The Lost Gospel and Its Contents, Michael F. Sadler [great novels to read .TXT] 📗

that event," &c. (Bk. iii. c. xxiv.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respecting the latter, it appears from Eusebius that he published commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. John. Of the latter Eusebius says the first five books wore composed at Alexandria, but of the whole work on St. John only twenty-two books have come down to us. (Bk. vi. ch. 24.) Now Origen was born a few years (at the most twenty) after the death of Justin; and we have seen how the author of "Supernatural Religion" evidently considers the works of Justin to be anterior to the Fourth Gospel. Is it credible, or oven conceivable, that a man of Origen's intellect, learning, and research should write twenty or thirty books of commentaries on a false Gospel which was forged shortly before his own time?

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

"As I have understood from tradition respecting the four Gospels,
which are the only undisputed ones in the whole Church of God
throughout the world. The first is written according to Matthew, the
same that was once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus
Christ, who, having published it for the Jewish converts, wrote it
in Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as Peter
explained to him, whom he [Peter] also acknowledged as his son in
his general epistle, saying, 'The elect Church in Babylon salutes
you, as also Mark, my son.' And the third according to Luke, the
Gospel commended by Paul, which was written for the converts from
the Gentiles; and, last of all, the Gospel according to John."
Extract from Origen's first book of his commentaries on St. Matthew,
quoted by Eusebius (vi. 25)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, Irenaeus, in a well-known passage, asserts that--

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

He then refers to the four zones of the earth, and the four principal winds, and remarks that, in accordance with this,

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

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

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

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

"In the first place, then, in the four Gospels handed down amongst