recollect the abundant notices of Marcion's
Gospel, it can not be believed that there was another
historical book extant among the heretics, of which
the notices are so scanty, and which is never mentioned as a historical book. It belongs to the same
class of writings as the Gospel of Basilides, the traditions of Matthias, the Gospel according to Thomas,
the True Gospel, the Gospel of Eve, the Gospel of
10




114            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Perfection, which, as we remarked above, were doctrinal tracts, not historical accounts of Christ's ministry; or, at least, so very obscure ones, that no sect
for a moment pretended to set them up in opposition
to our canonical Gospels. Norton remarks very fitly:
"About the beginning of the last century a manuscript was made known of a gospel ascribed to Barnabas, in the Italian language, but supposed to be
translated from the Arabic. It is the work of a Mohammedan, or a work interpolated by a Mohammedan. Much more has been written about this book
than all that is to be found in the Christian writers
of the first three centuries concerning apocryphal
gospels; yet it is a book of which, probably, few of
my readers have ever heard. It is easy to apply
this fact to assist ourselves in judging of the importance to be attached to the notices of apocryphal gospels found in the Fathers." Nor would we have devoted so much attention to the consideration of these
apocryphal gospels, had not the latest German school
of destructive criticism set up the monstrous claim,
that the Ebionitic and Gnostic Gospels were the original
histories of our Lord, and our canonical Gospels later
productions, written for the express purpose to improve
upon them!  To critics who can maintain that the
Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel of
Marcion are respectively the originals of Matthew
and Luke, it is sufficient to apply the word of the
apostle: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."  The authors of our four canonical
Gospels, who stood infinitely above all the authors of
the second century, are assumed to have written toward the close of that century, under the fictitious
names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and to




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             115
have remained  undiscovered, although  they  succeeded in revolutionizing the whole Christian literature of that age, and substituting their products in
the place of the original histories of Christ's ministry,
so that none of the critical writers at the close of the
second century could discover the least trace of the
unheard-of legerdemain!
From  all the above-named productions, bearing
the name of Gospels, must be distinguished some
books of high antiquity, which were not imitations
of the canonical Gospels, but aimed to supplement
the narratives concerning the Savior, Mary and Joseph, and the apostles.  They bore on their face,
falsely, the names of apostles or other men highly
esteemed in the Church.  But, though they were
esteemed and used by many persons in early antiquity, when men did not so readily know how to
distinguish counterfeits from that which was genuine and true, they were repudiated by the Church.
These are the New Testament Apocrypha, in the proper
sense of the word, and they were also as strong witnesses for the early acceptance of our Gospels. It is
not necessary to mention more than the two oldest
ones, the so-called Gospel of James, and the Acts of
Pilate.  Tischendorf contends that both were composed in the first ten years of the second century,
and makes the following argument:
"In his work of the year 138, as well as in his
Dialogue, written somewhat later, Justin makes several statements touching the birth of Jesus, the origin
of which can be traced only to the Gospel of James.
Justin relates that the birth of Jesus took place in a
grotto at Bethlehem. Such a statement is found only
in the Gospel of' James.  In the annunciation to




116           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Mary, Justin concludes with the words:'And thou
shalt call his name Jesus,' adding directly to them,'for he shall save the people from their sins.' So
precisely does it stand in the Gospel of James. In
Matthew, on the other hand, the words are spoken to
Joseph, and in Luke the last clause is wanting altogether. The dependence of Justin upon the book of
James admits of no objection. Not only does Origen,
after the expiration of the second century, make
mention of the Book of James; not only is his constant subsequent use of it beyond a doubt, we have
now, in addition, more than fifty manuscripts of
the Greek text, written from the ninth century onward-nay, even a Syriac manuscript of the sixth
century. It is only the desire to evade the conclusion that even Justin employed it, which prompts
men to lose themselves in the realm  of idle conjectures.
"But now the work named after James stands in
such a relation to our Gospels that they must have
been in long and general use before the fictitious
writing was produced. Matthew and Luke had asserted that Mary was a virgin mother; still there
were sects, diverging from the Church doctrine, who
fancied Jesus to be the son of Joseph and M3ary.
That the brethren of Jesus are mentioned in the Gospels seemed, at least, to prove a later marriage of Joseph and Mary. Learned Jews threw suspicion upon
the correctness of the translation of the prophetic
passage touching the Virgin in Matthew i, 23; nay,
both Jews and heathen poured contempt and calumny
upon the Son of the Virgin. This took place in the
first half of the second century, and the Gospel of
James was composed to meet it. In this it was




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              117
shown, in a historical form, that, from her birth onward, Mary  had  always maintained  the highest
character; that the virgin-birth was a matter of demonstration, and that she sustained a relation to Joseph far above that of marriage. If this work really
falls into the first decade of years in the second
century, the composition of the Gospels of Matthew
and Luke, to which, as a pretended supplement, it
refers, must certainly fall into the last ten years of
the first century.
"The case is similar with the Acts of Pilate, save
that this work refers as distinctly to John as to the
first Gospels. For this production, also, Justin is our
oldest guarantee. It professes to have been written
under Pilate, and by the allegation of wonderful occurrences before, during, and after the crucifixion, to
deliver a strong testimony for the divinity of Christ.
That it must have originated with a Christian hand,
engaged in a work of pious fraud, was indeed not
discovered by Justin, nor was it detected by Tertullian and others. On the contrary, in his work of A.
D. 138, Justin appeals to it twice. First, he mentions the prophecies touching the events heralding
the crucifixion, (Isa. lxv, 2, and lviii, 2 Ps. xxi, 16,
18,) and says:'That they really occurred, you may
learn from the Acts composed under Pontius Pilate.'
Then, again, he appeals to the miraculous cures of
Jesus, predicted by Isaiah, (xxxv, 4, 6,) and adds:'That Jesus really did these things, you may learn
from the Acts composed under Pontius Pilate.' The
testimony of Tertullian is rendered in still more
ample terms, (Apologetic, 21) for he says that Jesus,
from  envy, was delivered by the Jewish scribes to
Pilate, and by him, yielding to the pressure of the




118            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
accusers, delivered to crucifixion; that, hanging upon
the cross, with a loud cry, he yielded up the ghost;
that, at the same moment, the fall day was interrupted by the obscuration of the sun; that, as Jesus
had predicted his resurrection, a watch of soldiers
was set at the grave to prevent the abstraction of the
corpse by the disciples; but that upon the third day
the earth suddenly quaked, and the stone which had
been rolled before the grave was removed; that
nothing but grave-clothes was found in the grave;
that a report was spread abroad by the authorities
that the disciples had taken the body; but that Jesus
himself spent forty days with his disciples, in Galilee,
instructing them, and that after he had charged them
with the duty of preaching, he was transported to
heaven in a cloud. This full report Tertullian concludes with the words:'All this did Pilate himself,
forced by conscience to become a Christian, report of
Christ to the reigning Emperor, Tiberius.'
" Such are the testimonies of Justin and Tertullian
touching the Acts of Pilate. A work answering to
these quotations, and bearing also -the same title as
in Justin, we possess at present, in many ancient
Greek, Latin, and other original manuscript documents. Is it the same which was read by Justin and
Tertullian?  The affirmative answer has been resisted in many ways. It has been said that the old
work itself is lost, and that the extant one is only
an imitation of it. IHas this opinion any solid foundation?  By no means. True, indeed, the oldest text,
when subsequently transcribed, was in many passages
altered, as touching the expression; nay, more, in the
middle ages, the Latins exchanged the title, The
Acts of Pilate, for the title,'The Gospel of Nicode



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             119
mus, and added a preface. We have, also, in connection with the elder Greek text, a more modern
revision, but, upon the whole, we have decisive
grounds for believing that our Acts of Pilate, with
its elder text, in the main, really contains the work
used by Justin and Tertullian.  By our own researches in the European libraries, important proofs
of this position have been discovered; namely, a
manuscript written in the Egyptian language, on
paper of the oldest kind, (papyrus,) of the fifth century; and, also, a parchment manuscript, with the
Latin text, of the same century, which, although
washed out about a thousand years ago, and replaced by a new  inscription upon the parchment,
thus cleansed, remaining, for good eyes, still legible.
These two ancient documents, with an Egyptian and
a Latin translation, insure the high antiquity of our
Greek text, from which they were derived; for if,
even in the fifth century, there existed such translations, the work itself, as highly esteemed, must have
existed long before. But we must present the matter
with still greater exactness.  The primitive work
was very precious to Christians. The example both
of Justin and Tertullian proves it. Justin makes his
appeal to the Roman Csesar, upon this basis, as if it
were a work of decisive weight. This high estimation of it naturally continued. Eusebius and Epiphanius prove this, as touching the fourth century.
We learn from the former that, at the beginning of
the fourth century, the Emperor Maximin, who was
bitterly hostile to Christianity, caused spurious Acts
of Pilate, full of scoffing and calumny, to be published, and even to be distributed in the schools,
plainly in order to suppress and counteract the work




120            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
held in such esteem by the Christians. In this state
of facts, is it in the smallest degree credible, that
precisely at this period, from the fourth or fifth century forward, the old work, so remarkably serviceable, should have been entirely revised; and that
precisely at this period, the ancient and famous work
itself having entirely disappeared, the revision should
have been every-where distributed-should have been
translated and preserved to our day?  The supposition is in flat contradiction to a sound judgment. It
contradicts the work itself as we have it, inasmuch
as it unites a very peculiar freedom  of narrative
with a dependence upon the Gospels. Our Acts of
Pilate not only presupposes the narratives of the
first three Gospels, but also absolutely and very especially the Gospel of John.  For while its report of
the crucifixion and resurrection connects itself with
the first, that of the trial, in its entire complexion,
depends upon the narrative of John. What is the
inference as touching our question? If the so-called
Acts of Pilate, for the reason that Justin, as early as
the year 138, so earnestly emphasizes its value, must
be admitted to have been written at the beginning
of the second century, then the Gospel of John and
the rest, since they are so completely presupposed,
must be admitted to have been written in the first
century."
~ 13. THE TESTIMONIES OF HEATHEN ADVERSARIES.
To the external evidences for the authenticity of
the Gospels is to be added the testimony of avowed
enemies. The learned Lardner says in his collection
of Jewish and heathen testimonies, (on the New Testament canon:) "Of all the testimonies on the writ



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             121
ings of the New Testament, which we meet with in
the first centuries of the Christian era, none are
weightier and more important than those of the
learned philosophers who wrote against Christianity;
namely, of Celsus, in the second, Porphyry, in the
third, and Julian the Apostate, in the fourth century."
Celsus, a philosopher, who flourished about 176 A.
D., proposed to himself the formal task of setting
forth how dangerous the Christian religion would
prove to the State. His learned argument against
the Christians is the first heathen testimony as to the'
existence of New Testament writings. This work, entitled "The True Word," has unfortunately been lost,
but in Origen's reply to it there are more copious
extracts from  it than from  any other book of antiquity that has been lost. In these extracts we have
almost an abridgment of the Gospel history. They
contain about eighty quotations from the New Testament, which amply prove that Celsus was acquainted
with the writings of Matthew, Luke, and John, and
some of the Epistles of Paul. He mentions nearly
all the leading events in the life of Christ from his
birth to his death; of course, only in order to make
them ridiculous.  His whole argument, however, is
based on the admission that the writings of the
Christians were the productions of their professed
authors, though he refers to some alterations of the
Gospels made by the Marcionites and other heretics.
From  the testimony, then, of this most malignant
enemy of the Christian religion, who was, at the
same time, a man of considerable learning and influence, it appears, that the writings of the Evangelists
existed in his time, the first period succeeding the
11




122            THIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
apostolic age, and that these writings were then
acknowledged, even by enemies, to be authentic.
The next witness is Porphyry, who was born 230
A. D., and wrote against Christianity about 270 A.
D. From  the few fragments left of this work it
appears that he was acquainted with our Gospels and
some other of the New Testament writings. This
work enjoyed a high reputation among th'e heathen,
and Eusebius and other learned Christians deemed it
worth their while to refute it. In what we have left
of it there are direct references to the Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and John, the Acts, and the Epistles
to the Galatians. Speaking of the Christians, he calls
Matthew their Evangelist. This man was every way
qualified, both by education and his position in society, to find out whether the New Testament writings
weie authentic, or whether, after the death of the
apostles and Evangelists, spurious works were, as
their writings, palmed upon the Christians. But we
discover not even a hint at a suspicion of this kind;
yea, Porphyry appears to have had no doubt whatever as to the authenticity of these writings. From
the attempt of this ingenious writer that the book of
Daniel was an ex post facto prophecy, we see how
well he knew to estimate an argument against the
authenticity of a book of the New Testament, and
how eagerly he would have made use of it against
the Christians, if he had had but the least data for
forming one.
One hundred years after Porphyry, flourished the
Emperor Julian, (A. D. 331-363,) surnamed the
Apostate, fiom his renunciation of Christianity after
he mounted the imperial throne. Though he resorted
to the most artful political means for undermining




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             123
Christianity, yet, as a writer against it, he was every
way inferior to Porphyry. From various extracts of
his work against the Christians, transcribed by Jerome and Cyril, it is evident that he did not deny
the truth of the Gospel history, as a history; though
he denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ asserted in
the writings of the Evangelists, he acknowledged the
principal facts in the Gospels, as well as the miracles
of our Savior and his apostles. Referring to the difference between the genealogies recorded by Matthew
and Luke, he noticed them by name, and recited the
sayings of Christ in the very words of the Evangelists. He also bore testimony to the Gospel of John
being composed later than the other Evangelists, and
at a. time when great numbers were converted to the
Christian faith both in Italy and Greece; and alluded
oftener than once to facts recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles. By thus quoting the four Gospels and Acts
of the Apostles, and by quoting no other books, Julian shows that these were the only historical books
received by the Christians as of authority, and as
containing authentic memoirs of. Jesus Christ and
his apostles, together with the doctrines taught by
them. But Julian's testimony does something more
than represent the judgment of the Christian Church
in his time; it discovers also his own. He himself
expressly states the early date of these records; he
calls them by the names which they now bear. He
all along supposes, he no where attempts to question,
their genuineness or authenticity; nor does he give
even the slightest intimation that he suspected the
whole or any part of them to be forgeries.
We have seen that none of these avowed enemies
of Christianity has expressed the least suspicion as




124            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
to the authenticity of the New Testament writings,
and we would. ask, in conclusion, who will deny that
in the writings of a Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, all
of whom were learned men and zealous adversaries
and persecutors of the Christians, and whose testimonies cover the period from 176 to 361 of the Christian
era, every reasonable demand of testimony borne by
enemies is fully met, and that this testimony, in the
wise providence of God, makes the external evidence
for the Gospel history as complete as it possibly can
be from the nature of the case?




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             125
CHAPTER II.
THE INTERNAL EVIDENCES.
~ 14. THE PECULIAR DIALECT OF GREEK IN WHICH THE EVANGELISTS HAVE WRITTEN.
As we remarked in ~ 5, that some arguments for
the genuineness or integrity of the Sacred Text were,
at the same time, arguments for the authenticity of
the records, so we can not entirely separate the internal evidences for the authenticity from the arguments for the credibility or historic verity of the
Gospel Records, which will be the subject of investigation in our next Part. In the case of such compositions as the Gospels, the proof of their having
been written by apostles, and by those who received
their accounts immediately from the apostles, is at
the same time, as we shall further show in the next
Part, the proof of their historic verity. But, though
the arguments for their authenticity and their credibility are thus intimately blended together, and
though the ultimate purpose of both is the same, it
is, nevertheless, desirable to consider the former separately, and simply with reference to their bearing
upon the question of authenticity. They will thus
form a natural transition and proper introduction to
Part III.
The Greek language, in which the New Testament
writings originally appeared-as is universally ad



126              THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
mitted, with the exception of the Gospel of Matthew,
and the Epistle to the Hebrews*-is not the classical
Greek, such as was written by Plato, Aristotle, and
other eminent Greek writers.  Had the Evangelists
and apostles written in pure, elegant, classical Greek,
thoughtful minds would have found considerable difficulty in believing them to be the authors of those
productions, and we should lack one important evidence of the authenticity of New Testament Scripture-its being written in the style natural to the
persons by whom, and to the age in which it was
produced.
The basis of the New Testament Greek is the common or Hellenic dialect-the name given  to that
form  of the Greek language which came into general
use after the Macedonian  conquest.  It was called
common, because it originated in a sort of fusion of
the particular dialects which had prevailed in earlier
times; and  this fusion of dialects had its origin
chiefly from  the fusion of the several States of Greece
into the one great Macedonian Empire.  In this fusion of dialects, however, the Attic still prevailed as
the model form  of the Greek language.  This common  dialect we find in the New  Testament writings-in some of them  to a greater extent than in
others-intermixed with the free and frequent use of
forms derived from  the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic
dialect of the Hebrew language, which had become
the vernacular language of the Jewish people in the: The Epistle to the Hebrews is now held, by all men of competent learning,
to have been originally composed in Greek. And as to the Gospel of Matthew,
though the opinions of the learned are still divided, yet the conviction has of late
been growing in favor of the proper originality of the present form, which was
certainly in current use before the close of the apostolic age. (Fairbairn's
Hermeneutical Manual.)




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                              127
time of the  Savior.   This Hebraistic influence* in the
style of the New Testament writers appears, as Fairbairn shows by many examples, 1, in the various features of grammatical construction peculiar to the Hebrew language, as, (1,) in the more frequent use of the
Against the frequent misuse of the so-called Hebraisms in the interpretation
of the New Testament, Fairbairn, in his Hermeneutical Manual, has very justly
protested, showing, in the first place, that they are not nearly so numerous as
they were at one time represented to be. They occur only so far as rendered
necessary by the circunstances of the writers. Though the Greek syntax differs in many things from the Hebrew, we find the New Testament writers accommodating themselves far more to the foreign idiom than has been generally
allowed; as, for instance, in the discriminating use of the aorist and perfect
tenses-the aorist as denoting the historic past, and the perfect as denoting the
past in its relation to the present, the past continuing with its effects and consequences to the present. John carefully observes this distinction when he says,
(c. i, 3:) eyeve&o ove ev o  yeyovev, that is, nothing whatever that has been made,
and is still in being, was made without Him. So, also, in Colossians i, 16; iii, 3.
In the second place, we should beware not to attach arbitrary meanings to the
real Hebraismns which we find in the New Testament, as if the Hebrews had
contravened the laws of all humlan language. For a long time the opinion was
prevailing among commnentators and lexicographers, that the prepositions,
when handled by a Hellenistic Jew, might express almost any relation whatever. So Schleusner assigns to the preposition eLS twenty-four, and to iv thirty
distinct uses and meanings. In a few instances, even the authorized English
version and that of Luther have suffered from the too prevalent notion of Hebraistic laxity.  Thus, in the prayer of the converted malefactor, (Luke xxiii,
42:) "Remember me when thou conest V Ti-  (ia. eiiq  rsov "-not into thy kingdom, which might seem to point to the glory into which the Lord was presently
going to enter, but ii thy kingdom; namely, when the time comes for thee
to take to thyself thy great power, and to reign among men; for this future
manifestation of glory was undoubtedly what the faith of the penitent man
anticipated and sought to share in, not the glory which lay within the vail,
which only the answer of Christ brought within the ken of his spiritual vision.
Fron  the real or alleged Hebraisms of the New Testament we must distinguish a class of expressions not in themselves absolutely new, but still fraught
with an import which could not attach to them as used by any heathen writer,
nor even in the production of any Greek-speaking Jew prior to the birth of
Christ. With the marvelous events of the Gospel age, old things passed away,
all things became new; and the change which took place in the Divine dispensation could not fail to impress itself on those words and forms of expression
which bore respect to what had then for the first time come properly into being.
We refer to such terms as  odyos, (word,) eao-lAea  O r  ~eoe, (kingdom  of God,)
&soV peAchXo, (world to come,) SLKactooavvr, (righteousness,) SWst, (life,) Oavaros,
(death,) XapLs, (grace,) etc. In so far as these terms embodied the distinctive
facts or principles of Christianity, their former and common usage could only
in part exhibit the sense now acquired by them; for the full depth and compass
of meaning belonging to them in their new application, we must look to the
New Testament itself, comparing one passage with another, and viewing the
language used in the light of the great things which it brings to our apprehension.




128            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
prepositions for marking relations, which were wont
to be indicated in pure Greek by means of cases;
(2,) in the paucity of conjunctions which existed in
the Hebrew, while the Greek possessed a great
abundance-of which, however, the New Testament
writers did not avail themselves.  (3.) A  further
Hebraistic turn appears in the frequent use of the
genitive pronouns instead of the possessives. This
naturally arose from the inspired writers being used
to the Hebrew  suffixes.. (4.) Another pronominal
peculiarity, arising from assimilation to the Hebrew,
is occasionally found in the New  Testament. In
Hebrew there is only one relative pronoun, and this
is without any distinction as to number, gender, or
case; on which account, to make the reference explicit, it is necessary to add the suffixes of the per-,
sonal pronouns, or these pronouns themselves with a
preposition. Hence such expressions as the following: "The land in which ye dwell upon it," "the
place in which ye sojourn in it," and so on. As the
Greek language possesses a declinable relative pronoun, and adverbs derived from it, there was no need
for this kind of awkward circumlocution. Yet the
Evangelists were so accustomed to the Hebrew usage
that they indulged in it occasionally, though not so
frequently as the Septuagint. (5.) Again, the Hebrew was as remarkable for the. fewness, as the Greek
for the multiplicity, of its forms to express time-the
one having its simple past and future tenses, while
the other had its present, imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, its two aorists, first and second future, and
paulo-post future. There can be no doubt that the
New Testament writers were well acquainted with
the principal tenses of the Greek verb; at the same




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             129.
time there are occasional anomalies, with a manifest
preference for the simple past and future of the Hebrew, and a tendency to use the future, as expressive
of necessity and continued action (must and is wont)
somewhat more frequently than is usual in ordinary
Greek. 2. In the use of words and phrases which
have their correspondence only in Hebrew, but are
not found in profane Greek writers, whether of the
earlier or of the later periods.  We mention, first,
such words as 5c',a, (abba,) auY) (amen,) rewha, (hell,)
Xarv, (Satan,) etc.  These are Oriental words in
Greek letters, or with a Greek termination, and their
meaning must be determined simply by a reference
to their Qriental use. There are, again, words and
phrases in themselves strictly Greek, but used in a
sense different from what would naturally be put
upon them by a simply Greek reader. For instance,
the phrase riaa  dap, (all flesh,) for "all men," is
quite a Hebraism, for native Greek writers never
used kdpf in the sense of "men;" and such an expression, if employed by them, would have meant
not all mankind, but the whole flesh-of a man or
an animal, as it might happen.
On the whole, we may say the New Testament
Greek has about as many Hebraisms as a work written in English by a German in this country, who,
though familiar with the English language, is not a
thorough scholar, or a work translated from the German, and referring to modes of thought peculiar to
German mind, will exhibit, more or less, the idiom of
the German language. Thus, the Hebraisms we find
in the Gospels show the Evangelists to have been
Jews by birth, and men in humble stations, who
were not ambitious of seeking an exemption fiom the




130            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
dialect they had once acquired, and we need not wonder to find the Hebraistic elements also in the writings of so learned a man as Paul. Great as his erudition was, it was the erudition of a Jewish, not of a
Grecian, school. His argumentations were those of
a Jewish convert to Christianity, confuting his brethren on their own ground. How clearly can we recognize in his writings the Saul of Tarsus, who was
educated at the feet of Gamaliel! There was, moreover, apart from  the relation the New  Testament
writers bore to their country and nation, as Fairbairn remarks, "a necessity for a certain departure
from the pure, classical style, and calling in the aid
of Jewish idioms and forms of speech, in order to
exhibit in the most distinct and appropriate manner
the peculiar truths of the Gospel. The native language of Greece, though in some respects the most
perfect medium  for the communication of thought
which has ever been employed by the tongue of
man, yet from being always conversant with worldly
things, adapted to express every shade of thought
and every variety of relationship within the human
and earthly sphere-but still only these-it was not
fully adequate to the requirements and purposes of
Christian authorship. For this higher end it needed
to borrow something from the sanctuary of God, and
to be, as it were, baptized in the modes of thought
and utterance which were familiar to those who had
enjoyed the training of the Spirit. Thus the writings
of the Old Testament formed a necessary preparation
for the language of the New, as did also the history
and institutions of the one for the religious ideas of
the other. Nor is it too much to say, that a Gospel in pure Greek, or even an apostolic epistle in




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              131
pure Greek, is inconceivable. The canonical and the
Hebrew are most intimately connected."  Fairbairn
adds to this: "It is perfectly consistent with all this,
and no less true, that the writers of the New Testament often show  a correct acquaintance with the
idioms of the Greek language.  In many cases their
language rises superior to the common dialect of the
time, and approaches marvelously near to the precision of Attic Greek, while in other passages it seems
to sink below the average standard; and to present to
us the peculiarities of the later Greek, distorted and
exaggerated by Aramaic forms of expression. Where,
however, in a merely-literary point of view, the Sacred
Volume may thus seem weakest, it is, considered from
a higher point of view, incomparably strongest. It
is this investiture of its doctrines with the peculiar
richness and force of Hebraistic modes of expression,
rather than with the diffluent garb of a corrupted
and decayed Hellenism, that does truly reveal to us
the overruling providence and manifold wisdom  of
God."
It is also to be borne in mind, that, while all the
writers of the lNew Testament partook, to some extent, of the Hebraistic influence, some did so considerably more than others.  The Hebraistic element
differed even with the same writers in different parts
of their writings, as in the Apocalypse of John, which
is considerably more Hebraistic than either his Gospel or Epistles.  The Gospel of Luke is decidedly less
marked with Hebraisms than those of Matthew and
Mark. While, therefore, there are peculiarities which
distinguish the New  Testament Greek, as a whole,
from other Greek writings, there are also peculiarities distinguishing the Greek of one writer from that




132             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of another, words and phrases used by one and not
used by the others, or used in a manner peculiar to
himself. Thus there is an individual, as well as a general, impress on the language of the New Testament
writers-another mark of their authenticity.
We have shown how fully the language of the Gospels accords with the personality and situation of
those to whom  they are ascribed.  We may go still
further and assert, that they could not have been
written by any person or persons who lived in another age than that of the apostles. The conjunction
of such Latinisms as xervupowv, (centurion,) 2ersEv,
(legion,) 7rpacTa)peov, (proetorium, judgment-hall,) zourwiSta, (watch,) ~/7voq, (census, tribute,) zodpadvr-,
(quadrans, farthing,) ryvdapov, (denarius, penny,) iandpeov, (assarius, farthing,) srsxouov2dwp, (speculator, executioner,) ypareAUaoas, (having scourged, a participle
formed from  the Latin verb flagellare,) and many
other terms, referring to the military force, revenue,
and offices of the. Roman  Government, with such
Hebraisms as xopfiav, (Mark vii, 11,) pafowvve', (my
Lord,) 86o J6o, (literally, two, two, Mark vi, 7,) rpaca( rcpaocrea  (literally, onion-beds, onion-beds, that is,
in squares, like a garden-plot, Mark vi, 40, a Hebraistic repetition, as in the previous instance,) -TO'f8Auvru.a -rs lpjloaioswq, (the abomination of desolation,)
was natural only in Palestine during the period between Herod the Great and the destruction of Jerusalem, and marks the writers for Jews of that time
and country.  If we bear in mind that although the
New  Testament diction has much in common with
the LXX and the Greek apocryphal literature of the
Old Testament, yet it has also much that is peculiar
to itself; that these conclusive peculiarities could pos



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             133
sibly arise only in the apostolic age, in such a state
of the Jewish polity, as characterized the time between the death of our Savior and the destruction of
Jerusalem, and, finally, that the later Christian Greek
literature necessarily presupposes the New Testament
diction as its basis, we see at once how powerful a
proof of the authenticity of our Gospels their peculiar idiom is. Apart from every other consideration,
this circumstance alone exposes the absurdity of the
theory which assigns the second century to the composition of the Gospels or of any one of them.
Before dismissing, however, the argument for the
authenticity of the Gospel records drawn from the
New Testament Greek, it is proper to notice an objection. It has been asked: Was the current language of the common Jewish people not the Arama-ic
dialect of the Hebrew  language? Did our Savior
and his apostles not usually speak in that language?
How does it come, then, that the Evangelists, as well
as the other writers of the New Testament, being
Jews, should write in Greek?  It is true that our
Lord is represented on several occasions as speaking
in Aramaic: as when he said to the daughter of the
Jewish ruler, Jairus, "Talitha cumi," and to the
blind man, "Ephphatha," or when he referred to the
terms currently employed among the people, such as
raka, rabbi, corban; when he applied to his disciples
such  epithets as Cephas, Barjona, Boanerges, or
when, on the cross, he exclaimed, "Eli, Eli, lama
sabachthani." There is, on the other hand, a very
remarkable circumstance to which the Duke of Manchester-in his Essay on the Harmonizing of the
Gospels-has called attention.  If we compare the
Old Testament passages in the synoptical Gospels,




134            TIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
we find that those of them which occur in the sermons
or sayings of the Lord, are always from  the LXX,
while those of them which are quoted by the Evangelists themselves, deviate from the LXX in favor generally of the Hebrew text. If Christ had generally
spoken the Aramaic, it would be incomprehensible
why the Evangelists should put quotations from the
LXX only upon his lips, while they themselves, in their
own quotations, do not restrict themselves to the
LXX. The verbal harmony of the synoptical Evangelists is also best accounted for by the presumption
that our Lord spoke usually in Greek with his disciples, and this presumption is confirmed by the fact
that at the raising of Jairus's daughter, where Jesus
spoke Aramaic with the ruler of the synagogue, the
verbal harmony of the Synoptist's report of his saying is defective; so,-also, in the history of his sufferings, the Old Testament is no longer quoted from the
LXX, because at Jerusalem the Aramaic was spoken
more generally than in Galilee.
Though Dr. Fairbairn contends that the Aramaic,
or later Syro-Chaldaic orm of the Hebrew, was the
vernacular language of the Jewish people in the age
of our Lord, and, consequently, the medium of intercourse on all ordinary occasions, he admits, "that
from  a long and varied concatenation of circumstances, the Greek language must have been very
commonly understood by the higher and more educated classes throughout Syria. It was the policy
both of Alexander and his successors, in that part of
the world, to extend the language and culture as
well as ascendency of Greece. With this view cities
we'e planted at convenient distances, which might
be considered Grecian rather than Asiatic in their




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             135
population and manners. The Syriac kings, by whom
the Macedonian line of rulers was continued, kept
up Greek as the court language, and were, doubtless,
followed by their official representatives and the influential classes generally throughout the country.
The army, too, though not entirely, nor perhaps
even in the major part, yet certainly in very considerable proportions,vTas composed of persons of
Grecian origin, who could not fail to make the Greek
language in some sense familiar at the various military stations in the regions of Syria. Even after the
Macedonian rule had terminated and all became subject to the sway of the Romans, it was still usually
through the medium of the Greek tongue that official
intercourse was maintained, and the decrees of government were made known. It is in the very nature
of things impossible that so many Hellenizing influences should have continued in operation for two or
three centuries without leading somewhat generally
to a knowledge of Greek among the better classes in
all parts of Syria. There were also circumstances
more strictly peculiar to the Jewish people, which
could not be without their effect in making them to
some extent acquainted with the Greek language.
Partly from special encouragements held out to them
at the founding of Alexandria, a Grecian city, and
partly, perhaps, from the mercantile spirit which began to take possession of them from the time of the
Babylonish exile, Alexandria became one of their
great centers, where, as we are told by Philo, they
formed  about two-fifths of the entire population.
They abounded also, as is clear from the Acts of the
Apostles, in the Greek-speaking cities of Asia Minor,
and in those of Greece itself. From whatever causes,




136            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the dispersion seems, for some generations previous
to the Christian era, to have taken very much a
western, and especially a Grecian, direction; in every
place of importance inhabited by Greeks, members
of the stock of Israel had their homes and synagogues.
It is only, too, what might have been expected in
the circumstances, that.the culture and enterprise,
which distinguished the communlities in those Grecian
cities, would act with stimulating effect upon the
Jewish mind, and bring its powers into more energetic play and freedom of action than was likely to
be found among the Palestinian Jews, who were
sealed up in their national bigotry and stagnant
Pharisaism. Hence the only moral and religious
productions which are known  to have appeared
among the Jews, between the closing of the Old
Testament canon and the birth of Christ —those contained in the apocryphal writings-came chiefly, if
not entirely, from the pen of the Hellenistic Jews,
and exist only-most probably never did exist butin the Greek language. Hence also the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was completed
several generations before the Christian era, and
which, there is good reason to believe, was in extensive use, about that time, among the Jewish people.
So that, looking to the numbers, the higher intelligence, and varied resources of the Hellenistic Jews,
and taking into account their frequent personal visits
to Palestine, at the ever-recurring festivals, we can
not doubt that they materially contributed to a partial knowledge and use of the Greek tongue among
their brethren in Palestine."
There is scarcely left any doubt, but our Lord and
his disciples spoke generally in Greek, and even if




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             137
this should not have been the case, the fact that the
books of the New  Testament, and especially those
which contain our Lord's personal discourses, should
have been originally composed in the Greek instead
of in the Aramaic language, is easily accounted for.
"It was," says Dr. Fairbairn, "comparatively but a
small portion of the people resident in Jerusalem
and Judea who embraced the Christian faith; and
those who did, having, in the first instance, enjoyed
many  opportunities  of becoming  personally  acquainted with the facts of Gospel history, and enjoying afterward the ministry of apostles and Evangelists, who were perfectly cognizant of the whole,
were, in a manner, independent of any written records. Besides, the troubles which shortly after befell
their native land, and which were distinctly foreseen
by the founders of the Christian faith, destined, as
they were, to scatter the power of the Jewish nation,
and to render its land and people monuments of judgment, presented an anticipative reason against committing the sacred and permanent records of the
Christian faith to the Hebrew language. That language itself, already corrupted and  broken, was
presently to become to all but the merest fragment
of the Jews themselves, antiquated and obsolete. The
real centers of Christianity-the places where it took
firmest root, and from which it sent forth its regenerating power among the nations-from  the time
that authoritative records of its facts and expositions
of its doctrines became necessary-were to be found
in  Greek-speaking  communities-the  communities
scattered throughout the cities of Asia Minor, of
Greece, at Rome, and the West-where also the first
converts to the Christian faith consisted chiefly of
12




138           THE GOSPEL RECORDS 
those whose native tongue was Greek.  Whether,
therefore, respect were had to the immediate wants
of the first Christian communities, or to the quarters
in which the Gospel was to find its most active agents
and representatives, and the direction which it was
appointed to take in the world, the Greek was obviously the language in which its original and authoritative documents behooved to be written. Whatever reasons there were for the adherents of Judaism
getting the Scriptures of the Old Testament into
Greek; whatever reasons, also, Josephus could have
for translating into Greek his Jewish histories, and
the authors of the apocryphal writings for adopting
that language in preference to the Aramaic, the same
reasons existed, and in far greater force, for the inspired writings, which were to form, in earlier and
later times, the fundamental records of the Christian
faith, being composed in the Greek language, and in
that language committed to the faithful keeping of
the Church. Had they not been originally composed
in Greek, the course of Providence would presently
have required that they should be translated into
Greek; and considering how much depended on the
correct knowledge of them, and how many sources
we have for illustrating Greek, as compared with
Aramaic productions, it was unspeakably better that,
from the first, they should have appeared in a Greek
form."
~ 15. SOME OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STYLE IN WHICH
THE GOSPES ARE WRITTEN.
1. The style of the Gospels, apart firon the peculiar
dialect of Greek in which they were written, is totally devoid of ornament; -it presents no beautiful




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             139
transitions from one subject to another; the ear is not
charmed with the melody of harmonious periods;
the imagination is not fired with grand epithets. In
short, we find in the Gospels the simplicity of writers who were more intent upon things than upon
words; we find men of plain  education honestly
relating what they knew, without attempting  to
adorn their narratives by any elegance of diction.
And this is precisely the kind of writing which we
should expect from the persons to whom those books
are ascribed.
2. The Gospels are not proper histories; that is,
they do not furnish a full and satisfactory account of
the ministry of Jesus to one previously unacquainted
with the essential facts concerning it. Either individually or collectively, they present only a brief
narrative of some of the most striking events in our
Lord's ministry, and these told by the writers, for
the most part, nakedly and in a few words. No skill
is shown by any one of the Evangelists in connecting
the different parts so as to form a continuous history.
No explanations are given, except a few, which are
parenthetical and unimportant.  With the exception
of some passages in John's Gospel, there is no comment or intimation of surprise with regard to any
thing told which discovers the writer's feelings or
state of mind. This peculiarity of the Gospels furnishes another proof that they could not have been
forged, no more than they could have been written
by men whose imaginations had been strongly excited by some extraordinary delusion.
3. We discover in the Gospel narratives a striking
consistency with that which the Evangelists do not
state expressly. This striking consistency has been




140           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
presented by Mr. Norton in detail; it is sufficient to
quote from him the leading features:
In the narratives of the Evangelists, the existence
of many facts which are not expressly mentioned is
implied. In order to understand fully what is told,
and to perceive its bearing and application, we must
take into view very much that is not told. There is
to be found in almost every part of the Gospels a
latent reference to some existing state of things
which is not described.'But when we attend to the
character of those facts with which different portions
of the narrative are thus connected, we find that they
are all probable or certain; that we have distinct evi-dence of them from other sources, or that they are
such as must or might have existed. The inferences
from these histories, though many and various, are
all consistent with the histories themselves, and whatever we can learn from other sources. In tracing out
the necessary or probable bearing of those actions
and discourses which are recorded, or in assigning.
their probable occasions or consequences, we detect
no inconsistency with the history itself, and find no
contradiction of known facts; but, on the contrary,
we are continually perceiving new marks of probability and truth. This coincidence between what is
told and what is implied does not appear here and
there only, but discovers itself throughout the Gospels. But such a consistency of the narrative with
itself can evidently not be the work of study or artifice. The Gospels are very inartificial compositions,
and if the coincidences had been intended to give an
air of probability to the narrative, the writei would
have taken care that they should be noticed by the
reader. The just and lively conception-which the




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              141
writers of the Gospels evidently possessed of those
numerous facts and circumstances that must or might
have existed, if their history be true-admits of no
other explanation, than that the narratives rest on
the authority of those who were witnesses of what
is related, and were themselves concerned in the
transactions  recorded.  It follows, therefore, that
these histories were committed to writing either by
some of the immediate disciples of Christ, or by persons who derived, generally speaking, correct and
particular information from such disciples. And if
this conclusion is reached, there is no room left to
doubt that they are the works of those particular individuals to whom they have always been ascribed.
We discover, therefore, in the characteristics of the
Gospels which we have described, another mode in
which it has pleased God to preserve to us in the
very books themselves the evidence of their authenticity. Such is their incompleteness, that they are
necessarily complicated with a great body of circumstantial evidence of the most unsuspicious kind.
Thus, what we might consider as their defects, when
regarded merely as literary compositions, contribute
greatly to enhance their value.
~ 16. THE FREQUENT ALLUSIONS OF TIE EVANGELISTS TO THE
HISTORY OF THEIRI TIMES.
"Whoever," says Michaelis, "undertakes to forge a
set of writings, and ascribe them to persons who
lived in a former period, exposes himself to the utmost danger of a discordancy with the history and
manners of the age to which his accounts are referred; and this danger increases in proportion as
they relate to points not mentioned in general history,




142            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
but to such as belong only to a single city, sect,
religion, or school. Of all books that ever were written, there is none, if the historical books of the New
Testament are a forgery, so liable to detection; the
scene of action is not confined to a single country,
but displayed in the greatest cities of the Roman Empire; allusions are made to the various manners and
principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews,
which are carried so far with respect to this last nation, as to extend even to the trifles and follies of
their schools. A  Greek or Roman Christian, who
lived in the second or third century, though ever so
well versed in the writings of the ancients, would still
have been wanting in Jewish literature; and a Jewish convert in those ages, even the most learned
rabbi, would  have been  equally deficient in the
knowledge of Greece and Rome. If, then, the historical books of the New Testament thus exposed to
detection-had it been an imposture-are found after
the severest researches to harmonize with the history,
the manners, and the opinions of the first century;
and since the more minutely we inquire, the more
perfect we find the coincidence, we must conclude
that they were written in the age in which they
profess to have been written."
The numerous incidental allusions to the civil history of the times, which the Gospels and the Acts
furnish, and which are most strikingly verified by
profane writers, have been most carefully collated by
Mr. George Rawlinson in his "'Historical Evidences
of the Truth of the Scripture Records." He groups
them under two heads, considering, first, all such as
bear upon the general condition of the countries,
which were the scene of the history, and, secondly,




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.            143
such as have reference to the civil rulers, who are
represented as exercising authority in the countries
at the time of the narrative, as follows:
1. The political condition of Palestine at the time
to which the New Testament narrative properly belongs, was one curiously complicated and anomalous;
it underwent frequent changes, but retained through
all of them certain peculiarities, which made the position of the country unique among the dependencies
of Rome. Not having been conquered in the ordinary
way, but having passed under the Roman dominion
with the consent and by the assistance of a large
party among the inhabitants, it was allowed to maintain, for a while, a species of semi-independence, not
unlike that of various native States in India, which
are really British dependencies. A mixture, and to
some extent an alternation, of Roman with native
power resulted from this arrangement, and a consequent complication in the political status, which must
have made it very difficult to be thoroughly understood by any one who was not a native and a cotemporary.  The chief representative of the Roman
power in the East-the President df Syria, the local
Governor, whether a Herod or a Roman procurator,
and the high-priest, had each and all certain rights
and a certain authority in the country. A double
system of taxation, a double administration of justice,
and even in some degree a double military command,
were the natural consequence, while Jewish and Roman customs, Jewish and Roman words, were simultaneously in use, and a condition of things existed
full of harsh contrasts, strange mixtures, and abrupt
transitions. Within the space of fifty years Palestine
was a single united kingdom under a native ruler, a




144            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
set of principalities under native ethnarchs and tetrarchs, a country in part containing such principalities, in part reduced to the condition of a Roman
province, a kingdom  reunited  once more under
a native sovereign, and a country reduced wholly
under Rome, and governed by procurators dependent
on the President of Syria, but still subject in certain
respects to the Jewish monarch of a neighboring territory.  These facts we know  from  Josephus, and
other writers, who, though  less accurate, on the
whole confirm his statements; they render the civil
history of Judea during this period one very difficult
to master and remember; the frequent changes, supervening upon the original complication, are a fertile source of confusion, and seem to have bewildered
even the sagacious and painstaking Tacitus.  The
New  Testament narrative, however, falls into no
error in treating of the period; it marks, incidentally
and without effort or pretension, the various changes
in the civil government-the sole kingdom of Herod
the Great, (Matt. ii, 1; Luke i, 5;) the partition of
his dominions among his sons, (Matt. ii, 22; xiv, 1;
Luke iii, 1;) the reduction of Judea to the condition
of a Roman province, while Galilee, Iturea, and
Trachonitis continued under native princes, (Luke
iii, 1;) the restoration of the old kingdom of Palestine, in the person of Agrippa the First, (Acts xii, 1,
etc.,) and the final reduction of the whole under Roman rule, and reestablishment of procurators, (Acts
xxiii, 24; xxiv, 27, etc.,) as the civil heads, while a
species of ecclesiastical superintendence was exercised
by Agrippa the Second, (Acts xxv, 14; etc.) Again,
the INew Testament narrative exhibits in the most
remarkable way the mixture in the government-the




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                       145
occasional power of the President of Syria, as shown
in  Cyrenius's  "taxing,"  (Luke  ii, 2;  compare Acts
v, 37;)  the  ordinary  division  of authority  between
the high-priest and the procurator, (Matt. xxvii, 1,
2; Acts xxii, 30; xxiii, 1-10;) the existence of two
separate taxations-the civil and the ecclesiasticalthe "census,"  (Matt. xvii, 17,) and the "didrachm,"
(Matt. xvii, 24;) of two tribunals, (John xviii, 28, 32,
etc.,) two modes of capital punishment, two military
forces, (Matt. xvii, 64, 65,) two methods of marking
time, (Luke iii, 11;) at every turn it shows, even in
such  little  matters as verbal expressions, the'coexistence of Jewish  with Roman ideas and practices in
the country-a coexistence which, it must be remembered, came to an end within forty years of our -Lord's
crucifixion.  The general tone and temper of the Jews
at the time, their feelings toward the Romans, and
toward their neighbors, their internal divisions and
sects, their confident expectation of a deliverer, are
represented  by  Josephus, and  other  writers, in  a
manner which  very  strikingly accords with  the account incidentally given by the Evangelists. The
extreme corruption and wickedness, not only of the
mass of the people, but even of the rulers and  chief
men, is asserted by Josephus in the strongest terms;*
while, at the same time, he testifies to the existence
among them  of a species of zeal for religion, a readJoseph., De Bell. Jud., vii, 8, ~ 1: "For that time was fruitful among the
Jews in all sorts of wickedness, so that they left no evil deed undone; nor was
there any new form of wickedness which any one could invent if he wished to
do so. Thus they were all corrupt both in their public and their private relations; and they vied with each other who should excel in impiety toward God
and injustice to men. The more powerful oppressed the common people, and
the common people eagerly sought to destroy the more powerful, for the former
class were governed by the love of power, and the latter by the desire to seize
and plunder the possessions of the wealthy." (Compare Ant. Jud., xx, 7, 7  8;
Bell. Jud., v, 13,  6G; and 10, ~ 5.)
13




146                   THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
iness to  attend  the feasts,*  a regularity  in  the  offering  of sacrifice,-  an  almost superstitious  regard  for
the  Temple,+   and   fanatic   abhorrence  of  all  who
sought to change the customs which Moses had delivered," (Acts vi, 14.) The conspiracy against Herod
the Great, when ten men bound themselves by an
oath to kill him, and, having armed themselves with
short daggers, which   they  hid  under  their clothes,
entered into the theater where they expected IHerod
to arrive, intending, if he came, to fall upon him
and dispatch him with their weapons,~ breathes the
identical  spirit  of  that  against  Paul,  which   the
promptness  of the  chief captain, Lysias, alone  frustrated, (Acts xxiii, 12-41.) We find, from Josephus,
that there was a warm controversy among the Jews
themselves as to the lawfulness of "giving tribute to
Cssar,"ll (Matt. xxii, 17;) that the  Samaritans  were
hostile to such of the Galileans as had their "faces'Joseph., Ant. Jud., xvii, 9, ~ 3; xx, 4, g 3; Bell. Jud., ii, 19, ~ 1, etc. On one
occasion it appears that more than two and a half millions of persons had come
up to Jerusalem to worship. (Bell. Jud., vi, 9, ~ 3.)
t Ant. Jud., xv, 7, ~ 8: "In Jerusalem there were two fortresses, one belonging
to the city itself, and the other to the Temple. Whoever held these had the
whole nation in their power; for without the command of these, it was not possible to offer the sacrifices; and no Jew could endure the thought that these
should fail to be offered; they were even ready sooner to lay down their lives
than omit the religious sacrifices which they were accustomed to offer to God.
Not only was Caligula's attempt to have his statue set up in the Temple resisted with determination, (Joseph., Ant. Jud., xviii, 8,) but when the younger
Agrippa, by raising the hight of his house, obtained a view into the Temple
courts, the greatest indignation was felt. The Jews immediately raised a wall
to shut out his prospect, and when Festus commanded them to remove it, they
positively refused, declaring that they would rather die than destroy any portion of the sacred fabric. (See Ant. Jud., xx, 8, ~ 11, and on the general subject
compare Philo, De LJegat. ad Caium. pp. 1022, 1023.)
~ Ant. Jud., xv, 8, ii 1-4.
I] Josephus tells us that when Cyrenius came to take tihe census of men's properties throughout Jndea, a controversy arose among the Jews on the legality of
submission to foreign taxation. Judas of Galilee (Acts v, 37) maintained that it
was a surrender of the theocratic principle; while the bulk of the chief men,
including some considerable number of the Pharisees, took the opposite view,
and persuaded the people to submit themselves. (Ant. Jud., xviii, 1, ~ 1.)




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                          147
set to go to Jerusalem,"  (Luke ix, 51;) that on  one
occasion, at  least, they  fell upon  those  who  were
journeying through their land to attend a feast, and
murdered a large number,* that the Pharisees and
Sadducees  were  noted   sects, distinguished   by  the
tenets  which  in  Scripture  are  assigned  to  them;t
that the Pharisees were the more popular, and persuaded the common people as they pleased, while the
Sadducees  were  important  chiefly  as  men  of  high
rank  and  station;+  and  that a general expectation,
founded  upon  the prophecies of the  Old  Testament,
existed among the Jews during the Roman war, that
a great king was about to rise up, in the East, of
their own  race and country.~   This last fact is confirmed by  both  Suetoniusll and Tacitust and  is one
* Ant. Jud., xx, 6,  1: "Now, there arose an enmity between the Samaritans
and the Jews, from the following cause: The Galileans were accustomed, in
going up to the feasts that were held in Jerusalem, to pass through the country
of the Samaritans. At this time there was, on the road which they took, a village called Ginea, situated on the boundary between Samaria and the great
plain. When the Galileans came to this place they were attacked, and many of
them killed.
t Ant. Jud., xviii, 1, i 3, 4. Note especially the following: Of the Pharisees" They believe that souls have immortal vigor, and that beyond the grave there
are rewards and punishments, according as they follow a virtuous or a vicious
course of life in this world."  Of the Sadducees-" But the doctrine of the Sadducees is, that the soul is annihilated together with the body."  (Compare Acts
xxiii, 8.)
Ant. Jud., I, s. c. [The Pharisees] "are very influential with the people;
and whatever prayers to God or sacrifices are performed, are performed at their
dictation. The doctrine (of the Sadducees) is received by but few: but these are
the men who are in the highest authority."
i Bell. Jud., vi, 5, i 4. " But that which most of all roused then to undertake
this war, was an ambiguous article,...found in their sacred books, that,
at that time, a man of their country should rule over the whole earth."
[I Sueton., Vit. Vespasian, ~ 4: "An ancient and settled opinion had prevailed
throughout the whole East, that fate had decreed that at that time persons proceeding from Judea should become masters of the world. This was foretold, as
the event afterward proved, of the Roman emperor; but the Jews applied it to
themselves, and this was the cause of their rebellion."  (Compare Vit. Octav.,
94, and Virg. Eclog., iv.)
1 Tacit. Histor., v, 13: " These things [the prodigies that occurred just before
the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans] were regarded by a few as alarming
omens; but the greater number believed that it was written in the ancient books




148             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
which even Strauss does not venture to dispute.  It
would be easy to point out a further agreement between the Evangelical historians and profane writers
with respect to the manners and customs of the Jews
at this period. There is scarcely a matter of this
kind noted in the New  Testament, which may not
be confirmed from Jewish sources, such as Josephus,
Philo, and the Mishna.  The points of agreement
hitherto  adduced have had reference to the Holy
Land and  its inhabitants.  It is not, however, in
this connection only that the accuracy of the Evangelical writers in their accounts of the general condition of those countries which are the scene of their
history is observable. Their descriptions of the Greek
and Roman world, sb far as it comes under their
cognizance, are most accurate.  No where have the
character of the Athenians and the general appearance of Athens been more truthfully and skillfully
portrayed than in the few verses of the Acts which
contain the account of Paul's visit.  The people"Athenians and  strangers spending  their time  in
nothing but hearing or telling of some new  thing,"
(Acts xvii, 21;) philosophizing  and  disputing  on
Mars' Hill and in the market-place, (ibid., verse 17,)
glad to discuss, though disinclined to believe, (Acts
xvii, 32, 33,) and yet religious withal, standing in
honorable contrast with the other Greeks in respect
of their reverence for things divine, (ibid., verse
22,)-are put before us with all the vividness of life,
just as they present themselves to our view in the
pages of their own historians and orators.*  Again,
of the priests, that at that very time the East should become very powerful, and
that persons proceeding from Judea should become masters of the world."' How attractive to strangers Athens was, even in her decline, may be seen from
the examples of Cicero, Germanicus, Pausaias, and others. (See Conybeare and




THEIR  AUTHENTICITY.                         149
how   striking, and  how   thoroughly  classical is the
account of the  tumult at  Ephesus, (Acts  xix, 23,)
where  almost every  word  receives illustration  from
ancient coins and inscriptions, as has been excellently
shown in a recent work  of great merit on the life of
Paul.*  Or, if we turn to Rome and the Roman system, how truly do we find depicted the great and
terrible  emperor, whom   all feared  to provoke-the
provincial administration  by  proconsuls  and  others
chiefly  anxious that tumults  should  be preventedthe contemptuous religious tolerance-the noble principle of Roman law, professed, if not always acted
on, whereby accusers and accused were brought "face
to face," and  the  latter had  free "license  to  answer
for themselves concerning the crimes laid against
them, (Acts xxv, 16)-the privileges of Roman  citizenship, sometimes acquired  by  birth, sometimes by
purchase-the right of appeal possessed and exercised
Howson's Life of St. Paul, vol. i, pp. 398, 399.) On the greediness of the Athenians after novelty see Demost. Philipp., i, p. 43, (" Or tell me, do you wish to go
about asking each other in the market-place, What is the news? And can there
be any thing newer than that the man of Macedon," etc.;) Philipp. Epist., pp.
156, 157; 2Elian., Var. Hist., v, 13; Schol. ad Thucyd., iii, 38, etc. On their
religiousness, compare Pausan., i, 24, ~ 3, (the Athenians are more zealous than
others in the worship of gods;) Xen., Rep. Atheniens., iii, ii 1, 8; Joseph.,
Contra Apion., ii, 11, (" All say that the Athenians are the most religious of the
Greeks;") Strab., v, 3, ~ 18; 2Elian., Var. Hist., v, 17; Philostrat., Vit. Appollon., vi, 3; Dionys. Hal. De Jud. Thucyd., 1 40; and among later authors, see Mr.
Grote's History of Greece, vol. iii, pp. 229-232.
See the Life and Epistles of St. Paul by Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, vol.
ii, pp. 66, etc. (1.) The " Great Goddess Diana" is found to have borne that title
as her usual title, both fiom an inscription, (Boeckh, Corpus Inscript., 2,963,) and
from Xenophon, (Ephes., i, p. 15,) " I invoke our ancestral God, the Great Diana
of the Ephesians."  (2.) The Asiarchs are mentioned on various coins and
inscriptions. (3.) The town-clerk (ypaGaraTes) of Ephesus is likewise mentioned
in inscriptions. (Boeckh, No. 2,93, N. 2,9 66, and No. 2,990.) (4.) The curious word vewoc6pos, (Acts xix, 35,) literally "sweeper" of the temple, is also
found in inscriptions and on coins, as an epithet of the Ephesian people.
(Beckh, No. 2,966.) The "silver shrines of Diana," the "court-days," the "deputies" or "proconsuls," (avOvTra'TOL,) might receive abundant classical illustration. The temple was the glory of the ancient world; enough still remains of
the "theater" to give evidence of its former greatness.




150                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
by  the provincials-the  treatment of prisoners-the
peculiar manner of chaining them-the employment
of soldiers as their guards —the examination by torture-the punishment of condemned persons not being Roman citizens by scourging and crucifixionthe manner of this punishment-the practice of
bearing the cross, of affixing a title or superscription,
of placing soldiers under a centurion to watch the
carrying into effect of this sentence, of giving the
garments of the sufferer to these persons, of allowing
the bodies after death to be buried by the friendsand the like! The sacred historians are as familiar not
only with the general character, but even with some
of the obscurer customs of Greece and Rome, as with
those of their own country. Fairly observant and
always faithful in their accounts, they continually
bring before us little points which accord minutely
with notices in profane writers nearly cotepnporary
with  them, while occasionally they  increase  our
knowledge of classic antiquity by touches harmonious with its spirit, but additional to the information
which we derive from  the native authorities.*  Again,
* Among minute points of accordance may be especially noticed the following:
1. The geographical accuracy. (1.) Compare the divisions of Asia Minor mentioned in the Acts with those in Pliny. Phrygia, Galatia, Lycaonia, Cilicia,
Pamphylia, Pisidia, Asia, Mysia, Bithynia, are all recognized as existing provinces by the Roman geographer writing probably within a lew years of Luke.
(Plin., H. N., v, 27, etc.) (2.) The division of European Greece into the two
provinces of Macedonia and Achaia, (Acts xix, 24, etc.,) accords exactly with
the arrangement of Augustus noticed in Strabo, (xvii, ad fin.) (3.) The various
tracts in or about Palestine belong exactly to the geography of the time, asid of
no other. Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Trachonitis, Iturea, Abilene, Decapolis, are
recognized as geographically distinct at this period by the Jewish and classical
writers. (See Plin., H. N., v, 14,18, 23; Strab., xvi, i 10, 34; Joseph., Ant.
Jud., xix, 5, ~ 1, etc.) (4.) The routes mentioned are such as were in use at the
time. The " ship of Alexandria," which, conveying Paul to Rome, lands him at
Puteoli, follows the ordinary course of the Alexandrian corn-ships, as mentioned
by Strabo, (xvii, 1, g 7,) Philo, (in Flace., pp. 968-9,) and Seneca, (Epist. 77,) and
touches at customary harbors. (See Sueton., Vit. Tit., ~ 25.) Paul's journey
from Troas by Neapolis to Philippi presents an exact parallel to that of Igna



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                             151
it has been well remarked that the condition of the
Jews beyond the limits of Palestine is represented
by the Evangelical writers very agreeably to what
may be gathered of it from  Jewish and heathen
sources. The wide dispersion of the chosen race is
one of the facts most evident upon the surface of the
New Testament history. "Parthians, and Medes, and
Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia, and Judea,
and  Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and
Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Lybia
about Cyrene, strangers of Rome, Cretes, and Arabians,"  (Acts  ii, 9-11,) are  said  to  have  been  witnesses, at Jerusalem, of the  first outpourings  of the
Holy Ghost.  In the travels of Paul through Asia
tius, sixty years later, (Martyr. Ignat., c. 5.) His passage through Amphipolis
and Appollonia, on his road from Philippi to Thessalonica, is in accordance with
the Itinerary of Antoine, which places those towns on the route between the two
cities. (5.) The mention of Philippi as the first city of Macedonia to one approaching from the East, (" the chief city of that part of Macedonia," Acts xvi,
12,) is correct, since there was no other between it and Neapolis. The statenent
that it was a "colony " is also true, (Dio. Cass., li, 4, p. 445, D).; Plin., H. N., iv,
11; Strab., vii, Fr., 41.) 2. The minute political knowledge. (1.) We have
already seen the intimate knowledge exhibited of the state of Ephesus, with its
proconsul, town-clerks, Asiarchs, etc. A similar exactitude appears in the designation of the chief magistrates of Thessalonica as "the rulers of the city,"
(Acts xvii, 6,) their proper and peculiar appellation. (Boeckh, Corp. Inscr., No.
1,967.) (2.) So, too, the Roman Governors of Corinth and Cyprus are given their
correct titles. (3.) Publius, the Roman Governor of Malta, has again his proper
technical designation, (" the chief man of the island," Acts xxviii, 7,) as appears
from inscriptions colmmemorating the chief of the Melitans, or " Melitensium
primus."  (See Alford ii, p. 282.) (4.) The delivery of the prisoners to the "captain of the [Praetorian] guard" at Rome is in strict accordance with the practice
of the time. (Trajan. ap. Plin'., Ep. x, 65: "He ought to be sent bound to the
Prefects of my Preetorian guard."  Compare Philostrat., Vit. Sophist., ii, 32.)
Among additions to our classical knowledge for which we are indebted to
Scripture it may suffice to mention, 1. The existence of an Italian cohort, (the
Italian band,) as early as the reign of Tiberius, (Acts x, 1.) 2. The application
of the term  EcSao-Ti, (Augustan,) to another cohort, a little later, (Acts xxviii,
1.) 3. The existence of an altar at Athens with the inscription, "To the unknown God," (Acts xvii, 23,) which is not to be confounded with the well-known
inscriptions to unlknown gods. 4. The use of the title a-Tpa TTyol (Praetors) by the
Duumviri or chief magistrates of Phlilippi, (Acts xvi, 20.) We know fron Cicero,
(De Leg. Agrar., 34,) that the title was sometimes assumed in such cases, but we
have no other proof that it was in use at Philippi.




152            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Minor and Greece, there is scarcely a city to which
he comes but has a large body of Jewish residents.
Compare with these representations the statements
of Agrippa the First, in his letter to Caligula, as reported by the Jewish writer, Philo.  "The 1-oly
City, the place of my nativity," he says, "is the
metropolis, not of Judea only, but of most other
countries, by means of the colonies which have been
sent out of it from time to time; some to the neighboring countries of Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, CceloSyria-some to more distant regions, as Pamphylia,
Cilicia, Asia as far as Bythnia, and the recesses of
Pontus —and in Europe, Thessaly, Bceotia, Macedonia,
Atolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, together with the
most famous of the islands, Eubcea, Cyprus, and
Crete, to say nothing of those who dwell beyond the
Euphrates.  For, excepting a small part of the Babylonian, and other satrapies, all the countries which
have a fertile territory possess Jewish inhabitants;
so that, if thou shalt show this kindness to my native place, thou wilt benefit not one city only, but
thousands in every region of the world, in Europe,
in Asia, in Africa-on the continents, and in the
islands-on the shores of the sea, and in the interior."
In a similar strain, Philo himself boasts, that "one
region does not contain the Jewish people, since it is
exceedingly numerous; but there are many of them
in almost all the flourishing countries of Europe and
Asia, both continental and insular."  And the customs of these dispersed Jews are accurately represented in the New Testament.  That they consisted
in part of native Jews, in part of converts or proselytes, is evident from  Josephus;* that they had
*Joseph., Ant. Jud., xx, 2; De Bell. Jud., vii, 3, ~ 3; Contr. Apion., ii, 36, etc.




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                    153
places of worship, called Synagogues or oratories, in
the towns where they lived, appears from  Philo; that
these were commonly by the seaside, as represented
in the Acts, (Acts xvi, 13,) is plain from many
authors;* that they had also-at least sometimesa synagogue belonging to them  at Jerusalem, whither
they resorted at the time of the feasts, is certain
from  the Talmnudical writers; that at Rome they consisted in great part of freed men, or "Ljibertines,"
whence the synagogue of the Libertines, (Acts vi, 9,)
may  be gathered  from   Philo  and  Tacitus.  Their
bearing toward the apostolic preachers is such as we
should expect from persons whose close contact with
those of a different religion made them all the more
zealous for their own; and their tumultuous proceedings are in accordance with all that we learn from
profane authors of the tone and temper of the Jews
generally at this period.t
II. The civil governors and administrators distinctly mentioned by the New  Testament historians
are the following: the Roman  Emperors Augustus,
Tiberius,  and   Claudius; the  Jewish   Kings  and
Princes, Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod the Tetrarch, (or as he is commonly called, Herod Antipas,)
Philip the Tetrarch, Herod Agrippa the First, and
Herod Agrippa the Second; the Roman  Governors,
Cyrenius,  (or  Quirinius,)  Pontius  Pilate, Sergius
Paulus, Gallio, Festus, and  Felix, and  the  Greek
Philo frequently mentions the synagogue under the name of "places of
prayer." (In Flacc., p. 972, A., B., E.; Legat. in Caium, p. 1,014, etc.) Their
position by the seaside or by a riverside is indicated, among other places, in the
Decree of the Halicarnassians reported by Josephus, (Ant. Jud., xiv, 10, ~ 23,)
where the Jews are allowed to offer prayers by the seaside according to their
national custom. See also Philo, Legat. in Caium, p. 982, D.; Tertull. ad Nat.
i, 13; and Juv. Sat., iii, 13.
t For the tumultuous spirit of the foreign Jews, see Sueton., Vit. Claud., p. 25;
Dio Cassius, lx, 6; Joseph., Ant. Jud., xviii, 8, i 1; 9, ~ 9; xx, 1, ~ 1, etc.




154                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Tetrarch, Lysanias.  It may be shown from  profane
sources, in almost every case, that these persons existed; that they lived at the time, and bore the
offices assigned  to  them; that they  were  related  to
each other, when any relationship is stated, as Scripture declares; and that the actions ascribed to them
are either actually such as they performed, or at least
in perfect harmony with what profane history tells
us of their characters.
The Jewish kings and princes, whose names occur
in  the New  Testament narrative, occupy a far more
prominent  place  in  it  than   the  Roman  emperors.
The  Gospel narrative opens, "In  the days of Herod
the King," (Matt. ii, 1; Luke i, 5;) who, as the father
of Archelaus, (Matt. ii, 22,) may be identified with the
first monarch of the name, the son of Antipater the
Idumean. This monarch is known to have reigned
in Palestine cotemporaneously with Augustus, who
confirmed him in his kingdom, and of whom he held
the sovereignty till his decease. Cunning, suspicion,
and cruelty are the chief traits of his character, as
depicted in Scripture, and  these are among  his most
marked  characteristics  in  Josephus.*   The  consistency of the massacre at Bethlehem with his temper
and disposition is now acknowledged;t skepticism
[ The cruelties, deceptions, and suspicions of Herod the Great fill many
chapters in Josephus. (Ant. Jud., xv, 1, 3, 6, 7, etc.; xvi, 4, 8, 10; xvii, 3, 6,
7, etc.) His character is thus summed up by that writer: " He was a man
cruel to all alike, yielding to the impulse of passion, but regardless of the
claims of justice; and yet no one was ever favored with a more propitious fortune." (Ant. Jud., xvii, 8, ~ 1. His arrest of the chief men throughout his
dominion, and design that on his own demise they should all be executed,
(Ibid., 6, ~ 5; Bell. Jud., i, 33, ~ 6,) shows a bloodier temper than even the massacre of the Innocents.
t Strauss grants the massacre to be "not inconsistent with the disposition
of the aged tyrant to the extent that Scllleiermacher supposed," but objects
that "neither Josephus, who is very minute in his account of Herod, nor the
rabbins, who were assiduous in blackening his memory, give the slightest hint




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                            155
has nothing to urge against it, except the silence of
the  Jewish  writers, which  is a weak  argument, if it
is not outweighed by the testimony, albeit somewhat
late and perhaps inaccurate, of Iacrobius.*
At the death of Herod the Great his kingdomaccording to Josephus-was divided, with the consent
of Augustus, among three of his sons. Archelaus
received  Judea, Samaria, and  Idumea, with  the  title
of ethnarch; Philip  and Antipas were made tetrarchs,
and received, the latter Galilee and Perea, the former
Trachonitis  and  the adjoinipg regions.-  The notices
of the Evangelists are confessedly in complete accordance with these statements. Matthew mentions
the succession of Archelaus in Judea, and implies
that he did not reign in Galilee, (Matt. ii, 22.)   Luke
records  Philip's  tetrarchy, (Luke  iii, 1;)  while  the
tetrarchy of Antipas, who is designated  by his family
of this decree." He omits to observe, that they could scarcely narrate the
circumstance without some mention of its reason-the birth of the supposed
Messiah-a subject on which their prejudices necessarily kept them silent.
* Macrob. Saturnal., ii, 4: "When Augustus had heard that asmong the children
under two years of age whom Herod, the kisgj of the Jews, had commanded to be slain
in Syria, there was also one of the king's own sons, he said it was better to be
the sow than the son of Herod;" Strauss contends that "the passage loses all
credit by confounding the execution of Antipater, who had gray hairs, with the
murder of the infants renowned among the Christians;" but Macrobius says
nothing of Antipater, and evidently does not refer to any of the known sons
of Herod. He believes that among the children massacred was an infant son of
the Jewish king. It is impossible to say whether he was right or wrong in
this belief. It may have simply originated in the fact that a jealousy of a
royal infant was known to have been the motive for the massacre. (See 01shausen, Biblic. Comment., vol. i, p. 72, note, p. 67, E. T.)
t Josephus says, "When Caesar had heard these things he dissolved the assembly, and a few days after he appointed Archelaus, not indeed king, but
ethnarch of half the country which had been subject to Herod,... and
the other half he divided, and gave it to two other sons of Herod, Philip and
Antipas,... to the latter of whom he made Perea and Galilee subject,.  while Batanea with Trachonitis and Auranitis, with a certain part
of what is called the House of Zenadorus, were subjected to Philip; but the
parts subject to Archelaus were Idumea, and Judea, and Samaria."  (Antiq.
Jud., xvii, 11.,  4.) Compare the brief notice of Tacitus: "The country which
had been subdued was governed, in three divisions, by the sons of Herod."
(Hist., v, 9.)




156                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
name of Herod, is distinctly  asserted by  both Evangelists, (Matt. xiv, 1.)   Moreover, Matthew   implies
that Archelaus bore a bad  character at the time  of
his accession, or soon  afterward, which  is consistent
with the account of Josephus, who tells us that he
was hated by  the  other members of his own family;
and that shortly after his father's death he slew  three
thousand  Jews, on account of a tumult at Jerusalem.
The first three Evangelists agree as to the character
of Herod Antipas, which is weak, rather than cruel
or bloodthirsty;  and  their portraiture  is granted  to
be "not inconsistent with  his character, as gathered
from  other sources."    The facts of his adultery  with
Herodias, the  wife  of one  of his brothers,*  and  of
his execution  of John  the Baptist for no  crime that
could  be alleged  against him, are  recorded  by  Josephus;-   and though  in the latter case there is some
apparent diversity in the details, yet it is plain that'Josephus says, "Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas,
and had now lived with her a long time. But having made a journey to Rome,
he lodged in the house of Herod, his brother, but not by the same mother.
For this Herod was the son of the daughter of Simon, the high-priest. Now,
he fell in love with Herodias, this man's wife, who was the daughter of
Aristobulus, their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great; and he had
the boldness to propose marriage. She accepted the proposal, and it was
agreed that she should go to live with him whenever he should return from
Rome."  (Ant. Jud., xviii, 5, i 1.) And again: "Herodias, their sister, was
married to Herod, the son of H-erod the Great, who was born of MIariamne, the
daughter of Simon the high-priest, who had also a daughter Salome; after the
birth of whom Herodias, in shameful violations of the customs of our nation,
allowed herself to marry Herod, the brother of her former husband by the
same father, separating from him while he was living. Now this man [whom
she married] held the office of tetrarch of Galilee." (Ibid., i 4.)
Ant. Jud., xviii, 5, ~ 2: "Now some of the Jews thought that the army of
Herod had been destroyed by God, in most righteous vengeance for the punishment inflicted upon Johnl, surlnamed the Baptist. For he taught the Jews to cultivate virtue, and to practice righteousness toward each other and piety toward
God, and so to come to baptism. For he declared that this dipping would be
acceptable to Him, if they used it not with reference to the r'emlociation of certain
sins, but to the purification of the body, the soul having been purified by righteousness. And when others thronged to him-for they were profoundly moved
at the hearing of his words-Herod feared that his great influence over the




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.                           157
the different accounts may  be reconciled.*   The continuance of the tetriarchy of Philip beyond the fifteenth, and that of Antipas beyond the eighteenth of
Tiberius, is confirmed by  Josephus,t who  also shows
that the ethnarchy of Archelaus came speedily to an
end, and that Judea was then reduced to the condition of a Roman province, and governed for a considerable space by procurators.  However, after a
while, the various dominions of Herod the Great
were reunited in the person of his grandson, Agrippa,
the son  of Aristobulus and brother of Herodias, who
was allowed  the title of king, and  was in favor with
both  Caligula  and  Claudius.   It can  not be doubted
that this  person  is  the  " Herod  the  King"  of  the
men would lead them to some revolt, for they seemed ready to do any thing by
his advice; he, therefore, thought it much better to anticipate the evil, by putting him to death, before he had attempted to make any innovation, than to
allow himself to be brought into trouble and then repent after some revolutionary movement had commenced. And so John, in consequence of the suspicion
of Herod, was sent as a prisoner to the aforementioned castle of Machlerus, and
was there put to death." The genuineness of this passage is admitted even by
Strauss. (Leben Jesu,, 48; vol. 1, pp. 344-47, E. T.): This even Strauss admits. The chief points of apparent difference are the
motive of the imprisonment and the scene of the execution. Josephus makes
fear of a popular insurrection, the Evangelist's offense at a personal rebuke,
the motive. But here, as Strauss observes, there is no contradiction, for Antipas might well fear that John, by his strong censure of the marriage and the
whole course of the tetrarch's life, might stir up the people into rebellion
against him. Again, from the Gospels we naturally imagine the prison to be
near Tiberias, where Herod Antipas ordinarily resided; but Josephus says that
prison was at bMachelrns in Perea, a day's journey from Tiberias. Here, however, an examination of the Gospels shows, that the place where Antipas made
his feast and gave his promise is not mentioned. It only appears that it was
near the prison. Now, as Herod was at this time engaged in a war with
Aretas, the Arabian prince, between whose kingdom  and his own lay the
fortress of Machmerus, it is a probable solution of the difficulty that he was residing with his court at MIachcerus at this period.  (Strauss, ] 48, ad fin.)
This supposition is confirmed by the fact that Josephus connects the imprisonment and death of the Baptist with the defeat of Herod in battle by his fatherin-law, Aretas-this defeat being regarded by many of the Jews as a just punishment sent by God upon Herod for this act of injustice and cruelty.
t Philip is said to have retained his tetrarchy till the twentieth year of Tiberius. (Ant. Jud., xviii, 5,  G 6.) Herod Antipas lost his government in the
first of Caligula. (Ibid., ch. 7.)




158                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Acts, (Acts xii, 1,) whose persecution  of the Church,
whose impious pride, and  whose miserable death, are
related  at length  by the sacred  historian.  Josephus
records, with less accuracy of detail than Luke, the
striking circumstances of this monarch's deceasethe  "set  day,"  the  public  assemblage,  the  "royal
dress," the impious flattery, its complacent reception,
the  sudden  judgment, the  excruciating  disease, the
speedy death.*  No where does profane history furnish  a  more  striking  testimony  to  the  substantial
truth of' the sacred narrative, no where is the superior exactness of the  latter over the  fobmer more
conspicuous.
On the death of Herod Agrippa, Judea-as Josephus informs us-became once more a Roman prov-' Josephus, Ant. Jud., xix, 8, ~ 2: "Now after he had reigned three full
years over the whole of Judea, he was at the city of Ccesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower. And there he held- public shows in honor of
Caesar, having learned that a certain festival was celebrated at that time to
make vows for his safety. Now, at that festival, there were assembled a multitude of those who were first in office and authority in the province. On the
second day of the shows, putting on a robe made entirely of silver, the texture
of which was truly wonderful, he came into the theater early in the morning.
When the first beams of the sun shone upon the silver, it glittered in a wonderful manner, flashing forth a brilliancy which amazed and awed those who
gazed upon him. Whereupon his flatterers immediately cried out-though
not for his good-one from one place, and one from another-addressing him
as a god-'Be propitious unto us,' and adding,'Although we have heretofore
feared thee as a man, yet henceforth we acknowledge thee to be of more than
mortal nature.' The king did not rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. A little after, therefore, looking up, lie saw an owl sitting on a certain
rope over his head; and he immediately understood that it was a messenger
of evil, as it had formerly been of good; whereupon he was overcome with a
profound sadness. There was also a severe pain in his bowels, which began
with a sudden violence. Turning, therefore, to his friends he said:'I, your
god, am now commanded to end my life; and fate immediately reproves the
false shouts that were just now addressed to me; and so I, whom you call immortal, am now snatched away by death. But we must accept the fate which
God ordains! And, indeed, we have not lived ill, but in the most brilliant
good fortune.' When he had said this he was ovelcome by the intensity of the
pain. He was, therefore, quickly carried to the palace, and the report went
abroad to all that lie must inevitably soon die... Being consumed thus,
for five days in succession, with the pain in his belly, lie departed this life."




THEIR  AUTHENTICITY.                        159
ince  under procurators,* but the  small kingdom  of
Chalcis was, a few  years later, conferred  by Claudius
on this Herod's son, Agrippa the Second, who, afterward, received  other  territories.t    This  prince  is
evidently the "King Agrippa" before whom  Paul
pleaded his cause. (Acts xxv, 13, etc.) The Bernice,
who is mentioned as accompanying him on his visit
to Festus, was his sister, who lived with him, and
commonly accompanied him  upon his journeys.J
Besides  his  separate  sovereignty  he  had  received
from the emperor a species of ecclesiastical supremacy in Judea, where he had the superintendence of
the Temple, the direction of the sacred treasury, and
the  right of nominating  the  high-priests.~    These
circumstances  account  sufficiently  for  his  visit  to
Judea, and  explain  the  anxiety  of Festus  that he
should  hear  Paul, and  Paul's willingness  to  plead
before him.
The Roman procurators, Pontius Pilate, Felix, and
Festus, are prominent personages in the history of
Josephus, where they occur in the proper chronolog* Ant. Jnd., xix, 9,  2: " [Claudius] therefore sent Caspius Fadus as a procurator over Judea and all the kingdom."
i Ant. Jud., xx, 5, ~ 2; vii, 1; and 8, i 4. Agrippa It bore the title of king,
(De Bell. Jud., ii, 12, ~ 8.)
T Ant. Jud., xix, 9, ~ 1; xx, 7, ~ 3. The evil reports which arose from this
constant companionship are noticed by Josephus in the latter of these passages.
They are glanced at in the well-known passage of Juvenal, (Sat. vi, 155-169;)
" That well-known diamond made even more precious by being worn on the
finger of Bernice. This jewel the barbarian formerly gave to that unchaste
woman, and Agrippa gave it to his sister, in that country where kings keep the
Sabbath festival with naked feet, and an ancient indulgence allows the old men
to eat pork."  (Compare Tacit., Hist., ii, 2, 81.)
Joseph., Ant. Jud., xx, 8, ~ 8; 9, ~ 7: "The king had been intrusted by
Claudius Csesar with the care of the Temple." In one passage, (Ant. Jud., xx,
1, ~ 3,) Josephus says that these privileges continued to be exercised by the descendanets of Herod, king of Chalcis, from his decease to the end of the war. But
he here uses the term "descendants" very loosely, or he forgets that Agrippa
II was the nephew, and not the son of this monarch. (See the note of Lardner.
Credibility, vol. i, p. 18, note g.)




160                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
ical position,* and  bear characters very  agreeable to
those  which  are  assigned   to  them   by  the  sacred
writers. The vacillation of Pilate, his timidity, and,
at the  same  time, his occasional violence,t the cruelty, injustice, and rapacity of Felix,4 and the comparatively-equitable  and  mild  character of Festus,~
are apparent in  the Jewish historian, and have some
sanction from  other writers.
It  only  remains  to  notice  an  objection  that has
been made to the evidence presented in the many
historical allusions of the Evangelists, and their verification by profane writers. It is said that there
are remarkable facts in the Gospels, which we do not
find  alluded   to  by  profane  historians, though  we
* The procuratorship of Pilate lasted from the twelfth year of Tiberius-A.
D. 26-to the twenty-second-A. D. 36. (See Joseph., Ant. Jud., xviii, 3, ~ 2;
4, g 2.) Felix entered upon his office as sole procurator in the twelfth year of
Claudius-A. D. 53-and was succeeded by Porcius Festus early in the reign of
Nero, (Ant. Jud., xx, 7, ~ 1; 8,  9.)
t The vacillation and timidity of Pilate appear in his attempt to establish the
images of Tiberius in Jerusalem, followed almost immediately by their withdrawal. (Ant. Jud., xvii, 3, ~ 1.) His violence is shown in his conduct toward
the Jews who opposed his application of the Temple money to the construction
of an aqueduct at Jerusalem, (Ibid.,.  2,) as well as in his treatment of the Samaritans on the occasion which led to his removal. (Ibid., iv, ~ 1.) Agrippa
the elder speaks of the iniquity of his government in the strongest terms, (Ap.
Philon., Leg. ad Caium, p. 1,034:) "He feared lest they should examine and expose the misdeeds of his former procuratorship, the taking of bribes, the acts
of violence, the extortions, the tortures, the menaces, the repeated murders
without any form of trial, the harsh and incessant cruelty."
Tacitus says of Felix: "Antonius Felix exercised the royal authority in a
manner agreeable to the baseness of his disposition, with all cruelty and wantonness." (Hist., v, 9.) And again: "But his father, whose surname was Felix,
did not conduct himself with the same moderation. Having been a long time
governor of Judea, he thought he could commit all crimes with impunity, relying on his great power."  (Ann., xii, 54.) Josephus gives a similar account of
his government. (Ant. Jud., xx, 8.) After he quitted office he was accused to
the emperor, and only escaped a severe sentence by the influence which his
brother Pallas possessed with Nero.
~ See Ant. Jud., xx, 8, ii 10, 11; Bell. Jud., ii, 14, ~ 1. In the latter passage
Josephus says: " Now Festus having succeeded this man in the office of procurator, relieved the country of its greatest scourge. For he captured a large
number of the robbers, and destroyed not a few. But Albinus, who succeeded
Festus, did not govern after the same manner. For it is not possible to mention
any form of evil-doing which he omitted to practice."




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             161
might justly expect them to have attracted their attention. We shall speak of these in ~ 23.
Great stress is laid upon the difficulty with regard
to the taxing of Cyrenius. A satisfactory solution
of this and a few other minor difficulties, the reader
will find in most of the Commentaries. Mr. Rawlinson closes his historical review with the following
remarks: "We have found that the historical books
of the New Testament contain a vast body of incidental allusions to the civil history of the times,
capable of being tested by comparison with the
works of profane historians. We have submitted the
greater part of these, incidental allusions to the test
of such comparison; and we have found, in all but
some three or four doubtful cases, an entire and
striking harmony.  In no case have we met with
clear and certain disagreement; in such cases we
must take into consideration that profane writers are
not infallible; Josephus, our chief profane authority
for the time, has been shown, even in matters where
he does not come into any collision with the Christian Scriptures, to teem with inaccuracies. If, therefore, in any case it should be thought that we must
choose between Josephus and an Evangelist, sound
criticism requires that we should prefer the latter to
the former. Josephus is not entirely honest; he has
his Roman masters to please, and he is prejudiced in
favor of his own sect, the Pharisees. He has been
convicted of error, which is not the case with any
Evangelist. His authority, therefore, is, in the eyes
of a historical critic, inferior to that of the Gospel
writers, and in any instance of contradiction, it
would be necessary to disregard it. In fact, however,
we are not reduced to this necessity. The Jewish
14




162            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
writer no where actually contradicts the Gospel Records, and in hundreds of instances he confirms them.
It is evident that the entire historical framework, in
which the Gospel picture is set, is real; that the facts
of the civil history, small and great, are true, and
the personages correctly depicted."  We have only
to add that such correctness could not have been attained, unless the Gospels were written by the men, to
whom they are ascribed, who were living in the age in
which the events described by them took place.
~ 17. THE RELATION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS TO EACH OTHER
AND TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
In the case of three out of the five historical books
of the New Testament, there is an internal testimony
to their composition by cotemporaries, which is of
no small importance.  "And he that saw it," says
John, "bare record, and his record is true, and he
knoweth that he says true, that ye may believe."
(John xix, 35.)  And again, still more explicitly,
after speaking of himself, he says: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these
things; and we know  that his testimony is true."
(John xxi, 24.)  Either, therefore, John must be allowed to have been the writer of the fourth Gospel,
or the writer must be deemed guilty of willful fraud.
That the Acts of the Apostles and the third Gospel have a "testimony of a particular kind," which
seems to give them a special claim  to be accepted as
the works of a cotemporary, is admitted even by
Strauss. The writer of the Acts, he allows, "by the
use of the first person, identifies himself with the
companion of Paul," and the prefaces of the two
books make it plain that they "proceeded from the




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             163
same author."  Yet, while Strauss does not venture
to deny that a companion of Paul may have written
the two works, he finds it "difficult" to believe that
this was actually the case, and "suspects" that the
passages of the Acts, where the first person is used,
"belong to a distinct memorial by another hand,
which the author of the Acts has incorporated into
his history"(!) But still he allows the alternativethat "it is possible the companion of Paul may have
composed the two works"-only it must have been
"at a time when he was no longer protected by
apostolic influence from the tide of tradition,"(!) and
so was induced to receive into his narrative, and join
with what he had heard from  the apostle, certain
marvelous-and, therefore, incredible-stories which
had no solid basis. A  hypothesis like this is not
worthy of a serious refutation. The Acts, as is clear
from the fact of their terminating where they do,
were composed at the close of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 58-or 63, according to some
writers-and the Gospel, as being the "former treatise," must have been written earlier.
We may, therefore, independently of the general
voice of antiquity on the authenticity of the third
Gospel, allow it to have been composed by one who
lived in the apostolic age and companied with the
apostles. And a new argument is presented to us for
the early date of the first and second, based upon
their accordance with the third, their resemblance to
it in style and general character, and their diversity
from the productions of any other period. The first
three Gospels belong so entirely to the same school
of thought, and the same type and stage of language,
that, on critical grounds, they must be regarded as




164           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the works of cotemporaries; while in their contents
they are at once so closely accordant with one another, and so full of little differences, that we must
assign to them an almost instantaneous origin. So
peculiar is their relation to each other that the authenticity of one involves that of the others. If the
evidence for eitheir of the Gospels had been much
weaker than that for the other three, its discrepancies from  them, if there had been no other cause,
would have decided its rejection. Moreover, if one
of the gospels had been published much in advance
of the others, it is not probable that a second account
of the ministry of Christ, confirmatory to any great
extent of the preceding one, would have been written.
A supplementary gospel, like that of John, might of
course have been added in any case; but had the
Gospel of Matthew, for instance, been composed, as
some have supposed, before the separation of the
apostles and the formation of distinct Christian communities, it would have been carried, together with
Christianity, into all parts of the world; and it is
very unlikely that, in that case, the Gospels of Mark
and Luke, which cover chiefly the same ground,
would have been written. The need of written gospels was not felt at first, while the apostles and companions of Christ were in full vigor, and were continually moving from  place to place, relating with all
the fullness and variety of oral discourse the miracles
which they had seen wrought, and the gracious words
which they had heard uttered by their Master. But,
as they grew old, and as the sphere of their labors
enlarged, and personal superintendence of the whole
Church by the apostolic body became difficult, the desire to possess a written gospel arose, and simultane



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             165
ously, in different parts of the Church, for different
portions of the Christian body, the three Gospels of
Matthew, Mark, and ILuke were published.
The peculiar relation of the synoptic Gospels to one
another, and to the Gospel of John, and the points
which modern criticism  has made on this relation
with reference to their inspiration, the reader will
find fully discussed in Part IV. It is sufficient, here,
to quote the following remarks of Dr. Lange on the
bearing which the peculiar relation of the Gospels to
each other have on their authenticity. Hie says:
"The attempts that have been made, in modern
times, to prove that the four Gospels weaken each
other's authority have had the very opposite result.
By their mutual relation to each other the Gospels
gain the compactedness of a house hewn into a rock;
for the relation of their differences and points of
agreement is so peculiar that sound criticism finds in
them, after every new investigation, four independent
witnesses for one and the same fact, and accordingly,
also, for each other. If, for instance, a critic wishes
to disprove the authority of the Gospel of John, he
recognizes that of three synoptic Gospels in order to
gain a point of attack against the fourth Gospel. But
the points of agreement between this and the three
other Gospels prove so many and so strong, that, by
recognizing the authority of the latter, the former is
virtually, also, recognized. Or, the Gospel of John is
taken for the authentic record of the Gospel history,
and the differences between this and the three other
Gospels are pointed out in order to shake thereby
the authority of the latter. But in this case, also,
the force of the agreement between the two sets of
documents proves -stronger than that of the differs




166            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
ences, so that, if the fourth Gospel is true, the subjectmatter of the three others must also be true. Again,
Luke and Matthew are taken in hand to undermine
the authority of Mark. But Mark has so much in
common with the two others, that if he falls they
must fall with him, while at the same time his peculiarities establish his independent authority. So, if
the second Gospel is made the original Gospel at the
expense of the first and third, Matthew and Luke
have so much that is peculiar to them, that their own
originality is placed beyond any and every reasonable
doubt, while they have, at the same time, so much in
common with Mark, that the recognition of the latter
involves that of their own authority. In all these
different directions the Gospels have been attacked
by modern criticism, but all such attacks have proved
futile. Their peculiar relation to one another is a
fine net of truth, spread out to catch all impure criticism, and to entangle the critics in their own contradictions. Or we may compare the four Gospels to a
wondrous grove, in which a magic influence makes
the godless critics run to and fro in utter confusion,
finding neither ingress nor egress. This magic influence proceeds from  the circle of the four Gospels,
because, from  the fourfold refraction of the One
Light of the world, there are issuing a thousand dazzling reflections for every oblique look, while the
straightforward look sees in the fourfold refraction
but the one Sun of the day. We may say that the
relation of the four Gospels to each other, while it
courts and challenges the spirit of criticism more
than any single one for itself, becomes in turn the
withering critique of every false criticism. Whenever criticism  undertakes to undermine one Gospel




THEIR AUTHENTICITY,              167
through the other, it overlooks the mysterious links
that bind them together, and thus digs its own grave.
While the four Gospels testify to the Divine origin
which they have in common, so completely and so
mysteriously, that every impure critique is put to
shame, they are in their outward form so purely human, that they thereby invite critical examination;
and they rest on so firm a basis that every new examination can only bring them additional gain."
~ 18. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPELS —A POSTULATE OF
REASON, AS IT ALONE ACCOUNTS FOR THE EXISTENCE
OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AND FOR SOME OF
PAUL'S EPISTLES, WHOSE AUTHENTICITY
IS UNIVERSALLY ADMITTED.
The Christian Church is in the world, and has been
in it a little more than eighteen centuries; that it
can be traced back to the historically-attested death
of Christ is placed beyond the possibility of a doubt
by.heathen and Jewish as well as Christian writers.
Josephus, lorn 37 A. D., says, in a passage, of which
we will include in brackets what has been justly declared to have been interpolated: "About this time
Jesus appears, a wise man, [if it is right to call him
a man, for he was] performing surprising deeds, [a
teacher of men, who willingly received the truth,]
and many Jews as well as heathen became his followers; [being the Messiah] on the accusations of our
chief men, Pilate condemned him to the cross; nevertheless, those who had loved him before did not
give up their faith in him; [for he appeared to them
alive on the third day, as the prophets had predicted
of him, besides many other marvelous things,] and
the generation of Christians, that are named after




168            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
him, is not extinct to this day."  (Ant. Jud., XVIII,
3, ~ 3.) In another passage, which can not be justly
suspected, Josephus, who grew up at Jerusalem  till
he was twenty-six years of age, and was thus a witness of the principal occurrences at Jerusalem, mentioned in the Acts, subsequently to the accession of
HIerod Agrippa, says: "Ananus.... called the
council of judges, and bringing before them James,
the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and certain others, he accused them of transgressing the
laws, and delivered them up to be stoned." (Ant.
Jud., XX, 9, ~ 1.) There existed, therefore, according to the testimony of Josephus, in the early part
of the first century, a body of followers of Christ.
Tacitus, the Roman historian, who wrote in the second half of the first century, says, (Ann., XV, 44,)
speaking of the fire which consumed Rome in Nero's
time, and of the general belief that he had caused it:
"In order, therefore, to put a stop to the report, he
laid the guilt, and inflicted the severest punishments
upon a set of people who were holden in abhorrence
for their crimes, and called by the vulgar, Christians.
The founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death
in the reign of Tiberius, under his Procurator, Pontius
Pilate. This pernicious superstition, thus checked for
a while, broke out again, and spread not only over
Judea, where the evil originated, but through Rome also,
whither all things that are horrible and shameful
find their way, and are practiced. Accordingly, the
first who were apprehended confessed, and then on
their information a vast multitude were convicted, not
so much of the crime of setting Rome on fire, as of
hatred to mankind." Suetonius says briefly in reference to the same occasion: "The Christians were




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              169
punished, a set of men of a new and mischievous superstition." (Vita Ner., ~ 16.) The younger Pliny,
while he was Governor of Bithynia, says, in an
official report to Trajan: "They [that is, those Christians who recanted] declared that the whole of their
guilt, or their error, was, that they were accustomed
to meet on a stated day, before it was light, and to
sing in concert a hymn of praise to Christ, as God,
and to bind themselves by an oath, not for the perpetration of any wickedness, but that they would not
commit any theft, robbery, or adultery, nor violate
their word, nor refuse, when called upon, to restore
any thing committed to their trust. After this, they
were accustomed to separate, and then to reassemble
to eat in common a harmless meal. Even this, how-.
ever, they ceased to do, after my edict, in which,
agreeably to your commands, I forbade the meeting
of secret assemblies. After hearing this, I thought
it the more necessary to endeavor to find out the
truth by putting to the torture two female slaves,
who were called'deaconesses.' But I could discover
nothing but a perverse and extravagant superstition;
and therefore I deferred all further proceedings till
I should consult with you. For the matter appears
to me worthy of such consultation, especially on account of the number of those who are involved in peril.
For many of every age, of every rank, and of either
sex are exposed, and will be exposed to danger. Nor
has the contagion of this superstition been confined
to the cities only, but it has extended to the villages,
and even to the country. Nevertheless, it still seems
possible to arrest the evil, and to apply a remedy.
At least, it is very evident that the temples, which had
already been almost deserted, begin to be frequented,
15




170            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
and the sacred solemnities, so long interrupted, are
again revived; and the victims, which  heretofore
could hardly find a purchaser, are now every-where
in demand. From this it is easy to imagine what a
multitude of men might be reclaimed, if pardon should
be offered to those who repent." (Pliny, Ep. X, 97.)
It is not necessary to quote any more testimonies
concerning the existence of a great body of Christians before the close of' the first century.
Now, to some of these Christians at various places
the apostles addressed their Epistles, and there are
no valid reasons for entertaining any doubt concerning their authorship, except, perhaps, in the case of
that to the Hebrews, and of the two shorter Epistles.which are assigned to John. All these Epistles are
not only consistent with, but imperatively demand, our
belief in the authenticity of such historical documents
as our four Gospels are. It is indisputable that the
writers, and those to whom they wrote, believed in
the recent occurrence of a set of facts similar to, or
identical with, those recorded in the Gospels and the
Acts, especially those fundamental facts upon which
the Christian faith rests.  "-Great is the mystery of
godliness," says Paul.  " God was manifest in the
flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received
up into glory."  (1 Tim. iii, 16.) "Christ," says Peter,
"suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that
he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
flesh, but quickened in the Spirit." (1 Peter iii, 18.)
"He received from God the Father honor and glory,
when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son in whom  I am
well pleased; and this voice which came from heaven




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.            171
we heard, when we were with him  in the holy
mount."  (2 Peter i, 17, 18.)  "God raised up Christ
from the dead, and gave him glory." (1 Peter i, 21.)
"He is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand
of God, angels and authorities and powers being made
subject to him." (1 Peter iii, 22.) "Remember," says
Paul, "that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was
raised from the dead." (2 Tim. ii, 2, 8.) "If Christ
be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your
faith also is vain."  (1 Cor. xv, 14.)  "I delivered
unto you first of all that which I also received, how
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day according to the Scriptures; and that
he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, after that
he was seen of James, then of all the apostles." (1
Cor. xv, 3-7.)  These are only half a dozen texts out
of hundreds which might be adduced to show that
Paul represented the death of Christ on the cross, as
necessary to procure the pardon of our sins, or to
make that pardon consistent with God's justice and
truth; he does not mention the charge on which he
was condemned to this ignominious death, but that
was necessarily implied. It was a Roman punishment, and Pilate could not condemn a public teacher,
whose morals were spotless, on any other charge than
that which the Evangelists state at large, and which
no enemy of Christ gainsayed, to which He himself
pleaded guilty in reply to the adjuration of Caiaphas;
namely, "that he said, he was the Christ, the Son of
God "-a declaration by which the Roman governor,
interpreting it according to the well-known Jewish
notions of the Messiah, understood Jesus to have proclaimed himself "the king of the Jews;" on which




172            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
account he wrote that charge on the tablet over the
cross. Paul tells us, (Gal. i, 12,) that he had received
his Gospel by the revelation of Jesus Christ, and he
proves it by preaching the same Christ, whom the
four Evangelists delineate. Matthew records the last
commission of Jesus, commanding his disciples to
baptize all nations "in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."  God is here
called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and the same
divinity is claimed for the Son and Holy Ghost as for
the Father. John calls Jesus in his antemundane
state " the Word, that was with God from the beginning, and that was God," and says: "the Word became flesh." Paul teaches Clrist's divinity proper,
and his incarnation not less distinctly and emphatically than John or Matthew. " To us there is but one
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in
him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by him."  (1 Cor. viii, 6.)  "Ye know
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he
was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye
through his poverty might be rich."  (2 Cor. viii, 9.)
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of
no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." (Phil. ii,
6, 7.)  "God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh."  (Rom. viii, 3, 32.)  These are only a few
texts out of a hundred, which might be adduced to
show that the writers of the Epistles entirely agree
with the Evangelists, as to the facts on which Christianity is based, and as strongly assert their reality.
If we find in Paul's Epistles some doctrines that are




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              173
not in the Gospels, and if others are set forth more
fully and distinctly, it is exactly what we have to
expect according to John xvi, 12-14.
But we will go a step further and make the argument more direct and more pointed in giving it a
strictly historical character. " Christianity or revealed
religion is," as Rawlinson remarks in the opening of
his Lectures on the "Historical Evidences," "in nothing more distinguished from the other religions of the
world, than in its objective or historical character.
The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, India,
Persia, and the East generally, were speculative systems, which did not even seriously postulate a historical basis. But it is otherwise with the religion of
the Bible. There, whether we look to the Old or the
New Testament, to the Jewish dispensation, or to the
Christian, we find a scheme of doctrine which is
bound up with facts; which depends absolutely upon
them, and which is null and void without them."
The truth of this remark we will illustrate and confirm by a consideration of the incontestable facts implied in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, the Corinthians,
and the Galatians-Epistles which, even by those critics
who have assailed the authenticity of every other
portion of the New Testament Canon, are admitted to
be authentic, that is, to have been composed by the man
whose name they bear, at the time and for the class of
readers that are claimed for them.
There was in the churches in Galatia and at Corinth a party which denied the apostolic authority of
Paul, which saw in him, at best, an apostle's disciple.
Paul, in vindicating his apostolic authority, appeals
to his call by the risen Savior, and to his possessing
the power to work miracles.  He commences the




174            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Epistle to the Galatians with these words: " Paul, an
apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the
dead."  The mention of the resurrection of Christ, in
this connection, is evidently made to remind the Galatians that he had seen the risen Savior as well as
the other apostles. It appears from  verses 13-17,
that they were well acquainted with his former enmity against Christ and his disciples, and with the
miraculous event which resulted in his conversion.
In 1 Cor. xv, 8, the apostle tells the Corinthians that
the risen Savior was seen (divpO) by him, as he had
been seen by others, and, 1 Cor. ix, 1, he bases his
apostleship upon his personal knowledge of Christ,
obtained by actual sight (EOSpaxa.) From this sight,
which took place with the natural eye, in a state of
perfect self-consciousness, Paul distinguishes a vision,
of which he himself does not know whether he had
it in or out of the body. (2 Cor. xii, 1, 2.) Yet the
personal manifestation of the risen Savior, narrated
Acts ix, although it was the most important in point
of its effects and differed also in its nature from subsequent manifestations of the Lord, was not an isolated fact in the life of the apostle, but only the grand
opening act of his personal communion with the Lord.
He appeals in different places to especial revelations
of Christ on doctrinal points, in full accordance with
what the Lord had told him at his conversion: "I
have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make
thee a minister both of these things which thou hast
seen, and of those things in the which I will appear
unto thee."
Now, what deductions are we compelled to draw
from what Paul writes to the Galatians and Corinthi



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             175
ans respecting his having seen the risen Savior? If
he has told the truth, if Christ appeared to him, then
the truth of what the Evangelists have reported of
the resurrection of Christ receives an incontestable
confirmation, and the verity of that fact involves the
authenticity of the Gospels. The latter has never been
called in question by any who admit the resurrection
of Jesus. It is attacked simply, as we shall show in
the next Part, on the ground of the miraculous elements of the Gospel narratives. Whoever admits the
miracle of Christ's resurrection can not object to the
other miracles recorded in the Gospels.
But is Paul's testimony of having seen the risen
Savior trustworthy?  Was he a man of veracity, and
of a sound mind? Has he told the truth?  We answer: 1. If Christ did not appear to Paul, neither
did he receive those miraculous powers to which he
appealed in vindication of his apostolic authority,
in letters whose authenticity, even those who assail
every other portion of the New  Testament Canon
have felt themselves compelled to acknowledge. And
how were, then, the Galatians and Corinthians brought
to believe his Gospel of a risen Savior? 2. If Paul
has not told the truth, we must set him down either
as one of the most stupid victims of a disordered
imagination, or as a willful impostor. For we must
bear in mind that he did not become an apostle for
the promulgation of mere theories or speculations,
such as would admit of both intellect and candor.
All he preached was based upon his testimony of the
fact of the resurrection of the crucified Redeemer.
Can we conceive the author of such a composition
as the Epistle to the Romans to have been the
wretched dupe of an entirely unaccountable self-de



176            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
ception?  That he was-far from  being a weakminded enthusiast or fanatic-a man of gigantic intellect, high culture, dialectic skill, inflexible purpose,
and indomitable courage, the destructive criticism of
modern infidelity must unwillingly admit, inasmuch
as, in order to put the person of Christ out of the
way, Paul is made the self-constituted founder of the
Christian Church, and, consequently, the author of
the whole modern civilization and culture.
Or was Paul a willful impostor?  Is it conceivable
that he should have blasted all his earthly prospects,
and subjected himself to unceasing privations and
sufferings, (2 Cor. xi, 23-27,) in order to make Jews
and Gentiles believe what, in the case supposed, he
must have known to be a lie?  The thought is as
great an outrage upon commlon-sense, and as black a
libel upon humanity as it is a daring blasphemy
against God. Hear how the apostle himself affirms his
candor and soberness: " Yourselves, brethren, know
our entrance in unto you, that it was not in vain.... For our exhortation was not of deceit,
nor of uncleanness, nor in guile. But as we were
allowed of God to be put in trust with the Gospel,
even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God,
which  trieth our hearts."  (1 Thess. ii, 1, 3, 4.)
"Therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have
received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the
hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but
by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves
to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2
Cor. iv, 1, 2.) "If Christ be not risen, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and
we are found false witnesses of God, because we have




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              177
testified of God that he raised up Christ.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of
all men most miserable." (1 Cor. xv, 14, 15, 19.)
So much with regard to Paul's testimony of having
seen the risen Savior. Let us also consider what he
says concerning the existence of miraculous powers
in the primitive Churches.  In the Epistle to the
Corinthians (1 Cor. xii-xiv) the apostle speaks of certain extraordinary gifts, (charismata,) not for the
purpose of proving their reality, or instructing his
readers about their origin, but taking their existence
for granted, he merely gives direction about their
proper use. He mentions the gift of healing, prophecy, the discerning of spirits, and working of miracles.
If the existence of these gifts had not been an incontestable fact, the apostle could not have written
thus to a society of Christians, a part of whom did
not recognize his apostolical authority, for it would
have given his opponents the best means to destroy
all confidence in him even as a man of veracity. In
the Epistle to the Romans, (c. xii, 6,) these gifts are
likewise referred to. In Galatians iii, 5, we meet
again the working of miracles.  Thus these charismata appear in all the Churches, however remote
from each other they are. In the Epistle to the Galatians the apostle has a special object in appealing to
them.  The Galatians had been shaken  in their
Christian faith, and were in danger of apostatizing
from the Gospel which Paul had preached to them.
He reminds them  that they had received, through
his preaching of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit and the
power to work miracles. Now, if they had not received these powers, how could the apostle have
dared to argue thus? In vindicating his apostleship




178            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
against his detractors at Corinth, he appeals to the
miracles performed by himself before their eyes:
"The signs of an apostle were wrought among you
in all patience, in signs, wonders, and mighty deeds."
According to Acts xviii, 11, 18, the apostle was at
Corinth some eighteen months.  From  his miracles
not being mentioned there, we see that the writers
of the New Testament did not eagerly mention every
miracle of which they had knowledge, but passed by
many in silence for the reason given by John in his
Gospel, (c. xx, 30; xxi, 25.)
Other epistles of Paul show a decline of these
charismata in the Churches; in his pastoral letters
the apostle finds it necessary to point out the proper
qualifications of a minister of the Gospel, undoubtedly because the rich stream of miraculous gifts had
comparatively ceased to flow, and they no longer
pointed out to the Churches the proper persons for
the various offices. The Epistle to the Hebrews, no
matter by whom  it was written, was certainly written before the close of the first century; Clement of
Rome quotes from it largely, and internal evidences
demonstrate that it was composed while the Temple
worship was still in its full glory. The believing
Jews, like the Galatians, came in danger of apostatizing from the faith; for this reason they are reminded, (Heb. ii, 4,) of the miracles performed among
them  and accompanying the preaching of the Gospel by those who had heard the Lord. These miraculous powers appear here in nearly the same order in
which they stand, 2 Cor. xii, 12. We have thus the
strongest evidence that there was no difference in
this respect between the Jewish and heathen converts,
that the one enjoyed these gifts as well as the other.




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              179
From  this fact we have to infer that the Lord himself wrought such miracles as are recorded in the
Gospels, for the Master was certainly not inferior to
his disciples, and it is expressly so stated, Heb. ii, 4.
The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul
sustain the nearest relation to each other, and are
wonderfully confirmed one by the other.  The incidental allusions in the Epistles to facts related at
length in the Acts, and vice versa, as well as the
mention of facts in the one that are omitted in the
other, complete each other. No less striking is the
agreement between the Acts of the Apostles and the
Gospels.
1 19. THE ABSURDITY OF THE MYTHICAL THEORY.
Unless all the arguments by which we have established the authenticity of the Gospel records are of
no account, the mythical theory, laid down by Strauss
in his "Life of Jesus," has no ground on which it
can stand, and deserves no formal refutation.  To
state it is to refute it; and inasmuch as no English
or German writer has stated this theory so clearly
and fairly as Mr. Norton, we will give his statement,
showing thereby how utterly futile this last effort of
infidelity is to explain the origin of Christianity or
any one essential fact connected with its origin.
The external testimonies for the authenticity Strauss
sets aside by simply making the following assertions:
"The most ancient testimonies tell us, firstly, that an
apostle, or some other person who had been acquainted with an apostle, wrote a Gospel history;
but not whether it was identical with that which
afterward came to be circulated in the Church under
his name; secondly, that writings similar to our




180            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Gospels were in existence, but not that they were ascribed with certainty to any one apostle or companion
of an apostle. Such is the uncertainty of these accounts, which, after all, do not reach further back
than the third or fourth decade of the second century. According to all the rules of probability the
apostles were all dead before the close of the first
century, not excepting John, who is said to have
lived till A. D. 100; concerning whose age and death,
however, many fables were early invented. What an
ample scope for attributing to the apostles manuscripts they never wrote!"  (Strauss, Life of Jesus,
i, 62.) In the following passage he asserts still more
emphatically, that the apostles and their associates
are not to be held responsible for the fables contained
in the Gospels: "The fact that many such compilations-as the Gospels-of narratives concerning the
life of Jesus were already in general circulation
during the lifetime of the apostles, and more especially that any one of our Gospels was known to an
apostle and acknowledged by him, can never be
proved. With respect to isolated anecdotes, it is only
necessary to form an accurate conception of Palestine and of the real position of the eye-witnesses referred to, in order to understand that the origination
of legends, even at so early a period, is by no means
incomprehensible. Who informs us that they must
necessarily have taken root in that particular district
of Palestine where Jesus tarried longest, and where
his actual history was well known?  And with respect to eye-witnesses, if by these we are to understand the apostles, it is to ascribe to them absolute
ubiquity to represent them as present here and there
weeding out all the unhistorical legends concerning




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             181
Jesus, in whatever places they had chanced to spring
up and flourish." (Ibid., i, 63, 64.)
The internal evidences for the authenticity of the Gospels are entirely ignored by Strauss on account of the
internal evidences which he sets up in opposition to
them; namely, the contradictory statements which he
charges upon the Evangelists, and the impossibility
of' miracles. As these two objections are directed
against the historic verity or credibility of the Gospel records, we shall consider them in the next Part,
and proceed now to the statement of the mythical
theory itself in the words of Norton.
As there was among the Jews an eager expectation
of their Messiah, Jesus, at least during a part of his
ministry, regarded himself as the Messiah, as "the
greatest and last of the prophetic race."  He was,
consequently, so regarded by his followers. The expectation, which the Jews entertained of their Messiah, was definite and'characterized by many important particulars." They had formed many imaginations concerning him connected with allegorical
and typical misinterpretations of the Old Testament;
and, after the appearance of Jesus, there were some
among the Jews who converted their imaginations
of what the Messiah was to be into fictions of what
Jesus:had been, and embodied those fictions in a history of his ministry. The Jewish people generally
rejected him, as not their Messiah, and their leaders
persecuted and crucified him as a religious impostor
and blasphemer.  Nor, according to Strauss, were
the supposed fictions concerning him propagated by
his immediate disciples, who had witnessed his deeds
and listened to his words, his apostles, and their associates; nor, consequently, by those who knew and




182            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
held the truth concerning him, as taught by them.
To affirm that they were propagated by the apostles
and their associates would be to maintain what the
most reckless infidelity has shrunk from directly asserting; namely, that the received history of Jesus
is a collection of enormous falsehoods, fabricated by
his immediate disciples, and preached by them with
ineffable effrontery in the very face of those who
knew them  to be false. From  this simple solution
of the origin of our religion, the "mythical" theory
of Strauss essentially differs; for though he does not
define the sense in which he uses the term "mythus,"
it is fundamental in his theory that mythi, and particularly the mythi or fables concerning Jesus, are
not generally intentional falsehoods. It is this characteristic alone which distinguishes it from the more
obvious and base solution of the origin of Christianity which has been adverted to. According to
Strauss, the greater part of those fictions concerning
Jesus, which are embodied in the Gospels, became
connected with his history during the period of about
thirty years which intervened between his death and
the destruction of Jerusalem, (Strauss, i, 84,) that is,
during the period throughout which many of his
apostles and their associates-the first preachers of
our religion-and the great body of those instructed
by them were living.  These fictions did not proceed
from, nor were they countenanced by, them, nor were
they received as true by those who relied on their
authority. How, notwithstanding, they obtained such
currency as almost immediately to obscure and obliterate his true history, is to be thus explained:
The age, it is true, was "a historical age," by
which term Strauss, I suppose, must be understood




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             183
as meaning an age in which facts would be recorded,
and mythological fables would not find ready currency-but "the pure historic idea was never developed among the Hebrews."  "Indeed, no just notion
of the true nature of history is possible, without
a perception of the inviolability of the chain of
finite causes and of the impossibility of miracles.
This perception, which is wanting to so many minds
of our own day, was still more deficient in Palestine,
and, indeed, throughout theRoman Empire. And to
a mind still open to the reception of the marvelous,
if it be once carried away by the tide of religious
enthusiasm, all things will appear credible; and
should this enthusiasm  lay hold of a yet wider circle, it will awaken a new creative vigor even in a
decayed people. To account for such an enthusiasm
it is by no means necessary to presuppose the Gospel
miracle as the existing cause. This may be found in
the known religious dearth of that period, a dearth
so great that the cravings of the mind after some religions belief excited a relish for the most extravagant forms of worship; secondly, in the deep religious
satisfaction which was afforded by the belief in the
resurrection of' the deceased Messiah, and by the essential principles of the doctrine of Jesus." (Strauss,
i, 64, 65.)
The theory of Strauss necessarily supposes that
Jesus was a conspicuous individual who acted strongly
on the minds of men. Before this theory can be received, it becomes requisite to explain the very rapid
growth of those most extraordinary fictions concerning him, which sprung up and flourished while very
many of his cotemporaries were still living; especially as by a great majority of those cotemporaries,




184           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
his enemies, they would be at once indignantly
spurned and trampled under foot, as being, what
they were, monstrous falsehoods; while by another
portion, the first adherents of Jesus, and the original
witnesses of his ministry, their growth, to say the
least, was not fostered-they did not rest on their
testimony. Strauss has shown himself sensible that
an explanation of this phenomenon is requisite; and
the solution which he gives of the sudden development of such an array of fables concerning Jesus
may be found in the following passage. It may be
readily understood, if we bear in mind what has been
before stated, that, according to his theory, the Jews
had entertained -many imaginations concerning their
expected Messiah; and that the process in forming
the history of Jesus which has come down to us,
consisted in converting these imaginations of what
was to be into fables concerning Jesus.
He says: "A frequently-raised objection still remains,... the objection, namely, that the space
of about thirty years from the death of Jesus to the
destruction of Jerusalem, during which the greater
part of the narratives must have been formed-or
even the interval extending to the beginning of the
second century, the most distant period which can
be allowed for the origin of even the latest of these
Gospel narratives-is much too short to admit of the
use of so rich a collection of mythi. But as we have
shown, the greater part of these mythi did not arise
during that period, for their first foundation was laid
in the legends of the Old Testament before and after
the Babylonish exile; and the transferrence of these
legends, with suitable modifications, to the expected
Messiah was made in the course of the centuries




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             185
which elapsed between that exile and the time of
Jesus. So that, for the period between the foundation of the first Christian community and the writing
of the Gospels, there remains to be effected only the
transferrence of Messianic legends, almost all ready
formed, to Jesus, with some alterations to adapt them
to Christian opinions and to the individual character
and circumstances of Jesus; only a very small proportion of mythi having to be formed entirely new."
(Strauss, i, 84, 85.) This is the only explanation he
affords.
It appears, then, according to Strauss, that some
time during the thirty or forty years after the death
of our Lord, the small body of his followers among
the Jews was divided into two parties of very different characters. One was composed of his personal
friends and followers, the apostles and their associates, who knew his true history and doctrines, and
who did not propagate those falsehoods concerning
him on which the religion of Christians is founded.
The other was composed of persons who did propagate those falsehoods.  These had their origin, as
Strauss suggests, in districts of Palestine where Jesus
did not tarry long, and where his actual history was
not well known, and it would, he says, be ascribing
absolute ubiquity to the apostles to suppose them to
have been capable of being present here and there
to weed out all the unhistorical legends concerning
him in whatever places they had chanced to spring
up and flourish.  (Strauss, i, 63, 64.)  Those who
propagated these fictions concerning him had no intention of deceiving.  They were unconscious of
falsehood; they believed that what they related had
actually taken place. They had so little acquaintance
16




186            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
with Jesus or with the eye-witnesses of his ministry,
that they did not know that all which they affirmed
concerning him was untrue.  On the contrary, they
were persuaded that it was true.  But though, as
Strauss suggests, their fictions may not originally
"have taken root in that particular district of Palestine where Jesus tarried longest," (Strauss, i, 84,)
yet, in order to make converts to the belief of them,
it was necessary that they should be preached in
parts of Palestine where our Lord had been well
known, and where there could be no ignorance respecting the essential facts in his ministry. Here,
on the one hand, they would be indignantly and vehemently contradicted by the great body of the unbelieving Jews, and on the other, they would be
denied and discountenanced by the true followers of
Christ. The innocent impostors, who, in their ignorance, propagated unconsciously such enormous
falsehoods concerning him, must have been surprised
to find all those acquainted with the facts in his history, whether friends or enemies, utterly confounded,
to say the least, by their marvelous stories. One
might think that their own confidence would have
been shaken by the direct and authoritative evidence,
which they must have encountered on every side, of
the falsehood of their narrations. It might seem,
moreover, that it would be impossible under such
circumstances to procure converts to the belief of
them. But such was not the case. Their own confidence was not shaken; they persisted in promulgating their stories, and they triumphed signally.
They are the true authors of Christianity. It is to
them we are indebted for the Gospels. Their fictions
have supplanted the real history of Christ, the orig



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              187
inal testimony of eye-witnesses, and have become
the foundation of Christian faith! Nor is this all.
Keeping themselves out of view, they have had complete success in putting their stories before the world
as resting on the authority of the apostles and their
associates, in making them responsible for their marvelous tales. The whole Christian world has believed
that these stories proceeded from apostles and their
associates. But it was not so. They proceeded from
another party among the followers of Jesus Christ,
a party that does not appear in history, the existence
of which is irreconcilable with all remaining records
and memorials of the times when it is supposed to
have flourished, utterly irreconcilable with all probability, and which, therefore, was unknown to the
world before its discovery by Strauss.
It is to be borne in mind that the distinguishing
characteristic of the theory of Strauss, the " mythical  theory of the origin of Christianity, consists in
the supposition that the mythi or fictions in the history of Jesus were not intentional fabrications for the
purpose of deception, but that they sprang up, as it
were, spontaneously; those among whom they originated, and by whom  they were propagated, being
unconscious of falsehood. This fact is fully recognized by Strauss, though not clearly apprehended
by him in its necessary relations. His reader should
keep it in mind. We must not suffer ourselves to
vacillate between two theories wholly inconsistent
with each other. The apostles and their associates
were, or were not, the most shameless of impostors.
According to Strauss they were not impostors. It
follows that the history of our Lord, which the Christian world has received, was'not derived from them,




188            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
though it grew to its present form principally while
the most, or many, of them  were living. It proceeded, therefore, from other individuals, of whom
history has preserved no record, and who must have
taught under the circumstances which have been
described.
We may next observe, that, however difficult was
the task of these teachers of our present religion in
persuading the cotemporaries and countrymen of an
individual as conspicuous as our Lord must have
been, to give credit to a history of him full of marvels that were utterly devoid of truth, yet this was
not the sole, nor the greatest, difficulty which they
are supposed to have overcome. This teaching consisted, as we are informed by Strauss, in identifying
the history of Jesus with the anticipations of the
Jews concerning their expected Messiah. The mythi
respecting this imaginary personage were ready made
for their use, and they had only to turn them into
historical fictions, and accommodate them to Jesus.
But every one knows what were the popular expectatiolis of the Jews respecting their coming Messiah.
Of him, David, the greatest of their kings, the founder
of their monarchy, was, in their view, the especial
type; though in all by which the favor of God had
distinguished David, the Messiah was to be far more
distinguished. He, too, was to be a monarch, the
restorer of the kingdom of Israel, a warrior, a conqueror, the deliverer and exalter of his people. Establishing the seat of his empire at Jerusalem, he was
to found a kingdom  extending over the world, and
enduring to the consummation of all things, over
which he was to rule without a successor. This was
the outline of their expectations, which, doubtless,




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             189
before the coming of our Lord, was filled up,. as it
has been since, with many particular imaginations
corresponding to its general character.
But according to Strauss, it was the purpose of
those who propagated the fabulous history of Jesus,
to evince that he was the Messiah through the correspondence of its fictions with the previous expectations of the Jews concerning the Messiah. This history actually shows one striking point of resemblance
in representing Jesus as the last great messenger of
God to the Jewish nation endowed with miraculous
powers. But the whole representation of the purpose
and effects of his mission, of his personal character,
of his humble condition in this world, of his determined repression of all hope of worldly aggrandizement for himself, his followers, or his countrymen,
of his annunciation to his immediate disciples that
they must submit to poverty and suffering, and prepare themselves for the last outrage of persecution,
together with the account of the apparent triumph
of his enemies, and of his cruel death-this representation, if it were a fiction, might seem to have been
devised in direct opposition to the expectations of the
Jews respecting their Messiah.
But it may be said that the facts to which I have
referred were so notorious that no other account could
be given by the honest impostors, who, unconscious
of falsehood, propagated the stories of his miracles.
Certainly these facts were so notorious that no other
account could be given but that which we have received. But such being the case, it follows that no
attempt could be more hopeless or more foolish, than
an attempt to persuade the Jews that the life and
death, the character, acts, and teachings of Jesus




190           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
corresponded to their previous expectations of the
Messiah. So far, indeed, from their finding any such
correspondence, we know that, during his ministry,
and after his death, he was rejected by a very great
majority of the nation, as disappointing all their
hopes from a Messiah, and exasperating their strongest prejudices.
This theory of Strauss is, indeed, an outrage upon
common-sense, if the preceding account of it be correct, and no one will pretend that it is not. But we
have as yet viewed this theory only under one aspect;
namely, in its relation to the Jewish nation. We will
consider it in some other very important relations in
which its author has not presented it, and in regard
to which he has, of course, given no explanation.
The heathens believed the Gospel, and of the
strength of their belief they gave sure proof by the
marvelous change which it wrought in their hearts
and lives, by the wide separation which it produced
between them and the heathen world, by their readiness to submit to all the deprivations and evils which
it brought upon them. Now, from  whom  did the
heathens receive their knowledge of Christianity and
of the Gospels? The theory of Strauss admits of but
one answer. According to this theory, they must
have received it not from the main body of the Jewish Christians, but from  those few mistaken men
among them  who, having little or no acquaintance
with Jesus, propagated, unconscious of falsehood, those
mythi concerning him  with which the Gospels are
filled, and who thus established in the world not
merely a fabulous history of him, the professed Messiah of whom they knew nothing correctly, but likewise a new religion, embracing the noblest principles




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.              191
of action, founded upon faith in one whose real history they had obliterated or rendered doubtful, and
whose character they had essentially misrepresented.
This is the only answer which the theory of Strauss
admits. But the only answer admitted by authentic
history and indisputable fact is that the heathens
were instructed in Christianity by the immediate followers and companions of our Lord, and by their associates-by those who were perfectly aware whether
their teaching was or was not true; that they received
our religion from  Barnabas, and Paul, and Luke,
from  Peter and Mark, from  the apostle John, who
resided so long among them, and from others associated with these early teachers. Above all, no degree of folly, certainly none to which a rational person can be required to give heed, will lead any one
to pretend expressly that there is any evidence or
any ground whatever for imagining that the Gospel
was preached to the heathen world in two different
forms; in one form by half-crazy fanatics, who filled
the history of our Lord with stories of fictitious miracles, and in another, by his immediate followers and
friends, who told the truth concerning him, whatsoever that was. But turning from  unquestionable
truths, we will enter the regions of mere hypothesis.
We will clear the ground, as far as possible, of those
facts that stand in our way.  The Epistles of Paul
we will regard as forgeries, and the whole history of
the propagation of Christianity, which may be gathered from the New Testament, as a fabrication. We
will suppose that these Christians received their
instruction in Christianity from  the fanatical and
ignorant portion of Christ's disciples. Every one
knows what these teachers effected. Let us consider




192             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
their means and the obstacles which they had to
encounter.
They were men very deficient in good sense. They
had taken no pains to inform themselves correctly
concerning the character, acts, and teaching of him
whose disciples they professed to be, and whom they
were so zealous in exhorting others to obey. They
had, on the contrary, fallen into the grossest mistakes
concerning them. God did not "bear them  witness
with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and
gifts of the Holy Ghost."  The pretense that he did
so is merely one of those fables which are put forward throughout the New  Testament. It was not
only morally, but physically, impossible that they
should produce any miraculous evidence of the truth
of their fictions. Nor were they distinguished for
eloquence or ability of any sort, since, though they
effected such an astonishing work, history has not
even preserved their names, but has falsely substituted for them those of other individuals-apostles
of Christ and the associates of apostles. Such were
the character and the facilities for accomplishing
their purpose, possessed by these zealous missionaries
of falsehood. What obstacles, then, had they to encounter?
According to Strauss their main purpose in their
mythical history of Christ, which we now find in
the Gospels, was to evince that a Messiah-named
Jesus-had appeared among the Jews. This was the
story which they propagated in the heathen world.
But the heathen world would have regarded only
with indifference or ridicule such a story from such
preachers-a story that a Messiah  had  appeared
among the Jews, a people toward whom the preva



THEIR AUTHENTICITY.           193
lent feelings of the heathens had been those of dislike and contempt; and in whose supposed good or
ill fortune in the advent of their Messiah it must
have been very hard to persuade them that they had
any concern. *
Admitting, however, that it were possible to excite their attention to the subject, with what ineffable scorn must they have regarded the sort of
evidence thus laid before them!. How would they
have listened to proofs founded on a pretended correspondence between a body of incredible fictions
and certain passages of a book called the Old Testament-a book for which they had no respect, which
even many of them had never heard of, and which,
it may be safely presumed, no one of them  had
read-which passages were represented to them  as
expressing typically or mystically what the Jews had
expected concerning the Messiah?  With how much
patience would they have listened to these Jewish
proselyting missionaries who had come among them,
when these missionaries themselves told them that
the person, whom they called on them to receive as
the Jewish Messiah, had been rejected by his own
nation as an impostor and blasphemer, and had, in
consequence of his pretensions, suffered a public execution, as ignominious as it was cruel? What must
they have thought of this Jewish Messiah, the deliverer of his people, when he was preached to them
after the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion
of the Jewish nation? Is it possible, an intelligent
reader may ask, that any one can have been so bewildered and confounded by irreligion and mysticism,
as to imagine that the most astonishing moral revolution in the history of mankind, the establishment
17




194            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of Christianity in the heathen world, was effected by
such agents, under such circumstances?
We add to Mr. Norton's critique of Strauss a few
remarks:
1. The mythical theory is a tissue of self-contradictory statements. One Gospel is rejected as spurious, and then, again, treated as authentic, in order to
prove from  it the spuriousness of another. In one
place we are told that the people, among whom these
myths originated, were in a state of childish ignorance and credulity, under the influence of an untutored, extravagant imagination; in another place we
are called upon to admire the deep philosophy, lying
at the bottom  of these evangelical myths, the expansive views, thorough analysis, and far-seeing sagacity of those ignorant and superstitious persons
who propagated them!
2. What we are called upon to believe by the mythical theory, is, in short, that Jesus-if he wrought
no miracles, and was the subject of no miraclescontradicted, in every circumstance of his birth, and
education, and teaching, and life, and death, the best
established and most cherished notions of all around
him, concerning the promised Messiah, and was, nevertheless, believed to be that Messiah. We are called
upon to believe that miracles were ascribed to him,
because the Messiah ought to have wrought miracles;
that he was believed to have risen again, because it
suddenly occurred to somebody that he ought to have
risen again; and that, by such a process as this, a creed
of fables was transmuted into a creed of facts, and,
toward the close of the second century, stamped indelibly, and with one impression, upon the faith
and institutions of the great Christian communities




THEIR AUTHENTICITY.             195
throughout the world, so that the consentient tradition of all these Churches ascribes their foundation
to the first disciples of Jesus Christ, and our Gospels
to those whose names they bear; and this tradition
is confirmed by the universal observance of the
sacraments, of the weekly Lord's day, and of Easter,
the special festival in remembrance of Christ's resurrection.
3. That no speculative system, based upon the
myth of an incarnate God, could have started such a
revolution in the moral world, as has been produced
by Christianity for over eighteen centuries, with the
manifest destiny to leaven and change the whole
world, is evident, from the fact, that all the philosophical elements, to which the mythical theory attributes the propagation of Christianity, are found
in the lofty speculations of Plato, in the logology of
Philo, and a host of Oriental myths, concerning incarnations of Deity; but though they were in the
world for centuries, they never exerted a worldrenewing influence.
4. "With this last effort," says Dr. Schaff, "infidelity seems to have exhausted its scientific resources.
It can only repeat itself hereafter. Its different theories have all been tried and found wanting. One
has in turn transplanted and refuted the other, even
during the lifetime of their champions. They explain nothing in the end; on the contrary, they only
substitute an unnatural for a supernatural miracle,
an inextricable enigma for a revealed mystery. They
equally tend to undermine all faith in God's providence, in history, and ultimately in every principle
of truth and virtue, and they deprive a poor and
fallen humanity, in a world of sin, temptation, and




196            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
sorrow, of its only hope and comfort in life and in
death.-The same negative criticism  which Strauss
applied to the Gospels, would, with equal plausibility,
destroy the strongest chain of evidence before a court
of justice, and resolve the life of Socrates, or Charlemagne, or Luther, or Napoleon, into a mythical
dream. The secret of the mythical hypothesis is the
pantheistic denial of a personal, living God, and the
a priori assumption of the impossibility of a miracle.
In its details it is so complicated and artificial, that
it can not be made generally intelligible, and in proportion as it is popularized, it reverts to the vulgar
hypothesis of intentional fraud, from which it professed, at the start, to shrink back in horror and
contempt."




PART III.
THE HISTORIC VERITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.








PART III.
THE HISTORIC VERITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS.
~20. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
IN the preceding Part, the authenticity of the Gospels has been established by the most conclusive evidences. A book, however, may be authentic; that is,
it may have been written by the author by whom it
claims to have been written, and yet have no claims
upon our confidence; that is, it may not be credible.
Though this is rarely the case with historical books,
and, in the nature of the case, inapplicable to such
records as the Gospels, yet, we will consider them for
the present, without any reference to their containing
a divine revelation, and subject them to the same
laws of historical criticism as may be applied to any
historical record.
199




200               THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
CHAPTER I.
A CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED AGAINST THE CREDIBILITY OF
THE EVANGELISTS.
Q 21. THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OR CONTRADICTIONS IN THE
FOUR GOSPELS.
IT has been asserted that the Evangelists differ in
some of their statements from  each other to such a
degree  as to  contradict each  other.  That we find
their records as different as we should expect them,
from independent writers, is admitted; but it can be
satisfactorily shown, that they are not of such a
nature as to impair their character as faithful and
trustworthy reporters. The charge of alleged contradictions will be refuted in detail, in the interpretation of the respective passages to which the charge
refers; such, for instance, as the difference with regard to the hour of the crucifixion of our Lord.  Here
we confine ourselves to general remarks:
1. The differences adduced, consist mostly of omissions by  one  Evangelist of what is mentioned  by
another, such omissions being regarded by Strauss
as equivalent to direct negatives.*   Throughout his:'With regard to the Annunciation, for instance, Mr. Rawlinson observes, we
find the following enumeration of discrepancies: "1. The individual who appears is called, in Matthew, an angel of the Lord; in Lllke, the angel Gabriel. 2. The
person to whom the angel appears is, according to Matthew, Joseph; according
to Luke, Mary. 3. In Matthew, the apparition is seen in a dream; in Luke,
while awake. 4. There is a disagreement with respect to the time at which the
apparition took place. 5. Both, the purpose of the apparition and the effect, are




THEIR  HISTORIC  VERITY.                       201
"Life  of Jesus,"  he  conceives himself at liberty  to
discard facts recorded by one Evangelist only, on the
mere ground of silence on the part of the others.
Whatever an Evangelist does not record, he is argued
not to have known; and his want of knowledge is
taken as a proof that the event could not have happened. The sophistry of such an argument is apparent.  Who  will deny  that eye-witnesses of one  and
the same  event notice  a different portion  of the attendant circumstances, and that, moreover, those who
record an event which they have witnessed, omit,
ordinarily, by far the greater portion of the attendant
circumstances, though  they  have noticed them  at the
different." In this way five discrepancies are created out of the single fact that
Matthew does not relate the Annunciation to the Virgin, while Luke gives no
account of the angelic appearance to Joseph. Similarly, in the section where the
calling of the first apostles is examined, discrepancies are seen between the fourth
and the first two Evangelists, in the following respects: "1. James is absent,
according to John's Gospel, and, instead of his vocation, we have that of Philip
and Nathanael. 2. In Matthew and Mark, the scene is the coast of the Galilean
Sea; in John, it is the vicinity of the Jordan. 3. In each representation there are
two pairs of brothers; but, in the one, they are Andrew and Peter, James and
John; in the other, Andrew and Peter, Philip and Nathanael. And, 4. In Matthew and Mark, all are called by Jesus; in John, Philip only, the others being
directed to him by the Baptist." Here, again, we have four discrepancies made
out of the circunstance, that the first two. Evangelists relate only the actual call
of certain disciples, while John informs us what previous acquaintance they had
of Jesus. So, from the mere silence of Matthew, Strauss concludes, positively,
that he opposes Luke, in not considering Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been
the original residence of our Lord's parents; from the omission, by the three earlier writers, of the journeys into Judea, during our Lord's ministry, he pronounces thatthey contradict John, who speaks of such journeys; he finds a discrepancy between this Evangelist's account of the relations between the Baptist
and our Lord, and the account of the others,,since he gives, and they do not
give, the testimony borne by the former to our Lord's character; he concludes,
from Luke's not saying that John the Baptist was in prison when he sent his two
disciples to our Lord, that he considered him as not yet cast into prison; he finds
Luke'S and Matthew's accounts of the death of Judas "irreconcilable," because
Luke sal s nothing of remorse, or of suicide, but relates what has the appearance
of a death by accident; he regards the presence of Nicodemus at our Lord's interment, as a "fabrication of the fourth Evangelist," simply because it is unnoticed by the others; he concludes, from their silence as to the raising of Lazarus,
that " it can not have been known to them," and, therefore, that it can not be
true; and, in other instances, too numerous to mention, he makes similar use
of the mere fact of omission.




202            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
time! Strauss's cavils could only have been precluded by the mere repetition, on the part of each
Evangelist, of the exact circumstances mentioned by
every other-a repetition which would have been
considered to mark collusion, and which would thus
have destroyed their value as distinct and independent witnesses. The deviations, therefore, with regard
to particular circumstances attending an event, are so
far from lessening the credibility of the Gospel history, that they rather increase it. They are deviations, such as are most sure to appear, wherever there
is the highest degree of harmlessness, the calmest
consciousness of entire truthfulness, and an entire
absence of collusion. And, suppose we should have to
acknowledge the existence of a deviation, for whichfrom a want of a full knowledge of all the attending
circumstances-we could not offer a satisfactory explanation; as, for instance, with regard to the cure
of the blind at Jericho, (Matt. xx, 29, 34; Mark x,
46, 52; Luke xviii, 35, 19)-such a concession would
still leave the credibility of the Gospel history untouched. It would only conflict with the verbal inspiration of the Evangelists, but they would remain historical authorities of the first order, witnesses as fully
to be trusted for the circumstances of our Lord's life,
as Xenophon for the sayings and doings of Socrates.
Even Lessing, that severe critic, while he pointed out
apparent discrepancies in the accounts of Christ's
resurrection, did not feel himself justified to reject
the fact itself on the ground of these discrepancies.
"Who," he says, "has ever drawn such an inference
in profane history?  If Livy, Polybius, and Tacitus
record the same event, but with such a difference, as
regards the attending circumstances; that the details




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           203
of the one seem irreconcilable to that of the other, is,
therefore, the event itself put in question? Now, if
we deal so trustfully with profane writers, why should
we torture the Evangelists for every syllable?"  To
which Tholuck adds:  "It will not be easy to find
two historians in classic antiquity, who, though equally
trustworthy, do not differ from, or even contradict,
each other, when they relate the same event, be it
from the imperfections of man's faculties of observation and description, or because the writers could
not anticipate our circumstances and meet our wants.
How insoluble are often the difficulties which arise
from the conflicting testimonies of trustworthy witnesses at court! He that would make shipwreck of
faith on account of some few insignificant discrepancies in the Gospel narratives, would be no greater
loss to the Church than he would be a gain, who is
induced to embrace the faith of the Gospel by no
weightier argument, than the proof that the Evangelists stated alike every particular of each event,
and wrote down the words of our Lord verbatim and
literatim, like stenographers."
2. By far the greatest number of the so-called discrepancies in the Gospels are of a chronological
character, and some of them-as, for instance, the
journey of Jesus into the country of the Gadarenes,
which, according to Matthew, was preceded by a number of events that followed it according to Mark and
Luke-might, indeed, be called contradictory, if it
could be shown that any of the Evangelists designed
to furnish us with a complete, consecutive account of
the ministry of Christ.  The very contrary of this
assumption is an undeniable fact. They evidently do
not intend, or pretend, to give us more than a selec



204           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
tion from the rich materials of the life and labors of
their Master. All that the Synoptists report of the
earlier half of his ministry is confined to a few fragments. From  Matt. xi, 21, it appears that Christ
had endeavored by mighty works to call Chorazin
to repentance; but neither Matthew nor the other
Evangelists say any thing of the works of Christ
performed there. It has, however, been contended,
that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, does claim to
give a history of Christ in chronological order. But
this is not so. Compared with the sketches, which
some Christians had made in an unauthorized manner, Luke could very properly call his work "perfect" and "in order," even though he did not pursue
the life of Christ from day to day, and week to week,
but gave what appeared to him  most important, in
some systematic order. Each of the Evangelists had
a plan of his own, according to which he arranged
and grouped the events, and, therefore, the sequencecalled akolouthia-df the events and sermons differs
in each of the Synoptists. But if this difference in
the selection and arrangement of the material in
each of the Synoptists has its ground in the special
plan which each followed, it is evident that this variety implies no incongruity or disharmony.  The
question, whether and how the chronological order
of the events, recorded by the Evangelists, can be
established, belongs to the subject of the Harmony
of the Gospels, which we shall treat in Part V. It
is sufficient to remark here, with regard to such sayings and discourses of the Lord as are placed by the
Evangelists in connection with different occasions,
that we are fully justified to assume, that similar
sayings and discourses were delivered by our Savior




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            205
more than once, at different times and under different circumstances, as appears, for instance, clearly
from those denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees which were first uttered by our Lord on his
journey to Jerusalem, (Luke xi, 37,) afterward solemnly repeated in the Temple at the close of his
public ministry.  (Matt. xxiii.)
~ 22. THE ASSUMPTION THAT MIRACLES ARE IMPOSSIBLE AND
UNSUSCEPTIBLE OF PROOF.
While German rationalism has vainly tried to disprove the verity of the miracles recorded in the
Gospels, that is, to explain away the miraculous nature of these occurrences by means of an interpretation, admitted now on all hands to be entirely unauthorized and absurd-pantheistic and atheistic philosophy denies the miracles on the plea of their
impossibility. This stupendous assumption is the basis upon which the criticism of Strauss, in his "Life
of Jesus," rests. Miracles are to be declared impossible, and, therefore, a narrative of which supernatural occurrences form an essential part, is, just so far,
said to be devoid of historic character. The thesis
that miracles are impossible, implies, of course, that
the word "miracle" is not used in the sense of the
Latin "mirabile,"  meaning something wonderful arising from natural causes not known at the time of its
taking place, or yet unknown. With this is conceded
the proper definition of a miracle. It is a Divine interposition to accomplish, by special agency, an effect not to be reached in the natural course and order
of events. But the denial of the possibility of such
an interposition-from whatever stand-point the argument is attempted, whether with reference to phil



206            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
osophical conceptions of God's nature and attributes,
or with reference to experience and the empirical
laws of Nature, which are said to preclude the possibility of a sufficient evidence of the miracle-can be
shown to be a mere begging of the question.  Let
us examine this axiom  of modern infidelity in its
chameleon-like phases, which all may be summed up
under two general heads.
I. Spinoza, the father of modern pantheism, to
whom  God and nature are one, says in substance:
"A miracle is inconsistent with the perfections of the
Deity, for it is conceivable only upon the supposition
that the self-manifestation of God in nature proved
defective, but such a supposition would be irreconcilable with a belief in God's perfection." In this
syllogism  Spinoza takes for granted: 1. That there
is in the universe no self-conscious, personal Intelligence, independent of matter, for he defines a miracle, at another place, "as something which we can
not explain by a natural law, but which has always
a natural cause," admitting evidently of no other
Divinity than what nature manifests. HMatter is to him
the only image of his God. 2. That the world is still
in its original, normal state, its harmony not having
been disturbed by sin, the act of free moral agents,
and that, therefore, there is no need of a Divine interposition for moral purposes, that is, for the sake
of the moral beings in the physical universe. On
the contrary, it is assumed, that the universe is governed only by physical laws, not by moral laws, and
that a miracle would be an alteration of the established machinery of nature. 3. That, because nature
is an expression of God's will, there can be no other
expression.  It is assumed that, because God acts




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            207
after a particular mode in certain circumstances, he
can never have reasons for acting after a different
manner in other circumstances.  It is assumed that
an addition is an inconsistency, that to superinduce
any thing further upon sdmething previously existing is to declare that which thus existed to have
been wrong or bad. It is evident that, unless these
premises can be proved, the pantheistic argument
against miracles falls to the ground. "The simple
question," says Dr. J. Haven, in an article on miracles, (Bibl. Sacra, 1862,) "is this: Is there a Deity at
all?  Or is all power to be resolved into this great
system of universal, inevitable, eternal law-this grand
machinery of' eternally-impressed consequences,' that
goes grinding and clanking on from  eternity to
eternity? If the latter, then we grant that miracles
are out of question. But if there be a God, as some
of us in our simplicity have supposed; if we may
crave the indulgence of this highly-cultivated age so
far as to be permitted to retain the antiquated notion
of a Deity at the head of affairs; and if we place
this Deity where he belongs, behind all those laws,
and above them all, as their source and spring, then
why may not the power that usually works in and
by such and such methods or laws, if occasion requires, act in some other way, without or above
those laws?  Nay, why may he not, if necessary to
the accomplishment of his purposes, even reverse, or
wholly set aside for the time, those usual methods
of procedure which we call laws of nature?"  We
call an event natural, when it is produced by natural
means or agencies.  But God, who created these
agencies and set them in operation, is himself supernatural, and when he operates in nature otherwise




208            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
than through those so-called natural causes, we call
the work supernatural.  The work of creation is supernatural; it is a work in nature, proceeding from
a power above nature.  The raising of the dead
would be supernatural, for there is no physical or
physiological law capable of producing such a result.
To contend that every event or phenomenon must
be referred as an effect to a physical law, is simply
to deny both the existence of a Supreme Intelligence as the original cause or creator, and that of
the power of self-determination of the human will,
either of which being denied, neither the possibility
of miracles nor any other question of relation or
morality is worth speaking about. "Admit, on the
other hand, the existence of a free will in man, and
we have the experience of a power analogous, however inferior, to that which is supposed to operate in
the production of a miracle, and forming the basis of
a legitimate argument from the less to the greateras Twesten shows in his'&orlefungen iiber bie  0ogmatif.' In the will of man we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause, in the highest sense of
the term, acting among and along with the physical
causes of the material world, and producing results
which would not have been brought about by any
invariable sequence of physical causes left to their
own action. We have evidence also of an elasticity,
so to speak, in the constitution of nature, which permits the influence of human powers on the phenomena of the world to be exercised or superseded at
will, without affecting the stability of the whole.
We have thus a precedent for allowing the possibility of a similar interference by a higher will on a
grander scale, provided for by a similar elasticity of




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.          209
the matter subjected to its influence.  Such interferences, whether produced by human or by superhuman will, are not contrary to the laws of matter;
but neither are they the result of those laws. They
are the work of an agent who is independent of the
laws, and who, therefore, neither obeys them  nor
disobeys them.  (See 9Sotbe in etlbien unb kritifen,
1858, p. 33.) If a man, of his own free will, throws
a stone into the air, the motion of the stone, as soon
as it has left his hand, is indeed determined by a
combination of purely-material laws. But by what
law came it to be thrown at all? What law brought
about the circumstances through which the aforesaid
combination of material laws came into operation on
this particular occasion and in this particular manner? The law of gravitation, no doubt, remains constant and unbroken, whether the stone is lyin'g on
the ground or moving through the air; but neither
the law of gravitation nor all the laws of matter
put together could have brought about this particular result, without the interposition of the free will
of the man who throws the stone. Substitute the will
of God for the will of man; and the argument, which
in the above instance is limited to the narrow sphere
within which man's powers can be exercised, becomes
applicable to the whole extent of creation and to all
the phenomena which it embraces."  (Mansell on
Miracles, p. 28.) As this argument ought to be apprehended with the utmost clearness, we will give it
as stated by another late English writer, Dr. Heurtley, in his refutation of Baden Powell: " The human
will is the element, the action of whose disturbing
force upon the material system  around us comes
most frequently or most strikingly under our notice.
18




210            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Man, in the exercise of his ordinary faculties, is perpetually interfering with, or molding, or controlling
the operation of those ordinary laws of matter which
are in exercise around him. He does so, if he does
but disturb one pebble in a state of rest, or stay the
fall of another before it reaches the ground. Hie
does so to a vastly-greater extent when, by means of
the appliances with which art, instructed by science,
has furnished him, he projects a ball to the distance
of four or five miles, or constrains steam, or light, or
electricity, or chloroform to do his bidding. Still his
doings are not miracles, because they do not extend
beyond the range of his unassisted powers.  But
what is there in the reason of things to make it incredible or even improbable, that God, on special occasions, and for special ends, may have endowed some
men with superhuman powers, by which the laws of
the material world may be controlled to an extent
beyond what could have been done by unassisted nature? or that he may have directed or permitted beings superior in might to man to exercise such powers? That he has done so Scripture affirms. To say
that it is contrary to experience is to beg the whole
question at issue. The fact is, once admit that there
is a God, and that he may, for special reasons, endow
man with higher powers, and you grant that there
are agents who have it in their power to interfere
with or control the laws ordinarily in operation
in the material world, so as to work miracles. Admit, further, that there may be an occasion calling
for superhuman  interference-and  such  surely is
the authentication of a revelation containing truths
which it was of the utmost consequence for man to
know, but of which, except by revelation, he could




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           211
know nothing-and the possibility is advanced to the
highest probability."
We have shown, then, that "a miracle is not a violation of the laws of nature, in any sense in which such
a violation is impossible or inconceivable. It is simply the introduction of a new agent, possessing new
powers, and therefore not included under the rules
generalized from a previous experience. Its miraculous character, distinguishing it from mere new dis.
coveries in nature, consists in the fact that the powers in question are supposed to be introduced for a
special purpose, and to be withdrawn again when
that purpose is accomplished, and thus to be excluded
from the field of future observation and investigation.
But the supposition of such powers needs not imply
any violation of the present laws observed by present
natural agents. The laws of nature are simply general statements concerning the powers and properties
of certain classes of objects which have come under
our observation. They say nothing about the powers
and properties of other objects or classes of objects
which have not been observed, or which have been
observed with a different result. There are laws, for
instance, of one class of material agents which do not
apply to another; and there are laws of matter in
general which are not applicable to mind; and so
there may be other orders of beings of which we
have no knowledge, the laws of whose action may be
different from all that we know of mind or body. A
violation, in the proper sense of the word, of the laws
of nature would only take place, if, in two cases in which
the cause or antecedent fact were exactly the same, the
effect or consequent fact were different. But no such
irregularity is asserted by the believer in miracles.




212            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
lie does not assert that miracles are produced by the
abnormal action, of natural and known causes-on
the contrary, he expressly maintains that they are
produced by a special interposition of Divine power;
and that such an interposition, constituting in itself
a different cause, may reasonably be expected to be
followed by a different effect.  So far, then, as a
miracle is regarded as the operation of a special
cause producing a special effect, it offers no antagonism to that general uniformity of nature, according
to which the same effects will always follow from the
same causes.  The opposition between science and
miracle, if any exist, must be sought in another
quarter; namely, in the assumption that the introduction of a special cause is itself incredible. The
ground of such an assumption appears to lie in the
hypothesis that the existing forces of nature are so
mutually related to each other that no new power
can be introduced  without either disturbing the
whole equilibrium of the universe, or involving a
series of miracles, coextensive with the universe, to
counteract such disturbance." (Mansel, pp. 24, 25.)
To the last-named assumption it is sufficient to reply:
1. If we admit the personality and, as implied in the
personality, the moral nature of God, without which
admission no religion, no feeling of a spiritual relation between God and man, and no conception of a
mind superior to nature can have any existence, we
may doubtless believe that God from the beginning
so ordered the constitution of the world as to leave
room  for the exercise of those miraculous powers
which he foresaw would, at a certain time, be exercised; just as he has left similar room for the exercise, within narrower limits, of the human will.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           213
2. That God should interpose in the uniformities
which exist among natural phenomena, by introducing a new (miraculous) power, is the less surprising,
as he has permitted man, as a free moral agent, to
act contrary to the design for which he was created,
and thus, by sinning, to violate the originally-established order of nature, and the miraculous interposition of God has really for its object to restore
the order of things which has been disturbed by
the fall.
II. It is asserted that "even supposing a miracle
were wrought, it would be impossible to establish
the fact by evidence."  On what grounds is this assertion made?  Hume says: "A miracle is contrary
to human experience, and, therefore, incredible." To
state this argument is to refute it. Neither the major
nor the minor premise is true. To assert that miracles are contrary to all human experience is an assumption which begs the whole question in dispute.
That miracles are contrary to general experience is
very true, else they would not be miracles.  That
they are contrary to all human experience is not
true. So far from  this, they have become actually
the objects of human experience in connection with
the promulgation both of the Jewish and, afterward,
of the Christian systems of religion. The facts are
well attested, the statements clear, full, explicit. The
instances, though rare, yet, in the aggregate, are numerous. The witnesses are many, men of good character and good sense. They testify to plain facts,
about which there could well be no mistake. They
appeal to their cotemporaries for the truth of their
statements; and that testimony goes uncontradicted,
nay, is confirmed, by their enemies. Now, it is a




214            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
sheer begging of the question for any man to assert
that miracles are contrary to human experience,
when so many witnesses testify positively to the occurrences under their own observation of events,
which, if they really did occur as stated, must be
admitted to be miraculous. The fact that Mr. Hume,
or any number of men, did not see a miracle, does
not prove that nobody has ever seen one. Mere negative testimony can not outweigh positive. Nor is
the major premise of Mr. Hume's argument more
tenable. An event is not necessarily incredible, because not known to have occurred before. Is it quite
certain that nothing can take place in the world
which has not already taken place? Even if it were
conceded, then, as it is not, that miracles are contrary to human experience, it by no means follows
that they are, on that account, necessarily incredible.
If in ten thousand millions of occurrences we have
found nothing but natural occurrences-this will
never entitle us, by any logical rule, to declare that
in no other occurrence can there be supernatural
agency.
Again, it is said: "You can not prove a miracle,
as it is beyond the capacity of a man to tell what
powers are in nature. You may show us a phenomenon inexplicable in our present state of knowledge,
but this does not prove it to be beyond agencies of
nature as yet undiscovered by man."  It is sufficient
to reply to this, that, though we do not know the
full extent of the powers of nature, there are some
things-just such things as the works actually recorded as having been done by Christ and his apostles-of which we are quite certain that they are not
within the range of natural agency. Moreover, "in




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            215
proportion as the science of to-day surpasses that of
former generations, so is the improbability that any
man could have wrought in past times, by natural
means, works which no skill of the present age is
able to imitate. The effect, therefore, of scientific
progress, as regards Scriptural miracles, is gradually
to eliminate the hypothesis which refers them to unknown natural causes, and to reduce the question to
the following alternative: Either the recorded acts
were not performed at all, or they were performed,
as their authors themselves declare, by virtue of a
supernatural power consciously exercised for that
very purpose.  The theory which attempts to explain
them as distorted statements of events reducible to
known natural causes, has been tried by the rationalists
of Germany, and has failed so utterly as to preclude
all expectation of its revival, even in the land of its
birth. There remains only the choice between accepting the sacred narrative as a true account of
miracles actually performed, and  rejecting  it as
wholly fictitious and incredible; whether the-fiction
be attributed to the gradual accretion of mythical
elements, or for a later criticism  has come back
again to the older and more intelligible theory-to
the conscious fabrication of a willful impostor."
(Mansel, pp. 22, 23.) Again, it is said by Strauss, and
repeated by a writer in the late "Essays and Reviews:" "No testimony can reach to the supernatural; testimony can apply only to apparent, sensible
facts; testimony can only prove an extraordinary and
perhaps inexplicable occurrence or phenomenon: that
it is due to supernatural causes is entirely dependent
on the previous belief and assumptions of the parties."
To this Mansel (pp. 14, 15) makes the pertinent and




216            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
weighty reply: "It may, with certain exceptions, be
applicable to a case in which the assertion of a supernatural cause rests solely on the testimony of the
spectator of the fact; but it is not applicable to those
in which the cause is declared by the performer. Let
us accept, if we please, merely as a narrative of'apparent, sensible facts,' the history of the cure of the
blind and dumb demoniac, or of the lame man at the
Beautiful Gate; but we can not place the same restriction upon the words of our Lord, and of Peter,
which expressly assign the supernatural cause:'If I
cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you,' (Matt. xii, 28,) and,' By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth doth this
man stand here before you whole,' (Acts iv, 10.) We
have here, at least, a testimony reaching to the supernatural; and if that testimony be admitted in
these cases, it may be extended to the whole series
of wonderful works performed by the same persons.
For if a given cause can be assigned as the true explanation of any single occurrence of the series, it
becomes at once the most reasonable and probable
explanation of the remainder.... One miracle
is enough to show  that the series of events with
which it is connected is one which the Almighty has
seen fit to mark by exceptions to the ordinary course
of his providence; and, if this be once granted, we
have no a priori grounds on which we can determine
how  many of such exceptions are to be expected.
If a single miracle recorded in the Gospels be once
admitted, the remainder cease to have any special
antecedent improbability, and may be established by
the same evidence, which is sufficient for ordinary
events." Again, we are told: "In nature, and from




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            217
nature, by science and by reason, we neither have,
nor can possibly have, any evidence of a Deity working miracles; for that we must go out of nature and
beyond reason. If we could have any such evidence
from nature, it could only prove extraordinary natural
effects, which would not be miracles in the old theological sense, as isolated, unrelated, and uncaused;
whereas, no physical fact can be conceived as unique,
or without analogy and relation to others, and to the
whole system  of natural causes."  To this Dr. J.
Haven, quoted above, replies: "True, that which is
from nature, that is, produced by, natural causes, can
not be supernatural; but it is not true that in nature,
that is, within the limits and domain of nature, there
can be no occurrence of the supernatural. Nor is it
true that whatever is beyond the power of natural
causes to produce is, therefore, beyond the domain
of reason to investigate, and must be received, if at
all, only by a blind and unquestioning faith. That
is not for a moment to be conceded.' That which is
extra-natural is not of necessity incapable of proof.
The question whether a dead man was, on a certain
occasion, restored to life, is a question to be settled
wholly by evidence and investigation of reason. If
the event did occur, clearly it was supernatural; the
laws and forces of nature are not adequate to produce
such a result. But did it occur?  That is the real
question; and it is a question which falls as clearly
and fully within the range of rational investigation,
and the laws of evidence, as any question in physical
science."  One word more with reference to a phrase
which Strauss and a writer in the "Essays and Reviews " use in place of an argument, " that miracles
are inconceivable by reason."  This phrase can cer19




218            THIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
tainly not mean that we can not have an idea of a
miracle, for we can easily form the idea or notion of
an event in nature-for instance, of a person rising
from the dead, with a cause beyond nature. Those
who use it no doubt mean by it, that a miracle is
contrary to intuitive reason, that is, to a fundamental
law or coistitutional principle of the mind; such, for
instance, as the law of causation. If this were the
case, we grant that it would be impossible to establish a miracle. But what constitutional law of the
mind is contradicted by a miracle?  None has been
named. It is certainly not the law of causation; for
a supernatural event is not declared to be an effect
without a cause; it is merely an effect not resulting
from the agencies working in that system which we
call nature. The principle of cause and effect must
not be confounded with the principle of the uniformity of nature. While the former is universal, the
latter is only partial; it declares, for instance, that
fire left to itself will burn, but it does not say that
fire may not be counteracted by a higher and Divine
agency.  Upon a disregarding of this distinction
rests the assertion that a miracle is contrary to experience. Inductive philosophy has shown that there
is a set of agencies working in nature, and that there
is uniformity in their operations. All this is freely
granted; but when it is said that there can be nothing else, we demand the proof that every occurrence
must have a physical or mundane cause.  To this
demand infidelity has never given a response.
We have now met the assumption of the impossibility of miracles in all its various phases. The
verity of the miracles recorded in the Gospel history
rests upon the credibility of the Evangelists, and




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           219
upon the divine seal which the subject of their narrative, Jesus Christ, stamps upon the whole Gospel
history.
~ 23. THE ALLEGED LACK OF SUFFICIENT TESTIMONY BY PROFANE WRITERS.
The verification by profane writers of the many
incidental allusions to the civil history of the times,
which the writings of the Evangelists furnish, has
been set forth in ~ 16. In ~ 18 of the same chapter we have seen that the existence, at this time,
of one called by his followers Christ, the place of
his teaching, his execution by Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea under Tiberius, the rapid spread of
his doctrine through the Roman world, the vast number of converts made in a short time, the persecutions which they underwent, the innocency of their
lives, their worship of Christ as God, are witnessed
to by heathen writers of eminence, and would be certain and indisputable facts, had the New Testament
never been written. To expect from profane sources
a testimony concerning the supernatural facts recorded by the Evangelists would be absurd, since
those who believed them naturally and almost necessarily became Christians.
It has, however, been urged that, assuming the
historical truth of the New Testament narrative, we
might have expected far more frequent and fuller
notices of the Christian religion and its Founder
than the remains of antiquity furnish. It has, for
instance, been said that Josephus ought to have said
more of Christ; and Seneca, the brother of Gallio,
the observant Pausanias, the voluminous Plutarch,
the copious Dio, the exact Arian, should have made




220            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
frequent mention of Christianity in their writings,
instead of almost wholly ignoring it. To this objection Mr. Rawlinson makes the following reply:
"Let it be considered, in the first place, whether
the very silence of these writers is not a proof of the
importance which in their hearts they assigned to
Christianity, and the difficulty which they felt in
dealing with it-whether, in fact, it is not a forced
and studied reticence-a reticence so far from being
indicative of ignorance that it implies only too much
knowledge, having its origin in a feeling that it was
best to ignore what it was unpleasant to confess and
impossible to meet satisfactorily. Pausanias must
certainly have been aware that the shrines of his beloved gods were in many places deserted, and that
their temples were falling into decay, owing to the
conversion of the mass of the people to the new religion; we may be sure he inwardly mourned over
this sad spirit of disaffection-this madness, as he
must have thought it, of a degenerate age; but no
word is suffered to escape him on the painful subject;
he is too jealous of his gods' honor to allow that
there are any who dare to insult them. Like the
faithful retainer of a fallen house, he covers up the
shame of his masters, and bears his head so much
the more proudly, because. of their depressed condition. Again, it is impossible that Epictetus could
have been ignorant of the wonderful patience and
constancy of the Christian martyrs, of their marked
contempt of death, and general indifference to worldly
things; he must, one would think, as a Stoic, have
been moved with a secret admiration of those great
models of fortitude, and if he had allowed himself to
speak freely, could not but have made frequent ref



THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            221
erence to them. The one contemptuous notice, which
is all that Arian reports, sufficiently indicates his
knowledge; the entire silence, except in this passage,
upon what it so nearly concerned a Stoical philosopher to bring forward, can only bo viewed as the
studied avoidance of a topic which would have been
unpalatable to his hearers, and to himself perhaps
not wholly agreeable. The philosopher who regarded
himself as raised by study and reflection to an
exalted hight above the level of ordinary humanity, would not be altogether pleased to find that his
elevation was attained through the power of religion, which he looked on as mere fanaticism. Thus,
from different motives-from pride, from policy, from
fear of offending the chief of the State, from real attachment to the old heathenism, and tenderness for
it-the heathen writers who witnessed the birth and
growth of Christianity united in a reticence which
causes their notices of the religion to be a very insufficient measure of the place which it really held
in their thoughts and apprehensions. A large allowance is to be made for this studied silence in estimating the value of the actual testimonies to the
truth  of the New  Testament narrative adducible
from heathen writers of the first and second centuries.
"And the silence of Josephus is, more plainly still,
willful and affected. It is quite impossible that the
Jewish historian should have been ignorant of the
events which had drawn the eyes of so many to
Judea but a few years before his own birth, and
which a large and increasing sect believed to possess
a supernatural character.  Jesus of Nazareth was,
humanly speaking, at least as considerable a personage as John the Baptist, and the circumstances of his




222            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
life and death must have attracted at least as much
attention. There was no good reason why Josephus,
if he had been an honest historian, should have mentioned the latter and omitted the former. He had
grown to manhood during the time that Christianity
was being spread over the world; he had probably
witnessed the tumults excited against Paul by his
enemies at Jerusalem (Acts xxi, 27, etc.; xxii, 22, 23;
xxiii, 10;) he knew  of the irregular proceedings
against'James, the Lord's brother,' (Gal. i, 9;) he
must have been well acquainted with the persecutions which the Christians had undergone at the
hands of both Jews and heathen; at any rate he
could not fail to be at least as well informed as Tacitus on the subject of transactions of which his own
country had been the scene, and which had fallen
partly within his own lifetime.'When, therefore, we
find that he is almost entirely silent concerning the
Christian religion, and, if he mentions Christ at all,
mentions him only incidentally in a single passage,
as,'Jesus, who was called Christ;' when we find this,
we can not but conclude that, for some reason or
other, the Jewish historian practices an intentional
reserve, and will not enter upon a subject which excites his fears or offends his prejudices. No conclusions inimical to the historic accuracy of the New
Testament can reasonably be drawn from the silence
of a writer who determinedly avoids the subject.
"Further, in estimating the value of that direct
evidence of adversaries to the main facts of Christianity which remains to us, we must not overlook
the probability that much evidence of this kind has
perished.  The books of the early opponents of
Christianity, which might have been of the greatest




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            223
use to us for the confirmation of the Gospel history,
were, with an unwise zeal, destroyed by the first
Christian Emperors. Other testimony of the greatest
importance has perished by the ravages of time. It
seems certain that Pilate remitted to Tiberius an account of the execution of our Lord, and the grounds
of it; and that this document, to which Justin Martyr more than once alludes, was deposited in the
archives of the empire. The'Acts of Pilate,' as they
were called, seem to have contained an account, not
only of the circumstances of the crucifixion, and the
grounds upon which the Roman Governor regarded
himself as justified in passing sentence of death upon
the accused, but also of the miracles of Christ."
Dr. Kurtz remarks, in his Church History:
"Among the genuine non-Biblical testimonies about
Christ, probably the most ancient is a Syriac letter
of Mara, addressed to his son Serapion, written about
the year 73. Mara, a man thoroughly versed in
Greek philosophy, but not satisfied with the consolations it offered, writes from his place of exile a letter
of comfort and instruction to his son, in which he
ranks Christ along with Socrates and Pythagoras;
he honors him as a wise king; he charges the Jews
with his murder, declares that thereby they had
brought upon themselves the destruction of their
commonwealth, but that Christ continued to live in
the new law which he had given."




224                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
CHAPTER II.
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EVANGELISTS.~ 24. THE EVANGELISTS WERE IN A CONDITION TO INFORM  THEMSELVES ACCURATELY AND THOROUGHLY CONCERNING
THE THINGS WHICH THEY RECORD.
Two of them were the chosen and almost constant
companions of the wonderful person  whose  life they
describe; they  listened  to his public discourses, they
enjoyed  his familiar intercourse and private instruction, they  were  eye-witnesses  of his  miracles, and
consequently received them  on the testimony of their
own senses.   Certainly  no other biographer ever enjoyed  such  opportunities  of informing  himself thoroughly concerning the subject of his narrative.  Even
cotemporary  historians  rarely  see  the  facts  which: The argument to be presented in this chapter has been stated at large in all
the English works on the "Evidences of Christianity."  We follow substantially Home's Introduction, deviating, however, from that author in the order
of the argumentation, and basing the personal credibility of the Evangelists
upon the preceding proofs of the authenticity of the writings ascribed to them.
If the Gospel Records have been written by the persons whose names they bear,
it can not be denied that they were written by men who were possessed of a fill
knowledge of all they relate, and who had no conceivable motive to deviate
from the truth. The credibility of a historian is established when there is
sufficient evidence, 1. That he has had ample means of knowing the truth of
the facts he relates, either by being himself an eye-witness, or by deriving his
knowledge from an eye-witness; 2. That he is a man of sound mind, free from
any mental bias to self-deception; 3. That lie is above the suspicion of having
any motive or design to mislead his readers.  Though historical works are
generally accepted without a special inquiry into these criteria of credibility,
being rejected only where there is positive proof that the historian is destitute
either of the ability or of the willingness to report correctly, the Gospei history
can challenge its being subjected to the severest tests of historical criticism.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            225
they relate; they are often in a distant country from
that in which the event happened, and are informed
of it only by public reports, which are seldom faithful in all points. If' it happens that an author be at
the same time both historian and witness-that he has
accompanied the general whose actions he relates, as,
for instance, Polybius accompanied Scipio —that he
has been his particular confident-we set a high
value upon his memoirs, and should consider it an
act of injustice to call them in question without solid
proofs. If Plato has been deemed a competent witness, and in every respect qualified to compose the
biographical account of his master, Socrates, surely
the Evangelists were equally-competent witnesses of
the facts which they have related.
It is true, two of them were not eye-witnesses; but
they received their information from  eye-witnesses,
and their accounts agree in every essential point with
those of the eye-witnesses; though it is evident, at the
same time, that they did not know, or paid no regard
to what others had before written on the same subject.  (See more on this subject, ~ 32.)
~ 25. THE EVANGELISTS EXHIBIT IN THEIR NARRATIVES NO
SYMPTOM OF MENTAL DERANGEMENT, WHICH MIGHT
HAVE MADE THEM VICTIMS OF SELFDELUSION.
To every candid reader of the Gospels the certainty of the assertion made in the heading is selfevident, and a contrary supposition seems unworthy
of an answer.. Yet, as there are so many who condemn the Gospels without having subjected them  to
a candid examination, we will show how unreasona



226            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
ble it is to suspect the Evangelists of being the victirms of self-delusion. In the first place, let it be
borne in mind that their testimony did not relate to
certain abstract doctrinal points, concerning which
they might have erred through some mental defect.
It respected facts concerning the reality of which
they could not be misled. They became the disciples
of Jesus Christ upon rational conviction, not upon
internal persuasion alone, but on the irrefragable
evidence of clear and stupendous miracles, proofs
submitted to their senses, and approved by their
reason-such proofs as enthusiasm  could not have
counterfeited, and never would have required; and
at every step of their progress, as their faith was
called to signalize itself by new exertions, or to sustain new trials, it was fortified by new proofs. The
slowness and caution with which the apostles received the fact of their Lord's resurrection from the
dead fully exempt them from all suspicion of being
the dupes of delusion and credulity. In the second
place, the style of enthusiasts is always obscure, arrogant, and violent; the style of the Evangelists is
the very reverse of this, plain, calm, and unexaggerated, detailing the facts which establish the unparalleled perfection of their divine Lord with the
particularity and consistency of Truth. Moreover,
they do that which enthusiasts never do; they record
their own mistakes, follies, and faults, and those of
very serious magnitude, acknowledged to be such by
themselves, and severely censured by their Master.
Nor do we discover in the Gospels any effusion of
passion and imagination, such as we find invariably
in the writings of enthusiasts.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            227
Q 26. THE EVANGELISTS CAN NOT BE CHARGED WITH HAVING HAD
ANY MOTIVE OR DESIGN TO IMPOSE UPON THE WORLD
WHAT, IF IT DID NOT TAKE PLACE, THEY MUST
HAVE KNOWN TO BE FALSE.
No man of sense or candor ever dared to make
such a charge. It is self-evident that, if the first disciples of Jesus had any disposition to commit such a
fraud, it would have been impossible for them to succeed in it with their cotemporaries; and that, even
if they could have done it, they would not have had
a conceivable motive for it. No man will propagate
a deliberate falsehood without having some advantage
in view, either immediate or remote. Now, the first
teachers of' Christianity could have no prospect whatever of any advantage. They could expect none fiom
him in whom they professed to believe. Jesus Christ,
indeed, had warned them to expect persecution, ignominy, and death in this world, if they continued to
be his disciples. They could not expect any honors
or emoluments from the hands of the Jews and heathens, who persecuted them with unrelenting severity.
They could not expect to acquire wealth, for their
profession of the Christian faith subjected them to the
loss of all things. Moreover, according to their own
principles, either as Jews or Christians, they involved
themselves in eternal misery if they made themselves
guilty of propagating a deliberate falsehood. Again,
how incredible that the sublimest precepts of piety
and virtue should have been delivered by men of
such abandoned principles, as they must have been, if
they had really been impostors! How incredible that
the first disciples should have been willing to die for
the cause of Christ, who, if he had not risen again




228            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
from the dead, would have miserably deceived them 
Lastly, if the apostles and Evangelists had designed
to impose upon mankind, they would have accommodated themselves to the opinions and inclinations of
the people whom they addressed; they would carefully have avoided saying any thing that might offend
them; but, instead of this, they did not spare the
prejudices and corruptions of their cotemporaries.
That the Evangelists were, on the contrary, men
of the strictest integrity and sincerity is, as has been
already remarked from another stand-point, manifest
from the style and manner of their writings. There
are no artful transitions or connections, no effort to
set off a doubtful action and reconcile it to some
other, or to the character of the person that did it.
They do not dissemble certain circumstances in the
life and sufferings of their Master which have no
tendency to enhance his glory in the eyes of the
world: such as the low circumstances of his parents,
the mean accommodations of his birth-that, when
he appeared publicly to the world, his townsmen and
near relations despised and rejected him-that few
among his followers were men conspicuous for wealth,
dignity, or knowledge-that the rulers, the scribes
and Pharisees disowned his pretensions and opposed
him continually-that some, who for a time followed
him, afterward deserted him-that he was betrayed
into the hands of high-priests and rulers by one of
those who had been selected for his constant companions. Impostors would certainly have acted differently.
The same integrity and fidelity we find in what
they record concerning themselves. They honestly
acknowledge not only the lowness of their station,




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            229
but also the inveteracy of their national prejudices,
the slowness of their apprehension, the weakness of
their faith, the ambition of some of the disciples, the
intolerant temper of others, and the worldly views
of all. They even tell us of their cowardice in deserting their Master when he was seized by his enemies; and that, after his crucifixion, they had for a
while given up their hopes in their Master, notwithstanding all the proof that had been exhibited, and
the conviction which they had before entertained that
he was the Messiah, and his religion was from God.
They mention, with many affecting circumstances,
the incredulity of one of their number, who was convinced of the reality of their Lord's resurrection only
by ocular and sensible demonstration. They might
have concealed their mental and moral deficiencies,
or, at least, they might have alleged some reasons to
extenuate them. But they did no such thing. They
related, without disguise, events and facts just as
they happened, and left them to speak for themselves.
In short, it does not appear that it ever entered the
minds of these writers to consider how this or the
other action would appear to mankind, or what objections might be raised against it. Greater marks of
sincerity than those which the Evangelists bear it is
impossible to find in any historical compositions that
are extant; they convince their readers, in all they
have written, that they published nothing to the
world but what they believed themselves. When they
relate any of the miracles of Jesus Christ, or the
exercise of the miraculous powers with which they
were endowed, they relate these astonishing facts,
without any ornaments of language, in the most concise and simple manner; saying nothing previously




230            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
to raise expectation, nor after the recital of them
breaking out into exclamations, but they leave the
reader to draw his own conclusion. When they narrate the resurrection and ascension of Christ they
afford no explanation of any difficulties; they never
offer a single argument to enforce their credit; they
leave the bare facts with their readers, who may receive or reject them. In perusing the simple and
unadorned narratives of the Evangelists it is impossible not to feel that the purport of their writing was
to bear witness of the truth.
Finally, the same striking integrity characterizes
the Evangelists when speaking of their enemies. Of
all who were concerned in the persecution and death
of Christ, they mention by name only the high-priest
Caiaphas and his coadjutor Annas, the Roman Procurator Pilate, and the treacherous disciple Judas.
The suppression of their names would have impaired
the evidence of their history to posterity; but not the
slightest tincture of resentment is observable in the
notice of these persons. The epithet attached to Judas
by all the Evangelists-o' 7apaSovb, who delivered him
up-is expressive of the simple fact rather than of its
criminality, which latter would more aptly be signified by 7poS6rOTv, traitor, as he is styled on one solitary occasion.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            231
CHAPTER III.
THE DIVINE SEAL STAMPED UPON THE GOSPEL HISTORY
BY ITS SUBJECT, THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.
~ 27. THE VERITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY BEST ACCREDITED
BY THE PERSONALITY OF JESUS CHRIST.
AFTER having proved that the canonical Gospels
were written in the apostolic age, and having found
no testimony contrary to the consentient tradition of
Christian antiquity in regard to their having been
written by the persons whose names they bear, we
placed them on no higher ground than other ancient
productions.  We have, thus far, considered them
merely as human productions, and subjected them, as
such, to the common laws of historical criticism.
The result of this critical investigation has been, that
we found them  to bear the highest marks of human
credibility-such as no other historical work of antiquity has. The assumption that miracles are impossible, and that, therefore, credibility can not be
claimed for a record of miracles, we have met by
showing, on metaphysical grounds, that, and why,
miracles are not impossible, and that, therefore, the
miraculous elements of the Gospel history are not
incompatible with its credibility. But we have now
to go a step further, and produce the positive proofs
of the historic verity of the miracles recorded in the
Gospels.
Instead of basing the truth of Gospel history and
the Divinity of Christ upon the miracles recorded by




232                   THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the Evangelists, we may  prove the historic  verity  of
the  miracles and  the Divinity  of Christ by  the  unparalleled perfectness of the moral and intellectual
character of the man Jesus of Nazareth, as he is presented to us by  the plain  and  honest fishermen
of Galilee.  "Demanding nothing more," says Mr.
Young, in  his  Christ of History, "than  the simple humanity of Jesus of Nazareth, we shall venture from
this platform  to  assert and  expound  his true  Divinity.
Dismissing  all preconceptions, however fondly  cherished, and however long adopted into the faith of the
Churches, assuming nothing which is not virtually
and even formally admitted by enemies as well as
friends, we hope to show that the manhood of Christ,
as  it  appealed  to  the  senses  and  the  minds  of the
men of his own times, supplies and sustains the
proof of his Godhood. Behold only the man Jesushe shall indicate  and  demonstrate  his union  with  absolute  Godhead.   Such  a  humanity  as  his  is utterly
inexplicable, except on the ground  of true Divinity."*
* Mr. Norton, though not admitting the perfect exhibition of moral excellence in the teachings and actions of Christ, as ac intrinsic proof of his Divinity
proper, nevertheless argues from it the truthfuln2ess of the Gospel Records. His argument is this: "The Gospels contain an exhibition of character incomparably
more wonderful than is to be found in any other writings. It is the character
of a messenger from God, assuming in his name the highest authority, constantly exercising supernatural powers, and appearing among men for the purpose of naking them  acquainted with God, with their own immortal nature,
with their duty, and with those ennobling and awful sanctions by which it is
enforced. He is represented as discovering to men a perfect system of religion.
He always appears, whether teaching, or acting, or suffering, as displaying the
highest excellence. His character is every-where consistent with itself and
with the supernatural dignity of his office, though he is represented as passing
through scenes the most trying and humiliating. We have, then, in these
writings a just conception of a perfect system of religion, as taught by a Divine teacher, assuming the' highest authority and exercising the most extraordinary powers, and displaying throughout a character in which we discover
nothing but what is excellent and sublime. Now, the writers of the Gospels
derived those conceptions which we find in their works either from reality or
from their own imaginations. If it be contended that these writers did not
draw from reality, but from imagination-the answer to this supposition is,




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.                           233
From  this stand-point it is our object to show  that
the character and life of Jesus could not possibly
have been the natural product of the times and country  in  which  the Gospel Records incontestably  originated-nor, indeed, of any other age or country;
that  the  moral and   intellectual  perfectness  of the
character of Jesus, and the wonderfull harmony and
consistency of his doctrines and works, could not
possibly have been conceived and delineated by the
Evangelists, unless they had been actually witnessed
by  them; that the moral and  intellectual perfectness
of Jesus  imparts  to  the  testimony  he gives of' himself, as well as to the miracles which the Evangelists
ascribe to  him, a verity absolutely unassailable;  and,
finally, that the unparalleled human perfection of
Jesus-which by almost universal consent, even of
unbelievers, rises  far  above  every  human  greatness
known  before  or  since-can   not be  rationally  explained, except on the ground of such an essential
union with the Godhead as he claimed himself, and
that the conceptions of moral excellence and sublimity which we find displayed and embodied in their writings would imply a transcendent genius and
force of mind to which there is no parallel, which it is impossible should have
existed in four anonymous, unknown authors, and which are irreconcilable
with the actual want of extraordinary talents, and of skill in composition, that
is discovered in their works. These conceptions likewise would imply a correctness of moral principle, and a purity and sublimity of moral feeling, which
could not exist in union witlh intentional falsehood. The argument, therefore,
is briefly this, that the religion and morality of the Gospels, as exhibited in the
doctrines, precepts, and life of Christ, are such as could not have been conceived and represented by the writers of the Gospels if they had not had a living archetype before them; and that, without such an archetype, the power of
conceiving and representing what we find in the Gospels. if it ever existed in
any human being, would necessarily imply that that extraordinary being had a
character which entitled him to perfect confidence. It was wholly out of the
power of the writers of the Gospels to deceive us, as they must have done, supposing their representations false; and the very existence of such a power, in
any case, would in itself imply the absence of all will to deceive. The intrinsic
character of these writings, therefore, affords positive evidence of their historic verity as to all essential facts."
20




234            TIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
as the Evangelists ascribed to him. Thus, as the eye
of a traveler at the foot of a mountain may slowly
travel up the majestic slope till it is lost in the
clouds or dazzling glories of the summit, so the
mind may contemplate Christ from his lowliest and
most human traitswhere he is one with the humblest
human being, up beyond the highest reach and limit
of humanity, "far above all principalities, and powers,
and every name that is named," to that dazzling
summit of glory where he is one with God.
From whatever point of view we examine the human character and earthly life of Jesus, whether we
contemplate the circumstances, times, and country
in which he lived, or his moral and intellectual
grandeur, or the testimony he gives of his own person, or the nature of the miracles ascribed to him,
we shall be compelled, by a strictly-historical process,
to acknowledge the justness of the deductions named
above. This new homage to the Savior was first paid
by the modern Evangelical theology of Germany.
Dr. C. Ullmann opened the way by his work on
" The Sinlessness of Jesus an Evidence of Christianity;"
and, ever since the appearance of that classical work,
greater prominence has been given by English, as
well as German theologians, to the ethical element
and human perfection of Christ. This branch  of
apologetical literature, in the English language, has
been also enriched by Dr. John Young in his "Christ
of History," by Dr. Horace Bushnell in his " Nature
and the Supernatural," and by the theological tract
of Dr. Schaff, entitled, "The Moral Character of
Christ, or the Perfection of Christ's Humanity, a
Proof of his Divinity."




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.             235
~ 28. THE ADMITTED OUTER CONDITIONS OF THE LIFE OF JESUSLEAVING ITS ASTOUNDING RESULTS, AS WELL AS THE UNLIMITED SCOPE OF THE MIND OF JESUS AND THE PERFECT
SYMMETRY OF HIS CHARACTER, UTTERLY INEXPLICABLE WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF A SUPERNATURAL AND DIVINE ELEMENT.
The most destructive criticism  finds itself compelled to admit that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical
personage, that he was a resident in the obscure village of Nazareth till about thirty years old, a carpenter's son, poor, unlearned, unbefriended, and that he
was put to an ignominious death by the Jewish
hierarchy  a few  years after he had appeared  in
public.
It is utterly inconceivable that such circumstances
and conditions would have been made by any Jewish
writer the substratum  of the miraculous life of' the
Messiah.  And it is.equally inconceivable that a
mere man, under such circumstances and conditions,
could have become the turning-point of the world's
history, accomplishing what neither the wisdom  of
the wisest, nor the power of the mightiest, neither
philosophers nor emperors could accomplish.  This
Mr. Young, the author of "The Christ of History,"
has set forth in a very minute and complete argunentation, of which we will give the main points:
Ordinarily the early life and social position of a man
are the true key to the proper understanding of his
future character and career.  To this rule the life of
Jesus makes an unqualified exception. In his early
training and position there is nothing that but distantly accounts for his subsequent relation to the
world.  His life stands out a mysterious exception




236            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
from all laws which generally govern the destiny of
men; what he became and accomplished could not
possibly be the natural development of earlier impressions received through favorable circumstances.
He grew  up among a people seldom and only contemptuously named by the ancient classics, and subjected at the time to the yoke of a foreign oppressor;
in a remote and conquered province of the Roman
Empire; in the darkest district of Palestine; in a
little country town of proverbial insignificance; in
poverty and manual labor, in the obscurity of a carpenter's shop; without the help of literary culture,
as is testified by the surprise of the Jews, who knew
all his human relations and antecedents.  " How
knoweth this man letters," they asked, when they
heard Jesus teach, "having never learned?" (John
vii, 15.) This question is unavoidable and unanswerable, if Christ be regarded as a mere man. For each
effect presupposes a corresponding cause. The difficulty here presented can by no means be solved by
a reference to the fact that many, perhaps the majority of great men, especially in the Church, have risen
by their own industry and perseverance from  the
lower walks of life, and from a severe contest with
poverty and obstacles of every kind. The fact itself
is readily conceded; but in every one of these cases,
schools, or books, or patrons and friends, or peculiar
events and influences, can be pointed out, as auxiliary
aids in the development of intellectual or moral
greatness.  There is always some human or natural
cause, or combination of causes, which accounts for
the final result. In the case of Christ no such natural explanation can be given. All the attempts to
bring  him into contact with Egyptian wisdom, or the




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            237
Essenic theosophy, or other sources of learning, are
without a shadow of proof; and, even if he had been
in connection with some sources of learning, the phenomenon he presents would remain unexplained, for,
as we shall show, he taught the world as one who
had learned nothing from it, and was under no obligation to it.
Another fact in the life of Jesus which leaves its
astounding results unexplained on natural grounds,
is his early death. On this point we will quote Mr.
Young in full: "He, whom  Christians recognize as
the Redeemer of the world, was only a youth.
Whether his religion be regarded as a system  of
doctrines, or as a body of laws, or as a source of
extraordinary influence, it is passing strange that he
should have died in early life. His brief period of
existence afforded no opportunity for maturing any
thing. In point of fact, while he lived he did very
little in the common sense of doing. He originated
no series of well-concerted plans, he neither contrived nor put in motion any extended machinery,
he entered into no correspondence with parties in his
own country and in other regions of the world, in
order to spread his influence and obtain cooperation.
Even the few who were his constant companions,
and were warmly attached to his person, were not,
in his lifetime, imbued with his -sentiments, and
were not prepared to take up his work in his spirit
after he was gone. He constituted no society with
its name, design, and laws all definitely fixed and
formally established.  He had no time to- construct
and to organize, his life was too short; and almost
all that he did was to speak. He spoke in familiar
conversation with his friends, or at the wayside to




238            TIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
passers-by, or to those who chose to consult him, or
to large assemblies, as opportunity offered. He left
behind him a few spoken truths-not a line or word
of writing-and a certain spirit incarnated in his
principles, and breathed out from his life, and then
he died. In the ordinary course of events the memory of a mere youth, however distinguished, would
soon have utterly perished from  among men. But
Jesus lives in the world at this moment, and has influenced the world from his death till now. This is
an unquestioned fact. There have been multitudes
in all the ages since his death, and at this moment,
after nearly two thousand years, there are multitudes
to whom he is dearer than life. History tells of warriors who reached the summit of their fame in comparative youth; it tells of men of science also, and
of scholars, and of statesmen, who in youth rose to
great and envied distinction. But the difference is
obvious, and it is wide between the conquest of territory and the conquest of minds between scientific,
literary, or political renown and moral, spiritual influence and excellence.  Is there an instance of a
man who died in youth, gaining vast influence of a
purely-spiritual kind, not by force of arms, and not
by secular aid in any form, but simply and only by
his principles and his life-of such a man transmitting that influence through successive generations,
and after two thousand years retaining it in all its
freshness, and continuing, at that distance of time, to
establish himself, and to reign almightily in the
minds and hearts of myriads of human beings?  If
there be, or any thing approaching to it, where is it?
There is not such an example in the whole history
of the world, except Jesus Christ."




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           239
"There is," says Dr. Schaff, "another striking distinction of a general character between Christ and
the heroes of history. We should naturally suppose
that such an uncommon personage, setting up the
most astounding claims and proposing the most extraordinary work, would surround himself with extraordinary circumstances, and maintain a position
far above the vulgar and degraded multitude around
him. We should expect something uncommon and
striking in his look, his dress, his manner, his mode
of speech, his outward life, and the train of his attendants.  But the very reverse is the case. His
greatness is singularly unostentatious, modest and
quiet, and, far from repelling the beholder, it attracts
and invites him  to familiar approach. His public
life never moved on the imposing arena of secular
heroism, but within the humble circle of every-day
life, and the simple relations of a son, a brother, a
citizen, a teacher, and a friend. He had no army to
command, no kingdom  to rule, no prominent station
to fill, no worldly favors and rewards to dispense.
He was a humble individual, without friends and
patrons in the Sanhedrim, or at the court of Herod.
He never mingled in familiar intercourse with the
religious or social leaders of the nation, whom he had
startled in his twelfth year by his questions and answers.  He selected his disciples from  among the
illiterate fishermen of Galilee, and promised them no
reward in this world but a part in the bitter cup of
his sufferings. He dined with publicans and sinners,
and mingled with the common people without ever
condescending to their low manners and habits. He
was so poor that he had no place on which to rest
his head. He depended for the supply of his modest




240            TITE GOSPEL RECORDS:
wants on voluntary contributions of a few pious females, and the purse was in the hands of a thief and
a traitor. Nor had he learning, art, or eloquence, in
the usual sense of the term, nor any other kind of
power by which great men arrest the attention and
secure the admiration of the world. The writers of
Greece and Rome were ignorant even of his existence till, several years after the crucifixion, the effects of his mission in the steady growth of the sect
of his followers forced from them some contemptuous
notice, and then roused them  to opposition. And
yet this Jesus of Nazareth, without money and arms,
conquered more millions than Alexander, Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon; without science and learning, he shed more light on things human and divine
than all scholars and philosophers combined; without the eloquence of schools, he spoke words of life
as were never spoken before or since, and produced
effects which lie beyond the reach of orator or poet;
without writing a single line, he has set more pens
in motion, and furnished themes for more sermons,
orations, discussions, learned volumes, works of art,
and sweet songs of praise, than the whole army of
great men of ancient and modern times. Born in a
manger, and crucified as a malefactor, he now controls the destinies of the civilized world, and rules a
spiritual empire which embraces one-third of the
inhabitants of the globe. There never was in this
world a life so unpretending, modest, and lowly in
its outward form and condition, and yet producing
such extraordinary effects upon all ages, nations, and
classes of men. The annals of history produce no
other example of such complete and astounding success in spite of the absence of those material, literary,




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.                   241
and artistic influences which are indispensable to
success for a mere man."
We have seen that the outer conditions of the life
of Jesus  make  its astounding  results utterly inexplicable on the basis of ordinary history, experience,
and  psychology.  The same is true with regard to
the unlimited scope of his mind and the perfect symmetry of his character.  Let us first consider the one
great central idea of his mission, that of the establishment of a new  spiritual kingdom: "Contrary to
every religious prejudice of his nation, and even of
his time,"  says Horace Bushnell, "contrary to  the
comparatively-narrow  and exclusive religion of Moses
itself, and to all his training under it,* he undertakes
to  organize  a kingdom   of God, or a kingdom  of
heaven on earth.  His purpose includes a new moral
creation of the race-not of the Jews only, but of the
whole human  race.  He declared  thus, at an early
date in his ministry, that many shall come from the
east and the west and sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob in  the  kingdom  of God; that the
field is the world; and that God so loveth the world
as to give for it his only-begotten Son.  He also declared that his Gospel shall be published to all nations, and gave his apostles their commission to go
into all the world and publish his Gospel to every
creature.  Here, then, we have the grand idea of his
mission-it is to new-create the  human  race, and: And yet it has been asserted that Jesus' conception of his Messianic mission
was nothing more than a reflection of the popular opinions of his day, more
or less modified by his own individuality! Of all the attempts to account for
the work and character of Christ on natural grounds, denying the Divine element, this is the most unscrupulous and absurd. For nothing can be proved
more irrefutably than this, that Jesus' conception of his Messianic mission was
diametrically opposed to the Messianic ideas which prevailed among the Jewish people.
21




242            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
restore it to God in the unity of a spiritual kingdom.
And, upon this single fact, Reinhard-erects a complete argument for his extra-human character, going
into a formal review  of all the great founders of
States, and most celebrated law-givers, all the philosophers, all the prophet-founders of religions, and
discovering as a fact that no such thought as this, or
nearly proximate to this, had ever before been taken
up by any living character in history; showing, also,
how it had happened to every other great character,
however liberalized by culture, to be limited in some
way to the interests of his own people or empire, and
set in opposition -:.r antagonism  more or less decidedly to the rest of the world. But to Jesus alone,
the simple Galilean carpenter, it happens otherwise;
that, having never seen a map of the world, or heard
the name of half the great nations on it, he undertakes, coming out of his shop, a scheme as much
vaster and more difficult than that of Alexander, as
it proposes more, and what is more divinely benevolent! This thought of a universal kingdom, cemented
in God-why, the immense Roman Empire of his
day, constructed by so many ages of war and conquest, is a bauble in comparison, both as regards the
extent and the cost! And yet the rustic tradesman
of Galilee propounds even this for his errand, and
that in a way of assurance as simple and quiet as if
the immense reach of his plan were, in fact, a matter
to him of no consideration.  Nor is this all: there is
included in his plan, what, to any mere man, would
be yet more remote fiom  the possible confidence of
his frailty; it is a plan as universal in time as it is
in the scope of its objects. It does not expect to be
realized in a lifetime, or even in many centuries to




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           243
come. He calls it, understandingly, his grain of mustard-seed; which, however, is to grow, he declares,
and overshadow the whole earth. But the courage
of Jesus, counting a thousand years to be only a
single day, is equal to the run of his work. He sees
a rock of stability where men see only frailty and
weakness. Peter himself, the impulsive and ratherunreliable Peter, turns into a rock and becomes a
good foundation, as he looks upon him.'On this
rock,' he says,'I will build my Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it.' His expectation,
too, reaches boldly out beyond his own death; that,
in fact, is to be the seed of his great empire;'Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it
abideth,' he says,'alone.' And if we will see with
what confidence and courage he adheres to his plan,
when the time of his death approaches-how far he is
from giving it up as lost, or as an exploded vision
of his youthful enthusiasm-we have only to observe
his last interview with the two sisters of Bethany, in
whose hospitality he was so often comforted. When
the box of precious ointment is broken upon his
head, he justifies her against the murmuring disciples,
and says,'Let her alone.  She has done what she
could. She has come aforehand to anoint my body
to the burying. Verily, I say unto you, wheresoever
this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole
world, this also that this woman has done shall be
told for a memorial of her.' Such was the sublime
confidence he had in a plan that was to run through
all future ages, and would scarcely begin to show its
fruit during his own lifetime. Is this great idea,
then, which no man ever before conceived-the raising of the whole human race to God, a plan sustained




244            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
with slch evenness of courage and a confidence of
the world's future so far transcending any human
example  is this a merely-human development?  Regard the benevolence of it, the universality of it, the
religious grandeur of it, as a work readjusting the relations of God and his government with men-the
cost, the length of time it will cover, and the far-off
date of its completion. For a Nazarene carpenter, a
poor, uneducated villager, to lay out a project which
can not be completed in many thousands of years,
and transcends all human ability, doing it in all the
airs of sobriety, entering on the performance without
parade, and yielding life to it firmly as the inaugural
of its triumph, is, we may safely affirm, more than
human."
The unparalleled universality of the mind of Jesus,
and the perfect symmetry of his character, are comprehensively set forth by Dr. Schaff in the following
remarks: "History exhibits to us many examples of
commanding geniuses, who stand at the head of their
age and nation, and furnish material for the intellectual activity of whole generations and periods, till
they are succeeded by other heroes at a new epoch
of development.  As rivers generally spring from
high mountains, so knowledge and moral power rises
and is continually nourished from the hights of humanity.                But they never represent universal, but only sectional humanity; they are identified with a particular people or age, and partake of
its errors, superstitions, and failings almost in the
same proportion in which they exhibit their virtues.
Moses, though revered by the followers of three religions, was a Jew in views, feelings, habits, and position, as well as by parentage; Socrates never rose




TIIEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           245
above the Greek type of character; Luther was a
German throughout, and can only be properly understood as a German; Calvin, though an exile from his
native land, remained a Frenchman; and Washington, the purest and noblest type of the American
character, can be to no nation on earth what he is to
the American. Their influence may and does extend
far beyond their respective national horizon, yet
they can never furnish a universal model for imitation.... What these representative men are
to particular ages, or nations, or sects, or particular
schools of science and art, Christ was to the human
family at large in its relation to God. He, and he
alone, is the universal type for universal imitation.
Hence he could, without the least impropriety or
suspicion of vanity, call upon all men to follow him.
He stands above the limitations of age, school, sect,
nation, and race. Although a Jew according to the
flesh, there is nothing Jewish about him which is not
at the same time of general significance. The particular and national in him is always duly subordinated to the general and human. Still less was he
ever identified with a party or sect. He was equally
removed from  the stiff formalism of the Pharisees,
the loose liberalism of the Sadducees, and the inactive mysticism of the Essenes. He rose above all the
prejudices, bigotries, and superstitions of his age and
people, which exert their power even upon the
strongest and. otherwise most liberal minds. Witness
his freedom  in the observance of the Sabbath, by
which he offended the scrupulous literalists, while he
fulfilled the true spirit of the law in its universal
and abiding significance; his reply to the disciples,
when they traced the misfortune of the blind man to




246           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
a particular sin of the subject, or his parents; his
liberal conduct toward the Samaritans as contrasted
with the inveterate hatred and prejudice of the Jews,
including his own disciples, at the time; and his
charitable judgment of the slaughtered Galileans,
whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices,
and the eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam
fell and slew them. All the words and all the actions
of Christ, while they were fully adapted to the occasions which called them forth, retain their force and
applicability undiminished to all ages and nations.
H.    e was free from all one-sidedness, which
constitutes the weakness as well as the strength of
the most eminent men. He was not a man of one
idea, nor of one virtue, towering above all the rest.
The mental and moral forces were so well tempered
and moderated by each other that none were unduly
prominent, none carried to excess, none alloyed by
the kindred failing; each was checked and completed
by the opposite grace. His character never lost its
even balance and happy equilibrium, never needed
modification or readjustment.  It was thoroughly
sound and uniformly consistent from the beginning
to the end. We can not properly attribute to him
any one temperament. He was neither sanguine like
Peter, nor choleric like Paul, nor melancholy like
John, nor phlegmatic as James is sometimes represented to have been; but he combined the vivacity
without the levity of the sanguine, the vigor without
the violence of the choleric, the seriousness without
the austerity of the melancholic, the calmness without the apathy of the phlegmatic temperaments. He
was equally far removed from  the excesses of the
legalist, the pietist, the ascetic, and the enthusiast.




TIEIR IISTORIC VERITY.           247
With the strictest obedience to the law, he moved in
the element of freedom; with all the fervor of the enthusiast, he was always calm, sober, and self-possessed; notwithstanding his complete and uniform
elevation above the affairs of this world, he freely
mingled with society, male and female, dined with
publicans and sinners, sat at the wedding feast, shed
tears at the sepulcher, delighted in God's nature, admired the beauties of the lilies, and used the occupations of the husbandman for the illustration of the
sublimest truths of the kingdom  of heaven.  His
zeal never degenerated into rashness, nor his constancy into obstinacy, nor his tenderness into sentimentality. His unworldliness was free from indifference and unsociability, his dignity from pride, his
affability from undue familiarity, his self-denial from
moroseness, his temperance from austerity. lie combined childlike innocence with manly strength, allabsorbing devotion to God with untiring interest in
the welfare of man, tender love to the sinner with
uncompromising severity against sin, commanding
dignity with winning humility, fearless courage with
wise caution, unyielding firmness.with sweet gentleness.  He is justly  compared  with  the  lion  in
strength, and with  the lamb  in  meekness.  He
equally possessed the wisdom of the serpent and the
simplicity of the dove. He brought both the sword
against every form  of wickedness, and the peace
which the world can not give. He was the most
effective, and yet the least noisy, the most radical,
and yet the most conservative, calm, and patient of
all reformers. He came to fulfill every letter of the
law, and yet he made all things new. The same
hand which drove the profane traffickers from the




248             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Temple, blessed little children, healed the lepers, and
resuscitated the sinking disciple; the same ear which
heard the approbation fiom heaven, was open to the
cries of women in travail; the same mouth which
pronounced the terrible woe on the hypocrites, and
condemned the impure desire and unkind feeling as
well as the open crime, blessed the poor in spirit, announced pardon to the adulteress, and prayed for his
murderers; the same eye which beheld the mysteries
of God and penetrated the heart of man, shed tears
of compassion over ungrateful Jerusalem, and tears
of friendship at the grave of Lazarus.  These are indeed opposite, yet not contradictory traits of character-as little as the different manifestations of God's
power and goodness in the tempest and the sunshine,
in the towering Alps and the lily of the valley, in
the boundless ocean and dew-drops of the morning.
They are separated in imperfect men, indeed, but
united in Christ, the universal model for all."
Though the above sketch  comprises all the elements which constitute mental and moral perfection,*
we can not refrain from  adding a few  lineaments
drawn by Bushnell, when  he considers him  as a
teacher, his method and manner, and other characteristics, apart from his doctrine which does not come
into consideration in our present investigation:
" First of all, we notice the perfect originality and
independence of his teaching. We have a great many
men who are original within a certain boundary of
educated thought. But the originality of Christ is
*We are aware that we anticipate in part the subject-matter of the subsequent section on the moral perfection of Christ; but it is impossible to consider
mental entirely apart from moral perfection. Besides, the moral perfection of
Christ will be viewed for itself, as sinlessness. Here we consider only his moral
as well as mental greatness.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           249
uneducated.  That he draws nothing from the stores
of learning can be seen at a glance. The impression
we have in reading his instructions justifies to the
letter the language of his cotemporaries, when they
say,' This man hath never learned.' There is nothing in any of his allusions, or forms of speech, that
indicates learning. Indeed, there is nothing in him
that belongs to his age or country-no one opinion,
or taste, or prejudice. If he is simply a man, he is
most certainly a new  and singular kind, of man,
never before heard of, one who is quite as great a
miracle in the world as if he were not a man.
"Neither does he teach by the human methods.
IIe does not speculate about God, as a school-professor, drawing out conclusions by a practice on words,
and deeming that the way of proof; he does not build
up a frame of evidence from  below, by some constructive process, such as the philosophers delight in;
but he simply speaks of God and spiritual things as
one who has come out from him to tell us what he
knows. And his simple telling brings us the reality;
proves it to us in its own sublime self-evidence;
awakens even the consciousness of it in our own
bosom, so that formal arguments or dialectic proofs
offend us by their coldness. Indeed, he makes even
the world luminous by his words-fills it with an
immediate and new sense of God, which nothing has
ever been able to expel.
"At the same time, he never reveals the infirmity
so commonly shown by human teachers, when they
veer a little from their point, or turn their doctrine
off by shades of variation, to catch the assent of multitudes. lie never conforms to an expectation, even
of his friends.  When they look to find a great




250              THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
prophet in him, he offers nothing in the modes of
the prophets.  When they ask for places of distinction in his kingdom, he rebukes their folly, and tells
them he has nothing to give but a share in his reproaches and his poverty.  When they look to see
him  take the sword as the Great Messiah of their
nation, calling the people to his standard, he tells
them  he is no warrior and no king, but only a messenger of love to lost men; one that has come to
minister and die, but not to set up or restore the
kingdom.  Every expectation that rises up to greet
him;is repulsed; and yet, so great is the power of his
manner, that multitudes are held fast, and can not
yield their confidence.
"Again, the singular balance of character displayed
in the teachings of Jesus, indicates an exemption
from  the standing infirmity of human nature.  Human opinions are formed under a law that seems to be
universal.  First, two opposite extremes are thrown
up in two opposite leaders or parties; then a third
party enters, trying to find what truth they both are
endeavoring to vindicate, and settle thus a view of
the subject that includes the truth and clears the onesided extremes. It results, in this manner, that no
man, even the broadest in his apprehensions, is ever
at the point of equilibrium as regards all subjects.
Even the ripest of us are continually falling into
some extreme and losing our balance, afterward to be
corrected by some others who discover our error, or
that of our school.*  But Christ was of no school or
*It is worthy of note, that, while all other teachers have been refuted in
something, no errors in science, theology, or morals, or no inconsistency with
his own system has ever been, even plausibly, charged upon Jesus, though his
sayings anticipate the sanction or condemnation of all religious thought, civilization, and philosophy.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.             251
party, and never went to any extreme-words could
never turn him  to a one-sided view  of any thing.
This is the remarkable fact that distinguishes him
from any other teacher of the world. Having nothing to work out in a world-process, but every thing
clear in the simple intuition of his superhuman intelligence, he never pushes himself to any human eccentricity. It does not even appear that he is trying, as
we do, to balance opposites and clear extravagances,
but he does it as one who can not imagine a onesided view of any thing.  He will not allow his disciples to deny him before kings and governors; he
will not let them renounce their allegiance to Caesar.
He exposes the oppressions of the Pharisees in Moses'
seat, but, encouraging no factious resistance, says,'Do as they command you.' His position as a reformer was universal-according to his principles
almost nothing, whether in Church, or State, or in
social life, was right-and yet he is thrown into no
antagonism  against the world.  With all the world
upon his hands, and a reform to be carried in almost
every thing, he is yet as quiet and cordial, and as
little in the attitude of bitterness or impatience, as if
all hearts were with him, or the work already done;
so perfect is the balance of his feeling, so intuitively
moderated is it by wisdom  not human.'Judge not,' he says, in holy charity,'that ye be not
judged;' and, in holy exactness,'Whosoever shall
break, or teach to break one of these least commandments, shall be least in the kingdom  of God;' in the
same way,'He that is not with us is against us;'
and,'he that is not against us is for us;''Ye tithe
mint, anise, and cummin;' and,'These things ought
ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.'




252            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
So magnificent and sublime, so plainly Divine is the
balance of Jesus! Nothing throws him off the center on which truth rests; no prejudice, no opposition,
no attempt to right a mistake, or rectify a delusion,
or reform  a practice.  If this be human, I do not
know, for one, what it is to be human.
"Again, it is a remarkable and even superhuman
distinction of Jesus, that, while he is advancing doctrines so far transcending all deductions of philosophy, and opening mysteries that defy all human
power of explication, he is yet able to set his teachings in a form of simplicity that accommodates all
classes of minds; and this for the reason that he
speaks directly to men's convictions themselves, without and apart from any learned and curious elaboration, such as the uncultivated can not follow. No
one of the great writers of antiquity had even propounded, as yet, a doctrine of virtue which the multitude could understand. But Jesus tells them directly, in a manner level to their understanding,
what they want, what they must do and be, to inherit eternal life, and their inmost convictions answer to his words.
"Call him then, who will, a mere man; what human teacher ever came down thus upon the soul of
the race as a beam  of light from the skies-pure
light, shining directly into the visual orb of the mind,
a light for all that live, a full, transparent day, in
which truth bathes the spirit as an element?  Others
talk and speculate about truth, and those who can
may follow; but Jesus is the truth, and he lives it;
and if he is a mere human teacher, he is the first
who was ever able to find a form for truth at all adequate to the world's uses. And yet the truths he




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            253
teaches outreach all the doctrines of all the philosophers of the world. He excels them, a hundredfold
more, in the scope and grandeur of his doctrine, than
he does in his simplicity itself. Is this human, or is
it Divine?
"Once more, it is a high distinction of Christ's
character, as seen in his teachings, that he is never
anxious for the success of his doctrine. Fully conscious of the fact that the world is against him,
scoffed at, despised, hated, alone too in his cause, and
without partisans that have any public influence, no
man has ever been able to detect in him the least
anxiety for the final success of his doctrine. The
consciousness of Truth, we are not about to deny,
has an effect of this nature in every truly-great
mind. But when has it had an effect so complete?
What human teacher, what great philosopher has not
shown some traces of anxiety for his school that indicated his weakness?  But here is a lone man, a
humble, uneducated man, finding all the world against
him, and yet the world does not rest on its axle more
firmly than he upon his doctrine.  Questioned by
Pilate what he means by truth, it is enough to answer,'He that is of the truth heareth my voice.' If
this be not more than human, no other man of the
race, we are sure, has ever dignified humanity by a
like example.
" Such is Christ as a teacher. When has the world
seen a phenomenon like this? A lonely, uninstructed
youth, coming forth amid the moral darkness of Galilee, even more distinct from his age, and from every
thing around him, than a Plato would be rising up
alone in some wild tribe in Oregon, assuming thus a
position at the head of the world, and maintaining




254            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
it for eighteen centuries by the pure self-evidence of
his life and doctrine! Does he this by the force of
mere human talent or genius?  If so, it is time that
we begin to look to genius for miracles; for there is
really no greater miracle."
We close this section with some remarks of Dr.
Jllman in regard to the hypothesis, that the wonderful character of Christ was not drawn from actual
life, but from the mind of those who record his life:
"Modern criticism holds the opinion, that the picture
of the personality of Jesus was the work of the fancy
of the earliest Christian Church, who invented, after
his death, this description of the founder of their
religion.  But this runs counter to all historical
analogy. The great revolutions of history have not
been effected by fictitious personages, but by living
men; and those men must have possessed within
themselves a real power corresponding to, and accounting for, the influence they possessed. Then, it
is not conceivable that a community-that is, a number of individuals differently constituted-should
have succeeded in producing so harmonious a character. Or, is it imagined that one man was the author of this image? In that case, we are at a loss to
understand how that individual could produce so rare
a work.  We must, moreover, have to rank him
higher than the object which called forth his inventive power; to him  we must accord the meed of
wonder and praise which we withhold from  Jesus.
But we should not thus find an explanation of the
problem, which has indeed only become more difficult
and involved.  For in this case; as well as in the
former, the first question which we put is still this,
How is it, that an ideal of so perfect a kind ever




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           255
came into the mind of man, whether of many men
or of one individual?.... How could a form
of a sublime majesty, such as mankind had till then
no conception of, and would not have at this day if
it had not been here presented to us; how could that
appear upon the bounded horizon of a Jewish mind?
Or could the idea of him who was the first to embrace, in his boundless love, the whole human race,
arise within the narrow consciousness of an Israelite? Further, the incredulity of all this will be fully
apparent, if we take into consideration the education
and mental training of the first disciples. They were
plain, simple men; untrained as authors; the large
proportion of them were any thing but men of fancy
and imagination.  They were, moreover, men of sincerity and simplicity in their religious belief; hence
they would not have invented had they been able. And
even if they would, it is certain that they could never
have succeeded in achieving, with the means at their
disposal-humanly speaking, so insignificant-what
the masters of thought and of discourse, a Plato and
a Xenophon, had, in their account of Socrates, failed
to accomplish. Let criticism show us that any thing
similar occurs elsewhere in the page of history!
Till it does so-and it never will be able to do sowe shall continue to maintain-what seems so abundantly evident to every healthy mind-that the reason why the disciples have been able to place before
our eye in such vivid reality so great a majesty of
moral character, is, that they themselves had seen in
real life one who manifested those qualities. The inimitable nature of the Gospel picture must ever remain one of its leading characteristics. But the fact
that it can not be imitated is a pledge of its truth."




256            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
S 29. THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS, THE IDEA OF WHICH COULD NOT
HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED BY THE EVANGELISTS, IF THEY
HAD NOT SEEN IT ACTUALIZED IN THE LIFE OF
JESUS-INCONTESTABLY PROVING THAT
HE WAS NOT A MERE MAN.
Before we proceed to apply sinlessness to the person of Jesus, it is proper to define the term, and to
make some remarks on the scope and importance of
the investigation before us, in doing which we give
a condensation of the elaborate argumentation of
UTllmann.  The idea of sinlessness is, in the first instance, a negative one. It is the absence of antagonism  to the moral law, and to the Divine will, of
which that law is the expression; and this not only
in relation  to separate acts of will and outward
actions, but also in relation to the tendency of the
whole moral nature, and to its most deep-seated disposition. Doubtless this conception is in itself of
great importance, inasmuch as it marks off, more distinctly than any other, the line of demarkation between moral purity and any trace of moral pollution.
Yet it is not sufficient to regard sinlessness as the
absence of all opposition to the moral law.  For the
conception of sinlessness is one which, like that of
sin, can be applied only to natures such as have been
appointed to will and to do in the capacity of moral
agents; in the case of which, therefore, the omission
of such willing and doing is itself a deviation from
the divine law of life. Sinlessness must, therefore,
imply positive goodness-goodness of nature, and
goodness in action. It is in this sense of the word,
not as negative merely, but as essentially positive,
that we apply the epithet "sinless" to Jesus.  By
this epithet he is characterized as not only free from




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.                           257
all sin, but as holy. By it is meant that he was filled
at every moment of his life with the spirit of obedience, and with a love to God which surrendered itself
unconditionally to his will, and with those powers
which flow from an uninterrupted communion with
God.   Such  sinlessness can  be predicated  only  of an
individual in  whose  case, on  the  one hand, the  impossibility  of sinning  does not follow  at once from   a
necessity  of his  nature, who, in  other words, is susceptible of being tempted,* and whom, on the other
hand, we may believe endowed with an integrity of
moral nature, by the right use of which the possibility of not sinning becomes an impossibility of sinning. In a case where both these conditions are fulfilled, the  development of a  life  altogether pure  and
holy  is  conceivable;  a  life  it  would  be  which  we
should have to regard as at once typically perfectraised far above every thing which history tells us
of, and, at the same time, as truly human; and this
is what we hold  the moral character and life of Jesus
to have been.: The question, how far it can be affirmed, from a dogmatical or speculative stand-point, that sinfulness or actual transgression in Christ is a priori
inconceivable, is out of the scope of our present investigation. It will be
fully considered in our comments on the temptation of Christ, (Matt. iv.) It
is sufficient here to remark, that we must be careful to distinguish the possibility of sinning from a leaning or bent toward sin. Sin may be possible
where it has not existed in the faintest degree; but a penchant toward sin is
inconsistent with sinlessness, for it involves a germ, a minimum of sin. The
possibility of sin must be presupposed in Jesus, ere we can conceive that
Jesus could be tempted. A liability to be tempted does not in itself imply
the existence of any evil; for even the purest virtue, if it dwells in afinite znatsee,
is liable to be tempted. The impossibility of sinning, in the abstract, can
be ascribed to the infinite God alone; of him it is true in the absolute necessity of his nature-a necessity which is identical with the highest liberty.
Had Jesus been endowed with an absolute impossibility of sin, he could not
have been a true man; his temptation is, therefore, presented to us in the
Scriptures as one of the most marked features of his history, and as the indispensable condition of his typical character, while, at the same time, the
possibility of sin in him never becaume actual fact.
22




258            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Hitherto the doctrine of the sinless character of
Christ has been almost invariably contemplated in
the light of an immediate postulate of faith, as a
necessary consequence of the incarnation, or as an
indispensable condition of the work of Christ as Redeemer; and those who have thus treated it, have not
proceeded from this stand-point to a more detailed
investigation and proof of the fact itself. We, on
the contrary, will leave out of account this immediate
conviction of the truth of the doctrine-without, at
the same time, calling it in question, or denying that
it may be right and valid in its own place-and
begin by seeking to establish and vindicate our belief
in the sinlessness of Christ. In the mode of proof
that we shall adopt in so doing, our' arguments will
be drawn from  the historical appearance of Christ.
We do not say: Because Christ was the Son of God,
he could not be subject to sin; or, because he was
the Redeemer, he must have been free fiom  sin.
What we say is: Because he was free from sin, and
showed himself in all respects perfectly pure and
holy, we are warranted in believing that he was the
Son of God, the deliverer from all sin, the author of
true redemption, and the revealer of redeeming truth.
Now, while we follow this historical and apologetical
course, we do not mean to assert that the dogmatical
or philosophical course is valueless. We are persuaded that, if both methods are rightly pursued,
they must lead to the same result. Doctrinally to
maintain the sinlessness of Christ were to believe an
empty form, if that doctrine had no basis of historical reality; and the historical reality would lie on
something fragmentary and detached, were it not organically united with the sumtotal of the Christian




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            259
system. But while the two methods mutually presuppose and require one another, still, in  their
practical treatment, they must be carefully distinguished.
The apologetical mode of presenting the sinlessness of Jesus has a very peculiar import, in that it
appeals to the moral consciousness of men.  The
truly-convincing evidences for Christianity are those
which are at once theoretical and practical; for the
object is not only by the use of argument to convince
the understanding, but at the same time to touch the
conscience, to move the will, and to give a decided
impulse to the spirit, and a new  direction to the
whole life. The entrance into the domain of Christianity is not to be gained by a mere process of
thought, but can only be attained by undergoing a
new process of life, a radical change of the moral
nature. Now, the subject which we have here to consider speaks directly to the conscience. The image
of Jesus rises up before the soul as a thing that has
really been, in all its clear and stainless purity.
True, it can never be reproduced as a living reality
in us, without shivering and shattering all our virtuous conceits, without casting us, as sinful men,
prostrate in the dust before the Holy One. But
while it thus humbles us, it exalts us too, and draws
us with an inwardly-overpowering might into the
communion of holy and compassionate Divine love,
shining forth on us from him as the brightest mirror.
If Jesus is holy, free from sin, and true to the exclusion of all error, and thus stands upon a platform
elevated high above the common fate of mortals, all
of whom, without exception, are subject to error and
to sin-then we are both entitled and enjoined to




260            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
reverence in him-in his whole manifestation upon
earth, in all that he did and all that he taught-the
exponent of the will of God concerning man; then
we have every warrant to look to him, the Sinless
One, as the author of our deliverance from sin, to
him, being one with the Father, as the restorer of
true union with God. It is thus that the apologetical mode of presenting the sinlessness of Jesus, while
it vindicates belief, is at the same time fitted to call
forth and increase the same.
After these preliminary remarks, let us contemplate the portrait of the moral perfection of Christ.
We find it most comprehensively drawn by Dr. Schaff,
and give it-detached from other traits of his character which we have dwelt upon in the preceding
section, and from considerations to which we shall
draw the attention afterward. He says:
"The first impression which we receive from the
life of Jesus, is that of its perfect innocency in the
midst of a sinful world. He, and he alone, carried
the innocency  of a pure childhood  untarnished
through his youth and manhood.... Of the
boyhood of Jesus we know only one fact, recorded
by Luke; but it is in perfect keeping with the peculiar charm of his childhood, and foreshadows at the
same time the glory of his public life, as one uninterrupted service of his Heavenly Father.  When
twelve years old we find him in the Temple, in the
midst of the Jewish doctors, not teaching and offending them, as in the apocryphal Gospels, by any immodesty or forwardness, but hearing and asking
questions, thus actually learning from them; and yet
filling them with astonishment at his understanding
and answers. There is nothing premature, forced, or




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.          261
unbecoming his age, and yet a degree of wisdom and
an intensity of interest in religion which rises far
above a purely-human youth.'He increased,' we are
told,'in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God
and man; he was subject to his parents, and practiced
all the virtues of an obedient son; and yet he filled
them with a sacred awe as they saw him absorbed'in the things of his Father,' and heard him utter
words which they were unable to understand at the
time, but which Mary treasured up in her heart as a
holy secret. Such an idea of a harmless and faultless,
heavenly childhood, of a growing, learning, and yet
surprisingly-wise boyhood, as it meets us in living reality at the portal of the Gospel history, never entered
the imagination of biographer, poet, or philosopher
before. On the contrary, as has been justly observed
by Horace Bushnell,'in all the higher ranges of
character, the excellence portrayed  is never the
simple unfolding of a harmonious and perfect beauty
contained in the germ of childhood, but it is a character formed by a process of rectification in which
many follies are mended and distempers removed, in
which confidence is checked by defeat, passion moderated by reason, smartness sobered by experience.
Commonly a certain pleasure is taken in showing
how the many wayward sallies of the boy are, at
length, reduced by discipline to the character of wisdom, justice, and public heroism so much admired.
Besides, if any writer, of almost any age, will undertake to describe, not merely a spotless, but a superhuman or celestial childhood, not having the reality before him, he must be somewhat more than human
himself if he does not pile together a mass of clumsy
exaggerations, and draw and overdraw, till neither




262              THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
heaven nor earth can find any verisimilitude in the
picture.' This unnatural exaggeration, into which
the mythical fancy of man, in its endeavor to produce
a superhuman childhood and boyhood, will inevitably
fall, is strikingly exhibited in the apocryphal Gospels,
which  are related  to the canonical Gospels as the
counterfeit to the genuine coin, or as a revolting caricature to the inimitable original, but which, by the
very contrast, tend, negatively, to corroborate the
truth of Evangelical history.  While the Evangelists
expressly reserve the performance of miracles to the
age of maturity and public life, and observe a significant silence concerning the parents of Jesus, the
pseudo-evangelists fill the infancy and early years of
the Savior with the strangest prodigies.
"In vain we look through the entire biography of
Christ for a single stain, or the slightest shadow on
his moral character. There never lived a more harmless being on earth.  He injured nobody, he took advantage of nobody, he never spoke an improper word,
he never committed a wrong action.*   The manner
of expelling the profane traffickers fiom  the Temple
is the only instance which modern criticism has dared
to quote against his freedom  from  the faults of humanity.   But the  very  effect which  it produced
shows that, far from being the outburst of passion,
the expulsion was a judicial act of a religious reformer, vindicating in just and holy zeal the honor
of the Lord of the Temple, and that with a dignity:"No vice that has a name can be thought of in connection with Jesus
Christ. Ingenious malignity looks in vain for the faintest trace of self-seeking
in his motives; sensuality shrinks abashed from his celestial purity; falsehood
can leave no stain on him who is incarnate truth; injustice is forgotten beside
his errorless equity; the very possibility of avarice is swallowed up in his benignity and love; the very idea of ambition is lost in his Divine wisdom and
Divine self-abnegation." (Bayne.)




THEIR HISTORIC  VERITY.                     263
and  majesty  which  at once  silenced  the  offenders,
though  superior in  number and  physical strength,
and  made  them   submit to  their well-deserved  punishment without a murmur, and in  awe of the presence of a superhuman  power.   The  cursing  of the
unfruitful fig-tree  can  still less be urged, as it evidently was a significant symbolical act, foreshadowing the fearful doom of the impenitent Jews in the
destruction of Jerusalem.*..    But this freedom
from   the  common  sin  and  guilt is, after all, only
the negative side of his character, which rises in
magnitude  as  we  contemplate  the  positive  side,
namely, his moral and  religious  perfection.  It is
universally admitted, even by Deists and rationalists,
that Christ taught the purest and  sublimest system
of ethics, which throws all the moral precepts and
maxims of the wisest men  of antiquity far into  the
shade.  The Sermon on the Mount alone is worth infinitely  more than  all that Confucius, Socrates, and
Seneca ever said or wrote on duty and virtue. But
the difference is still greater if we come to the more
difficult task of practice.  While the wisest and best
of men  never live  up  even  to their own  imperfect
standard  of excellency, Christ fully  carried  out his
perfect doctrine in his life and conduct. He is the
living incarnation of the ideal standard of virtue: These and a few other instances in the life of Jesus —namely, the charge of
disobedience toward his parents for remaining behind in the Temple, of interference with the rights of property in permitting the demons to rush among
the herd of swine, his selection of Judas to the apostleship, the appearance of
untruth in John vii, 8-10-though frivolous and scarcely worthy of notice in
connection with a nature so elevated as that of Jesus, are fully considered in
the exegesis of the respective passages. They certainly leave not the minutest
stain on the purity of Jesus. The argument against the sinlessness of Jesus,
drawn from a pretended impossibility of sinlessness in a finite nature, is a
mere petitio principii, and can not fall within the scope of this investigation,
which proposes to deal only with facts.




264            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
and holiness, and universally acknowledged to be
the highest model for all that is pure, and good, and
noble in the sight of God and man. We find him
moving in all the ordinary and essential relations of
life, as a son, a friend, a citizen, a teacher, at home
and in public; we find him among all classes of society, with sinners and saints, with the poor and the
wealthy, with the sick and the healthy, with little
children, grown men and women, with plain fishermen and learned scribes, with despised publicans and
honored members of the Sanhedrim, with friends and
foes, with admiring disciples and bitter persecutors,
now with an individual, as Nicodemus or the woman
of Samaria, now in the familiar circle of the twelve,
now in the crowds of the people; we find him in all
situations, in the synagogue and the Temple, at home
and on journeys, in villages and the city of Jerusalem, in the desert and on the mountain, at the wedding feast and the grave, in Gethsemane, in the
judgment-hall and on Calvary. In all these various
relations, conditions, and situations, as they are now
crowded within the few years of his public ministry,
he sustains the same consistent character throughout,
without ever exposing himself to censure. He fulfills every duty to God, to man, and to himself,
without a single violation of duty, and exhibits an
entire conformity to the law, in the spirit as well
as the letter. His life is one unbroken service of
God in active and passive obedience to his holy will,
one grand act of absolute love to God and love to
man, of personal self-consecration to the glory of the
Heavenly Father and the salvation of a fallen race.
In the language of the people who were'beyond
measure astonished at his works,' we must say, the




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           265
more we study his life:' He did all things well.' In
a solemn appeal to his Heavenly Father, in the parting hour, he could proclaim to the world that he had
glorified him in the earth and finished the work he
gave him to do.
The first feature in this singular perfection of
Christ's character which strikes our attention, is the
perfect harmony of virtue and piety, of morality and
religion, or of love to God and love to man. The
ground-work of his character was the most intimate
and uninterrupted union and communion with his
Heavenly Father, from whom  he derived, to whom
he referred every thing.  Already, in his twelfth
year, he found his life-element and delight in the
things of his Father. It was his daily food to do
the will of Him  that sent him, and to finish his
work. To him he looked in prayer before every important act, and taught his disciples that model
prayer, which, for simplicity, brevity, comprehensiveness, and suitableness can never be surpassed. He
often retired to a mountain or solitary place for
prayer, and spent days and nights in the blessed
privilege.  But so constant and uniform  was his
habit of communion with the great Jehovah, that he
kept it up amid the multitude, and converted the
crowded city into a religious retreat. But the piety
of Christ was no inactive contemplation, or retiring
mysticism  and selfish enjoyment, but thoroughly
practical, ever active in works of charity, and tending to regenerate and transform the world into the
kingdom of God.' He went about doing good.' Iis
life is an unbroken series of good words and virtues
in active exercise, all proceeding from the same union
with God, animated by the same love, and tending to
23




266            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the same end, the glory of God and the happiness
of man.
"Finally, as all the active virtues meet in him, so
he unites the passive. No character can become
complete without trial and suffering.  The ancient
Greeks and Romans admired a good man struggling
with misfortune as a sight worthy of the gods. Plato
describes the righteous man as one who, without
doing any injustice, yet has the appearance of the
greatest injustice, and proves his own justice by perseverance against all calumny unto death; yea, he
predicts that, if such a righteous man should ever
appear, he would be'scourged, tortured, bound, deprived of his sight, and after having suffered all possible injury, nailed on a post.' (Politicus, p. 74, ss.
ed., Ast., p. 361, E. ed. Bip.)  No wonder that the ancient Fathers saw in this remarkable passage an unconscious prophecy of Christ.  But how far is this
ideal of the great philosopher from the actual reality,
as it appeared three hundred years afterward! The
highest form of passive virtue attained by ancient
heathenism or modern secular heroism is that stoicism
which meets and overcomes the trials and misfortunes
of life in the spirit of haughty contempt and unfeeling indifference, which destroys the sensibilities, and
is but another exhibition of selfishness and pride.
Christ has set up a far higher standard by his teaching and example, never known before...   His
passive virtue is not confined to the closing scenes
of his ministry. As human life is beset at every
step by trials, vexations, and hinderances, which
should serve the educational purpose of developing
its resources and proving its strength, so was Christ's.
During the whole state of his humiliation he was'a




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           267
man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief,' and had
to endure'the contradictions of sinners.' IHe was
poor, and suffered hunger and fatigue.  Ile was
tempted by the devil. His path was obstructed with
apparently-unsurmountable difficulties from the outset. His words and miracles called forth the bitter
hatred of the world, which resulted at' last in the
bloody counsel of death.  The Pharisees and Sadducees forgot their jealousies and quarrels in opposing him. They rejected and perverted his testimony;
they laid snares to him by insidious questions; they
called him a glutton and wine-bibber for eating and
drinking like other men, a friend of publicans and
sinners for his condescending love and mercy, a Sabbath-breaker for doing good on the Sabbath day;
they charged him with madness and blasphemy for
asserting his unity with the Father, and derived
his miracles from  Beelzebub, the prince of devils.
The common people, though astonished at his wisdom  and mighty works, pointed sneeringly at his
origin; his own country and native town refused
him the honor of a prophet. Even his brothers, we
are told, did not believe in him, and, in their impatient zeal for a temporal kingdom, they found fault
with his unostentatious proceeding. His apostles and
disciples, with all their profound reverence for his
character, and their faith in his Divine origin and
mission as the Messiah of God, yet, by their ignorance, their carnal, Jewish notions, and their almost
habitual misunderstanding of his spiritual discourses,
must have constituted a severe trial of patience to a
teacher of far less superiority to his pupils.
" But how  shall we describe his passion, more
properly so called, with which no other suffering




268           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
can be compared for a moment! Never did any
man suffer more innocently, more unjustly, more intensely than Jesus of Nazareth. Within the narrow
liihits of a few hours we have here a tragedy of universal significance, exhibiting every form of human
weakness and infernal wickedness, of ingratitude, desertion, injury, and insult, of bodily and mental pain
and anguish, culminating in the most ignominious
death then known among the Jews and Gentiles.
The Government and the people combined against
him who came to save them. His own disciples forsook him; Judas, under the inspiration of the devil,
betrayed him. The rulers of the nation condemned
him, the furious mob cried,'Crucify him,' and rude
soldiers mocked him. He was seized in the night,
hurried from tribunal to tribunal, arrayed in a crown
of thorns, insulted, smitten, scourged, spit upon and
hung like a criminal and a slave between two robbers and murderers!
"How did Christ bear all these little and great
trials of life, and the death on the cross? Let us
remember first, that, unlike the icy stoics in their
unnatural and. repulsive pseudo-virtue, he showed
the keenest sensibility in the agony of the garden,
and the deepest sympathy with human grief in shedding tears at the grave of a friend, and providing a
refuge for his mother in the last dying hour. But
with this truly-human tenderness and delicacy of
feeling he ever combined an unutterable dignity and
majesty, a sublime self-control and imperturbable
calmness of mind. There is a grandeur in his deepest sufferings, which forbids a feeling of pity and
compassion on our side as incompatible with the
admiration and reverence for his character. We feel




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           269
the force of his words to the women of Jerusalem,
when they bewailed him  on the way to Calvary:'Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and your
children.' We never hear him  break out in angry
passion and violence, although he was at war with
the whole ungodly world.  He never murmured,
never uttered discontent, displeasure, or resentment.
He was never disheartened, discouraged, ruffled, or
fretted, but full of unbounded confidence that all was
well ordered in the providence of his Heavenly
Father. He moved serenely, like the sun above the
clouds as they sailed under him. He was ever surrounded by the element of peace, and said in his
parting hour:'Peace I leave with you; my peace I
give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto
you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it
be afraid.' He was never what we call unhappy, but
full of inward joy, which he bequeathed to his disciples in that sublimest of all prayers,'that they
might have his joy fulfilled in themselves.' With
all his severe rebukes to the Pharisees, he never indulged in personalities. He ever returned good for
evil. He forgave Peter for his denial; and would
have forgiven Judas, if; in the exercise of sincere repentance, he had sought his pardon.  Even while
hanging on the cross, he had only the language of
pity for the wretches who were driving the nails
into his hands and feet, and prayed in their behalf,'Father forgive them, for they know not what they
do.' He did not seek or hasten his martyrdom  in
morbid enthusiasm or ambitious humility, but quietly and patiently waited for the hour appointed by
the will of his Heavenly Father. But when it came,
with what self-possession and calmness, with what




270                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
strength and meekness, with what majesty and gentleness did he pass through its dark and trying
scenes!*  Here every word and act are unutterably
significant, from   the  agony  in   Gethsemane, when
overwhelmed with the sympathetic sense of the entire guilt of mankind, and in full view  of the terrible' On this point Dr. Bushnell makes the following profound remarks  " It will
be observed that his agony, the scene in which his suffering is bitterest and
most evident, is, on human principles, wholly misplaced. It comes before the
time, when as yet there is no arrest, and no human prospect that there will be
any. He is at large to go where he pleases, and in perfect outward safety. His
disciples have just been gathered round him in a scene of more than family
tenderness and affection. Indeed, it is but a few days since that he was coming
into the city, at the head of a vast procession, followed by loud acclamations,
and attended by such honors as may fitly celebrate the inaugural of a king.
Yet here, with no bad sign apparent, we see him plunged into a scene of deepest distress, and racked in his feeling with a more than mortal agony. Coming
out of this, assured and comforted, he is shortly arrested, brought to trial, and
crucified; where, if there be any thing questionable in his manner, it is the fact
that he is even more composed than some would have him to be, not even stooping to defend himself or vindicate his innocence.... By the misplacing
of his agony thus, and the strange silence he observes when the real hour of
agony is come, we are put entirely at fault on natural principles. But it was
not for him to wait..         He that was before Abraham, must also be
before his occasions. In a time of safety, in a cool hour of retirement, unaccountably to his friends, he falls into a dreadful contest and struggle of mind... Why now this so great intensity of sorrow? Why this agony? Was
there not something unmanly in it, something unworthy of a really-great soul?
Take him to be only a man, and there probably was. But this one thing is
clear, that no one of mankind ever had the sensibility to suffer so intensely;
even showing the body, for the mere struggle and pain of the mind, exuding and
dripping with blood. Evidently there is something mysterious here. What, we
begin to ask, should be the power of a superhuman sensibility? And how far
should the human vehicle shake under such power?  How, too, should an innocent and pure spirit be exercised, when about to suffer in his own person the
greatest wrong ever committed! Besides, there is a vicarious spirit in love;
all love inserts itself vicariously into the sufferings, and woes, and, in a certain
sense, the sins of others, taking them on itself as a burden. How, then, if perchance Jesus should be Divine, an embodiment of God's love in the world-how
should he feel, and by what signs of feeling manifest his sensibility, when a
fallen race are just about to do the damning sin that crowns their guilty history; to crucify the only perfect being that ever came into the world; to crucify
even him, the messenger and representative to them of the love of God, the deliverer who has taken their case and cause upon him? Whosoever duly ponders
these questions, will more and more distinctly see that what he looks upon to
be the pathology of a superhum    an guish. It stands, he will perceive, in no
mortal key. It will be to him the anguish, not of any pusillanimous feeling,
but of holy character itself; nay, of a mysteriously-transcendent, or, somehow,
Divine character."




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           271
scenes before him-the only guiltless being in the
world-he prayed that the cup might pass from him,
but immediately added,'Not my, but thy will be
done,' to the triumphant exclamation on the cross,'It is finished!' Even his dignified silence before
the tribunal of his enemies and the furious mob,
when,'as a lamb dumb before his shearers, he opened
not his mouth,' is more eloquent than any apology,
and made Pilate tremble. Who will venture to bring
a parallel from  the annals of ancient or modern
sages, when even a Rousseau confessed,' If Socrates
suffered and died like a philosopher, Jesus Christ
suffered and died  like a God!' The passion and
crucifixion of Jesus, like his whole character, stands
without a parallel, solitary and alone in its glory."
In the portraiture of the character and life of Jesus
which we have been contemplating, we find all the
different lineaments which lie scattered up and down
the pages of the Gospel narrative in the most artless
simplicity, without any trace of forethought and design, gathered together into one whole. It is evident
that the picture of Jesus which the Gospels present
to us, and which the apostles every-where describe,
is such that, even if it had not been expressly stated
in Scripture that Jesus was without sin, we could
never have conceived of sin, of separation from God,
of moral obliquity, as forming a feature in that picture, without being sensible that we should thus
materially disfigure and deface it, nay, destroy it
altogether. Nevertheless, it has been called in question on the ground that, in order to pronounce concerning any one that he is absolutely free from sin, a
perfect knowledge of his heart is above all things
requisite; and the apostles could not see into the




272            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
heart of Jesnls even in the time of their intercourse
with him, while of the earlier part of his life they
had no personal knowledge. In meeting this question, Ullman proves the verity of the picture which
the New Testament presents of the sinlessness of
Jesus, by the following  unanswerable arguments,
which we will give in his own language, though not
in the order in which he discusses the subject:
1. It is unquestionably true that the disciples of
Jesus could not look immediately into his heart like
the omniscient Searcher of Hearts; but what is a
man's life but the index and revelation of his spirit;
and is it possible to account for a perfectly-moral life
otherwise than on the supposition of a perfectly-moral
soul which it represents?  Can we explain purity of
action otherwise than as flowing from purity of heart?
What circumstance is there in the life of Jesus to
favor the idea that he ever acted in a manner merely
legal and external, while in heart he was not truly
good, or that his inmost disposition was in conflict
with his actions? The principle on which the objection is based would, if applied generally, abolish all
faith in human virtue and spiritual greatness.
2. If Jesus had not unfolded before the eyes of
those with whom  he was surrounded a character
of perfect purity and sinless holiness, his apostles
could not have made a representation of such a character; for the idea of sinlessness in a, human nature
had never been thought of previous to the appearing
of Christ; or, where the thought occurs, we find inseparably connected with it the conviction that it
could not be realized in actual life, that a perfectlysinless human being never did or could exist on
earth. Plato, it is true, draws a sketch of a right



THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            273
eous man, in which he represents perfect virtue as
necessarily conjoined with suffering; but the idea of
the virtue he describes is entirely restricted to uprightness; no reference is made to that inward religiousness by which virtue rises into holiness, and, what
is a still more important consideration, the sketch of
Plato is only a conception of his mind, without any
intimation that it was ever realized in actual life.
Perhaps there is no man of antiquity with whom
men would have associated the idea of moral perfection more readily than Socrates; and yet, although
we possess such glorious descriptions of that great
man, drawn by his revering disciples, neither they
nor any one else, least of all Socrates himself, have
ventured to maintain that he was entirely free from
moral blemishes, a perfect man. The prevalent conviction in the heathen world, that moral perfection
is a thing which it is impossible for man to attain, is
clearly expressed by Epictetus, who, after setting
forth -the idea of moral stainlessness with more
clearness than any preceding philosopher, asks the
question, whether it be possible that it should ever
be realized, and answers: "No, it is impossible; all
that is possible is constantly to strive after a state of
not sinning."  The same sentiment we find in Judaism; its ruling principle was a consciousness of
sin produced by a law given by a God of holifiess;
for although the Jew had, along with this consciousness of sin, also the belief in grace-still he felt himself under the curse of sin, which the law was incapable of removing. Neither the founder of the Old
Testament dispensation laid any claim  to the possession of spotless righteousness, nor that greatest
prophet of the ante-Christian age, who had, indeed,




274            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
an anticipation that the idea of moral purity would
be realized, but not till it should be seen in him
whom  he announced. But, behold! here stand the
plain, simple-minded apostles, themselves reckoned
neither among the poets nor the philosophers, in
whom we find only the idea of sinless holiness most
clearly defined, and whose faith in its actual realization in the person of Jesus has become such a certainty that they could sacrifice for its sake all that
men usually hold dear; further, we find that they
have given a description of the pure and holy life
of Jesus, in which the subsequent moral development
of nineteen centuries has discovered  no fault or
blemish, in which men of the present day still recognize a picture of the most perfect character in the
domain of religion and morality that can any where
be found. From  all this we certainly can not draw
any other conclusion than this: If an idea arose in
all its clearness in the minds of the apostles, which
the great thinkers and poets of antiquity were entirely ignorant of, or saw but dimly, this can be accounted for only by the manifestation of a real life;
and if those who till then had regarded faultlessness as a thing unattainable by man, had now the
strongest belief in the reality of a sinless life, the
cause for the change could only lie in the overpowering impression produced by that life itself, seen
unfolding itself before their eyes.
3. The testimony of the apostles receives its full
confirmation and its proper validity from the testimony of Jesus himself. The two must be taken together, for only together do they form a satisfactory
proof. He, whom others regarded as a spotless and
holy being, must be fully conscious in himself of per



THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           275
feet freedom from sin; and again, this consciousness
of his must be corroborated by the impression which
he produces upon others; thus united, alone, can
either testimony receive its full import. In considering the testimony of Jesus concerning himself, let us
first contemplate its negative aspect. He who had
so keen an eye for the sins of others must, if we will
not suppose him to have been self-blinded, have seen
as clearly sin in himself, if it was there. But we find
no where in his history, as we do in the case of the
best of men, even the most occasional expression of
consciousness of sin; there is no humbling of himself
before God on account of sin, there is no prayer for
the forgiveness of sin. Does not this inevitably lead
to the conclusion, that the source from whence those
feelings, which we find precisely in the men of highest moral character, proceed, had in him no existence
whatever?  It follows, likewise, from  what he said
on the occasion of his baptism, that he felt conscious
that he needed for himself no repentance or regeneration. But more than this. So far was Jesus from
standing in need of forgiveness for himself, that the
position he held with reference to sinful men was
that of a pardoner of sin.  He came not only to
preach forgiveness, he came to bestow it; and could
this have been done by one who felt guilt and sin in
himself?  To forgive sin belongs to God only; hence,
Jesus could claim that right only on the ground of a
deep consciousness of oneness with God, a consciousness based upon a feeling of perfect freedom from
sin.
But the positive testimonies are much stronger.
Here we have, first of all, to notice that most conclusive saying of Jesus, which we find in John's Gospel:




276                  THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
"Which of you convinceth me of sin?"*  When we
read this question, the feeling forces itself upon us,
that its author  must have  been  a  personality  of a
moral  character  most  peculiar;  a  feeling   greatly
strengthened  by  the recollection  that he  who spoke
these words was one who in his whole life presents to
us a picture at once of purest truthfulness and most
divine  humility.  Every  man, too, must at once be
fully  convinced, that to apply these words to himself
would  only  prove  him   a  vain  fool or  a  miserable
hypocrite.   Last of all could  this happen  in  a  community from the midst of which we hear that same
apostle, who  has  preserved  us the saying  of Jesus,
exclaim: "If we say that we have no sin we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us." It is certainly
a fact of the highest significance, that, in opposition
to this attestation of universal sinfulness, which every''This passage has by some commentators been translated: "Which of you
convinceth me of error?" Supposing this translation were correct, even in
that case these words of Jesus would be of great importance for our purpose,
for they would at least contain an indirect testimony to the religious and moral
purity of Jesus. For if he claims exemption from error in that province which
alone comes under consideration in this passage-namely, the domain of morality and religion-this must imply that he lays claim to purity of inward nature and of outward conduct. For freedom from sin presupposes freedom from
error, and vice versa; the two act and react upon each other. The human mind,
whatever divisions psychology may make of its powers, is not in reality separated into different departments. It is absolutely one and undivided, manifesting itself, however, in various ways, and exerting itself in different directions.
The threads of our whole intellectual life are so subtilely and finely interwoven, that to touch one is to move the whole; that every impression affects in
some way the whole spirit, and every action is the result of the complicated
cooperation of the most different energies of the mind. The man as thinking
can not be sundered from the man as feeling; nor the man as willing from the
man as knowing. In consequence of this undivided unity of the soul, it is inconceivable that a person should be perfect in regard to volitions and acts, and
yet be defective and imperfect in moral and religious knowledge. Wheen our
knowledge has the purity of truth, it acts with a purifying power on the life;
and purity of life tends to enlighten, and to preserve the enlightelnmlent of
the intellect. From this it follows, that the necessary presupposition and result of the sinlessness of Jesus was the entire absence of error in respect of
things religious and moral.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.             277
one without exception must indorse, there is One
who steps forth from the ranks of humanity and exclaims: "Who convinceth me of sin?"  That Jesus
by these words did not intend  to say of himself
simply, what any honest man, who led a life in conformity with the law, might say-"Nobody could
point to any sin he had committed "-is self-evident.
That he, on the contrary, meant positively to affirm
the purity of his moral consciousness, that his conscience was free from guilt, his inner as well as outer
life unstained by sin, is irrefutably proved from those
other sayings which John records of Christ, and
whose meaning it is impossible to explain away,
when he declares himself to be the way, the truth,
and the life; when he says that it is his meat to do the
will of Him that sent him; when he testifies that he
does at all times the things which please the Father,
that he never seeks his own will, but always the will
of the Father.  These are expressions which present
to us the picture of a life which not only had in it
no place for sin, but, more than this, which can only
be thought of as an actually-perfect life. There are,
especially, two significant passages which come under
consideration here. The first is: "I and my Father
are one."  (John x, 30.)  It matters not, for our purpose, whether the unity spoken of is to be understood
as a unity of nature, or a moral unity, a unity of
will; for where perfect unity with the Divine will
exists, there must also, of necessity, be not only perfect freedom from sin, but perfect goodness.  Similar
is the case with regard to the other passage: "He
that has seen me has seen the Father." (John xiv,
9.) Certainly we are not to restrict these words so
as to mean merely that there was in Jesus something




278            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Divine along with what was imperfect and sinful, as
there is in every man. They must be taken in the
full sense, that Jesus was morally and mentally an
image of the invisible God, an expression of the Divine nature. But it is only a character of stainless
purity and unsullied holiness that can be a spiritual
reflection of God; where sin exists, the Holy One can
not be seen; where the Holy One can be seen, there
neither sin nor any imperfection can exist.
There can, therefore, be no doubt that Jesus bore
within him the consciousness of being sinless and
holy; and that to this consciousness he gave repeated
expression. If we will not acknowledge the validity
of a self-testimony of so peculiar a character, there
remains nothing but to declare Jesus to have been
either a fanatic or a hypocrite. If we declare him a
fanatic, we must suppose that he drew no clear line
of demarkation between good and evil; that he did
not examine every fold of his heart, or know all the
motions of his will; nay, we must believe that he was
a victim to the vainest self-deception when he uttered those memorable words. And is this conceivable in the case of one who on every other occasion
could distinguish with such incomparable precision
between good and evil, whose keen vision pierced to
the remotest depths of the nature of men, and whose
feelings on all moral subjects were so singularly refined? Is it possible that he who knew others so well
should have been ignorant of himself?  He would
thus form a strange exception even to human knowledge.  For no other man, even the most darkened,
would ever entertain a doubt that he is a sinner; was
Jesus then a sinner, and alone ignorant of the fact?
Or, if such conclusions are too absurd to be enter



THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           279
tained, we must be prepared to accept the other more
fearful alternative. IHe was conscious of transgressing against the Divine law, we must suppose, in
thought, word, and deed, and yet he expressly denied
it. But who is there that would dare to undertake
the defense of such a position, to maintain that he,
who in all the circumstances of his life acted from
the purest conscientiousness, and who at last died for
his testimony upon the cross, was, after all, nothing
more than an abject hypocrite?  How could it be
that he, of whom even the least susceptible must confess that there breathed around him  an atmosphere.
of purity and faith, should have fallen into an antagonism so deep and so deadly? Into such absurd and
revolting self-contradictions we must land, if we refuse to acknowledge the truth of the Divine selftestimony of Jesus concerning his sinlessness.
4. There is still another argument that establishes
the certainty of the perfect holiness of Jesus beyond
the possibility of a reasonable doubt.  The moral
effects produced upon mankind by Christianity are
such that the sinlessness of Jesus is their necessary
condition or originating cause. In other words, it
can be shown that there have been, since the appearance of Christ on earth, actual manifestations, which
can be explained rationally only on one assumption;
namely, that the Author of Christianity was a being
of sinless holiness; and that, if we refuse to make
this assumption, these manifestations must remain
entirely inexplicable.
An unbiased  investigation will place beyond a
doubt the following facts: that Christianity produced
in individual believers-that is, in those who were
deservedly so called-a rich supply of virtues; and




280            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
that these were, partly, virtues of which men had
previously no conception whatever, or, at all events,
no idea, so high and pure as Christianity imparts.
Such virtues are humility, meekness, and the self-denial of compassionate love. Nor has Christianity
exercised a less salutary moral influence upon the
common relations of human life. In marriage and
the family, in the condition of civil and political life,
in the relation of ranks, castes, and nations to one
another, and, in a word, in the whole condition of the
race, it has laid the foundation of a state of society
essentially different from what it was before. All
these moral manifestations disclose to us the grand
truth, that Christianity has produced something new
in the moral world, that the individual character
which is molded by its influence, and also the humanity which it forms, is a new moral creation. This
the apostle Paul expresses in a most forcible manner,
when he says: "If any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature; old things are passed away, behold,
all things are become new."  Let us now inquire
what must be the originating cause of that new creation which we find in the moral life of the Christian
world. In seeking an answer to this question, we
will naturally be inclined to point first to the moral
ideas peculiar to Christianity-that is, to Christian
ethics. Christianity has, undoubtedly, an ethical system of incomparable purity, depth, and completeness;
it far transcends every thing that the heathen world
has to point to; its principle and spirit far excel the
loftiest ideas of the Old Testament economy, and
there can be no doubt that this of itself is a fact of
great importance for our purpose. For these ideas
of Christian ethics are the expression and result of




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           281
the moral spirit which existed in the Founder of
Christianity, and thus they afford a testimony to the
purity and dignity of his moral teaching. But if we
are thus compelled to argue from the doctrine to its
Author, this is still more the case when we look beyond the doctrine to the original source of those influences which have produced so mighty a revolution
in the moral world. And this primary source is not
the doctrine of Jesus, but his person. This is necessarily the case; for it is not any doctrine which calls
into being a new life; it is only life which can generate life. For this we have the most decisive testimony of Christian experience.  The same apostle
who uttered the sublime saying concerning the new
creation, says, also, when he wishes to describe the
primary source and fountain of his life: "I live; but
not I, but Christ liveth in me."  He affirms that any
one is a new creature, not because he walks according to the doctrine of Christ, but because he is "in"
Christ-that is, personally united to him; and in this
the apostle expresses only what is the experience of
every true Christian in every age.
The question now arises: In what way must such
a personality have been constituted to make it capable of imparting a regenerating power to Paul, and
to all those whose experience has been like his?
And to this question we must answer: It can not
have been a personality in itself sinful, for then it
would have differed from other men only in degree.
It would still have partaken of the old nature. It
would not have realized in itself an entirely new creation; and thus it could not have prepared the way
for a new moral birth. On the contrary, it must
have been a personality raised above all connection
24




282                 THE  GOSPEL  RECORDS
with the old nature; one in which  the power of sin
was entirely broken; which was itself in the highest
sense a new  creation, and was thus in a condition to
produce the  deep  renovating  effects which  a perfect
ideal alone could produce.*   Thus, on the supposition
that the  Founder of Christianity  was  not without
sin, it is impossible to understand how a morality of
so pure and perfect a stamp as that which characterizes our religion  could derive its origin  from  such  a
being, or how it could express its peculiar character
in such words as these: " Old things are passed away,
all things are become new."   If, on the other hand,
we suppose the Author of Christianity to have been
altogether without sin, then  it is easy  to perceive
how, within  its sphere, a new  creation could come to
perfection  in  the  moral world  by  his being  formed
within the individual believer.
Again, if the Christian feels in his inmost soul a
consciousness that morally he is a new man, that old
things are passed  away  and that all things are become new, then  his position with reference to God must
have been changed.  The dominion  of sin can  not be
broken, and  the power of a new  life can  not be attained, unless its guilt has been  first abolished, and
the foundation laid of a right standing in relation to
the holy God. Now, the words which express all that
* In reply to the objection, that the sinlessness of Jesus should have produced also in those who come within his renovating influence a perfect freedom from transgression, Ullmann observes: "We find that, in all true Christians, the principle of sin is in fact broken, and that they feel assured of its
complete and final overthrow. If, in spite of this conquest of the principle of
sin, it is still found operating in their lives, this circumstance only leads us to
conclude that, in order to be ever more and more and at length perfectly freed
from sin, all that is required is a complete surrender to the renovating influence of Christ; a conviction which can rest upon nothing else than a certainty of the fullness and boundless efficacy of that holy, sinless life which
dwells in the person of Jesus."




THEIR IISTORIC VERITY.           283
belongs to this circle of ideas are these two: Reconciliation and Redemption. These two things constitute
the fundamental consciousness of the Christian world;
for the Christian world is what it is essentially because it is conscious of being reconciled and redeemed.
Now, if we find this consciousness in the Christian
religion alone, if Christianity is the only religion
which can effect a true reconciliation between man
and God by an actual redemption from sin, then it
is not difficult to discover that the author of such a
religion must himself be of a perfectly-sinless and
holy character. The true relation of man to God
can find its realization only irn one in whom sin,
which is the ground of separatio    wn betwee n an and
God, has no place. The real manifestation of' Divine
grace can exist only in one in whom the one spring
of action is the fullness of love which he derives
from perfect fellowship with God, and in whom this
forms the principle which regulates his whole life.
Were there not at the head of the Christian religion
such a being, it were inconceivable how it could be
the religion of reconciliation and redemption, or how
the deep-rooted consciousness of' being reconciled and
redeemed should have come to form the fundamental
belief of the Christian world. With such a being
at the head of Christianity, this is at once explained.
Now, if the consciousness of being reconciled and redeemed, possessed by the Christian world, has any
reality, then that from which it emanated must also
have had a real existence. And that that consciousness had a real foundation rests equally upon an
actual fact-on a fact which every Christian practically experiences. The doctrine of the sinless holiness of Jesus is, therefore, as secure as is the truth




284            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of the efficacy of his work of reconciliation and redemption.
One point more remains to be noticed. Not only
have morality and religion been both presented under
a new aspect by Christianity, but it has effected an
interpenetration of the moral and religious elements
such as formerly did not exist. This blending of the
moral and religious, which we call holiness, can only
be accounted for, that it was fully realized in the
person of Christ. It is Christianity alone which combines religion and morality into one, though giving
each its full due; for it knows nothing of a piety
which does not sanctify, which is not of an entirely
ethical character, seeking to subdue and transfuse the
whole life; or of a morality which does not rest
upon a living faith, which is not thoroughly religious.
This union gives, as has been remarked above, the
idea of holiness. But it is something. more than the
idea that Christianity gives; it sets forth holiness
not as something unattainable, far beyond the grasp
of humanity, but as already really implanted in humanity-as an idea which, from the time of its first
perfect manifestation in the person of its Founder, is
destined to be realized ever more and more within
the Christian Church. It is self-evident that the idea
of holiness and the belief of its attainability by man
could not proceed from any thing else than from the
great fact of the life manifestation of the sinless and
perfect character of Jesus.
5. When we endeavor to bring before our minds
the image of the personality of Jesus in direct connection with the influences and works which originated in him, three things strike us as peculiarunlimited perfection, unapproachable dignity, and




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY,            285
unconditional power of action.  The character of
Jesus is so constituted that we can not take away
one single trait from it, or add one to it, without at
once being sensible that we have not only altered but
disfigured it. HIe includes in himself, in fact, all perfection; and, along with the highest energy, and an
inexhaustible fountain of life, there is a harmony so
perfect that we are compelled to exclaim: Here no
improvement can be suggested by the loftiest idealizing, for the ideal itself has become real, and the
life itself is stamped with the seal of perfection! - In
its perfection we feel, moreover, that something attaches to the person of Jesus which our thoughlts and
words are incapable of grasping. Art has striven in
vain to find an adequate expression for the image of
Christ; and so, to describe his spiritual nature and
character, is a task which never has been, and never
will be, accomplished to our complete satisfaction.
We feel ever that he is possessed of a dignity which
is unapproachable by man, of a fullness which, the
more we draw from it, the greater do its treasures appear. This is perceived not only by separate individuals, but by humanity as a whole.  The higher and
truer the inner life of an individual becomes, the
more clearly does he discern and realize the image
of Jesus; and at every new step in the development
of humanity the form of the Nazarene is illuminated
by a fuller light. At the same time there is a distinct consciousness that it is not the image of Christ
which increases by means of us, but that we, by
living more deeply into it, grow in our capacity of
understanding it. And however nearly we may approximate toward him, we always feel that he towers
above us at a hight to which no man will ever be




286           THE GOSPEL ILECORDS:
able fully to rise-that there is a distance between
him and us which none can traverse. This eminence
of Jesus is further evidenced by the unbounded power
of influencing men which he manifests. The image
of the serene and holy One of Golgotha sinks into
the very depths of our heart, and presents itself before the soul-sometimes as a conscience warning us
of sin and evil, at other times like a word of consolation coming directly from our compassionate God.
And while its influence is thus felt in our own inmost life, it is no less perceptible in the ordinary
course of the history of mankind. The traces there
are alike notorious and indelible, and the whole development of humanity, especially in its highest aspects, would be inexplicable apart from the recognition of the presence of such a power. We can conceive it to be possible that all the great men of history
should pass into utter oblivion, but we must hold it
to be impossible that the memory of this image
should depart, because it has become part and parcel
of the inmost and truest life of humanity. Nothing
like this can be affirmed of any other man. The capacity and perfection of all others are conjoined with
limitation and sinfulness; eminence in every other
instance is explicable on human grounds, and can be
represented in human forms; all other influence on
humanity, even that which deserves to be called
world-wide, has its limits. The only exception is
Jesus, the sinlessly-holy One.
The question now arises, whether the explanation
of this phenomenon can be found within the sphere
of that which is merely human; or whether it does
compel us to recognize in Jesus a principle which
lies beyond human nature and human powers? We,




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.                    287
surely, can have no hesitation in denying the former
and affirming the latter. If sinlessness or moral perfection were within the reach of man in his present
condition, how has it come to pass that experience
only furnishes one example of perfect freedom  from
sin?  Why have not persons risen  up  among men,
from time to time, who could lay claim to the same
superiority, and  compel others to  acknowledge the
justice  of  their  pretensions?   The  only  rational
ground of the fact is, that a principle of sin is implanted  in  human  nature-not, indeed, by original
constitution,* but certainly, in its present state, that
sin, although not the true, is still the second nature
of man-that it penetrates and rules the whole race.
The principle of sin being in such a manner ingrafted
in human nature, in the condition in which experience presents it to us, only one supposition  can render intelligible the existence of a sinless man; namely,
that the chain of sin has been broken, and that, in
consequence, a personality has arisen in the midst of
the sinful race, whose nature is thoroughly whole
and sound, to which  have  been  given  powers perfectly pure  and  amply sufficient for the realization
of the hihger life. But this is only possible as the
result of a Divine creation. Such a person could not
be the product of a race subjected to sin. In this
aspect he, in  whom  the possibility of being sinless'' "Never was there a man so purely man as the second Adam, the Lord from
heaven. Never man spoke so humanly, felt so humanly, loved so humanly,
lived so humanly, died so humanly. Bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh,
he had a more genuine humanity than any of the other sons of Adam, inasmuch as it was free from that demoniac adulteration which had been produced
by sin. Hence he is so emphatically called, and delights to call himself, the
Son of man. The term has more meaning than it seems at first view to possess.
In the Syriac it is the name for humanity itself." (Taylor Lewuis's " The Divine
Hueman of tie Scripltres," p. 6.)




288            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
has become a reality, must be considered a totally
new man, a second Adam. But this second Adam,
with whose humanity begins a new career, although
like the first as respects the soundness and integrity
of the higher powers of life, stands in an entirelydifferent position toward the world. The first man
was put in a world where as yet sin was not, and he
had only to decide for obedience or disobedience to
the plain Divine command which had been given
him.  The second Adam was born as a child into a
world which was already under the dominion of sin,
and, through all the stages of the development of his
life, was exposed to its influence. In the course of such
a development, independently of any natural bias in
a man, sin comes upon him from all sides; it takes
possession of him when he is as yet in an unconscious,
or only half-conscious state; and when he awakens
up to full consciousness it is already in the field,
and has gained a power with which he has to struggle; not only outwardly but inwardly.  Hence the
impossibility of conceiving of a development, actually
free from sin, being accomplished in a natural way
under existing circumstances. But if, as -we have
found in Jesus, such a development has, notwithstanding all influences to the contrary, been brought
to pass, we can not feel any hesitation in assuming
the presence of something over and above, and in
union with, the integrity of constitution originally
given. In him whose development was thus sinless,
there must have been an infallible sureness enabling
him during its whole course, and even at those stages
of it when he was not as yet awakened to full consciousness, to reject every thing impure, untrue, and
sinful, and to appropriate for his inner life only the




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           289
pure, true, and good, from that which the surrounding world presented to him. It must therefore be
conceded that a Divine principle conditioned the
original integrity of Jesus, and was a constituent
element of his personality, and that it grew  and
progressed in perfect symmetry and in harmony with
the human element; and that, consequently, so far
from hindering, it really promoted the natural development of the latter, and secured its perfect purity
and orderliness. Clearly, however, we can not understand by this Divine principle merely something
akin or bearing resemblance to God, such as is in
every man; for sin can and actually does coexist
therewith in every man, while the sinlessness of Jesus separates him from, and constitutes him superior
to, all other men. We must, therefore, consider that
principle to be Divine in its uncorrupted and true
essence. In this way we are led from the sinless Son
of man to the Son of God, and the recognition of the
pure humanity of Jesus ends in the conviction of his
true Divinity. His personality is so constituted that,
as we attentively regard it, we find it marked by
those very characteristics of truth, righteousness, holiness, and love, which constitute the essential nature
of God. Our thoughts, therefore, unavoidably ascend
to God. We are utterly unable to understand or account for his personality otherwise. The conviction
is forced upon us that, so far as it is possible to see
God in human form, we have him before us in the
person of Jesus. And, inasmuch as Jesus presents
humanity and Divinity in complete union and interpretation, we can not conceive of him otherwise than
as God-man.
25




290            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
~ 30. THE MIRACLES WROUGHT ON AND PERFORMED BY JESUS
THE NATURAL AND NECESSARY OUTFLOW OF HIS HISTORICALLY-PROVED PERSONALITY, AND, AT THE SAME
TIME, THE GROUND AND WARRANT OF ALL
OTHER TRUE MIRACLES, PRECEDING
AND SUCCEEDING HIS APPEARANCE ON EARTH.
We take it for granted that the miracles of the
Gospel history are meant to be real miracles, according to the definition which we have given of a miracle in ~ 22. All attempts to explain them away, by
putting language to the rack, or by resolving them
into effects from  natural causes, have so utterly
failed, that those who made such attempts are ridiculed by infidelity itself. Again, the testimony of so
credible men as the Evangelists, (see ~~ 24, 25, 26,)
may be considered sufficient to satisfy a reasonable
inquiry after the verity of the miracles they record,
more especially when we take into consideration
that, according to their testimony, Christ himself
claimed the power to work miracles, and appealed to
it as a proof of his Divine mission; for the supposition that Jesus should have given a false testimony
concerning himself, we have seen to be utterly inconceivable; and if the testimony of the Evangelists on
this point were false, if the miracles they attribute
to Jesus were mere fables, the product of their age,
the question arises, how was it possible for them to
preserve such a character as that of Christ in its
perfect proportions?  "If there be a greater miracle," observes Bushnell, "or a tax on human credulity more severe, we know not where it is. Nothing
is so difficult, all human literature testifies, as to draw




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            291
a character, and keep it in its living proportions.
How much more to draw a perfect character, and not
discolor it fatally by marks fiom the imperfection of
the biographer! How  is it, then, that four humble
men have done this, while loading down the history
of Christ with marvels and fables?"
The verity of the Gospel miracles, however, as we
remarked in the introduction to this chapter, rests
not simply nor chiefly on the credibility of the Evangelists. It is the moral perfection of Jesus, unparalleled and never having been conceived of by man
before, that furnishes the unassailable voucher of his
having performed miracles. Very boldly, but truly,
Bushnell remarks: "It is no ingenious fetches of argument that we want; no external testimony, gathered here and there from the records of past ages,
suffices to end our doubts; but it is the new sense
opened in us by Jesus himself-a sense deeper than
words and more immediate than inference-of the
miraculous grandeur of his life-a glorious agreement felt between his works and his person, such
that his miracles themselves are proved to us in our
feeling, believed in by that inward testimony. On
this inward testimony we are willing to stake every
thing, even the life that now is, and that which is to
come. If the miracles, if revelation itself can not
stand upon the superhuman character of Jesus, then
let it fall.  If that character does not contain all
truth and centralize all truth in itself, then let there
be no truth. If there is any thing worthy of belief
not found in this, we may well consent to live and
die without it. Before this sovereign light, streaming out from God, the deep questions, and dark surmises, and doubts unresolved, which make a night so




292            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
gloomy and terrible about us, hurry away to their
native abyss.  God, who commanded the light to
shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to
give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ. This it is that has conquered the assaults of doubt and false learning in all
past ages, and will in all ages to come. No argument against the sun will drive it from the sky. No
mole-eyed skepticism, dazzled by its brightness, can
turn away the shining it refuses to look upon. And
they who long after God will be ever turning their
eyes thitherward, and, either with or without reason,
or, if need be, against manifold impediments of reason, will see and believe."
We have shown, by a full and critical examination
of the character of Jesus, that it can not have been
an invention, but that such a person must have lived,
else he could not be described, and that he plainly
was not a mere man. This historically-proved person-a being who has broken into the world, and is
not of it, but has come out from God-is himself the
one central and grandest miracle that occurred in the
history of the world, the ground and warrant for all
other true miracles, preceding and succeeding his
appearance on earth, and all the miracles, wrought
on and performed by him, are only the natural outflow of that which is already contained in his personality. They are of the same significance in respect of the natural powers as sinlessness is in respect
of the moral powers. A perfectly-sinless man is no
whit less miraculous a phenomenon in the moral
world than a man raised from  the dead is in the
natural world. To recognize Jesus as sinlessly holy,
and yet to deny the miraculous element in his life,




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY..293
would be self-contradictory. It is inconceivable that
he should have entered or left the world like other
men. Sinful humanity could not produce out of itself
the Son of Man, whom  to see was to see God the
Father, and the historical development of his earthly
life would have had no fitting completion, if he had
not risen from  the dead and ascended to heaven.
His supernatural conception, his resurrection and ascension can be called in question only by one who
attempts to blot from, the record of history the
earthly life and character of Jesus, the words spoken
and the influences on the minds of men exercised by
him. Whoever admits these irrefutable facts of' history, must expect supernatural works to proceed
from  this supernatural personality.  The contrary
would be unnatural. "Since Jesus is shown," says
Bushnell, "to be a superhuman being, manifestly
Nature will have a relation to him  under and by
her own laws, such as accords with his superhuman
quality, and it would be very singular if he did not
do superhuman things; nay, it is even philosophically incredible that he should not..... Nay,
it would be itself a contradiction to all order and fit
relation if he could not. To suppose that a being
out of humanity will be shut up within all the limitations of humanity, is incredible and contrary to
reason. The very laws of nature themselves, having
him present to them as a new agent and higher first
term, would require the development of new consequences and incidents in the nature of wonders.
Being a miracle himself it would be the greatest of
a11 miracles if he did not work miracles."
Another highly-gifted American writer of our day,
Tayler Lewis, in his "The Divine Human in the




294             THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
Scriptures," says to the same purpose: "In  the
Bible even the supernatural-we may say it without a paradox-is most natural.  It is in such true
keeping with the times, with the events and doctrines it attests, with all the surrounding historical
circumstances as they are narrated, that we almost
lose the feeling of the supernatural in the admirable
harmony and consistency of the ideas and scenes
presented. It seems to be just what might have been
expected; it would be strange that it should be otherwise; the marvelous here is the presumptive, the
extraordinary becomes the easy of belief."  After
illustrating this thought by every part of the Old
Testanment, where the supernatural appears, he continues: B "But it is in the history of Christ that the
idea on which we are dwelling receives its most powerful verification. A life so unearthly, so heavenly,
so spiritual, so transcending nature, so full of a Divine power manifesting itself in every word and act,
so spent in nights of prayer, and days of sublimest
teachings-how out of all keeping does it seem, that
to a state, so earth-transcending in its spirituality,
there should be no corresponding witness of the supernatural!...    There is a demand for its
presence, as not only a fitting but an indispensable
accompaniment.  The idea can not be complete without it.  Such power over the soul! it must extend to
the body and the physical life; absence of this healing energy would have been the difficulty to be explained, the feature in the narrative not easy of belief.
Such a life and such a death! the resurrection is the
only appropriate sequence of a career on earth, yet
* We quote, leaving out all that would interrupt our argument or weaken its
force.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           295
so unearthly; the ascension into heaven is the only
appropriate finale to a drama so heavenly and divine.-The serious reader can not help feeling that in
the life of Christ, as given to us by the Evangelists,
there is something more than a supernatural gift, or
the occasional power of working miracles, as something imparted from without, or only exercised by
himself through special effort in each particular case.
We are impressed, rather, with the idea of the constant supernatural, as a vailed power, not so much
requiring an effort for its manifestation as a restraint
to prevent it beaming forth before unholy eyes that
could not bear, or might profane the sight. In that
earthly tabernacle there was the constant dwelling
of the Shekinah, more powerfully present when alone,
perhaps, or with a few chosen ones....'Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' is an exclamation called out more by the overpowering effect
of this constant presence, than by any great public
displays of miraculous power. It is this, more than
any thing else, that is attested by the holy apostle
John in the words:' That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with
our eyes, which our hands have handled of the Word
of Life, for the Life was manifested and we saw it,
and we testify, and tell unto you of that eternal life,
which was with the Father and was manifested unto
us.' The reference is not so much to striking outward displays as to the constant spiritual effulgence
ever beaming on the soul of the spiritual disciple,
and sometimes, even to the eye of sense, surrounding
the person of Christ with an outward glory. From
the inward supernatural, as from a never-intermitting fountain, proceeded the outward miracle-work



296            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:.
ing power, as exhibited in distinct acts...
Thus, too, are we told of a constant virtue dwelling
in the Savior's person; as in the story of the woman
who'touched the hem of his garment that she might
be healed.' Her spiritual state, that is, her pure
faith, brought her in a living relation to this power
so vailed to the unbelieving or merely curious multitude; and the Savior sanctions her thought when
he says:'I know  that power has gone forth from
me.'...    It is credible, it is even to be expected that the supernatural should shine out through
a natural so elevated above the ordinary condition of
humanity. There is a deep mystery even in our
common physical energy. The strength of the body
is, in its ultimate resolution, a power of the quiescent
spirit. Activity, force, yea, even in some sense, motus
or outgoing energy are attributes of soul, even when at
rest, as much as thought, or will, or emotion. The
present bodily organization, instead of a necessary
aid, may be, in fact, a limiting, a restraint upon a
tremendous power, that needs to be confined as long
as it is joined to a selfish or unholy will, even as we
chain the madman in his cell. Sometimes, even in
common life, there are fearful exhibitions of the
loosening of these material bonds. In the last stages
of bodily weakness, apparently, some delirium of the
soul, if we may call it such, brings out a power of
nerve and muscle irresistible to any ordinary strength,
inexplicable to any ordinary physiological knowledge.
The cases, indeed, are vastly different, and yet there
is some analogy. Such views of the common organism do not at all account for the higher power that
may dwell in a perfectly holy spirituality; but they
render it credible; they prepare us to believe in it,




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.           297
yea, to feel it as a spiritual dissonance if there be
wholly lacking some high command of nature, in
connection with a perfect faith and holy will ever in
harmony with the divine. It is the Scriptures, however, that must furnish our only reliable ground of
argument on this mysterious subject; and here we
find no small proof of such a constant indwelling
glory of the supernatural as distinguished from an occasional miraculous gift. In certain passages there is
the strongest expression of Christ's unwillingness to
gratify curiosity by the display of an outward sign;
in others there is shown an evident reluctance to
have this holy influence the subject of any profane
or gossiping rumor. But again, he exhibits it of his
own accord to chosen disciples, and then it has the
appearance of a manifestation, to favored souls, of a
power and a spiritual glory ever more truly present
in his retired than in his public life. Such is the
impression left upon the mind by the account of the
transfiguration.             Something, too, of the
same feeling comes over us as we read the account of
Christ walking on the waters.... Why walking
thus at that deep time of night over the wild and
lonely waves? It was not needed, in addition to his
other miracles, for the confirming of the disciples'
faith.. It seems, rather, the unearthly act of one
filled with unearthly thoughts, and seeking a correspondence to them in the more unearthly, or, as we
might even call them, supernatural aspects of the
natural world. If the answer can not well be given
in any thing out of himself, why should we fear to
say that it was a rapt physical state, in harmony
with an elevated spiritual frame, that demanded it as
its fitting outward action? The ecstasy of the soul




298            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
lifts up the body. There is something of this in the
mere earthly human experience. There is a spiritual
condition that seems comparatively, if not absolutely,
to loosen the power of gravity, to set volition free,
and release even the flesh from the hold of earthly
bonds. How  much more of this ethereal soaring
must there have been in the ecstasies of Jesus? In
the human spiritual power, as known to us, there is,
indeed, nothing that can be strictly compared with
it; and yet there is enough to render credible such
an absolute triumph over matter in the case of one
so holy and so heavenly as Christ..... We
think there is no irreverence in such thoughts. At
all events, without any special reasoning about spiritual and physical conditions, there is in Scripture
itself good evidence that the human nature in Christ
was ever in connection with the supernatural, and
that the special miraculous acts were unvailings
of a constant hidden power, rather than special enablings or special efforts in each particular case.
Christ's own words convey this thought:'He is the
resurrection and the life.' Even when vailed in human flesh, he is still the brightness of the Father,
the express image of his hypostasis.'We beheld his
glory,' says John,'the glory of the Only-Begotten,
full of grace and truth.' The humanity, too, is a
true humanity; no one was ever more perfectly human; and yet so wondrous is he, even in his manhood, that it forces the idea of the superhuman and
the supernatural as not only the casual explanation
of such an existence, but its own fitting, yea, necessary accompaniment."
While we have, as we think, presented sufficient
grounds in support of our proposition, that all the




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.            299
miracles wrought on and performed by Christ were
the natural and necessary outflow of that which is
implied in his historically-proved personality-that
is, that we can not, as we are compelled to do, recognize Jesus as sinlessly holy, and yet consistently deny
the miraculous element in his life-we are, of course,
far from permitting the unauthorized inference, that
the exercise of miraculous powers necessarily involves
or depends upon sinlessness on the part of every
person possessed of miraculous powers. We have, on
the contrary, referred to the fact that, while with
all other persons to whom the Scriptures ascribe the
performance of miracles, it is represented as a supernatural gift, as a power imparted from without, and
exercised only occasionally through a special effort,
the personality of Christ is the only one that stood
in such constant connection with the supernatural;
that the special miraculous acts performed by him
or wrought on him  were only the unvailings of a
constant hidden power, requiring not so much an
effort for its manifestation as a restraint to prevent
its beaming forth before unholy eyes. The relation,
therefore, which we have discovered between the sinlessness of Jesus and the miracles ascribed to him,
admits of no application to other men who wrought
miracles, except in so far as, wherever the miraculous element appears in the Holy Scriptures, it appears, in the popular sense of the word, natural, that
is, "in such true keeping with the times and occasions by which it is called forth, and in such admirable harmony with the events and doctrines which it
attests, that we almost lose the feeling of the supernatural."  But not only this, we have remarked
above that Christ himself, being the one central and




300            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
grandest miracle that occurred in the history of the
world, is at the same time the ground and warrant for
all other true miracles, preceding and succeeding his appearance on earth.
This is a truth which is too much overlooked in
the discussion of miracles. In section 22 we showed
that miracles are not a disruption of the divinelyestablished order of the world, but a demonstration
of Divine agency for the purpose of restoring the
order of the world, which had been disordered by
sin, the act of created free agents. Had there not
taken place a disorder of the world by sin, there
would, indeed, seem to be no demand or even place
for that especial Divine agency which we call miraculous. This miraculous agency of God culminated in
the incarnation of his Son, the Redeemer from  sin,
and it is self-evident that he, being the greatest miracle himself, should work miracles. But it is equally
evident why Divine Wisdom  did not see fit to confine to his person the manifestation of the miraculous agency necessary for the restoration of the moral
order of the world.  Mankind was to be prepared
for the reception of the greatest miracles by the less.
The history of the nation in which the Son of God
should be born, especially the bringing the people of
Israel out of the bondage of Egypt, and constituting
the covenant people of God, bore, therefore, the
stamp of the immediate operation of God; the Divine messengers, especially the great legislator and
mediator of the first covenant, Moses, needed the
authentication by miracles, and the spirit of prophecy, the continuous and most irrefutable miracle of
the Old Testament, had, with the types and the
shadows of the law, to point out the coming Messiah.




THEIR HISTORIC VERITY.                           301
Nor was it proper that the manifestation of supernatural power, preparing for and culminating in the
appearance of the Son of God in the flesh, should at
once terminate with  his ascension  to heaven; for, in
this case, men would have been still more slow, than
they are, to believe that the greatest of all miracles
had taken place. The apostles, preaching Jesus and
the resurrection, needed God to bear them witness
with signs and wonders and with divers miracles
and gifts of the Holy Ghost, and we have credible
testimony that the power of working miracles continued with the Church, to some extent, during several centuries.*
A consideration of the peculiar nature, significance,
importance, and design of the miracles performed by
Christ does not properly fall within the scope of our
present investigation. We have considered the mira-'In connection with these remarks it is proper to consider the question:
Whether miracles are now discontinued; and, if so, why? This question we
know not how to answer better than Dr. Bushnell has done: "The Scriptures
no where teach, what is often assumed, the final discontinuance of miracles;
and it is much to be regretted that such an assumption is so commonly made.
There is no certain proof that miracles have not been wrought in every age of
the Christian Church. There is certainly a supernatural and Divine causality
streaming into the lives and blending with the faith of all good men, and
there is no reason to doubt that it may sometimes issue in premonitions, results of guidance and healing, endowments of force, answers to prayer that
closely approach in many cases, if they do not exactly meet, our definition of
miracles.  Again, if miracles have been discontinued, even for a thousand
years, they may yet be revived in such varieties of form as a different age may
require. They will be revived without fail whenever the ancient reason may
return, or any new contingency may occur, demanding their instrumentality.
And yet good and sufficient reasons may be given why the more palpable
miracles of the apostolic age could not be continued, or must needs be interspaced by agencies of a more silent character. It may have been that they
would by and by corrupt the impressions and ideas even of religion, setting
men to look after signs and prodigies with their eyes, and so, instead of attesting God to them, making them  unspiritnal and even incapable of faith.
Traces of this mischief begin to appear even in the times of the apostles themselves. Christianity, it is very obvious, inaugurates the faith of a supernatural
agency in the world. Hence, to inaugurate such a faith, it must needs make
its entry into the world through the fact of a Divine incarnation and other
miracles. In these we have the pole of thought, opposite to nature, set before




302                  TIIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
cles of Christ in  these practical aspects in our Commentary, in  the introductory  remarks to  the eighth
chapter of Matthew, where we meet the first record
of a Gospel miracle. How we can distinguish true,
Divine miracles from false ones, wrought by diabolic
agency, we have discussed in our comment on Matthew vii, 22.
us in distinct exhibition. And then the problem is, having the two poles of
nature and the supernatural presented, that we be trained to apprehend them
conjunctively, or as working together in silent terms of order. For, if the
miracles continue in their palpable and staring form of wonders, and take their
footing as a permanent institution, they will breed a sensuous, desultory state
of mind, opposite to all sobriety and all genuine intelligence. At a certain
point the miracles were needed as the polar signs of a new force-but, for the
reason suggested, it appears to be necessary, also, that they should not be continuous; otherwise, the supernatural will never be brought into any terms of
order, as a force conjoined with nature in our common experience, but will
only instigate a wild, eccentric temper, closely akin to unreason, and to all
practical delusions. And yet there may be times, even to the end of the world,
when some outburst of the miraculous force of God will be needed to break
up a lethargy of unbelief and sensuous dullness, equally unreasoning and
desultory."




PART IV.
THE ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM ON TIE INSPIRATION OF
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.








PART IV.
THE ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM ON THE INSPIRATION OF
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
~ 31. THE RELATION WHICH THE AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL RECORDS BEAR TO THEIR
INSPIRATION.
THE arguments by which we have established the
authenticity or apostolical origin of the Gospel Records, and the Divine as well as human attestations of
their credibility involve also their inspiration. To
prove the trustworthiness of the Scriptures from their
assumed inspiration, and then to deduce the inspiration from the testimony of the Scriptures, would be a
begging of the question. Instead of this we have
proved the authenticity and credibility of the Gospels, without any reference to an assumed inspiration, on simply historical grounds, and this historical
argumentation is the only outward proof needed for
their inspiration. With regard to outward proofs of
inspiration Mr. Westcott remarks very justly: "To
speak of the proof of the inspiration of the Scriptures
involves, indeed, an unworthy limitation of the idea
itself. In the fullest sense of the word we can not
prove the presence of life, but are simply conscious
of it; and  inspiration  is the manifestation of a
higher life.  The words of Scripture are spiritual
26               305




306            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
words, and as such are spiritually discerned.  The
ultimate test of the reality of inspiration lies in
the intuition of that personal faculty-7rvsupa-by
which inspired men once recorded the words of God,
and are still able to hold communion with  him.
Every thing short of this leaves the great truth still
without us; and that which should be a source of
life is in danger of becoming a mere dogma." (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 45.)  In
Parts II and III we have met all the attacks that
have been made upon the authenticity and the credibility of the Gospels, with the exception of the objections, which modern criticism  has deduced from
the peculiar relation in which the three first (synoptic) Gospels stand to one another and to that of John.
These objections lie, indeed, not against the authenticity and credibility of the synoptic Gospels, but
would, if sustained, invalidate their inspiration.  For
while in ordinary historians the strictest integrity is
compatible with slight inaccuracy, divergence of testimony-the least discrepancy-appears formidable
in a work written  by Divine inspiration.  It is,
therefore, proper to examine these critical difficulties
in connection with the question  of inspiration —a
question which of itself' deserves a separate consideration.
Before we, however, enter upon this examination,
let us glance at some of the general characteristics
of the Gospel Records, which, as Mr. Westcott remarks, can only be accounted for on the assumption
of their inspiration.  "They are fragmentary in form.
Their writers make no attempt to relate all the actions or discourses of our Lord, and show no wish to
select the most marvelous series of his mighty works,




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.          307
and probably no impartial judge will find in any one
of them a conscious attempt to form a narrative supplementary to those of the others. But if we know
by the ordinary laws of criticism that our Gospels
are the only authentic records of the Savior's life,
while we believe that Providence regards the wellbeing of the Christian Church,. are we not necessarily
led to conclude that some Divine power overruled
their composition, so that what must otherwise seem
a meager and incomplete record should contain all
that is fittest historically to aid our progress and determine our faith?  Nor can it be unworthy of notice that while the Gospels evidently contain so small
a selection from the works and words of Christ, so
few  details unrecorded by the Evangelists should
have been preserved in other ways..... The
numerous witnesses of our Lord's works and teaching must have treasured up with affection each recollection of their past intercourse; but the cycle of
Evangelical narrative is clearly marked, and it can
not but seem that the same Power which so definitely
circumscribed  its limits determined  its contents.
Again, the Gospels are unchronological in order. We
are at once cautioned against regarding them as mere
history, and encouraged to look for some new law of
arrangement in their contents, which, as I shall endeavor to prove, must result from  a higher power
than  an unaided instinct or an enlightened consciousness.  Once more, the Gospels are brief and apparently confused in style. There is no trace in them
of the anxious care or ostentatious zeal which mark
the ordinary productions of curiosity or devotion.
The Evangelists write as men who see through all
time, and only contemplate the events which they




308            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
record in their spiritual relations. But, at the same
time, there is an originality and vigor in every part
of the Gospels, which become a Divine energy in the
Gospel of John. As mere compositions they stand
out from all other histories with the noble impress of
simplicity and power; and it is as if the faithful reflection of the image of God shed a clear light on the
whole narrative.  The answer was once given to the
Pharisees, when they sought to take Jesus, that never
man spoke like that man, and those who assail the
authority of the Gospels have been constrained to
confess that never was history written as in them."
(Introd., pp. 46-48.) On the characteristic differences
of the four Gospels Mr. Westcott says further: "The
three synoptic Gospels are not mere repetitions of
one narrative, but distinct views of a complex whole.
The same salient points reappear in all, but they are
found in new combinations and with new details, as
the features of a landscape or the outlines of a figure
when viewed from various points.. The
only conception which we can form of the inspiration
of a historic record lies in the Divine fitness of the
outward dress in which the facts are at once embodied and vailed. No record of any fact can be
complete. The relations of the most trivial occurrence transcend all powers of observation, and the
truthfulness of special details is no pledge of the
truthfulness of the whole impression. The connection and relation and subordination of the various
parts, the description and suppression of particular
incidents, the choice of language and style, combine
to make a history true in its higher significance.
This power the Evangelists possessed in the fact that
they were penetrated with the truth of which they




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.          309
spoke. The Spirit which was in them searched the
deep things of God, and led them to realize the mysteries of the faith..... The contrast between
the Gospel of John and the synoptic Gospels, both in
substance and in individual character, is obvious at
first sight; but the characteristic differences of the
synoptic Gospels, which are formed on  the same
foundation and with common materials, are less observed. Yet these differences are not less important
than the former, and belong equally to the complete
portraiture of the Savior." (Introd., pp. 218-220.)
The individual character of each of the four Gospels
the reader may find delineated in my special introduction to the respective Gospels.
~ 32. THE PECULIAR AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT OF THE
FIRST THREE EVANGELISTS IN THEIR NARRATIVES,
AND THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS OF THIS
SINGULAR PHENOMENON.
The striking difference in contents and character
of the first three Gospels from the fourth presents no
difficulty. It is easily and satisfactorily accounted for
by the difference of the individuality and scope of the
Synoptists from that of John, as may be seen in my
introduction to each Gospel, as well as by the fact of
the later origin of John's Gospel. Owing to this later
origin, we may take it for granted that the synoptical
Gospels were already generally known when John
wrote; that he, therefore, purposely abstaining from
writing anew what they had at sufficient length recorded, only sought to complete them  by narrating
those portions of the life of Jesus which had been
omitted by the Synoptists.  The peculiar difficulties which claim  our attention present themselves




310           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
when we compare the synoptical Gospels with each
other.
There is in them a great amount of agreement. If
we suppose the history that they coritain to be divided
into sections, in forty-two of these all the three narratives coincide; twelve more are given by Matthew
and Mark only; five by Mark and Luke only, and
fourteen by Matthew and Luke. To these must be
added five peculiar to Matthew, two to Mark, and
nine to Luke, and the enumeration is complete. But
this applies only to general coincidence as to the facts
narrated; the amount of verbal coincidence, that is,
the passages either verbally the same, or coinciding
in the use of many of the same words, is much
smaller. Without going minutely into the examination of examples, the leading facts connected with
the subject may be thus summed up: The verbal and
material agreement of the first three Evangelists is
such as does not occur in any other authors who
have written independently of one another. The
verbal agreement is greater where the spoken words
of others are cited than where facts are recorded,
and greatest in quotations of the words of our Lord.
But in some leading events, as in the call of the first
four disciples, in that of Matthew, and in the transfiguration, the agreement even in expression is remarkable; there are also narratives where there is
no verbal harmony in the outset, but only in the
crisis or emphatic part of the story. (Matt. viii, 3,
Mark i, 41, Luke v, 13; and Matt. xiv, 19, 20, Mark
vi, 41-43, Luke ix, 16, 17.) The narratives of our
Lord's early life, as given by Matthew and Luke,
have little in common, while Mark does not include
that part of the history in his plan. The agreement




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.        311
in the narrative portions of the Gospels begins with
the baptism of John, and reaches its highest point in
the account of the Passion of our Lord and the facts
that preceded it; so that a direct ratio might almost
be said to exist between the agreement and the nearness of the facts that sustain a close relation to the
Passion.  After this event, in the account of his
burial and resurrection, the coincidences are few.
The language of all three is Greek, with Hebrew
idioms; the Hebraisms are most abundant in Mark,
and fewest in Luke.  In quotations from the Old
Testament the Evangelists, or two of them, sometimes exhibit a verbal agreement, although they differ from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint version.
(Matt. iii, 3, Mark i, 3, Luke iii, 4; and Matt. iv, 10,
Luke iv, 8; and Matt. xi, 10; Mark i, 2; Luke vii,
27, etc.) Except as to twenty-four verses, the Gospel
of Mark contains no principal facts which are not
found in Matthew and Luke; but he often supplies
details omitted by them, and these are often such as
would belong to the graphic account of an eye-witness. There are no cases in which Matthew and
Luke exactly harmonize, where Mark does not also
coincide with them. In several places the words of
Mark have something in common with each of the
other narratives, so as to form a connecting link between them, where their words slightly differ. The
examples of verbal agreement between Mark and
Luke are not so long or so numerous as those between Matthew and Luke, and Matthew and Mark;
but, as to the arrangement of events, Mark and
Luke frequently coincide where Matthew differs from
them. These are the leading particulars; but they
are very far from  giving a complete notion of a




312            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
phenomenon that is well worthy of that attention
and reverent study of the sacred text by which alone
it can be fully and fairly apprehended.
The three Gospels exhibit themselves as three distinct records of the life and works of the Redeemer,
but with a greater amount of agreement than three
wholly-independent accounts could be expected to exhibit.
The agreement would be no difficulty without the differences; it would only mark the one Divine source
from  which they all are derived, the IHoly Spirit
who spoke by the prophets.  The difference of form
and style without the agreement would offer no difficulty,
since there may be a substantial harmony between
accounts that differ greatly in mode of expression,
and the very difference might be a guarantee of independence.  The harmony and the variety, the
agreement and the differences, together, form  the
problem  with which Biblical critics have occupied
themselves for a century and a half. To ascribe the
verbal differences of the Evangelists, in their reports
of sayings of our Lord and of events, in the midst
of their general and substantial agreement, simply
and directly to the dictation of the Holy Spirit,
would make the difficulty greater instead of less.
The singular phenomenon can be naturally accounted
for only by assuming the interdependence of one Evangelist upon the other, or some common source, written or
oral, or a combination of these elements.
I. The first and most obvious theory has been, that
the narrators made use of each other's works. Accordingly, Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and many
others, have endeavored to ascertain which Gospel
is to be regarded as the first; which is copied first;
and which is copied from  the other two. It is re



ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         313
markable that each of the six possible combinations
has found advocates, and that for the support of each
hypothesis the same phenomena have been curiously
and variously interpreted. This of itself proves the
uncertainty of the theory. It is thoroughly refuted
by Alford. If one or two of the Evangelists borrowed from the other, we must adopt one of the following suppositions: 1. That the later Evangelist,
finding the earlier Gospel, or Gospels, insufficient,
was anxious to supply what was wanting. But no
possible arrangement of the three Gospels will suit
the requirements of this supposition. The shorter
Gospel of Mark can not be an expansion of the more
complete Gospels of Matthew or Luke. No less can
these two Gospels be considered as expansions of
Mark; for his Gospel, although shorter, and narrating
fewer events and discourses, is, in those which he
does narrate, the fullest and most particular of the
three. And again, Luke could not have supplemented Matthew; for there are most important portions of'Matthew which he has altogether omitted,
(e. g., chapter xxv, and much of chapters xiii and
xv;) nor could Matthew have supplemented Luke,
having omitted almost all of the important matter
recorded by Luke, from ix, 51-xviii, 15. Moreover,
this supposition leaves all the difficulties of different
arrangement and minute discrepancy unaccounted
for. We pass on, 2. To the supposition that the later
Evangelist purposed to improve the earlier one, especially in point of chronological order. If it were so,
nothing could have been done less calculated to answer the end than that which our Evangelists have
done. For in no material point do their accounts
differ, but only in arrangement and completeness;
27




314            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
and this latter difference is such that no one of them
can be cited as taking any pains to make it appear
that his own arrangement is chronologically accurate.
No fixed dates are found in those parts where the
differences exist; no word to indicate that any other
arrangement had ever been published.  3. Neither
does the supposition that the later Evangelists wished
to adapt their Gospels to a different class of readersincorporating, at the same time, whatever additional
matter they possessed-in any way account for the
phenomena of our present Gospels. For, even taking
for granted  the usual assumption, that Matthew
wrote for Hebrew Christians, Mlark for Latins, and
Luke for Gentiles in general, we do not find any
such consistency in these purposes as a revision and
alteration of another's narrative would necessarily
presuppose. We have the visit of the Gentile Magi
exclusively related by the Hebraizing Matthew; the
circumcision of the child Jesus, and his frequenting
the Passovers at Jerusalem, by the Gentile Evangelist
Luke. Had the above purposes been steadily kept in
view  in the revision of the narratives before them,
the respective Evangelists could not have omitted incidents so entirely subservient to their respective designs. Or, 4. It may be supposed that, receiving one
or two G.ospels as authentic, the later Evangelist
borrowed from  them  such parts as he purposed to
narrate in common with them. But this does not
represent the matter of fact. In no case does any
Evangelist borrow  from  another any considerable
part of even- a single narrative. For such borrowing-unless it was with the intent of fraudulently
plagiarizing from  them, slightly disguising the common matter so as to make it appear original-would




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         315
imply verbal coincidence. It is inconceivable that
one writer, borrowing from  another matter confessedly of the very first importance, in good faith and
with approval, should alter his diction so singularly
and capriciously as, on this hypothesis, we find the text
of the parallel sections of our Gospels altered. Let
the question be answered by ordinary considerations
of probability, and let any passage common to the
three Evangelists be put to the test. The phenomena
presented will be more or less as follows: First, perhaps, we shall have three or five or more words
identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two
clauses or more expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and
not in the third; then several words identical; then a
clause not only wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth, with recurrences of the
same anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions. Nor does this description apply to verbal and sentential arrangement only, but also, with
slight modifications, to that of the larger portions
of the narratives. Equally capricious would be the
disposition of the subject-matter. Sometimes, while
coincident in the things related, the Gospels place
them  in the most various order, each in turn connecting them  together with apparent marks of chronological sequence-e. g., the visit to Gadara, in
Matthew viii, 28, as.compared with the same in
Mark v, 1, and Luke vii, 26, sq. Let any one say,
divesting himself of the commonly-received hypotheses respecting the connection and order of our Gospels, whether it is within the range of probability
that a writer should thus singularly alter the subjectmatter and diction before him, having no design in so




316                   THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
doing, but intending, fairly and  with  approval, to incorporate  the  work  of another into  his own?   Can
an instance be any where cited of undoubted borrowing  and  adaptation from   another, presenting  similar
phenomena?  We see, from the above argumentation,
that any theory of mutual interdependence of the
three  Evangelists fails  to  account  for  the  appearances presented by the synoptic Gospels. We must
come to the conclusion that the three Gospels arose
independently of one another.*
II. It has been assumed that there existed a written
document in  the Aramaic language as the common original, from which the three Gospels were drawn, each
with more or less modification. But as this supposition, though it would account for some of the variOn this point Mr. Norton makes the following remarks:
"1. The conclusion that no one of the first three Evangelists copied from
either of the other two, is important as showing that their Gospels afford three
distinct sources of information concerning the life of Jesus. The Evangelists,
therefore, in their striking correspondence in the representations of his character, miracles, and doctrines must be considered as strongly confirming each
other's testimony. Nothing but reality, nothing but the fact that Jesus had
acted and taught, as they represent, would have stamped his character and
life so definitely and vividly on the minds of individuals ignorant of each
other's writings, and enabled them to give narratives, each so consistent with
itself, and all so accordant with one another. A false story concerning an imaginary character would have preserved no uniform type.  It would have
varied in its aspects, according to the different temperaments and talents, the
conceptions and purposes of its various narrators.
" 2. If the notion that one Evangelist copied from another is proved to be
untenable, then the accordance among the first three Gospels proves them all to
have been written at an early period, when the sources of authentic information were yet fully accessible, and before any interval had elapsed, during
which exaggerations, perversions, and fables, to which the wonderful history of
Jesus was exposed, had had time to flow in alid to change its character.
"3. If the Evangelists did not copy one from another, it follows that the
first three Gospels must have all been written about the same period, since if
one had preceded another by any considerable length of time, it can not be
supposed that the author of the later Gospel would have been unacquainted
with the work of his predecessor, or would have neglected to make use of it;
especially when we take into view that its reputation must have been well
established among the Christians.  Whatever antiquity, therefore, we can
show to belong to any one of the first three Gospels, the same, or nearly the
same, we may ascribe to the other two."




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         317
ations in the parallel passages, as being independent
translations, would afford no solution whatever of the
more important discrepancies of insertion, omission,
and  amendment, the most complicated  hypotheses
have been advanced, all perfectly capricious and utterly inadequate to account for the phenomena. The
supposed original is assumed to have been translated,
altered, and annotated by different hands, and the
synoptic Gospels are said to have been drawn from
one or the other of these different forms into which
the original had passed, or from a combination of
them. A theory so prolific of assumptions would be
admissible only if it could be proved that no other
solution is possible.
The "original Gospel" is supposed to have been
of such authority as to be circulated every-where,
yet so defective as to require annotation from any
hand, and so little reverenced that no hand spared
it. If the three Evangelists agreed to draw  from
such a work, it hiust have been widely, if not universally, accepted in the Church; and yet there is no
record of its existence; if of lower authority, it could
not have become the basis of the three canonical
Gospels. Moreover, the state of literature in Palestine, at that time, was not such as to make the assumed, repeated editing, translating, and annotating
of a history a natural and probable process. (Compare ~~ 5 and 6.)  Happily, this hypothesis of an
original Gospel, which, if true, would overthrow the
Divine authority of the Gospel Records, has been
found so untenable on historical and critical grounds,
that it has been given up by its own inventors.
III. Having found the assumption of a common
original Gospel as untenable as that of the interde



318            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
pendence of one Evangelist upon the other, let us
examine that solution of the problem, which explains
the relationship of the synoptical Gospels by deriving
them  fiom  a common oral source, that is, from the
common oral teachings of the apostles; which, from
the nature of the case, we may assume to have been
chiefly historical, giving an account of the discourses
and acts of Jesus of Nazareth. That the written
Gospels were the result, not the foundation, of the
apostolical preaching, will not be called in question.
On similar grounds, as the baptism of infants, in the
case, was preceded by the baptism of adults, it may
be said that the experience of oral teaching was required in order to commit to writing the vast subject
of the life of Christ. In the first period of the apostolic age the powerful working of the Holy Spirit in
the Church supplied the place of those records, which,
as soon as the brightness of his presence began to be
withdrawn, became indispensable, in order to prevent
the corruption of the Gospel history by false teachers.  The great commission given to the apostles
was to preach the Gospel, and it was only the subsequent want of the Church, established by their
preaching, which furnished an adequate motive for
adding a written record to the testimony of their
living words. Of the great majority of the apostles
all that we know  certainly is, that they were engaged in instructing, orally, the multitudes who were
waiting to receive their tidings. The place of instruction was the synagogue and the market-place,
not the student's chamber.  "The elders refrained
from writing," it is said by Clemens, "because they
would not interrupt the care which they bestowed in
teaching orally, by the care of composition."  Be



ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.           319
sides, the written evidence for the facts of the Gospel
was found already in the Old Testament.  All the
prophets spoke of Christ, and to them  the apostles
constantly referred, by showing them fulfilled in the
life of Christ.  That the apostolic preaching consisted chiefly in relating the wondrous life, the teaching and the acts, the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord, we learn from  the conditions of
apostleship propounded by Peter himself, (Acts i, 21,
22;) that, in order to give a proper testimony of the
resurrection of Christ, an apostle must have been an
eye and ear-witness of what had happened from the
baptism of John till the ascension, that is, during the
whole official life of our Lord; and, accordingly,
Paul claims to have received an independent knowledge, by direct revelation, of at least some of the
fundamental parts of the Gospel history, (Galatians
i, 12; 1 Cor. xi, 23; xxv, 3,) to qualify him  for his
calling as an apostle. That the apostolic preaching
was chiefly historic, is confirmed by Luke, who, in
the preface to his Gospel, expressly designates the
oral apostolical testimony as the source of the Evangelical narratives, which many had taken in hand to
draw  up; and, as far as the records of apostolic
preaching in the Acts of the Apostles go, they confirm this view. Peter, at Cmesarea, and Paul, at Antioch, preach alike the facts of the Redeemer's life
and death. As to the Epistles, they were evidently
not designed for primary instruction, but for the
further instruction of those who were familiar with
the great outlines of the "mystery of godliness," (1
Tim. iii, 16,) and had professed their belief by baptism.
We are then led to the inquiry, in what manner




320            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
the synoptic Gospels are connected with  the oral
Gospel preached by the apostles? Before showing
the relation of the written to the oral Gospel, we remind the reader that the Gospel history was first
orally delivered by the apostles at Jerusalem, where
they formed the mother Church, and remained till
dispersed by the first persecution. And is it not to
be presumed that the very portions of that Gospel
history, which form the common subject-matter of the
synoptical Gospels, would be more frequently and
fully dwelt upon by the apostles in their preaching
at Jerusalem, than those incidents which had taken
place there, and were therefore well known to those
to whom  the apostles first addressed themselves?
This explains to us, in part, (compare my introductory remarks to ~ 8 in the Gospel of Matthew,) why
it is that the ministry of Jesus in Galilee is almost
exclusively recorded to us by the three Evangelists
in a manner so singularly similar. There is nothing
unnatural in the supposition that the oral narratives
of the apostles at Jerusalem, concerning the words
and deeds of our Lord, would be delivered, for the
most part, in the same form of words; on the contrary, it was in the highest degree desirable for the
teachers whom the apostles were sending forth into
the world, and it became the most fitting means to
secure and make manifest the purity of the subsequent written Gospel. The particular points, especially in sayings of Christ, were always reproduced;
unusual expressions were the more firmly retained,
since, when they were uttered, they had the more
strongly attracted the attention of the disciples. Sermons and sayings were naturally retained with more
care, and reported with more uniformity than inci



ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.          321
dents; although even in the latter, in the same degree that the incident was surprising and peculiar, a
fixed type of narration had involuntarily formed
itself. Thus it was that the authors had often heard
the points, both of incidents and sayings, narrated
in substantially the same words. There were, moreover, peculiar circumstances which naturally contributed to the uniformity in question. While modern
taste aims at a variety of expression, and abhors a
repetition of the same phrases as monotonous, the
simplicity of the men, and their language, and their
education, would all lead us to expect that the apostles would have no such feeling. They were fiom
the humblest ranks of society in a nation destitute
of polite literature.  Their abilities and education
were nearly alike. Their susceptibilities for apprehending the scenes they had witnessed were similar,
while the poverty of the Aramaic Greek, in which
they reported what they had seen and heard, did not
admit of much variety. The first preachers aimed
at fidelity and truth in their reports of the events
they had witnessed, rather than at ornament. They
had no wish to dress out their descriptions, even if
they had been capable of doing so, and the genius
of the dialect they employed had allowed a wider
scope and variety. Besides, they had been accustomed, as Jews, to treasure up and hand down traditionally the interpretations of their fathers respecting the law, and must have been disposed to follow
the same method in regard to the Christian religion.
Nor would the immediate disciples desire to depart
from  the expressions they had learned from  their
instructors. On the contrary, they would studiously
attach themselves to the form in which the Gospel




322            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
narratives had orally been delivered to them. Such
were the circumstances that contributed to produce
and perpetuate a stereotype form of the Evangelical
history, and to bring the oral narratives into an
archetypal form, which was subsequently transferred
to the written Gospels. It is supposed, then, that
the preaching of the apostles, and the teaching
whereby they prepared others to preach, as they did,
would tend to assume a common form, more or less
fixed; and that the portions of the three Gospels
which harmonize most exactly owe their agreement
to the fact that the apostolic preaching had already
clothed itself in a settled or usual form of words, to
which the writers inclined to conform without feeling
bound to do so; and the differences which occur,
often in the closest proximity to the harmonies, arise
from  the feeling of independence with which each
wrote what he had seen and heard, or, in the case
of Mark and Luke, from  what apostolic witnesses
had told them. But if the uniformity of the synoptic
Gospels is ascribed to the oral narratives of the
apostles, it may be asked why the accounts of the
death and resurrection of Christ given in the three
Gospels present so few  correspondences compared
with the other narratives?  Was not this history of
the highest interest and importance? Could it have
failed to be repeated and dwelt upon? Should it not,
therefore, have presented the most marked similarities in the historic cycle? Whence, then, arise the
very great discrepancies running through the description of this event in the four canonical Gospels?
To this it may be answered, that these facts took
place at Jerusalem, and were so well known that the
apostles could insist upon them  as indubitable facts




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.          323
without dwelling on the minor circumstances.  And,
as regards the resurrection, it is possible that the divergence arose from the intention of each Evangelist
to contribute something toward the weight of evidence for this central truth. Accordingly, each of
the four Evangelists mentions distinct acts and appearances of the Lord to establish that he was risen
indeed.
The supposition that the singular correspondence
in matter and language, which exists among the first
three Gospels, is to be attributed to the oral teaching
of the apostles is strikingly confirmed by Luke, who,
in his preface, expressly declares the information derived from the eye-witnesses of the ministry of Christ,
that is, the oral narratives of the apostles, to be the
only authentic source of his own Gospel, and of the
other narratives that had been attempted.  While
Matthew, the apostle, committed to writing the narratives as he and the other apostles had been accustomed to communicate them orally, Mark and Luke,
who  derived  their knowledge from  the  apostles,
would record those narratives as they had heard
them.  There would, of course, be variations of language, and minor circumstances would be omitted or
inserted, as it was orally related by different individuals, or by the same individual at different times. It
is not probable that the apostles recited in a systematic senries of discourses all the transactions of the
ministry of Jesus related by any one of the first
three Evangelists. According to the particular occasion presented, or the special object which they
had in view, they would group together events, sayings, and discourses particularly adapted to their
purpose. They would class their accounts of the life




324            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of Christ, but they did not narrate them chronologically.  Thus we may account for the agreements
and disagreements in the chronological arrangement
of the Synoptists.
As an objection to the foregoing explanation of the
coincidence of language among the Synoptists, it has
been urged as highly improbable that the apostles,
whose native language was Hebrew, or rather its
Aramaic dialect, would have addressed the Jews at
Jerusalem  in Greek. But we must remember that
many Hellenists-Jews born and educated in foreign
countries, to whom  the Greek was more familiar
than the language of their own nation-dwelt in
Jerusalem, or resorted thither during the great national feasts, and that the Greek was at the time so
widely spread, (Josephus, Antiq., XVII, 11, 4; Bell.
Jud., III, 9, 1,) that most of the natives of Palestine
were sufficiently acquainted with it. Though the
apostles may, at first, have preached the Gospel at
Jerusalem, more or less, in Aramaic, it is evident
that the Greek language was soon substituted; for it
is certain that a considerable portion of the early
Christians in Jerusalem was composed of Hellenists,
(Acts vi, 1;) with Hellenists Paul disputed after his
conversion, (Acts ix, 29;) we find mention of various
synagogues in that city of foreign Jews who associated together according to the countries from which
they came, (Acts vi, 9.) As the Hellenists, with the
converts from Greek Gentiles, soon outnumbered the
Christians of Palestine, the Greek  language was
adopted as the regular medium of the Church to promulgate the Gospel. That this could be done even
in Jerusalem without provoking popular prejudice,
appears from the circumstance that, when Paul spoke




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         325
in Hebrew, (Acts xxii, 2,) it was unexpected, and
produced unusual attention. From this the inference
may be drawn, that public addresses were commonly
made in Greek.
It is now generally admitted that the oral teaching
of the apostles was the archetype, the original source
of the common parts of the synoptic Gospels; but, at
the same time, it has been considered as not of itself
sufficient to account for all the phenomena which
they present, without assuming the existence of some
written documents embodying portions of that oral
teaching, such as Luke refers to. Of this opinion is
Alford, who says: "I believe that the apostles, in
virtue not merely of their having been eye and earwitnesses of the Evangelical history, but especially
in virtue of their office, gave to the various Churches
their testimony in a narrative of facts; such narrative
being modified in each case by the individual mind
of the apostle himself, and his sense of what was
requisite for the particular community to which he
was ministering. While they were principally together, and instructing the converts at Jerusalem,
such narrative would naturally be for the most part
the same, and expressed in the same, or nearly the
same words; coincident, however, not from design or
rule, but because the things themselves were the same,
and the teaching naturally fell for the most part into
one form. It would be easy and interesting to follow the probable origin and growth of this cycle of
narratives of the words and deeds of our Lord in
the Church at Jerusalem-for both the Jews and the
Hellenists-the latter under such teachers as Philip
and Stephen, commissioned and authenticated by the
apostles. In the course of such a process some por



326            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
tions would naturally be written down by private believers for their own use or that of friends. And as
the Church spread to Samaria, CGesarea, and Antioch,
the want would be felt, in each of these places, of
similar cycles of oral teaching, which, when supplied,
would thenceforward belong to and be current in
those respective Churches. And these portions of
the Evangelic history, oral or partially documentary,
would be adopted under the sanction of the apostles, who
were as in all things, so especially in this, the appointed and Divinely-guided overseers of the whole
Church. This common substratum  of apostolic teaching, I believe to have been the original source of the common part of our three Gospels..... Delivered,
usually, in the same or similar terms to the catechumens in the various Churches, and becoming the text
of instruction for their pastors and teachers, it by
degrees underwent those modifications which  the
various Gospels now present to us. And I am not
now speaking of any considerable length of time,
such as might suffice to deteriorate and corrupt mere
traditional teaching, but of no more than the transmission through men apostolic, or almost apostolic, yet of
independent habits of speech and thought, of an account
which remained in substance the same. Let us imagine
the modifications which  the individual memory,
brooding  affectionately and reverently over each
word and act of our liord, would introduce into a
narrative in relating it variously and under differing
circumstances; the Holy Spirit, who brought to their
remembrance whatever things he had said to them,
(John xiv, 26,) working in and distributing to each
severally as he would; let us place to the account the
various little changes of transposition or omission, of




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.           327
variation in diction or emphasis, which would be
sure to arise in the freedom of individual teaching,
and we have, I believe, the only reasonable solution
of the arbitrary and otherwise unaccountable coincidences and  discrepancies in  these parts of our
Gospels."
~ 33. A CONSIDERATION OF THE INSPIRED CHARACTER OF THE
SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS, ON THE GROUND OF THEIR BEING
CHIEFLY THE RESULT OF THE ORAL TEACHING
OF THE APOSTLES.
It is a postulate of reason to assume that, if the
Author and object of our Christian faith was, as is
historically proved, God manifest in the flesh, the
Son of man in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily, this fact involves another fact; namely,
that the records of his life, his discourses, and acts
were written under Divine direction and preserved
to us by Divine Providence.  That they were written under Divine direction, or by inspiration, is,
moreover, a necessary inference from the promise of
the gift of the Holy Spirit, given by Christto his
apostles in connection with their commission to preach
the Gospel to all the world, and to build up his
Church.
It was at their first mission (Matt. x) that Christ
referred his apostles to the assistance of the Holy
Spirit in certain emergencies of their apostolic calling; namely, when they should be called upon to
give an account of their doctrine and ministry. In
such cases he would teach them what and how they
should speak, (Luke xii, 11, 12;) yea, their Father's
Spirit would speak in them, (Matt. x, 19, 20.)  It
was in his last conversations with them, preparatory




328           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
to the time when they should carry on his work on
earth without his personal presence, that he promised
them the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, who should not
only bring his teaching to their remembrance, but
complete it, and guide them into all truth, even into
those truths which they could, as yet, not bear.
(John xiv-xvi.) Announcing to them after his resurrection their future mission in the words, "As my
Father has sent me, even so send I you," and granting them  the power to forgive and retain sins, he
breathed upon them-an act emblematical of the
Holy Ghost, which they were to receive, (John xx,
21-23;) but while instructed to become his witnesses
in Jerusalem, in Samaria, and unto the uttermost
parts of the earth, they are commanded to tarry at
Jerusalem till they should be endued with the Spirit
from  on high. (Luke xxiv, 49; Acts i, 8.) This
promise was fulfilled to its whole extent on the day
of Pentecost, and from this day we see the hitherto
timid apostles engage in the public preaching of the
Gospel with power and success through the Holy
Ghost, that had been sent them from heaven. (Acts
ii, 33; 1 Peter i, 12.) To the Holy Ghost they ascribe their doctrines and precepts. (Acts xv, 28; v,
3, 4; 1 Cor. xiv, 37; Eph. iii, 5; 1 Thess. ii, 13; iv,
8.) They claim (1 Cor. ii) that they do not speak in
human wisdom  and skill, but in a higher wisdom
given unto them from God, through his Spirit, that
searches all things, (v. 10;) that the Holy Ghost imparts unto them  a knowledge which is altogether
foreign to the world and the natural man, (vs. 8, 14,)
being part of that knowledge with which God knoweth himself, (vs. 11, 12,) but by which they are enabled to know the mind of the Lord as such that have




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         329
the mind of Christ, (v. 16;) that what they know in
this way they speak not in words which human
wisdom  teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, (v. 13,) comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
For this very reason the apostles place themselves
not only on an equal footing with, but even above
"the prophets," the sacred writers of the Old Testament.  (2 Peter iii, 2; Rom. xvi, 25, 26; 1 Cor. xii,
28; Eph. iv, 11; ii, 20.)
From all this we learn two truths: First, that the
men chosen by Christ for the preaching of his Gospel acted, both in their oral teachings and in their
writings, not in the capacity of merely-human witnesses, but that their testimony was united with that
of the Holy Ghost, (John xv, 26, 27;) secondly, that
the Spirit promised and given by Christ personally
to the eleven had reference not so much to them individually, but to the apostolical office and all its functions, as we clearly see in the case of the apostle Paul,
inclusive of those assistants in their work whom the
Lord raised up, and who were also partakers of the
gifts of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost must be conceived of as the
Agent, who begets, guides, and governs the Church.
In this capacity he is Christ's representative on earth.
For this very reason it was necessary that he should
preeminently manifest his power in those who were
to be the chief organs through which the new life
was to flow from the head into the whole body; that
is, in those who were, to use Paul's expression, the
apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. But fiom
the relation of the Holy Ghost to the apostolic office
we learn, also, why we may place the writings of
the Evangelists, Mark and Luke, on an equal footing
28




330            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
with those of the apostles, and consider them as inspired. We need not attach much importance to the
tradition that they belonged to the seventy whom
Jesus first sent forth to preach in Judea, or to the
one hundred and twenty disciples on whom the Holy
Ghost fell on the day of Pentecost. It is enough to
know that the apostles had received the power to
impart the gift of the Holy Spirit by the imposition
of their hands, and that they made use of this power.
(Acts viii, 14-17; xix, 6.) Are we, then, not authorized to take it for granted that Mark and Luke,
whom  Peter and Paul had chosen for their special
co-workers out of the great number of Evangelists
whom  the Lord had already raised up from among
Jews and Gentiles, received through the apostles the
gift of the Holy Spirit necessary to give to the
Church an inspired record of the discourses and acts
of the Lord? Besides, though they had not been
eye and ear-witnesses of the life and ministry of
Christ, yet they were the companions of those that
had been eye-witnesses, and they heard continually
from  their lips the sayings and doings of Christ,
having the best opportunity to obtain the fullest information. Again, though they had not been commissioned by Christ himself to teach the nations and
to feed his lambs, yet they had been made by the
apostles their partners and fellow-laborers for the
kingdom  of God, (2 Cor. viii, 23; 1 Thess. iii, 2;
Philem., 24;) they were engaged in the same work
of the Lord as the apostles, (1 Cor. xvi, 10,) and had
to perform apostolical functions, (Titus i, 5; 2 Tim.
iv, 1-5.) Although they did not plant, yet they did
water; although they did not lay the foundation, yet
they built upon it, and have transmitted to us records




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         331
of unadulterated truth through the same Spirit that
was also in them, (2 Tim. i, 14,) and we have to honor
them next to the apostles as the Divine instruments
in the building up of his Church, and as stewards of
the mysteries of God, (1 Cor. iv, 1.) Lastly, it must
not be forgotten that the Gospels of Mark and
Luke, having been written, if not before the death
of Peter and Paul, at least before that of the apostle
John, must have had the sanction of at least one of
the apostles whom the Head of the Church had authorized to bind and to loose.
But the important question arises: In what sense,
or to what extent were the historical books of the New
Testament inspired, especially the records of the two
Evangelists who were not themselves apostles? There
has been much unnecessary controversy on the definition of the term "inspiration;" different modes and
degrees of inspiration have been assumed. The most
important distinction appears to us that between inspiration and revelation: two terms which, though
totally different, are often used as synonyms. Revelation is a purely-Divine act-it is God revealing
himself to man, either by supernatural, external
facts, such as the miracles recorded in Scripture, or
by supernatural, internal communications, such as
when the Spirit of God imparts to man the infallible
foreknowledge of future events, or reveals to him doctrines which lie beyond the reach of human reason. In
the reception of such a supernatural, internal communication, the human mind is perfectly passive, not
thinking its own thoughts, or speaking its own words,
but only the thoughts and words of the Spirit of God.
Not so in inspiration. That demands human as well as
Divine agency. The Spirit of God in inspiration acts




332            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
simply on man but through man, using the faculties
not of man according to their natural law. God, who
gives the message, selects also the messenger, so that
the traits of individual character and the peculiarities of manner and purpose, which are displayed in
the composition and language of the sacred writings,
are essential to the perfect exhibition of their meaning. By inspiration the human mind is enabled correctly to apprehend, and then authentically and "authoritatively to make known, orally or in writing, a
revelation which God has given of himself.  The
duty and qualification authentically and authoritatively to make known a self-revealing act of God is
evidently to be distinguished from that Divine act.
This distinction is overlooked when it is assumed
that, in recording the facts of revelation, the sacred
writers wrote down every word just as it was dictated
to them by the Holy Ghost, in the same manner in
which God revealed to the prophets future events.
This is what is called verbal inspiration in the strict
sense of the word; but the term  itself, as we have
seen, is a misnomer-it would be revelation, not inspiration. Such Divine influence as takes place in
revelation was not needed for an authentic and authoritative record of revelation, nor do the Evangelists claim it; nor would it have been in accordance
with Divine Wisdom to have excluded human agency
in the communication of his revelation. The very
evidences, for instance, of this human agency, which
the apparent or trifling discrepancies in the statements of the different Evangelists present, answer a
wise purpose; they convince us that they were independent witnesses, and that the whole story did not
arise from some well-concerted plan to deceive the




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         333
world; the homely style of some of the writers
proves to us that they were really fishermen, and
not philosophers; thus we have a convincing evidence that the deepest system of theology, and the
noblest code of ethics ever propounded-the one
stirring the depth of the whole human heart, the
other guiding all human life-came, not from  the
profound speculations of the wisest of mankind, but
either from God himself, or else from a source more
inexplicable and absolutely impossible. The theory
of what is called verbal inspiration, on the contrary,
far from being essential to the Divine authority of
the Gospel Records, is, indeed, as we shall further
show, the only ground on which an objection can be
brought against their claim of being authentic and
authoritative records of a Divine revelation; and
though this theory of verbal inspiration has been
received as if it were tantamount to plenary inspiration, it rests on no Scripture authority and is supported by no historical testimony, if we accept a few
ambiguous metaphors of the Fathers. "Much might
be said," says Alford, in his Prolegomena to the Gospels, "of the a priori unworthiness of such a theory,
as applied to a Gospel whose character is the freedom
of the spirit, not the bondage of the letter; but it
belongs more to my present work to try it by applying it to the Gospels as we have them. And I do
not hesitate to say, that, being thus applied, its effects will be to destroy the credibility of our Evangelists. Hardly a single instance of parallelism between them arises where they do not relate the same
thing, indeed, in substance, but expressed in terms
which, if literally taken, are incompatible with each
other. To cite only one obvious instance: The title




334            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
over the cross was written in Greek. According, then,
to the verbal-inspiration theory, each Evangelist has
recorded the exact words of the inscription; not the
general sense, but the inscription itself-not a letter
less or more.  This is absolutely necessary to the
theory. Its advocates must not be allowed, with
convenient inconsistency, to take refuge in a common-sense view of the matter wherever their theory
fails them, and still to uphold it in the main. Another objection to the theory is, if it be so, the
Christian world is left in uncertainty what her Scriptures are, as long as the sacred text is full of various
readings. Some one manuscript must be pointed out
to us which carries the weight of verbal inspiration,
or some text whose authority shall be undoubted
must be promulgated.  But manifestly neither of
these things can ever happen. The fact is, that this
theory uniformly gives way before an  intelligent
study of the Scriptures themselves; and is only held,
consistently and thoroughly, by those who never
have undertaken that study.  When put forth by those
who have, it is never carried fairly through; but, while
broadly asserted, is in detail abandoned."
Verbal inspiration, in the sense explained, is utterly
irreconcilable with the peculiar coincidences and differences which the compositions of the Synoptists
present; but, in rejecting the verbal dictation of the
Gospel Records, we are far from calling in question
their "plenary inspiration." By plenary inspiration
we mean such an influence of the Holy Spirit on the
minds of the Evangelists as prevented them from expressing an error or untruth, in any thing essential
to the Divine revelation, of which they were to give
an authentic and authoritative record, both with re



ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         335
gard to its facts and the doctrines involved in themyet, so that, on the one hand, the human element
was not neutralized by the Divine agency, and, on
the other hand, the truth of God remained unimpaired by the individual mind. The relation of the
human to the Divine element in the inspired writings
is very beautifully and cautiously set forth by Mr.
Elliott, (Aids to Faith, page 479:) "As in the case
of the Incarnate Word, we fully recognize in the
Lord's humanity all essentially-human limitations
and weakness-the hunger, the thirst, and the weariness on the side of the body, and the gradual development on the side of the human mind-in a word,
all that belongs to the essential and original characteristics of the pure form of the nature he vouchsafed to assume, but plainly deny the existence
therein of the faintest trace of sin, or of moral or
mental imperfection-even so in the case of the
written Word, viewed on its purely-human side, and
in its reference to matters previously admitted to have no
bearing on Divine Truth, we may admit therein the
existence of such incompleteness, such limitations,
and such imperfections as belong even to the highest
forms of purely-truthful human testimony, but consistently deny the existence of mistaken views, perversion, misrepresentation, and any form whatever
of consciously-committed error or inaccuracy."
Plenary inspiration, then, properly understood,
does not forbid the Evangelists to draw from natural
sources of information, as Luke, in the preface to his
Gospel expressly asserts to have done, or to quote
from  other inspired writers without giving their
words literatim, and according to their individuality
to differ from  each other in the selection, in the




336            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
manner and in the arrangement of the events which
they relate, nor is it inconsistent even with inaccuracies in matters which  all agree in regarding as
wholly unimportant, which have no reference to the
purpose of their writings, to give an authentic and
authoritative record of Divine revelation. Such alleged inaccuracies have not yet been incontestably
proved; but even if we admit their existence, they
are, like some alleged contradictions, (see ~ 21,) due
either to our ignorance of some simple fact, which,
if known, would explain all; or they furnish only an
illustration of one of those very conditions and characteristics of human testimony, however honest and
truthful, without which it would cease to be human
testimony at all. Moreover, there is no need of ascribing to the inspired writers a perfect knowledge
of geography, profane history, science, etc.; it is sufficient for their inspired character to maintain that
whatever they affirm  to be true, if it has the remotest reference to religion, is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, and that they never
declare any thing to be scientifically true that is scientifically false. This is a point which concerns not
so much the Evangelists as the other inspired writers,
especially of the Old Testament; yet, as it is a vital
point in the question of inspiration, we may dwell
on it for a moment. Though the writers of the Old
Testament, compared  with  the most enlightened
sages of heathen antiquity, show a superior knowledge of physical science, which nothing short of Divine inspiration can account for; and though recent
discussions of the subjects of controversy by men of
acknowledged scientific attainments have tended to
show that the oppositions of Scripture and of science




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.            337
are far more doubtful than they are assumed to be;
yet-even if the charge of error in matters of human
knowledge should be substantiated against any of
the sacred writers-this would not militate against
their plenary inspiration for the purpose of giving us
an infallible depository of religious truth.  Scripture
was not given to teach us science; it was, therefore,
not needful to render the sacred writers infallible in
matters of science.
Alford, who arrives, as we have shown, at substantially the same results with regard to the origin of
the synoptical Gospels we have tried to reach, lays
down the following propositions respecting their inspiration, which are in full harmony with the definition of inspiration given above, and may serve as a
summary of our whole investigation:
" 1. The results of our inquiries may be thus
stated: That our three Gospels have arisen independently of one another from sources of information
possessed by the Evangelists; such sources of information, for a very considerable part of their contents, being the narrative teaching of the apostles;
and in cases where their personal testimony was out
of the question, oral or documentary narratives, preserved in.and received by the Christian Church in
the apostolic age; that the three Gospels are not
formal, complete accounts of the whole incidents of
the sacred history, but each of them  fragmentary,
containing such portions of it as fell within the notice, or the special design, of the Evangelist.
" 2. The important question now comes before us:
In what sense are the Evangelists to be regarded as
having been inspired by the Holy Spirit of God?  That
they were so, in some sense, has been the concurrent
29




338            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
belief of the Christian  body  in all ages.  In the
second, as in the nineteenth century, the ultimate appeal in matters of fact and doctrine has been to these
venerable writings.  It may be well, then, first to inquire on what grounds their authority has been rated
so high by all Christians?
"3. And I believe the answer to this question will
be found to'be: Because they are regarded as authentic
documents, descending from the apostolic age, and presenting to us the substance of the apostolic testimony.
The apostles being raised up for the special purpose
of witnessing to the Gospel history, and these memoirs
having been universally received in the early Church
as embodying their testimony, I see no escape left
from the inference that they come to us with inspired
authority.  The apostles themselves, and their cotemporaries in the ministry of the Word, were singularly
endowed with the Holy Spirit for the founding and
teaching of the Church; and Christians of all ages
have accepted the Gospels and other writings of the
New Testament as the written result of the Pentecostal effusion. The early Church was not likely to
be deceived in this matter.  The reception of the
Gospels was immediate and universal.  They never
were placed for a moment, by the consent of the
Christians, in the same category with, the spurious
documents which soon sprang up after them. In external history, as in internal character, they differ
entirely from the apocryphal Gospels; which, though
in some cases bearing the name and pretending to
contain the teaching of an apostle, were never recognized as apostolic.
"4. Upon the authenticity, that is, the apostolicity
of our Gospels, rest their claims to inspiration. Con



ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.          339
taining the substance of the apostles' testimony, they
carry with them  that special power of the Holy
Spirit which rested on the apostles in virtue of their
office, and also on other teachers and preachers of
the first age. It may be well, then, to inquire of
what kind that power was, and how far extending.
"5. We do not find the apostles transformed, from
being men of individual character, and thought, and
feeling, into mere channels for the transmission of
infallible truth; we find them, humanly speaking, to
have been still distinguished by the same characteristics as before the descent of the Holy Ghost. We
see Peter still ardent and impetuous, still shrinking
from the danger of human disapproval; we see John
still exhibiting the same union of deep love and
burning zeal; we find them pursuing different paths
of teaching, exhibiting different styles of writing,
taking hold of the truth from different sides.
"6. Again, we do not find the apostles put in possession at once of the Divine counsel with regard to
the Church.  Though Peter and John were full of
the Holy Ghost immediately after the ascension,
neither at that time, nor for many years afterward,
were they put in possession of the purpose of God
regarding the Gentiles, which in due time was specially revealed to Peter, and recognized in the apostolic council at Jerusalem.
" 7. These considerations serve to show us in what
respects the working of the Holy Spirit on the sacred
writers was analogous to his influence on every believer in Christ; namely, in the retention of individual character, and thought, and feeling, and in the
gradual development of the ways and purposes of
God to their minds.




340            TIE GOSPEL RECORDS:
" 8. But their situation and office was peculiar and
unexampled.  And for its fulfillment peculiar and
unexampled gifts were bestowed upon them. One of
these, which bears very closely upon our present
subject, was the recalling by the Holy Spirit of those
things which the Lord had said to them. This was his
own formal promise, recorded in John xiv, 26. And,
if we look at our present Gospels, we see abundant
evidences of its fulfillment. What unassisted human
memory could treasure up sayings and parables,
however deep the impression at the time, and report
them in full at the distance of several years, as we
find them  reported, with every internal mark of
truthfulness in our Gospels? What invention of man
could have devised discourses which, by common consent, differ from all sayings of men-which possess
this character unaltered, notwithstanding their transmission through men of various mental organization-which contain things impossible to be understood or appreciated by their reporters at the time
when they profess to have been uttered-which inwrap the seeds of all human improvement yet attained, and are evidently full of power for nmore? I
refer to this latter alternative only to remark, that
all considerations, whether of the apostles' external
circumstances, or their internal feelings respecting
Him of whom they bore witness, combine to confirm
the persuasion of Christians that they have recorded
as said by our Lord what he truly did say, and not
any words of their own imagination.
" 9. And let us pursue the matter further by analogy. Can we suppose that the light poured by the
Holy Spirit upon the sayings of our Lord would be
confined to such sayings, and not extend itself over




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.         341
the other parts of the narratives of his life on earth?
Can we believe that those miracles, which, though not
uttered in words, were yet acted parables, would not
be, under the same gracious assistance, brought back
to the minds of the apostles, so that they should be
placed on record for the teaching of the Church?
t" 10. And, going yet further, to those parts of the
Gospels which were wholly out of the cycle of the
apostles' own testimony, can we imagine that the
Divine discrimination which enabled them to detect
the'lie to the Holy Ghost,' should have forsaken
them in judging of the records of our Lord's birth
and infancy, so that they should have taught or
sanctioned an apocryphal, fabulous, or mythical account of such matters? Some account of them must
have been current in the apostolic circle; for Mary,
the mother of Jesus, survived the ascension, and
would be fully capable of giving undoubted testimony
to the facts. Can we conceive, then, that, with her
among them, the apostles should have delivered other
than a true history of these things? Can we suppose
that Luke's account, which he includes among the
things delivered by those who were eye-witnesses and
ministers of the Word from the first, is other than the
true one, and stamped with the authority of the witnessing and discriminating Spirit dwelling in the
apostles?  Can we suppose that the account in the
still more immediately-apostolic Gospel of' Matthew
is other than the history seen from a different side,
and independently narrated?
" 11. But if it be inquired how far such Divine superintendence has extended in the framing of our
Gospels as we at present find them, the answer must be
furnished by no preconceived idea of what ought to




342            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
have been, but by the contents of the Gospels themselves. That those contents are various, and variously
arranged, is token enough that in their selection and
disposition we have human agency presented to us,
under no more direct guidance, in this respect, than
that general leading which, in main and essential
points, should insure entire accordance. Such leading admits of much variety in points of minor consequence. Two men may be equally led by the Holy
Spirit to record the events of our Lord's life for our
edification, though' one may believe and record that
the visit to the Gadarenes took place before the calling of Matthew, while the other places it after that
event; though one, in narrating it, speaks of two
demoniacs-the other only of one.
" 12. And it is observable that in the only place in
the three Gospels where an Evangelist speaks of himself, he expressly lays claim, not to any supernatural
guidance in the arrangement of his subject-matter,
but to a diligent tracing down of all things from the
first; in other words, to the care and accuracy of a
faithful and honest compiler. After such an avowal
on the part of the writer himself, to assert an immediate revelation to him of the arrangement to be
adopted and the chronological notices to be given, is
clearly not justified, according to his own showing
and assertion. The value of such arrangement and
chronological connection must depend on various circumstances in each case; on their definiteness and
consistency; on their agreement or disagreement
with the other extant records; the preference beirig,
in each case, given to that one whose account is the
most minute in details, and whose notes of sequence
are the most distinct.




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.          343
"13. In thus speaking, I am  doing no more than
even the most scrupulous of our harmonizers have,
in fact, done. In the case alluded to in paragraph
11, there is not one of them who has not altered the arrangement, either of Matthew or of Mark and Luke,
so as to bring the visit to the Gadarenes into the
same part of the Evangelic history. But if the arrangement itself were matter of Divine inspiration, then
have we no right to vary it in the slightest degree, but
must maintain-as the harmonists have done in other
cases, but never, as I am aware, in this-two distinct
visits to have been made at different times, and nearly
the same events to have occurred at both. I need hardly
add that a similar method of proceeding with all the
variations in the Gospels, which would on this supposition be necessary, would render the Scripture narrative
a heap of irnprobabilities, and strengthen, instead of
weakening, the cause of the enemies of our faith.
" 14. And not only of the arrangement of the
Evangelic history are these remarks to be understood. There are certain minor points of accuracy
or inaccuracy, of which human research suffices to
inform  men, and on which, from  want of that research, it is often the practice to speak vaguely and
inexactly. Such are sometimes the conventionallyreceived distances from place to place; such are the
common accounts of phenomena in natural history,
etc. Now, in matters of this kind, the Evangelists
and apostles were not supernaturally informed, but
left, in common with others, to the guidance of their
natural faculties.
" 15. The same may be said of citations and dates
from  history. In  the last apology of Stephenwhich he spoke, being full of the Holy Ghost, and




344            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
with Divine influence beaming fromn his countenancewe have at least two demonstrable historical inaccuracies. And the occurrence of similar ones in the
Gospels does not in any way affect the inspiration or
the veracity of the Evangelists: —
" 16. It may be well to mention one notable illustration of the principles upheld in  this section.
What can be more undoubted and unanimous than
the testimony of the Evangelists to the resurrection
of the Lord?  If there be one fact rather than
another of which the apostles were witnesses, it was
this; and in the concurrent narratives of all four
Evangelists it stands related beyond all cavil or
question. Yet, of all the events which they have
described, none is so variously put forth in detail, or
with so many minor discrepancies. And this was
just what might have been expected on the principles above laid down. The great fact that the Lord
was risen-set forth by the ocular witness of the
apostles, who had seen him-became from that day
first in importance in the delivery of their testimony. The precise order of his appearances would
naturally, from  the overwhelming nature of their
present emotions, be a matter of minor consequence,
and perhaps not even of accurate inquiry till some
time had passed. Then, with the utmost desire on
the part of the women and apostles to collect the
events in their exact order of time, some confusion
would be apparent in the history, and some discrepancies in versions of it which were the results of
separate and independent inquiries; the traces of
which pervade our present accounts. But what fairjudging  student of the Gospel ever made these
variations or discrepancies a ground for doubting




ATTACKS OF MODERN CRITICISM.            345
the veracity of the Evangelists as to the fact of
the  resurrection, or the principal details of the
Lord's appearances after it?"  (Alford's Prolegomena to the Greek Testament, Ch. I, Sec. 6.)








PART V.
REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.








PART V.
REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.
~ 34. THE  CONDITION  OF  THE  WORLD, JEWISH, GREEK, AND
ROMAN, AT THE ADVENT OF JESUS CHRIST.
CHRIST  being  " the  center  and  turning-point, as
well as key of all history," it seems to us not out
of place, in concluding this argument, to glance at
the preparation  which  existed  in  the  moral and  religious condition of the world for the appearance of
the Redeemer on earth.  Upon  this process of preparation  Neander, the  father of modern  Church  history,*  threw  more  light than  any  of his predecessors;  and, upon  the  foundation  which  he  had  laid,
his worthy  successors, Guericke, Kurtz, Jacobi, and
Schaff, built their deeply-interesting researches. The
most lucid as well as comprehensive discussion of this
subject we find in  Dr. Schaff's Church  History, and
" By birth and early training an Israelite, and a genuine Nathanael too,
full of childlike simplicity and of longings for the Messianic salvation-in
youth an enthusiastic student of Grecian philosophy, particularly of Plato,
who became for him a scientific schoolmaster to bring him to Christ-he had,
when in his seventeenth year lie received Christian baptism, passed through in
his own inward experience, so to speak, the whole historical course by which
the world had been prepared for Christianity; lie had gained an experimental
knowledge of the workings of Judaism and heathenism in their direct tendency
toward Christianity; and thus he had already broken his own way to the only
proper position for contemplating the history of the Church-a position whence
Jesus Christ is viewed as the object of the deepest yearnings of humanity, the
center of all history, and the only key to its mysterious sense." (Dr. Schaff's
History of the Apostolic Church, p. 96.)
349




350            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
quote, therefore, from  him, with some modification
and abridgment, and with the exception of what is
said "on the moral and religious state of the Pagan
world among the Greeks and Romans," on which we
have preferred the statement of Guericke.
With the incarnation of the Son of God commences,
and on it rests, the fullness of time.  (Gal. iv, 4.)
It is the end of the old world, and the beginning of
the new, which is dated from his birth. The entire.
development of humanity, especially of the religious
ideas of all nations, before the birth of Christ, must
be viewed as an introduction to this great event.
The preparation for it began indeed with the very
creation of man, who was made in the image of God,
and destined for communion with him  through the
eternal Son, and with the promise of deliverance by
the seed of the woman, some vague memories of
which promise survived in the heathen religions.
With the call of Abraham, some two thousand years
before the birth of Christ, the religious development
of humanity separates into two independent and antagonistic lines, Judaism  and heathenism.  In the
former the development was influenced and directed
by a continuous course of Divine cooperation; in the
latter it was left to the unaided powers and capacities
of man. These two parallel lines continued side by
side with each other till, in the fullness of time, they
merged in Christianity, which they were mutually to
serve by their appropriate fruits, and results, and
respectively-peculiar developments; but with which,
also, the ungodly elements of both would enter into
a deadly conflict. As Christianity is the reconciliation and union of God and man in and through Jesus
Christ, the God-man and Savior, it must have been




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    351
preceded by a twofold process of preparation-an approach of God to man, and an approach of man to
God. In Judaism the preparation is direct and positive, proceeding from above downward, and ending
with the birth of the Messiah. In heathenism it is indirect, and mainly, though not entirely, negative,
proceeding from below upward, and ending with a
helpless cry of mankind for redemption. There we
have a special revelation or self-communication of the
only true God by word and deed, ever growing clearer
and plainer, till at last the Divine nature appears in
the human to raise it to communion with itself; here
man, guided indeed by the general providence of God,
and lighted by the glimmer of the Logos shining in
the darkness, (John i, 5,) yet unaided by direct revelation, and left to his own ways, (Acts xiv, 16,) if
haply he might feel after the Lord and find him. In
Judaism the true religion was prepared for mankind,
and in heathenism mankind was prepared for its reception. There the Divine substance is begotten;
here the human forms are molded to receive it. The
former is like the elder son in the parable, who abode
in his father's house; the latter like the prodigal, who
squandered his portion, yet at last shuddered before
the gaping abyss of perdition, and penitently returned to the bosom of his father's compassionate love.
The flower of paganism appears in the two great nations of classic antiquity, Greece and Rome. With the
language, morality, literature, and religion of these nations Christianity came directly into contact. These,
together with the Jews, were the chosen nations of
the ancient world, and shared the earth among them.
While the Jews were chosen for things eternal, to
keep the sanctuary of the true religion, the Greeks




352           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
prepared the elements of natural culture, of science
and art for the use of the Church, and the Romans
developed the idea of law, and organized the civilized world in a universal empire, ready to serve
the spiritual universality of the Gospel. On the one
hand God endowed the Greeks and Romans with the
richest natural gifts, that they might reach the
highest civilization possible without the aid of Christianity, and thus both provide the instruments of
human science, art, and law for the use of the Christian Church, and yet at the same time show the
utter impotence of these alone to bless and save the
world. On the other hand, the universal empire of
Rome was a positive groundwork for the universal
empire of the Gospel. It served as a crucible, in
which all contradictory and irreconcilable peculiarities of the ancient nations and religions were dissolved into the chaos of the new creation. The Roman legions razed the partition-walls among the
ancient nations, brought the extremes of the civilized world together in free intercourse, and united
North and South, and East and West in the bonds of
a common language and culture, of common laws and
customs. Thus they evidently, though unconsciously,
opened the way for the rapid and general spread of
that religion which unites all nations in one family
of God by the spiritual bond of faith and love. In
addition to this general survey, let us consider more
particularly:
1. The moral and religious state of the pagan world
among the Greeks and Romans. The religious ideas
that lie at the bottom of all pagan religions sprang
originally from Divine revelation, either internal or
external. Having been darkened by human apostasy,




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.         353
they could not, however, in the distorted form which
they assumed in heathenism, avail to check even the
grossest manifestations of unbelief and superstition.
Resting upon myths and the vague intimations and
feelings of the human soul, the ancient popular religion
of the Greeks and Romans, in particular, naturally
came in conflict with the increasing education and
refinement of these highly-civilized nations, but could
not vanquish the skepticism  that was engendered
thereby. Hence, notwithstanding the efforts of the
Government and the patriotic citizen to prop up the
declining State religion, an utter disbelief in every
thing religious and Divine gradually spread among
the cultivated and noble classes, and passed over
from them into the mass of society, bringing with it
a dreadful corruption of morals and manners. A
species of philosophy that set up pleasure as the
highest good, and wholly denied the reality of any
objective truth, became the prevalent mode of thinking, and if here and there a man of more earnest
religious temper felt constrained to resist the godless
spirit of his age in its extreme forms, yet religion
even for him  lost its vitality, and God himself became the product of the human understanding. But
on the other hand, this very unbelief, groping about
in vain for a satisfying object, carried the germ of a
reaction. Many, with a sense of inward emptiness
and a dim intimation of a higher world, despairing
of any satisfaction from the various conflicting philosophical systems, yearned after the old religion of
their fathers, and boldly grasped it again with glowing zeal, and the "barbaric" religions of Asia and
Egypt were brought in to impart a new decoration
and interest to the effete ancestral system, and amu30




354            THI  GOSPEL RECORDS:
lets, talismans, and magicians found a welcome reception.  Such was the general state of the religion
of the Greeks and Romans at the time of the advent
of the Redeemer.  Reckless infidelity and horrible
superstition, both alike fostered by the reigning dissoluteness of morals, contended for the mastery, and
the great mass of the people lay sunk in absolute
godlessness.
A  deeper religious need was awakened in some
few minds, and these sought satisfaction in the two
better philosophical systems of the time; neither of
which, however, was fitted to meet this immortal
longing of the heart.  The Stoic philosophy, through
its ideal of a perfect virtue, could indeed flare a
clearer light over the prevailing corruption of morals, but could give no disclosures respecting the unseen world and man's future relations to God. Stoicism, moreover, left its disciples to the isolated strain
of their own wills. Blindly and coldly they subjected
themselves, for life or for death, to the unalterable
law of the universe; to despise pleasure and pain,
and, in case of necessity, to put an end to an existence which had missed its aim-such was the climax
of their wisdom.  The principles of Platonism  did
not, indeed, minister to the self-reliant pride of human nature.  On the contrary, they tended to produce the sense of dependence upon a higher Power,
and to lead men to seek communion therewith, as
the only source of enlightenment and moral excellence. But they could only teach them  to seek, not
to find.  This consummation could be effected only
by a mediator who " was come from God and went to
God."  Platonism, in thus hinting at a perfect religion that was itself the substance, while all others




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.         355
were the shadows, and in spiritualizing the popular
religions of the time, dimly looked toward Christianity.
We have to survey, 2. The religious condition of the
Jewish people. This wonderful people was chosen by
Sovereign Grace to stand amid the surrounding idolatry as the bearer of the knowledge of Jehovah, the
only true God, of his holy-law, and of his comforting promise, and thus to become the cradle of the
Messiah. It arose with the calling of Abraham, and
the covenant of Jehovah with him  in Canaan; the
land of promise; grew to a nation in Egypt, the land
of bondage; was delivered, and organized into a theocratic State, on the basis of the law of Sinai, by
Moses in the wilderness; was led back into Palestine
by Joshua; became, after the Judges, a monarchy,
reaching the hight of its glory in David and Solomon, the types of the victorious and peaceful reign
of Christ; split into two hostile kingdoms, and, in
punishment of internal discord and growing apostasy
to idolatry, was carried captive by heathen conquerors; was restored, after seventy years' humiliation,
to the land of its fathers, but fell again under the
yoke of heathen foes; yet in its deepest abasement
fulfilled its highest mission by giving birth to the
Savior of the world. Judaism was, among the idolatrous nations of antiquity, like an oasis in a desert,
clearly defined and isolated; separated and inclosed
by a rigid moral and ceremonial law. The Holy
Land itself, though in the midst of the three grand
divisions of the ancient world, was separated fiom
the great nations of ancient culture by deserts south
and east, by sea on the west, and by mountains on
the north; thus securing to the Mosaic religion free



356           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
dom to unfold itself and to fulfill its great work
without disturbing influences from  abroad.  And
Israel carried in its bosom from the first, the large
promise, that in Abraham's seed all the nations of
the earth should be blessed.
The outward circumstances, and the moral and religious condition of the Jews at the birth of Christ,
would indeed seem, at first and on the whole, to be
in glaring contradiction with their divine destiny.
But, in the first place, their very degeneracy proved
the need of Divine help. In the second place, the
redemption through Christ appeared by contrast in
the greater glory, as a creative act of God. And
finally, amid the mass of corruption, as a preventive
of putrefaction, lived the succession of the true children of Abraham, longing for the salvation of Israel,
and ready to embrace Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah and the Savior of the world.
Since the battle of Philippi, (B. C. 42,) the Jews
had been subject to the heathen Romans, who heartlessly governed them by the Idumean Herod and his
sons, and afterward by procurators.  Under this
hated yoke their Messianic hopes were powerfully
raised, but carnally distorted. Misapprehending the
spirit of the Old Testament, vain-gloriously boasting
themselves to be the people of God, utterly blinded
as to the cause of the terrible national judgments
they were suffering, the mass of the Jewish nation
desired nothing but deliverance from temporal distresses, and hoped greedily for the advent of a Messiah who should free them from the Roman yoke by
supernatural power, and give them the supreme dominion on earth. Their morals were outwardly far
better than those of the heathen; but under the garb




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    357
of strict obedience to their law they concealed great
corruption.  They are pictured in the New  Testament as a stiff-necked, ungrateful, and impenitent
race, a generation of vipers. Their own priest and
historian, Josephus, who generally endeavored to
present his countrymen to the Greeks and Romans
in the most favorable light, describes them as at that
time a debased and ungodly people, well deserving
their fearful punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem. As to religion, the Jews, especially after the
Babylonish captivity, adhered most tenaciously to
the letter of the law, and to their traditions and ceremonies, but without knowing the spirit and power
of the Scriptures. They cherished the most bigoted
horror of the heathen, and were therefore despised
and hated by them as misanthropic. After the time
of the Maccabees, (B. C. 150,) they fell into two mutually-hostile sects.  The Pharisees represented the
traditional orthodoxy and stiff formalism, the legal
self-righteousness and the fanatical bigotry of Judaism.  The bitter opponents of the Pharisees were
the skeptical, rationalistic, and worldly-minded Sadducees. Their religious creed was confined to the
mere letter of the Pentateuch, and contained only
such tenets as they deemed to be explicitly taught in
it. The sect of the Essenes came into no contact
with the Gospel history. They were a mystic, ascetic
sect, and lived in monkish seclusion on the coasts of
the Dead Sea.
Degenerate and corrupt though the mass of Judaism was, yet the Old Testament economy was the
Divine institution preparatory to the Christian redemption, and as such received the deepest reverence
from Christ and his apostles, while they sought by




358            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
terrible rebuke to lead its unworthy representatives
to repentance.  Law and prophecy were the two great
elements of the Jewish religion by which it was made
a direct Divine introduction to Christianity.  (1.) The
law of Moses was the clearest expression of the holy
will of God before the advent of Christ. It set forth
the ideal of righteousness, and was thus fitted most
effectually to awaken the sense of man's great departure from it, the knowledge of sin and guilt. It
acted as a schoolmaster to lead men to Christ that
they might be justified by faith. The same sense of
guilt and of the need of reconciliation was constantly
kept alive by daily sacrifices, at first in the Tabernacle and afterward in the Temple, and by the whole
ceremonial law, which, as a wonderful system  of
types and shadows, perpetually pointed to the realities of the new covenant, especially to the one allsufficient atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
For, inasmuch as God requires absolute obedience
and purity of heart, under promise of life and penalty
of death, and as he can not cruelly sport with man,
there is hidden in the moral and ritual law, as in a
shell, the sweet kernel of a promise, that he will one
day exhibit the ideal of righteousness in living form,
and give the miserable sinner power to fulfill the
law. Without such assurance the law  were bitter
irony.  (2.) The law was, as already hinted, the vehicle of the Divine promise of redemption, and became by prophecy a religion of hope. While the
Greeks and Romans put their golden age in the past,
the Jews looked for theirs in the future.  Their
whole history, their religious, political, and social institutions and customs pointed to the coming of the
Messiah, and the establishment of his kingdom  on




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    359
earth. Prophecy begins with the promise of the Serpent-bruiser immediately after the fall. It predominates in the patriarchal age, and Moses, the lawgiver, was at the same time a prophet pointing the
people to a greater successor. Without the comfort
of the Messianic promise, the law must have driven
the earnest soul to despair. From the time of Samuel, some eleven centuries before Christ, prophecy
took an organized form in a permanent prophetical
office and order. In this form -it accompanied the
Levitical priesthood and the Davidic dynasty down
to the Babylonish captivity, survived this catastrophe, and directed the return of the people and the
rebuilding of the Temple; interpreting and applying
the law, reproving abuses in Church and State, predicting the terrible judgments and the redeeming
grace of God, warning and punishing, comforting and
encouraging, with an ever plainer reference to the
coming Messiah, who should redeem Israel and the
world fiom sin and misery, and establish a kingdom
of peace and righteousness on earth.
This is the Jewish religion as it flowed from the
fountain of Divine revelation and lived in the true
Israel, the spiritual children of Abraham, in John
the Baptist, his parents and disciples, in the mother
of Jesus, her kindred and friends, in the venerable
Simeon, and the prophetess Anna, in Lazarus and
his pious sisters, in the apostles and the first disciples, who embraced Jesus of Nazareth as the fulfiller
of the law and the prophets, the Son of God and the
Savior of the world.
We have to glance, 3. At the influence which Judaism
and heathenism mutually exerted upon one another.  (1.)
The Jews, since the Babylonish captivity, had been




360            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
scattered over all the world. In spite of the antipathy of the Gentiles, they had, by their judgment,
industry, and tact, risen to wealth and influence, and
had built their synagogues in all the commercial
cities of the Roman Empire. They had thus sown
the seeds of the knowledge of the true God, and of
Messianic hope in the field of the idolatrous world.
The Old Testament Scriptures were translated into
Greek two centuries before Christ, and were read
and expounded in the public worship of God, which
was open to all. Every synagogue was, as it were, a
mission-station of monotheism, and furnished the
apostles an admirable place and a most natural introduction for their preaching of Jesus Christ as the
fulfiller of the law and the prophets. Then, as the
heathen religions had been hopelessly undermined by
skeptical philosophy and popular infidelity, many
earnest Gentiles, especially multitudes of women,
came over to Judaism either wholly or in part. The
thorough converts, called "proselytes of righteousness," were commonly still more bigoted and fanatical than the native Jews. The half-converts, "proselytes of the gate," or "God-fearing men," who
adopted only the monotheism, the principal moral
laws, and the Messianic hopes of the Jews, without
being circumcised, appear in the New Testament as
the most susceptible hearers of the Gospel.  (2.)
On the other hand, the Graeco-Roman heathenism,
through its language, philosophy, and literature, exerted no inconsiderable influence to soften the fanatical bigotry in the higher and more cultivated classes
of the Jews. Generally the Jews of the dispersion,
who spoke the Greek language, the IHellenists, as
they were called, were much more liberal than the




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.        361
proper Hebrews, or Palestinian Jews, who kept their
mother tongue. This is evident in the Gentile missionaries, Barnabas. of' Cyprus, and Paul of Tarsus,
and in the whole Church of Antioch, in contrast with
that at Jerusalem. The Hellenistic-Jewish form of
Christianity was the natural bridge to the Gentile.
The most remarkable example of a traditional,
though very fantastic and Gnostic-like combination
of Jewish and heathen elements meets us in the educated circles of the Egyptian metropolis, Alexandria,
and in the system  of Philo, who was cotemporary
with the founding of the Christian Church, though
he never came in contact with it. This Jewish theologian sought to harmonize the religion of Moses
with the philosophy of Plato by the help of an ingenious but arbitrary allegorical interpretation of the
Old Testament; and from the books of Proverbs and
of Wisdom  he deduced a doctrine of the Logos so
similar to that of John's Gospel, that some have imputed to the apostle an acquaintance with the writings of Philo.  But Philo's speculation is to the
apostle's "Word made flesh," as a shadow to the
body, or a dream to the reality. The Therapute, or
Worshipers, a mystic, ascetic sect in Egypt, akin to
the Essenes in Judea, carried this Platonic Judaism
into practical life; but were, of course, equally unsuccessful in uniting the two religions in a vital and
permanent way. Such a union could only be effected
by a new religion revealed from heaven.
Thus was the way for Christianity prepared on
every side, positively and negatively, directly and
indirectly, in theory and practice, by truth and by
error, by false belief and by unbelief, by Jewish religion, by Grecian culture, and by Roman conquest;
31




362            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
by the vainly-attempted amalgamation of Jewish
and heathen thought, by the exposed impotence of
natural civilization, philosophy, art, and political
power, by the decay of the old religions, by the
universal distraction and hopeless misery of theage,
and by the yearnings of all earnest and noble souls
for the unknown God.
In the fullness of time, when the fairest flowers of
science and art had withered, and the world was on
the verge of despair, the Virgin's Son was born to
heal the infirmities of mankind. Christ entered a
dying world as the author of a new and imperishable life.
~ 35. THE CHRONOLOGY AND HARMONY OF THE GOSPEL
NARRATIVES.
It is very difficult to arrange in their proper chronological order the events of our Lord's life, many of
which are narrated by one or more of the Evangelists
in a different order. Alford thinks that it is impossible to combine the narratives given by the Evangelists into one continuous history, without doing
considerable violence to the arrangement of some
one or more of the Evangelists.  We readily acknowledge that we can not gather from the Gospel
Records that knowledge of the real process of the
transactions themselves, which alone would enable us
to give a satisfactory account of the different order
in which they appear in our Gospels, and with certainty to assign to each event its proper chronological place; nevertheless, there is light enough to show
us the chronological order of the Gospel narratives
in the main, and modern harmonists have arrived at
the same conclusions on almost every essential point,




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    363
except with regard to the beginning of the Galilean
ministry proper and the insertion of Luke ix, 51xviii, 14. The late Dr. E. Robinson has given, in his
"Harmony of the Four Gospels," a digest of the
many learned disquisitions on the various difficult
points, and the conclusions which he has arrived at
in common with the leading harmonists of Germany,
and upon which he builds his harmonistical arrangement of the Gospel narratives, have been accepted
by all the later commentators; their synoptical and
harmonistical table does not vary from  that of
Robinson.  But there has now  appeared a work
whose thorough researches have brought out a different and far more satisfactory result with regard to
the two important points mentioned above. We refer to " The Life of Our Lord upon the Earth," by the
Rev. Samuel J. Andrews, who has done the Church
a great and lasting service by setting the desigh
of our Lord's Judean ministry, and  its relation
to the Galilean, as well as his last journey to Jerusalem, in a light which has an important bearing
upon the exegesis of the Gospels. We have no doubt
that, henceforward, Mr. Andrews will be the standard
authority on the chronology and harmony of the
Gospels, as Dr. Robinson has been hitherto. To his
"Life of Our Lord," our readers will be indebted
for much of the light which we have been enabled
to throw upon the chronological and harmonistical
questions in the Gospel history. By having adopted
the results of Mr. Andrews's researches, and arranging them  in tabular form, we hope to contribute
something toward giving his valuable work a more
general circulation. The chronology and harmony
of the Gospels is of so much importance that it ought




364            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
to be made a subject-matter of study for itself, apart
from all other questions, and the Bible student will
find in Mr. Andrews's work all he needs for this
purpose.
Referring the reader to that work, and to our
comments on the respective passages to which the
chronological and harmonistical questions refer, for
details, and for the reasons that have led us to our
conclusions, we will here only present a summary
of the data we have for ascertaining the year of our
Lord's birth, and death, and consequently the duration of his ministry, in order to obtain a basis for a
chronological arrangement of the events narrated in
the Gospels.
A. THE DATE OF THE BIRTH OF.CHRIST.
According to the received chronology, which is
that of Dionysius Exiguus, in the sixth century, Jesus was born in the year of Rome 754. But it is
now  admitted, on all hands, that this calculation
places the nativity some years too late. It can be
proved satisfactorily that it could not have occurred
after 750, nor before 747.
1. It is certain that Jesus was born before the
death of Herod the Great, (Matt. ii, 1-6.)  Almost
all chronologists agree in putting his death in the
year 750, shortly before the Passover, (between the
13th of March and the 4th of April.)  But how long
before Herod's death was Christ born?  The answer
to this question depends upon the length of time
which the events between his birth and Herod's
death-the presentation of the child at the Temple
forty days after the nativity, the visit of the Magi,
the flight into Egypt, and the remaining there till




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.         365
Herod was dead-may have required. So much is
certain, that the nativity can not be fixed later than
the month of January, 750.
2. Another note of time occurs in Luke iii, 1, 2,
where John the Baptist is said. to have entered upon
his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. The
rule of Tiberius may be calculated either from the
beginning of his sole reign, after the death of Augustus, August 19, 767, or from his joint government
with Augustus, near the end of 764 or the beginning
of 765. It is admitted by most chronologists as almost certain, that Luke computed the reign of Tiberius from his colleagueship. If so, the fifteenth year
of Tiberius and the beginning of John's ministry is
779. From  the fact that the Levites were not allowed to enter upon their full service till the age of
thirty, (Num. iv, 3,) it has been generally supposedalthough there is no express law to that effect-that
the priests began their labors at the same age.
Hence it has been inferred that John must have
reached the age of thirty ere he began his ministry.
That his ministry may have continued about six
months, when the Lord came to be baptized, is in
the highest degree probable. If, then, John entered
upon his ministry in the year 779, being thirty years
old, and about six months elapsed ere the Lord,
whose birth took place six months after that of
John, came to him to be baptized, it follows that the
birth of John is to be fixed in the Summer of 749,
and that of our Lord toward the close of the same
year or in the beginning of 750.
3. The baptism of Jesus was followed by a Passover, (John ii, 13,) at which certain Jews mention
that the restoration of their Temple had been in




366            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
progress for forty-six years, Jesus himself being at
this time "about thirty years of age," (Luke iii, 23.)
The statement of Luke, "And Jesus himself began
to be about (leee) thirty years of age," has been variously interpreted. According to some it is to be
understood as a round or indefinite number, permitting a latitude of at least two or three years. But
this is highly improbable. The most natural meaning is, that the Lord was some months more or less
than thirty.  He was not just thirty, nor twentynine, nor thirty-one.  This is confirmed by the remark of the Jews, at the Passover which our Lord
visited two or three months after his baptism, that
that the Temple was then in building forty and six
years.  This building, or rather rebuilding, of the
Temple was begun by Herod in the eighteenth year
of his reign, or during the year fronm  Nisan, 734Nisan, 735. The forty-sixth year following was from
Nisan, 780-81. If the forty-sixth year is to be taken
as completed, it was that of 781; if it is to be taken
as current, it was that of 780. This calculation, like
the former points, would fix the birth of Jesus toward
the close of 749, or beginning of 750. But this calculation is made somewhat uncertain by the consideration that Josephus assigns the length of Herod's
reign at thirty-seven or thirty-four years, according
as he reckons from his appointment by the Romans,
or from the death of Antigonus.
4. Astronomy is also brought under contribution
to settle the date of the birth of Christ. Whether
the star seen by the Magi was the conjunction of the
planets Jupiter and Saturn, which occurred in the
year 747, the reader will find discussed in our notes
on Matthew  ii, 1-10. We do not enter here upon




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.         367
this question, because, owing to our not knowing
whether the first appearance of the constellation was
designed to signify the annunciation of the incarnation or the actual birth, nor at which of the successive appearances of the constellation the Magi set
out on their journey, we can not reach any precise
chronological results, except this, that the conjunction of the planets in 747 defines the earliest period
at which the Lord's birth can be placed.
In respect to the time of the year when Jesus was
born there is still less certainty. Mr. Andrews says:
"The only direct datum  which the Gospels give us
is found in the statement of Luke, (i, 5,) that Zacharias'was of the course of Abia.' It is known that
the priests were divided into twenty-four classes,
each of which officiated at the Temple in its turn for
a week, (1 Chron. xxiv, 1-19.)  This order, originally established by David, was broken up by the
captivity.  The four classes that returned from Babylon were divided anew by Ezra into twenty-four,
to which the old names were given. Another interruption was made by the invasion of Antiochus, but
the old order was restored by the Maccabees. Of
these courses that of Jehojarib was the first, that of
Abia the eighth. We need, therefore, only to know
a definite time at which any one of the courses was
officiating, in order to be able to trace the succession.
Such a datum we find in the Talmudical statements,
supported by Josephus, (Bell. Jud., VI, iv, 5,) that,
at the destruction of the Temple by Titus, on the 5th
of August, 823, the first class had just entered on its
course. Its period of service was from the evening
of the 4th of August, which was the Sabbath, to the
evening of the following Sabbath, on the 11th of




368            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
August. We can now easily compute backward, and
ascertain at what time in any given year each class
was officiating.  If we take the year 749 as the
probable year of Christ's birth, the appearance of the
angel to Zacharias announcing John's birth must be
placed 748. In this year we find, by computation,
that the course of Abia officiated during the weeks
from April 17th to 23d, and again from October 3d
to 9th.  At each of these periods, therefore, was
Zacharias at Jerusalem. If the annunciation of the
angel was made to him during the former, the birth
of John may be placed near the beginning of 749,
and the Lord's birth about six months later, or near
the middle of 749; if the annunciation was made
during the latter, John's birth was near the middle
of 749, and the Lord's birth near its end. The fact
that we do not know how soon after the completion
of the ministry of Zacharias the conception of John is
to be placed prevents any very exact statement of
dates. Luke (i, 24) uses only the general expression,' After those days his wife Elisabeth conceived.'
Yet the tenor of the narrative leads us to believe that
it was soon after his return to his home, and may be
placed in either of the months, April or October.
Counting onward fifteen months, we reach June and
December, in one of which the birth of Christ is thus
to be placed."  To the month of December the objection is made, that, in the night when the Lord was
born, shepherds were in the field keeping watch over
their flocks, and that, if we place the birth of Christ
in that season, his baptism would fall in January, a
month considered by some as unfavorable for the
work of baptism. But the most reliable testimonies
concerning the climate of Palestine show the ground



REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    369
lessness of the objection made on this ground. Considering the time most probably required for the
events that took place between our Lord's baptism
and his first Passover, we are almost forced to the
conclusion that he was baptized by John early in
January, and that, therefore, his birth is to be placed
in the month of December.
B. THE DURATION OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY, AND THE
DATE OF HIS DEATH.
We have shown the grounds upon which we may
assume that the Baptist began his ministry in midsummer of the year 779, and that our Lord was baptized about six months afterward, that is in January,
780. Immediately after his baptism he was led by
the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the
devil, and was there forty days. From John i, 29,
we learn that after the temptation he returned to
Bethabara the day after John had been visited by a
deputation of priests and Levites from Jerusalem.
As he sees Jesus coming he bears witness to him as
the Lamb of God. The day following he repeats this
testimony to his disciples. Two of them-Andrew,
and no doubt John, the narrator of the fact-followed Jesus and staid with him  the whole day.
Andrew brings his brother Simon to see him also,
and he receives the name of Cephas.'The succeeding day Jesus departs to Galilee. Two days seem to
have been spent on the way to Cana, during which
time he meets with Philip and Nathanael. On the
third day (from the departure to Galilee) the marriage-feast took place at Cana, where our Lord performed his first miracle. From  Cana he went down
with his mother and brethren, and disciples, to Ca



370           THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
pernaum, and remained there (John ii, 12, 13) till it
was time to go up to Jerusaler  to attend the Passover, which, in the year 780, fell upon the 9th of
April; the whole interval between his baptism and
his first Passover was, consequently, about three
months.
The duration of our Lord's ministry can best be
determined by the number of Passovers which took
place between his baptism and death, and which we
have to ascertain from  the Gospel of John. This
Evangelist mentions six feasts, at five of which Jesus
was present; the Passover that followed his baptism,
(ii, 13;) a feast of the Jews, (v, 1;) a Passover,
during which Jesus remained in Galilee, (vi, 4;) the
feast of tabernacles to which the Lord went up privately, (vii, 2;) the feast of dedication, (x, 22;) and,
lastly, the Passover at which he suffered. There are,
therefore, certainly three Passovers, and if the feast
mentioned in chap. v, 1, be also a Passover, four.
The reasons for regarding it as a Passover may be
found in our comments on John v, 1; they are so preponderating that a great majority of commentators
and harmonists have declared in favor of it, and we,
therefore, assume this conclusion as the most probable. Accordingly, our Lord's ministry from his baptism embraced three years and about three months,
and the Passover on which he died was that of 783.
With regard to the day of the month on which he
died, we meet the much-disputed point whether he
was crucified on the 14th or 15th Nisan. According
to the Synoptists, Jesus partook of the Paschal Supper at the same time with the Jews in general, and
at the time appointed in the law, on the evening following the 14th Nisan, Thursday evening, and on the




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    371
next day, Friday, the 15th Nisan, he was crucified.
But according to John (xviii, 28, and xix, 14) it
seems that Christ was crucified on the 14th Nisan,
the same day on the evening of which the supper
was to be legally eaten, and that, consequently, the
supper eaten by him  and his disciples the evening
previous to his death was not the legal Paschal Supper. How  John's statement is to be harmonized
with that of the Synoptists, is considered at the
proper place in our Commentary. This point is mentioned here only on account of its bearing on the
year in which our Lord died. We assume here that
our Lord died on the 15th Nisan. As it is almost
universally admitted that he died on Friday, the
question arises, in what year following 780 the 15th
Nisan fell on a Friday. According to Wieseler this
was the case in 783. Those who place the crucifixion
on the 14th Nisan, find that it fell on a Friday in
782 and 786. Seyffarth contends that he died on the
14th Nisan in the year 785, and that this day was
Thursday, not Friday.
Inasmuch as the duration of our Lord's ministry
can not be ascertained with absolute certainty, from
the number of Passovers which took place between
his baptism and death, the following data have been
made the basis of computing the year of the death
of Christ. 1. The tradition of the Talmudists, that
the power to inflict capital punishment was taken
from  the Jews forty years before the Temple was
destroyed, which occurred in 823, is adduced as corroborative of the crucifixion having taken place in
the year 783. 2. It has been inferred from the parable of the barren fig-tree, (Luke xiii, 6-9,) that
Christ's ministry dated three years from the Passover




372            THE GOSPEL RECORDS:
of 780. 3. The prophetic half-week of Daniel (ix, 27)
has been interpreted as referring to the length of our
Lord's ministry; but this is a mere conjecture. 4. The
great eclipse of the sun, reported by Phlegon to have
taken place in the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad-from July, 785 to 786-has been considered by
some as identical with the darkening of the sun at
the crucifixion; but this supposition is of no weight,
because the darkening of the sun occurring at the
time of the full moon could not have been an eclipse.
Besides, the eclipse spoken of by Phlegon occurred,
according to astronomical calculations, in November,
782. 5. Some of the Fathers were induced by the
passage, Isaiah lxi, 2, where mention is made of "the
acceptable year of the Lord," quoted by the Lord at
Nazareth, (Luke iv, 19,) to limit his ministry to a
single year, or a year and some months. But this
supposition is entirely untenable.  No less preposterous is the inference of Irenaeus, from John viii, 57,
and ii, 20, that our Lord was between forty and fifty
years old when he died. 6. According to Tertullian,
Christ suffered under Tiberius Caesar, R. Geminus
and P. Geminus being Consuls, on the eighth day
before the calends of April-March 25th. This statement, although it seems to have obtained general
currency, is inexplicable. The Gemini were Consuls
during the year beginning January, 782. Our Lord's
death could not have taken place in that year on the
25th of March, for he was crucified on the 14th or
15th Nisan; and these days, in 782, fell on the 16th
and 17th of April. Besides, Tertullian is not consistent with himself, assigning to our Lord's ministry
in one place, one year, and in another place, three
years.




REMARKS ON THE GOSPEL HISTORY.    373
In consideration of all the data, though none of
them leads to absolute certainty, the majority of
modern commentators and harmonists have arrived
at the conclusion that the ministry of our Lord embraced four Passovers, having a duration of three
years and about three months from his baptism in
the beginning of January, 780, to the 7th of April,
783.
THE END.