Section I

the church’s corroboration of the four gospels in general

One of the noblest branches among Church traditions is the tradition of the four Gospels. It appears in a threefold form: first, as testing and accrediting the Gospels, and investing them with ecclesiastical validity; then as preserving, propagating, and expounding them; and finally, as laying them down as the rule and touchstone of the Christianity of all other ecclesiastical traditions. It is only the first form of this tradition which will here engage us, viz., the corroboration furnished to the four Gospels by the ancient Church.

Three stages may be discerned in the progress which this corroboration exhibits. First, we find that, even in the middle of the second century, four Gospels, far surpassing all others in authority, were known to the Christian Church. Then we learn from witnesses of the latter half and close of the same century, that the Gospels, known as the four Gospels, must have been the same that have been handed down to us; while towards the close of the third and commencement of the fourth century, we find these Gospels in possession of full and decided ecclesiastical recognition.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 165) and his disciple Tatian may be taken as representatives of the position in which the Church stood to Gospel literature. The former was born in Palestine, and died in Rome; hence he was acquainted with the Church in a tolerably extensive circuit. The same was the case with Tatian, a native of Syria, who returned thither from Rome after Justin’s death. Now Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, repeatedly appeals to original written testimonies, which he designates the memoirs or memorabilia of the apostles (ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων). He views them both in their connection with and contrast to the writings of the prophets (τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν); that is, as a collection of writings, known and acknowledged by the Church, together with the Old Testament canon. As much that is found in the four Gospels is introduced in this dialogue, it is probable that he included these among the memoirs he mentions.¹ He speaks, indeed, also of a Gospel, but this is quite in accordance with the feelings and expressions of the Church, and signifies the one objective Gospel, pervading all the subjective representations admitted by the Church. That Justin was acquainted with these also is evident, for he calls the memoirs Gospels.² When, then, the connection in which Justin and Tatian stand with each other is taken into account, we cannot but connect the memoirs appealed to by the former, with the Gospel writing composed by the latter. After the death of Justin, Tatian was led aside by the Gnostic tendencies then rife in his native place, and from which he probably had not before been entirely free. It was under this influence that he composed his work, the Diatessaron (διὰ τεσσάρων; out of four, or according to ‘the four’).³ As a Gnostic, he found many causes of offence in the Gospels handed down by the Church, which he intended to remedy in this composition, in which he omitted the genealogies of Christ and all passages relating to His descent from David. If Tatian, then, could thus designate his authorities, it is plain that in his days four Gospels must have been universally known and acknowledged; and how can it be supposed that these were any other than those known to his master Justin? Thus, in the middle of the second century, there were four Gospels, known as the four, decidedly looked upon as valid in the Church; and, according to Eusebius,⁴ these were the same four as those acknowledged in later times. Eusebius, however, was not acquainted with Tatian’s work, and might therefore have been mistaken as to its reference to our four Gospels. But Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 181) was also acquainted with four Gospels; and these must have been identical with ours, since Jerome was acquainted with commentaries on our four Gospels, which he attributed to Theophilus.⁵ In his work, ad Autolycum, B. iii., Theophilus speaks of the agreement between the prophets and Evangelists on the doctrine of justification; and this combination shows also the high degree of consideration which must have been awarded to the Evangelists in his days.

The testimony given to the Gospels by Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis about the middle of the second century, and is said to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius, offers many difficulties. Papias, as it at first appears, said (as reported by Eusebius in his Hist. Eccles. iii. 39) nothing concerning the Gospels of St Luke and St John. To this matter, however, we shall hereafter have to recur. Of St Matthew he says, that he wrote the λόγια (the oral Gospel) in the Hebrew language, which every one interpreted to the best of his ability; of St Mark, that he committed to writing what he learned (concerning the Gospel history) as interpreter to Peter. Both these accounts will have to be considered when we treat more particularly of these Evangelists. Thus much is, however, certain, that Papias was acquainted with one Gospel attributed to St Matthew, and another attributed to St Mark. But why does he not mention the Gospels of St Luke and St John? It almost seems as if the answer to this question might be gathered from a closer consideration of the report given of his expressions by Eusebius. According to this, Papias made a collection of the oral traditions concerning our Lord,⁶ in five books (συγγράμματα πέντε λογὶων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως). In the preface to this work, he explains the manner in which it was composed. He tells us that he did not concern himself with the communications of those who delivered new and strange precepts, but inquired after such as received what they delivered from the Lord Himself. ‘And if,’ continues he, ‘there came a disciple of the elders, I investigated the sayings of the elders: what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples; then also what Aristion or the presbyter John, the Lord’s disciples, say.’⁷ Eusebius employs this passage in opposition to Irenæus, who had said that Papias was a disciple (hearer) of John, and a companion of Polycarp. He remarks upon it, that Papias here twice introduces the name of John, the first time in connection with the apostles, the second in connection with Aristion, and designates this last John as the presbyter, thereby confirming the tradition of those who distinguished John the presbyter from the apostle of the same name, and maintained that the separate graves of both were still to be seen at Ephesus. But Eusebius overlooks the fact that Papias here also calls the apostles elders. It also escapes him, that Papias might here well introduce the name of John the apostle or presbyter twice, once as receiving his communications at the hands of his disciples, as he did those of Andrew or Peter, and again as receiving them directly, like those of Aristion. It is also necessary to remark, that John the presbyter is also decidedly distinguished from Aristion, both being called disciples of the Lord, but the title of presbyter being given to John alone. Was, then, Aristion, the disciple of the Lord, no presbyter according to the meaning attached to this word by the more modern church of Eusebius? In the days of Papias, the title presbyter, used in connection with an apostolic name, had still a special import in the Church. Papias first speaks of communications which he derived directly from the disciples of the Lord. He was then, in any case, in communication with such, whether their names were John, Aristion, or any other. He says, too, that he did not neglect indirect tradition, namely, such as he received from the disciples of the elders, i.e., the apostles. When mentioning this second and minor source of information, he seems to feel the necessity of accrediting it by the words: As also Aristion and John the presbyter, the Lord’s disciples, say. These, then, furnish him the ultimate corroboration of what he had learned indirectly concerning the apostles through their disciples; they must therefore certainly stand on the same level with those whom he names as his first and best authorities. Consequently John the presbyter could be no other than John the apostle; and the very words of Papias, in spite of their being misunderstood by Eusebius, confirm the statement of Irenæus. If, then, we may translate the Latin name Luke into the Greek Aristion, which seems very admissible (Lucere, ἀριστεύω), we have this satisfactory explanation of the fact, that the testimony of Papias to the two last Gospels is wanting, namely, that in the cases of the Evangelist Luke and the Apostle John, Papias had their own oral communications in support of his exegesis, in place of their Gospels; and this is the more probable, since he was in possession of oral traditions, and it was a principle with him to prefer them to written narratives.⁸ In the case, then, of Luke and John he did not inquire after written Gospels, though he did so in that of Matthew and Mark; while, with respect to the Gospel of the latter, he inquired also into its apostolic foundation. He was, in fact, according to the words of Irenæus, an ἀρχαῖος ἀνὴρ, an ecclesiastical antiquarian. If such a man mentioned the two first Gospels with a few critical remarks, and passed by the two last without comment, such a fact is a strong corroboration of all.

To the testimony of Papias, we join that of Irenæus (A.D. 202). He tells us, in his work against heresies (iii. 1), that St Matthew brought out a Gospel among the Hebrews, in their own language, while St Peter and St Paul were preaching, and founding a church, at Rome: that after their departure, St Mark, the disciple and interpreter of St Peter, transmitted to us in writing what the latter had proclaimed: that St Luke, the companion of St Paul, gave a written summary of the Gospel preached by that apostle: and that St John also, the disciple of the Lord, who lay on His breast, composed a Gospel during his stay at Ephesus, in Asia.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 221), in his Stromata (B. iii.), quotes an expression which Christ is said to have used in answer to a question of Salome, remarking that this saying is not found in any of the four Gospels which have been handed down to us, but that it is contained in the Gospel of the Egyptians. He thus distinguishes the latter from the four Gospels, which he views in the definite form of a concluded whole, possessing church authorization. According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 14), he expressed himself (in his Hypotyposes) concerning the Gospels in the following manner:-That those Gospels were first written which contain the genealogies: that St Mark, the companion of St Peter in Rome, had, at the request of many, set down what St Peter preached, and delivered it to them: that St Peter heard of this, but neither dissuaded him from the undertaking, nor urged him to it; and that St John, last of all, seeing that in all these Gospels that which was corporeal had been communicated (ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται), and being encouraged by his friends, and impelled by the Spirit, composed the spiritual Gospel (πνευματικὸν ποιήσαι Εὐαγγέλιον).

Tertullian, a contemporary of Clement (A.D. 220), also testifies to the authenticity of the four Gospels. In his work against Marcion, he accuses him of having mutilated the Gospel of St Luke (B. iv. c. 2). He lays down the principle, that the Gospels are, one and all, supported by the authority of the apostles, arguing that, though there were among the Evangelists disciples of the apostles, yet that these did not stand alone, but appeared with, as well as after the apostles. He thus views the apostolical testimony as a whole, in which those parts which are in themselves weaker, viz., the writings of St Mark and St Luke, partake of the strength of the unquestionable authority inherent in those of St Matthew and St John.⁹

Such was the strength of ecclesiastical authentication bestowed upon our four Gospels, even at the beginning of the third and latter half of the second century. Their diffusion in the Church is also certain. Proofs of the early spread of the four Gospels in the Syrian church are afforded us by the fact, that they were known to Justin Martyr, to his disciple Tatian, and to Theophilus of Antioch. From the testimony of Papias, which is completed with respect to St Luke and St John by Irenæus, we obtain the voice of the Asiatic church, with which the Gallic was in communication. Clement (to whom may be added Origen, in his more frequent mention of the four Gospels), shows that, in his days, the Gospels were a special possession of the church of Alexandria, while Tertullian bears the same testimony with respect to that of North Africa.

The account given of the Gospels by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (iii. 24), may be regarded as the final result of the tradition of the early Church concerning them. He tells us that St Matthew, having preached the faith to the Hebrews, wrote his Gospel in his native tongue, when about to proceed to other nations; and that St Mark and St Luke, having also given forth the Gospels known by their names, St John, who had hitherto confined himself to an unwritten announcement, resolved upon writing, for the purpose of corroborating and completing the three Gospels already in circulation; and that he completed them, chiefly with respect to the commencement of Christ’s preaching and ministry, which had been passed over by the others. Eusebius, in confirming the last view, as one already allowed, certainly lays too much stress upon an unimportant difference, but his testimony itself is independent of this explanation.

In the time, therefore, of Eusebius, i.e., in the beginning of the fourth century, the authority of the four Gospels was regarded by the Church as unassailable, and they were reckoned among those books of the New Testament to which no objection existed. Their ecclesiastical authority could only be enhanced by their being designated as component parts of the canon by the decisions of general councils, an authorization which they subsequently received, especially at the Council of Laodicea, in the middle of the fourth century.

Subsequent ecclesiastical testimony need not here be entered into. It only remains to consider the manner in which the four Gospels were regarded and estimated by the Church, as collectively a spiritual whole. Even in his days Irenæus felt called upon to explain their relation according to its spiritual import.¹⁰ ‘As there are four quarters of the heavens in the world wherein we dwell, and four winds, so are there four pillars of the Church which is spreading over the whole earth, viz., the four Gospels, into which the one pillar and support of the Church, the Gospel and the Spirit of life, divides itself, and, like four living spirits or winds, they diffuse on all sides immortal life, and reanimate mankind. The cherubim, whose appearance was fourfold, were their types. The first living creature was like a lion, denoting strength, dominion, and sovereignty. The Gospel of St John answers to this figure; it represents the glorious and sovereign origin of Christ, the Word, by whom all things were made. The second was like an ox, denoting the ordinances of sacrifice and priesthood. Thus the Gospel of St Luke has a priestly character; it commences with the priest Zacharias offering sacrifice to God. The third had the face of a man, plainly representing the human appearance of the Son of God. It is St Matthew who proclaims His human birth and its manner, after having begun with His genealogy. The fourth was like a flying eagle, denoting the gift of the Spirit hovering over the Church. Thus St Mark testifies of the prophetic spirit which comes from above, by referring to the prophet Isaiah.’ Though there is only a very superficial and external foundation for these allegories, yet ecclesiastical theologians continue to apply the cherubic forms to the Gospels.¹¹ Athanasius connected the human form with St Matthew, giving to St Mark the symbol of the ox, to St Luke that of the lion, to St John the eagle. Others endeavoured to introduce other combinations.¹² The following, however, which is that of Jerome, prevailed:—‘The first form, that of the man, denotes St Matthew, because he at once began to write of the man: ‘The book of the generation,’ &c. The form of the lion denotes St Mark, the voice of the roaring lion of the wilderness being heard in his Gospel. The third, that of the ox, signifies St Luke, who begins with the priest Zacharias. The fourth form, the eagle, represents St John, who soars above, as on eagles’ wings, and speaks of the Divine Word.’ This distribution of attributes is found also in paintings representing the four Evangelists. The second and fourth hits of these interpreters are evidently happier than they were themselves aware. The lion, especially the Asiatic lion, which is here intended, is a striking representation of the vigorous, bold, and graphic peculiarity of St Mark. The eagle well denotes the sublime spiritual flight of St John, and his bold gaze at the sun of the spiritual world. But how inappropriate is the application of the man to St Matthew, and of the ox to St Luke, if we look away from the mere incidents on which Jerome founds his comparison! It is St Luke who pre-eminently exhibits the absolutely pure and divinely powerful humanity of Christ, and the human countenance might well characterize his Gospel; while that of St Matthew, who more especially proclaimed to the Hebrew people the promised Messiah, in whose blood they were to find the real atonement, would be more appropriately symbolized by the sacrificial ox.

Modern exegesis may smile at such interpretations, as unprofitable trifling; and truly they do exhibit, so to speak, the childhood of theology and exegesis. But one great perception of ancient ecclesiastical theology, viz., that each of the four Gospels has its characteristic significance, which is often entirely wanting in modern critical exegesis, cannot be misunderstood. The Church has still more correctly discerned and exhibited these peculiarities in the order in which the four Gospels are arranged, than in these interpretations; for this order is in accordance with that in which the keynotes of the Christian life succeed each other, both in the apostolic band, and in the Church. St Matthew represents Old Testament Christianity, Jewish Christianity in its purity.¹³ His Gospel everywhere points to the fulfilment of the Old Testament in the New, and would perhaps in its very construction frequently reflect the ancient Scriptures. St Mark exhibits the Church in its Petrine spirit; the contemplation of the Lord’s glorious work and terrible sufferings, of the stirring incidents of His life, is its chief concern. St Luke bears distinctly the impress of that emphasis with which Paul, and the Pauline spirit of the Church, proclaimed universalism, the grace which appeared unto all men, and which is peculiarly exemplified in the parable of the lost son. St John is the last peculiar spirit in the Gospel series, and denotes that deepest and inmost disposition of the apostolic Church, which, because it was the deepest, was the last manifested in its historic development: he is the representative of that spirit which finds its happiness in the contemplation of God in Christ.

───♦───

Notes

1. Church tradition with respect to the four Gospels has been neglected, and even contemned, in the transactions of modern criticism, in a manner which would never have been suffered in the sphere of profane literature. [See Isaac Taylor’s Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times.—ED.]

2. The well-known and ingenious view of Schelling, according to which the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John exhibit types of three successively developed forms of the universal Church, is supported by the order of the four Evangelists. But the type of the early Church would, according to this order, be severed in two. The patriarchal or orthodox Church would be the first type, represented by Matthew, who connects the Old with the New Testament, as that Church did the ancient ways of the world with the new life of Christianity. The Catholic Church would be the second; its representative is St Mark. The common key-note of both is certainly expressed by the peculiarity of St Peter. In these typical views, indeed, only that which is truly Christian in each form of the Church is contemplated.

1) [Eichhorn (represented in England by Bishop Marsh) denied this conclusion, but it has since been put beyond all question by Semisch and by Winer (Justin evan. canon, usum fuisse ostenditur, 1819). The argument is briefly but conclusively exhibited in W. Lindsay Alexander’s Christ and Christianity, pp. 50-60 (1854). Above all, however, see the very thorough investigation by Westcott, Gen. Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Test., pp. 105-199 (1855).—ED.]

2) Apolog. ii. Οι γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἁπομνημονεύμασιν, ἁ καλεῖτια εὐαγγέλια, &c.

3) Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 29: ὁ Τατανὸς συνάφειάν τινα καὶ συναγωγὴν οὐκ οἷδ` ὅπως τῶν εὐαγγελίων συνθεὶς τὸ διὰ τεσσάρων ταῦτο προσωνόμασεν.

4) See Note 3 above.

5) Comp. Kirchhofer, Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Canons bis auf Hieronymus, p. 45,

6) For the justification of this translation, see the section on the authenticity of St Matthew.

7) Εἰ δὲ ποῦ καὶ παρηκολουθηκώς τις τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις ἔλθοι, τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους· τί Ἀνδρέας ἤ Πέτρος εἷπεν, ἢ τὶ Φιλνππος ἢ τι θωμᾶς ἢ τι Ἰάκωβος ἢ τι Ἰωάννης ἢ Ματθνῖος ἢ τις ἔτερος τῶν τοῦ κνριου μαθητῶν ἅ τε Ἀριστίων και ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης οἱ τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταὶ λέγουσιν.

8) Οὐ γἀρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσηῦτον με ὠφελεῖν ὐπελάμβανον ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φῶνης καὶ μενούσης.

9) Constituimus in primis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso domino sit impositum. Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos, Quoniam predicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloris studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, qui magistros apostolos fecit, Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes et Matthzeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, &c.

10) Advers. Haeres.

11) See Credner, Einleitung in das Neue Test. s. 55.

12) [These may be seen in Suicer’s Thesaurus, s. v. εὐαγγελιστής. Trench has also devoted some interesting pages (p. 60) of his Sacred Latin Poetry (Lond. 1849) to this matter.—ED.]

13) If early pure, apostolic, Jewish Christianity has in our days been identified with the Ebionitism which gradually appeared in its midst, this fact exhibits not merely a gross misconception of the spiritual glory of primitive Christianity, but also a great want of historical accuracy, which, even in view of the subsequently degenerate and mutilated state of Jewish Christianity, still distinguished between Nazarenes and Ebionites.