{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4794", "width": "2920", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "oV\\nV V\\nv\\n\u00c2\u00bb,i*\\ni*^\\nJ Cn^\\nv", "height": "4560", "width": "2596", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "w\\nV\\nt h o\\n^0*\\no o\\nS\\n4 o\\nvv\\nu ^v\\n,*n", "height": "4560", "width": "2596", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2459", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2548", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4584", "width": "2560", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "t.\\nr#.", "height": "4580", "width": "2650", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4592", "width": "2604", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4580", "width": "2548", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4588", "width": "2608", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.", "height": "4560", "width": "2552", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4588", "width": "2612", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "THE\\nEVIDENCES\\nGENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nBr ANDREWS NORTON.\\n\\\\1\\nabttHgrt ^Haitian.\\n^l~Y BOSTON:\\nAMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION.\\n1867\\nTM", "height": "4560", "width": "2564", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "s\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0v\\n4\\n^v\\nV\\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by\\nTHE AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION,\\nIn the Clerk s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.\\n3 V1]\\nCAMBRIDGE\\nPRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON.\\nV", "height": "4584", "width": "2580", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "EDITORIAL NOTE.\\nThe present edition of The Evidences of the Genuineness\\nof the Gospels contains the whole of the original work,\\nwith the exception of such portions as might be omitted\\nwithout essential injury to the force of its main argu-\\nment.\\nThe omissions chiefly consist of passages addressed rather\\nto the scholar than to the general reader and they have\\nbeen the more readily made, from the belief that any stu-\\ndent who micrht be desirous of following the author in his\\ninvestigation of the subject in its more obscure, collateral\\ndevelopments, might, without much difficulty, obtain a copy\\nof the work in its original form. For the information of the\\nreader, a list of the principal omissions is hereto appended.\\nC. E. N", "height": "4560", "width": "2584", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4588", "width": "2600", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL OMISSIONS IN THE\\nPRESENT EDITION.\\nORIGINAL EDITION. Vol. I.\\nNote. (pp. 110-126.)* On some opinions and arguments of\\nEichhorn, and other German theologians.\\nAdditional Notes.\\nNote A. (pp. iii.-xxxiy.) Sect. I. Introductory statement.\\nSect. II. On the systematic classification of the copies of the New\\nTestament, adopted by Griesbach and others and the language con-\\ncerning the diversities among those copies with which it has been\\nconnected.\\nNote B. (pp. xcyiii.-ci.) Various readings of the copies of the\\nGospels extant in the time of Origen, which are particularly noticed\\nby him.\\nNote C. (pp. cii.-cv.) Undisputed interpolations in manuscripts\\nof the Gospels.\\nNote E. (pp. ccxiv.-ccxxxviii.) Justin Martyr s quotations.\\nVol. II. Additional Notes.\\nNote A. (pp. iii.-xxiii.) On the statue which is said, by Justin\\nMartyr and others, to have been erected at Rome to Simon Magus.\\nNote B. (pp. xxiv.-xxxvi.) On the Clementine Homilies.\\nNote C. (pp. xxxvii.-xlvii.) On the false charges brought\\nagainst the heretics, particularly by the later fathers.\\nNote D. (pp. xlvii.-cciv.) On the Jewish dispensation, the\\nPentateuch, and the other books of the Old Testament.\\nThe paging referred to is that of the second edition: Cambridge, 1848.", "height": "4556", "width": "2596", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "Vlll\\nOMISSIONS IN THE PRESENT EDITION.\\nVol. III.\\nChap. VII. (pp. 3-66.) On the system of the Gnostics, as\\nintended for a solution of the existence of evil in the world.\\nChap. VIII. (pp. 67-168.) On the peculiar speculations of the\\ntheosophic Gnostics.\\nChap. IX. (pp. 169-181.) On the opinions of the Gnostics\\nconcerning the person of Christ.\\nChap. X. (pp. 182-186.) On the opinions of the Gnostics re-\\nspecting the design of Christianity.\\nAdditional Notes.\\nNote A. (pp. iii.-xxxv.) On the distinction made by the\\nancients between things intelligible and things sensible; on the use of\\nthe terms spiritual and material as applied to their speculations and\\non the nature of matter.\\nNote B. (pp. xxxvi.-xlv.) On Basilides and the Basilidians.\\nNote C. (pp. xlvi.-lx.) On the Gospel of Marcion.\\nNote D. (pp. lxi.-lxxvii. On the use of the words Qebc and\\nDeus.", "height": "4588", "width": "2644", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS.\\nEDITORIAL NTOTE.\\nPage\\nNote iii\\nList of the Principal Omissions in the present edition iv\\nINTRODUCTION\\nSTATEMENT OE THE CASE\\nWhat is meant by the genuineness of the Gospels, 1. Early\\ntestimony to their genuineness has been affirmed to be want-\\ning, 1-5. Theory of Eichhorn respecting the formation of\\nthe first three Gospels, and of other gospels supposed to have\\nbeen in use before those now received, by successive additions\\nof transcribers to the text of an Original Gospel, 5-10.\\nRemarks, 10, 11.\\nPART I.\\nPROOF THAT THE GOSPELS REMAIN ESSENTIALLY\\nTHE SAME AS THEY WERE ORIGINALLY COM-\\nPOSED 13\\nCHAPTER I.\\nArgument from the Agreement of the respective Copies\\nof the Eour Gospels 15\\nThe proposition that the Gospels remain essentially the same\\nexplained, 15-19. They have suffered, like all other ancient\\nwritings, from the accidents of transcription, 15, 16. Pas-", "height": "4560", "width": "2568", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "X CONTENTS.\\nPage\\nsages in the Received Text that may be regarded as spurious\\nor suspicious, 16-19. -Proof that the Gospels remain essen-\\ntially the same as they were originally composed from the\\nagreement among the present copies of them, 19-24. This\\nagreement not to be accounted for by supposing any arche-\\ntypes for our present copies of the Gospels other than the\\noriginal exemplars, 24-27. Argument from the agreement\\namong the copies of the Gospels extant at the end of the\\nsecond century, 27-34.\\nCHAPTER n.\\nArguments dkawn from other Considerations 35\\nProm the high value ascribed to the Gospels by the Christians\\nof the first two centuries, 35-41. From their strong censure\\nof the mutilations and changes which they charge some\\nheretics, particularly Marcion, with having made in the text\\nof the Gospels, 42. Prom the character of the various read-\\nings in Origen s manuscripts of the Gospels, particularly\\nmentioned or referred to by him, 42-47. Prom the notices\\nof various readings in other ancient writers, 47. From the\\nstriking characteristics of the respective Gospels being pre-\\nserved throughout in all of them, showing that each is\\nessentially the work of an individual author, 48-50. Par-\\nticularly from their being written throughout in Hebraistic\\nGreek, 50-52. Prom their not betraying marks of a later\\nage than that assigned for their composition, or incongruities\\nwith the character and circumstances of their supposed\\nauthors, 52, 53. From their consistency in their representa-\\ntions of the character of Christ, 53, 54. Summary of pre-\\nceding arguments, 54, 55. Particular remarks on the Gospel\\nof Matthew, 55-57. Conclusion, 57, 58.\\nCHAPTER HI.\\nObjections considered .59\\nGeneral remarks, 59, 60. The theory of the corruption of the\\nGospels as connected with that of an Original Gospel from\\nwhich the first three, in common with many apocryphal gos-\\npels, were derived, remarked upon, 60-62. Assertion of\\nEichhorn respecting arbitrary alterations in manuscripts be-", "height": "4584", "width": "2684", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. XI\\nPagb\\nfore the invention of printing, 68. Examination of a\\npassage from Celsus, 63-65. Of a passage from Clement of\\nAlexandria, 65-67. Conclusion, 67.\\nPART II.\\nDIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE GOS-\\nPELS HAVE BEEN ASCRIBED TO THEIR TRUE\\nAUTHORS 69\\nCHAPTER I.\\nEvidence from the General Reception of the Gospels\\nas Genuine aiviono Christians during the Last Quarter\\nof the Second Century 71\\nThe proposition that they were so received generally admitted,\\n71. Evidence of it from Irenasus, 71-74. Erom Theophi-\\nlus, 74, 75. -T- Erom Tertullian, 75-77. Erom Clement of\\nAlexandria, 77, 78. From Celsns, 78-81. Erom Origen,\\n81-83. Remarks on this evidence. The Christian writers\\nadduced do not testify merely to their individual belief, but\\nspeak in the name of the whole community to which they\\nbelonged, 83, 84. The testimony to the genuineness of the\\nGospels is, therefore, of a peculiar character, 84, 85. Chris-\\ntians, at the period in question, were fully able to determine\\nwhether the Gospels were genuine or not, 85-87. They\\nwere deeply interested in the question, 87, 88. Character of\\nthe Christians of that age, 88, 89. Throughout this commu-\\nnity the Gospels were received as genuine, 89. Confirma-\\ntion of their testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels\\nfrom the fact of the unquestionable genuineness of most of\\nthe other books of the Xew Testament universally received\\nby them, and the probable genuineness of all, 89-91. The\\nbelief of Christians in their religion was a belief of the\\ntruths contained in the Gospels, and therefore identified with\\na belief of their authenticity, and consequently of their\\ngenuineness, 91-93. The fact of the general reception of\\nthe Gospels at the period in question, considered in itself, is\\nto be accounted for only on the supposition of their genuine-\\nness, 93. The truth of this proposition may be particularly", "height": "4560", "width": "2564", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "Xll CONTENTS.\\nPage\\nshown, as regards the first three Gospels, by a consideration\\nof the remarkable phenomena which they present in their\\ncorrespondences with, and differences from, one another, 93,\\n94. Supposing the first three Gospels not to be works of\\nthe apostolic age, those phenomena cannot be explained\\nconsistently with the fact of their common reception among\\nChristians either by the supposition that the evangelists\\ncopied one from another, 94-96 or that they made use of\\na common written document or documents, 96-98 or that\\nthey all founded their narratives on oral tradition, 98-100.\\nThe phenomena, therefore, admit of no solution, if we sup-\\npose the first three Gospels to have been written after the\\napostolic age, 100. Observations upon this fact, 100. The\\nfour Gospels, if they were not the works of the authors to\\nwhom they are ascribed, could never have been acknowledged\\nand received as such by the Christian community, 100, 101.\\nTheir reception not the result of any concert among leading\\nChristians, 101, 102. Names of their authors not arbitrarily\\nassigned, otherwise Matthew s Gospel would have been\\nascribed to a more distinguished apostle, and those of Mark\\nand Luke to apostles, 102. The discrepances among the\\nfour Gospels would have prevented the reception of all as\\nof equal authority, had they not been handed down together\\nfrom the apostolic age, 102-105. The genuineness of any\\none of the Gospels creates a strong presumption in favor of\\nthe genuineness of the other three, 105-107. The Gospels\\nwere composed among the Jewish Christians, but descend to\\nus through the Gentile Christians, who would not have re-\\nceived from the former, after the apostolic age, four spurious\\nhistories of Christ, written by unlearned Jews in a style\\nregarded by native Greeks as barbarous, 107-110. The\\nreverence for the Gospels at the end of the second century\\nimplies their celebrity at a much earlier period, 110, 111.\\nSummary, 111, 112.\\nCHAPTER II.\\nEvidence to be derived from the Writings of Justin\\nMartyr 113\\nAccount of Justin and his writings, 113, 114. Three objec-\\ntions which have been made to the supposition that he quoted", "height": "4560", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. Xlll\\nPage\\nthe Gospels, 114, 115. Answer to the first objection, that\\nhe does not quote the Gospels by their present titles, 115-119.\\nAnswer to the second objection, that there is a want of\\nverbal coincidence between his quotations and the correspond-\\ning passages in the Gospels, 119-125. Answer to the third\\nobjection, that he quotes passages respecting Christ not found\\nin the Gospels, 125-132. Proof that Justin used our present\\nGospels From the agreement in thought and words between\\nhis quotations and passages in the Gospels, and the great im-\\nprobability that those quotations should have been taken from\\nany other book, 132-135. From the fact, that there is no\\nintimation to the contrary in any subsequent writer, 135.\\nFrom the manner in winch he mentions and describes the\\nbooks which he quotes, 135, 136. From the manner in which\\nhe speaks of the high authority and general reception among\\nChristians of those books, answering to the manner in which\\nhis contemporary, Irenaeus, speaks of the Gospels and from\\nthe fact, that such books as Justin describes and quotes could\\nnot have disappeared and been forgotten immediately after he\\nwrote, as must have been the case if they were not the Gos-\\npels, 136, 137.\\nCHAPTER in.\\nEvidence of Papias. St. Luke s own Testimony to the\\nGenuineness of his Gospel 138\\nScarcity of the remains of Christian writers during the first\\nhalf of the second century, 138. Remarks on the evidence\\nof Papias, 139. On St. Luke s testimony to his own Gospel,\\n139, 140. This, likewise, tends to prove the genuineness of\\nthe Gospels of Matthew and Mark, 140. And of all the\\nother three Gospels, 141. And particularly, in connection\\nwith the evidence of Papias, the genuineness of that of John,\\n141,142.\\nCHAPTER IT.\\nConcluding Remarks on the Direct Historical Evi-\\ndence of the Genuineness of the Gospels 143\\nNo testimony of the same character, or of the same weight,\\ncan be produced for the genuineness of any other ancient", "height": "4560", "width": "2568", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "XIV CONTENTS.\\nPage\\nwork, 143, 144. But, putting out of view the peculiar nature\\nand value of the testimony to their genuineness, their univer-\\nsal reception by catholic Christians can be accounted for only\\nby the fact, that they had been handed down from the begin-\\nning with the character which they afterwards bore, 144, 145.\\nComparison of the evidence of the genuineness of the\\nGospels with that of the genuineness of ancient classical\\nwritings, 146. Objection to it on the ground that the con-\\ntents of one Gospel are irreconcilable with those of another,\\n146. Objection on the ground of the miraculous char-\\nacter of the history contained in the Gospels, 146, 147.\\nThis objection destructive of all religion, 147, 148. But has\\nno bearing to disprove the genuineness of the Gospels, 148,\\n149. Remarks on the present state of belief in Christianity,\\n149-151.\\nPART III.\\nON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OF\\nTHE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE EARLY HERE-\\nTICS 153\\nCHAPTER I.\\nPreliminary Remarks. The Ebionites. Their Use of\\nthe Gospel of Matthew only. Inferences from their\\nNOT USING THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS 155\\nCHAPTER II.\\nGeneral Account of the Gnostics. State of Opinion\\namong the great Body of Christians during the Sec-\\nond Century 160\\nMeaning of the word Gnostic, 160. General notice of the\\nGnostics, and of the value of their evidence, 160-163.\\nAcquaintance with their history and doctrines necessary in\\norder to estimate its value, 163. Incidental bearings of the\\ninquiry into their history and doctrines, 163-170. The\\nGnostics divided into the Marcionites and the THEO-\\nSOPHIC Gnostics, 170. The Valentinians, the principal\\nrepresentatives of the theosophic Gnostics, 170. Doctrines", "height": "4556", "width": "2616", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. XV\\nPagb\\ncommon to the Gnostics generally, 170-174. Notice of the\\ndoctrines peculiar to the theosophic Gnostics, 174, 175.\\nThese, from various causes, difficult to he ascertained and\\nunderstood, 175-177. Imperfect and erroneous accounts of\\nthe Gnostics given by the fathers, 175-179. Method to be\\npursued in determining the facts concerning them, 179.\\nErrors of modern writers, 179-184. Separation of the\\nGnostics and Ebionites from the catholic Christians, 184-186.\\nState of opinion among the catholic Christians, 186, 187.\\nAversion to Judaism, the principal occasion of Gnosti-\\ncism, 188.\\nCHAPTER m.\\nOx the External History of the Gnostics, and the\\nSources oe Information concerning them 189\\nStory of Irenaeus, and other fathers, that Simon Magus was the\\nauthor of the Gnostic heresy, 189. Account of Simon Ma-\\ngus, 189-195. Notice of other supposed heretics of the first\\ncentury, 195, 196. Of Cerinthus, 196-200. Gnostics not\\nreferred to in the undisputed books of the New Testament,\\n200-203. Did not appear before the earlier part of the\\nsecond century, 208, 204. Date assigned to the principal\\nGnostic sects by Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin\\nMartyr, and Tertullian, 204, 205. Those sects all mentioned\\nby Justin Martyr, 205, 206. The work of Irenaeus Against\\nHeretics, 206, 207. Other works affording information re-\\nspecting the Yalentinians, 207-209. Tertullian s work\\nagainst Marcion, and other writings concerning the Marcion-\\nites, 209, 210. The earlier fathers to be chiefly relied on as\\nrespects the Gnostics, 210. Distinction between the earlier\\nand the later fathers, 210, 211. The later fathers who have\\ngiven accounts of them, 211-215. Epiphanius, 211. The\\nauthor of the Dialogue Be Recta Ficle, 2V2. Philaster, 212.\\nAugustin, 212, 213. Theodoret, 213, 214. Other wri-\\nters, particularly Eusebius, 215. Notices of the Gnostics\\nby Celsus, 215. Notices of the Gnostics, and of individuals\\nholding Gnostic opinions, by Piotinus and Porphyry, 215-218.\\nPiotinus refers primarily to heathens, 217, 218. Remarks\\non preceding statements, 218. Origin and decline of the\\nGnostics, 219, 220. Their number when most flourishing,\\n220-223.", "height": "4560", "width": "2560", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "XVI CONTENTS.\\nCHAPTER IV.\\nPA.GB\\nOn the Morals of the Gnostics, and their Imperfect\\nConceptions of Christianity 224\\nCharacter of the catholic Christians in the second century, 224.\\nTwo classes of Gnostics one strict, and the other licen-\\ntious, in their morals, 224-232. Charges of licentiousness\\nagainst a portion of the theosophic Gnostics not unfounded,\\n225-232. Peculiar causes of the existence of immorality,\\nand ignorance of the character and requirements of Chris-\\ntianity, among a portion of its early converts, 232-249\\nthe influence of the vices and idolatry of the heathen world,\\n233-236; the misunderstanding and perversion of Chris-\\ntian truths, particularly as expressed by St. Paul, 236-239;\\nthe great change in men s religious belief effected by Chris-\\ntianity, 239-243; the imperfect means that many had of\\nbecoming acquainted with Christianity, 243-245 false\\nteachers receiving money from their disciples, and in other\\nrespects of like character with the ancient sophists, 245-249.\\nDigression on the divinity of Christianity, 248. The\\nimmorality and irreligion resulting from these causes de-\\nscribed by St. Paul, 249, 250 also in the Second Epistle\\nof Peter (so called), and the Epistle of Jude (so called), 250-\\n252; and in the Apocalypse, 252, 253. Why these im-\\nmoralities finally settled down among a portion of the\\nGnostics, 253-255. The licentious class of Gnostics escaped\\nthat persecution by which the catholic Christians were puri-\\nfied, 255-258.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 -Principles and practice of the better class of\\nGnostics respecting martyrdom, 258, 259. Those of the\\ncatholic Christians, 259-263. General remarks on the moral\\nand religious character of the Gnostics, 263-266.\\nCHAPTER Vo\\nOn some Pseudo-Christian Sects and Individuals who\\nhave been improperly confounded with the gnos-\\nTICS 267\\nThe fact that the Gnostics have been confounded with sects not\\nChristian is evident from their origin being referred to Simon", "height": "4560", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. XTll\\nPage\\nMagus, neither Simon nor his followers being Christians, 267.\\nOther pseudo-Christian sects, with whom they have been\\nconfounded, 267-291 the Carpocratians, 267-275; pseudo-\\nChristians maintaining that the practice of scandalous immoralities\\nwas a religious duty, 275, 276 a subordinate set of Gnostics,\\nthe existence of which is pretended by Epiphanius, and to\\nwhich he gives the name of Gnostics, used, not as a generic,\\nbut a specific, name, 276-279 (the Gospel of Eve pantheis-\\ntic pseudo- Christians, 279-283; the Ophians or Ophites, 283-\\n291. Causes of the existence of such pseudo-Christians,\\n291, 292. How the Gnostics came to be confounded with\\nthem, 292, 293.\\nCHAPTER VI.\\nOx Gnosticism, considered as a Separation of Judaism\\nfrom Christianity 294\\nThe opinions of the Gnostics concerning the Old Testament,\\n294-298. Correspondence between their opinions and those\\nof the early catholic Christians, 298. Yiews of the author\\nof the Clementine Homilies, 298, 299. Modes by which the\\ncatholic Christians solved the difficulties which they felt in\\nthe Old Testament, 299-315 they applied to the Logos\\nthose representations of God in the Old Testament which they\\nthought unworthy of God, 299-303; Tertullian s notion,\\nthat it was characteristic of the dispensations of God to use\\nmeans ignoble and foolish in the eyes of men, 303, 304 the\\nfathers generally solved the difficulties of the Old Testament\\nby the allegorical mode of interpretation, 305-315. This\\nmode of interpretation rejected by the Marcionites, and not\\nthus applied to the Old Testament by the theosophic Gnostics,\\n316. The proper Christian Gnostics regarded it as impossi-\\nble, that the God of the Old Testament and the God of\\nChristians should be the same being, 316, 317. The extra-\\nordinary character of the fact, that the catholic Christians\\nadopted the notions of the Jews respecting the Old Testa-\\nment, 317-319. The fundamental difference between them\\nand the Gnostics consisted in their different opinions con-\\ncerning Judaism and the author of the Jewish dispensation,\\n319.\\nb", "height": "4552", "width": "2580", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "XV111 CONTENTS.\\nCHAPTER VII.\\nPage\\nOn the Manner in which the Gnostics reconciled their\\nDoctrines with Christianity 320\\nDiscrepance between the doctrines of the Gnostics and the\\nteaching of Christ such as may lead one at first view to sus-*\\npect that they held the Gospels in no esteem, 320. But\\na similar discrepance has existed between the doctrines of a\\ngreat majority of professed Christians and the teaching of\\nChrist, 320-322. Prevalence of religious error, 322.\\nFaith, in consequence, disconnected from reason, and founded\\non a pretended intuitive discernment of spiritual things, 323.\\nPrevalent errors respecting the character and interpretation\\nof the Scriptures, 323-325. Means by which the Gnostics,\\nin particular, reconciled their doctrines with their Christian\\nfaith, 326-338 allegorical and other false modes of inter-\\npretation used by the theosophic Gnostics, 326, 327 their\\nappeal to a secret oral tradition, by which they contended that\\nthe esoteric doctrines of Christianity had been preserved,\\n327-332 (the notion of such a tradition equally maintained\\nby Clement of Alexandria, 328-331 to be distinguished\\nfrom the public traditionary knowledge of Christianity as-\\nserted by other fathers^ 329-331 n. and also from the\\nfundamental doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church con-\\ncerning the authority of tradition, 331 n.) the notion of\\nthe Gnostics concerning the apostles and Christ, that they\\naccommodated their doctrine to the capacity of their hearers,\\nnot openly teaching the more mysterious truths of religion,\\n331, 332 another opinion, that the apostles generally,\\nthrough the influence of their Jewish prejudices, were led\\ninto errors, and did not discern all the truth St. Paul, how-\\never, being regarded as much the most enlightened of their\\nnumber, 332, 333 opinion that the teachings of Christ\\nwere not all of equal authority, 334 (remarks on the no-\\ntions of the Gnostics respecting the apostles, 334, 335\\non their pretence to infallible knowledge, 335-337) pecu-\\nliar case of the Marcionites in appealing only to their muti-\\nlated copies of the Gospel of Luke and of ten of the Epistles\\nof St. Paul, 337. Apparent from what precedes, that the\\nGnostics could have appealed to no history of Christ at vari-", "height": "4560", "width": "2644", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. XIX\\nPage\\nance with the four Gospels, 338. But the subject admits\\nof further explanation, 338, 339.\\nCHAPTER YHI.\\nOn the Question, whether the Gnostics opposed to the\\nroup* Gospels ant other written Histories or History\\nof Christ s Ministry 340\\nThis question leads to a general review of those books which\\nhave been called apocryphal gospels, 340, 341. Considera-\\ntions to be attended to in this examination, 342-345. Had\\nthe Gnostics opposed any other history of Christ to the four\\nGospels, we should have had full information of the fact,\\n342, 343. But no evidence of such a fact appears in Irenaeus\\nor Tertullian, the two principal writers against the Gnostics,\\n343. It is not probable that the ancient books which may\\nbe properly called apocryphal gospels were histories of Christ s\\nministry, but books giving the views of the writer concerning\\nthe doctrines of Christianity, 343-345. No apocryphal gos-\\npel mentioned by Tertullian, 345, 346. Irenaeus once speaks\\nof a book called The True Gospel as in use among the Yalen-\\ntinians, 346, 347. If there were such a book, it was not an\\nhistorical gospel, 347. Its existence doubtful; and, if such\\na book existed, it was a work of no notoriety, and one to\\nwhich the Yalentinians, in general, attached no importance,\\n347, 348. Irenaeus mentions one other supposed book, The\\nGospel of Judas, of which he ascribes the use to a sect called\\nCainites but the existence of the sect or of the book is\\naltogether improbable, 348-350. This is all the information\\nconcerning apocryphal gospels to be derived from the two\\nprincipal writers against the Gnostics, 350, 351. Excepting\\nthe story of Irenaeus about The True Gospel, there is no\\ncharge by any writer against the Yalentinians, or the Mar-\\ncionites, of using apocryphal gospels, unless Marcion s\\nmutilated copy of Luke be so called, 351. Nor against the\\nBasilidians, before the author of the Homilies on Luke, 351.\\nHe, and others subsequently, speak of a Gospel of Basili-\\ndes, 351, 352. No probability that such a book existed, 352.\\nThe notion of its existence probably had its origin in the\\nfact, that Basilides wrote a Commentary on the four Gospels,\\n352, 353. Remarks on the preceding facts, 353. Clement", "height": "4560", "width": "2568", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "XX CONTENTS.\\nPage\\nof Alexandria mentions The Gospel according to the Egyptians,\\n353, 354. Account of this book, 354-358. No other apocry-\\nphal gospel mentioned by Clement, unless the Gospel of the\\nHebrews be so named, 358, 359. But he speaks of a book\\ncalled The Traditions, which has been imagined to be the same\\nwith The Gospel according to Matthias, 360. \u00e2\u0080\u0094Account of this\\nbook, 360. Of the title of The Gospel according to Matthias,\\n361, 362. The Gospel of Peter, 362. Account of this book,\\n362-365. Origen, in his undisputed works, mentions no\\nother apocryphal book entitled a gospel, besides this, 365,\\n366. Notices of supposed apocryphal gospels by the author\\nof the Homilies on Luke, and by Eusebius, 366. General\\nremarks on the apocryphal gospels, 366-370. Not commonly\\nwritten with a fraudulent design, 367, 368. Very little\\nnotice taken of them in ancient times, 368-370. Late\\napocryphal gospels, 370. The Protevangelion of James, and\\nother gospels of the Nativity, so called, 370-374. Fables re-\\nspecting Joseph and Mary, 371-374. The gospels of the\\nInfancy, so called, 374-379. Fables respecting the infancy\\nand childhood of our Lord, 374\u00e2\u0080\u0094378. Account of The Gos-\\npel of Nicodemus, so called, 379-383 n. Remarks on the\\nfables concerning our Lord and concerning Mary, 380-384.\\nConclusion from the preceding statements, 385. Subject\\nresumed, 385. Certain gospels, imagined to have been used\\nby Tatian in forming his Diatessaron, 385-387. Pretended\\nGospel of Cerinthus, 387-389. Concluding remarks. Mis-\\ntakes that have been committed concerning apocryphal gos-\\npels, 389-391.\\nCHAPTER IX.\\nConcluding Statement of the Evidence for the Genu-\\nineness or the Gospels afforded by the Gnostics 392\\nGeneral view, 392. Evidence particularly afforded by the Mar-\\ncionites, 392, 393. Evidence particularly afforded by the\\ntheosophic Gnostics, 393-396. Striking proof from Tertul-\\nlian of the abundant use of the Gospels made by the Gnostics,\\n397-400. No history of Christ s ministry at variance with\\nthe four Gospels known by the early Christians, 401. Re-\\nmarks on the supposition, that the Gnostics appealed to the\\nGospels only by way of reasoning ad hominem with the catho-\\nlic Christians, 401-404. Concluding remarks, 405-413.", "height": "4584", "width": "2660", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. XXI\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nXOTE A.\\nPage\\nFurther Remarks on the Present State of the Text\\nof the Gospels 417\\nSection I.\\nOn the Character and Importance of the Various Readings of\\nthe New Testament 417\\nSection II.\\nOn the Original Language of Matthew s Gospel, and its Use by\\nthe Hebrew Christians 425\\nSection III.\\nOn some Passages in the Received Text of the Gospels, of\\nwhich the Genuineness is doubtful 431\\ni.\\nThe first Two Chapters of the present Greek Gospel of Mat-\\nthew 431\\nII\\nMatthew, chap, xxvii. 3-10. (Account of the repentance and\\ndeath of Judas) 437\\nIII.\\nMatthew, chap, xxvii. part of ver. 52 and 53. (Account of\\nthe rising of the bodies of many saints at our Saviour s death) 441\\nMarginal note on Matthew, chap. xii. 40. (The sign of Jonah) 442\\nIV.\\nThe Conclusion of Mark s Gospel. (Chap. xvi. 9-20) 443\\nv.\\nLuke, chap. ix. 55, 56. (Our Lord s reproof of James and\\nJohn, when they proposed calling down lire from heaven on\\na village of Samaritans) 449", "height": "4560", "width": "2584", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "XX11 CONTENTS.\\nPage\\nVI.\\nLuke, chap. xxii. 43, 44. (The account of the agony and\\nbloody sweat of Jesus) 454\\nVII.\\nJohn, chap. v. 3* 4. (The descent of the angel into the Sheep\\nPool at Jerusalem) 458\\nVIII.\\nJohn, chap. vii. 53-viii. 11. (The story of the woman taken\\nin adultery) 460\\nIX.\\nJohn, chap. xxi. 24, 25. (The concluding words of our present\\ncopies of John s Gospel) 461\\nNOTE B.\\nOn the Origin of the Correspondences among the\\nFirst Three Gospels 463\\nSection I.\\nPreliminary Statement 463\\nSection II*.\\nOn the Supposition that Two of the Evangelists copied, One\\nfrom his Predecessor and the Other, from Both his Prede-\\ncessors 475\\nSection III.\\nOn the Supposition that the Eirst Three Evangelists made use\\nof Common Written Documents 488\\nSection IV.\\nProposed Explanation of the Correspondences among the First\\nThree Gospels 510\\nSection V.\\nInferences from the Explanation which has been given of the\\nCorrespondences among the First Three Gospels 524", "height": "4560", "width": "2668", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS. XX111\\nPage\\nSection VI.\\nIllustration of the First Three Gospels to be derived from the\\nCircumstances connected with their Composition 528\\nSection VII.\\nConcluding Eemarks 542\\nNOTE C.\\nOn the Writings ascribed to Apostolical Fathers 545\\nSection I.\\nPurpose of this Note 545\\nSection II.\\nThe Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Another\\nEpistle ascribed to Clement 546\\nSection III.\\nThe Epistle of Polyearp to the Philippians 549\\nSection IV.\\nThe Shepherd of Hennas 550\\nSection V.\\nThe Epistle of Barnabas, so called 553\\nSection VI.\\nEpistles ascribed to Ignatius 5G0\\nSection VII.\\nConcluding Remarks respecting the Evidence for or against the\\nGenuineness of the Gospels to be derived from the Writings\\nbefore mentioned 566", "height": "4544", "width": "2532", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4584", "width": "2612", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "INTRODUCTION.\\nSTATEMENT OE THE CASE.\\nThe object of the following work is to prove the genuine-\\nness of the Gospels. In asserting their genuineness, I mean\\nto be understood as affirming, that they remain essentially the\\nsame as they were originally written and that they have\\nbeen ascribed to their true authors. The ground which has\\nbeen taken by those who have denied their genuineness, as\\nthus explained, may appear from the following statements.\\nThe Gospels are quoted, as the undoubted works of the\\nauthors to whom they are ascribed, by an unbroken series\\nof Christian writers, reaching back to the latter part of the\\nsecond century; or, in other words, to the time of Irenaeus,\\nwho wrote in the last quarter of that century. But it is\\naffirmed, that beyond his time the testimony to their genuine-\\nness fails. As we ascend to a remoter period, we come to the\\nwritings of Justin Martyr, who flourished about the middle\\nof the second century and to those ascribed to Apostolic\\nFathers, or supposed contemporaries of the Apostles. It has\\nbeen affirmed, that these writings, though they are commonly\\nquoted for the purpose, afford no evidence that our present\\nGospels were known to their authors. In regard to the\\nwritings attributed to Apostolic Fathers, the remark is not\\nnew. It was made, for instance, by Bolingbroke, who, in\\n1", "height": "4560", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "2 STATExUENT OF THE CASE.\\nhis Letters on tlie Study of History, has the following\\npassage\\nWriters copy one another; and the mistake that was com-\\nmitted, or the falsehood that was invented by one, is adopted\\nby hundreds.\\nAbbadie says, in his famous book, that the gospel of St.\\nMatthew is cited by Clemens, Bishop of Rome, a disciple of the\\napostles that Barnabas cites it in his epistle that Ignatius and\\nPolycarp receive it and that the same fathers that give testimony\\nfor Matthew, give it likewise for Mark. Nay, your Lordship will\\nfind, I believe, that the present bishop of London [Gibson], in his\\nthird pastoral letter, speaks to the same effect. I will not trouble\\nyou nor myself with any more instances of the same kind. Let\\nthis, which occurred to me as I was writing, suffice. It may well\\nsuffice for I presume the fact advanced by the minister and the\\nbishop is a mistake. If the fathers of the first century do mention\\nsome passages that are agreeable to what we read in our evangel-\\nists, will it follow that these fathers had the same gospels before\\nthem To say so is a manifest abuse of history, and quite inex-\\ncusable in writers that knew, or should have known, that these\\nfathers made use of other gospels, wherein such passages might be\\ncontained or they might be preserved in unwritten tradition.\\nBesides which, I could almost venture to affirm, that these fathers\\nof the first century do not expressly name the gospels we have of\\nMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John.\\nThe supposition of Bolingbroke in the last sentence is\\ntrue or rather, to state the fact precisely, the Gospels are\\nnot named in the writings ascribed to fathers of the first\\ncentury. In agreement with what has been quoted, the\\nlearned German theologian, Eichhorn, in his Introduction\\nto the New Testament, endeavors to prove at length, that\\nthe authors of those writings did not make use of our present\\nGospels, but of others different from them, f\\nLetter V. 4,\\nt Einleitung in d. N. T., i.e. Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i.\\np. 113, seqq. 1 give the pages of the first edition, which are numbered like-\\nwise in the margin of the second.", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "STATEMENT OF THE CASS. 3\\nAnother German theologian, Less, who died about the\\nclose of the last century, wrote in defence of the genuineness\\nof the books of the New Testament. In treating this subject,\\nthe results at which he arrives, from an examination of the\\nwritings just mentioned, are thus stated by Bishop Marsh\\nFrom the epistle of Barnabas, no inference can be deduced\\nthat he had read any part of the New Testament. From the gen-\\nuine epistle, as it is called, of Clement of Rome, it may be inferred\\nthat Clement had read the first epistle to the Corinthians. From\\nthe Shepherd of Hermas, no inference whatsoever can be drawn.\\nFrom the epistles of Ignatius, it may be concluded that he had\\nread St. Paul s epistle to the Ephesians, and that there existed in\\nhis time evangelical writings, though it cannot be shown that he\\nhas quoted from them. From Polycarp s epistle to the Philip-\\npians, it appears that he had heard of St. Paul s epistle to that\\ncommunity, and that he quotes a passage which is in the first\\nepistle to the Corinthians, and another which is in the epistle to\\nthe Ephesians but no positive conclusion can be drawn with\\nrespect to any other epistle, or any of the four Gospels.\\nAccording to this statement, it would appear that no evi-\\ndence .can be derived from the works ascribed to Apostolic\\nFathers in proof of the genuineness of the Gospels.\\nThe writings of Justin Martyr have, till of late, been ap-\\npealed to confidently, as affording very early and very impor-\\ntant evidence of this fact. Lardner states, that he has\\nnumerous quotations of our Gospels except that of St. Mark,\\nwhich he has seldom quoted that it must be plain to all,\\nthat he owned and had the highest respect for the four Gos-\\npels and that he affords proof, that these Gospels were\\npublicly read in the assemblies of the Christians every Lord s\\nday. It seems extremely material to be observed, says\\nPaley, that in all Justin s works, from which might be\\nextracted almost a complete life of Christ, there are but two\\nMarsh s Michaelis, vol. i. p. 354.\\nf Lardner s Credibility of the Gospel History, p. ii. c. 10.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.\\ninstances in which he refers to any thing as said or done\\nby Christ which is not related concerning him in our present\\nGospels which shows that these Gospels, and these, we may\\nsay, alone, were the authorities from which the Christians of\\nthat day drew the information upon which they depended.\\nIt is, however, at present contended, that Justin Martyr\\ndid not quote from our four Gospels, and therefore cannot\\nafford evidence of their genuineness. He does not mention\\nthem by name. His quotations which agree in sense with\\npassages found in the Gospels, he professes to take from what\\nhe calls Memoirs by the Apostles and, in these quota-\\ntions, there is generally a want of verbal coincidence with\\nthe passages in the Gospels to which they otherwise corre-\\nspond.\\nMr. S troth, says Bishop Marsh, has shown by very satis-\\nfactory arguments, that these Memoirs were not our four Gospels,\\nbut a single gospel, which had much matter in common with the\\nGospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke but which was\\nnot the same with any of them. Since Mr. Stroth s time, the sub-\\nject has been again investigated by several eminent critics and\\nthe uniform result of their inquiries is, that Justin s ^Trofivrjfiovevfxara\\n[the Memoirs in question] were not our four Gospels, but some\\nsingle gospel. f If, says Bishop Marsh, in another work,\\nthe force of Mr. S troth s arguments be admitted (and they seem\\nreally convincing), we cannot produce Justin as an evidence for\\nthe four Gospels but, on the other hand, no inference can be\\ndeduced to their disadvantage.\\nThe concluding remark, that no inference can be deduced\\nto the disadvantage of the Gospels, Bishop Marsh endeavors\\nto illustrate but its truth will not be admitted by those who\\ndeny the genuineness of the Gospels and the proposition\\ndoes not, in itself, appear tenable.\\nPaley s Evidences of Christianity, p. i. c. ix. s. 1.\\nf Letters to the Anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his\\nCommentator, p. 29.\\nMarsh s Michaelis, i. 361.", "height": "4584", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "STATEMENT OP THE CASE. 5\\nJustin Martyr, says Eichhorn, who was born A.D. 89,\\nand died A.D. 163, a Samaritan, a native of Flavia Xeapolis,\\nearly became converted from a heathen philosopher to a zealous\\nChristian, and was one of the earliest Christian writers. He no-\\nwhere quotes the life and sayings of Jesus according to our pres-\\nent four Gospels, which he was not acquainted with. This is a\\nvery important circumstance in regard to the history of the Gos-\\npels as he had devoted many years to travel, and resided a long\\ntime in Italy and Asia Minor.\\nOn the whole, it is concluded by Eichhorn and others, that\\nour four Gospels, in their present form, were not in common\\nuse before the end of the second century. Previously to that\\ntime, it is supposed that other gospels were in circulation.\\nIf we will not, says Eichhorn, be influenced by idle tales\\nand unsupported tradition, but by the only sure evidence of\\nhistory, we must conclude, that, before our present Gospels,\\nother decidedly different gospels were in circulation, and were\\nused during the first two centuries in the instruction of Chris-\\ntians. j He supposes these earlier gospels and our first three\\nGospels, namely, those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, to have\\nall had a common origin and he gives the following ac-\\ncount of the manner in which he conceives them to have been\\nformed.\\nThere was, he supposes, very early in existence a short\\nhistorical sketch of the life of Christ, which may be called the\\nOriginal Gospel. This was, probably, provided for the use\\nof those assistants of the apostles in the work of teaching\\nChristianity, who had not themselves seen the actions and\\nheard the discourses of Christ. It was, however, but a\\nrough sketch, a brief and imperfect account, without\\nhistorical plan or methodical arrangement. In this respect\\nit was, according to Eichhorn, very different from our four\\nGospels. These present no rough sketch, such as we must\\nsuppose the first essay upon the life of Jesus to have been\\nEinleitung in d. N. T., i. 78. f Ibid., p. 140.", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.\\nbut, on the contrary, are works written with art and labor,\\nand contain portions of his life of which no mention was\\nmade in the first preaching of Christianity. This Original\\nGospel was the basis both of the earlier gospels used during\\nthe first two centuries, and of the first three of our present\\nGospels, by which, together with the Gospel of John, those\\nearlier gospels were finally superseded. The earlier gospels\\nretained more or less of the rudeness and incompleteness of\\nthe Original Gospel.\\nBut they very soon fell into the hands of those who undertook\\nto supply their defects and incompleteness, both in the general\\ncompass of the history, and in the narration of particular events.\\nNot content with a life of Jesus, which, like the gospel of the He-\\nbrews, and those of Marcion and Tatian, commenced with his pub-\\nlic appearance, there were those who early prefixed to the Memoirs\\nused by Justin Martyr, and to the gospel of Cerinthus, an account\\nof his genealogy, his birth, and the period of his youth. In like\\nmanner, we find, upon comparing together, in parallel passages,\\nthe remaining fragments of these gospels, that they were receiving\\ncontinual accessions. The voice from heaven at the baptism of\\nJesus was originally stated to have been, Thou art my Son this\\nday have I begotten thee as it is quoted by Justin Martyr in two\\nplaces. Clement of Alexandria found the same, in the gospel of\\nwhich we have no particular description, with the addition of the\\nword beloved Thou art my beloved Son this day have 1 be-\\ngotten thee. Other gospels represented the voice as having been,\\nThou art my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; as it is\\ngiven in the catholic Gospels, namely, in Mark i. 11. In the gos-\\npel of the Ebionites, according to Epiphanius, both accounts of\\nthe voice from heaven were united Thou art my beloved Son, with\\nthee 1 am well pleased and again, This day have I begotten thee.\\nI5y these continual accessions, the original text of the life of Jesus\\nwas lost in a mass of additions, so that its words appeared among\\nthem but as insulated fragments. Of this any one may satisfy him-\\nself from the account of the baptism of Jesus, which was compiled\\noat of various gospels. The necessary consequence was, that at\\nEinleitung in d. N. T., i. 5, 242.", "height": "4560", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 7\\nlast truth and falsehood, authentic and fabulous narratives, or\\nsuch, at least, as through long tradition had become disfigured\\nand falsified, were brought together promiscuously. The longer\\nthese narratives passed from mouth to mouth, the more uncertain\\nand disfigured they would become. At last, at the end of the sec-\\nond and the beginning of the third century, in order, as far as\\nmight be, to preserve the true accounts concerning the life of Je-\\nsus, and to deliver them to posterity as free from error as possible,\\nthe Church, out of the many gospels which were extant, selected\\nfour, which had the greatest marks of credibility, and the neces-\\nsary completeness for common use. There are no traces of our\\npresent Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, before the end of\\nthe second and the beginning of the third century. Irenaeus, about\\nthe year 202, first speaks decisively of four gospels, and imagines\\nall sorts of reasons for this particular number and Clement of\\nAlexandria, about the year 216,* labored to collect divers ac-\\ncounts concerning the origin of these four gospels, in order to\\nprove that these alone should be acknowledged as authentic.\\nFrom these facts, it is evident, that it was about the end of the\\nsecond and the beginning of the third century that the Church first\\nlabored to establish the universal authority of these four gospels,\\nwhich were in existence before, if not altogether in their present\\nform, yet in most respects such as we now have them, and to pro-\\ncure their general reception in the Church, with the suppression\\nof all other gospels then extant.\\nPosterity would indeed have been under much greater obli-\\ngations, if, together with the Gospel of John, the Church had es-\\ntablished, by public authority, only the first rough sketch of the\\nlife of Jesus, which was given to the earliest missionaries to au-\\nthenticate their preaching after separating it from all its additions\\nand augmentations. But this was no longer possible for there\\nwas no copy extant free from all additions, and the critical opera-\\ntion of separating this accessory matter was too difficult for those\\ntimes.\\nThe dates here assigned by Eichhora, it may be observed, are, as has\\nbeen supposed, the dates of the death of Irenaeus and of Clement, not of the\\nperiods about which they wrote and flourished. These he elsewhere gives\\ncorrectly.\\nf Einleit. in d. N. T., i. 142-145.", "height": "4544", "width": "2780", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "8 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.\\nMany ancient writers of the Church, Eichhorn subjoins\\nin a note, doubted the genuineness of many parts of our\\nGospels but were prevented from coming to a decision by,\\nwant of critical skill. It is to be observed, however, that\\nthe only ancient writer of the Church, whom he quotes in\\nproof of this assertion, is Faustus, the well-known Manichaean\\nof the fourth century.\\nIn treating of the continual alterations and additions, to\\nwhich he supposes the text of the Original Gospel to have\\nbeen subjected, before it assumed that form in which it was\\nused by the first three Evangelists, Eichhorn observes, that\\nSuch an arbitrary mode of dealing with the composition of an-\\nother, so that it shall pass thus altered into circulation, is in our\\ntimes a thing unheard of and impossible because it is prevented\\nby the multiplication of printed copies. But it was different, he\\nproceeds, before the invention of printing. In transcribing a\\nmanuscript, the most arbitrary alterations were considered as al-\\nlowable, since they affected only an article of private property,\\nwritten for the use of an individual. But these altered manuscripts\\nbeing again transcribed, without inquiry whether the manuscript\\ntranscribed contained the pure text of the author, altered copies\\nof works thus passed unobserved into circulation. How often do\\nthe manuscripts of any one of the chronicles of the Middle Ages,\\nof which several manuscripts are extant, agree with each other in\\nexhibiting the same text, equally copious, or equally brief? What\\nnumerous complaints do we read in the fathers of the first centu-\\nries concerning the arbitrary alterations made in their writings,\\npublished but a short time before, by the possessors or transcrib-\\ners of manuscripts. Scarcely had copies of the letters of Diony-\\nsius of Corinth begun to circulate, before, as he expresses himself,\\nthe apostles of Satan filled them with tares omitting some things\\nand adding others and the same fate, according to his testimony,\\nthe Holy Scriptures themselves could not escape. If transcribers\\nhad not permitted themselves to make the most arbitrary altera-\\ntions in the writings of others, would it have been as customary as\\nEinleit. in d. N. T., i. 145.", "height": "4552", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 9\\nwe find it was for authors of those times to adjure their readers, at\\nthe end of their writings, to make no alterations in them, and to\\ndenounce the most fearful curses against those who should under-\\ntake to do so\\nThe histories of Jesus must also have been subjected to the\\nsame mode of treatment. Does not Celsus object to the Chris-\\ntians, that they had changed the gospels three times, four times,\\nand oftener? From what other cause can it proceed, that we still\\nfind fragments of the apocryphal gospels, in which all the accounts\\nrespecting some particular passage of the life of Jesus, which are\\nelsewhere found scattered in different gospels, are brought to-\\ngether and combined into one whole Thus the apocryphal gos-\\npel of the Ebionites, quoted by Epiphanius, has brought together\\nall relating to the baptism of Jesus which is found concerning it\\nin our first three Gospels, and in the Memoirs by the Apostles,\\nused by Justin Martyr.*\\nAs soon, he remarks in another place, as the history of our\\ncatholic Gospels commences, we find men without any critical\\nknowledge busy in altering their text, in shortening and lengthen-\\ning it, and in making changes of synonymous words. And is this\\nto be wondered at Ever since the existence of written histories\\nof Jesus, it had been customary for the possessors of manuscripts\\nto make alterations in their text, according to the particular knowl-\\nedge which they had of his preaching and actions, and of the events\\nof his life. Thus the second and third generations of Christians\\nonly continued this practice respecting the gospels which the first\\nhad begun. The custom was, in the second century, so generally\\nknown, that even those who were not believers were acquainted\\nwith it, Celsus objects to the Christians, that they had changed\\ntheir gospels three times, four times, and oftener, as if they were\\ndeprived of their senses. Clement also, at the end of the second\\ncentury, speaks of those who corrupted the gospels, and ascribes\\nit to them, that at Matt. v. 10, instead of the words, for theirs is\\nthe kingdom of heaven, there was found in some manuscripts, for\\nthey shall be perfect and in others, for they shall have a place\\nwhere they shall not be persecuted. f\\nEinleit. in d. N. T., i. 173, seqq. t Ibid., pp. 652, 653.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.\\nThe preceding statements give a view of the difficulties\\nwhich have been supposed to attend the proof of the genuine-\\nness of the Gospels and likewise of the opinions which have\\nbeen entertained respecting their gross corruption, supposing\\nthem, in a certain sense, to have proceeded from the authors\\nto whom they have been ascribed. The passages quoted from\\nEichhorn are not to be regarded as expressing the views of\\nonly a single writer. No work of a similar kind has been\\nreceived in Germany with more approbation than his Intro-\\nduction to the New Testament and his notions respecting\\nthe Gospels, or others of the same general character, essen-\\ntially affecting the belief of their genuineness, have been held\\nby many modern German writers.\\nBut, if the preceding statements and opinions be correct,\\nan objector may say, You have little or rather no evi-\\ndence for the genuineness of the Gospels, which reaches back\\nbeyond the close of the second century though they were\\ncomposed, as you imagine, about one hundred and fifty years\\nbefore. You have, in fact, no proof of their existence, in\\ntheir present form, previous to that period. All that can be\\nrendered probable is, that some works were in existence,\\nwhich served as a basis for the Gospels you now possess.\\nBut if, during the first two centuries, it was so common to\\nenlarge the histories of Jesus Christ, then in use, with tradi-\\ntionary tales, and with additions of various kinds, great and\\nsmall and to alter and remodel them, as the transcribers\\nor possessors of manuscripts might think proper, you can\\nhardly pretend to rely with much confidence upon those\\nhistories which now exist. We know in what manner the\\nlegends of saints have been gradually swelled with the ad-\\ndition of miraculous stories, unknown to those by whom they\\nwere first composed and something very similar may have\\nbeen the case with your Gospels.", "height": "4584", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 11\\nIn answer, then, to all that has been alleged, the object\\nof the following work is to establish these two proposi-\\ntions\\nI. That the Gospels remain essentially the same as they\\nwere originally composed,\\nII. That they have been ascribed to their true authors.", "height": "4548", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4584", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "PART I.\\nPROOF THAT THE GOSPELS REMAIN ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS\\nTHEY WERE ORIGINALLY COMPOSED.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4584", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "PAET I.\\nCHAPTER I.\\nARGUMENT FROM THE AGREEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE\\nCOPIES OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.\\nThe first proposition to be established, that the Gospels re-\\nmain essentially the same as they were originally composed,\\nrequires some explanation and remark.\\nIn regard to St. Matthew s Gospel, the proposition is to\\nbe understood in a particular sense. This Gospel, it is prob-\\nable, was originally composed in Hebrew and we possess\\nonly a Greek translation, made at a very early period.*\\nThis translation, it will be my purpose to show, has been\\nfaithfully preserved. No reason has ever been adduced for\\nsuspecting that the translation was not intended to be a faith-\\nful representative of the original.\\nThe Gospels, I have said, remain essentially the same as\\nthey were originally written. In common with all other\\nancient writings, they have been exposed to the accidents to\\nwhich works preserved by transcription are liable. In the\\nvery numerous authorities for determining their text, we find\\na great number of differences, or various readings. But, by\\ncomparing those authorities together, we are able, in general,\\nto ascertain satisfactorily the original text of the last three\\nOn this subject see Note A, pp. 425-430.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "16 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nGospels, and of the Greek translation of St. Matthew.\\nThere are, however, a few passages admitted into the Re-\\nceived Text (the text in common use before the publication\\nof (jrriesbach s edition), some extant in a majority of our\\npresent manuscripts, and some even in all, the genuineness of\\nwhich is still questionable. Various considerations arising\\nfrom some of these passages not being found in manuscripts\\nof the highest authority, from direct historical evidence con-\\ncerning them in the writings of the fathers, from their unsuit-\\nableness to the context, from the nature of their contents,\\nand from the want of correspondence between their style and\\nthat of the evangelist in whose work they now stand may\\nlead us to disbelieve or doubt that they proceeded from him.\\nIn mentioning such as are extant in all our present manu-\\nscripts, I refer particularly to certain passages in the Greek\\nGospel of Matthew.\\nI will here mention the more important passages in the\\nReceived Text of the Gospels, which, from such causes as I\\nhave spoken of, may, I think, be regarded as spurious, or as\\nlying under suspicion. I shall reserve a more particular\\nexamination of them for another place, where I shall treat\\nat length of the various readings of the text of the Gospels.^\\nThere are strong reasons for thinking that the first two\\nchapters of our present copies of the Greek Gospel of Mat-\\nthew made no part of the original Hebrew. We may sup-\\npose them to have been an ancient document, which, from\\nthe connection of the subject with his history, was transcribed\\ninto the same volume with it, and which, though first written\\nas a distinct work, with some mark of separation, yet in pro-\\ncess of time became blended with it, so as apparently to form\\nits commencement. Being thus found incorporated with the\\nGospel in the manuscript, or in manuscripts, used by the\\ntranslator, it was rendered by him as part of the original.\\nSee Note A, pp. 431-462.", "height": "4584", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 17\\nThere are two other passages in our Greek Gospel of\\nMatthew, which, as it seems to me, there is much reason for\\nregarding as interpolated. These passages are the narrative\\nconcerning Judas, in the twenty-seventh chapter, beginning\\nwith the third and ending with the tenth verse and the ac-\\ncount of the raising of the bodies of many saints at the time\\nof our Saviour s crucifixion, in the latter part of the fifty-\\nsecond verse and the fifty-third of the same chapter.\\nIn respect to Mark s Gospel, there is ground for believing\\nthat the last twelve verses were not written by the evangel-\\nist, but were added by some other writer to supply a short\\nconclusion to the work, which some cause had prevented the\\nauthor from completing.\\nIn Luke s Gospel, the only passage of any considerable\\nlength or importance, the genuineness of which appears to\\nme liable to suspicion, consists of the forty-third and forty-\\nfourth verses of the twenty-second chapter, containing an\\naccount of the descent of an angel to Jesus, and of his agony\\nand bloody sweat.\\nIn John s Gospel, what now stands as the conclusion, the\\nlatter part of the twenty-fourth verse and the twenty-fifth, of\\nthe last chapter, has the air of an editorial note.\\nIn the Received Text of this Gospel, there are likewise\\ntwo other passages to be considered. The genuineness of the\\nlast clause of the third and the whole of the fourth verse of\\nthe fifth chapter, which contain an account of the descent\\nof an angel into the pool of Bethesda, is very questionable\\nand the story of the woman taken in adultery is, in my opin-\\nion, justly regarded by a majority of modern critics as not\\nhaving been a part of the original Gospel.\\nBesides those that have been mentioned above, there are two other pas-\\nsages in the Gospels which it may be well to notice in connection with this\\nsubject.\\nOne consists of the words ascribed to our Lord in Matt. xii. 40: For\\nas Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so will\\n2", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "18 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThe two passages last mentioned, and the other interpo-\\nlations that have been suggested, that is, the two insertions\\ninto the body of the text of the original Hebrew of Matthew s\\nGospel, and one into that of Luke s Gospel, were, we may\\nsuppose, first written as notes or additional matter in the\\nmargin of some copies of the Gospel in which they are found.\\nBut passages belonging to the text of a work, which had been\\naccidentally omitted by a transcriber, were likewise oftej\\npreserved in the margin. From this circumstance, notes and\\nadditional matter, thus written, were not unfrequently mis-\\ntaken for parts of the text, and introduced by a subsequent\\ncopier into what he thought their proper place. This is a\\nfruitful source of various readings in ancient writings and\\nmay explain how the passages in question, if not genuine,\\nhave become incorporated with the text of the Gospels.\\nThe facts that have been mentioned, respecting doubtful or\\nspurious passages in the text of the Gospels, imply nothing\\nopposite to the general proposition maintained. On the con-\\ntrary, in reasoning concerning those passages, we go upon the\\nsupposition of its truth. It is assumed, that the Gospels, gen-\\nerally speaking, have been faithfully preserved but it is con-\\ntended, that there are particular reasons for doubting, whether\\none or another of the passages in question, though found in\\nthe Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.\\nThere are strong, and it may seem sufficient, reasons for believing these words\\nnot to have been uttered by our Lord. But, on the supposition that they were\\nnot, it does not necessarily follow that they are an interpolation in the text\\nof Matthew s Gospel.\\nThe other passage consists of the words in which our Lord is said to have\\nreproved James and John for the suggestion of calling down fire from heaven\\nupon a village of the Samaritans, Luke ix. 55, 56. There is nothing in the\\nwords themselves to excite a doubt of their having been spoken by Jesus.\\nThe only reason for questioning whether they originally made a part of\\nLuke s Gospel is, that they are wanting in a large number of the most im-\\nportant copies of it. The passage presents one of the most difficult and\\ncurious problems in the criticism of the text of the New Testament.\\nBoth these passages are examined in Note A, before referred to.", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 19\\nmany or in all the extant manuscripts of a Gospel, proceeded\\nfrom the pen of the evangelist. These reasons are specific,\\napplying in every case to the particular passage under consid-\\neration, and not admitting of a general application. They\\nsuppose no new theory respecting the corruption of the Gos-\\npels, and no habit in transcribers of making unlicensed al-\\nterations. They imply nothing more than the operation of\\nparticular accidents, producing error in particular cases the\\npossibility of which none will deny. All that we can say\\nrespecting any ancient work is, that it remains essentially the\\nsame as it was originally composed. For specific reasons,\\napplying to some particular passage, we may doubt whether\\nit proceeded from the pen of the evangelist. But unless the\\nGospels were exposed, as has been imagined, to some pecu-\\nliar causes of corruption, there can be no question, that, gen-\\nerally speaking, we have satisfactory means of determining\\nthe original text of the last three Gospels, and that of the\\nGreek translation of Matthew the number of authorities for\\nsettling it manuscripts, ancient versions? and quotations by\\nancient writers being far more numerous and important\\nthan those for settling the text of any other ancient writing.\\nWe proceed, then, to the proof that the Gospels have not\\nbeen exposed to any peculiar causes of corruption, but remain\\nessentially the same as they were originally composed.\\nThis appears, in the first place, from the agreement among\\nour present manuscript copies of the Gospels, or of parts of\\nthe Gospels, in whatever form these copies appear. There\\nhave been examined, in a greater or less degree, about six\\nhundred and seventy manuscripts^ of the whole, or of por-\\ntions, of the Greek text of the Gospels. These were written\\nin different countries, and at different periods, probably from\\nthe fifth century downwards. They have been found in places\\nSee Sckolz s Catalogue, in the Prolegomena to his N. T.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "20 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwidely remote from each other, in Asia, in Africa, and from\\none extremity of Europe to the other. Besides these manu-\\nscripts of the Greek text, there are many manuscripts of\\nancient versions of the Gospels, in different languages of each\\nof the three great divisions of the world just mentioned.\\nThere are likewise many manuscripts of the works of the\\nChristian fathers, abounding in quotations from the Gospels\\nand especially manuscripts of ancient commentaries on the\\nGospels, such as those of Origen, who lived in the third cen-\\ntury, and of Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth, in which\\nwe find their text quoted, as the different portions of it are\\nsuccessively the subjects of remark.\\nNow, all these different copies of the Gospels, or parts of\\nthe Gospels, so numerous, so various in their character, so\\nunconnected, offering themselves to notice in parts of the\\nworld so remote from each other, concur in giving us essen-\\ntially the same text. Divide them into four classes, corre-\\nsponding to the four Gospels, and it is evident that those of\\neach class are to be referred to one common source that they\\nare all copies, more or less remote, of the same original that\\nthey all had one common text for their archetype. They vary,\\nindeed, more or less from each other but their variations have\\narisen from the common accidents of transcription or, as\\nregards the versions, partly from errors of translation or, in\\nrespect to the quotations by the fathers, partly from the cir-\\ncumstance, that, in ancient as in modern times, the language\\nof Scripture was often cited loosely, from memory, and with-\\nout regard to verbal accuracy, in cases where no particular\\nverbal accuracy was required. The agreement among the\\nextant copies of any one of the Gospels, or of portions of it,\\nis essential the disagreements are accidental and trifling,\\noriginating in causes which, from the nature of things, we\\nknow must have been in operation. The same work every-\\nwhere appears and, by comparing together different copies,\\nwe are able to ascertain the original text to a great degree", "height": "4560", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE G0 PEL3. 21\\nof exactness; or. in other words, where various readings\\noccur, to determine what were probably the words of the\\nauthor.\\nThe Greek manuscripts, then, of any one of the Gospels,\\nthe versions of it, and the quotations from it by the fathers,\\nare all. professedly, copies of that Gospel, or of parts of it\\nand these correspond with each other. But, as these pro-\\nfessed copies thus correspond with each other, it follows that\\nthey were derived more or less remotely from one archetype.\\nTheir agreement admits of no explanation, except that of\\ntheir being conformed to a common exemplar. In respect to\\neach of the Gospels, the copies which we possess must all be\\nreferred, for their source, to one original Gospel, one original\\ntext, one original manuscript. As far back as our knowledge\\nextends, Christians, throughout all past ages, in Syria, at\\nAlexandria, at Eome, at Carthage, at Constantinople, and\\nat Moscow, in the East and in the West, have all used copies\\nof each of the Gospels, which were evidently derived from\\none original manuscript, and necessarily imply that such a\\nmanuscript, existing as their archetype, has been faithfully\\ncopied.\\nLet us now consider what must have been the consequence,\\nif the supposition before stated, respecting the license taken\\nby different transcribers, were true of any one of the Gospels.\\nIn this case, one transcriber, in one part of the world, would\\nhave made certain alterations in his copy, and inserted certain\\nnarratives which he had collected and another, in another\\nplace, would have made different alterations, and inserted dif-\\nferent narratives. Such copies, upon the supposition that this\\nimagined license continued, would, when again transcribed,\\nhave been again changed and enlarged. Copies would have\\nbeen continually multiplying, diverging more and more from\\nthe original and from each other. The original text would\\nhave been confounded and lost among additions and changes,\\ntill, at last, it might have appeared, to quote the language of", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "22 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nEichhorn, only in insulated fragments. No generally re-\\nceived text would have existed none, therefore, could have\\nbeen preserved and handed down. Instead of that agreement\\namong the copies of each Gospel which now exists, we should\\nhave found everywhere manuscripts, presenting us with differ-\\nent collections of narratives and sayings and differing, at the\\nsame time, in their arrangement of the same facts, and in their\\ngeneral style of expression. There would have been as great\\na want of correspondence among the manuscripts which pro-*\\nfessed to contain any particular Gospel as there is known to\\nexist among those of the Arabian Nights, or among the cop-\\nies of the Gesta Romanorum. They would have been more\\nunlike than those manuscripts of chronicles of the Middle\\nAges to which Eichhorn refers,f as the Gospels have been\\nmuch more frequently transcribed. The copies of these\\nwritings would have presented the same phenomena as those\\nof some of the apocryphal books that, for example, called the\\nGospel of the Infancy, which appears in several different\\nforms, this collection of fables having been remodelled by\\none transcriber after another according to his fancy. At the\\nsame time, we should have found the want of agreement,\\nwhich must have existed among different manuscripts of any\\none of the Gospels, extending itself equally to the transla-\\ntions of that Gospel, and to the professed quotations from\\nit in ancient writers.\\nThe argument which has been employed seems easy to\\nbe comprehended and at the same time conclusive of the\\nfact, that all our present copies of each of the Gospels are to\\nbe traced back to one original manuscript, in multiplying the\\ncopies of which, no such liberties can have been taken by\\ntranscribers as are supposed in the hypothesis under con-\\nsideration. The argument seems, likewise, very obvious\\nyet its force and bearing appear to have been overlooked\\nSee before, p. 6. f See before, p. 8.", "height": "4560", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 23\\nin framing that hypothesis. The fact does not seem to have\\nbeen distinctly adverted to, that the transcriber or possessor\\nof a manuscript, making such alterations as the hypothesis\\nsupposes, could introduce them only into a single copy, and\\ninto such others as might be transcribed from it and that he\\ncould not, properly speaking, add to or corrupt the work\\nitself. His copy would have no influence upon contemporary\\ncopies and in the case of the Gospels, we may say, upon\\nnumerous contemporary copies, in which the true text might\\nbe preserved, or into which different alterations might be\\nintroduced. It is quite otherwise since the invention of\\nprinting. He who now introduces a corruption into the\\nprinted edition of a work, introduces it into ail the copies\\nof that edition if it be the only edition, into all the copies of\\nthat work and, in many cases, into a great majority of the\\ncopies which are extant, or which are most accessible. All\\nthese copies will agree in presenting us with the same\\nchanges or interpolations. He may properly be said to cor-\\nrupt the work itself. Thus, before the invention of printing,\\nthe famous verse in the first Epistle of John, v. 7, was to be\\nfound, as far as is known, in the text of not more than two\\nGreek manuscripts of all those in existence.^ But it was\\nearly admitted into a printed edition of the New Testament\\nand it is now to be found in a great majority of the printed\\ncopies, and consequently of all the copies, of the New Testa-\\nment. It is not now to be considered as a corruption of a\\nparticular manuscript, but as a corruption of the Epistle itself.\\nIf printing had not been invented, and the Epistle had been\\npreserved, as before, only by transcription, the fact would\\nprobably have been very different. The passage, instead of\\nbeing in a great majority of copies, might have been found\\nI refer to the Codex Montfortianus, and to another lately discovered in\\nthe Vatican Library by Scholz (see his Biblischkritische Reise, i.e. Travels\\nfor the Purpose of Biblical Criticism, p. 105). But it is not certain that\\neither of these manuscripts was written before the invention of printing.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "24 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nonly in a very small minority. The power of an ancient\\ncopier to alter the text of a work was very different from\\nthat of a modern editor yet it would seem that they must\\nhave been confounded in the hypothesis under consideration,\\nunless some further account is to be given of the manner in\\nwhich the text of our present Gospels has been formed and\\nperpetuated.\\nIt is evident from the preceding statements, that the exist-\\ning copies of each of the Gospels have been derived from\\nsome common exemplar, faithfully followed by transcribers.\\nBut it may be said, that this exemplar was not the original\\nwork, as it proceeded from the hand of the evangelist that\\nthe lineage of our present copies is not to be traced so high\\nbut that, at some period, the course of corruption which has\\nbeen described was arrested, and a standard text was selected\\nand determined upon, which has served as an archetype for\\nall existing copies but that this text, thus fixed as the\\nstandard, had already suffered greatly from the corruptions\\nof transcribers, and was very different from the original.\\nThis supposition is implied in the passage from Eichhorn,\\nwhich has been before quoted.^\\nThe Churchy according to Eichhorn, selected four gospels\\nout of a multitude, and labored to procure their general re-\\nception in the Church. In order to understand this proposi-\\ntion, it is necessary to determine what must be the meaning\\nof the word Church. There was no organized universal\\nChurch, nor any thing resembling such an establishment, in\\nexistence, till long after the close of the second century.\\nThere was no single ecclesiastical government, which ex-\\ntended over Christians, or over a majority of Christians, or\\nover any considerable portion of their number. They had\\nno regular modes of acting in concert, nor any effectual\\nSee before, p. 7.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 25\\nmeans whatever of combining together for a common pur-\\npose, Neither the whole body, nor a majority of Christians,\\never met by delegation to devise common measures. Such\\nan event did not take place till a hundred and twenty years\\nafter the end of the second century, when Christianity had\\nbecome the established religion of the Roman empire, and\\nthe first general council, that of Xice, was called together\\nby the Emperor Constantine. At the time of which we are\\nspeaking, Christians were spread over the world from the\\nEuphrates to the Pillars of Hercules. They were disturbed\\nand unsettled by frequent cruel persecutions, one of which,\\nthat under Severus, was at its height just about the com-\\nmencement of the third century. They were separated from\\neach other by a difficulty and consequent infrequency of com-\\nmunication, of which, such are the facilities that now exist,\\nwe can hardly form a just notion. They were kept asunder\\nby difference of language some speaking the Greek, some\\nthe Latin, and others different languages and dialects of the\\nEast. Exclusively of those generally considered as heretics,\\nthey were disunited and alienated from each other by dif-\\nferences of religious opinion, and even by violent controver-\\nsies for it was before the end of the second century, that\\nVictor, Bishop of Rome, had excommunicated the Eastern\\nchurches. This being the state of Christians at the end of\\nthe second century, the proposition on which I am remarking\\nsupposes that they corresponded together, and came to an\\nagreement to select four out of the many manuscript gospels\\nthen in existence, ail of which had been exposed to the\\nlicense of transcribers. Of these four, no traces are to be\\ndiscovered before that time but it was determined to adopt\\nthem for common use, to the prejudice, it would seem, of\\nothers longer known, and to which different portions of\\nChristians had respectively been accustomed. There was a\\nuniversal and silent compliance with this proposal. Copies\\nof the four new manuscripts, and translations of them, were", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "26 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nat once circulated through the world. All others ceased\\nto be transcribed, and suddenly disappeared from common\\nnotice. Copiers were at the same time checked in their\\nformer practice of licentious alteration. Thus a revolution\\nwas effected in regard to the most important sacred books of\\nChristians, and at the same time better habits were intro-\\nduced among the transcribers of those books.\\nI believe it will be seen, that I have stated nothing but\\nwhat the supposition we are considering necessarily implies.\\nBut when we divest it of its looseness and ambiguity of lan-\\nguage, and state clearly the details which it must embrace, no\\none can suppose that any such series of events took place at\\nthe end of the second century. It is intrinsically incredible\\nbut, if this were not the case, we might urge against it the\\nfact, that there is no record, nor any trace of it. It is sup-\\nposed, that a change was effected in the sacred books of\\nChristians, spread abroad, as they were, throughout the\\ncivilized world. Any change of this sort could not be\\neffected without great difficulty, under the most favorable\\ncircumstances. Let us consider for a moment what an effort\\nwould be required, and what resistance must be overcome, in\\norder to bring into general use among a single nation of\\nChristians at the present day, not* other gospels, but simply a\\nnew and better translation of our present Gospels. In the\\ncase under consideration, allowing the supposed change to\\nhave been possible, it must have met with great opposition\\nit must have provoked much discussion it must have been\\nthe result of much deliberation there must have been a\\ngreat deal written about it at the time it must have been\\noften referred to afterwards, especially in the religious con-\\ntroversies which took place it would have been one of the\\nmost important events in the history of Christians and the\\naccount of the transaction must have been preserved. There\\nwould have been distinct memorials of it everywhere, in con-\\ntemporary and subsequent writings. That there are no", "height": "4560", "width": "2796", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 27\\ntraces of it whatever is alone conclusive evidence that it\\nnever took place.\\nBut we may even put out of view all the preceding con-\\nsiderations. The Church, it is said, about the end of the\\nsecond and the beginning of the third century, first labored\\nto procure the general reception of the four Gospels in the\\nChurch. By the Church must be meant the great body\\nof Christians. The general reception of the Gospels was\\nfounded upon the belief, real or pretended, of their being the\\ngenuine works of those to whom they were ascribed. The\\nstatement, therefore, resolves itself into the following dilemma\\nEither the great body of Christians determined to believe\\nwhat they knew to be false, or they determined to profess to\\nbelieve it. The first proposition is an absurdity in terms\\nthe last is a moral absurdity.\\nThere is, then, no ground for the supposition of any inter-\\nposition of authority, or of any concert among Christians,\\nat the end of the second century, to select our present Gos-\\npels for common use or, in other words, to select from the\\ngreat number then in existence four particular manuscripts,\\nwhich should serve as archetypes for all subsequent tran-\\nscribers, and the text of which should alone be considered as\\nthe authorized text. Our present agreement of authorities,\\nwhich necessarily refers us back to one manuscript of each\\nof the Gospels as the archetype of all the copies of that\\nGospel, cannot thus be explained. We are left, therefore, to\\nthe obvious conclusion, which we adopt in regard to other\\nwritings, that this manuscript was the original work of an in-\\ndividual author, which has been faithfully transmitted to us.\\nThe argument from the agreement of our present manu-\\nscript copies of the Gospels seems alone to be decisive of the\\ntruth of the proposition which it is brought to establish.\\nBut a similar mode of reasoning may be applied to the agree-\\nment between the very numerous manuscripts of the Gospels", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "28 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwhich were in existence at the end of the second century\\nand, as it was before this period that transcribers are fancied\\nto have taken the greatest liberties, it may be worth while to\\nenter into the detail of this argument, especially as it is\\nconnected with the proof of the antiquity of the Gospels.\\nOur present Gospels, it is conceded, were in common use\\namong Christians about the end of the second century. The\\nnumber of manuscripts then in existence bore some propor-\\ntion to the number of Christians, and this to the whole popu-\\nlation of the Roman empire. The population of the Roman\\nempire in the time of the Antonines is estimated by Gibbon\\nat about one hundred and twenty millions.* With regard to\\nthe proportion of Christians, the same writer observes, The\\nmost favorable calculation will not permit us to imagine, that\\nmore than a twentieth part of the subjects of the empire had\\nenlisted themselves under the banner of the cross before the\\nimportant conversion of Constantine. f If not more than a\\ntwentieth part was Christian at the end of the third century,\\njust after which the conversion of Constantine took place,\\nwe can hardly estimate more than a fortieth part of it as\\nChristian at the end of the second century. Yet this propor-\\ntion seems irreconcilable with the language which we find\\nused concerning the number of Christians. Just after the\\nclose of the first century, Pliny was sent by Trajan to govern\\nthe provinces of Pontus and Bithynia. While exercising his\\noffice, many accusations were brought to him against Chris-\\ntians and he wrote to the emperor to consult him on the\\nsubject\\nI have recourse, he says, to you for advice; for it has\\nappeared to me a subject proper to consult you about, especially\\non account of the number of those against whom accusations are\\nbrought. For many of all ages, of every rank, and of both sexes\\nlikewise, have been and will be accused. The contagion of this\\nDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. ii. f Ibid., ch. xv", "height": "4584", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 29\\nsuperstition has made its way, not in cities only, but in the lesser\\ntowns also, and in the open country. It seems to me that it may\\nbe stopped and corrected. It is certain, that the temples, which\\nwere almost deserted, begin to be frequented and the sacred\\nsolemnities are revived after a long intermission. Victims like-\\nwise are everywhere sold, of which, till lately, there were but\\nvery few purchasers.\\nThere is no reason to suppose, that Christians were more\\nnumerous in Pontus and Bithynia than in any other part of\\nAsia Minor, or in Macedonia, or in Greece. Yet, if we sup-\\npose them to have constituted but a fortieth or even a twen-\\ntieth part of the inhabitants, there would be an extravagance\\nin the statements of Pliny, not to be expected in an official\\nletter, written for the purpose of affording facts to the em-\\nperor, on which to found specific directions. I pass over\\nmuch other evidence with respect to the number of Chris-\\ntians t and will quote only one or two passages from Ter-\\ntullian, who wrote at the particular period which we are\\nconsidering, about the year 200. In speaking of the sub-\\nmission of Christians to the civil authority by which they\\nwere persecuted, he remarks, that it may clearly appear to be\\nthe result of the patience taught them by their religion\\nconsidering, he says, that we, so great a multitude of men,\\nalmost the majority of every city, pass our lives silently and^\\nmodestly, more known, perhaps, as individuals than as a body,\\nand to be recognized only by our reformation from ancient\\nvices. J\\nAgain, in addressing those who governed the Roman empire,\\nhe says\\nWe are but of yesterday, and we have filled every thing that\\nis yours, cities, islands, castles, free towns, council-halls, the very\\nPlinii Epist, lib. x. epist. 97.\\nf See Paley s Evidences of Christianity, p. ii. c. ix.\\nJ Ad Scapulam, 2, p. 69, ed. Priorii.", "height": "4548", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "30 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncamps, all classes of men, the palace, the senate, the forum. We\\nhave left you nothing but your temples. We can number your\\narmies there are more Christians in a single province. Even if\\nunequal in force, is there any war for which we, who so readily\\nsubmit to death, should not be prepared, or not prompt, if our\\nreligion did not teach us rather to be slain than to slay? Un-\\narmed and without rebellion, had we only separated from you,\\nwe might thus have fought against you, by inflicting the injury\\nwhich you would have suffered from the divorce. If we, such a\\nmultitude of men, had broken away from you, retiring into some\\nremote corner of the world, your government would have been\\ncovered with shame at the loss of so many citizens, whoever they\\nmight be. The very desertion would have punished you. With-\\nout doubt, you would have been terrified at your solitude at the\\nsilence and stupor of all things, as if the world were dead. You\\nwould have had to look about for subjects.\\nThis, it may be said, is the language of exaggeration un-\\nquestionably it is so. But Tertullian was a writer of far too\\nmuch acuteness and too much real eloquence to suffer the\\nboldness and vehemence of his language to pass those limits,\\nbeyond which their only effect must have been to expose him\\nto derision. The very passage which I have quoted shows\\nthat he was a man of no ordinary mind. But, as far as its\\nexaggeration is concerned, the most unwise and most impu-\\ndent of declaimers would not have so stated the number of\\nChristians, if it did not amount to more than a fortieth part\\nof the whole population of the empire, exclusively of those\\ndenominated heretics, who were few in comparison with catho-\\nlic Christians. I accept, however, this proportion and only\\nwish it to be well understood, that it is fairly within the\\ntruth probably falling very far short of it. The conclusion\\nto be established admits of great wastefulness in the calcula-\\ntions leading to it. The fortieth part of one hundred and\\ntwenty millions, the estimated population of the empire, is\\nApologeticus adversus Gentes, 37. See Semler s Ed., torn. v. p. 90.", "height": "4544", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 31\\nthree millions. There were Christians without the bounds of\\nthe empire, but I am willing to include those also in the num-\\nber supposed. At the end of the second century, then, there\\nwere three millions of believers, using our present Gospels,\\nregarding them with the highest reverence, and anxious to\\nobtain copies of them. Few possessions could have been more\\nvalued by a Christian than a copy of those books, which con-\\ntained the history of the religion for which he was exposing\\nhimself to the severest sacrifices. Their cost, if he were able\\nto defray it, must have been but a very trifling consideration.\\nBut a common copy of the Gospels was not a book of any\\ngreat bulk or expense/* I shall not, therefore, I think, be\\nThat the cost of books in ancient times was not excessive, may appear,\\nin part, from the circumstance, that Juvenal describes them as among the\\npossessions of Codrus, whom he represents as extremely poor. They were\\na part of his totum nihil.\\nJamque vetus Oreecos serrabat cista libellos. Sat. iii. 206.\\nBut it is remarkable how little exact information is to be found respecting\\nthe cost of books in ancient times. The prices, says Arbuthnot, which\\nI find mentioned by the ancients, are for such as were manuscripts in our\\nsense, that is, not published, and valuable for the rarity of them. Mar-\\ntial, however (lib. i. epig. 118), states the cost of the first book of his Epigrams,\\nor perhaps of the first and second (lib. ii epig. 93), in an ornamented copy,\\nrasum pumice. purpurdque cultum. at live denarii; which, taking silver as the\\nstandard of comparison, is equal to about seventy-two cents, American money.\\nThis was a book for the luxurious. A copy of any one of the Gospels might\\nprobably have been bought at a much cheaper rate in proportion to its size.\\nThe price of Martial s thirteenth book, which contains far less matter than the\\nfirst, but amounts to two hundred and seventy-two verses, he states to have\\nbeen four sestertii; or, if that were thought too much, two sestertii, which he\\nsays would still leave a profit to the bookseller (lib. xiii. epig. 3). Two\\nsestertii were half a denarius that is, about seven cents. We sometimes con-\\nfound the state of things in the Middle Ages, when there was a great scarcity\\nof books, with that which existed in the nourishing times of Greek and Roman\\nliterature. It would be a still greater mistake to suppose that the number of\\nGreek manuscripts of the Gospels extant during that period in Western Eu-\\nrope, where the Greek was almost an unknown tongue, affords any means of\\ndetermining the number in existence when the Greek was a living language,\\nand a medium of communication throughout the civilized world.", "height": "4540", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "32 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncharged with over-estimating, if I suppose that there was one\\ncopy of the Gospels for every fifty Christians. Scattered over\\nthe world, as they were, if the proportion of them to the\\nheathens was no greater than has been assumed, fifty Chris-\\ntians would often be as many as were to be found in any one\\nplace, and often more but we cannot suppose that there were\\nmany collections of Christians without a copy of the Gospels.\\nOrigen, upon quoting a passage from the New Testament,\\nsays that it is written not in any rare books, read only by a\\nfew studious persons, but in those in the most common use.\\nIn truth, there can be little doubt that copies of the Gospels\\nwere owned by a large portion of Christians, who had the\\nmeans of procuring them and in supposing only one copy of\\nthese books for every fifty Christians, the estimate is probably\\nmuch within the truth. This proportion, however, will give\\nus sixty thousand copies of the Gospels for three millions of\\nChristians.\\nThis number of copies may strike some, who have never\\nbefore made any estimate of the kind, as larger than was to\\nbe expected. But the following facts may serve to show that\\nthe calculation is not extravagant. In the latter part of the\\nsecond century, a history of Christ was compiled by Tatian,\\nprofessedly, as is commonly believed, from the four Gospels.\\nTatian was a heretic, and his work never obtained much\\nreputation or currency. Eusebius, the historian of the\\nChurch in the first half of the fourth century, is the earliest\\nwriter who mentions it. His acquaintance with books was\\nextensive yet he appears not to have examined it. At the\\npresent day, no copy of it is known to be in existence. Yet\\nof this obscure work, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in the fifth\\ncentury, says that he found two hundred copies in use among\\nChristian churches, which he removed, and supplied their\\nEv rolg SrjficodeaTepoig. Orig. cont. Cels., lib. vii. 37; Opp. i. 720,\\ned. Delarue.", "height": "4528", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 33\\nplace by copies of the Gospels.* It appears, then. that, in\\nchurches to which the examination of a single bishop\\nextended, there were two hundred copies of a book of\\nsuspicious credit, and not in common use and that the\\nplace of these was readily supplied by copies of the Gos-\\npels. This fact is one of those which may serve to show\\nthat the estimate of the whole number of copies of the\\nGospels existing at the end of the second century is far\\nfrom being too great.\\nAgain, in the Acts of the Apostles. t it is related, that, of\\nthose who had become converts to Christianity in Ephesus\\nand its neighborhood, some had been addicted to the study of\\nmagic. After their conversion, they brought together their\\nbooks relating to this subject, to be burnt and the value of\\nthem is said to have been fifty thousand pieces of silver. If,\\nas is probable, by a pieces of silver n is to be understood cisto-\\nphori. a common Asiatic coin and money of account, the sum\\nmentioned amounts to about four thousand two hundred and\\nfifty dollars. Books of magic, whatever may be here in-\\ntended by that name, would be sold at a high price. But we\\ncannot reasonably suppose those works on magic to have been\\nthe larger portion of the books owned by the converts of\\nEphesus and its vicinity at this early period. Such being the\\ncase, we may infer that the number of copies of the Gospels\\nin use among Christians at the end of the second century did\\nnot fall short of that which has been estimated, but probably\\nfar exceeded it.\\nThere were, then, at the end of the second century, when\\nit is agreed that the Gospels were in common use. at least\\nsixty thousand copies of them dispersed over the world.\\nThese copies had not been subjected to the licentious altera-\\ntions of transcribers. Thev agreed essentiallv with each\\nTheodoret. Hseret. Fab., lib. i. c. 20; Opp. iv. 205, ed. Sirmond.\\nt Chap. xix. ver. 19.\\n3", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "34 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nother. This is implied in the fact that they were copies of\\noar present Gospels. It is made evident by the considera-\\ntion, that, if there had been important discrepancies among\\nthese sixty thousand copies, no series of events could either\\nhave destroyed the evidence of these discrepancies, or could\\nhave produced the present agreement among existing copies,\\nderived, as they are, from those in use at the period in ques-\\ntion. The agreement, then, at the end of the second century,\\namong the numerous copies of the respective Gospels, proves\\nthat an archetype of each Gospel had been faithfully followed\\nby transcribers. This archetype, as we have seen, there is no\\nground for imagining to have been any other than the origi-\\nnal work of the author of that Gospel. It follows, therefore,\\nthat, in the interval between the composition of these works\\nand the end of the second century, their text did not suffer,\\nas has been fancied, from the licentiousness of transcribers.\\nBut it must have taken a long time, I use an indefinite\\nexpression, to which there can be no objection, leaving it to\\nevery one to fix such a period as he may think most probable,\\nit must have taken a long time for the Gospels to obtain so\\nestablished and extensive a reputation, to come into common\\nuse as sacred books among Christians throughout the civilized\\nworld, and for such a number of copies of them to be made.\\nThey must have been composed, therefore, a long time before\\nthe end of the second century or, rather, before the year 180,\\nabout which period Irenseus wrote, who asserts their general\\nreception and acknowledged authority, in as strong language\\nas any Christian would use at the present day. It follows,\\nthen, from all that has-been said, that, long before the latter\\npart of the second century, our present Gospels were com-\\nposed by four different authors, whose works obtained general\\nreception among Christians as authentic histories and sacred\\nbooks, and were everywhere spread and handed down, without\\nany essential alterations from transcribers.", "height": "4580", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER II.\\nARGUMENTS DRAWN FR03I OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.\\nBeside the argument already adduced, there are others, to\\nwhich we will now advert.\\nT. It would have been inconsistent with the common senti-\\nments and practice of mankind for transcribers to make such\\nalterations and additions as have been imagined, in the sacred\\nbooks which they were copying. No one can be so dull as\\nnot to feel the propriety and importance of preserving the\\ngenuine text of books which are regarded as works of\\nauthority, or as possessing a peculiar character in conse-\\nquence of their having been composed by a particular author.\\nIn proportion as a work is of higher authority, this sentiment\\nwill be stronger. It would be idle to imagine, that the habit\\nof making additions aud alterations at will, which is attributed\\nto the transcribers of the Gospels, was common in ancient\\ntimes, and practised in the transcription of other writings\\nthe histories, for instance, of Thucydides or Tacitus. But,\\nwith the great body of believers, the Gospels were peculiarly\\nguarded from corruption; and what we apprehend so little\\nconcerning other writings is still less to be apprehended con-\\ncerning them. The Christians of the first two centuries, it\\nBy the Christians I mean, here and elsewhere, the great body of be-\\nlievers, the generality of Christians, the catholic Christians. Conformably to", "height": "4552", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "36 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncannot be doubted, valued very highly their sacred books,\\nand none more highly than those which contained records of\\nthe actions and discourses of Christ. But they valued them\\nas sacred books, and as authentic histories, and not as the\\npatchwork of unknown transcribers. They would not, there-\\nfore, suffer them gradually to assume the latter character.\\nThey would not cause or permit alterations and additions to\\nbe silently introduced into books of history, the authenticity\\nof which would be thus destroyed; and sacred books, the\\npeculiar character of which would, in consequence, be lost.\\nTo interpolate or alter any thing in books of the latter kind\\nhas commonly been considered as a crime, bordering upon\\nsacrilege. This sentiment may be counteracted in a certain\\ndegree but it is a very general, a very natural, and a very\\nstrong one. The care of any community in preserving their\\nsacred books from corruption will be proportioned to the\\nvalue which they set upon those books and the degree\\nin which they value them will be proportioned to the interest\\nwhich they feel in their religion. But no men ever felt that\\ninterest more strongly than the Christians of the first two\\ncenturies. There is therefore, as we might expect, abundant\\nevidence extant in their writings, that they had as great\\nreverence for the sacred books of our religion, and were as\\nlittle disposed to make or to suffer an admixture of foreign\\nmatter with their genuine text, as Christians of the present\\nday. I will quote a few passages in proof of this fact.\\nThe first writer by whom any one of the Gospels is ex-\\npressly mentioned is Papias, who lived about the beginning\\nof the second century,* a contemporary of the disciples of the\\nits common use in speaking of the first ages of Christianity, I use the name\\nas a general, not a universal term. I do not mean to include under it the\\nheretical sects of the Kbionites and the Gnostics, to whom all the assertions\\nmade respecting the Christians do not apply. The evidence which those\\nsects afford of the genuineness of the Gospels will be considered hereafter.\\nThe assertion of Eichhorn, that we find no traces of our first three Gos-", "height": "4560", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 37\\napostles. He speaks particularly of the Gospels of Matthew\\nand Mark, affirming that they were composed by those indi-\\nviduals, and that the Gospel of Mark was founded on the\\noral narratives of Peter. He applies to them the title of\\noracles.* The respect in which they were held appears from\\nthis title, and from the authors to whom they were referred.\\nChristians would neither corrupt such works, nor suffer them\\nto be corrupted.\\nAbout the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr\\ndescribes the histories of Christ which he used as written by\\napostles and their companions,! by those whom Christians\\nbelieved. He says, that either these books, or the writings\\nof the Jewish prophets, were read in Christian churches on\\nthe first day of every week.\u00c2\u00a7 He everywhere appeals to\\nthem as of undoubted authority. They were regarded by\\nhim, we may infer, as entitled to at least equal reverence\\nwith the Jewish Scriptures. But in the dialogue which he\\nrepresents himself as having held with Trypho, an unbe-\\nlieving Jew, he charges the Jews with having expunged\\ncertain passages of the Old Testament relating to Christ.\\nTo this Trypho answers, that the charge seems to him in-\\ncredible. Justin replies It does seem incredible for to\\nmutilate the Scriptures would be a more fearful crime than\\nthe worship of the golden calf, or than the sacrifice of children\\npels before the end of the second century, can be reconciled with well-known\\nand undisputed facts only by supposing that our present Gospels of Matthew,\\nMark, and Luke have been so corrupted as not to be essentially the same\\nwith those which anciently bore their names. I scarcely know whether it is\\nworth while to observe, that Eichhorn repeatedly quotes the mention by Pa-\\npias of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In one place, he says, that, long\\nbefore the end of the second century, the authors of the first three Gospels are\\nnamed as authors of narratives of the life of Jesus; as, for example, Matthew\\nand Mark are so named by Papias. Einleitung in d. N T., vol. i. (2d ed.)\\np. 684.\\nApud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 39.\\nf Dial, cum Tryph., p. 361, ed. Thirlb.\\nApolog. Prim., p. 54. Ibid., p. 97.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "38 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nto demons, or than slaying the prophets themselves. It is\\nnot probable that Christians were tampering with their own\\nsacred books at a time when they had such feelings respect-\\ning those of the Old Testament. The histories of Christ\\nused by Justin, I shall hereafter show, were our present\\nGospels.\\nSome of the heretics in the second century made, or were\\ncharged with making, alterations in the Christian Scriptures,\\nin order to accommodate them to their own opinions. Of\\nsuch corrupters of Scripture, Dionysius, who was bishop\\nof Corinth about the year 170, thus speaks I have written\\nepistles at the desire of the brethren. But the apostles of\\nthe Devil have filled them with darnel, taking out some things,\\nand adding others. Against such, a woe is denounced. It is\\nnot wonderful, therefore, that some have undertaken to cor-\\nrupt the Scriptures of the Lord, since they have corrupted\\nwritings not to be compared with them. f The meaning\\nof Dionysius is, that, the persons spoken of having shown\\ntheir readiness to commit such a crime, it was not strange\\nthat they should even corrupt the Scriptures these being\\nworks of much higher authority than his epistles, and from\\nthe falsification of which more advantage was to be gained.\\nWe perceive how strongly he expresses his sense of the guilt\\nof such corruption a sentiment common, without doubt, to\\na great majority of Christians. When Dionysius wrote, it\\nclearly could not have been esteemed innocent, and a matter\\nof indifference, for transcribers to make intentional altera-\\ntions in their copies of the Gospels. Yet this is one of the\\npassages which have been adduced to show that such was\\ntheir common practice.^ But, as we have no reason to doubt\\nthat the prevailing sentiment was that which Dionysius has\\nexpressed, we may confidently infer that Christians did not\\nDial, cum Tryph., p. 296. f Apud Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. c. 23.\\nj: See before, p. 8.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 39\\ngenerally practise or permit what was esteemed a work of\\nu the apostles of the Devil, and one against which a woe\\nwas denounced,\\nAVe have not received, says his contemporary, Irenaeus,\\nthe knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others\\nthan those through whom the Gospel has come down to us\\nwhich Gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will\\nof God, transmitted to us in writing, that it might be the\\nfoundation and pillar of our faith. He immediately pro-\\nceeds to speak particularly of the composition of the four\\nGospels, referring them to the authors to whom they are\\ncommonly ascribed. These books he afterwards represents\\nas the most important books of Scripture J and the Scrip-\\ntures he calls oracles of God. t We know. he says,\\nthat the Scriptures are perfect, as dictated by the Logos of\\nGod, and his spirit.\\nSuch passages show the reverence in which the Scriptures\\nwere held, and the feelings with which any corruption of\\nthem must have been regarded. They are likewise irrecon-\\ncilable with the supposition, that the Gospels had but just\\nappeared in their present form and that, previously, those\\nwho possessed copies of these books had regarded them only\\nas an article of private property, in which any alterations\\nwere allowable. If the Gospels had been partly the work\\nof unknown transcribers, the fact must have been notorious\\nand no writer, of whatever character, would have ventured\\nto use such language as that of Irenaeus.\\nClement of Alexandria, his contemporary, calls the Scrip-\\ntures divinely inspired,*! divine and holy books.*^ He speaks\\nof the four Gospels, in contradistinction from all other ac-\\nCont. Haeres., lib. iii. c. 1, p. 173, ed. Massuet.\\nt lb., lib. iii. c. 11, 8, p. 190. t lb., lib. i. c. 8. 1, p. 37.\\nlb lib. ii. c. 28, 2. p. 156. |j See before, p. S.\\n1[ Stromat., lib. vii. 16, p. 894, ed. Potter.\\nP dagog., lib. iii. c. 12. p. 309.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "40 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncounts of Christ, as having been handed down to the Chris-\\ntians of his age and he gives an account of the order of\\nsuccession in which they were composed, saying that this\\naccount was derived from the presbyters of former times, f\\nTertullian manifests the same reverence for the Scriptures,\\nand especially for the Gospels, as his contemporaries, Irenasus\\nand Clement. He, like them, quotes the Gospels as works\\nof decisive authority, in the same manner as any modern\\ntheologian might do. He wrote much against the heretic\\nMarcion, whom he charges with having rejected the other\\nGospels, and having mutilated the Gospel of Luke to con-\\nform it to his system. This leads him to make some state-\\nments which have a direct bearing on the present subject.\\nI affirm, says Tertullian, that not only in the churches\\nfounded by apostles, but in all which have fellowship with\\nthem, that Gospel of Luke, which we so steadfastly defend,\\nhas been received from its first publication. The same\\nauthority, he adds, of the apostolic churches will support\\nthe other Gospels, which, in like manner, we have from them,\\nconformably to their copies. They, he says, who were\\nresolved to teach otherwise than the truth, were under a\\nnecessity of new-modelling the records of the doctrine. As\\nthey could not have succeeded in corrupting the doctrine\\nwithout corrupting its records, so we could not have preserved\\nand transmitted the doctrine in its integrity, but by preserving\\nthe integrity of its records.\\nI quote only a few short passages from Christian writers,\\nand those which have the most immediate relation to my\\npresent purpose because I shall hereafter have occasion to\\nshow, more at length, the general reception of the Gospels,\\nand the reverence in which they were held, at the end of the\\nStromat, lib. iii. 13, p. 553. f Apud Euseb. H. E., lib. vi. c. 14.\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. iv. 5, pp. 415, 416, ed. Priorii.\\nDe Prescript. Hasret 38, p. 216.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 41\\nsecond century. The following is from an anonymous writer\\nagainst the heresy of Artemon. He accuses those who main-\\ntained this heresy, of corrupting the Scriptures, and adds\\nHow daring a crime this is, they can hardly be ignorant\\nfor either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were\\ndictated by the Holy Spirit, and then they are infidels or\\nthey believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and\\nwhat are they then but madmen Origen, in like manner,\\nregarded the Scriptures as dictated by the Holy Spirit. He\\nhas many passages which correspond to the following, from\\none of his commentaries After this, Mark says [x. 50],\\nAnd he, casting away his garment, leaped, and came to Jesus.\\nDid the evangelist write without thought, when he related\\nthat the man cast away his garment, and leaped, and came to\\nJesus Or shall we dare to say, that this was inserted in the\\nGospel without purpose I believe that not one jot or one\\ntittle of the divine instructions is without purpose. f\\nIn commenting upon Matt. xix. 19, Origen suspects, for\\nreasons which it is unnecessary to state, the genuineness of\\nthe words, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself but he\\nsays, that, if it were not for the number of various readings\\nfound in different copies of the Gospels, it might well seem\\nirreverent in any one to suspect that the precept has been\\ninserted here, without its having been mentioned by the\\nSaviour.\\nThe passages quoted show the state of opinion and feeling\\namong Christians during the first two centuries. They have\\nbeen alleged to prove nothing in itself improbable, but. on\\nthe contrary, the existence of sentiments which it is incredible\\nshould not have existed. But it is clear, that those who enter-\\ntained them would neither make nor permit intentional altera-\\ntions in the Gospels.\\nApud Euseb. H. E.. lib. v. c. 28.\\nt Comment, in Matt., torn. xvi. 12; Opp. iii. 734.\\nComment, in Matt., torn. xv. 14; Opp. iii. 671.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "42 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nII. About the close of the second century, different Chris-\\ntian writers express strong censure of the mutilations and\\nchanges which they charge some heretics, particularly Mar-\\ncion, with having made in the Gospels, and other books of\\nthe New Testament. Some passages to this effect have been\\nquoted. It is unnecessary to adduce others, because the fact\\nis well known and universally admitted. The feeling ex-\\npressed by those writers was common, without doubt, to\\nChristians generally. But they could not have felt, or have\\nexpressed themselves, as they did, if their own copies of the\\nGospels had been left, as is imagined, at the mercy of tran-\\nscribers, and there had been such a disagreement as must in\\nconsequence have existed among them. What text of their\\nown would they have had to oppose to the text of Marcion,\\nor of any other heretic What would they have had to bring\\nforward, but a collection of discordant manuscripts, many of\\nthem, probably, differing as much from each other as the\\naltered gospels of the heretics did from any one of them?\\nIf our Gospels had not existed, in their present form, till the\\nclose of the second century if, before that time, their text\\nhad been fluctuating, and assuming in different copies a differ-\\nent form, such as transcribers might choose to give it, those\\nby whom they were used could not have ventured to speak\\nwith such confidence of the alterations of the heretics. They\\nmust have apprehended too strongly the overwhelmiDg retort,\\nto which they lay so exposed, and against which they were so\\ndefenceless. If, however, any one can imagine that they really\\nwould have been bold enough to make the charges which they\\ndo against heretics, yet in this case they must at least have\\nshown strong solicitude to guard the point where they them-\\nselves were so liable to attack. But no trace of such solicitude\\nappears.\\nIII. We happen to have, in the works of a single writer,\\ndecisive evidence that no such differences ever existed in the", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 43\\nmanuscripts of the Gospels as are supposed in the hypothesis\\nunder consideration, and consequently that no such liberties\\nas have been imagined were ever taken by their transcribers.\\nOrigen was born about the year 185, and flourished during\\nthe first half of the third century, dying about the year 254.\\nHe was particularly skilled in the criticism of the Scriptures.\\nHis labors upon the text of the Septuagint are well known.\\nHe had in his possession, or had the means of consulting.\\nvarious manuscripts of the Gospels, of which he made a crit-\\nical use, noticing their various readings. His notices are\\nprincipally found in commentaries, which he wrote on the\\nGospels. Under these circumstances, if the manuscripts of\\nthe first and second centuries had differed from each other as\\nmuch as has been imagined, we should expect to find distinct\\nevidence of the fact in the voluminous writings of this early\\nfather. But this is not the case. On the contrary, the lan-\\nguage which he uses, and the kind of various readings which\\nhe actually adduces, prove that he was ignorant of any such\\ndiversities as have been fancied. But he could not have been\\nignorant of them, if they had existed. The various readings\\nwhich he mentions are all unimportant variations. The\\ngreater part of them are still extant in our manuscripts. He\\nremarks upon no such diversities as must have existed, if\\ntranscribers had indulged in such licentious alterations as\\nhave been supposed. On the contrary, the citations and\\nremarks of Origen are adapted to produce a conviction, that\\nthe manuscripts of his time differed, to say the least, as little\\nfrom each other, as the manuscripts now extant and, con-\\nsequently, that before his time there was the same care to\\npreserve the original text as there has been since.\\nThis conviction is not weakened by a passage in his writ-\\nings, which may seem at first view to favor the opposite\\nopinion. The passage has been already referred to,* in this\\nSee before, p. 41.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "44 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nchapter, for the purpose of proving the reverence in which\\nthe Gospels were held but we will now attend to it a little\\nmore particularly. Origen, as has been said, was led, by\\na course of reasoning of considerable subtilty, to doubt the\\ngenuineness of the words (Matt. xix. 19), Thou shalt love\\nthy neighbor as thyself. After stating his arguments at some\\nlength, he says\\nBut if it were not that in many other passages there is a dif-\\nference among copies, so that all those of the Gospel of Matthew\\ndo not agree together, and so also as it regards the other Gospels,\\nit might well seem irreverent in any one to suspect that the pre-\\ncept has been inserted here without its having been mentioned by\\nthe Saviour. But it is evident that there exists much difference\\namong copies, partly from the carelessness of some transcribers,\\npartly from the rashness of others in altering improperly what they\\nfind written, and partly from those revisers who add or strike out\\naccording to their own judgment.\\nHe immediately subjoins, that he had provided a remedy for\\nsuch errors in the copies of the Septuagint, by giving a new\\ncritical edition of it.\\nIn this passage, nothing is referred to but well-known, com-\\nmon causes of error in the transcription of manuscripts.\\nWe learn from it, that transcribers were sometimes careless\\nthat they sometimes improperly altered from conjecture a\\nreading in the copy before them, which they fancied to be\\nerroneous and that those whose business it was to revise\\nmanuscripts after transcription, for the purpose of correcting\\nerrors, did sometimes, in the want of proper critical appa-\\nratus, rely too much upon their mere judgment concerning\\nwhat was probably the true text. These are all propositions\\nwhich we might credit without the testimony of Origen. His\\nlanguage in speaking of the difference among the manuscripts\\nof the Gospels, though he had a particular purpose in repre-\\nsenting it as considerable, is much less strong than what has\\nbeen used by some modern critics, and among them by Gries-", "height": "4560", "width": "2796", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 45\\nbach himself, in speaking of the disagreement among our\\npresent copies. The expressions of the latter, as one may\\neasily satisfy himself, are very loose and exaggerated.* If\\nthey had been found in Origen, it might have been difficult to\\nbelieve that the agreement among the copies of the Gospels\\nexisting in his time was really as great as we know it to\\nbe among those extant at the present day. His language,\\nsuch as it is, affords no ground for a contrary supposition.\\nBut the passage before us deserves further attention in\\nseveral points of view. In the first place, it goes to prove,\\nas has been remarked, the reverence with which the Gospels\\nwere regarded. In the next place, it shows the importance\\nwhich the most eminent Christian writer of his age attached\\nto the proposal of omitting a few words in the text of St.\\nGriesbach, for instance, says (in the Prolegomena to his New Testament,\\nsect, iii.), that what he calls the Alexandrine text of the Xew Testament dif-\\nfers from what he calls the Western text, in its whole conformation and\\nentire coloring, toto suo habitu universoque colore. According to him, if we\\ntake the quotations of Origen and Clement, certain manuscripts, and certain\\nother authorities, all of which he classes together as Alexandrine, and settle\\nthe text of the New Testament from them al ne, this text will differ in its\\nwhole aspect from that which may be formed by a similar process from the\\nquotations of Tertullian and Cyprian, and the other authorities which, ac-\\ncording to him, belong to the Western class. All that seems necessary to\\nenable one acquainted with the subject to perceive the extravagance of\\nGriesbach s language, is to have his attention directed to it. It is incon-\\nsistent with his own statements elsewhere, and with indisputable facts.\\nThe assertion of Griesbach above quoted is made by him in a merely criti-\\ncal essay, in which any thing like exaggeration was least to be expected. If\\nan assertion of a similar kind had been found in any work, however declama-\\ntory, of a writer of the first three centuries, the circumstance might have\\nseemed embarrassing, as respects the present argument. We should, how-\\never, have been equally justified in regarding such language as highly\\nextravagant in the one case as in the other. I advert to these facts in order to\\nillustrate a principle of considerable importance, that single passages from a\\nparticular writer are often of very little weight or importance, when opposed\\nto a conclusion resting upon strong probabilities. Many writers, who have\\nno intention of deceiving, are far fr m being accurate and attentive in esti-\\nmating the meaning and force of their words.", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "46 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nMatthew. But this renders incredible the supposition, that\\nit had been common for the possessors and transcribers of\\nmanuscripts to make intentional changes in the text of the\\nGospels. The passage shows the prevalence of a sentiment\\nwholly inconsistent with the disposition to make such changes\\nand the prevalence of a belief in the genuineness of their text,\\nwhich could not have existed if such changes had been com-\\nmon. This sentiment and belief are further exhibited in\\nanother passage of Origen, where, comparing the prediction\\nof our Saviour, The Son of man shall be three days and three\\nnights in the earth, with his declaration to the penitent rob-\\nber, This night thou shalt be with me in paradise, he says,\\nthat some have been so troubled with the seeming incon-\\nsistency as to venture to suspect the latter words of being an\\ninterpolation. But, further, the passage before us shows,\\nthat Origen did not regard the Gospels as having been ex-\\nposed to any other causes of error than those common in the\\ntranscription of manuscripts such, for instance, as had oper-\\nated, and without doubt much more extensively, in the copies\\nof the Septuagint. And, lastly, the language of this passage\\naffords proof, if such proof be needed, that Origen had no\\ndisposition to keep out of view, or to extenuate, the differ-\\nences among the copies of the Gospels extant in his time.\\nWe may therefore be satisfied, that none of more importance\\nexisted than what we find noticed by him.\\nIt appears, then, that Origen thought the diversities of\\nmanuscripts a subject deserving particular attention that\\nhe was rather disposed to complain of the carelessness and\\nrashness of transcribers and revisers, and to exaggerate the\\ndiscrepancies which had been thus produced and yet that he\\nnever mentions the existence of any more important differ-\\nences among the copies of the Gospels extant in his time,\\nthan such various readings as are found in our present manu-\\nComment, in Joan., torn, xxxii. 19 Opp. iv. 455.", "height": "4560", "width": "2800", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 47\\nscripts. He was ignorant, therefore, of any such differences\\nas are supposed in the hypothesis under consideration. But,\\nif unknown to him. they were unknown to other Christians\\nat the time when Origen lived that is. during the first half\\nof the third century. They, therefore, did not exist in\\nthe manuscripts of this period. But we. at the present\\nday. have manuscripts of the Gospels written at least twelve\\nhundred years since and. during the first half of the third\\ncentury, a large portion of all the copies which had ever heen\\nmade was probably in existence some written in the earliest\\ntimes, and others in succession during the interval. The\\noldest manuscripts would be sought for by Origen. and other\\ncritics contemporary with him as they have been by critics\\nsince his time. The manuscripts of a later date extant in his\\nage were transcripts of others more ancient, and must have\\nperpetuated their discrepancies. But no important discrep-\\nancies were known to Origen they were not found in earlier\\nor later copies, extant in his age and it is but little more\\nthan stating the same tiling in other words, to say that they\\nnever had existed.\\nIV. We may reason in a similar manner from all the\\nnotices in ancient writers relating to the text of the Gospels.\\nThese notices show that no greater difference existed among\\nthe manuscripts of the Gospels in their day than exists at\\npresent. TTe may even draw a strong argument from their\\nsilence. If there had been narratives or sayings in some\\ncopies of the Gospels, not found in the generality, we should\\nhave information of it in their works. But. on the contrary,\\nnothing can be alleged from their writings to prove any\\ngreater difference among the copies extant in their time\\nthan what is found among those which we now possess.\\nThe silence of the fathers proves that there was a similar\\nagreement.", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "48 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nY. When we examine the Gospels themselves, there is\\nnothing which discovers marks of their having been subjected\\nto such a process of interpolation as has been imagined. On\\nthe contrary, there is evidence which seems decisive that each\\nis the work of an individual, and has been preserved as it\\nwas written by him. The dialect, the style, and the modes\\nof narration in the Gospels, generally have a very marked\\nand peculiar character. Each Gospel, also, is distinguished\\nfrom the others by individual peculiarities in the use of lan-\\nguage, and other characteristics exclusively its own. Any\\none familiar with the originals perceives, for instance, that\\nMark is a writer less acquainted with the Greek language\\nthan Luke, and having less command of proper expression.\\nHis style is, in consequence, more affected by the idiom of\\nthe Hebrew, more harsh, more unformed, more barbarous,\\nin the technical sense of that word. If you were to transfer\\ninto Luke s Gospel a chapter from that of Mark, every critic\\nwould at once perceive its dissimilitude to the general style\\nof the former. The difference would be still more remarka-\\nble, if you were to insert a portion from Mark in John s\\nGospel. But the very distinctive character of the style of\\nthe Gospels generally, and the peculiar character of each\\nGospel, are irreconcilable with the notion, that they have\\nbeen brought to their present state by additions and altera-\\ntions of successive copiers. A diversity of hands would have\\nproduced in each Gospel a diversity of style and character.\\nInstead of the uniformity that now appears, the modes of\\nconception and expression would have been inconsistent and\\nvacillating. We are able to give a remarkable exemplifica-\\ntion and proof of this fact. With the exception of a few\\nshort passages which have been transferred from one Gospel\\nto another, of the doxology at the end of our Lord s Prayer\\nin Matthew, and of the story of the woman taken in adultery,\\nas inserted in a very few modern manuscripts at the end of\\nthe twenty-first chapter of Luke, there have been found but", "height": "4560", "width": "2804", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 49\\nthree undisputed interpolations of any considerable length\\namong all the Greek manuscripts of the Gospels and every\\none of the three betrays itself to be spurious by its internal\\ncharacter, by a style of thought and language clearly dif-\\nferent from that which characterizes the Gospel in which it\\nhas been introduced. This is not a matter of fancy. It is\\na point which no critic will dispute. If, then, our present\\nGospels had been the result of successive additions, made by\\ndifferent hands to a common basis, there would have been\\na marked diversity of style in different portions of the same\\nGospel so that these works would have been very unlike\\nwhat they now are. We should have perceived clear traces\\nof different writers, having greater or less command of ex-\\npression, accustomed to a different use of language, and\\nviewing the history of Christ under different aspects and\\nwith different feelings.\\nIt is true, that in the passage commencing with the fifth\\nverse of the first chapter of St. Luke s Gospel, and extend-\\ning to the end of the second chapter, there is an observable\\ndissimilarity between the language and that of the remainder\\nof his Gospel so that it forms an exception to the general\\nremarks which have just been made. This circumstance has\\ngiven occasion for supposing it to be an interpolation. But\\nthe true account seems to be, that this passage was a short\\nnarrative, in existence before the work of the evangelist,\\nwhich he incorporated with his Gospel that, if he found it\\nextant in Greek, he did not essentially modify the style and,\\nif in Hebrew, that his translation was literal, and affected\\nthroughout by the idiom of the original. The events recorded\\nin this portion of his Gospel having taken place, as we\\nbelieve, about sixty years before he wrote, the supposition is\\nin itself probable and it explains the character of this par-\\nticular passage, without affecting the force of the preceding\\nreasoning. On the contrary, this is strengthened by the cir-\\ncumstance, that, where an exception occurs, we can assign\\n4", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "50 EVIDENCES OF THE\\na special and probable cause for it. It may be observed,\\nfurther, that our being able to perceive so much difference\\nbetween the language of this portion of St. Luke s Gospel\\nand that of the remainder, shows the general uniformity and\\nmarked character of St. Luke s style.\\nUpon the hypothesis under consideration, it is as probable\\nthat the stories collected by various transcribers would have\\nbeen added to St. John s Gospel, as to any one of the other\\nGospels. By comparing his Gospel with the other three, we\\nperceive that there were many narratives concerning Christ\\nin existence, which are not contained in the former, and\\nwhich would have afforded an abundant harvest for an\\ninterpolator. But it is obvious that no such additions have\\nbeen made to St. John s Gospel as are supposed to have\\nbeen commonly made to the histories of Christ. The modes\\nof thinking, and the style, are uniform throughout, and\\nvery marked and distinguishable. It may be separated into\\na few long divisions, each of which is closely connected\\nwithin itself; and it contains scarcely any of those short\\nnarratives in the sty]e of the other Gospels, among which we\\nmust look for the additions which transcribers are supposed\\nto have made to the latter. Such being the facts, it is impos-\\nsible to believe that this Gospel has ever been essentially\\ncorrupted by additions from its copiers. But if this Gospel,\\nequally exposed to corruption with any one of the other\\nthree, has not thus suffered from transcribers, we may infer\\nthat the same is true of the other three Gospels.\\nVI. There is also another ground, on which we infer, from\\nthe uniformity of style in the several Gospels, and the pecu-\\nliar character of this style, that they have not been inter-\\npolated. The Gospels are written in Hellenistic Greek, a\\ndialect used by Jews imperfectly acquainted with the Greek\\nlanguage, and intimately affected, in consequence, by the\\ninfluence of the Hebrew. A native Greek could not have", "height": "4580", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 51\\nwritten in this dialect, if lie would, without having made it\\na particular study. Now, it is through the Gentile branch\\nof the early converts that Christianity and the Gospels have\\nbeen transmitted to us. But we know from the New Testa-\\nment, that, in the very beginning, there were strong tenden-\\ncies to schism between the Jewish and Gentile converts.\\nAfter the death of the apostles, and the destruction of Jeru-\\nsalem, the former, generally speaking, separated themselves\\nmore and more from the latter they remained strongly\\nattached to their law they were reputed heretics they\\nseem to have made little or no use of the books which con-\\nstitute the New Testament, with the exception of the Gospel\\nof Matthew and at last, after four or five centuries, they\\ndisappear from our view. It would be a very improbable\\nsupposition, that any considerable number of the copies of\\nthe Gospels used by Gentile Christians were made by Jewish\\ntranscribers, or interpolated by Jews. It is not to such\\ncopies that we can trace back* the lineage of our own. Only\\na portion of the Jews were acquainted with the Greek lan-\\nguage as written and very few, it is probable, exercised the\\ntrade of transcribers in that language. Origen, in attempting\\nto explain the cause of a supposed error, which he believed to\\nhave arisen from ignorance of the Hebrew, speaks of the\\nGospels as having been continually transcribed by Greeks\\nunacquainted with that language.^ But the Gospels are\\nthroughout written in Hellenistic Greek. Whatever inter-\\npolations may be fancied to exist, they do not discover them-\\nselves by being written in pure and common Greek. These\\nfancied interpolations, however, are supposed to have been\\nmade by a series of transcribers. But these transcribers, as\\nwe have seen, must generally have been Gentiles and\\nGentiles would hardly have interpolated in Hebrew- Greek,\\nor, to say the least, would hardly have interpolated in\\nComment, in Matt., torn. xvi. 19 Opp. iii. 748.", "height": "4552", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "52 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nHebrew- Greek so uniformly that we should not be able to\\ntrace any considerable departure from this dialect.\\nVII. In those cases in which we have good reason to sus-\\npect an ancient writing of being spurious altogether, or of\\nhaving received spurious additions, the fact is almost always\\nbetrayed by something in the character of the writing itself.\\nSpurious works, and interpolations in genuine works, are dis-\\ncovered, for instance, by something not congruous to the char-\\nacter of the pretended author by a style different from that\\nof his genuine writings by the expression of opinions and\\nfeelings which it is improbable that he entertained by discov-\\nering an ignorance of facts with which he must have been\\nacquainted by a use of language, and the introduction of\\nmodes of conception, not known at the period to which they\\nare assigned by an implied reference to opinions, events, or\\neven books, of a later age or by some bearing and purpose\\nnot consistent with the time when they are pretended to have\\nbeen written. Traces of the times when they were really\\ncomposed are almost always apparent. This must have been\\nthe case with the Gospels, if they had been conformed, as has\\nbeen imagined, to the traditions and doctrines of the Church in\\nthe second century. But, putting this notion out of view, we\\nshould have perceived distinct traces of a later age than the\\nperiod assigned for their composition, if they had been sub-\\njected to alterations and additions from different editors and\\ntranscribers, with different views and feelings, and more or\\nless interested and excited about the opinions and controver-\\nsies which had sprung up in their own times. But no traces\\nof a later age than that which we assign for their composition\\nappear in the Gospels. He who fairly examines the scanty\\nlist of passages which have been produced, as giving some\\ncountenance to an opposite opinion, may fully satisfy himself\\nof the correctness of this assertion. I will quote, in proof of\\nit, a passage from Eichhorn, which I am unable to reconcile", "height": "4548", "width": "2804", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 53\\nwith the statements before adduced from him, and with other\\nparts of his writings but which, evidently, derives additional\\nweight from this inconsistency. In a section on the credi-\\nbility of the Gospels, after mentioning by name Matthew,\\nMark, and Luke, as the authors of the first three, he thus\\nproceeds\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Every thing in their narratives corresponds to the age in\\nwhich they lived and wrote, and to the circumstances in which we\\nmust believe them to have been placed, an unanswerable proof\\nof their credibility. Xo one has yet appeared, who, in this re-\\nspect, has convicted them of want of truth and, until this be done\\nby satisfactory evidence, their credibility may be confidently main-\\ntamed.\\nIf. then, the Gospels do not bear the impression of later\\ntimes, but correspond in their character to the age in which\\nwe believe them to have been written, this must be regarded\\nas a strong proof that they are genuine, uncorrupted works of\\nthat age.\\nVJJLL The character and actions of Jesus Christ, as exhib-\\nited in the Gospels, are peculiar and extraordinary beyond all\\nexample. They distinguish him. in a most remarkable man-\\nner, from all other men. They display the highest moral\\nsublimity. TTe perceive, throughout, an ultimate purpose\\nof the most extensive benevolence. But this character of\\nChrist, which appears in the Gospels, is exhibited with per-\\nfect consistency. Whatever he is represented as saying or\\ndoing corresponds to the fact or the conception. call it\\nwhich we will. that he was a teacher sent from God. indued\\nwith the highest powers, and intrusted with the most impor-\\ntant office ever exercised upon earth. The different parts of\\neach Gospel harmonize together. Xow, let any one consider\\nhow unlikely it is that we should have found this consistency\\nEinleitung in d. N. T., i. 639.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "54 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nin the representation of Christ, if the Gospels had been, in\\ngreat part, the work of inconsiderate or presumptuous copiers\\nor if they had consisted, in great part, of a collection of tra-\\nditionary stories and especially if these stories had been, as\\nsome have imagined, either fabulous accounts of miracles, or\\nnarratives having a foundation in truth, but corresponding so\\nlittle to the real fact as to have assumed a miraculous charac-\\nter, which there was nothing in the fact itself to justify. It\\nis incredible, that, under such circumstances, there should be\\nthe consistency which now appears in the Gospels. On the\\ncontrary, we might expect to find in them stories of the same\\nkind with those which were found, or are still found, in cer-\\ntain writings that have been called apocryphal gospels,\\nstories which betray their falsehood at first view by their\\nincongruity with the character and actions of our Saviour, as\\ndisplayed by the evangelists. We shall have occasion to\\nnotice some of them more particularly hereafter. Every one\\nacquainted with the stories referred to must perceive and\\nacknowledge their striking dissimilitude to the narratives of\\nthe Gospels. A dissimilitude of the same kind would have\\nexisted between different parts of the Gospels, if they had\\ngrown, as has been imagined, to their present form by a grad-\\nual contribution of traditionary tales. On the contrary, their\\nconsistency in the representation of our Saviour is one\\namong the many proofs that they have been preserved essen-\\ntially as they were first written.\\nWe have seen, then, in the present chapter, that there is no\\nreason to doubt that the Christians of the first two centuries\\nhad the highest reverence for their sacred books and that,\\nwith this sentiment, they could neither have made nor have\\nsuffered alterations in the Gospels that the manner in which\\nthe Christian fathers speak of the corruptions with which\\nthey charged some of the heretics implies, from the nature of\\nthe case, that they knew of no similar corruptions in their", "height": "4560", "width": "2804", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 55\\nown copies of the Gospels that, from the notice which\\nOrigen takes of the various readings found by him in his\\nmanuscripts of the Gospels, we may conclude, that no con-\\nsiderable diversity among the manuscripts of the Gospels had\\never existed that we may infer the same from all the other\\nnotices respecting the text of the Gospels in the writings of\\nthe fathers, and from the absence of any thing in their works\\nwhich might show that their copies differed more from each\\nother than those now extant; that the peculiar style of the\\nGospels generally, and the uniform style of each Gospel,\\nafford proof that each is essentially the work of one author,\\nwhich has been preserved unaltered that this argument be-\\ncomes more striking when we consider that far the greater\\nnumber of the copies of the Gospels, during the first two\\ncenturies, were made by Greek transcribers, who, if they had\\ninterpolated, would have interpolated in common Greek that\\nit is from copies made by them that our own are divided, but\\nthat the Gospels, as we possess them, are written throughout\\nin that dialect of the Greek which was used only by Jews\\nthat spurious works, or spurious additions to genuine works,\\nmay commonly be discovered by some incongruity with the\\ncharacter or the circumstances of the pretended author, or\\nwith the age to which they are assigned, but that no such\\nincongruity appears in the Gospels as may throw any doubt\\nupon their general character and, lastly, that the consist-\\nency preserved throughout each of the Gospels in all that\\nrelates to the actions, discourses, and most extraordinary char-\\nacter of Christ, shows that each is a work which remains the\\nsame essentially as it was originally written, uncorrupted by\\nsubsequent alterations or additions.\\nIt has, indeed, been already remarked, that the Gospel of\\nSt. Matthew was probably written in Hebrew and that we", "height": "4544", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "56 EVIDENCES OP THE\\npossess only a Greek translation. So far, therefore, as re-\\ngards this Gospel, a part of the arguments adduced, especially\\nthose in the first chapter, apply directly only to prove the\\nuncorrupt preservation of the Greek copy. But I am not\\naware of any consideration that may lead us to suspect, that\\nthe Greek is not a faithful rendering from the Hebrew copy\\nor copies used by the translator, or that the exemplar he\\nfollowed did not essentially correspond with the original. On\\nthe contrary, there seems no reasonable ground for doubt\\nrespecting either proposition.\\nIt is true, that the three additions before suggested may\\nhave been made to the Hebrew text used by the translator.\\nThe liability to those accidents that attend the transcription\\nof books was probably increased, in the case of Matthew s\\nGospel, by a more than ordinary want of skill and judgment\\nin some of its Hebrew copyists for the transcription of\\nbooks cannot be supposed to have been an art much practised\\namong the native Jews of Palestine. But the causes of error\\nin the text used by Matthew s translator could have operated\\nbut a short time, since we cannot suppose the interval between\\nthe composition and translation of the Gospel to have been\\nmore than about fifty years.\\nIn regard to the hypothesis we have been considering, of\\nlicentious and intentional additions by transcribers, as we have\\nseen that there is no ground for it as regards the Greek Gos-\\npels, so we may infer that the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew\\ndid not thus suffer during the fifty years after its first appear-\\nance. The supposition that it did so, being altogether im-\\nprobable in itself, would require strong, direct proof to justify\\nus in admitting it but, on the contrary, there is nothing to\\nset aside the conclusion, founded on the general analogy of\\nother writings, that this Gospel was the work of an individual\\nSee before, pp. 16, 17.", "height": "4532", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 57\\nauthor, and was, during the short interval before its transla-\\ntion, preserved essentially as written by him.\\nSpeaking of the time when the Hebrew original alone was\\nextant, Paj}ias says, that every one translated it as he\\ncould meaning. I conceive, that he translated it to himself\\nin reading it. His words, it is evident, directly imply that it\\nwas in the hands of readers whose vernacular language was\\nthe Greek. Many of the Jewish converts, without doubt,\\nwere capable of understanding it both in the Hebrew and the\\nGreek. There were, therefore, contemporary judges of the cor-\\nrespondence of the translation with the original, by whom its\\ncorrespondence was not questioned for, had it been, we should\\nhave known the fact. Nor is an expression of doubt con-\\ncerning its authenticity to be found in any subsequent age\\non the other hand, controvertists, the most opposed to each\\nother, agreed in using the Greek translation as a common\\nauthority.\\nBut the whole supposition of licentious alterations in the\\nGospels from the text of their original authors must rest on\\nthe belief that there was a general indifference among the\\nearly Christians about the genuineness and authenticity of\\nthe books from which they derived a knowledge of their\\nreligion. Those writings they might have preserved uncor-\\nrupted, if they would. But such, it must be presumed, was\\ntheir negligence and folly, that they cared not whether the\\ncontents of the Gospels were true or false; whether they\\nproceeded from apostles and evangelists, or from unknown\\nand anonymous individuals. Christians, at the time of which\\nwe speak, were submitting to severe privations, and exposing\\nthemselves to great sufferings, for their religion. They were\\nsupported by a conviction of the infinite value of the truths\\nwhich it taught, those truths, the knowledge of which was\\npreserved, as they believed, in the writings of its first disciples.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "58 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nBut, if we suppose the text of any one of the Gospels to\\nhave suffered essential alteration, we must suppose that\\nChristians were indifferent about the contents of those books\\nwhich they regarded as the authentic records of their faith,\\ntheir duties, their consolations, and their hopes. It seems,\\ntherefore, not too much to say of the hypothesis of the essen-\\ntial corruption of the Gospels, that it is irreconcilable with\\nany just conception of the circumstances and feelings of the\\nearly Christians, and of the moral nature of man.", "height": "4560", "width": "2796", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER III.\\nOBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.\\nUpon what arguments, then, rests the supposition that essen-\\ntial alterations have been made in the Gospels since their\\noriginal composition These arguments, whatever they are,\\nif of any force, must assume the character of objections and\\ndifficulties, when viewed in relation to the proposition, the\\ntruth of which has been maintained. But, strongly as the cor-\\nruption of the Gospels has been asserted, I am unacquainted\\nwith any formal statement of arguments in its proof.\\nThose by whom it has been principally maintained belong\\nto that large class of German critics who reject the belief of\\nany thing properly miraculous in the history of Christ. But\\nthe difficulty of reconciling this disbelief of the miracles with\\nthe admission of the truth of facts concerning him not miracu-\\nlous is greatly increased, if the Gospels be acknowledged as\\nthe uncorrupted works of those who were witnesses of what\\nthey relate, or who derived their information immediately\\nfrom such witnesses. On the other hand, in proportion as\\nsuspicion is cast upon the genuineness and authenticity of\\nthose writings,, the history of Christ becomes doubtful and\\nobscure. An opening is made for theories concerning Ins life,\\ncharacter, and works, and the origin of his religion. Any\\naccount of our Saviour, upon the supposition that he was not\\na teacher from God endued with miraculous powers, must be\\nalmost wholly conjectural. But such a conjectural account", "height": "4560", "width": "2772", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "60 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwill appear to less disadvantage, if placed in competition with\\nnarratives of uncertain origin, than if brought into direct\\nopposition to the authority of original witnesses.\\nThe theory of the corruption of the Gospels has been con-\\nnected with an hypothesis concerning the manner in which\\nthe first three Gospels were formed; from which, as I con-\\nceive, it has been regarded as deriving its main support. This\\nhypothesis is intended to account for the remarkable phenom-\\nena in the agreement and disagreement of the first three Gos-\\npels with each other. It has been explained and defended,\\nwith much clearness and ability, by Bishop Marsh.* It sup-\\nposes the existence of an original document, a brief narrative\\nof the public life of Christ, the Original Gospel of Eichhorn.\\nThis document, it is believed, was in the hands of several\\npersons, who added to it different narratives, according to\\ntheir respective information so that copies of it were in\\nexistence with different additions. Each of the first three\\nevangelists is thought to have used a different copy as the\\nbasis of his Gospel. It is then only to suppose, that the same\\ncustom of making additions, which was common in regard to\\nthe original document just mentioned, prevailed afterwards\\nin regard to the Gospels, and we have the very supposition\\nagainst which we have been contending.\\nTo this the answer is, that the hypothesis, in any form in\\nwhich it may be presented, can, at most, be regarded only as\\ncreating a presumption that the Gospels have been corrupted\\nand this presumption would be of no force in opposition to\\nthe facts stated in the two preceding chapters. It would only\\nbring suspicion upon the hypothesis itself; since this must be\\nIn his Dissertation on the Origin and Composition of the Three First\\nCanonical Gospels, and his tracts in the controversy occasioned by an anonv-\\nmous publication (of which Bishop Randolph was the author) entitled,\\nRemarks on Michaelis s Introduction to the New Testament; by Way of\\nCaution to Students in Divinity.", "height": "4580", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 61\\nconformed to all the facts which have a bearing upon it. The\\nlatter must not be made to bend to the former. TTith such a\\nview of the subject, it would be improper, in this place, to\\nenter into a particular examination of the theory in question.\\nSuch an examination, however, may be found in one of the\\nadditional notes to this volume.* If the reasoning there\\nurged be correct, it will appear that the hypothesis of an\\noriginal document gradually receiving additions from different\\nhands, and used in different forms by the first three evange-\\nlists, involves suppositions which cannot be admitted that it\\nis unnecessary in order to account for the agreement of the\\nGospels with each other and that it is neither implied, nor\\nrendered probable, by the phenomena to be explained, but\\nthat, on the contrary, it is inconsistent with those phenomena.\\nIt may be recollected, that the Original Gospel is regarded\\nby Eichhorn, not only as the common source of our first three\\nGospels, but likewise of certain apocryphal gospels, which\\nwere in use before them, f These, according to him* were\\nthe following The Gospel of the Hebrews the Gospel of\\nMarcion the Memoirs by the Apostles, used by Justin Mar-\\ntyr the gospel adopted by Cerinthus and his sect gospels\\nused by Tatian in composing his Diatessaron and those used\\nby the apostolic fathers. These gospels, and our first three\\nGospels, are all supposed to have been so intimately con-\\nnected, as to prove their derivation from a common original\\nand the knowledge which we possess respecting their con-\\ntents is regarded as illustrating the process of change and\\ngrowth which they had all gone through. I shall, in the\\ncourse of this work, remark, under the proper heads, upon\\nthe gospels mentioned by Eichhorn, and endeavor to show,\\nthat the Gospel of the Hebrews was probably, in its primi-\\ntive state, the Hebrew original of St. Matthew that the\\nbooks used by Justin were our four Gospels that there is no\\nSee Note B, pp. 463-510. t See before, p. 5, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "62* EVIDENCES OF THE\\nreason to doubt, that the four gospels, which, toward the end\\nof the second century, Tatian, who had been a disciple of\\nJustin Martyr, made the basis of his Diatessaron, were the\\nfour canonical Gospels that Marcion had a mutilated copy\\nof St. Luke, a fact which, in consequence of the exami-\\nnations that have taken place since Eichhorn wrote, seems\\nnow to be generally undisputed that the scanty, uncertain,\\ncontradictory information respecting Cerinthus and his sect\\naffords no ground for the conclusion that they used a peculiar\\ngospel and that there is nothing in the writings ascribed to\\nApostolic Fathers which may justify the supposition, that,\\npreviously to the general reception of our four Gospels, other\\ngospels were in common circulation among Christians as\\nauthentic histories of Christ.\\nIt is, moreover, affirmed by Eichhorn as a general truth,\\nthat before the invention of printing, in transcribing a\\nmanuscript, the most arbitrary alterations were considered\\nas allowable, since they affected only an article of private\\nproperty, written for the use of an individual. It fol-\\nlows, that, in maintaining that the Gospels have under-\\ngone a process of corruption, one is only maintaining that\\nthey shared the common fate of all other ancient writings.\\nIn proof of his general proposition, Eichhorn alleges, that\\nthere are many manuscripts of chronicles of the Middle\\nAges, which, purporting to be copies of the same work,\\nyet present different texts, some containing more and others\\nless and, in further evidence that the most arbitrary altera-\\ntions by transcribers were considered as allowable, he cites\\nDionysius of Corinth as calling some who had corrupted his\\nwritings apostles of Satan. But the proposition, though\\napparently laid down as the basis of his hypothesis, is so\\nobviously false as hardly to admit of remark or contradiction.\\nSee before, p. 8.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 63\\nIt could only have been made through some strange inadvert-\\nence. As the ordinary mode of dealing with books in ancient\\ntimes was, as every one knows, the reverse of what Eichhorn\\nsupposes, it must need very strong and special reasons to\\nrender the conjecture probable, that the Gospels were made\\nexceptions to the common usage.\\nAs evidence that such was the case, that the Gospels were\\nsubjected to a mode of treatment different from that which\\nother books experienced, a few passages have been quoted\\nfrom ancient writers which, in fact, form the whole of what\\ncan be considered as a direct attempt to prove the proposi-\\ntion. Two of them one from Dionysius of Corinth, and the\\nother from Origen we have already had occasion to exam-\\nine and their true bearing appears to be directly opposed to\\nthe supposition which they have been brought to establish..*\\nTwo others remain to be considered.\\nCelsus, says Eichhorn, objects to the Christians, that\\nthey had changed their Gospels three times, four times, and\\noftener, as if they were deprived of their senses. f The\\npassage is twice quoted by him, and therefore, it may be pre-\\nsumed, is regarded as an important proof of his theory. If\\nit were correctly represented in the words which have been\\ngiven, the first obvious answer would be, that such a charge\\nis as little to be credited upon the mere assertion of Celsus,\\nas various other calumnies of that writer against the Chris-\\ntians, which no one at the present day believes. But Celsus\\ndoes not say what he is represented as saying. He does not\\nbring the charge against Christians generally, but against\\nsome Christians. His words are preserved in the work com-\\nposed by Origen in reply to Celsus and, correctly rendered,\\nare as follows Afterwards Celsus says, that some believ-\\ners, like men driven by drunkenness to commit violence on\\nSee before, pp. 38, 39, and p. 43, seqq. f See before, p. 9.", "height": "4548", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "64 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthemselves, have altered the Gospel-history since its first\\ncomposition, three times, four times, and oftener, and have\\nrefashioned it, so as to be able to deny the objections made\\nagainst it. To this, the whole reply of Origen is as fol-\\nlows I know of none who have altered the Gospel-history,\\nexcept the followers of Marcion, of Valentinus, and I think\\nalso those of Lucan. But this affords no ground for reproach\\nagainst the religion itself, but against those who have dared\\nto corrupt the Gospels. And as it is no reproach against\\nphilosophy, that there are Sophists or Epicureans or Peripa-\\ntetics, or any others who hold false opinions so also it is no\\nreproach against true Christianity, that there are those who\\nhave altered the Gospels, and introduced heresies foreign\\nfrom the teaching of Jesus. f\\nIt is evident, that Origen regarded the words of Celsus as a\\nmere declamatory accusation, which he was not called upon\\nto repel by any elaborate reply. A grave charge against the\\nwhole body of Christians, of the nature of that which Celsus\\nurges, could not have been dismissed in three sentences of\\na long and able work in defence of Christianity against his\\nattacks. The charge may have been founded, as Origen sup-\\nposes, upon the mutilations and corruptions of the Gospels\\nmade by some heretics. Another solution of it is, that Cel-\\nsus, being acquainted with the four Gospels, and perceiving\\nthat they had much in common with much that was different,\\ndid, on this ground, represent Christians as having given the\\nGospel-history four different forms. But if we believe that\\nCelsus fully understood the subject, and, having no reference\\nto any heretical sects or to the existence of four different\\nhistories of Christ, really meant to bring against catholic\\nLiterally, the Gospel, to evayyeXiov but this word is here used, as it is\\nelsewhere in ancient writers, to denote the Gospel-history. In this use of the\\nword, the four Gospels are commonly denoted, considered collectively, as\\ncontaining this history.\\nt Orig. cont. Cels lib. ii. 27; Opp. i. 411.", "height": "4556", "width": "2808", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 65\\nChristians a grave charge of corrupting the Gospels, then we\\nmust consider what is the proper inference from the passage.\\nHe was, as no one will deny, forward enough in adducing\\nunsupported and calumnious accusations against those whom\\nhe was attacking. If there had been any pretence for saying\\nthat Christians generally had altered and corrupted the Gos-\\npels, he would have said it. But he does not. He merely\\nsays, whether truly or not may be a question, that some\\nChristians had done this. It is of the nature of such a\\ncharge, when brought against some of any community, to\\nexculpate the community in general. According, th-erefore,\\nto the implied testimony of their enemy, Christians, generally\\nspeaking, had not altered nor corrupted the Gospels.\\nBut the passage affords ground for further remark. Celsus\\ncompares the conduct of those whom he charges with altering\\nthe Gospel-history, or the Gospels, to that of men impelled\\nby drunkenness to commit violence on themselves. Origen\\ndoes not object to the comparison and there is no objection\\nto be made to the opinion implied in it, respecting the char-\\nacter and consequences of such a procedure. It is one which\\nthe friends and the enemies of the religion must equally have\\nperceived to be correct. The question, therefore, whether\\nthe early Christians altered the Gospels, resolves itself into\\nthe question, whether they acted like men intoxicated, to the\\nevident ruin of their cause.\\nThe other passage, before referred to, is from Clement of\\nAlexandria. Clement also, at the end of the second cen-\\ntury, speaks of those who corrupted the gospels, and ascribes\\nit to them, that at Matt. v. 10, instead of the words, for theirs\\nis the kingdom of heaven, there was found in some manu-\\nscripts, for they shall be perfect and in others, for they shall\\nhave a place where they shall not be persecuted This\\nstatement is erroneous. Clement does not speak of those\\nSee before, p. 9.\\n5", "height": "4560", "width": "2676", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "66 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwho corrupted, but of those who paraphrased, the Gospels\\nnor does he give the words alleged by him, as various read-\\nings in manuscripts of the Gospels. Quoting the original\\ntext incorrectly, probably from memory, in these words,\\nBlessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness\\nsake, for they shall be called the sons of God, he adds,\\nOr, as some who have paraphrased the Gospels express\\nit, Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness\\nsake, for they -shall be perfect and, Blessed are they who\\nare persecuted for my sake, for they shall attain a place\\nwhere they shall not be persecuted. It is of paraphrasts\\nor scholiasts that the passage is understood by Eichhorn\\nhimself, when writing without a view to his peculiar theory.f\\nClement expresses no indignation against those of whom he\\nspeaks, as he would have done if they had corrupted the\\nGospels. On the contrary, his quoting their words as he\\ndoes implies a certain degree of approbation.\\nIt is remarkable, that, in understanding his words as proving\\na general license of corruption during his time, the extraor-\\ndinary and quite incredible nature of the inference which is\\nto be drawn from them has not been adverted to. If his\\nwords were thus to be understood, they would prove, not that\\ntranscribers made additions to what they found before them,\\nor occasionally omitted or corrupted a passage, but that they\\nindulged themselves in the most wanton alterations of the\\nplain language of the Gospels. There are few passages less\\nexposed to intentional corruption than the one quoted by\\nClement and if this were made to assume three such differ-\\nent forms in the manuscripts which he had seen, and if these\\nchanges afforded, as is maintained, a specimen of the common\\npractice o\u00c2\u00a3 transcribers, it would follow, that the text of the\\nGospels had, in the time of Clement, undergone great altera-\\nThe words are not, as given by Eichhorn, For theirs is the kingdom of\\nheaven.\\nf Einleit. in d. N. T., lii. 553.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 67\\ntions, and had assumed a very different character in different\\nmanuscripts. There must have been, in his age, an astonish-\\ning discordance among different copies of the Gospels. Some\\nmust have been very unlike others in their modes of expres-\\nsion, as well as in their contents. But, if this be the legitimate\\nconclusion from the meaning which has been put upon his\\nwords, it is only necessary to state it, in order to show that\\nthat meaning must be false.\\nSuch are the main arguments in support of the hypothesis\\nof the corruption of the Gospels or, in other words, such are\\nthe objections to the proposition that they remain essentially\\nthe same as they were originally composed. The truth of\\nthis proposition, it may be recollected, is proyed by various\\nconsiderations, unconnected with each other. It appears\\nfrom the essential agreement among the very numerous\\ncopies of the Gospels, so diverse in their character, and in\\ntheir mode of derivation from the original. This agreement\\namong different copies could not have existed, unless some\\narchetype had been faithfully followed and this archetype, it\\nhas been shown, could have been no other than the original\\ntext. It appears from the reverence in which the Gospels\\nwere held by the early Christians, and the deep sense which\\nthey had of the impropriety and guilt of making any altera-\\ntion in those writings. It appears from the historical notices\\nrespecting their text, which are wholly inconsistent with the\\nsupposition of its having suffered essential corruptions. And,\\nfinally, it appears from the internal character of the books\\nthemselves, which show no marks of gross, intentional inter-\\npolation but, on the contrary, exhibit a consistency of style\\nand conception irreconcilable with the supposition of it.\\nIf, then, we may consider the proposition as established, that\\nthe Gospels remain essentially the same as they were origi-\\nnally composed, the remaining inquiry is, whether they are\\nthe works of those to whom thev have been ascribed.", "height": "4560", "width": "2660", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "PAET II.\\nDIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE GOSPELS HATE BEEN\\nASCRIBED TO THEIR TRUE AUTHORS.", "height": "4552", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "PAET II.\\nCHAPTER L\\nEVIDENCE FROM THE GENERAL RECEPTION OF THE GOS-\\nPELS AS GENUINE AMONG CHRISTIANS DURING THE\\nLAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY.\\nHating shown that the Gospels have been transmitted to\\nus as they were first written, I shall, in what follows, adduce\\nevidence of the fact that they have been ascribed to their true\\nauthors.\\nThe proof which may be first stated is, that they were re-\\ngarded with the highest reverence, as genuine and sacred\\nbooks, by the great body of Christians during the last quarter\\nof the second century.\\nThere is little or no dispute about the truth of this proposi-\\ntion, and I might perhaps assume it as established, and pro-\\nceed to reason upon it but it may be better to bring forward\\nsome of the evidence on which it rests. I have had occasion\\nalready to quote, or allude to, a part of it;* and shall en-\\ndeavor, as far as possible, to avoid repetition. The passages\\nbefore oiven must be viewed in connection with those here\\nalleged.\\nOne of the earliest Christian writers whose works have\\ncome down to us is Irena?us. The exact time of his birth is\\nSee before, pp. 36-41.", "height": "4552", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "72 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nuncertain but he was born in the first half of the second\\ncentury, and but just survived its close. Beside a few frag-\\nments of other writings, there is only one of his works which\\nremains to us, his treatise Against Heretics, a name which,\\nin his time, was limited in Its application to the different sects\\nof Gnostics and the Ebionites. It was in the name of the\\ngreat body of catholic believers, and in defence of their opin-\\nions, that Irenasus wrote. The first sentence of the following\\npassage has been already quoted\\nWe, says Irenseus, have not received the knowledge of the\\nway of our salvation by any others than those through whom the\\nGospel has come down to us which Gospel they first preached, and\\nafterwards, by the will of God, transmitted to us in writing, that\\nit might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For after our\\nLord had risen from the dead, and they [the apostles] were clothed\\nwith the power of the Holy Spirit descending upon them from on\\nhigh, were filled with all gifts, and possessed perfect knowledge,\\nthey went forth to the ends of the earth, spreading the glad tidings\\nof those blessings which God has conferred upon us, and announcing\\npeace from heaven to men having all, and every one alike, the\\nGospel of God. Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel\\nin their own language while Peter and Paul were preaching the\\nGospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And, after their\\ndeparture [death], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,\\nhimself delivered to us in writing what Peter had preached and\\nLuke, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel preached by\\nhim. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who leaned upon\\nhis breast, likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus,\\nin Asia. And all these have taught us, that there is one God, the\\nMaker of heaven and earth, announced by the Law and the Proph-\\nets and one Christ, the Son of God. And he who does not assent\\nto them despises indeed those who knew the mind of the Lord but\\nhe despises also Christ himself the Lord, and he despises likewise\\nthe Father, and is self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own\\nsalvation; and this all heretics do.\\nContra Hasres., lib. iii. c. 1, pp. 173, 174.", "height": "4560", "width": "2804", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 73\\nIn this passage it may be observed, that Irenceus, in defend-\\ning the Christian doctrine, rests it npon the authority of the\\nGospels that he even does this without mentioning the other\\nbooks of the New Testament that he considers the former as\\nhaving been composed, that they might be the foundation and\\npillar of the faith of Christians and that he assigns them,\\nwithout doubt or hesitation, to the authors by whom we be-\\nlieve them to have been written. The following passage is\\nto the same effect\\nNor can there be more or fewer Gospels than these. For, as\\nthere are four regions of the world in which we live, and four car-\\ndinal winds, and the Church is spread over all the earth, and the\\nGospel is the pillar and support of the Church, and the breath of\\nlife in like manner is it fit that it should have four pillars, breath-\\ning on all sides incorruption, and refreshing mankind. Whence it\\nis manifest, that the Logos, the former of all things, who sits upon\\nthe cherubim, and holds together all things, having appeared to\\nmen, has given us a Gospel fourfold in its form, but held together\\nby one spirit. The Gospel according to John declares his\\nprincely, complete, and glorious generation from the Father, say-\\ning, In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,\\nand the Logos was God all things were made by him, and without\\nhim was nothing made. The Gospel according to Luke, being\\nof a priestly character, begins with Zacharias, the priest, offering\\nincense to God. Matthew proclaims his human generation,\\nsaying, The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son\\nof Abraham. Mark begins with the prophetic Spirit, which\\ncame down from above to men, saying, The beginning of the Gos-\\npel of Jesus Christ as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.\\nHere, again, the same remarks may be made as before.\\nThe Gospels are expressly assigned to the authors to whom\\nwe ascribe them and they are spoken of as the four pillars\\nof the Church, breathing on all sides incorruption, and re-\\nfreshing mankind. The figure has been ridiculed but the\\nContra Halves., lib. iii. c. 11, 8, pp. 190, 191.", "height": "4560", "width": "2668", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "74 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmeaning is sufficiently clear, and the want of metaphorical\\nelegance does not affect the present argument.\\nI pass over other passages, to be found in Lardner, in\\nwhich Irenaeus speaks of the Gospels, referring them to their\\nauthors, and remarking generally upon their character and\\ncontents. The passages cited by him from the Gospels, many\\nof which are cited more than once, may be found collected in\\nMassuet s edition of his works. They fill about eleven closely\\nprinted folio columns while the passages cited from all the\\nOld Testament fill about fifteen such columns. He appeals\\nto the Gospels continually and quotes them as undoubted\\nauthority for the faith of the great body of Christians, with\\nthe same confidence which might be felt by any writer of the\\npresent day. They were books in general circulation, and\\ncommonly studied.\\nSuch is the information afforded by Irenasus concerning\\nthe general reception of the Gospels in his time. He had\\nspent some portion of the earlier part of his life in Asia but\\nwas, at the time when he wrote, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul.\\nFrom Gaul we return to Asia. Theophilus, whom I shall\\nnext quote, was bishop of Antioch before the year 170, and\\ndied before the end of the second century. Of his writings,\\nwe have remaining only one work, containing an account and\\ndefence of Christianity, addressed to Autolycus, a heathen.\\nAfter some mention of the Jewish Law and Prophets, he\\nhas this passage Concerning the righteousness of which\\nthe Law speaks, the like things are to be found also in the\\nProphets and Gospels, because they all spoke by the inspira-\\ntion of one spirit of God. 5 The estimation in which the\\nGospels were held by Christians appears as well in the pas-\\nsage just quoted as in the following These things, says\\nTheophilus, the Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who\\nContra Hseres., lib. iii. 12.", "height": "4560", "width": "2796", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 75\\nwere moved by the Spirit among whom John says, In the\\nbeginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God.\\nHaving quoted a passage from the Old Testament (Prov.\\niv. 25, 26), which he interprets as a precept of chastity, he\\nsays, But the Evangelic voice teaches purity yet more im-\\nperatively, and then quotes Matt. v. 28 and 32 in proof\\nof his assertion.f A little after, he quotes several precepts\\nfrom Matthew and from St. Paul introducing those taken\\nfrom the Gospel of Matthew with the expression, The Gos-\\npel says. t\\nFrom Antioch we pass to Carthage. Here Tertullian was\\nborn, and here he appears principally to have resided. The\\ndates of his birth and death are both uncertain but he be-\\ncame distinguished as a writer about the close of the second\\ncentury, No evidence can be more full and satisfactory than\\nthat which he affords of the general reception of the Gospels,\\nand of their authority as the foundation of the Christian\\nfaith. He ascribes them without hesitation to the authors by\\nwhom we believe them to have been written and he rests\\nthe proof of their genuineness upon unbroken tradition in\\nthe churches founded by the apostles. There is not a chap-\\nter in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, from which\\nhe does not quote and from most of them his quotations are\\nnumerous. We lay it down, says Tertullian, in the first\\nplace, that the Evangelic Document had for its authors\\napostles, to whom this office of promulgating the Gospel was\\nassigned by our Lord himself. And, if some of them were\\ncompanions of apostles, yet they did not stand alone, but\\nwere connected with and guided by apostles. Among the\\napostles, John and Matthew form the faith within us. Among\\nLib. ii. 22. t Lib. iii. 13. t Ibid.. 14.\\nEvany eli cum instrumentum. Instrumentum is here used, as it is\\noften by Tertullian, in a metaphorical sense, derived from its technical mean-\\ning, as signifying a legal instrument which may be produced in evidence.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "76 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthe companions of the apostles, Luke and Mark renovate\\nit. The Gospels are always appealed to by him as de-\\ncisive authority for the faith of Christians. The evangelists\\nand apostles are placed by him, as they are by Irengeus and\\nTheophilus, in the same rank with the Jewish prophets. In\\nhis time, the Scriptures, among which the Gospels held the\\nfirst place, were publicly read, as at the present day, in the\\nassemblies of Christians. We come together, he says, to\\nbring to mind the divine Scriptures, for the purpose of warn-\\ning or admonition, if the state of the times require it. Cer-\\ntainly, we nourish our faith, raise our hopes, and confirm our\\ntrust, by the sacred words. f The Christian Scriptures were\\naccessible to all. In one of his writings, a defence of Chris-\\ntians addressed to heathens, he says, Examine the words of\\nGod, our literature, which we are far from concealing, and\\nwhich many accidents throw in the way of those who are not\\nof our number. t He then quotes two passages from these\\nScriptures, one from the Gospels, and another from the Epis-\\ntles, in evidence of what Christians believed to be their duty\\nin regard to civil government.\\nIn defending the genuine Gospel of Luke against the\\nmutilated gospel used by Marcion, Tertullian has the fol-\\nlowing passage, a part of which has been already quoted\\nTo give the sum of all, if it be certain, that that is most\\ngenuine which is most ancient, that most ancient which has\\nbeen from the beginning, and that from the beginning which\\nwas from the apostles so it is equally certain that that was\\ndelivered by the apostles which has been held sacred in\\nthe churches of the apostles. He then enumerates various\\nchurches founded by apostles, which were still flourishing,\\nand proceeds I affirm, then, that in those churches, and\\nnot in those only which were founded by the apostles, but\\nAdvers. Marcionem. lib. iv. 2, p. 414.\\nf Apologet., 39, p. 31. J Ibid., 31, p. 27.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 77\\nin all which have fellowship with them, that Gospel of Luke\\nwhich we so steadfastly defend has been received from its first\\npublication. The same authority/ he adds, of the apos-\\ntolic churches will support the other Gospels, which, in like\\nmanner, we have from them, conformably to their copies.\\nWe will pass from Carthage to Alexandria, the residence\\nof Clement. Here was a celebrated school for the instruc-\\ntion of Christians, founded, probably, early in the second\\ncentury, of which Clement was, in his time, the principal\\nmaster. He was eminent during the latter part of the\\nsecond and the beginning of the third century.\\nIn the evidence which Clement affords of the general re-\\nception of the Gospels as sacred books, there is nothing of a\\npeculiar character. It is similar to that already adduced\\nfrom Irenaeus and Tertullian. His very, numerous quota-\\ntions from the Gospels in his extant works are, at the present\\nday, an important means of, settling their true text. In one\\npassage, he proposes, after showing that the Scriptures\\nwhich we [Christians] have believed are confirmed by the\\nOmnipotent, to evince from them, in opposition to all\\nheretics, that there is one God and Almighty Lord, clearly\\nproclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, and, together with\\nthem, by the blessed Gospel. f This affords a specimen of\\nthe manner in which the Gospels are appealed to by him. In\\nanother place, in reasoning against certain heretics, he notices\\na saying ascribed to Christ, quoted by them in support of\\ntheir opinions from an apocryphal book, called The Gospel\\naccording to the Egyptians and commences his answer\\nwith this remark In the first place, we have not that say-\\ning in the four Gospels which have been handed down to\\nus. t Here, in a few words, he expresses his sense of the\\nAdvers. Marcionem, lib. iv. 5, pp. 415, 416.\\nt Stromat., lib. iv. 1, p. 564. Ibid., lib. iii. 13, p. 553.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "78 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nexclusive authority of the Gospels as histories of our Saviour\\nand the fact of their reception before his time. The Gospels\\nhad been handed down to the Christians of his age that is,\\nthe Christians who lived about the end of the second century.\\nBy Clement was preserved, as has been before stated, a tradi-\\ntion received from ancient presbyters concerning the order\\nin which they were written. According to this tradition,\\nThe Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.\\nThe following providence gave occasion to that of Mark.\\nWhile Peter was publicly preaching the word at Rome, and\\nthrough the power of the Spirit making known the Gospel,\\nhis hearers, who were numerous, exhorted Mark, upon the\\nground of his having accompanied him for a long time, and\\nhaving his discourses in memory, to write down what he had\\nspoken and Mark, composing his Gospel, delivered it to\\nthose who made the request. Peter, knowing this, was not\\nearnest either to forbid or to encourage it. In the last place,\\nJohn, observing that the things obvious to the senses had\\nbeen clearly set forth in those Gospels, being urged by his\\nfriends, and divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a\\nspiritual Gospel.\\nIn the second century, but how long before its close cannot\\nbe determined, Celsus wrote against Christianity. About\\nthe middle of the third century, his work was answered by\\nOrigen, who speaks of him as long since dead f and who\\nevidently was unable, confidently, to identify him with any\\nknown individual. Origen seems to have observed upon\\nevery important particular contained in it, and has given\\nmany extracts from it. It appears from these extracts, that\\nChristians, in the time of Celsus, had histories of our Sa-\\nviour, which they believed to have been written by his\\nApud Euseb. H. E lib. vi. c. 14. Comp. lib. ii. c. 15.\\nf Cont. Cels. Prsefat., 4; Opp. i. 317.", "height": "4556", "width": "2808", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. I 9\\ndisciples, and the genuineness of which was not contro-\\nverted by him. Without mentioning their authors by name,\\nhe frequently quotes and refers to them. It has been ob-\\nserved with truth, that an abridgment of the history of\\nJesus, corresponding to that in the Gospels, may be found\\nin the remains of his work. He discusses the account of the\\nmiraculous birth of Christ, remarking various particulars re-\\nlated in the first two chapters of Matthew s Gospel. He\\nrefers to the appearance and voice from heaven at our Lord s\\nbaptism. He alludes to the account of his temptation. He\\nsays that he collected ten or eleven publicans and sailors.\\nwith whom he travelled about procuring a shameful and\\nbeggarly subsistence. He- calls Christ himself a carpenter.*\\nHe speaks of his miracles, of his having cured the lame and\\nblind, fed a multitude with a few loaves, and raised the dead\\nand argues upon the supposition that these facts really took\\nplace. He says it was a fiction of his disciples, that Jesus\\nforeknew and foretold whatever should befall him. He\\nrefers to the prediction of our Saviour, that deceivers should\\ncome in his name. He animadverts upon various passages\\nin our Lord s discourses upon his direction to his first disci-\\nples to exercise a peculiar trust in the providence of God. to\\nobserve the lilies and the ravens; If upon his precept. If any\\nman strike thee on the right cheelc. turn to him the other\\nalso upon his saying. It is impossible to serve two masters\\nand upon his declaration. It is easier for a camel to pass\\nthrough the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the\\nkingdom of God. He refers to the incredulity with which\\nhe was heard, and to his denunciations against the Pharisees,\\nHe speaks of his having been betrayed by one disciple, and\\ndenied by another; of his prayer. Father, if it he possible, let\\nthis cup pass from me; of the soldiers who derided him of\\nthe purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed which was\\nMark vi. 3. f Luke xii. 24. 27.", "height": "4528", "width": "2756", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "80 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nput into his hand of the vinegar mixed with bitter drugs,\\noffered him at his crucifixion; of his saying, I thirst of the\\nloud cry which he uttered just before expiring of the earth-\\nquake and darkness which accompanied his death of his\\nrising from the dead of the angel who removed the stone\\nat the door of the sepulchre of his appearing, not to his\\nenemies, but to a distracted woman (Mary Magdalene)\\nand others, engaged with him in the same magical arts\\nand of his exhibiting his hands, as they had been wounded\\non the cross, which last circumstance is mentioned by St.\\nJohn alone.\\nIn one passage, Celsus says that those who had given gene-\\nalogies of Jesus had had the confidence to derive his descent\\nfrom the first man, and from the Jewish kings referring to\\nthe genealogies found in the first two chapters of Matthew\\nand in Luke. In another passage, he appears to refer at once\\nto all our four Gospels for he observes, that some relate that\\none, and some that two, angels descended to his sepulchre\\nto announce to the women that Jesus was risen. Matthew\\nand Mark speak of but one angel Luke and John mention\\ntwo.\\nThe numerous objections of Celsus to the accounts received\\nby Christians respecting our Saviour are always made to ac-\\ncounts found in the Gospels. After remarking upon several\\npassages, he says, These things are from your own books,\\nfor we need no other testimony. Thus you fall by your own\\nhands. He nowhere implies the existence of any narrative\\nrespecting Christ, as believed by Christians, which is not re-\\nlated by the evangelists.f\\nThat the histories of Christ referred to by Celsus were our\\npresent Gospels, appears from the general correspondence of\\nJohn xx. 27.\\nt For the references to the passages quoted above, see Lardner s Ancient\\nHeathen Testimonies, chap, xviii. Works (4to ed.), iv. 113, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2804", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 81\\ntheir contents from the particular coincidences which have\\nbeen pointed out from their identity with the Gospels being\\nconstantly implied by Origen, without the appearance of his\\nentertaining any doubt upon the subject from their being\\nattacked by Celsus as the acknowledged records of the reli-\\ngion and from the impossibility that in his time there should\\nhave existed a set of books bearing this character, which have\\nbeen forgotten, and superseded by another set.\\nBut, in attacking these books, that is, our present Gos-\\npels, Celsus evidently considered himself to be undermining\\nthe foundations of Christianity to be attacking books re-\\ngarded by Christians as of the highest authority, as the\\nauthentic records of the history of their Master, composed .or\\nsanctioned by his immediate disciples. TTe have, then, the\\nevidence of an enemy of our religion, that the Gospels were\\nthus regarded by the Christians of his age.\\nOrigen was born about the year 185, and died about the\\nyear 254. There was no Christian writer whose authority\\nwas so high in his own time, and in the period immediately\\nfollowing. His works, only a small portion of which remains\\nin their original language, the Greek, were very numer-\\nous. He was eminent for his talents, and for the extent of\\nhis learning. Nor was he less distinguished for his piety, his\\nintegrity, and his scrupulous conscientiousness. He was #lso,\\nas I have before observed, a careful critic of the text of the\\nSeptuagint and of the New Testament. In those of his works\\nwhich are still extant in the original, the Gospels are quoted\\nso frequently, that, supposing all other copies of them to be\\nlost, those of Matthew, Luke, and John might be restored\\nalmost entire from his quotations alone, if we had a clue by\\nwhich to arrange them. In speaking of the history of their\\ncomposition, he professes to give what he had learnt by tra-\\ndition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are received\\nwithout controversy by the Church of God under heaven.", "height": "4556", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "82 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nHe says, The Gospel of Matthew, who, from being a tax-\\ngatherer, became an apostle of Christ, was the first written. It\\nwas composed in Hebrew, and published for the use of Jewish\\nbelievers. Mark next wrote his Gospel, conformably to the\\naccounts which he had received from Peter. Hence, Peter,\\nin his catholic Epistle, acknowledges him as his son, saying,\\nThe sister church in Babylon salutes you also, my son Mark,\\nThe Gospel of Luke, that which is praised by St. Paul,- was\\nthe third, and was composed for Gentile believers. Last of\\nall followed that of John. 1 Elsewhere Origen writes thus\\nWe may, then, be bold to say, that the Gospel f is the prime\\nfruit of all the Scriptures. Of the Scriptures which are\\nin .common use, and which are believed to be divine by all the\\nchurches of God, one would not err in calling the Law of\\nMoses the first fruit, and the Gospel the prime fruit. t\\nThe Gospels are, as it were, the elements of the faith of the\\nChurch, of which elements the whole world that is reconciled\\nto God by Christ consists. I have before had occasion to\\nquote a passage in which Origen speaks of the Scriptures as\\nbooks in the most common use.\\nOrigen, as we have seen, speaks of the Gospels as re-\\nApud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. c. 25.\\nt By the Gospel, here, as elsewhere, is to be understood the Gospel-his-\\ntory, or the four Gospels.\\nI Comment, in Joan torn. i. 4; Opp. iv. p. 4. Conformably to Origen s\\nmeaning, and to the proper sense of the terms, I have rendered TrpUToyii vrjfia,\\nfirst fruit, and airapxv, prime fruit. These words were borrowed by him from\\nthe Septuagint, and denote two different kinds of oblations, both of which,\\nin our Common Version, are indiscriminately called first fruits. 1 By\\n7rpG)Toyevv7]fj,a y first fruit, is meant that first produced, of which an offer-\\ning was made on the day after the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 10-14). By\\naTcapxy, prime fruit, is meant the best of the harvest, which was to be set\\naside for the priests, and from which an offering was to be made on the day\\nof Pentecost, and perhaps at the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 15-20;\\nNumb, xviii. 12, 13; Deut. xviii. 4). We must understand, says Origen,\\nthat the prime fruit and the first fruit are not the same. For the prime\\nfruit was offered after the harvest, but the first fruit before.\\nIbid., 6, p. 5. H See before, p. 32.", "height": "4580", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS- OF THE GOSPELS. 83\\nceived without controversy, and as believed by all the\\nchurches of God. If these expressions were to be inter-\\npreted, with the narrowest limitation, as relating only to the\\nstate of things at the precise time when he wrote, we might\\nstill infer that the Gospels had been received as of equal\\nauthority in the last quarter of the second century since\\nnothing had occurred during the short intervening period to\\nproduce a unanimity which did not then exist. If there had\\nbeen any dissension or difference of opinion then, it is impos-\\nsible that unanimity should have been afterwards produced\\nwithout some controversy or discussion, without some trace\\nremaining of the change from one state of opinion to an-\\nother but nothing of this sort appears. Origen, however, in\\nthe expressions which he uses, does not refer to his own time\\nalone. His language is meant to include all Christians, from\\nthe first promulgation of the Gospels. It appears from the\\nwritings of the fathers generally, that the books which Chris-\\ntians received as sacred books of the highest authority were,\\nas they believed, distinguished from all others pretending to\\nthe same character, by the circumstance that they had been\\nunanimously so received from the apostolic age through every\\nsuccessive generation of catholic Christians.\\nIn estimating the weight of evidence which has thus far\\nbeen adduced for the genuineness of the Gospels, we must\\nkeep in mind, what has not always been sufficiently attended\\nto, that it is not the testimony of certain individual writers\\nalone on which we rely, important as their testimony might\\nbe. These writers speak for a whole community, every mem-\\nber of which had the strongest reasons for ascertaining the\\n^correctness of his faith respecting the authenticity, and con-\\nsequently the genuineness, of the Gospels. TTe quote the\\nChristian fathers, not chiefly to prove their individual belief,\\nbut in evidence of the belief of the community to which they\\nbelonged. It is not, therefore, the simple testimony of Ire-", "height": "4560", "width": "2756", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "84 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nii83us and Theophilus and Tertullian and Clement and Origen\\nwhich we bring forward it is the testimony of thousands and\\ntens of thousands of believers, many of whom were as well\\ninformed as they were on this particular subject, and as\\ncapable of making a right judgment. All these believers\\nwere equally ready with the writers who have been quoted,\\nto affirm the authority and genuineness of the Gospels. The\\nmost distinguished Christians of the age, men held in high\\nesteem by their contemporaries and successors, assert that the\\nGospels were received as genuine throughout the community\\nof which they were members, and for which they were\\nwriting. That the assertion was made by such men, under\\nsuch circumstances, is sufficient evidence of its truth. But\\nthe proof of the general reception of the Gospels does not\\nrest upon their assertions only, though these cannot be\\ndoubted. It is necessarily implied in their statements and\\nreasonings respecting their religion. It is impossible that\\nthey should have so abundantly quoted the Gospels, as con-\\nclusive authority for their own faith and that of their fellow-\\nChristians, if these books had not been regarded by Christians\\nas conclusive authority. We cannot infer more confidently\\nfrom the sermons of Tillotson and Clarke the estimation in\\nwhich the Gospels were held in their day, than we may infer\\nfrom the writers before mentioned, that they were held in\\nsimilar estimation during the period when they lived.\\nThe testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels is there-\\nfore distinct in its character from that which may be adduced\\nto prove the genuineness of ancient profane writings. As\\ntestimony to this, we are able, perhaps, to collect from differ-\\nent authors a few passages, in which the writing in question\\nis quoted as the work of the individual to whom it is ascribed,\\nor in which it is expressly affirmed that he composed such a\\nwork. We may even find it mentioned as his work in some\\nother composition, ascribed to the same individual but this\\nalone does not affect the nature of the evidence, since the", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 85\\ngenuineness of the last-mentioned writing remains to be\\nproved, and, as far as testimony is concerned, can be proved\\nonly by the testimony of individual writers. But these\\nwriters do not speak in the name and with the sanction of a\\nwhole community, every member of which was deeply and\\npersonally concerned in the question whether the book were\\ngenuine or not. They give their testimony simply as indi-\\nviduals and they were, for the most part, individuals who\\nhad no interest in ascertaining the truth, and perhaps little\\ncuriosity about it. ^Ve have commonly no ground for sup-\\nposing, that any circumstance had led them to a scrupulous\\nexamination of the claims of the work. TTe have no cer-\\ntainty that its genuineness was not doubted by others, equally\\nwell informed with the authors whom we quote. But such is\\nnot the character of the historical evidence produced for the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels. The whole community of Chris-\\ntians is brought to testify their belief respecting a subject\\nwhich deeply interested them, and about which, as we shall\\nnow proceed to observe, they were in circumstances to be\\nfully informed.\\nThat Christians during the latter part of the second century\\nhad sufficient means of determining whether the Gospels were\\ngenuine or not, may appear from the consideration, that they\\nmust have been acquainted with the history of the promulga-\\ntion of these books. If the Gospels were the works of those\\nto whom they are ascribed, they had been received as such\\nby the contemporaries of the evangelists. by apostles, and\\nthe companions and disciples of apostles. They had been\\nhanded down by them to succeeding Christians, as the authen-\\ntic histories of their Master. There had been a clear, un-\\nbroken, and therefore incontrovertible acknowledgment of\\ntheir genuineness, during the period of somewhat more than\\na century which had elapsed between the time when the\\nearliest of them was written, and the time to which we have", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "86 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nclearly traced back their general reception. Such must have\\nbeen the state of the case upon the supposition of their genu-\\nineness but their history, whatever it were, must have been\\nvery different, if they were not genuine. In the latter case,\\nthey had not been known as the works of their pretended\\nauthors by the contemporaries of those to whom they were\\nafterwards ascribed. They had not, consequently, been\\nhanded down from the first to the second generation of Chris-\\ntians as the works of those individuals. But, during the latter\\npart of the second century, the only satisfactory evidence of\\ntheir genuineness, that which the case necessarily demanded,\\nmust have been their general acknowledgment as genu-\\nine since the time of their supposed composition. This is\\nthe proof on which the Christian fathers, and consequently the\\nproof on which the Christian community, relied and it is of\\nsome importance to observe, that they relied upon this alone\\nthat the earlier writers of whom we speak bring forward no\\nother argument in support of their belief. Those facts in the\\nhistory of the Gospels which must have been of common\\nnotoriety w r ere decisive of the question. On the one hand,\\nif the facts necessary to prove their genuineness had really\\nexisted, the evidence was incontrovertible on the other hand,\\nif these facts had not existed, every other pretended proof of\\nthe genuineness of the books must have been wholly unsatis-\\nfactory.\\nBut the Christians of the latter half of the second century\\ncould not be ignorant of the history of the Gospels, or, in\\nother words, of the manner in which they had been regarded\\nby their predecessors. From, the statements which have been\\nquoted from different writers, we may fairly take the year 175\\nas a period when, as shown by direct historical evidence, the\\nGospels were generally received among Christians. But\\nthe old men of this period were born about the end of the\\nfirst and the beginning of the second century. During their\\nyouth, they had been contemporary with those who had been", "height": "4560", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 87\\ncontemporary with the apostles and the other disciples of\\nChrist himself, and who might have received immediate in-\\nstruction from them. Irenaeus informs us. that he had listened\\nto the discourses of Polycarp. who had been a disciple of St.\\nJohn, and conversant with others who had seen the Lord.\\nThis met is important, as it respects the value of the indi-\\nvidual testimony of Irenaeus to the genuineness of the\\nGospels. But it is also to be regarded as a particular\\nexemplification of a general truth, about which there can\\nbe no dispute. that it needed but a single link in the chain\\nof succession, to connect the old men of the time of Irenaeus\\nwith the apostolic age. Such being the case, the Christians\\nof his time could not be ignorant of the manner in which the\\nGospels had been regarded by their predecessors and, in his\\ntime, the belief of the genuineness of the Gospels was estab-\\nlished throughout the Christian community.\\nBut Christians at that period, equally with Christians at\\nthe present day, must have considered the question of the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels as one of great importance. If\\na book be offered to us as of the highest authority/there is\\nno man who will not a-k what claim it has to this authority,\\nand upon what proofs its claim is founded. There was every\\nthing in the circumstances of the early Christians to give\\nstrength to this desire for information and evidence. In\\nembracing a new religion, they must have felt the strongest\\ninterest concerning all that related to its character and history.\\nThis religion did not then, as it does at the present day. con-\\nstitute the prevailing faith, nor blend itself witli the opinions,\\nbelief, sentiments, and customs of the age. It stood in oppo-\\nsition to all that was established. Every thing connected with\\nit was rendered prominent and striking by the contrast, and\\nIrena?i Epi t. ad Florin., apud Euseb. H. E., lib. v. c. 20; Contra Hasres.,\\nlib. iii. c. 3, 4, p. 176.", "height": "4552", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "88 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nbecame a subject of earnest attention, an object of attack\\nand defence. The early Christians were separated from other\\nmen. Their religion snapt asunder the ties of common inter-\\ncourse. It called them to a new life it gave them new senti-\\nments, hopes, and desires, a new character; it demanded\\nof them such a conscientious and steady performance of duty\\nas had hardly before been conceived of; it subjected them to\\nprivations and insults, to uncertainty and danger; it required\\nthem to prepare for torments and death. Every day of their\\nlives, they were strongly reminded of it, by the duties which\\nit enforced, and the sacrifices which it cost them. Their\\nexternal circumstances, and their connections with this world,\\ninstead of distracting their thoughts from it, as is the common\\ntendency of our relations to the present life, kept it constantly\\npressed upon their attention. In this state of things, it can-\\nnot be supposed that they were indifferent about the genuine-\\nness of those records on which their faith rested. They must\\nhave felt, at least as strongly as we do, the fundamental\\nimportance of the subject. But respecting the history and\\ngenuineness of those records, if what has been stated be cor-\\nrect, they could not have been ignorant if they would.\\nIn estimating the value of the testimony of the Christian\\ncommunity during the latter part of the second century, it is\\nwell to consider the intellectual and moral character of those\\nof whom it was composed.\\nOur religion, at the time to which we refer, was not so\\ncorrupted as greatly to weaken its power over the affections\\nand moral principles of those by whom it w*as held and there\\nis no doubt, that the Christians of the second and third centu-\\nries were, as a body, distinguished from the world around\\nthem by their moral superiority, and by virtues which scarcely\\nexisted beyond the limits of their community. They were\\nnot, as some have pretended, an illiterate people. They had\\namong them a full share, to say the least, of the learning and", "height": "4560", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 89\\nintellectual improvement of the age. From the middle of the\\nsecond century, they abounded in writers, many of whose\\nworks are lost but many which remain give proof of more\\nthan common learning and vigor of intellect. There is a\\ntendency to speak of the Christian fathers with a disrespect\\nwholly unmerited by those of the first ages. During the\\nlatter part of the second and the first half of the third cen-\\ntury, that is, from the time when Irenseus wrote till that of\\nOrigen s death, though the Christians were much fewer in\\nnumber than the heathens, yet the Christian writers, as a\\nbody, have far higher claims to intellectual distinction than\\nthe heathen. After the period last mentioned, as Christians\\nincreased in number, their intellectual ascendency, of course,\\nbecame more conspicuous, and, at the same time, less extraor-\\ndinary.\\nBy a community of this character, in the last quarter\\nof the second century, the Gospels were received as genuine.\\nThere was no controversy nor difference of opinion on the\\nsubject within its limits.\\nBut, in addition to what has been said, it happens that we\\nare able to produce a striking confirmation of the testimony\\nof the early Christians to the genuineness of the Gospels, by\\nascertaining, with a high degree of probability, the correct-\\nness of this testimony in regard to other books of the Chris-\\ntian Scriptures, from a distinct source of evidence. It is wtll\\nknown, that all our present books of the New Testament were\\nnot, during the first ages, received as of equal authority.\\nSome were universally acknowledged as belonging to the\\nclass of sacred books, while others were not the genuineness\\nor the value of the latter being doubted or denied by a greater\\nor less portion of the Christian community. The books uni-\\nversally received as genuine and sacred were the following,\\ntwenty in number The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles,\\nthe thirteen Epistles of St. Paul (exclusive of the Epistle to", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "90 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthe Hebrews), the first Epistle of John, and the first of Peter.\\nFor the genuineness of more than half of this number, we\\nhave evidence of a peculiar kind. It is that which is so ably\\nstated by Paley, in his Horse Paulinae, arising from the\\nundesigned coincidences which appear upon comparing to-\\ngether the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St.\\nPaul.* In respect to the Acts, and most of the Epistles of\\nSt. Paul, this species of evidence, in connection with all the\\nother proof, internal and external, which bears upon the same\\npoint, is abundantly sufficient to put the question to rest.\\nThe genuineness of three of his Epistles, it is true, those to\\nTimothy and Titus, has been attacked by some of the Ger-\\nman theologians. But, putting these aside for the present,\\nthere are ten Epistles of St. Paul, and the Acts of the\\nApostles, the genuineness of which we may consider as es-\\ntablished. Out of twenty books which the early Christians\\nhave transmitted to us as unquestionably genuine, there are\\nThis statement, so far as it respects the Acts of the Apostles, requires a\\nfew words of explanation.\\nPaley s argument goes directly to prove the genuineness of the Epistles\\nof Paul; for they assume to be his compositions. But it does not go directly\\nto prove the genuineness of the Acts of the Apostles for this book does not\\nm assume to be the work of Luke, whose name is not mentioned in it.\\nBut Paley s argument proves the truth of the history contained in this\\nbook. And the book, it appears from the frequent use in it of the first person\\nplural, was written by a companion of St. Paul.\\nSuch being the case, the book being authentic, and being written by a\\ncompanion of St. Paul, there is no supposable mistake, which might have led\\nthe early Christians to ascribe it to any other than its true author. And they\\nunanimously ascribed it to Luke. Throughout the whole of antiquity, there\\nis no suggestion of any other author, nor an intimation of doubt that Luke was\\nthe author.\\nIn confirmation of this reasoning, if it need confirmation, we find Luke\\nrepeatedly mentioned by St. Paul as his companion and friend. He calls\\nhim (Coloss. iv. 14), Luke, the beloved physician. He sends to Philemon\\n(ver. 24) a salutation from him as one of his fellow-laborers. And in his\\nlast Epistle to Timothy, written just before his martyrdom, speaking of being\\ndeserted by one and left by others, he says (iv. 11), k Luke alone is with\\nme.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 91\\neleven which are unquestionably genuine. There are eleven,\\nfor the genuineness of which we have strong proof, of a kind\\nwholly distinct from their testimony. We have a peculiar\\nmeans of testing the value of our witnesses, in regard to a\\nmost important part of their evidence and by this test their\\ncorrectness is fully established. But the greater the number\\nof books the genuineness of which is admitted, by whatever\\nmeans this be proved, the greater the presumption that the\\ntestimony of the early Christians may be relied upon or, in\\nother words, that all the books of the New Testament which\\nthey received as unquestionably genuine are in fact genuine.\\nThis proposition being granted, I think that he who will\\nexamine the subject may fully satisfy himself that the Epis-\\ntles to Timothy and Titus were written by St. Paul. I\\nthink he will find no reason to doubt, that the two catholic\\nEpistles before mentioned the first of John and the first\\nof Peter were the works of the apostles to whom they\\nare ascribed. With regard to them, there is, to say the\\nleast, nothing to detract from the credit due to the authority\\nof the early Christians. But if he should come to the con-\\nclusion, that all these books, with those before mentioned,\\nare genuine that sixteen out of the twenty received by the\\nearly Christians are genuine, he can hardly refuse to\\nadmit, that there is a very strong presumption in favor of\\nthe genuineness of the remaining four these four, the Gos-\\npels, being the most important of all.\\nWe have hitherto considered the subject as if the early\\nChristians, whose testimony has been adduced, might have\\nhad a firm belief of the truth of their religion, unconnected\\nwith a belief of the genuineness of the Gospels. There is\\nnothing in the nature of things to render this supposition\\nincredible. But it is a fact deserving particular attention,", "height": "4560", "width": "2724", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "92 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthat the one belief was, in their minds, identified with the\\nother. Their faith in Christianity was an assurance of\\nthe truth of the accounts respecting Christ recorded by the\\nfour evangelists. It was a belief, that he was such as he\\nwas represented to be by them and that he taught the\\ntruths, and inculcated the precepts, preserved in their writ-\\nings. What was to be learnt from the four Gospels was the\\nobject of a Christian s faith and no other source of instruc-\\ntion came in competition with them. They were, as Irenseus\\nexpresses it, the pillar and support of the Church. They\\nwere, in the view of the Christians of his age, the Gospel,\\ntransmitted in writing, through the appointment of God, by\\nthose who had been commissioned to preach it. To be a\\nChristian, then, was to believe what was recorded in the\\nGospels or, in other words, it was to believe the credibility\\nof these books. But these books were believed to be credi-\\nble, because they were believed to be genuine to be the\\nworks of eye-witnesses, or of those who derived their informa-\\ntion from eye-witnesses histories, all of which had apostolic\\nauthority, because they were written by apostles, or sanc-\\ntioned by apostles. Supposing any doubt to have been cast\\nupon their genuineness, the same doubt would have extended\\nto their credibility. If they did not appear till after the\\napostolic age, a false character had been ascribed to them\\nand their whole contents would, in consequence, become sus-\\npicious. Every attestation, therefore, given by a Christian\\nof his belief in his religion, was an attestation of his belief\\nin the credibility and the genuineness of the four Gospels.\\nIt was in consequence and in testimony of this belief, that he\\nlived as a Christian, and was prepared to die as a martyr.\\nBut his belief in the genuineness of the Gospels was a belief\\nof an historical fact. It did not regard a matter of opinion\\nor interpretation. At the same time, it lay at the foundation\\nSee before, p. 72.", "height": "4560", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 93\\nof his religious faith. It was the first point to be settled in\\nbecoming a believer. The conversion, the virtues, and the\\nsufferings of the early Christians, all, therefore, bear testi-\\nmony to their firm belief of this fact it was a fact respect-\\ning which they had the strongest interest in not being\\ndeceived; and such, as we have seen, was the information\\nnecessarily possessed by them, that, in the exercise of com-\\nmon good sense, they could not be in error.\\nBut even putting out of view those considerations which\\nhave been brought forward to explain the value of the testi-\\nmony of the Christian community, during the last quarter of\\nthe second century, to the genuineness of the Gospels, it may\\nbe shown, that the general reception of these books during\\nthe period in question is to be accounted for only by ad-\\nmitting their genuineness.\\nBefore attending to those considerations which may show\\nthe truth of this proposition in regard to the Gospels gener-\\nally, we will advert to some circumstances which respect only\\nthe first three. These, when compared together, present\\nphenomena, of which, if their genuineness be denied, no\\nsolution can be given, not irreconcilable with the fact of the\\nreception of all three as books of the highest authority.\\nThe phenomena referred to consist in the frequent instances\\nof verbal agreement among them, and in their correspondence\\nwith one another in the selection and narration of the same\\nevents, viewed in connection with their disagreements and\\nindividual peculiarities. The common reception of the first\\nthree Gospels, and the appearances which these writings\\npresent, must be regarded together. When thus regarded,\\nthey prove the genuineness of the books in question because,\\nupon the opposite supposition, no explanation can be given", "height": "4552", "width": "2680", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "94 EVIDENCES OP THE\\nof these appearances not inconsistent with the fact of their\\ncommon reception. This is the point to which we will now\\nattend.\\nIf it be maintained that the first three Gospels are the\\ncompositions of writers who lived after the apostolic age,\\nthen, at first view, three suppositions may present themselves\\nas affording a solution of the phenomena which have been\\nmentioned. One writer may have copied from another, or\\nfrom both of the others or each writer may have made use\\nof some written document or documents which had much in\\ncommon with those used by the other two, though in many\\nrespects dissimilar or they may all have derived thair\\naccounts from tradition, the traditions preserved by one\\nbeing partly the same with those preserved by another, and\\npartly different. We will examine in order each of these\\nsolutions.\\nI. The supposition that the author of any one of the first\\nthree Gospels copied from either of the others, has, in mod-\\nern times, been subjected to very thorough examination. It\\nhas been found exposed to great, and, as may seem, insu-\\nperable objections, which show themselves on comparing\\ntogether the contents of the first three Gospels. Some of\\nthese objections are stated in another placed But, under\\nthe conditions of the case now before us, that is, in con-\\nnection with the belief that the Gospels w r ere written after\\nthe apostolic age, the supposition is liable to peculiar objec-\\ntions, which alone it is necessary to consider at present.\\nThese objections may be shown by applying them to a\\njDarticular instance it being kept in mind that they are\\napplicable to any other which may be presented. Let us\\nsuppose, then, that the author of the Gospel ascribed to Luke\\nmade use of that ascribed to Matthew, and derived from it\\nSee Note B, pp. 463-510.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 95\\nthe large portion of matter which his history has in common\\nwith it. The question then arises, What was his purpose in\\ncomposing his own work He must have intended to give a\\nbetter, a more authentic, or a more plausible history than\\nthat ascribed to Matthew, one which might more effectu-\\nally serve the end proposed in such a work, whatever that\\nwere. It must have been his purpose to remodel the gospel\\nbefore existing to arrange its contents in suitable order and\\nto omit, correct, and add, according to his superior informa-\\ntion, skill, and judgment. The general character of both\\nhistories is strikingly the same they correspond with each\\nother in the greater part of their contents and, if the writer\\nof that ascribed to Luke took that ascribed to Matthew for\\nthe basis of his own work, all change, addition, or omission\\nmust appear to be intentional correction or improvement.\\nThe former work must have been a refashioning of the latter,\\nwith the purpose of removing its errors, and supplying its\\ndeficiencies. The object of the author of the new history,\\ntherefore, was to produce a work which ought to supersede\\nthe old. But this is inconsistent with the fact, that those who\\nreceived his Gospel as authentic received also that ascribed\\nto Matthew as of equal authority and those who reverenced\\nthat ascribed to Matthew made no hesitation in admitting that\\nascribed to Luke as also entitled to the rank of a sacred\\nbook. If the writer of the gospel ascribed to Luke intended\\nto give a better or more serviceable historv than that as-\\ncribed to Matthew, he would have been considered either as\\nhaving succeeded or as having failed. In comparison with\\nthe latter work, his own must either have been preferred or\\nrejected. If we imagine that, when he wrote, the gospel\\nafterwards ascribed to Matthew was already regarded as the\\ncomposition of that apostle, little favor would have been\\nshown to the author of a pretended revision of such a\\nwork, and his book would have obtained little currency. If,\\nat the time when he wrote, the gospel afterwards ascribed to", "height": "4560", "width": "2708", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "96 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nMatthew were regarded as having no claim to higher author-\\nity than his own might pretend to, then the two histories\\nwould have come in competition, and it cannot be supposed\\nthat both would have been received as of equal authority and\\nworth.\\nSupposing the first three Gospels to have been composed\\nafter the apostolic age, or, in other words, if their genuine-\\nness be denied, it is obvious that similar arguments may be\\nbrought to prove that the author of no one of them made\\nuse of either of the other two, in such a manner as to explain\\nthe correspondence between their writings. The use sup-\\nposed is inconsistent with the fact of the common reception\\nof all of them as sacred books of the highest authority.\\nII. We will, then, examine the next solution which has\\nbeen mentioned. It may be said, that the authors of the first\\nthree Gospels each made use of a written document or docu-\\nments and that the documents respectively used by them\\nhad much common and corresponding matter^ and much\\nverbal agreement, but that they were distinguished from one\\nanother by many individual peculiarities.\\nIn respect to this supposition, let us consider of what\\ncharacter those documents must have been. They were not\\nseparate narratives of single events, real or supposed, in the\\nlife of Christ. It cannot be believed, that, after the apostolic\\nage, the history contained in the first three Gospels was,\\nbefore their composition, circulating among Christians in\\nmany separate written fragments. Whoever was desirous\\nof obtaining one written account of an event, or supposed\\nevent, in the life of Christ, would be desirous of obtaining\\nmore. He would extend his collection, and arrange it, if he\\ndid not find a collection arranged to his hands. The coinci-\\ndence between the Gospels ascribed to Mark and Luke in the\\norder of the events which they have in common shows that\\nthe authors of these Gospels, if they followed written docu-", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 97\\nments, must have copied documents in which the events were\\nalready thus arranged. The writer of the Gospel ascribed\\nto Luke says, that many before him had undertaken to\\nprepare accounts of Christ and, whether we do or do not\\nbelieve the Gospel to be the work of Luke, there can be no\\nreason for doubting the truth of this information.\\nThe documents in question, then, must have been different\\nhistories of Christ, different gospels, in existence before our\\nfirst three Gospels. Such writings, when once in existence,\\nwould soon be widely circulated. Xow, upon the supposition\\nthat the first three Gospels were composed after the apostolic\\nao-e out of such documents, each of them was nothing more\\nthan a particular compilation of the same kind with those\\nalready existing, made by some unknown individual, who\\nhas left no trace of his history. Each of these new collec-\\ntions, likewise, was incomplete for each of the first three\\nGospels wants much that is found in the other two, and in\\nthe Gospel of John, to say nothing of what may have ex-\\nisted in any of the supposed earlier gospels. There are dis-\\ncrepancies between them, and they present very considerable\\ndifficulties when compared together. There could be no rea-\\nson, therefore, why any individual, who had possessed a more\\nancient collection, should reject that to which he had been\\naccustomed, in order to substitute these three, or one of these\\nthree, in its place. There was nothing to give these new\\ncompilations any peculiar sanctity or authority or to secure\\nthem, any more than other collections of the same kind, from\\nadditions and changes. Xo reason can be assigned why any\\none of them, and still less why all three equally, should have\\nobtained such celebrity and general reception, a character so\\nexclusively sacred, as to cause all similar compilations to dis-\\nappear. The proprietor of a different collection, if he chanced\\nto meet with one of these, might note what he found in it,\\nnot contained in his own and, if he thought the relation\\nworthy of being preserved, he might insert it in the margin\\n7", "height": "4552", "width": "2704", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "98 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof his old manuscript, or in the text of a new one. But there\\nwas no reason why he should reject what he had before re-\\ngarded as a credible narrative, because he did not find it in\\none of these compilations. Because three unknown indi-\\nviduals had made three new compilations, not differing in\\ntheir general character from such as had existed before, all\\nother manuscripts of a similar kind would not be destroyed.\\nCopies of various manuscripts would continue to be multi-\\nplied, containing, probably, new additions till at the end of\\nthe second century, instead of finding Christians agreed in\\nthe use of the four Gospels, we should have found as many\\ndifferent gospels as there had chanced to be different col-\\nlectors. Under the circumstances supposed, no authority,\\ngenerally acknowledged, could have belonged to any particu-\\nlar compilation.\\nIII. We will now attend to the third supposition men-\\ntioned, that the correspondence between the first three Gos-\\npels, supposing them to have been written after the apostolic\\nage, is to be accounted for by the circumstance, that they\\nwere all founded upon oral traditionary narratives, in great\\npart similar or the same. To this, the answer is, that an\\noral traditionary history of Christ would have varied more\\nin its form as preserved by three different writers. It would\\nhave become adulterated in different and opposite ways,\\nprobably grossly adulterated, through the various opinions,\\nconceptions, errors, and passions of the times following the\\napostolic age. A large portion of the accounts concerning\\nChrist would have been imperfectly comprehended by many,\\nprobably by most Christians and, in repeating such ac-\\ncounts, they would have conformed them to their own appre-\\nhensions, and not to the truth. No narratives are so exposed\\nto change and corruption by oral transmission, as those which\\nrelate to supernatural events, real or supposed. The forgeries\\nof an excited imagination become more and more mingled", "height": "4560", "width": "2796", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 99\\nwith the history, as it passes from mouth to mouth. Oral\\ntraditionary relations concerning the Founder of Christianity,\\npreserved by Christians after the apostolic age, must have\\nreceived a different moulding and coloring from many differ-\\nent hands. Had the first three Gospels been founded upon\\nsuch relations, they would not have been so consistent with\\neach other as they now are, in presenting the same view of\\nthe most remarkable character of Christ, of the events of his\\nlife, of his words and deeds, and of the purpose of his minis-\\ntry. They would not have had the striking resemblance to\\neach other which they now possess, in their general com-\\nplexion. Nor would there have been the remarkable cor-\\nrespondence which now exists among them in many of their\\nrelations, in which we find the same facts, conceptions, and\\nlanguage.\\nIn estimating the force of these remarks, we must attend\\nparticularly to the circumstance, that the traditionary ac-\\ncounts supposed could not have assumed a well-defined and\\nauthorized form, by being embodied into one long, oral nar-\\nrative, generally taught and received. They must have ex-\\nisted in a fluctuating and unconnected state.; for many things\\nare related differently in the first three Gospels each of\\nthem has matter, and two of them, respectively, much mat-\\nter, which is not found in either of the others and the\\narrangement of Mark and Luke differs from that of Mat-\\nthew. Let us suppose that the history and discourses of\\nSocrates had been preserved by oral tradition, a tradition,\\nhowever, not spread over the world, but confined to the city\\nof Athens and that, some half-century or more after his\\ndeath, they had been first committed to writing by three\\ndifferent individuals. The improbability that their three\\nworks would have resembled each other as much as the first\\nthree Gospels, partially expresses the improbability, that\\nthese Gospels, being written after the apostolic age, were\\nfounded upon oral tradition.", "height": "4560", "width": "2636", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "100 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThe argument which it has been my object to illustrate\\nmay be stated briefly in the following manner. There are\\nmany correspondences between any two of the first three\\nGospels, so remarkable, that, in each particular case, they\\nadmit only of one of the following explanations either one\\nwriter copied the other, or each writer followed some au-\\nthority common to both, which authority must have been\\neither written or oral. But either of these solutions, to\\nwhich we are reduced by the nature of the case, becomes\\ntoo improbable to be admitted, if we suppose those Gospels\\nto have been written after the apostolic age.^\\nIt is, then, a curious and important circumstance, that in\\nthe very structure of the first three Gospels, when compared\\ntogether, taken in connection with the fact of their common\\nreception and high and peculiar authority among Christians\\nbefore the close of the second, century, we find evidence that\\nthey must have been composed during the apostolic age.\\nUpon a contrary supposition, we have seen that no solution\\ncan be given of the remarkable phenomena presented by\\nthem, which is in itself probable, and at the same time\\nconsistent with the fact of their common reception. But, if\\nwritten in the apostolic age, they must have been handed\\ndown from that period with such a character as gave them\\nthe authority which they afterwards possessed and no rea-\\nsonable doubt can remain of their genuineness. They were\\nworks which had received the sanction of that age their\\nauthors were then, undoubtedly, known and they were un-\\ndoubtedly ascribed to their true authors.\\nWe will now regard the four Gospels in common. Their\\ngeneral reception as genuine and sacred books, during the\\nOn the manner in which the phenomena presented by the first three\\nGospels, when compared together, may be explained on the supposition of\\ntheir genuineness, see Note B, pp. 510-544.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 101\\nlast quarter of the second century, can be accounted for only\\nby admitting their genuineness.\\nXet us first view the subject in its simplest form. If the\\nGospels be not genuine, how was it possible for any one of\\nthem to obtain general reception and authority, as the work\\nof the author to whom it was ascribed This could not\\nhave taken place during the age of the apostles, while the\\nreputed author or his friends were still living. After the\\ndeath, therefore, of the reputed author, and of most of those\\nacquainted with him, we must suppose that a claim was first\\nset up for a certain book, falsely asserting it to be the work\\nof St. Matthew or St. John, or one of the other evangelists.\\nThe claim had not before been heard of. The evidence\\nwhich the case demanded to satisfy any reasonable man\\nthat is, the belief and testimony of the preceding age was\\nwanting. It must have been evident, therefore, that the\\nclaim was without foundation. An attempted fraud of this\\nkind in relation to books of such general interest, and pre-\\ntending to such high authority, could not, from its very\\nnature, have been successful. It could not have produced\\nbelief; and it would be an hypothesis against which it is\\nunnecessary to bring arguments, to suppose it to have pro-\\nduced, throughout the widely dispersed Christian community,\\na general profession of belief in what every one must have\\nknown, or at least strongly suspected, to be a falsehood.\\nPossibly, however, the suggestion may still be made, that\\nthe reception of the Gospels, as the works of those to whom\\nthey are ascribed, was produced by a general concert and\\ncombination among Christians, under the direction of those\\nof most eminence and authority. Enough has been already\\nsaid to show, that the effect in question could not have been\\nthe result of such a combination.^ But let us again con-\\nSee before, p. 24, seqq.", "height": "4532", "width": "2628", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "102 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nsider, that the supposition implies great dishonesty in the\\ndeceivers, and gross ignorance and credulity in the de-\\nceived and that no part of the Christian community will be\\nexempt from one or the other of these charges. But none\\nwould venture explicitly to maintain, that the character of\\nthe early Christians was such as to render it probable that\\none portion of them was so fraudulent as to impose upon\\ntheir brethren, for a rule of faith and practice, certain books,\\nas genuine, which they knew were not genuine and that\\nthe larger portion was so weak as to submit quietly to the\\nimposition.\\nIt is a strong subsidiary argument, if such be needed,\\nagainst the supposition of a fraudulent or arbitrary assign-\\nment of the names of the authors of the Gospels, that only\\ntwo of them are ascribed to apostles and one of these two\\nis ascribed to an apostle not distinguished, except as the\\nauthor of the work in question. If the assignment had been\\narbitrary, names of more distinction would have been chosen.\\nThe early fathers, as is well known, were solicitous to prove,\\nthat the Gospels of Mark and Luke, though not written by\\napostles, were entitled to apostolical authority, on the ground\\nthat the former only embodied those narratives which St.\\nPeter had delivered orally, and that the latter had received\\nthe sanction of St. Paul. Upon the supposition that these\\nwritings were as little the work of the supposed evangelists\\nas of the apostles, the names of the latter would have been\\ngiven them at once.\\nBut there are other considerations to which we will now\\nattend. It is to be particularly remarked, that we have not\\none only, but four books, each professing to give a history\\nof Jesus Christ. These books, though consistent with each\\nother in their representations of his most remarkable charac-\\nter though they agree in giving the same view of his doc-", "height": "4560", "width": "2800", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 103\\ntrines, and of the purpose of his ministry and though they\\nhave many facts and discourses common to two or more of\\ntheir number, yet differ much from each other in the selec-\\ntion, arrangement, and connection of events, and in their\\naccounts of some particular facts and transactions. Their\\ndiscrepancies are such as could not escape observation. In\\nthe first half of the third century, the importance of them\\nwas magnified by Origen in the language of extravagant\\nexaggeration. He adopted, and carried to its greatest length,\\nthe allegorical mode of interpreting the Scriptures and\\nthought that there was no means of saving the credit of\\nthe Gospels, but by recurring to the hidden sense of their\\nwords. In one place, after remarking upon an apparent\\ndisagreement between the first three evangelists and St.\\nJohn, he says And in regard to many other passages, if\\none carefully examine the Gospels, with a view to the dis-\\nsonances in their history, which severally we shall endeavor\\nto set forth according to our ability, he will, being wholly\\nbewildered, either refuse to acknowledge, conformably to\\ntruth, the authority of the Gospels, and, making a selection,\\nwill adhere to one alone, not willing wholly to give up the\\nfaith concerning our Lord or. receiving the four, will deter-\\nmine that the truth is not in their literal meaning.\\nNqw, if we admit that the Gospels were written by the\\nauthors to whom they are ascribed, the general reception of\\nall four as of equal authority, notwithstanding these dis-\\ncrepancies, is at once accounted for. But, supposing them\\nnot to be genuine, no probable explanation can be given of\\nthis fact. Allowing that each of the four Gospels might, in\\nsome way or other, have obtained a certain degree of credit,\\nyet one would have been used by one portion of Christians,\\nand another by another, according as the place of its com-\\nposition, or some other particular circumstance, favored its\\nComment, in Joan., torn. x. 2 Opp. iv. 163.", "height": "4504", "width": "2656", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "104 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nreception. There would have been as many different parties\\namong Christians as there were different Gospels each party\\nmaintaining the superior authority of its own Gospel. Be-\\nside these, there would probably have been another large\\nparty, which would not have admitted the authority, or at\\nleast the genuineness, of any one of our present Gospels.\\nThey who had received, and had been accustomed to use, a\\nparticular Gospel, would look with suspicion upon another,\\nwhich was presented as its rival. However credulously they\\nhad admitted the claims of their own history, they would\\nexamine with jealousy those of a new work. This would\\nespecially be the case, if the latter appeared in any respects,\\nthough but of little importance, to be inconsistent with, or\\ncontradictory to, the former. But obvious discrepancies ex-\\nist among the Gospels, the importance of which would be\\nmagnified by those who, having been accustomed to use and\\nreverence one of these books, were urged to receive another\\nas its companion, and to regard it as of equal credit. These\\ndiscrepancies, apparent or real, must therefore have greatly\\naggravated the difficulty of introducing any other Gospel\\namong those by whom one of the Gospels had been already\\nreceived.\\nLet us, for instance, suppose the Gospel ascribed to Luke\\nto have been presented for the first time to Christians who\\nhad been accustomed to use only that ascribed to Matthew.\\nUpon first opening the former, they would have been shocked\\nat finding a genealogy of Christ quite different from that\\nwith which they were familiar. They would next have\\nmissed, in its place, the Sermon on the Mount and, having\\nfound a portion of it elsewhere, they would have regarded\\nit as inaccurately reported, when they perceived, that, with\\nmuch verbal similarity, different thoughts were in fact ex-\\npressed. They would have been offended by an arrangement\\nof events, throughout the narrative, irreconcilable with that\\nin their own Gospel. They would have discovered, that", "height": "4524", "width": "2832", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 105\\neven a different name, Levi, was given to the supposed\\nauthor of that Gospel, in the account of his being called by\\nChrist to be an apostle. Upon further examination, many\\nother discrepancies, real or apparent, that is, many other\\nreasons for rejecting this new history, would have presented\\nthemselves and, so far from its being admitted to the same\\nrank with that which they had before used, it would have\\nbeen thrown aside with strong dislike. Beside the prejudice\\nagainst it which would thus necessarily exist, we must\\nrecollect that all well-founded claims to genuineness and\\ncredit are excluded by the supposition we are considering.\\nThere is therefore no other account to be given of the com-\\nmon reception of these two Gospels, together w T ith the re-\\nmaining two, as all of equal authority, except this, that they\\nhad been handed down from the apostolic age as the works\\nof the persons to whom they were ascribed, and had always\\nbeen regarded as of equal authority.\\nTo recur for a moment to the notion of a concerted plan\\nto select our present Gospels, ascribe them to certain au-\\nthors, and bring them into common use, it may be observed,\\nthat the more intelligent Christians before the end of the\\nsecond century would not have concerted a plan to bring four\\nGospels into use, which the most able and learned of their\\nimmediate successors, Origen, thought exposed to such seri-\\nous objections, when compared with each other.\\nWith the argument just stated, a consideration is connected\\nwhich deserves particular attention. It is, that, if the genu-\\nineness of any one of the four Gospels be proved, a very\\nstrong presumption immediately arises in favor of the genu-\\nineness of the remaining three. If the four Gospels were\\nnot handed down from the apostolic age, and received in\\ncommon by succeeding Christians, then, at some period after\\nthat age, their respective claims to authority must have come\\nin competition. But, if any one of them were genuine, the", "height": "4560", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "106 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nauthority of this had been acknowledged since the times of\\nthe apostles. Now, we cannot suppose that Christians, ac-\\ncustomed to use a gospel which they believed, or, rather,\\nwhich, from the nature of the case, they knew to be genuine,\\nwould receive a spurious history of Christ as of equal au-\\nthority. All their prejudices would have been in favor of\\nthe book to which they were accustomed. This, then, being\\ngenuine, and the other spurious, the evidence for the former\\nbeing decisive, and the pretended evidence in favor of the\\nlatter false, there could be little probability that the new\\nwork would be classed with that already received, as a sacred\\nbook of the highest value. No probable motive, nor mistake,\\ncan be imagined, which might lead to so extraordinary a\\nresult.\\nThis is taking the most obvious view of the subject. But\\nwhen we further consider the discrepancies among the Gos-\\npels, and reflect that the new history must have appeared, in\\nsome respects, inconsistent with, and contradictory to, that\\ngenuine Gospel, the authority of which was already estab-\\nlished, we perceive how incredible it is that the former would\\nhave been placed on a level with the latter. Without doubt,\\nit would have been rejected. Common policy alone, if it\\nwere necessary to recur to such a consideration, would have\\nprevented Christians from giving the same authority to a\\nspurious as to a genuine book, if discrepancies existed be-\\ntween them as these discrepancies would expose the whole\\nhistory to the cavils and objections of unbelievers.\\nIt appears, therefore, that, if any one of the Gospels be\\ngenuine, this circumstance alone goes far to prove that all\\nare genuine. If the evidence for either of the Gospels had\\nbeen much weaker than that for the other three, its discrep-\\nancies from them, if there had been no other cause, would\\nhave decided its rejection. The fact that we have four\\nGospels, which, with all their essential agreement, differ so\\nmuch from each other, is a very important means of proving", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 107\\nthe genuineness of all and of any one of them. That these\\ndiscrepancies should serve to confirm our faith in all that is\\nessential or important in the narrative contained in the Gos-\\npels, has been often observed. They show that the writers\\nhad each independent means of information. Such discrep-\\nancies naturally, and almost necessarily, exist among all\\noriginal histories of the same events.\\nTVe will pass to another consideration, showing that the\\nGospels must have been transmitted as genuine from the\\napostolic age.\\nThev are evidently the works of Jewish authors.* But\\nTo this statement may be objected the opinion, \u00e2\u0096\u00a0which, has obtained some\\ncurrency, that Luke was a Gentile by birth. But this opinion is countenanced\\nby only a very slight show of evidence.\\nThe main argument for it is derived from the concluding verses of the\\nEpistle to the Colossians, where St. Paul, after sending salutations from some\\nwhom he designates as of the circumcision (chap. iv. 11), afterwards sends\\nsalutations from others, whom it is supposed that he meant to distinguish from\\nthose first mentioned by him. as not being of the circumcision. Among them\\nis Luke; and hence it has been inferred that Luke was by birth a Gentile.\\nBut those who favor this opinion admit that he was a proselyte to the\\nJewish religion before becoming a Christian; and Lardner has shown, that\\nthere were not, as has been represented, two classes of proselytes among the\\nJews, one circumcised, and the other uncircumcised. (Works, ed. 4to, 1815,\\nvol. iii. p. 395, seqq. vol. v. p. 496. seqq. Compare Wetstein s note, X. T.,\\nvol. i. pp. 483-^485, See also Justin Martyr s Dial, cum Tryph., pp. 399-401,\\ned. Thirlb., or p. 215. ed. Maran.) All proselytes were circumcised. If Luke,\\ntherefore, had been a proselyte, it could not have been the purpose of the\\napostle to distinguish him as not being of the circumcision and the argu-\\nment therefore falls to the ground.\\nBut the question whether Luke were a Jew or Gentile by birth is wholly\\nunimportant, not merely in regard to the reasoning in the text, but in regard\\nto the correct use of language in calling him a Jewish writer. Pro-elytes,\\nas we learn from Dion Cassius (quoted by Wetstein, ubi sup were commonly\\ncalled Jews; they being Jews by religion, and having become incorporated\\nwith the Jewish nation. St. Luke (not, however, as I conceive, on the ground\\nof his being a proselyte, but because he was a Jew by birth) ranks himself", "height": "4560", "width": "2636", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "108 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthe Gospels descend to us through the Gentile branch of\\nChristians. Now, as has been already observed/* the Jewish\\nand Gentile Christians, from the first admission of the latter\\ninto the Church, had a strong tendency to separate, and form\\ndistinct societies. Hardly held together by the authority of\\nthe apostles, they seem to have started asunder as soon as the\\npower of the apostles was removed. Yery soon, the Gentile\\nChristians far outnumbered the Jewish and the two parties\\nseem to have regarded each other with somewhat the same\\nfeelings as had belonged to Jews and Gentiles before the\\nintroduction of Christianity. Before the close of the second\\ncentury, we find the Jewish Christians, with perhaps some\\nindividual exceptions, regarded as heretics, under the name\\nof Ebionites. There is therefore a great improbability,\\nthat, at any period after the apostolic age, Gentile Christians\\nwould have received from Jewish Christians four spurious\\nhistories of Christ, purporting to have been written by\\napostles and companions of apostles, and would have deferred\\nwith such credulity to their testimony as to ascribe to these\\nworks the character of sacred books.\\nThe improbability of this supposition is increased by the\\nfact, that the four Greek Gospels the works in question\\nwere not in common use among Jewish Christians. They\\nmade use only of a Hebrew Gospel, which, there seems to\\nbe no reason to doubt, was, as they first received it, the\\nHebrew original of Matthew s Gospel though this, in pro-\\ncess of time, became corrupted in their hands. Their early\\nreception of the Hebrew original may have countenanced the\\nuse of the Greek translation of Matthew but, in regard to\\nthe other three Gospels, the Gentile Christians could not\\nwith Jews in the commencement of his Gospel, speaking of the events ac-\\ncomplished among us. Whatever question may have been raised respecting\\nthe parentage of Luke, there can be no doubt that the author of the Gospel\\nascribed to him was a Jew by birth or by adoption, a Jewish writer.\\nSee before, p. 51.", "height": "4556", "width": "2808", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 109\\nhave received them upon the authority and recommendation\\nof the Jewish Christians, by whom they were not used.\\nBut there is another circumstance to be considered. The\\nGospels are evidently the work, not merely of Jewish\\nauthors, but of unlearned Jewish authors; men unskilled in\\nthe use of language generally, and of the Greek lanonia^e\\nin particular. These writings can make no pretension to\\nany merely literary merit. Their Hebraistic style and\\nidioms, with the peculiar senses given to words, must\\nhave obscured their meaning, and made them appear bar-\\nbarous to those whose native language was the Greek.\\nOrigen informs us, that the style of the Scriptures was\\nregarded by the Greeks as poor and contemptible. Lit-\\nerary men, says Lactantius, a when they give their attention\\nto the religion of God, unless they receive their fundamental\\ninstruction from some able teacher, do not become believers\\nfor, being accustomed to pleasing and polished discourses and\\npoems, they despise as sordid the simple and common lan-\\nguage of the divine writings. f If, therefore, the Gospels\\nhad not been genuine, their style and idiom alone would have\\nformed no small obstacle to their reception.\\nLet us now put these circumstances together, and. advert-\\ning merely to the particular view of the subject just taken,\\nconsider what is necessarily embraced in the supposition, that\\nthe Gospels, being spurious, obtained general authority after\\nthe apostolic age. According to this supposition, while the\\nJewish and Gentile Christians were regarding each other\\nwith but very little favor, four spurious works, the produc-\\ntion of illiterate Jewish writers whose names are wholly\\nunknown, the style of which must have been repulsive to\\nGreeks, and three of which were not in common use among\\nJewish Christians, and therefore not recommended by their\\nComment, in Joan., torn. iv. 2; Opp. iv. 93.\\nf Institut. vi. 21.", "height": "4560", "width": "2604", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "110 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nauthority, whatever weight that might have had, all, in a\\nbody, obtained the highest credit as sacred books throughout\\nthe widely dispersed community of Gentile Christians.\\nIt is acknowledged, that the four Gospels were received\\nwith the greatest respect, as genuine and sacred books, by\\ncatholic Christians that is, by the great body of Christians\\nat the end of the second century. But, earlier than this\\ntime, it has been pretended that we find no trace of their\\nexistence and hence it has been inferred, that, before this\\ntime, they were not in common use, and were but little\\nknown, even if extant in their present state.* I shall here-\\nafter produce notices of their existence at a much earlier\\nperiod. But waiving, for the present, this consideration, the\\nreasoning appears not a little extraordinary. About the end\\nof the second century, the Gospels were reverenced as sacred\\nbooks by a community dispersed over the world, composed\\nof men of different nations and languages, There were, to\\nsay the least, sixty thousand copies of them in existence f\\nthey were read in the churches of Christians they were\\ncontinually quoted, and appealed to, as of the highest author-\\nity their reputation was as well established among believers,\\nfrom one end of the Roman empire to the other, as it is at\\nthe present day among Christians in any country. But it is\\nasserted, that, before that period, we find no trace of their\\nexistence and it is therefore inferred, that they were not in\\ncommon use, and but little known, even if extant in their\\npresent form. This reasoning is of the same kind as if one\\nwere to say that the first mention of Egyptian Thebes is in\\nthe poems of Homer. He, indeed, describes it as a city\\nwhich poured a hundred armies from its hundred gates but\\nSee before, p. 7. f See before, p. 32.", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. Ill\\nhis is the first mention of it. and therefore we have no rea-\\nson to suppose, that, before his time, it was a place of any\\nconsiderable note. The general reception of the Gospels as\\nbooks of the highest authority, at the end of the second\\ncentury, necessarily implies their celebrity at a much earlier\\nperiod, and the long-continued operation of causes sufficient\\nto produce so remarkable a phenomenon.\\nThis phenomenon, it may appear from what has been said,\\ncould not have been the result of any combination, nor of\\nfraud, nor accident. Those by whom the Gospels were\\nreceived as books of the highest value were men superior,\\ngenerally, in moral and intellectual qualities, to their con-\\ntemporaries. If they were deceived, it was at their peril\\nthey enjoyed such means of knowledge concerning the his-\\ntory of the Gospels as might, and we may truly say must,\\nhave removed all doubt whether they were genuine or not\\nand, in their words and by their lives, they unequivocally\\naffirmed them to be genuine. The first three Gospels, when\\ncompared together, present appearances which, viewed in\\nconnection with the fact of their general reception, admit of\\nno explanation that does not suppose their genuineness. But\\nfurther from the nature of the case, the Gospels must have\\nmade their way to general reception by their intrinsic worth\\nand authority. Four histories of Christ, the work of\\nunlearned Jewish authors, written in a style which must have\\nappeared barbarous to native Greeks, and regarded by those\\nwho held them in the highest respect as presenting discrep-\\nancies with each other, which, in the literal sense of their\\nwords, were irreconcilable, obtained equal reception through-\\nout the Christian community, from beyond the Euphrates,\\nthrough Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, and Italy, to the western\\ncoasts of Spain and Africa. They were received as sacred\\nbooks by portions of this community, who probably had\\nnever heard of each other s existence. Wherever the reli-\\ngion had spread, they had spread with it. The faith of", "height": "4540", "width": "2752", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "112 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nChristians rested on the belief of their authenticity. Of\\nthese facts, no other account can be given, than that those\\nwritings were derived from the same sources as the religion\\nitself, and had been handed down with it from the aj)ostolic\\nage, as its authentic records. But, if this be so, no reasonable\\nquestion can be raised respecting their genuineness. It\\ncould not be established by any proof more decisive and\\nunsuspicious than what has just been stated for it appears\\nas a necessary inference from notorious and indisputable\\nfacts.\\nSuch is the conclusion concerning the genuineness of the\\nGospels to be drawn from the fact of their reception as\\ngenuine throughout the community of catholic Christians in\\nthe last quarter of the second century. But all reasoning\\non historical subjects, however decisive it may seem, admits\\nof confirmation and we are not satisfied till whatever diffi-\\nculties have been opposed to it are removed. We will\\ntherefore proceed to examine whether the conclusion to\\nwhich we have arrived is confirmed or weakened by evidence\\nfrom a still earlier period. We will first attend to the evi-\\ndence of Justin Martyr. It has been maintained, as we have\\nbefore seen, that he did not quote the Gospels but con-\\nsistently with the conclusion to which we have arrived, and\\nin confirmation of it, I trust it may be clearly shown, that he\\ndid quote the same Gospels to which we now appeal, and\\nthat he, and the Christians contemporary with him, held\\nthem in as high respect as the Christians* who immediately\\nsucceeded him, or as do Christians at the present day.\\nSee before, p. 4.", "height": "4548", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER II.\\nEVIDENCE TO BE DERIVED FROVC THE WRITINGS OF\\nJUSTIN MARTYR.\\nIn ascending toward the apostolic age, after the fathers who\\nhave been mentioned in the last chapter, we come to Justin\\nMartyr, who flourished about the year 150. He was of Gen-\\ntile extraction, born in Flavia Xeapolis, a city of Samaria, in\\nthe latter part of the first or in the beginning of the second\\ncentury. He studied the different systems of heathen phi-\\nlosophy under several masters. He preferred the Platonic,\\nuntil he became acquainted with Christianity, which he then\\nembraced as the only certain and useful philosophy. He\\nappears to have spent much of his life in travelling and,\\naccording to Eusebius, chose Rome for his residence, where,\\nas there seems no reason to doubt, he suffered martyrdom.\\n1 As early as the year 150, he addressed a Defence of Chris-\\ntianity to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in connection with\\nMarcus Antoninus and Lucius Verus, and the Roman senate\\nand people. Afterwards, he wrote another work in explana-\\ntion and defence of Christianity, in the form of a dialogue\\nwith an unbelieving Jew, called Trypho. It is doubtful\\nwhether the form given to it be wholly fictitious, or whether\\nthe work were occasioned by a conference which actuary\\ntook place. Not long before his death, he published a second\\nI Defence of Christianity. His two defences are commonly\\ncalled Apologies, the name being used in the sense of the\\n8", "height": "4528", "width": "2752", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "114 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nGreek word from which it is derived; namely, defence, 5\\nvindication.\\nBeside those that have been mentioned, Justin composec\\nwritings which are lost. There are three other short work\\nextant, of which he was perhaps the author/* But they are\\nall addressed to Gentile unbelievers, and contain no reference\\nto any book giving a history of Christ. This is true, like-\\nwise, of his second Apology, which is short. It was occa-\\nsioned by a particular act of persecution at Rome, in whicl\\nthree Christians were put to death. Our attention, therefore, u\\nconfined to the first Apology, and the Dialogue with Trypho\\nFrom these works of Justin might be extracted a brief\\naccount of the life and doctrines of Christ, corresponding\\nwith that contained in the Gospels, and corresponding tc\\nsuch a degree, both in matter and words, that almost every\\nquotation and reference may be readily assigned to its proper\\nplace in one or other of the Gospels. There was conse-\\nquently, till within a short period, no doubt entertained that\\nthe Gospels were quoted by Justin. The facts just men-\\ntioned do not fully establish this proposition but they afford\\na strong presumption of its truth. To the supposition, how-\\never, that Justin quoted the Gospels, objections have been\\nmade, which, as far as they are important, may be reduced to\\nthe three following heads\\nI. He nowhere designates any one of the Gospels by the\\ntitle of it afterwards in use, or names the evangelists as\\nthe authors whom he quotes. His quotations are taken from\\nwhat he calls Memoirs by the Apostles for so we may\\ntranslate the title which he gives to the work or works to\\nwhich he appeals.f\\nAd Grsecos Oratio, Ad Grsecos Cohortatio, De Monarchia.\\nf Tu ArrofLvrj/iovEVfiaTa tcjv Atcogtg?mv.", "height": "4508", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 115\\nII. There is a great want of verbal coincidence between his\\nquotations, and the corresponding passages in the Gospels.\\nIII. He has passages apparently or professedly taken\\nfrom the written history of Christ used by him, which are\\nnot found in the Gospels\\nThe facts stated in the first two objections admit of suffi-\\ncient explanation, by attending to the character of Justin s\\nwritings, and the circumstances under which they were com-\\nposed. His quotations are found, as has been said, in his\\nfirst and longer Apology, and in his Dialogue with Trypho.\\nIn the former work, he gives an account of Christ and his\\nministry, of the doctrines and precepts of his religion, and\\nof the character of his followers. He is, throughout, ad-\\ndressing heathens.\\nWe will first, then, consider the manner in which he has\\ndescribed the Gospels (as we believe) in this Apology.f He\\nquotes much from them without any express reference or\\ndescription, which, however, he has given three times, in the\\nfollowing words\\n1. u And the messenger then sent to that virgin announced\\nto her the glad news, saying, Behold, thou shalt conceive\\nthrough the Holy Spirit, and bring forth a son, and he shall\\nbe the son of the Most High and thou shalt call his name\\nThese objections are stated in a dissertation by F. A. S troth, published\\nin the first volume of Eichhorn s Repertorium, and eutitied, Entdeckte Frag-\\nmente des Evangeliums nach den Hebraern in Justin deni Marty rer i.e.,\\nFragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, discovered in Justin\\nMartyr. Eichhorn s Einleitung in d. jST. T., i. 78-106. Bishop Marsh s\\nLetters to the anonymous Author of Remarks on Michaelis and his Com-\\nmentator, pp. 28-32 and his Illustration of his Hypothesis respecting the\\nOrigin and Composition of our three first Gospels, Appendix, pp. 22-79.\\nf The order of the Apologies in the older editions being inverted, the first\\nwritten is often cited as the second; as it is by Eichhorn. This fact, if not\\nexplained, might produce some confusion. I call that the first Apology which\\nwas first written, and which is placed first in the later editions and follow,\\nin quoting, the pages of Thirl by s edition.", "height": "4544", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "116 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nJesus for he shall deliver his people from their sins as those\\nwho have written memoirs concerning every thing relating to\\nour Saviour, Jesus Christ, have taught, whom we believe.\\n2. In giving an account of the Last Supper of our Lord,\\nhe says, The apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them,\\nivhich are called Gospels, have thus informed us, f c.\\n3. He says, On the day which is called the day of the\\nSun [Sunday], we all, whether dwelling in cities or in the\\ncountry, assemble together when the Memoirs by the Apos-\\ntles, or the writings of the Prophets, are read, as long as\\ntime permits. He then describes the rest of the service,\\nwhich consisted in an exhortation, prayer, the celebration of\\nthe Lord s Su] per, and a contribution for the poor.\\nWe believe that the books of which Justin thus speaks\\nwere the Gospels and it does not appear how, in addressing\\na heathen emperor and heathen readers, he could have de-\\nscribed them more clearly than he has done, or afforded more\\nsatisfactory proof that they were the works to which he\\nappealed. How early the term rendered Gospel came\\nto be applied to a history of Christ, is uncertain. We have\\nno evidence that it was so long before the time of Justin.\\nIn this application, the word was so removed from its original\\nsense, that the meaning put upon it would not have been un-\\nderstood, without explanation, by a native Greek, acquainted\\nonly with its common use in his language. If it was per-\\nceived to be the title of a book, it would still convey to him\\nno proper and distinct notion of the contents of that book.\\nThis, therefore, was not a title to be used without explana-\\ntion by Justin, in addressing a Roman emperor. Nor would\\nthere have been more propriety in his giving the names of\\nthe authors of the respective Gospels. Of Matthew, Mark,\\nLuke, and John, neither the emperor, nor the generality of\\nthose heathens who might read his Apology, had probably\\np. 54. f p. 96. P- 97", "height": "4540", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 117\\never heard. The names of four unknown individuals would\\nhave carried with them no historical authority. Considering\\nthe state of things at the time when Justin wrote, there would\\nhave been something incongruous, and almost ludicrous, in\\nquoting by name The Gospel according to Matthew, or\\nThe Gospel according to Luke, in an address to the\\nRoman emperor and senate. The object of Justin, in appeal-\\ning to any history of Christ was, to show, that his own state-\\nments rested on authority acknowledged by those in whose\\nname he spoke. It was necessary, therefore, for him to de-\\nscribe those books in words which would be understood, and\\nwhich would show, at the same time, how they were esteemed\\nby Christians. This is what he has done. He calls them\\nMemoirs by the Apostles. The description was of the kind\\nwhich his purpose required, and was sufficiently correct for,\\nthough only two of the Gospels were written by apostles, the\\nother two, according to the universal sentiment of antiquity,\\nwere considered as carrying with them apostolic authority\\nbeing sanctioned by apostles, and containing only narratives\\nderived from them. We shall presently perceive, that, on\\nanother occasion, he expressed himself with perfect accuracy.\\nIn his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin defends and maintains\\nChristianity against the objections of the unbelieving Jews.\\nLike his Apologies, therefore, tlfis work was intended to be\\nread by unbelievers, and by unbelievers who, as appears from\\na passage to be hereafter quoted, might never have heard the\\nnames of the evangelists. In speaking of the Gospels, Justin,\\naccordingly, pursues the same course as in his Apology. But,\\nin this Dialogue, we find the following passage In those\\nMemoirs says Justin, which I affirm to have been com-\\nposed by apostles of Christ and their companions, it is writ-\\nten, that sweat, like drops of blood, flowed from him while\\nhe was praying.\\np. 361.", "height": "4544", "width": "2752", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "118 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThat companions of the apostles are here named by Justin\\nserves especially to prove, that he referred to the Gospels,\\nwhen viewed in connection with the fact, that the passage\\nwhich he immediately quotes is found only in the Gospel of\\nLuke, who was a companion of the apostles. In another\\nplace, a little after, Justin speaks of our Saviour s changing\\nthe name of Peter, as it is written in his Memoirs and\\nlikewise of his giving to James and John the name of Boa-\\nnerges.f By Ms Memoirs, according to Justin s constant use\\nof language, we must understand Memoirs of which Peter\\nmay be regarded as the author.} But it was the opinion of\\nthe ancients, that Mark s Gospel was essentially the narra-\\ntive of Peter, and thus entitled to apostolic authority. The\\nmention of the surname given to James and John is to be\\nfound in no other Gospel.\\nThe explanation which has been given of the fact, that\\nJustin does not mention the evangelists by name, is con-\\nfirmed by a passage before referred to,\u00c2\u00a7 as proving that those\\nfor whom he intended his work might never have heard the\\nnames of the evangelists. He believed that the Apocalypse\\nwas written by St. John and in defending the doctrine of a\\nmillennium, after quoting passages from the Old Testament,\\nhe appeals to that work in the following terms And a\\nman of our own number, by name John, one of the apostles\\nof Christ, in the revelation which was made by him, has\\nprophesied that the believers in our Christ shall spend a\\np. 365. f Comp. Mark iii. 17.\\nAs 9 ATroorofajv elsewhere, when governed by ^ATTOfivyfiovsv/nara. denotes\\nthe authors, and not the subjects, of these Memoirs; so, in this passage, the\\ngenitive avrcv must refer to him who was regarded, in a certain sense, as\\nthe author of the work in question, namely, Peter, and not to the subject\\nof the work, Christ. Justin nowhere uses the expression, AnofiviifiovevfLaTa\\nXpLCTOV.\\nOn the preceding page.", "height": "4548", "width": "2736", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 119\\nthousand years in Jerusalem and that after this will be, to\\nsj3eak briefly, the general and eternal resurrection and judg-\\nment of all men together. With the exception of St. Paul,\\nthere was probably no one of the early disciples whose name\\nwas more likely to be known to unbelievers than that of St.\\nJohn yet we see in what manner he is here mentioned. It is\\neasy to perceive how little advantage or propriety there would\\nhave been in Justin s quoting the evangelists by name, when\\naddressing those to whom their names were unknown. Nor\\nwas there any cause why, with the purpose which he had in\\nview, either in his Apology or his Dialogue with Trypho. he\\nshould be careful to distinguish between what he took from\\none evangelist, and what from another. He regarded all as\\nof equal authority. There was therefore no reason why he\\nshould specify the different evangelists by name in quoting\\ntheir Gospels. There was not even a suitable occasion for\\nhim to do so.\\nII. We come, then, to the second objection, the want of\\nverbal coincidence between the quotations of Justin and the\\ncorresponding passages in the Gospels.\\nIn order to understand the precise force of this objection,\\nit should be premised, that, in the quotations in question, the\\nlanguage answers in great part to that of the evangelists\\nbut that the cases are comparatively rare in which a series\\nof words of any considerable length runs strictly parallel\\nwith the corresponding passage in the Gospels. There is\\ncommonly a change, addition, or omission of one or more\\nwords, or an alteration in the construction or arrangement.\\nEespecting the objection, as thus explained, it may first be\\nremarked, that it proceeds on a false assumption concerning\\nthe degree of accuracy generally to be found in the quota-\\ntions of the fathers, in cases where no particular circum-\\np. 315.", "height": "4540", "width": "2736", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "120 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nstance operated to produce it. Strict verbal coincidence\\nbetween their citations from Scripture, and the text of the\\nNew Testament or of the Septuagint, from which they\\nquoted, is not to be confidently expected, except under con-\\nditions which do not apply to Justin s citations from the\\nGospels. The fathers may be presumed to have quoted\\nverbally in their commentaries because they may be sup-\\nposed to have written with the volume, on which they were\\ncommenting, open before them. There is a presumption,\\nlikewise, that they were often accurate in their controversial\\nwritings as it is obviously proper, when a doctrine is to be\\nproved or disproved by the Scriptures, to produce the pas-\\nsages appealed to in the very words of the original. They\\nsometimes give proof of quoting verbally by remarking on\\nthe various readings of a passage. One father, likewise,\\nfrom habits of critical study of the Scriptures, is frequently\\ncorrect, while another is more inaccurate. Origen, for ex-\\nample, quotes generally with closer adherence to the text,\\nthan Clement of Alexandria, of whom it has been remarked,\\nthat he not unfrequently cites from memory, and gives\\nrather the sense than the words of the sacred writers.\\nBut, in many of the works of the fathers, there is a want of\\nverbal coincidence similar to that found in Justin s quotations\\nfrom the Gospels. The other fathers, like Justin, quoted\\nfrom memory carelessly, substituting one synonymous word\\nor clause fqr another, transposing the order of words and\\nthoughts, omitting parts of a passage, paraphrasing, inserting\\ntheir own explanations, expressing the meaning in their own\\nlanguage, and blending together passages which stand remote\\nfrom each other in the Scriptures.\\nAccuracy of quotation seems to have been less regarded\\nby ancient writers, in general, than by modern a circum-\\nstance probably arising from the greater difficulty in pro-\\nGriesbach. Symbol. Crit., torn. ii. p. 235.", "height": "4532", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 121\\ncuring and in consulting books. It has been remarked, for\\ninstance, that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his rhetorical\\nworks, often quotes the same passage differently; and that,\\nparticularly, he has long citations from Isocrates repeated,\\nsometimes more than once, with variations. We may men-\\ntion, as another example, the well-known fact of the want\\nof exactness in the quotations from the Old Testament,\\ncontained in the Gospels and Epistles. In ancient times,\\nthe unrolling of a volume to find a particular passage must\\nhave taken more time, and given more trouble, than the\\nopening of a book in modern days.\\nBut, besides the false assumption respecting the general\\naccuracy of the fathers in their quotations, the objection we\\nare considering rests for support upon an express assertion\\nrespecting Justin in particular. It has been said, that Justin\\nis extremely accurate as to the words of his quotations. f\\nIf Justin had been extremely accurate in his quotations from\\nother books, there might be a reasonable doubt whether the\\nMemoirs by the Apostles were the four Gospels, on\\naccount of the want of verbal agreement between his quota-\\ntions and the text of the Gospels. But with the special\\nexception to be hereafter mentioned, which does not affect\\nthe present argument, the assertion is strangely erroneous.\\nJustin s frequent want of accuracy in his quotations has been\\nremarked in strong language by the commentators on his\\nwritings 4 There is a great want of verbal coincidence in\\nmany of his quotations from the Septuagint. He alters and\\ntransposes the language he brings together detached pas-\\nsages from the same or from different books, giving them in\\nconnection, as if they followed each other in the original.\\nVid. Matthad Nov. Test. Grsece, torn. i. p. 690, n. 13.\\nt Marsh s Letters, p. 31, note. Comp. Appendix to Illustration, p. 32,\\nSee Tkirlby s edition, pp. 75, 92, 166, ISO.", "height": "4548", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "122 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nIt is not uncommon for him to commit the error of ascribing\\nto one prophet the words of another and he has even,\\napparently through indistinct recollection and the confound-\\ning of different things together, quoted the Pentateuch, once\\nexpressly and once by implication, for facts not to be found\\nin it. I have noticed in his Apologies and Dialogue seven\\nquotations from Plato. There is one of them, consisting\\nonly of four words in the original, which would be verbally\\naccurate if Justin had not inserted a particle. None of the\\nothers is so. In three, he gives what he conceived to be\\nthe sense, without regard to the words, of Plato and, in the\\nonly other of any considerable length, there is much discrep-\\nance of language. He quotes likewise from Xenophon the\\nstory of the choice of Hercules, giving this also in his own\\nwords.\\nIt is true, that many of Justin s quotations from the Sep-\\ntuagint, in the Dialogue with Trypho, correspond closely\\nto the text of the original. But their difference in this\\nrespect from his other quotations in his first Apology and in\\nthe Dialogue is easily explained. Many of those referred to\\nare of such length, as, at first view, to render it improbable\\nthat he trusted to his memory, as on other occasions. In\\nciting a whole Psalm, or a long passage from one of the\\nprophets, he is verbally correct, or nearly so, because, as it\\nmay be presumed, he recurred to the volume, and transcribed\\nit. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he is reasoning in contro-\\nversy with a Jew from passages of the Old Testament and\\nthis circumstance would lead him to pay particular attention\\nto accuracy in citing it. It is to be observed also, that, for\\nhis quotations from the Septuagint, he had an invariable\\narchetype while, on the contrary, the same facts or dis-\\ncourses were often recorded in different terms in each of the\\nfirst three Gospels. This diversity would tend to prevent a\\ndistinct and accurate impression of any particular form of\\nwords from being left on the memory; and would, at the", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS, 123\\nsame time, seem to prove it unimportant to adhere closely to\\nthe language of any one of the evangelists.\\nIt seemed proper to enter into the preceding explana-\\ntions, in order to show the sources of the erroneous reasoning\\nrespecting the quotations of Justin. But the fact, that he\\ndid not cite the work or works, which he entitles Memoirs,\\nwith verbal accuracy, admits of decisive proof. In at least\\nseventeen instances, he has repeated the same quotation.\\nNow, if he had cited with verbal accuracy, every quotation,\\nwhen repeated, must have agreed with itself. But this is not\\nthe fact. Passing over what may be considered as trifling\\nvariations, we find, that in more than half of them, as re-\\npeated, there is a striking want of correspondence, either in\\nthe words themselves, or in their connection with other\\nwords quoted. Nothing can be said which will tend either\\nto illustrate or to set aside the inference from this fact. The\\nconclusion, that Justin did not quote the Memoirs used\\nby him with verbal accuracy, is irresistible and it is truly\\nan extraordinary phenomenon, that an hypothesis should\\nhave been built upon the opposite supposition.\\nIt would have been strange, if Justin, in composing such\\nworks as he did, had regarded verbal accuracy in quoting\\nthe Gospels. He wrote for unbelieving Gentiles and Jews,\\nmen ignorant of what Christianity really was. It was his\\npurpose to give a general view of its history and character.\\nIn pursuing this purpose, while using the Gospels as his\\nmain authority, he intermixes with his statements quotations\\nfrom them, sometimes partly in the words of the original,\\nand partly in his own. He blends together passages taken\\nfrom different places in the same Gospel, or from different\\nevangelists. He. quotes the Gospels from memory, as, with\\nthe exceptions before mentioned, he does the Septuagint.\\nIn thus quoting the Septuagint, he has committed remarkable", "height": "4548", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "124 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmistakes but he might well feel assured, that, in reporting\\nthe teachings or the history of our Lord, his memory would\\nnot so fail as to cause him to give a false representation of\\nthem. It would have been, not a degree of accuracy that\\nwe might reckon upon, but it would have been superstitious\\nprecision, if, in addressing a Roman emperor or unbelieving\\nJews, he had thought it necessary to transcribe the exact\\nwords of any one of the Gospels in the exact order in which\\nthey stand, especially while he found the same facts and\\nthe same sayings presented by different evangelists in differ-\\nent words. In works of such a character as those of Justin,\\ncomposed at so early a period in the history of Christianity,\\nhis mode of quotation was such as might reasonably be\\nexpected.\\nIn not mentioning the Gospels by the titles in use among\\nChristians, and in not appealing to the evangelists by name,\\nJustin pursued a course similar to that which was adopted by\\na long series of Christian Apologists from his time to that of\\nCons tan tine. In other words, it was the course pursued\\nby the fathers generally in their works addressed to unbe-\\nlievers, by Justin s disciple, Tatian, who, though he formed\\na history of Christ out of the four Gospels, does not make\\nmention of them, nor of the evangelists, in his Oration to\\nthe Gentiles by Athenagoras, who is equally silent about\\nthem in his Apology, addressed, in the last quarter of the\\nsecond century, to Marcus Aurelius by Theophilus, who\\nconforms to the common usage of the writers with whom he\\nis to be classed, except that, as before mentioned,^ he once\\nspeaks of the Gospels, and uses once the name Gospel,\\nand once the term Evangelic Voice, in citing the Gos-\\npels, and once quotes the evangelist John by name by Ter-\\ntullian, who quotes the Gospels elsewhere so. abundantly, but\\nSee before, pp. 74, 75.", "height": "4548", "width": "2796", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 125\\nfrom whose Apology, or from whose work To the Nations,\\nno information (supposing those works to stand alone) could\\nbe gleaned concerning them by Minutius Felix, whose\\nsingle remaining book a spirited and interesting defence of\\nChristianity and attack on heathenism, in the form of a\\ndialogue affords, likewise, no evidence that the Gospels\\nwere in existence by Cyprian, the well-known bishop of\\nCarthage about the middle of the third century, who in his\\ndefence of Christianity, addressed to Demetrian, a heathen,\\ndoes not name the Gospels nor the evangelists and, to come\\ndown to the beginning of the fourth century, by Arnobius,\\nwho, in his long work Against the Gentiles, does not cite\\nany book of Scripture and by Lactantius, who, in his\\nDivine Institutes, does not speak of the Gospels, nor\\nquote by name any one of the evangelists, except John, and\\nmentions him only in a single passage.*\\nCyprian, in his work addressed to Demetrian, has quota-\\ntions from Scripture, and, among them, three from the Gos-\\npels, though the Gospels are not expressly named by him.\\nOn this, Lactantius remarks, that Cyprian has not treated\\nthe subject as he ought for Demetrian was not to be\\nconfuted by authorities from that Scripture which he re-\\ngarded as false and fabricated, but by arguments and rea-\\nson. f\\nSuch, as we have seen, was the course generally adopted\\nby the fathers, in their works addressed to unbelievers.\\nBut, among all who have been mentioned, Justin is remark-\\nably distinguished by the abundance of his quotations from\\nthe Gospels, and by the explicitness with which he has\\ndescribed their character.\\nIII. We proceed to the last objection. It is, that Justin\\nhas passages, apparently or professedly taken from the his-\\nInstitut., lib. iv. 8. f Ibid., lib. v. 4.", "height": "4552", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "126 EVIDENCES OP THE\\ntory or histories of Christ used by him, which are not found\\nin the Gospels.\\nIn respect to these passages, it is first to be observed, that\\nwith only one exception,^ which presents no considerable\\ndifficulty, they are not professedly taken by Justin from the\\nMemoirs used by him, or from any other book. That they\\nare not found in the Gospels can therefore afford no proof\\nthat Justin did not elsewhere quote the Gospels. It must\\nbe remembered, that he lived near the times of the apostles\\nand that there would be nothing strange in his having learnt,\\nby oral tradition, or from some writing or writings then\\nextant, but since lost, a few facts respecting our Saviour, not\\nrecorded by the evangelists. From either source, accord-\\ningly, we may suppose him to have derived one or two\\ncircumstances which he mentions. In other passages, he\\nhas probably done nothing more than express, in different\\nterms, his conception of the meaning of the evangelists\\nsometimes dilating it a little, and blending with it his own\\ninferences. The following are the only passages of sufficient\\ncuriosity or importance to require particular remark.\\n1. Justin says, that the Jews who witnessed the miracles\\nperformed by Jesus said that they were a magical delu-\\nsion and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of\\nthe people. f\\nJustin has here only stated, in different language, facts\\nrecorded by the evangelists, who relate that the enemies of\\nChrist said, that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, and that\\nhe deceived the people. Lactantius expresses himself in the\\nsame manner as Justin. He performed wonderful things/\\nsays that writer we might have thought him a magician,-\\nas you now think him, and as the Jews then thought him,\\nif all the prophets, inspired by the same spirit, had not pre-\\nSee No. 4, following. f Dial, cum Tryph., p. 288.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 127\\ndieted that the Messiah would perform those very things.\\nIt was a common pretence of the enemies of Christianity,\\nthat our Lord performed his miracles by magic.\\n2. Justin says, that Christ, being regarded as a worker\\nin wood, did make, while among men, ploughs and yokes\\nthus setting before them symbols of righteousness, and teach-\\ning an active life. f\\nIt may be doubted, whether Justin was acquainted with\\nany narrative to this effect. In the Gospel of Mark, the\\nNazarenes, according to the Common Version, are repre-\\nsented as asking concerning Jesus, Is not this the carpen-\\nter t The word rendered carpenter, Justin, it appears,\\nunderstood as denoting a worker in wood, which is not\\nimprobably its meaning in this passage. He may therefore\\nhave mentioned the particular implements which he does,\\nbecause he regarded their fabrication as part of the proper\\nbusiness of a worker in wood.\\n3. Justin says, that when Christ was born at Bethlehem,\\nas Joseph could find no room in any inn in that village, he\\nlodged in a certain cave, near the village; and, while they\\nwere there, Mary brought forth the Messiah, and laid him in\\na stall.\\nThere was a prevailing tradition, that our Lord was born\\nin a cave, which is found in many of the fathers besides Jus-\\ntin. At the present clay, in the East, caves, it is said, are\\nsometimes used for stables. Origen states, that, conforma-\\nbly to the account in the Gospel-history of the birth of\\nChrist, there is shown the cave in Bethlehem, in which he\\nwas born and, in the cave, the stall where lie was swathed\\nand the place which is shown is famous in that neighbor-\\nInstitut., lib. v. 3. f Dial, cum Tryph., p. 333.\\nMark vi. 3. Dial, cum Tryph., p. 306. Comp. Luke ii. 7.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "128 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nhood, even among those who are aliens from the faith, on\\nthe ground that in this cave was born that Jesus whom\\nChristians revere and venerate. The alleged cave of the\\nNativity is still shown at Bethlehem.\\n4. Justin twice f gives the words, Thou art my Son, this\\nday have I begotten thee, as those uttered at our Saviour s\\nbaptism and, in one place, says expressly that the words\\nwere found in the Memoirs by the Apostles.\\nThe words alleged by Justin are not in the Gospels but\\nthey are given, as uttered at the baptism of our Saviour, by\\nseveral other ancient writers, whose acquaintance with, and\\nconstant use of, the Gospels is well known. They are found\\nin Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Hilary, Lactantius,\\nand Juvencus. Augustin states that these words were the\\nreading of some manuscripts, though not, it was said, of\\nthe most ancient Greek copies, upon Luke iii. 22 and they\\nare still found there in the Cambridge manuscript, and in\\nseveral Latin manuscripts\\nThis, then, is nothing more than an error common to Jus-\\ntin, with many others. It seems to have had its origin in a\\nconfusion of memory the words in question being applied to\\nour Saviour repeatedly in the New Testament.\u00c2\u00a7\\n5. The next passage, likewise, relates to the baptism of our\\nSaviour. Justin says, When Jesus came to the river Jor-\\ndan, where John was baptizing, upon his entering the water,\\na fire was kindled in the Jordan and the apostles of this\\nsame person, our Messiah, have written, that, when he came\\nout of the water, the Holy Spirit, like a dove, alighted upon\\nhim.\\nCont Cels., lib. i. 51; Opp. i. 367.\\nf Dial, cum Tryph., p. 333 et p. 361.\\nSee Thirlby s note, p. 333 and Griesbach s Nov. Test., Luke iii. 22.\\nActs xiii. 33. Heb. i. 5; v. 5. Dial, cum Tryph., p. 331.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 129\\nJustin says, that, as Jesus entered the water, a fire was\\nkindled in the Jordan. Of this story, beside the mention of\\nit by him, traces are elsewhere extant.* His mention of it\\nis incidental. In what precedes the passage quoted, he is\\nexplaining at length what he supposes to be meant by the\\nSpirit of God resting upon Jesus. In relation to this sub-\\nject, he quotes the account of the descent of the Holy Spirit\\nupon Jesus at his baptism, and alleges for this feet the testi-\\nmony of the apostles. But he does not bring into his argu-\\nment the appearance of fire in the Jordan nor, according to\\nthe grammatical construction of his words, does he say that\\nthis appearance was related by the apostles.\\nBut it has been contended, that his whole account of the\\nbaptism of our Lord is so closely connected, that he must be\\nunderstood as giving for the whole the authority of the apos-\\ntles, and therefore that he quoted the whole from his Me-\\nmoirs by the Apostles. This seems to be forcing a construction\\non his words, for the sake of creating a difficulty or an argu-\\nment. But, should it be admitted that Justin is to be thus\\nunderstood, we might conclude, either that the story of the\\nfire in the Jordan had been interpolated in the copy of\\nthe Gospels which he used, as a similar story has been\\ninterpolated in two manuscripts, now extant, of old Latin\\nversions f or, what may seem more probable, that Justin,\\nwho often wrote carelessly, adduced the authority of the\\napostles for the whole of his account, while in fact it applied\\nonly to the essential part of it, and not to the circumstance\\nwhich he had incidentally mentioned. As I have before\\nobserved, he twice refers to the Pentateuch for supposed\\nfacts not to be found in it.\\n6. The following is the only remaining passage: Accord-\\ni\\nSee Thirlby s note, p. 331; and Maran s note, p. 185 of his edition of\\nJustin. Abo Grabe s Spicilegium, i. 69.\\nf See Griesbach s N. T., Matt. iii. 15.\\n9", "height": "4560", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "130 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ningly, Justin remarks, our Lord Jesus Christ said, In what-\\never actions I apprehend you, by those I will judge you.\\nThese words are found, with some variety of form, in many\\nancient Christian writers but Justin is the only one who\\nappears to ascribe them to Christ.f His error, for I doubt\\nnot it is an error, may have arisen from a failure of memory\\nsimilar to that through which he has elsewhere ascribed to\\none prophet the words of another or, perhaps, he may have\\nbeen acquainted with some tradition or writing which as-\\ncribed the saying in question to our Saviour.\\nThere are a few sayings attributed to Jesus in the writings\\nof the fathers, which are not recorded in the Gospels. Thus,\\nfor example, Irenseus quotes,! without distrust, from Papias\\na pretended discourse of our Lord relating to the millennium,\\nresembling the extravagant fables of the Jewish rabbis found\\nin the Talmud. He is represented as predicting, that there\\nwould be at that time an enormous increase in the size and\\nproductiveness of plants, particularly of the vine and of wheat,\\nand as describing the clusters of grapes as about to be indued\\nwith a human voice. The story deserves particular attention,\\nas serving to show what sort of materials might have gone to\\nthe composition of the Gospels, if their composition had been\\ndelayed till the times of Irenseus and Justin Martyr.\\nOrigen speaks of the precept of Jesus, Be good money-\\nchangers that is, learn to distinguish well between what is\\ntrue and what is false, as skilful money-changers distinguish\\nreadily good money from bad. There is no intrinsic improba-\\nbility that these words were uttered by Jesus. Origen often\\nquotes or alludes to them. So also does Clement of Alex-\\nandria, who cites them as words of Scripture and they are\\nDial, cum Tryph., p. 232.\\nf Fabricii Cod. Apdc. N. T., torn. i. p. 333 ed. 2da.\\nCont. Haeres., lib. v. c. 23, 3, 4, p. 333.\\nComment, in Joan., torn. xix. 2; Opp. iv. 289, where see Huet s note.\\nStromat., lib. i. 28, p. 425. See Potter s note.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 131\\nfound in many othe r ancient writers, though the greater num-\\nber do not expressly refer them to Christ.*\\nClement represents our Lord as saving, Ask great things,\\nand what are small shall be given you in addition. f Origen\\nquotes these words without expressly ascribing them to Christ,\\nbut appearing to give them as his, and adds the following\\nAsk heavenly things, and what are earthly shall be given\\nyou in addition t and, in another place, he states that Jesus\\nsaid, For the sake of the weak, I was weak for the sake of\\nthe hungry, I hungered and, for the sake of the thirsty, I\\nthirsted.\\nTTe know how familiarly acquainted Irenaeus, Clement, and\\nOrigen were with the GosjDels, and in what high respect they\\nheld them. The fact, therefore, that Justin quotes a supposed\\nsaying of our Lord not found in the Gospels, or that he men-\\ntions some unimportant incidents not recorded in them, affords\\nno proof that he was not equally well acquainted with the\\nGospels, and did not hold them in like respect.\\nThe examination of the passages from Justin, which we\\nhave gone over, is of much more interest than may appear\\nat first sight. He carries us back to the age which followed\\nthat of the apostles. His writings have been searched for\\nthe purpose of finding some notices of Christ, or some inti-\\nmations relating to him, different from the accounts of the\\nevangelists. But nothing that can be regarded as of any\\nimportance has been discovered. On the contrary, he gives\\na great part of the history of Christ in perfect harmony with\\nwhat is found in the Gospels, sometimes agreeing in words,\\nand always in meaning. It is remarkable, that, in so early a\\nwriter as Justin, there is so little matter additional to what is\\nFabricii Cod. Apoc. X. T., torn. i. pp. 330, 331.\\nf Stromat., lib. i. 24, p. 416. Corap. lib. iv. 6, p. 579.\\nDe Orat., 2 et 14; Opp. i. 197 et 219.\\nComment, in Matt., torn. xiii. 2; Opp. iii. 573.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "132 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncontained in the Gospels so little which one can suppose to\\nbe derived from any other source. That we find what we do,\\npresents no marvel nor difficulty. The phenomenon to be\\naccounted for is, that we find no more and of this phenome-\\nnon the only satisfactory explanation is, that the Gospels had\\ncome down from the apostolic age with such a weight of\\nauthority, there was such an entire reliance on their credi-\\nbility, that it was generally felt to be unwise and unsafe to\\nblend any uncertain accounts with the history contained in\\nthem. Such accounts, therefore, were neglected and for-\\ngotten. The Gospels extinguished all feebler lights.\\nIn what precedes, we have examined the objections to the\\nconclusion that Justin quoted the Gospels. We will now\\nattend to the arguments in proof of this fact.\\nI. In other cases, where we find such an agreement of\\nthoughts and words as exists between the passages quoted\\nby Justin and passages of the Gospels, particularly of Mat-\\nthew and Luke, no doubt is entertained that the volume thus\\nfurnishing a counterpart to certain citations was the work\\ncited.^ The presumption arising from this agreement is to\\nbe overborne only by the strongest objections, founded on\\nsome striking peculiarity in the case. Nothing, however, has\\nbeen opposed to it but the conjecture, that there may have\\nbeen some work extant in the time of Justin, as nearly allied\\nin character to the first three Gospels as any one of these is\\nto either of the others and that Justin quoted this work, and\\nnot the Gospels.\\nBut, in regard to any book which Justin may be conjectured\\nThe coincidence is particularly striking in several citations from the\\nOld Testament, common to St Matthew and Justin, in which the latter writer\\nappears to have followed, wholly or in part, the Greek Gospel of the former;\\nthough the passages, as they stand in that Gospel, agree neither with the\\nSeptuagint nor the Hebrew.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 133\\ntohaveqnoted.it must answer to the following conditions:\\nIt must have been one which he and other Christians believed,\\nor professed to believe. written by apostles and companions\\nof apostles M it must have been of the highest authority\\namong Christians. a sacred book, read in their churches\\nit must have been the work to be appealed to as containing\\nthose facts, doctrines, and precepts on which they formed\\ntheir lives and it must, immediately after he wrote, have\\nfallen into entire neglect and oblivion for no mention of it,\\nor allusion to it. as quoted by him. is discoverable in any\\nwriter who succeeded him. But it is impossible to believe\\nall these propositions to be true of any book.\\nThe supposition of some one book, different from the Gos-\\npels, has been resorted to by those who have maintained that\\nJustin did not quote the Gospels though they have not\\nagreed among themselves in their conjectures as to what this\\nbook might be. But this supposition is irreconcilable with\\nthe language of Justin, which implies that he quoted a num-\\nber of books, as I shall remark more particularly hereafter.\\nShould it. in consequence, be maintained that he used a num-\\nber of books different from the Gospels, the objections just\\nurged would apply with even greater force, if possible, to\\nthis supposition than to that of a single book. Xo plausible\\nhypothesis, therefore, can be framed to detract from the evi-\\ndence afforded by the correspondence of Justin s quotations\\nwith the contents of the Gospels.\\nThese quotations principally correspond to passages in the\\nGospels of Matthew and Luke. But if Justin, and the Chris-\\ntians contemporary with him. received those Gospels as works\\nof the highest authority, we may confidently infer that they\\nreceived the other two Gospels as bearing the same character.\\nHad they not done so. it is impossible that the Gospels of\\nMark and John should have been so regarded by their younger\\ncontemporaries, the Christians of the time of Irenanis. We\\nhave before attended to the considerations which show, that", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "134 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nsuch an event could not have occurred that if the authority\\nof two, or of one, of the Gospels were established in the Chris-\\ntian community, this would present a decisive obstacle to the\\nreception of any other, which had not always been regarded\\nas having like authority\\nIn respect to the use made by Justin of the Gospels of\\nMark and John, it may be observed, that Mark records but\\nfew discourses of our Saviour, and has very little which is\\nnot common to him with Matthew or Luke, except some\\nadditional circumstances in the relation of particular facts,\\nnot of a character to be noticed in giving a general view of\\nthe history and doctrines of Christianity. His language,\\nlikewise, when different, being commonly inferior to that of\\nMatthew and Luke, Justin would naturally prefer their ex-\\npressions. But, as we have seen,f he has mentioned two\\nfacts recorded only by Mark, and that with an almost explicit\\nreference to his particular Gospel.\\nFrom John s Gospel, Justin derived his doctrine of the\\nincarnation of the Logos in Christ, a doctrine which must\\nhave been founded on the first verses of that Gospel. The\\nconception of the Logos, indeed, was familiar before the time\\nwhen either Justin or St. John wrote but the doctrine of the\\nincarnation of the Logos in Christ must have rested wholly\\non the passage referred to. Accordingly, Justin speaks in\\nlanguage similar to that of St. John, of the Logos having\\nbeen made flesh. He has likewise other conceptions and\\nturns of expression apparently derived from John s Gospel.\\nHe represents John the Baptist as having said, I am not\\nthe Christ. He justifies Christians for not keeping the\\nJewish sabbath, because God has carried on the same ad-\\nministration of the universe during that day as during all\\nSee before, pp. 102-107. f See before, p. 118.\\nX Apolog. Prim., p. 52. John i. 14.\\nDial, cum Tryph., p. 332. John i. 20 iii. 28.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. loo\\nothers a thought so remarkable, that there can be little\\ndoubt, that he borrowed it from what was said by our Saviour,\\nwhen the Jews were enraged at his having performed a\\nmiracle on the sabbath My Father has been working\\nhitherto, as I am working. f And, in the last place, he\\nstates, that Christ said, Unless ye be born again, ye can-\\nnot enter the kingdom of heaven adding, with allusion to\\nthe words of Xicodemus, that it is evidently impossible for\\nthose once born to enter into their mother s womb/ t\\nII. That Justin made use of the Gospels, appears from the\\nfact that there is no intimation to the contrary in the whole\\nnumerous succession of subsequent Christian fathers. Y\\\\e\\nhave the evidence of Eusebius in the fourth century, and of\\nPhotius in the ninth, that his works were well known, and\\nheld in high esteem. They are referred to with respect by\\nseveral of the principal fathers. But his quotations excited\\nno attention, as presenting any unexpected appearance, or as\\na matter of any difficulty or curiosity. If he had quoted\\nhistories of Christ different from the Gospels, it is incredible\\nthat the fact should have escaped the knowledge of all ancient\\nwriters after his time or that, being known, it should not\\nhave been adverted to.\\nIE[. The description given by Justin of the books which\\nhe used shows that those books were the Gospels. He\\nappeals to several books. He speaks, not of one, but of\\nseveral authors. Those, he says, who have written me-\\nmoirs concerning every thing relating to our Saviour Jesus\\nChrist, whom we believe Memoirs, which I affirm to\\nbe composed by the apostles of Christ, and their com-\\npanions Memoirs composed by the apostles, which, are\\nDial, cum Tiyph., pp. 194, 195. John v. 17.\\nX Apolog. Prim., p. 89. John iii. 3, 4.", "height": "4552", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "136 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncalled Gospels. These passages, taken in connection, ap-\\npear, without any other evidence, to be decisive of the point\\nin question. It is hardly to be contended, that books extant\\nin the time of Justin, which were called Gospels, and which\\nwere written, or were supposed to be written, by apostles of\\nChrist and their companions, could be any other than our\\npresent Gospels.f\\nIY. The manner in which Justin speaks 1of the character\\nand authority of the books to which he appeals, of their\\nreception among Christians, and of the use which was made\\nof them, proves these books to have been the Gospels. They\\ncarried with them the authority of the apostles. They\\nwere those writings from which he and other Christians\\nderived their knowledge of the history and doctrines of\\nChrist. They were relied upon by him as primary and\\ndecisive evidence in his explanations of the character of\\nChristianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They\\nwere read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord s day,\\nSee before, pp. 204, 207.\\nt It deserves remark, that Justin, besides saying that the books he used\\nwere called Gospels, twice speaks of the Gospel in the singular, using the\\narticle.\\nHe represents Tiypho as saving (p. 156), I know also that your precepts\\nin what is called the Gospel are so wonderful and weighty, as to cause a sus-\\npicion that no one may be able to observe them; for I have taken the pains\\nto read them.\\nIn the other passage referred to, he quotes (p. 352) Matt. xi. 27, as being\\nwritten in the Gospel.\\nIn both passages, the force of the article in Greek is the same a^ in Eng-\\nlish. By the Gospel must be meant some particular, well-known book.\\nBut it is not to be imagined, that, in the time of Justin, any history of Christ,\\nnot one of the four Gospels, was thus pre-eminently distinguished above them\\nby the title of the Gospel, or that any one of the four Gospels was so dis-\\ntinguished from the other three. No conclusion remains, but that Justin used\\nthe term the Gospel in a sense familiar to the fathers who succeeded him,\\nas denoting the four Gospels collectively, and consequently the volume in\\nwhich they were brought together.", "height": "4552", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 137\\nin connection with the prophets of the Old Testament. Let\\nus now consider the manner in which the Gospels were\\nregarded by the contemporaries of Justin. Irenaeus was in\\nthe vigor of life before Justin s death and the same was\\ntrue of very many thousands of Christians living when\\nIren 0211s wrote. But he tells us, that the four Gospels are\\nthe four pillars of the Church, the foundation of Christian\\nfaith, written by those who had first orally preached the\\nGospel, by two apostles and two companions of apostles.*\\nIt is incredible that Irenaeus and Justin should have spoken\\nof different books. We cannot suppose, that writings, such\\nas the Memoirs of which Justin speaks, believed to be the\\nworks of apostles and companions of the apostles, read in\\nChristian churches, and received as sacred books of the\\nhighest authority, should, immediately after he wrote, have\\nfallen into neglect and oblivion, and been superseded by\\nanother set of books. The strong sentiment of their value\\ncould not so silently, and so unaccountably, have changed\\ninto entire disregard, and have been transferred to other\\nwritings. The copies of them spread over the world could\\nnot so suddenly and so mysteriously have disappeared, that\\nno subsequent trace of their existence should be clearly dis-\\ncoverable. When, therefore, we find Irenaeus, the contem-\\nporary of Justin, ascribing to the four Gospels the same\\ncharacter, the same authority, and the same authors, as are\\nascribed by Justin to the Memoirs quoted by him, which\\nwere called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that\\nthe Memoirs of Justin were the Gospels of Irenaeus.\\nTTe shall next consider a portion of the evidence for the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels, to be gathered from a still earlier\\nperiod.\\nSee before, p. 72, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER III.\\nEVIDENCE OF PAPIAS. ST. LUKE S OWN TESTIMONY TO\\nTHE GENUINENESS OF HIS GOSPEL.\\nBetween the death of St. John and the time when Justin\\nwrote, an interval, probably, of about fifty years, there\\nwere very few Christian writers of whose works any remains\\nare extant. It was a period of distress and confusion. Our\\nreligion, left upon the death of that apostle without any\\npowerful and distinguished advocate, was struggling for\\nestablishment against the opposition and persecution of the\\nworld. A great revolution was taking place in the minds\\nof those who had been acted upon by the preaching of the\\napostles. Their opinions, like their circumstances, were\\nunsettled. The separation or the union, which was after-\\nwards effected, between ancient errors and the new doctrines\\nof our faith, was as yet undecided. Our religion had not\\nassumed among its professed followers a well-defined charac-\\nter and its sublime truths were not so fully comprehended\\nas when men had become more familiar with the conception\\nof them. It had not yet secured possession of the minds\\nand hearts of many converts well qualified by their literary\\neminence to explain and defend it. These causes will\\naccount for the few remains of writers from among the\\ncatholic Christians during this period and for the absence\\nof any historical notice of the Gospels, wdiich has come\\ndown to our times, except that of Papias.", "height": "4580", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 139\\nPapias I have already had occasion to mention.^ He lived,\\nit may be recollected, during the first quarter of the second\\ncentury and was acquainted, as he informs us, with many of\\nthe disciples of the apostles. He wrote a work, now lost, but\\nof which some fragments are preserved by Eusebius. In this\\nwork, as quoted by Eusebius, Papias mentions the Gospels\\nof Matthew and Mark. He says that he received much\\ninformation from John the Presbyter; and gives the follow-\\ning account, as derived from him\\nThe Presbyter said, that Mark, being the interpreter of\\nPeter, carefully wrote down all that he retained in memory\\nof the actions or discourses of Christ not, however, in order,\\nfor he was not himself a hearer or follower of the Lord but\\nafterwards was, as I said, a companion of Peter, who taught in\\nthe manner best suited to the instruction of his hearers, without\\nmaking a connected narrative of his discourses concerning the\\nLord. Such being the case, Mark committed no errors in thus\\nwriting some things from memory for he made it his sole object\\nnot to omit any thing which he had heard, and not to state any\\nthing falsely. f\\nOf Matthew, Papias says, Matthew wrote the oracles in\\nthe Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he\\nwas able. t\\nIt appears from these passages, that the Gospels of Mat-\\nthew and Mark were well known before the time of Papias,\\nthat they were attributed to those writers, and, being regarded\\nas authentic, were venerated as oracles.\\nIn the commencement of the Acts of the Apostles, we\\nhave Luke s own testimony to the genuineness of his Gospel.\\nThe historical proof that the first-mentioned work was writ-\\nten by him is confirmed by other evidence, so satisfactory as\\nSee before, pp. 36, 37. f Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 39.\\nX Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 39.", "height": "4556", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "140 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nto leave no reasonable doubt on the subject.* We have,\\nthen, Luke s own testimony that he was the author of a\\nhistory of Christ. But as no one will adopt so absurd\\na supposition as that the history which he wrote has been\\nlost, and another substituted in its place, the work of which\\nhe speaks must be our present Gospel.\\nBut Luke s testimony not only establishes the genuine-\\nness of his Gospel it has a further bearing. There is a\\nstriking resemblance between his Gospel and those of Mat-\\nthew and Mark. There are, likewise, many striking points\\nof resemblance between the character and situation of the\\nformer writer and the two latter. They had similar oppor-\\ntunities for information respecting all the common objects of\\nknowledge the influences of our faith had produced in them\\nsimilar feelings and conceptions they were all placed in\\ncircumstances the most extraordinary, and peculiar to a few\\nindividuals they all belonged to the small class of the first\\nmissionaries of our religion. One of them is supposed to\\nhave been an eye-witness of many of the facts, and a hearer\\nof many of the discourses, which he records and the other\\ntwo are believed to have derived their information from\\nthose who, like him, were companions of our Lord. When,\\ntherefore, we find that a work of a very remarkable charac-\\nter was written by Luke, and that two other works distin-\\nguished by the same characteristics are ascribed to Matthew\\nand Mark, there arises a strong presumption that they have\\nbeen ascribed to their true authors. No objection can be\\nbrought against the genuineness of the two latter histories,\\nstronger than those which may be adduced against the genu-\\nineness of the former. In one case, we find that these\\nobjections are unfounded we have therefore good reason to\\nbelieve that they are equally unfounded in the other.\\nSee before, pp. 89-91.", "height": "4556", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 141\\nHere, likewise, we would recur to the considerations before\\npresented,^ which show that the proof of the genuineness\\nof any one of the Gospels involves the proof of the genuine-\\nness of all. The argument that has been brought forward,\\nwhen reduced to its simplest form, is nothing more than an\\nobvious truth, which may be thus stated: Supposing any\\nbody of men to possess an account of events esteemed by\\nthem of the greatest interest to themselves and to the world,\\nto know that this account was the work of an author whom\\nthey hold in the highest respect, to believe him to have had\\nthe most satisfactory means of information, and to regard his\\nwork, therefore, as entitled to the fullest credit, and, still\\nmore, to a sacred character and supposing them, further, to\\nbe placed in circumstances, which alone, even without any\\ncareful scrutiny on their part, almost exclude the possibility\\nof deception, these men will not receive, as likewise en-\\ntitled to the fullest credit and to a sacred character, another\\naccount, a fraudulent work, falsely ascribed to some vener-\\nated name, falsely pretending to an authority to which it has\\nno claim, and, at the same time, in more or fewer respects,\\nirreconcilable with that which has been received as the truth.\\nThe Gospel of Luke, then, came down from the apostolic\\nage as his work, with his own attestation to its genuineness.\\nThis being so, the other three Gospels could not have ob-\\ntained reception as sacred books, in common with it, if they\\nhad not been the works of the authors to whom they were\\nascribed.\\nConfining our view merely to the evidence presented in\\nthis chapter, we may regard the result of it under still\\nanother aspect. Luke testifies to the genuineness of his\\nown Gospel; Papias, to that of the Gospels of Matthew and\\nMark: it follows that the authority of all three was estab-\\nSee before, pp. 102-107.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "142 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nlished in the time of Papias. Now, this was a period but\\njust after the death of St. John, when thousands were living\\nwho had seen that last survivor of the apostles, many per-\\nhaps who had made a pilgrimage to Ephesus to behold his\\ncountenance and listen to his voice, and hundreds who be-\\nlonged to the church over which he had presided in person.\\nIt is incredible, therefore, that, before the time of Papias, a\\nspurious gospel should have been received as his work and\\nafter the time of Papias, when the authority of the hrst three\\nGospels was established, the attempt to introduce a gospel\\nfalsely ascribed to St. John must have been, if possible, still\\nmore impracticable.\\nHere, then, we finish the statement of the direct historical\\nevidence for the genuineness of the Gospels, from their re-\\nception by the great body of Christians.^ We will hereafter\\nconsider what may be inferred from the use made of them by\\nthe earlier heretical sects.\\nIt has been customary, in treating the subject before us, to allege the\\nsupposed testimony of certain writings ascribed to contemporaries of the apos-\\ntles, and called Writings of Apostolical Fathers. But nothing has, in my\\nopinion, contributed more to give a false and unfavorable impression of the\\nreal nature and strength of the evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels.\\nOn this subject, see Note C, pp. 545-569.", "height": "4580", "width": "2864", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER IV.\\nCONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVI-\\nDENCE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nSuch, as we have seen, is the direct historical evidence of\\nthe genuineness of the Gospels. The confirmation it receives\\nfrom the manner in which they were regarded by the earlier\\nheretical sects is still to be considered and likewise all that\\nproof to be derived from the Gospels themselves, which\\nmakes it evident, that they could have been written only by\\nindividuals bearing the character, and placed in the circum-\\nstances, of those to whom they are ascribed. For the present,\\nwe confine our attention to the direct historical evidence\\nalone.\\nIn regard to this, the nature of the case is such, that no\\nevidence of the same character, or of the same weight, can\\nbe produced for the genuineness of any other ancient work,\\nwhich was not. like them, received as an undisputed book of\\nthe Christian Scriptures. It is the testimony of a great,\\nwidely spread, and intelligent community to a fact about\\nwhich they had full means of information, and in which they\\nhad the deepest interest. It is their testimony to the genu-\\nineness of books, the reception of which as authentic would\\nchange the whole complexion of their lives and might, not\\nimprobably, put at hazard life itself, or all that they had\\nbefore considered as rendering life desirable. It is the testi-", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "144 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmony of Gentiles to their belief of the genuineness and truth\\nof books derived from Jews, books regarded with strong\\ndislike by a great majority of that nation three of which\\nwere not in common use among those few Jews who, like\\nthem, were disciples of Christ; and all of which were so\\nstamped throughout with a Jewish character, as to be likely,\\nat first view, strongly to offend their prejudices and tastes.\\nBut the peculiar nature and value of this testimony may\\nbe laid out of consideration. The fact alone, that the four\\nGospels were all received as genuine books, entitled to the\\nhighest credit, by the whole community of catholic Christians\\ndispersed throughout the world, admits of no explanation,\\nexcept that they had always been so regarded. We have\\nbegun by reasoning from their reception during the last\\nquarter of the second century and their reception at that\\ntime affords, as we have seen, decisive proof of the estimation\\nin which they must have been held during the whole pre-\\nceding interval from their first appearance. But, though we\\nmay entitle this proof decisive, yet, like all other probable\\nreasoning, it admits of confirmation and we have seen the\\nconfirmation afforded by the evidence of Justin Martyr, who\\ngives direct proof, that the authorit}^ of the Gospels was\\nestablished among Christians before the middle of the second\\ncentury. I say, before the middle of the second century\\nfor, though this was the precise time when he wrote his first\\nApology, yet his testimony must be considered as relating to\\na state of things with which he had been previously con-\\nversant. We have next remarked the express and particular\\ntestimony of Papias to the genuineness of two of the Gospels,\\nand to the estimation in which they were held by Christians.\\nThen, tracing the stream of evidence back to its very source,\\nwe have seen Luke s own attestation to the genuineness of\\nhis Gospel. And in connection with this, and with the\\ntestimony of Papias, we have attended to the fact, that the", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 145\\nacknowledged genuineness of any one of the Gospels must\\nhave presented an insuperable barrier to the reception of any\\nspurious gospel as a work of like authority. The testimony\\nto the genuineness of any. one of the Gospels is virtually a\\ntestimony to the genuineness of all and the testimony to\\ntheir genuineness is a testimony to their reception by all\\ncatholic Christians wherever they had become known.\\nBut, in regard to our present argument, it is unimportant\\nwhat period an objector may fix upon for the general recep-\\ntion of the Gospels as genuine. The later the period as-\\nsigned for this event, the more obviously incredible does it\\nbecome that it should have taken place, on the supposition\\nthat the Gospels were not received from the beginning in the\\ncharacter which they afterwards bore. The Ipnger the Chris-\\ntian community had existed without a knowledge of the\\nGospels, or without a belief in their genuineness, the more\\ndifficult must it have been to produce this belief, and to\\ncause them to be recognized as books of the highest value\\nand authority. Let us suppose that they were not so\\nregarded till the last quarter of the second century. Their\\ngeneral recognition at that period becomes a most remarka-\\nble phenomenon. Some very effective cause or causes must\\nbe assigned for it, sufficient to explain how four spurious\\nbooks, not before known, or known only to be rejected,\\nshould suddenly have obtained universal acceptance through-\\nout the Christian world, as containing the truths fundamental\\nto a Christian s belief. Xo trace of any causes capable of\\nproducing this result can be discovered or imagined. In the\\nnature of things, it is impossible that such causes should\\nhave existed. The Christians of that age professed to re-\\nceive the Gospels as genuine and authentic, on the ground\\nthat they had always been so regarded. The truth of this\\nfact is the only explanation which can be given of the uni-\\nversal respect in which they were then held.\\n10", "height": "4552", "width": "2792", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "146 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nIt appears, therefore, that the evidence of the genuineness\\nof the Gospels is of a very different character from what we\\nare able to produce for the genuineness of any ancient classi-\\ncal work. Very few readers, I presume, could at once recol-\\nlect and state the grounds on which we believe the Epistles\\nto Atticus to have been written by Cicero, or the History of\\nthe Peloponnesian War by Thucy elides. But should any\\nwriter undertake to impugn the genuineness of these, or of\\nmany other ancient works that might be named, in the man-\\nner ih which attempts have been made to weaken the histori-\\ncal argument for the genuineness of the Gospels, he would\\nhardly succeed even in gaining a discreditable notoriety.\\nBut there are objections derived from the Gospels them-\\nselves, which are relied upon as doing away the whole force\\nof the historical argument. It is urged, that the contents of\\none Gospel are irreconcilable with those of another, and\\ntherefore that the Gospels could not be the works of well-\\ninformed narrators. By the opponents of Christianity, the\\nerrors of theologians are commonly confounded with the truths\\nof our religion and, so far as the objection just mentioned\\nrests on any tenable grounds, it bears, not against the authen-\\nticity and genuineness of the Gospels, but against the doctrine\\nthat they were written by miraculous inspiration. It would\\nbe an extraordinary fact, if these books presented on their\\nface decisive objections to their own credibility, which had\\nbeen overlooked for eighteen centuries by intelligent Chris-\\ntians engaged in their study. To any one, indeed, who is\\ncapable of a just apprehension of the proof of the genuineness-\\nof the Gospels, afforded by their intrinsic character, nothing\\ncan appear more idle than such an attempt to prove, from\\ntheir contents, that they could not have been written by the\\nauthors to whom they are ascribed.\\nBut there is another objection drawn from the essential", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 147\\ncharacter of the Gospels, which is, in fact, the root, and\\nfurnishes the sap and strength, of all others which have been\\nurged against them. They contain the history of a miracu-\\nlous dispensation and a miracle, it is asserted, is impossible.\\nThis objection, if it can be maintained, is final, not merely\\nin regard to the truth of the Gospels, and the truth of Chris-\\ntianity, but in regard to the truth of all religion.\\nThe assertion, that a miracle is impossible, and, conse-\\nquently, that such a miraculous intervention of the Deity as\\nChristianity supposes is impossible, must rest for support\\nsolely on the doctrine, that there is no God, but that the\\nuniverse has been formed and is controlled by physical pow-\\ners essential to its elementary principles, which, always\\nremaining the same, must always produce their effects uni-\\nformly, according to their necessary laws of action. This\\nbein\u00c2\u00a3 so, a miracle, which would be a change in these neces-\\nsary laws, is of course impossible.\\nBut when we refer the powers operating throughout the\\nuniverse to one Being, as the source of all power, and ascribe\\nto this Being intelligence, design, and benevolence, that is,\\nwhen we recognize the truth that there is a God, it becomes\\nthe extravagance of presumptuous folly to pretend, that we\\nmay be assured, that this Being can or will act in no other\\nway than according to what we call the laws of nature;, that\\nhe has no ability, or can have no purpose, to manifest him-\\nself to his creatures by any display of his power and goodness\\nwhich they have not before witnessed, or do not ordinarily\\nwitness.\\nThe assertion, therefore, that a miracle is impossible, can\\nbe maintained by no coherent reasoning, which does not\\nassume, for its basis, that all religion is false that its fun-\\ndamental doctrine, that there is a God, is untrue. The con-\\ntroversy respecting it is not between Christianity and atheism:\\nit is between religion, in any form in which it may appear,\\nand atheism.", "height": "4540", "width": "2804", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "148 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nOne may, indeed, give the name of God to the physical\\npowers operating throughout the universe, considered col-\\nlectively, or to some abstraction, as the moral law of the\\nuniverse, for example, or to some conception still more un-\\nsubstantial and unintelligible, and thus contend that he does\\nnot deny the existence of God. But there is only one view\\nwhich an honest man can take of the deception which in this\\nand other similar cases has been attempted through a gross\\nabuse of words, by which their true meaning is razed out, and\\na false meaning forced upon them. In contending with irre-\\nligion, we have a right to demand that we shall not be mocked\\nwith the language of religion.\\nBut the fact has been overlooked, that, supposing the propo-\\nsition to be admitted, that a miraculous intervention of the\\nDeity is impossible, it would have no bearing on our imme-\\ndiate subject. No inference could be drawn from it to show,\\nthat the Gospels were not written by those to whom they are\\nascribed.\\nThe first disciples of our Lord, the first preachers of his\\nreligion, whether their account was true or false, taught that\\nhe was a messenger from God, whose authority was continu-\\nally attested by displays of divine power, superseding the\\ncommon laws of nature. They represented Christianity only\\nunder the character of a dispensation wholly miraculous. It\\nhas come down to us bearing this character from the first\\naccounts we have of its annunciation, from the time wdien\\nSt. Paul wrote those Epistles, the genuineness of which can-\\nnot be questioned. The fact that Christianity is a miraculous\\ndispensation w T as the basis of his whole teaching, and equally\\nof the teaching of the other apostles. It cannot be pretended,\\nthat any indication is to be found of its having been presented\\nto men under another character. The effV cts which followed\\nits preaching are such as could have resulted only from such\\na conception of it. The hypothesis, therefore, for such an", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 149\\nhypothesis has actually been put forward,* that this was\\nnot the original character of Christianity that its first jDreach-\\ners did not announce it as a miraculous dispensation, but that\\nsome time during the lives of the apostles, or immediately\\nafter, it assumed this character, can be regarded only as\\none of the most extraordinary of those exhibitions of human\\nfolly which Lave lately been given to the world as specula-\\ntions concerning our religion. There is no doubt, that the\\napostles and their companions represented Christ as a mes-\\nsenger from God, whose divine authority was attested through-\\nout his ministry by miracles. It can therefore be no objection\\nto the genuineness of the Gospels, that such is the representa-\\ntion to be found in them. Whether true or false, it is the only\\nre pre sentation that was to be expected in histories of Jesus\\ngiven by apostles and their companions.\\nThe Gospels, then, contain that view of Christianity which\\nwas presented by its first preachers. We have in these books\\nthat solemn attestation which was borne by them, and was\\nconfirmed by circumstances that exclude all doubt of its truth,\\nto facts in the ministry and character of Christ which evince\\nhis divine mission.\\nIn regard to men s belief in Christianity, and their appre-\\nhension of its character, the present is an age of transition.\\nWe are leaving behind us the errors and superstitions of\\nformer days, with all their deplorable consequences, the\\ndomination of a priesthood, tyranny over reason, persecution,\\nfalse conceptions of morality by which its sanctions were\\noften wholly perverted, and that disgust toward Christianity\\nwhich the deformed image bearing its name, and set up for\\nidol- worship, was so fitted to produce. But through a revul-\\nsion of feeling, occasioned by this state of things, many of the\\nBy Strauss, iu his Leben Jesu (Life of Jesus.).", "height": "4560", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "150 EVIDENCES OP THE\\nclergy, particularly in England, one is reluctant to say\\nmany priests, though this is a title which they readily assume,\\nhave turned about, and are travelling back into the dark\\nregion of implicit faith, Jesuitical morality, and religious for-\\nmalities, absurdities, and crimes. On the other hand, there is\\na multitude of speculatists, who, in the abandonment of re-\\nligious error, have abandoned religion itself, and whose only\\nsubstitute for it, if they have any, is an unsubstantial spectre\\nwhich they have decorated with its titles. Meanwhile, very\\nmany enlightened men, who have been repelled from the\\nstudy of Christianity by the imbecility or folly of those who\\nhave assumed to be its privileged expositors and defenders,\\nregard it, at best, only with a certain degree of respect, as\\nbeing, perhaps, a noble system, if properly understood, and\\none the belief of which, even under the forms that it has\\nbeen made to assume, is, at all events, useful to the commu-\\nnity. Magnified quidem res et salutaris, si modo est idla.\\nIn order that we may pass from this state of things to a\\nbetter, it is necessary that the intellect of men should be\\nawakened, and brought to exercise itself on the most impor-\\ntant subject that can be presented to its examination. The\\nresult would be a rational and firm faith in Christianity, with\\nall the consequences that must flow from such a faith. The\\nconvictions which rest on reason are of very different efficacy\\nfrom the impressions produced through prejudice, imagina-\\ntion, or passion. The latter may lead to great evil the former\\ncan produce only good. There is a sense of reality attending\\nthe convictions of reason, which makes it impossible that they\\nshould not penetrate into the character. Let any one, in the\\nbest exercise of his understanding, be persuaded that the his-\\ntory of Jesus Christ is true that the miracle of his mission\\nfrom God, which belongs to the order of events lying beyond\\nthe sphere of this world, and concerning the whole of man s\\nexistence, is as real as those facts which take place in this\\nworld, conformably to the narrow circle of its laws with which", "height": "4560", "width": "2860", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 151\\nwe are familiar, and he has become intellectually, and can\\nhardly fail to become morally, a new being. In recognizing\\nthat fact, he recognizes his relation to God, or rather, if I\\nmay so speak, God s relation to him. Life assumes another\\ncharacter. It is not a short period of existence in which we\\nare to confine our views and desires to what may be attained\\nwithin its limits. It is a state of preparation for a -life to\\ncome, which will continue into an infinity where the eye of\\nthe mind is wholly incapable of following its course. Viewed\\nin the broad light which thus pours in upon us, their false\\ncoloring disappears from the objects of passion and we per-\\nceive that there is nothing permanently good, but what\\ntends to the moral and intellectual progress of the soul, and\\nnothing to be dreaded as essentially evil, but what tends\\nto impede it.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4580", "width": "2864", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "PAET HI.\\nON THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENUINENESS OE THE GOSPELS\\nAEEORDED BY THE EARLY HERETICS.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4580", "width": "2820", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "past in.\\nCHAPTER I.\\nPRELIMINARY REMARKS. THE EBIONITES. THEIR USE\\nOF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ONLY.\u00e2\u0080\u0094 -INFERENCES FROM\\nTHEIR NOT USING THE OTHER THREE GOSPELS.\\nWe now come to a subject, concerning which important errors\\nhave been committed, and which requires a more thorough\\nexamination than it has hitherto received. It is the manner\\nin which the Gospels were regarded by the heretics of the\\nfirst two centuries, particularly by the Gnostics.\\nBeside the great body of Christians, the Catholic Chris-\\ntians, as they may be denominated, conformably to the ancient\\nuse of the term, who were united, notwithstanding many\\ndiversities of opinion, in the general reception of a common\\nsystem of faith, there were, at an early period, various sects\\ncalled Heresies, The generality of the Heretics of the first\\ntwo centuries may be divided into two principal classes, the\\nEbionites and the Gnostics and these two classes alone are\\nof importance as furnishing evidence in regard to the genuine-\\nness of the Gospels.\\nOf the Ebionites, the heretical Jewish Christians, I shall\\nstate in sect. ii. of Note A,* nearly all that may be said con-\\npp. 425-430.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "156 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncerning them in relation to the present subject. They were\\na sect that attracted but little notice from the earlier fathers\\nwhose accounts of them, however, are explicit and consistent,\\nThe discussions concerning them, in modern times, have been\\nfounded principally on the confused, contradictory, and obvi-\\nously very inaccurate statements of Epiphanius, in the latter\\npart of the fourth century. But all the ancient accounts of\\nthem agree, in affirming, that they used the Gospel of\\nMatthew in its original language, with a text more or less\\npure. This would not have been said of them, had they\\nnot said it of themselves. They comprehended, as appears,\\nthe generality of Jewish Christians, and were the successors\\nand representatives of those early converts in Judea, who\\nwere all zealous for the law, and regarded with dislike\\nor distrust the preaching of St. Paul. There seems to have\\nbeen but little intermixture among them of those Jews, the\\nHellenists, to whom, as living in foreign countries, the Greek\\nlanguage was often more familiar than that of their own\\nnation. Thus, using the Gospel of Matthew, which was\\nwritten in their native language, and, as there seems no\\ndoubt, with particular reference to Jewish Christians, they\\nneglected the other Gospels. Their testimony, in receiving\\nthe Gospel of Matthew as his work, is blended with that of\\nthe common mass of Christians. Nor is it important to urge\\nit any further but it may be worth while, here as elsewhere,\\nto keep in mind those considerations, formerly presented,!\\nwhich show that the direct proof of the genuineness of any\\none of the Gospels is an indirect proof of the genuineness\\nof all.\\nBut there is another aspect in which this subject is to be\\nviewed. The fact, that the Jewish Christians generally did\\nnot use the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, is to be con-\\nActs xxi. 20, 21. f pp. 102-107, 141.", "height": "4580", "width": "2828", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 157\\nsidered in connection with the fact of the reception of those\\nGospels by the whole body of Gentile Christians. We have\\nalready taken notice of some of the inferences resulting from\\nthis consideration/* But the subject well deserves further\\nconsideration.\\nChristianity had its origin among the Jews. I\u00c2\u00a3rom them\\nit was communicated to the Gentiles, between whom and the\\nJews there had been previously a wide separation. This\\nseparation continued between the Jewish Christians gene-\\nrally and the Gentile Christians. With the exception of\\nthe Gospel of Matthew, the former did not use the Gospels\\nreceived by the latter. It was not, therefore, from the main\\nbody of Jewish converts that the Gentile Christians received\\nthe books, or, to say the least, three of the books, which\\nobtained universal reception among them, as genuine and\\nauthentic histories of Jesus. But these books did not have\\ntheir origin among the Gentile Christians. They are evi-\\ndently the works of Jewish writers,\\nFrom whom, then, and when, did the Gentile Christians\\nreceive them? There were preachers of the Gospel to the\\nGentiles, like St. Paul and his associates like Barnabas,\\nthe early friend of St. Paul like Peter, who defended their\\ncause before the assembled Church at Jerusalem; like the com-\\npanion of his travels, the evangelist Mark and like John, who\\nspent the latter part of his life among them, men enlight-\\nened by the spirit of God, who, in the first age of Christianity,\\ncommunicated its great truths to the Gentiles, and called upon\\nthem to embrace it, teaching them that God had made no\\ndifference between them and the Jews as to a participation of\\nits blessings. These early missionaries sent by God broke\\nthrough the inveterate prejudices of their nation they made\\nan opening in the partition-wall which separated Gentiles\\nfrom Jews and from them, together with the religion itself,\\nSee p. 107, seqq. p. 50, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2780", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "158 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmust the Gospel have been received by the Gentile Chris-\\ntians.\\nThe prejudices which had been broken through by the\\napostles and their associates quickly closed round the remain-\\ning body of Jewish Christians, who were very soon regarded\\nas an heretical sect, under the name of Ebionites. After the\\napostolic age, there were no missionaries from their number\\nfor the conversion of the Gentile world.\\nSt. John is supposed to have been the last survivor of that\\nnoble company of the first preachers of Christ to the heathen\\nworld, through whom we who are not Jews by descent have\\nreceived the blessings of our religion. Before his death, the\\nJewish nation had been trampled to the earth. But the Gos-\\npels are unquestionably the work of Jewish authors. This\\nbeing the state of the case, it is a supposition utterly in-\\ncredible, that, after the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70),\\nthree writers should have risen up among the Jews, not apos-\\ntles nor associates of apostles, but free from the narrow spirit\\nof their nation, and zealous for the conversion of the Gen-\\ntiles, who, to effect this object, composed three spurious Gos-\\npels under the names of Mark, Luke, and John. But the\\nimprobability does not stop here for it must further be sup-\\nposed, that these three anonymous Jews put forward their\\nGospels, not only some time after the death of St. John, as\\nwell as of the other two pretended authors, but some time\\nafter the death of those who had known them familiarly and,\\nstill more, that those Jews, though they could not procure\\nreception or countenance for their works among their own\\ncountrymen, succeeded effectually in deluding the whole body\\nof Gentile Christians throughout the world, though it must\\nhave been at a pretty late period that they undertook to\\naccomplish this object.\\nSuch, however, are the suppositions that must be resorted to,\\nif it be denied that the Gospels were written by the authors\\nto whom they are ascribed, and passed with the religion itself to", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 159\\nthe first converts from heathenism, sanctioned and certified\\nby its earliest missionaries. The undisputed facts relating to\\nthe history of the Gospels, especially the fact that three of\\nthem were not used by the main body of Jewish Christians,\\nmake it evident that those -books were received by the Gen-\\ntile world through the channel of the first preachers of\\nChristianity that they were received from apostles and their\\nassociates.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER II.\\nGENERAL ACCOUNT OF THE GNOSTICS. STATE OF OPINION\\nAMONG THE GREAT BODY OF CHRISTIANS DURING THE\\nSECOND CENTURY.\\nWe here take leave of the Ebionites, and enter on a much\\nmore extensive and difficult subject. Our attention will now\\nbe confined to the Gnostics.\\nThe Greek word rendered Gnostic denoted, in its primary\\nmeaning, an enlightened man and is commonly used by\\nClement of Alexandria to signify an enlightened Christian, a\\nChristian philosopher.^ In this sense, it was assumed as a\\ndesignation by those heretics to whom the name is now re-\\nstricted. The heretical Gnostics were divided into many\\nparticular sects but there were striking characteristics com-\\nmon to them all, by which they were distinguished from the\\ngreat body of Christians. Their religion was eclectic. While\\nsome of their contemporaries among the Heathens, of a similar\\ncast of mind to their own, the later Platonists, were form-\\ning systems in opposition to, and in rivalship of, Christianity,\\nthey, on the contrary, incorporated into their theology the his-\\ntorical facts and some of the essential doctrines of our faith.\\nThis meaning survived the application of the word to the Gnostic here-\\ntics. In the Lexicon ascribed to Zonaras, who lived in the eleventh and\\ntwelfth centuries, Tvugtikos (a Gnostic is denned to be one perfectly\\nconformed to the truth.", "height": "4560", "width": "2868", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 161\\nIn the systems thus composed by the Gnostics, foreign as they\\nwere from pure Christianity, the ministry of Christ held a\\nvery important place. It was the key-stone of their hypotheses.\\nSome of the leaders of the Gnostic sects appear to have\\nbeen generally regarded in their clay as men of more than\\ncommon learning and ability and their systems were so\\naccordant with conceptions and habits of thinking which then\\nprevailed, as to obtain a considerable degree of reputation\\nand credence. Of the doctrines maintained by them, it is\\nnecessary to our purpose to give some general account, which,\\nin order that it may be at all satisfactory, or afford ground\\nfor a correct estimate of the character of those doctrines, will\\nlead us to look beyond the Gnostics considered in themselves,\\nand to view them in their relations to the state of things in\\nwhich they existed.\\nBy the generality of Christians, they were regarded as\\nadversaries, not as fellow-disciples and they, in return,\\nlooked upon the many as unenlightened followers of Christ,\\nwho did not comprehend the essential character of his mission,\\nwere ignorant of the true God. whom he came to reveal, and\\nmistook for that God, who had been before unknown, the\\ninferior being who was the god of the Jews. With the ex-\\nception of the Marcionites, they appear generally to have\\nconsidered themselves as distinguished from all others, in\\ntheir original conformation, by the peculiar possession of a\\nspiritual principle, implanted in their nature, which was\\na constant source of divine illumination. Thus, in examining\\ninto the genuineness of the Gospels, the early Gnostics pre-\\nsent themselves as an independent set of witnesses, widely\\nseparated, in their opinions and feelings, from the catholic\\nChristians. Their doctrines were, at the same time, of such\\na character, as to seem, at first view, to admit of no recon-\\nciliation with the contents of the Gospels. It was impos-\\nsible. says Gibbon, that the Gnostics could receive our\\npresent Gospels, many parts of which (particularly in the\\n11", "height": "4560", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "162 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nresurrection of Christ) are directly, and, as it might seem,\\ndesignedly, pointed against their favorite tenets. If, not-\\nwithstanding this supposed impossibility, we should find that\\nthe Gnostics actually bear testimony to the genuineness of\\nthe Gospels, their evidence must clearly have a distinct and\\npeculiar value.\\nIt is true, that other sects, whose doctrines may appear to\\nan intelligent Christian as irreconcilable with the contents of\\nthe Gospels as those of the Gnostics, have been zealous in\\nasserting the claim of those books to the highest deference.\\nBut this has been done under very different circumstances.\\nThe systems of those sects have been slowly formed, during\\nages of ignorance and false reasoning the true sense of the\\nlanguage of the Gospels has been gradually obliterated, and\\nfalse meanings, derived from a barbarous theology, have been\\nsubstituted in its place the considerations necessary to be\\nattended to, in order to understand the words of Jesus, have\\nbeen disregarded and thus, the key to their true explanation\\nbeing lost or thrown away, modes of interpretation have been\\nintroduced, at once so irrational and so unsettled, that, by\\ntheir application, the Scriptures may be made to speak any\\ndoctrine. Those systems, having no aid from reason, but\\nbeing assailed by it on every side, have been obliged to rely,\\nfor their sole support, on the supposititious meanings assigned\\nto the Scriptures and thus, in the very act of falsifying the\\ntestimony of the books appealed to, it has become essential\\nto maintain their credit. At the same time, the prevailing\\nbelief in the genuineness of the Gospels, not being the result\\nof any investigation of the subject, had assumed the charac-\\nter of an inveterate and unassailable prejudice. But the case\\nof the Gnostics was widely different. Their systems were in\\nharmony with many of the philosophical speculations of their\\nDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv. note 35.", "height": "4560", "width": "2864", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 163\\nage. and relied for support upon doctrines already received,\\nrather than upon the misinterpretation of the Scriptures. If\\nthey admitted the Gospels as genuine, they did Dot feel obliged,\\nin consequence, to admit their authority as final they ap-\\npealed to other sources of religious knowledge, to their own\\nreasonings, to oral tradition, by which they pretended that\\nthe higher and esoteric doctrines of Jesus had been trans-\\nmitted to them, and to the divine light within, the privilege\\nof their sj3iritual nature.\\nBut it is particularly to be observed, that the earlier\\nGnostics lived at a time, when, if the Gospels be not genuine,\\nthe question respecting their credit and value must have been\\nentirely open and unsettled that, upon the supposition of\\ntheir not being genuine, they were works of the contempo-\\nraries of those Gnostics, or of individuals of the age imme-\\ndiately preceding and that their late origin, therefore,\\nmust have been so notorious, that no process of reasoning\\ncould have been required to make it evident that they were\\nnot genuine. But, in rejecting their authority on such indis-\\nputable ground, the Gnostics, instead of carrying on a doubt-\\nful and disadvantageous contest, would have gained a decisive\\ntriumph over their opponents, by simply pointing out the\\nfact, that the catholic system of faith, so far as it contradicted\\ntheir own, was founded on writings pretending to an authority\\nwhich they did not possess.\\nIt follows from what has been said, that the nature and\\nvalue of the evidence which the Gnostics afford for the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels cannot be understood and cor-\\nrectly estimated without some acquaintance with their history\\nand doctrines. The subject is worthy of investigation and\\nI enter the more readily upon the explanation of it, such\\nexplanation as it may be in my power to give, because it\\nis not only necessary to my present purpose, but may also\\nopen to us new views of the history of opinions, and of the", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "164 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nearly history and of the evidences of our religion. It may\\nbe well, before proceeding farther, to advert to some of these\\nbearings of the inquiry.\\nThe study of the history and doctrines of the Gnostics,\\nconnected as those doctrines were with the morals and\\nphilosophy of the age, and giving birth to controversies in\\nwhich much of the character of the age is exhibited, may\\nenlarge our views of the condition of the world when Chris-\\ntianity was revealed and every accession to our knowledge\\nconcerning the intellectual and moral state of men in those\\ntimes is adapted to strengthen our conviction of the divine\\norigin of our religion.\\nIn order to have a full conception of the evidences and\\nvalue of Christianity, we must be informed of the state of the\\nhuman character that existed at the time of its introduction,\\nand with which it had to struggle. As our prospect widens\\nand becomes more distinct, we may be reminded of the\\nancient doctrine of the East, that this world is the battle-\\nfield of the good and evil spirits who divide the universe.\\nThe power of our religion will be perceived in the strength\\nof the obstacles over which it triumphed. Its great truths,\\nin their own nature intelligible as they are sublime, were\\nthen dark with excessive bright. Men s minds were over-\\nwhelmed by their grandeur and novelty, and could not open\\nto their full comprehension. In their colossal simplicity, they\\nstood opposed to the baseless and visionary speculations\\nwhich then passed for philosophy. The very plainness of\\ntheir evidence, appealing only to the authority of God, as\\nmade evident by miraculous displays of his power, was in\\nstriking contrast with the reasoning of the age, resting on\\ndreams, dealing in slippery words, and full of shallow subtil-\\nties. The morality of the Gospel, having for its object to\\nfree the individual from whatever may injure himself or\\nothers, and to teach him that his highest good consists in", "height": "4560", "width": "2900", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 165\\nacting for the common good of all, presented itself in strange\\ncontrast with the unabashed selfishness, the loathsome sensu-\\nality, the rapacity, violence, and cruelty, which overspread\\nsociety. This morality was. at the same time, very different\\nfrom that magnificent but impracticable scheme which, though\\nfully developed only by the Stoics, was presented in its chief\\nlineaments by all the higher philosophy of the age, the pro-\\nfessed purpose of which was to aggrandize, and, as it were,\\ndeify its disciple, by raising him above all passion and suffer-\\ning to teach him. as the sum of duty, to bear and to forbear\\nand to place him in a state of stern, insulated quiet, unmoved\\nby all around him. The first word which our religion ad-\\ndressed to men was Reform. It came to re-create their\\ncharacters, to change them in their own view from earthly to\\nimmortal beings, to call forth new affections, to supply new\\nprinciples and aims, and to teach the new doctrine of\\npiety; making men feel what they had not before con-\\nceived of, their relations to God. By revealing him. it\\ncame to annihilate the superstitions of the heathen world,\\nblended as they were with all its history, philosophy, elo-\\nquence, and poetry forming an essential part of the machi-\\nnery of government, entering into the daily habits of common\\nlife, and the source of those frequent festivals, games, and\\nshows, which, barbarous and licentious as they often were,\\nafforded to the many their most exciting pleasures. A\\nprinciple was at work which had to contend with all that\\nexisted on earth, except what might remain uncorrupted in\\nthe moral nature of* man.\\nThe strength of the errors that were to be overcome may\\nbe partially estimated by their continued operation to the\\npresent day. appearing in false doctrines, which were gradu-\\nally introduced, and are now incorporated with the professed\\nfaith of most Christians in modern systems of what is\\n1 Tim. iii. 16.", "height": "4552", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "166 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncalled philosophy, allied in thought and language to the mys-\\nticism of the later Platonists, and the pantheism of other\\nancient theologists and in the influences of pagan history\\nand literature upon our taste and morals, in changing and\\ndebasing that standard of human excellence which Christian-\\nity would lead us to form.\\nSuch being the state of the ancient world, the conceptions\\nof our religion entertained by its early converts were not\\nonly imperfect, but were modified and discolored by the\\nuniversal prevalence of error. These converts might change\\ntheir hearts and lives, but they could not renovate their\\nminds. They could not divest themselves of the whole\\ncharacter of their age, so as fully to comprehend the great\\ntruths they had been taught, in their proper bearing upon\\nthe conceptions and doctrines prevailing around them. They\\ncould not break up all their previous associations of thought\\nand feeling, originate new and rational systems of the highest\\nphilosophy, and pursue only those correct modes of reason-\\ning, which, even at the present day, are but partially under-\\nstood, and imperfectly applied to all subjects connected with\\nour moral and intellectual nature. They could not at once\\ndo for themselves what many centuries have been slowly\\neffecting for the wisest of modern times.\\nThe causes which operated in common upon Christian\\nconverts, to alloy the doctrines of our faith with the errors of\\nthe age, produced their most remarkable effects among the\\nGnostics. More visionary and more self-confident than\\nthe catholic Christians, they relied more on their philosophy,\\nand less on the written records of our religion. Many of\\nthem, also, were among the mystics of those times, and\\ntrusted for guidance to their divine inward light. Hence,\\nthe Gnostics proceeded to extravagances, from which the\\ncatholic Christians kept aloof; but, in comparing together\\nthe distinctive opinions of the two parties, we shall find that\\ntheir conceptions often approximated each other, and that.", "height": "4560", "width": "2912", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 167\\nwith essential differences of doctrine, there were also re-\\nmarkable analogies and coincidences.\\nThus, though the Gnostic doctrines were in stronger con-\\ntrast with the truths of Christianity than the errors and\\nmisconceptions of the catholic Christians, yet, as they had\\nultimately the same origin or occasion, as they are to be\\ntraced alike to the false notions which had prevailed in the\\nworld, either among heathens or Jews, their history may\\nserve to bring out to view more distinctly the direct and\\nindirect operation of some of those causes of error which\\nenthralled the minds of the early catholic Christians to\\nmake us apprehend more clearly, that there might be, and\\nwere, many conceptions of the wisest among them which are\\nnot to be confounded with the doctrines of Christ and to\\nenable us to discern the real derivation of opinions that\\nwe might otherwise ascribe, as they have been ascribed, to\\ntraditionary explanations or to mere misconceptions of\\nour faith. It is in a great measure by such investigations\\nthat Christianity may be relieved from that apparent respon-\\nsibility for what, in fact, are but the errors of its disciples,\\nwhich, at the present day, is a principal obstacle to its re-\\nception.\\nIt is true, that in the fundamental opinions of the early\\ncatholic Christians, as they appear in the writings of the\\nmost eminent of their number during the first three centu-\\nries, there was nothing that essentially changed the character\\nof our religion, or was adapted greatly to pervert its moral\\ninfluence. But when we compare their writings with the\\nKew Testament, and remark the operation of the world\\naround them on their sentiments and belief, we are. if I\\nmistake not, irresistibly led to the conclusion, that the re-\\nligion of Christ, the religion -taught in the Gospels, did not\\ncome into being at any period subsequent to his time.\\nThose who became its disciples after his death did not origi-\\nnate what they but imperfectly and erroneously apprehended.", "height": "4556", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "168 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThey were not the authors of doctrines or of books, of which\\nthey were, in many respects, but poor expositors.\\nNor, it may be added, did Christianity have its origin in\\nany wisdom of a preceding age. Distinguishable, as it is,\\nfrom the opinions of its earlier converts respecting it, it\\nstands far more widely separated from all that preceded\\nit, either in the Jewish or Gentile world. There is nothing\\nhuman to which its origin can be traced. When we under-\\nstand the Gospels, and enter into their spirit when we\\nconsider their teachings respecting God, his inseparable re-\\nlations to all his creatures, and his universal providence and\\nlove their disclosures concerning man s immortality and the\\npurposes of life, our duties and our prospects their narra-\\ntive, as consistent as it is wonderful, and their unparalleled\\nportraiture of moral greatness in the character of Jesus and\\nwhen we observe that these histories are inartificial and\\nimperfect, written in a rude style, clearly that of unedu-\\ncated persons, so that their intrinsic character, even in this\\nrespect alone, precludes, as an incredible anomaly, the idea\\nthat they were the result of literary skill, the study of phi-\\nlosophy, or any art of man, it becomes evident that their\\nexistence cannot be explained by any thing known or felt on\\nearth before the events which they record. It is a phenome-\\nnon marked by its dissimilitude from all around it, the\\nunlikeness between the things of time and eternity, and, if I\\nmay so speak, between man and God.\\nAs has been said, the religion of Christ is one thing, and\\nthe religion of the early Christians was another. But this\\nrenders it the more necessary, in order to estimate correctly\\nthe character of the early fathers, the early writers of emi-\\nnence among the catholic Christians, that we should not\\nforget the strong disturbing forces which acted upon their\\nminds to draw them from the sphere of Christian truth.\\nTh,ey labored under great disadvantages, from the universal", "height": "4560", "width": "2908", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 169\\nignorance of the Gentile world respecting many of the new\\nsubjects presented to their inquiry. On the one hand, they\\nwere biased by the inveterate errors of their age and on\\nthe other, so far as those errors were connected with licen-\\ntiousness of life, they were repelled by them to the opposite\\nextreme of asceticism in speculation and practice, an ex-\\ntreme to which, also, they were led by their hard circum-\\nstances, as members of a suffering and persecuted sect. To\\njudge them fairly, we must be acquainted with the principles,\\nconceptions, and modes of reasoning, which characterized the\\nphilosophy of their times, and had modified all existing\\nforms of thought, having been transmitted from the ancient\\nphilosophers, particularly Plato, with the whole weight of\\ntheir authority. We must know what advances the human\\nintellect had made, comprehend the influences under which\\ntheir minds had been formed, and compare them, not with\\nthe most enlightened men of modern times, who have en-\\njoyed advantages for the culture of the understanding which\\nthey never dreamed of, but with their predecessors and con-\\ntemporaries. We must view them, like all other eminent\\nmen of ancient days, as figures in the age to which they\\nbelong, and not bring them prominently forward, surrounded\\nonly by modern associations. If ignorant of the philosophy\\nof their age, we have no standard by which to judge of their\\nintellectual powers. Nay, we shall often misunderstand their\\nmeaning, and may direct our contempt or ridicule, not against\\nwhat they have said, but against our own misconception\\nof what they have said. Now, the doctrines of the Gnostics\\nwill show us what extravagances might be advanced by those\\nwho were reputed able and learned men in the times of\\nwhich we speak and such is the connection or identity of\\nmany opinions of the Gnostics with opinions that had before\\nbeen held, or were appearing simultaneously in the writings\\noT their contemporaries, that we cannot study their systems\\nwithout being led to look beyond them to the philosophy", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "170 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof the age; and, in doing so, we shall find that the Christian\\nfathers suffer as little by a comparison with the heathen phi-\\nlosophers, as with the Gnostic heretic-. Such are some of\\nthe considerations incidentally presented to us in the inquiry\\non which we are now about to enter.\\nThe Gnostics may be separated into two great divisions,\\nthe Marcionites, on the one hand, and the Theosophic\\nGnostics, as they may be called, on the other; this epithet\\nbeing understood as referring to the imaginations of the latter\\nrespecting the Supreme God, and the spiritual world, as\\ndeveloped from him. Of the latter class the Valentinians are\\nthe principal representatives, as being the most considerable\\nand numerous sect, and one the essential characteristics of\\nwhich appear throughout the systems of other theosophic\\nGnostics. The fundamental doctrines held in common by the\\nValentinians and Marcionites w ere the following That the\\nmaterial world, the visible universe, was not the work of\\nthe Supreme Being, but of a far inferior agent, the Demiur-\\ngus, or the Creator,^ who was also the god of the Jews that\\nthe spiritual world, the Pleroma, as it w T as called, over which\\nthe true Divinity presided, and the material world, the realm\\nof the Creator, were widely separated from each other that\\nevil was inherent in matter that the material world, both as\\nbeing material, and as being the work of an inferior being,\\nwas full of imperfection and evil that the Saviour descended\\nfrom the spiritual world, as a manifestation of the Supreme\\nGod, to reveal him to men, to reform the disorders here exist-\\nAqfitovpyog, literally the Workman. The term Maker might\\nseem the preferable rendering, except that the associations with the word\\nCreator, when standing alone, correspond better with the conceptions of\\nthe Gnostics. But, in thus using the term Creator, we must divert it\\nof the idea of creation from nothing. There is no satisfactory evidence, that\\nany of the Gnostics rejected the then common philosophical notion of eternal,\\nuncreated matter.", "height": "4560", "width": "2896", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 171\\ning, and to deliver whatever is spiritual from the dominion of\\nmatter; and that the Supreme God had been unknown to\\nmen, to Jews and Heathens equally, before his manifestation\\nof himself by Christ. In their view, he was the God of the\\nXew Testament, and the Creator was the god of the Old\\nTestament. They at the same time conceived of the Creator\\nas exercising a moral government over men, as dispensing\\nrewards and inflicting punishments. He, in their view, was\\nJust But the Supreme God did not punish. He was un-\\nmingled benevolence. He was Good.\\nIn connection with these doctrines, neither the Yalentinians\\nnor the Marcionites supposed the Saviour to have had a\\nproper human body of flesh and blood, in which corruption\\nwould have dwelt. The Yalentinians, however, ascribed to\\nhim a real though not a human body, while the Marcionites\\nregarded his apparent body as a mere phantom. Those who\\nmaintained the latter opinion were called Docetce, a name for\\nwhich we may give an equivalent in the word Apparitiom sts.\\nBut this name was also sometimes, if not commonly, ex-\\ntended to all who denied that Christ had a proper human\\nbody and, thus used, comprehended the generality of the\\nGnostics.\\nIn the systems of the Marcionites and Yalentinians, the\\nCreator appears as one. Other sects, it is said, believed\\nthe material world to have been formed by angels. But,\\namong those angels, one was generally, perhaps universally,\\nregarded as pre-eminent, and as the god of the Jews that is,\\nas one to whom the name Creator may be distinctively ap-\\nplied. The Yalentinians themselves sometimes spoke of the\\nCreator as an angel, and associated with him, in the govern-\\nment of his works, other beings wdiom he had produced, giv-\\ning them also the name of angels.\\nSuch were the common doctrines of the Gnostics. Their\\nfundamental distinction may be regarded as consisting in the", "height": "4552", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "172 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nbelief, that the material universe was not formed by the\\nSupreme Being, but by some inferior being or beings and\\nthat this being, or one of these beings, was the god of the\\nJews. In the writings of the earlier fathers against them,\\nthe stress of the controversy concerns this topic. It was, as\\nwe might suppose, the great point at issue between them\\nand the catholic Christians.\\nThus, Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, states it to\\nbe the principal question between them and the whole\\ntenor of his argument shows that it was so. The principal\\nquestion, he says, in commencing his work, whence the\\nwhole controversy arises, is, whether it be allowable to intro-\\nduce two gods. The main objecf. of his work is to prove\\nfrom reason, from the Old Testament, from the Gospels,\\nand from the Epistles, that the Supreme Being, the God and\\nFather of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the same being with the\\nCreator of the material universe, and the God of the Jews.\\nIrenseus is our great authority concerning the theosophic\\nGnostics, of whom alone he treats, to the exclusion of Mar-\\ncion and his followers, for a reason to be hereafter mentioned.\\nIn the introduction to his work, he assigns, as the cause of\\nhis undertaking to write against the heretics, that they over-\\nturn the faith of many, leading them away, by a pretence of\\nsuperior knowledge, from Him who framed and ordered the\\nuniverse, as if they had something higher and better to\\nshow them than the God who made heaven and earth, and\\nall that is therein bringing ruin upon their converts, by\\ngiving them injurious and irreligious sentiments toward the\\nCreator. f In the first book of his work, he gives an ac-\\ncount of the opinions of the Gnostics. In his second book,\\nhe undertakes to confute them, b}^ showing their intrinsic\\nincredibility, and commences by saying, It will be proper to\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 1 Opp. p. 366, ed. Priorii.\\nf Cont. Haeres., lib. i. Prasf. 1, p. 2, ed. Massuet.", "height": "4560", "width": "2868", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 173\\nbegin with the first and principal topic, God, the Creator,\\nwhom they blaspheme, who is God and Lord alone, sole\\nauthor of all. sole Father. In concluding the book, he\\naffirms that what he has been maintaining is consonant to\\nwhat was taught by Christ and his apostles, by the Law\\nand the Prophets, namely, that there is one God and Father\\nof all, and that all things were made by him, and not by\\nangels, nor by any other Power, f He then begins his third\\nbook by proving this doctrine from the Gospels, which, he\\nsay-, all teach that there is one God, the Maker of heayen\\nand earth, who was announced by the prophets and one\\nMessiah, the Son of God. X In the last paragraph of this\\nbook, he prays that the heretics ma}* not perseyere in their\\nerrors, but that, being converted to the Church of God,\\nChrist may be formed within them and that they may know\\nthe Maker of this uniyerse, the only true God and Lord of\\nall. 4 Thus we pray for them. he says. ,8 loving them better\\nthan they loye themselyes. He then states, that in his next\\nbook he shall endeavor to induce them, by reasoning from the\\nwords of Christ, to abstain from speaking evil of their\\nMaker, who alone is God and accordingly, in the com-\\nmencement of the fourth book, he repeats similar representa-\\ntions of their fundamental doctrine, which, with others to the\\nsame effect, it is unnecessary to subjoin.\\nI will endeavor, says Origen. to define who is a heretic.\\nAll who profess to believe in Christ, and yet affirm that there is\\none god of the Law and the Prophets, and another of the Gospels,\\nand maintain that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ\\nwas not He who was proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, but\\nanother, I know not what, God, wholly unknown and unheard of,\\nall such we consider as heretics, however they may set off their\\nLib. ii c. 1, 1, p. 116. f Lib. ii. c. 35, 4, p. 171.\\nt Lib. iii. c, 1. 2. p. 174.\\nApud Pamphili Mart. Apolog. pro Origene; in Origen. Opp. iv., Ap-\\npend., p. 22.", "height": "4556", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "174 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ndoctrines with different fictions. Such are the followers of Mar-\\ncion and Valentinus and Basilides.\\nIn the fifth century, Theodoret wrote a history of heresies.\\nHe speaks of the Gnostics as nearly extinct, and professes\\nthat his accounts of them are derived from preceding\\nwriters, f He treats of them in his first book and this\\nbook, he says, contains an account of the fables of those\\nwho have imagined another Creator, and, denying that there\\nis one principle of all things, have introduced other principles\\nwhich have no existence and who say that the Lord ap-\\npeared to men in the semblance of a man only. t\\nOur information concerning the distinguishing doctrines\\ncommon to the Gnostics, in the general form in which they\\nhave been stated, is full and satisfactory and these doctrines\\nthere is no difficulty in comprehending. But the same cannot\\nbe said of the transcendental speculations of the theosophic\\nGnostics. These concerned the supposed production from the\\nSupreme Divinity of hypostatized attributes and ideas,\\nforming beings whom, in common with him, they denomi-\\nnated -ZEons, or Immortals the full development of the\\nDeity by those emanations, constituting the Pleroma the\\nThe original adds, and those who call themselves Tethians; where,\\nfor Tethians, I suppose we should read Sethians, a name assumed by\\nsome of the Gnostics, who regarded Seth as the progenitor or prototype of\\nthe spiritual among men.\\nf See the Introduction to his Ihereticarum Fabularum Compendium,\\nand the Preface to the Second Book; Opp. iv. pp. 187-189, 218, ed. Sir-\\nmond.\\nIbid., p. 188.\\nI use the term hypostatize, and its relatives, to express the ascribing\\nof proper personality to what in its nature is devoid of it.\\nUTirjpo/ia, Fulness, Completeness, Perfection, here signifying the full,\\ncomplete, perfect development of the Deity. The word, though with a change\\nof its meaning, was borrowed by the Gnostics from St. Paul. See Eph. i.\\n23; iii. 19. Col. i. 19; ii. 9.", "height": "4580", "width": "2916", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 175\\nrealm of God, the spiritual world (in contradistinction to the\\nanimal and material), which was likewise called the Pleroma\\nall properly spiritual existences being considered as deriving\\ntheir substance from that of the Infinite Spirit; and the\\nmingling of spirit with matter the causes which led to\\nthe formation of the material world, and the relations of this\\nto the spiritual world.\\nThese speculations of the theosophic Gnostics were very\\nforeign from any conceptions with which we are familiar.\\nThey seem to have assumed no definite and permanent shape,\\nbut to have varied according to the imaoiuations of different\\nsects and individuals every one, as Tertullian says, mould-\\ning what he had received to his own liking the disciple\\nthinking himself as much at liberty as his master to innovate\\nat pleasure/* JSearly all the direct information concerning\\nthem,- on which we can rely with any confidence, is derived\\nfrom their earlier controversial opponents, the fathers of the\\nsecond and third centuries and it cannot be supposed, that\\nthose writers furnish a full explanation of the theories of the\\nGnostics in their most intelligible and plausible form. It\\nwas the business of the fathers to divest them of all adventi-\\ntious recommendations, to remove whatever might dazzle and\\ndeceive the eye, and to show, not their coincidence with any\\nexisting forms of philosophy, but their essential errors, their\\nintrinsic incongruity, and their opposition to reason and Scrip-\\nture. They have taken them to pieces, to exhibit their\\nTertullian., De Prescript. Heretic, c. 42, pp. 217, 218. Of the sect\\nof the Marcosians, Trenams treats at much length, probably because they pre-\\nvailed particularly in the part of Gaul where he resided (lib. i. c. 13, 7,\\np. 65). He concludes his account of them with saying, But, since they\\ndisagree among themselves in doctrine and teaching, and those who are\\nacknowledged as the more recent affect every day to find out something new,\\nand to bring forth what never had been thought of before, it is hard to de-\\nscribe the notions of all of them (lib. i. c. 21, 15, p. 98). The same, or\\nnearly the same, might, I conceive, have been said of every other body of\\ntheosophic Gnostics, who were classed together as a sect.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "176 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ndefects and it is not easy, or rather it is impossible, to restore\\nthem as they were originally put together. At the same\\ntime, clearness of thought, precision of language, and accuracy\\nin reporting opinions, were not characteristics of the writers\\nof that age. Beside this, the Gnostics did not understand\\nthemselves and it was impossible, therefore, that the fathers\\nshould understand them.\\nAll these causes combine to occasion peculiar difficulty in\\nforming a just notion of the speculations of the theosophic\\nGnostics. If their own writings had remained to us entire,\\nno common acuteness would probably have been necessary to\\nfollow the process by which visionary conceptions and alle-\\ngories passed into doctrines to apprehend the state of mind,\\nthe confused mingling of imperfect, changing, and inconsistent\\nfancies, out of which their theories arose to determine where\\nmysticism was brightening into meaning or to detect what\\nportion of truth, under some disguise or* other, may have\\nentered into and been neutralized in their composition. As\\nin so many metaphysical and theological systems, from the\\nage of Plato to our own, we should doubtless have found, that\\ntheir dialect admitted of but a very partial translation into the\\nuniversal language of common sense. With the best guidance,\\nwe should have been unable to place ourselves in the same\\nposition with the Gnostics, under the same circumstances, so\\nas to discern the spectral illusions which, in the dawn of\\nChristianity, they saw pictured on the clouds, and fancied to\\nbe celestial visions.\\nStill, even as regards their theosophic doctrines, enough\\nmay be ascertained for our purpose perhaps all that is\\nof importance in relation to the history of opinions, or\\nthe history of our religion. After fixing our attention\\non them steadily, what appeared at first view altogether\\nconfused and monstrous begins to assume a form better\\ndefined the great features common to their systems show\\nthemselves more distinctly, and we are able to discern", "height": "4560", "width": "2884", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 177\\ni$\\ntheir likeness to other modes of opinion that have widely\\nprevailed.\\nThe fathers, as has been said, were but poor interpreters of\\nthe dreams of the theosophic Gnostics. But, as regards the\\nwhole history of the Gnostics, there is constant need of caution\\nin admitting, and care in scrutinizing, the representations\\nof their catholic opponents. What is related by the fathers\\nconcerning supposed heretics of the first century is mixed\\nwith fables and improbabilities. Their fuller accounts of the\\nmore important sects of the second century, the Marcionites\\nand Valentinians, were founded upon the writings of mem-\\nbers of these sects. But there are other cases, in which it\\nadmits of no doubt, that even those of the fathers who are\\nour best authorities proceeded upon common rumor and oral\\ninformation, distorted, exaggerated, and unfounded.\\nIt often requires much acuteness and discrimination, as well\\nas intellectual and moral fairness, to give a correct report of\\nthe system of an individual or a sect, especially when its doc-\\ntrines, being involved in mysticism, present no definite ideas,\\neven to the minds of those by whom they are held. Some of\\nthe ancient philosophers, particularly Plato, could they have\\nhad a foreknowledge of the works of their admirers and ex-\\npositors, in ancient and modern times, would, I believe, have\\nwondered greatly at much which they could, and much which\\nthey could not, understand. But the fathers did not write of\\nthe Gnostics as admiring historians. With the partial excep-\\ntion of Clement of Alexandria, they wrote as controvertists,\\nwhose feelings were enlisted against them. All the errors,\\nbut such as spring from intentional dishonesty, to which such\\ncontrovertists are liable, are to be expected, even from those\\nof their number on whom alone we can rely, the fathers of\\nthe first three centuries, or the earlier fathers, as they may be\\ncalled by way of specific distinction. Under circumstances\\nwhich furnish much less excuse, the grossest mistakes are not\\n12", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "178 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nunfrequently committed. Thus, a German theologian of our\\nday classes Priestley among decided atheists; 5 and another,\\na naturalist himself, states that Locke agreed with Spinoza,\\nHobbes, and Hume, in believing reputed miracles to be only\\nnatural events, referring, in evidence of his assertion, to a tract\\nby which it is clearly disproved.f A still more remarkable\\nerror concerning that great man is the statement or implica-\\ntion, to be found, I believe, in some writers above the lowest\\nclass, that he referred the origin of all our ideas to sensation.\\nMany similar misrepresentations might be produced; and\\nfrom such errors, committed, as it were, before our eyes,\\nthrough the neglect or misuse of means of information open\\nto all, we learn what may have been the errors of ancient\\nwriters, at a period when it was incomparably more difficult\\nto ascertain the truth when all communication of knowledge\\nfrom a distance was tardy and imperfect when oral accounts,\\nwith the misunderstandings and misrepresentations by which\\nthey are usually characterized, were often the only source of\\ninformation attainable and when the voice of the press, which\\nnow makes itself heard on every side, to confirm truth or to\\nconfute error, in regard to all facts that are anywhere of\\ncommon notoriety, was as yet unuttered.\\nThus, as reporters of the history and doctrines of the\\nGnostics, in their obscurer ramifications, even the earlier\\nfathers were in a great measure disqualified, not merely by\\ntheir feelings of dislike toward those heretics, but by the\\ngreat difficulty of obtaining full and correct knowledge con-\\ncerning them and, we may add, by that want of accuracy of\\nconception and representation, which they shared in com-\\nmon with their opponents, and with all others of their age.\\nWe must, furthermore, keep in view their prejudices, and\\nLehrbuch des Christlichen Glaubens, von August Hahn (Leipzig, 1828),\\np. 178.\\nf Institutiones Theologian Christiana? Dogmatic* a I. A. L. Wegscheider,\\n48, not. a, p. Ill, ed. 2dae.", "height": "4560", "width": "2904", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 179\\ntheir liability to mistake, not merely as respects the doctrines,\\nbut also as respects the character and morals, of the Gnostics.\\nTTe may readily believe, that vices, which were more prop-\\nerly to be ascribed to the depravity of individuals, were some-\\ntimes brought as general charges against the whole body\\nto which those individuals were considered as belonging, and\\nthat the practical inferences unfavorable to morality, to be\\ndrawn from the false doctrines of the Gnostics, were repre-\\nsented as their common practical effects though it is often\\nthe case, that men do not follow out in action the results\\nof bad principles any more than of good.\\nIn determining the truth concerning the Gnostics, we may\\nfind a concurrence of credible and contemporary testimony to\\nwhat is probable in itself, and coincident or consistent with\\nthe still remaining expositions which they themselves gave of\\ntheir doctrines and consistent, also, with forms of opinion\\nwhich prevailed during the period when they sprung up and\\nflourished. This testimony, so confirmed, is sufficient to estab-\\nlish the leading facts concerning their character and doctrines.\\nIn proceeding farther, we must judge of the accounts given\\nof them from the particular probabilities that each case may\\npresent, and especially from the consistency of those accounts\\nwith the truths concerning them which we have found means\\nto settle. And, throughout this whole inquiry, particular at-\\ntention must be given to the very different value of those\\nancient writers who have treated of the Gnostics, to the\\nperiod when they lived, to their means of information, to the\\ntemper and purpose with which they wrote, and to their\\nrespective characters for correctness and truth. In this re-\\nspect, as we shall hereafter see, a wide distinction is to be\\nmade among writers who have often been indiscriminately\\nquoted, as of equal authority in regard to the history of the\\nGnostics.\\nThis subject has afforded scope for an abundance of hypoth-", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": "180 EVIDENCES OF THE\\neses in modern times for few facts have been so well estab-\\nlished, and so generally acknowledged, as to stand in their\\nway. It has been a sort of disputed province between fiction\\nand history. We may meet, on every side, with statements\\nrespecting the Gnostics altogether unfounded. Gibbon says,\\nthat they u were distinguished as the most learned, the most\\npolite, and most wealthy of the Christian name but\\nthe assertion is made without proof, on his own responsibility\\nunless, indeed, he has repeated or exaggerated the error of\\nsome preceding modern writer, of which T am not aware.\\nThe rejoresentation is such as it may readily be supposed was\\nnot derived from their ancient controversial opponents, who\\nalone can be referred to for information concerning the sub-\\nject. No one, I think, besides Gibbon, has ascribed to them\\nthe worldly distinctions of superior refinement and wealth;\\nbut the zeal for paradoxes, which prevails among many of the*\\ntheological writers of our age, has shown itself in other repre-\\nsentations. The theosophic Gnostics, though their specula-\\ntions are among the most vague and inconsequent that any\\nvisionaries have produced, have been transformed into pene-\\ntrating and refined philosophers, or, rather, described as\\nequally versed in the mysteries of Platonism, of the Cab-\\nbala, of the Zend-Avesta, and of the New Testament as\\nbelonging rather to the world of ideas than to that of sensa-\\ntions, and as manifesting the human soul in its sublime\\necstasies. f This is the language of a writer who does not\\nseparate himself from the rest of the intellectual world by\\nhis general tone of thought and expression, or by any radical\\nchanges in the use of language. But one of the followers\\nof the latest, darkest, and most repulsive school of German\\nmetaphysicians has likewise thought to clo honor to the Gnos-\\ntics, by claiming them as its progenitors.\\nDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv.\\nf Matter, Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme (1828), torn. ii. p. 281.\\nJ I refer to Baur, Professor of Gospel Theolog}^ in the University of", "height": "4560", "width": "2888", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 18.1\\nTo justify such eulogies as have been bestowed on them\\nby the writer first mentioned, their systems are professedly\\nlaid open and though the end be not obtained, though noth-\\nTiibingen, a disciple of Hegel, and a writer of much note among his coun-\\ntrymen, who has published a large work relat ng to the Gnostics, entitled\\nThe Christian Gnosis (or Gnosticism); or, the Christian Philosophy of\\nReligion historically deyeloped (Tubingen, 8vo, 1835). His main pur-\\npose is to represent the Gnostics as the true religious philosophers of their\\ntimes, and to exhibit the resemblance of their doctrines to the latest philoso-\\nphy of religion, as deyeloped by Jacob Boehmen. Schelling, Schleiermaeher,\\nand finally by Hegel, who has brought it nearest to perfection. The funda-\\nmental doctrine, in which he regards the Gnostics as coinciding with these\\nmodern philosophers, is one which he has arbitrarily ascribed to them.\\nAccording to him, they yiewed God (their Supreme God) as an unconscious,\\nimpersonal, and unintelligent being. The doctrine of Hegel teaches that all\\nindiyidual spirits are but modifications of one uniyersal spirit, the only posi-\\ntive existence in the universe. Ideas alone are things. But this universal\\nspirit is, in itself, unconscious, and first arrives at consciousness in its devel-\\nopment in man. Man is the only conscious God. The essence of religion,\\ntherefore, is the self-consciousness of God. God knows himself in a con-\\nsciousness different from him, which, in itself, is the consciousness of God,\\nbut which also has reference to itself, as it knows its identity with God; an\\nidentity existing through the negation of finiteness. Thus, in one word,\\nGod is this, to distinguish one s self from one s self, to become objective\\nto one s self, but, in this distinction, to be absolutely identical with one s\\nself. These words, in which Baur reports the doctrine of Hegel on the most\\nimportant of subjects, seem rather the language of a man not of sane mind,\\nthan such as accords with the character of one reputed, by many of his coun-\\ntrymen, to be the wisest of philosophers.\\nAfter this account of The Christian Philosophy of Religion, which, it\\nappears, is atheism, Baur remarks, that it is eyident how intimately this\\nphilosophy is connected with Christianity, how eagerly it transfers to itself\\nits entire substance, nay, that, in its whole purpose, it is nothing else than a\\nscientific explanation of the problem of historical Christianity (pp. 709,\\n710).\\nIn the work of Baur, there is no critical examination of the history of the\\nGnostics, nor any information of value concerning them. He ascribes to\\nthem, not only without authority, but contrary to all evidence, the doctrine\\nof an unconscious and impersonal God. His work, like those of many of his\\ncountrymen, exhibits an incapacity of thinking clearly and consistently, and\\nof presenting a lucid and well-digested exposition of a subject; and is char-\\nacterized by such a use of words, especially concerning the topics of religion,\\nas would unsettle all their established meanings. It belongs to that class of", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "182 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ning wonderful appear, yet the Gnostics, could they revive,\\nmight address their expositors in words like those which\\nPlato puts into the mouth of Thesetetus, after subjecting him\\nto the questioning of Socrates By Jupiter, you have made\\nme say more than I had in me. Nor has this too great\\ningenuity of explanation been confined to those who have\\nformed an over-estimate of the spiritual acquirements of the\\nGnostics. In the development of their opinions, it is not\\nuncommon to find a striking contrast between the scanty\\nor worthless materials that antiquity has left us, and the\\nlong and ready detail of a modern expositor, defining the\\nparticulars, and tracing the history, of a system. When\\nspeculative writings, of which Germany has been so fertile; treating of the\\nmost important subjects, and promulgating, sometimes with dogmatical\\nphlegm, and sometimes with heartless flippancy, doctrines the most disas-\\ntrous to faith and morals. These writings are distinguished, not so much by\\na want of reasoning, or an evident incapacity of reasoning, as by an apparent\\ninsensibility to its necessity or use. Every thing is assumed. The most\\nextravagant and most pernicious theories are put forward as if they consisted\\nof self-evident propositions. Yet when the metaphysician or theologist of\\nthe day brings out his new system, resting on no truths or facts, but spun\\nfrom his own brain, his disciples (les plus sots qui toujours admirent un sot)\\napplaud the rigid thought and profound speculations of their master; while\\nmore intelligent readers, unaccustomed to this style of discussion without\\nexplanation or argument, are at first perplexed by a phenomenon which\\nthey cannot readily understand. These works, numerous as they are, do not\\nbelong to the literature of the world. They form a literature, if it may be so\\ncalled, immiscible with any other. The speculations they contain have no\\nalliance with those truths which human wisdom has established, or which\\nGod has revealed to us. Tennemann, the German historian of philosophy,\\nlikened the new school of German metaphysicians, as it existed in his time,\\nto the later Platonists. Baur finds a strong resemblance between tho-e of\\nour day and the Gnostics. These modern metaphysicians do, in truth,\\nbelong to the age of the later Platonists and Gnostics. But they resemble\\nthem, not so much through a correspondence of doctrines, as in their mystical\\nand barbarous obscurity, in their perversion and fabrication of language, in\\ntheir arrogant claims, in their contempt for the exercise of the understanding\\nin the investigation and establishment of truth, and in their pretending to\\nsome other foundation than reason and the revelation of God on which to rest\\nour highest knowledge.", "height": "4560", "width": "2920", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 183\\nwe look for the proof of what is affirmed, we find, per-\\nhaps, straggling authorities of doubtful credit or uncertain\\napplication supposed analogies with opinions less under-\\nstood than those of the Gnostics, to establish which, the\\nmere shadows of meaning are to be tracked through the\\nobscurity of Eastern theology, or some imaginary scheme of\\nEgyptian superstition; etymological conjectures; and expla-\\nnations of allegories and symbols, to which the ingenuity of\\nthe writer may give a glimmering of probability, while his\\npage is open before us. In the words of Tertullian, Late quce-\\nruntur incerta, latius disputantur prassumpta, There is a\\nwide search after uncertainties, and a wider discussion of\\nassumptions. At the same time, facts that lie most open to\\nview have been disregarded or misrepresented, or but par-\\ntially stated.\\nIn consequence, however, of all the attention which has\\nbeen given to the subject, the character of the Gnostics may\\nundoubtedly at the present day be better understood than it\\nhas been. The extravagant over-estimate of them, which\\nappears in some modern writers, is, in part, a re-action pro-\\nduced by the extravagant depreciation of them which preceded\\nit. The crude accounts of the later as well as earlier fathers\\nwere formerly received without discrimination, and without\\nany attempt to disengage the truth from the language of con-\\ntroversy, or from the mass of falsehood in which it was envel-\\noped, and consequently without any exercise of judgment on\\nthe respective credibility of the authorities adduced. The\\ncharges made against them by the later as well as earlier\\nfathers, whether probable or not, have been repeated without\\nexamination by theological bigotry, which, connecting with\\nthe name of heretic the ideas of folly, immorality, and im-\\npiety, has given itself full scope in ascribing these bad quali-\\nties to the Gnostics. Even more sober and judicious writers\\nhave spoken of their systems as if they had just appeared,\\ninstead of having been produced many centuries ago and", "height": "4548", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "184 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nhave rather compared them with an abstract standard of\\nwhat they themselves deemed sound philosophy, than viewed\\nthem relatively to the erroneous conceptions of ancient times.\\nTheir proper rank has not been assigned them among the\\nother forms of metaphysical and religious belief, equally false\\nand irrational, which have been or still are extensively re-\\nceived. But the Gnostics were prodigies neither of wisdom\\nnor of folly. There was nothing peculiar in the character\\nof their minds to distinguish them from numerous theorists of\\ntheir own and other times. With the exception of the Mar-\\ncionites, they belonged to the large class of the professors\\nof hidden but intuitive wisdom, who exhibit to the ignorant\\nbits of colored glass, with the air of men displaying inesti-\\nmable jewels. The most eminent among them were probably\\nfar inferior to some of their opponents, to such men as Ter-\\ntullian and Origen, in vigor and clearness of intellect, and\\nin that intense conviction of the truths of religion which\\nat once implies a sound judgment, and tends to perfect it; but\\nI do not know that they would appear to much disadvantage,\\nif brought into comparison with the later Platonists of the\\nthird and fourth centuries.\\nThe Gnostics and Ebionites, as has been remarked, were\\nthe principal heretics of the first two centuries. They\\nwere both divided from the communion of catholic Christians.\\nThe Ebionites, belonging to what, in their view, was the\\nprivileged race of the Jews, kept aloof from the Gentile con-\\nverts and, among the Gnostics, the Marcionites formed\\nseparate churches of their own.* The theosophic Gnostics, it\\nis probable, likewise had their separate religious assemblies,\\nunless they were prevented by the smallness of their numbers,\\nor by what they regarded as a philosophical indifference to out-\\nward forms of religion. Tertullian, however, says generally\\nTertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 5, pp. 415, 416.", "height": "4532", "width": "2940", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 185\\nof the heretics, that, for the most part, they have no churches\\nmotherless, without a settled habitation, bereaved of faith,\\noutcasts, they wander about without a home. An open\\nseparation between the Gnostics and the catholic Christians\\nwas produced, on the one hand, by the pride of the Gnostics\\nin their peculiar opinions, and by their regarding themselves\\nas the only spiritual believers, and all beside as lying in dark-\\nness and, on the other hand, by the strong dislike which the\\ngreat body of Christians entertained for their doctrines and\\npretensions, and by the brief profession of faith (the origin of\\nwhat was afterward called The Apostles Creed required\\nof a catechumen, after passing his noviciate, before admission\\nto the communion. The Gnostics, however, sometimes rep-\\nresented their exclusion from the Church as unjust. Irenasus\\nsays of the Yalentinians,\\nFor the sake of making converts of those of the Church, they\\naddress discourses to the multitude, by which they delude and en-\\ntice the more simple, imitating our modes of expression to induce\\nthem to become more frequent hearers, and complaining to them\\nof us, that when they think as we do, say the same things, and\\nhold the same doctrine, we abstain without reason from their com-\\nmunion, and call them heretics. f\\nTill toward the middle of the third century, when the\\nheretics were spoken of in general terms, the Gnostics alone\\nwere for the most part intended. Thus, for example, Clement\\nof Alexandria sets forth his design to show to all the here-\\ntics,. that there is one God and one Lord omnipotent clearly\\nproclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, in connection with\\nthe blessed Gospel a proposition requiring to be proved\\nonly against the Gnostics. So also Irenasus. in the Preface\\nto his fourth book, disregarding his own previous mention of\\nDe Prescript. Heretic, c. 42, p. 218.\\nf Cont. Hasres., lib. iii. c. 15, 2. p. 203.\\nX Stroniat., lib. iv. 1, p. 564, ed. Potter.", "height": "4560", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "186 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthe Ebionites, speaks of all heretics as teaching blasphemy\\nagainst our Maker and Preserver.\\nBut, in considering the subject of the early heretics, it is to\\nbe remarked, that among the catholic Christians, their con-\\ntemporaries, there was great freedom of speculation, and great\\ndiversity of opinion, till after the time of Origen. Probably\\nno standard of orthodoxy was generally received, much more\\ncomprehensive than what has been called the Apostles\\nCreed and the opinions of no individual writer were con-\\nformable to any of the standards which have been since\\nestablished. In comparing Tertullian with Origen, the one\\nthe most eminent defender of the common faith amon\u00c2\u00a3 the\\nGreeks, and the other among the Latins, and both, after their\\ndeath, reputed as heretics, we not only find in them a wholly\\ndifferent cast of mind and temper, but the speculations of the\\none are in many respects diverse from, and opposite to, those\\nof the other; while those of each of them are often very\\nremote from what is the general belief of Christians at the\\npresent clay. The author of the Clementine Homilies seems,\\nin ancient times, to have escaped the imputation of being a\\nheretic yet, among other doctrines widely different from the\\nmore common faith, he brought forward a theory, to be else-\\nwhere noticed, respecting the Jewish Law and the Old Testa-\\nment, in opposition to the Gnostics, which approached little\\nnearer than their own to the opinions afterwards established.\\nTertullian wrote warmly against Hermogenes, who main-\\ntained that evil had its source in eternal, unoriginated matter.\\nYet Hermogenes does not appear to have been separated\\nfrom the communion of the catholic Church and probably\\nnot a few other catholic Christians held, in common with\\nhim, a doctrine so prevalent in pagan philosophy. It may be\\nobserved, that Hermogenes gave his name to no sect, which\\nCont. Hseres-, lib. iv. Pnef. 4, p. 228.", "height": "4560", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 187\\nseems to show that there was nothing extraordinary in his\\nopinions being held by a Christian. Tertullian also wrote\\nagainst Praxeas, who opposed the speculations which had\\nbeen introduced concerning the proper personality of the\\nLogos. His zeal was inflamed by the circumstance, that\\nPraxeas had been an opponent of the Montanists, of which\\nsect Tertullian had become a member. But he tells us, that\\nthe greater part of Christians, the simple, not to say the\\nunwise and ignorant, favored the opinions of Praxeas.*\\nAnd, to mention but one other example, there is no ground\\nfor supposing, that Tertullian himself, after becoming a Mon-\\ntanist, was rejected from the communion of the catholic\\nChurch though it is true, that the Montanists were soon\\nregarded as a heresy separated from it.\\nThe state of Christians, then, during the second century,\\npresents a very remarkable appearance. By the side of the\\ngreat body of Gentile Christians, among whom such freedom\\nof speculation prevailed, we find another smaller body of\\nGentile Christians, the Gnostics, agreeing with the former in\\nacknowledging Christ as a divine teacher, but separated from\\nthem by an impassable gulf, as holding doctrines which\\nrendered the amalgamation of the two parties impossible.\\nNotwithstanding some striking analogies between their specu-\\nlations, there was no gradual transition from one system to\\nthe other. The separation was abrupt and broad. It con-\\nsisted in the fundamental doctrine of the Gnostics, that the\\nCreator, or the principal Creator, of the universe, the god of\\nthe Jews, was not the Supreme Divinity and the God\\nof Christians.\\nThe scheme of the Gnostics is, without doubt, to be re-\\ngarded, in part, as a crude attempt to solve the existence of\\nevil in the world a subject which engaged their attention in\\nAdvers. Praxeam, c. 3, p. 502.", "height": "4548", "width": "2656", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "188 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\ncommon with that of other religious theorists of their age.\\nBut the desire to solve this problem was not, I conceive, the\\nprincipal occasion of the existence of Gnosticism. This, I\\nthink, is to be found in the hereditary aversion of Gentiles to\\nJudaism; in the traditionary views of the Old Testament,\\ncommunicated by the Jews from whom it was received and\\nin the impossibility which the Gnostics found of reconciling\\nthe conceptions of God that it presents, with their moral feel-\\nings, and with those conceptions of him which they had\\nderived from Christianity. Nor in this respect did they\\nstand alone. A large portion, we know not how large, of the\\ncatholic Christians, including some of the most eminent and\\nintellectual of their number, equally regarded much in the\\nJewish Law and history as irreconcilable with correct morality\\nand just notions of God, if understood in its obvious sense.\\nThey, however, as we shall hereafter see, took a very different\\ncourse from that of the Gnostics, in escaping from the diffi-\\nculty with which they were pressed.\\nRegarding the aversion of the Gentiles to Judaism as the\\nprincipal occasion of Gnosticism, we may readily understand\\nwhy the whole body of early heretics among the Gentile con-\\nverts became Gnostics. As soon as men s attention was\\ndistinctly fixed upon the subject, nothing but a thorough and\\nstrongly operative faith in Christianity could enable a Gentile\\nChristian to subdue the prejudices, and overcome the diffi-\\nculties, which stood in the way of his acknowledging the\\nOld Testament to have the divine authority that was claimed\\nfor it.\\nTo the opinions of the Gnostics respecting Judaism we\\nshall recur hereafter. But other topics must be first attend-\\ned to.", "height": "4580", "width": "2932", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER III.\\nON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE GNOSTICS, AND THE\\nSOURCES OF INFORMATION CONCERNING THE3I.\\nIrex^eus pretends, that all the Gnostics derived their ex-\\nistence from Simon, the magician of Samaria, who is men-\\ntioned in the eighth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. He\\nsays, that u all heresies had their origin in him, that he\\nwas the father of all heretics. All those, he says, who in\\nany way corrupt the truth, or mar the preaching of the\\nChurch, are disciples and successors of Simon, the Samaritan\\nmagician although, as he honestly adds. they do not ac-\\nknowledge him as their master. J The same representation\\nof Simon appears in other, succeeding fathers. But the in-\\nformation of Irenaeus and his contemporaries, concerning\\nparticular personages and events in the history of Christianity\\nduring th$ first century, except so far as it was derived from\\nthe Xew Testament, was very imperfect and uncertain and\\ntheir accounts of Simon are not to be implicitly received.\\nBut there is no doubt, that there was, in the first century.\\na Simon, a Samaritan, a pretender to divine authority and\\nsupernatural powers, who for a time had many followers.\\nwho stood in a certain relation to Christianity, and who may\\nhave held some opinions more or less similar to those of the\\nCont. Ha?res., lib. i. c. 23, 2, p. 99; lib. iii. Pnef. p. 173; lib. ii. Pnef.\\np. 115.\\nt Lib. i. c. 27, 4, p. 106.", "height": "4560", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "190 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nGnostics. Justin Martyr mentions him and his followers\\nseveral times, but gives no account of his doctrines. He only\\nstates, that he deceived men by magical arts, and that almost\\nall the Samaritans (the countrymen of Justin) acknowledged\\nand worshipped him as the first God, u over all rule, authority,\\nand power and affirmed, that a woman, whom he carried\\nabout with him, named Helena, was the first (hypostatized)\\nconception of his, that is, of the divine mind.^ These opinions\\nseem to imply an annihilation of common sense in his fol-\\nlowers but they admit, as we shall see, of some explanation,\\nthat may serve to reconcile them to our apprehensions.\\nJustin does not identify the Simon of whom he speaks with\\nthe Simon mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles f and, in\\nmodern times, some of the learned have contended that they\\nwere different individuals. But Luke describes the Simon\\nwhom he mentions as practising magical arts, so as to deprive\\nthe Samaritan nation of their senses, and as declaring himself\\nto be some great personage and he adds, that all, high and\\nlow, affirmed him to be the Power of God, called Great? J\\nWhen we compare Luke s account with that of Justin, it\\nappears incredible that the two writers should be speaking of\\ntwo different individuals, who bore the same name, who were\\nconspicuous in the same country, Samaria, and who likewise\\nwere contemporaries for Justin says of the Simon whom he\\nmentions, that he was at Rome during the reign of Claudius.\\nBelieving the accounts of both, therefore, to relate to the\\nsame person, we may observe, that Simon, according to Luke,\\nsuffered himself to be regarded as a manifestation of what was\\nprobably considered as the highest power of God. From this,\\nit was an easy transition for his followers to speak of him as\\nI. Apolog., p. 38, seqq., p 84; II. Apolog., p. 134; Dial, cum Tiyph.,\\np. 397, ed. Thirlby.\\nt Chap. viii. 9-24.\\nActs viii. 9, 10. In the tenth verse, I adopt the reading, Ovtoq eanv q\\ndvvafxcg rov Qeov rj KaTiovftivrj [leyaki].", "height": "4560", "width": "2952", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 191\\na manifestation of God, or as God made manifest to men, and\\nthus to represent him as God himself. I have here supposed\\nthis account to have been given of him by his followers.\\nSome of the fathers subsequent to Justin affirm, that Simon\\nhimself claimed to be God. But this was not unlikely to be\\nsaid, if his adherents so regarded him for the later opinions\\nof a sect were not uncommonly ascribed to its founder. But,\\nif Simon did use such language concerning himself, it may\\nstill be explained in a similar manner. In the assertions\\nwhich he or his followers made concerning Helena, there was,\\nI conceive, a like vague use of words but through the\\nstrange accounts given of her. which it is not worth while to\\ndetail, we may perhaps discern that she was regarded as the\\nsymbol, or the manifestation, of that portion of spirituality\\nwhich (according to a common conception of the Gnostic?)\\nhad become entangled in matter, and for the liberation of\\nwhich the interposition of the Deity was required.\\nFrom all the notices of Simon, it does not seem likely that\\nhe much affected the character of a speculative philosopher\\nor theologist, or was solicitous to establish any system of\\ndoctrines. He appears to have been a bold, artful, vainglo-\\nrious, dishonest adventurer, claiming to possess supernatural\\npowers, and having much skill in obtaining control over the\\nminds of others. In Josephus, there is mention of a Simon,\\npretending to be a magician, who. somewhere about twenty\\nyears after the events recorded in the eighth chapter of the\\nActs of the Apostles, was employed by Felix, then Procurator\\nof Judaea, to persuade Brasilia, the wife of Azizus, King of\\nEmesa, to forsake her husband, and marry Felix which\\nDrusilla was prevailed on to do.* It is not improbable that\\nthis was the same Simon who is spoken of by St. Lnke.\\nWhether he were so or not, the Simon connected with the\\nJosephi Antiq., lib. xx. c. 7, 2. Drusilla is mentioned, Acts xxiv.\\n24.", "height": "4560", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "192 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nearly history of Christianity may be classed with certain im-\\npostors and fanatics, not uncommon in the age in which he\\nlived, who, proceeding on the doctrines of the Pythagorean\\nPlatonists (as they may be called), pretended, through mysti-\\ncal exercises of mind, to have attained a communion with the\\ninvisible world, and to possess a power, which they denomi-\\nnated theurgy, of performing supernatural works by divine\\nassistance. He may be compared with his contemporary,\\nApollonius of Tyana, whose works Hierocles, an early enemy\\nof Christianity, represented as equalling or excelling those of\\nour Lord or with a somewhat later impostor, Alexander,\\nthe Paphlagonian prophet, on whom Lucian poured out his\\ninvective. Like pretensions to magical power were common\\namong the other extravagances of the later Platonists. Plo-\\ntinus, the most eminent of the sect, was, according to the\\naccount of his disciple Porphyry (famous for his work against\\nChristianity), a great theurgist; and Proclus, than whom\\nnone of these philosophers had more alacrity in diving into\\nthe deepest and darkest mysteries, is said by his friend and\\nbiographer, Marinus, to have been able to bring rain from\\nheaven, to stop earthquakes, and to expel diseases. Simon\\nhad learned in a similar school and though he was, probably,\\nmore of an impostor than a fanatic, yet a religious impostor\\ncan hardly be very successful without a mixture of fanaticism.\\nIf he succeed in deceiving others, he commonly succeeds,\\npartially at least, in deceiving himself. The false opinion\\nwhich he creates in those about him re-acts on his own mind.\\nSimon, we may suppose, like the generality of men in his age,\\nwas a believer in the power of magic, or theurgy and, when\\nhe saw the miracles performed by Philip, was filled with as-\\ntonishment, and regarded him as operating through magical\\npowers unknown to himself. Giving credit, at the same\\ntime, to the accounts of the miracles of Jesus, he probably\\nthought him to have been a great theurgist, and wished to\\nbecome possessed of the secrets which he imagined him", "height": "4560", "width": "2948", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 193\\nto have communicated to his disciples. Being confirmed in\\nthis state of mind by witnessing the effects produced by the\\nimposition of the hands of the apostles, he did what naturally\\noccurred to him he offered money to purchase their disclosure.\\nHe was at first humbled and terrified by the severe rebuke\\nof Peter but no evil immediately followed and it appears,\\nfrom the further accounts of him, that he resumed confidence,\\npursued his former course of life, and was excited to set him-\\nself up as a rival of our Lord.\\nOf the particular events of his subsequent life, little is\\nknown. It is not probable that he left any writings behind\\nfiiia.* Justin Martyr says, that he visited Rome, and there\\ndisplayed his pretended magical powers. J Irenaeus relates,\\nthat he was honored by many as a god, and that images of\\nhim and Helena the former fashioned as Jupiter, and the\\nlatter as Minerva were worshipped by his followers t and\\nJustin says, that there was at Rome a statue dedicated to him\\nas a god.\\nThe history of Simon is an object of interest from the\\nmention of him by St. Luke, and from his early connection\\nwith Christianity. The accounts of him, however, afford no\\nAbout the end of the fourth century, Jerome, in a single passage (Opp.\\niv. p. i. col. Ill), speaks of books written by Simon: Qui se magnam\\ndicebat esse Dei virtutem: haec quoque inter caetera in suis voluminibus\\nscripta dimittens: Ego sum sermo Dei; ego sum speciosus. ego Paracletus,\\nego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei. Except as a mystical expression of Pan-\\ntheism, the passage is somewhat too blasphemous for one readily to believe\\nit to have been written by any man in his senses. In regard to books\\nascribed to Simon, if such really existed in Jerome s time, he is far too late\\nan authority to afford any proof of their genuineness: and such book are\\nmentioned by no preceding writer. Beausobre (Histoire du Manicheisme,\\ni. 259, 260) maintains, what I doubt not is true, that Jerome did not take his\\npretended quotation from any work of Simon, nor any work which had been\\ncommonly believed to be Simon s; though, in doing so, he has destroyed the\\nonly evidence for the opinion, which he himself expresses, that Simon wrote\\nbooks explanatory of his doctrine (ibid., p. 259).\\nf I Apolog., p. 39.\\nt Cont. Hccres., lib. i. c. 23, 1, 4, pp. 99, 100.\\n18", "height": "4560", "width": "2656", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "194 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmeans of determining, with any particularity and assurance,\\nwliat opinions he put forward but, whatever he taught or\\naffirmed, he did not rest his doctrine on the authority of\\nChrist. Him he emulated he was not his disciple. The\\nonly ground on which his followers might be confounded\\nwith Christians is indicated in an account of Irenseus, that\\nSimon taught that it was he himself who had appeared\\namorjg the Jews as the Son, had descended as the Father in\\nSamaria, and had visited other nations as the Holy Spirit.\\nConformably to what has been before remarked, that the\\nlater opinions of a sect were often ascribed to its founder, I\\nsuppose this, or something like this, to have been said, not\\nby Simon, but by some of his followers. Representing him\\nas the Great Power of God, manifested in ail divine com-\\nmunications to men, and reckoning Christianity among these\\ncommunications, they thus brought themselves into some\\nrelation to it.\\nBut I imagine them to have been held together as a\\nsect, rather by the admiration of his supposed powers, by\\nthe worship of him as a divinity, or the Divinity, and by the\\nstudy and practice of magical arts, than by the profession\\nof any system of doctrines. However numerous they may\\naj* one time have been, they soon dwindled away. Origen\\ncharges Celsus with error for speaking of the Simonians\\nas a Christian sect. That writer was not aware, he\\nsays, that they are far from acknowledging Jesus as the\\nSon of God but affirm that Simon was the Power of God.\\nThey relate various marvels of their master, who thought,\\nthat, if he could acquire such powers as he believed Jesus to\\npossess, he should have as great influence over men. f In\\nanother place, he expresses the opinion, that in his time there\\nwere not more than thirty Simonians in the world. He\\nCont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 23, 1, p. 99.\\nf Cont. Cels., lib. v. n. 62; Opp. i, 625, 626.", "height": "4560", "width": "2944", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 195\\nsays., that a very few were living in Palestine (the successors,\\nwe may presume, of his first Samaritan followers) but that\\ngenerally, wherever the name of Simon was known, it was\\nthrough the mention of him in the Acts of the Apostles.*\\nElsewhere, he speaks of the sect as having ceased to exist.\\nThere are no Simonians, he says, remaining in the\\nworld though Simon, in order to draw after him a greater\\nnumber of followers, relieved them from the danger of death,\\nto which Christians were taught to expose themselves,\\nby teaching them to regard the worship of idols as a matter\\nof indifference. J They worshipped, as we have seen,\\nimages of Simon and Helena. Irenaeus says, what is alto-\\ngether probable, that they were men of loose lives, devoted\\nto the study of magic and their magical discipline was\\nconnected, according to Tertullian,\u00c2\u00a7 with paying religious\\nservice to angels.\\nSuch, I believe, is the amount of all that can be known,\\nor probably conjectured, concerning Simon and his followers.\\nBut, beside the historical notices of him, he is introduced as\\na principal personage into an ancient work of fiction, called\\nthe Clementine Homilies. This work throws some light on\\nthe history and character of Gnosticism; but no one would\\npretend, that it is of any authority as regards the history of\\nSimon, or even as regards any doctrines he may have held.\\nOur information being so imperfect and uncertain concern-\\ning Simon, the most noted among all who have been repre-\\nsented as Gnostics, either antichristian or heretical, of the\\nfirst century, we may be prepared for the obscurity and\\ndoubt which cloud over the history of other individuals\\nand of supposed heretical sects during the same period.\\nCont. Cels., lib. i. n. 57, pp. 372, 373.\\nt Ibid., lib. vi. n. 11, p. 638.\\nX Cont. Hares., lib. i. c. 23, 4, p. 100.\\nDe Prescript. Haret, c 33, p. 214.", "height": "4552", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "196 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nMenander, another Samaritan, is said to have been the suc-\\ncessor of Simon, and to have claimed, like him, to be one of\\nthe Powers of God, manifested for the salvation of men\\nand some stories remain of an individual called Dositheus,\\nwho, Origen says, pretended to be the Jewish Messiah.f We\\nmay conclude, perhaps, from these accounts, that, about the\\ntime of Simon, there were other less noted impostors of a\\nsimilar character. These, together with him, may be con-\\nsidered as antichristian, not heretical.\\nAmong the reputed heretics of the first century, using the\\nword heretic in its modern sense, there is none of whom\\nthe notices are adapted to excite any considerable degree of\\ninterest or curiosity, except Cerinthus. Cerinthus is repre-\\nsented by Irenseus, who first mentions him, as a Gnostic\\nleader, contemporary with St. John. He taught, according\\nto Irenasus, that the world was not formed by the Supreme\\nGod, but by a certain Power, widely separated from him, and\\nignorant of his existence. He supposed Jesus not to have\\nbeen born of a virgin, but of Joseph and Mary. He regarded\\nhim as having been distinguished from other men by superior\\nwisdom and virtue. Into him, at his baptism, he believed\\nthat Christ descended, from that Principality which is over\\nall (the Pleroma), in the form of a dove; and that then he\\nannounced the Unknown Father, and performed miracles.\\nAt the crucifixion, Christ, who was spiritual and impassible,\\nre-ascended from Jesus, and Jesus suffered alone. He alone\\ndied, and rose from the dead. J Irenseus also relates an idle\\nIrenes, Jib. i. c. 23, 5, p. 100.\\nf Cont. Cels., lib. i. n. 57; Opp. i. 372. Dositheus is elsewhere spoken\\nof by Origen, in several places; but is not mentioned by Irenauis, Clement\\nof Alexandria, or Tertullian. It may here be observed, that the short ac-\\ncount of heresies published in the editions of Tertullian, at the end of his\\nbook, De Prrcscriptione Hgereticorum, is not the work of that father. In this\\naccount, Dositheus is spoken of.\\nCont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 26, 1, p. 105.", "height": "4552", "width": "2916", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 197\\ntale, which he says some had heard from Polycarp, that\\nJohn, while residing at Ephesus, on going to bathe, found\\nCerinthus in the building, and rushed out, exclaiming, Let\\nus fly, lest the bath should. fall upon us; Cerinthus, the ene-\\nmy of truth, being within. He further supposes, that one\\npurpose of John in writing his Gospel was to confute the\\nerrors of Cerinthus. t\\nIn the account given by Irenseus of the doctrines of Cerin-\\nthus, there is nothing, perhaps, intrinsically improbable and,\\nfrom this account, it would appear that Cerinthus held the\\ncharacteristic doctrines of the Gnostics. But the Roman\\npresbyter, Caius, contemporary with Irenoeus, represents him\\nas a believer in a millennium, in which sensual pleasures\\nwere to be enjoyed, and affirms him to have been the author\\nof a certain book, which Caius so describes as to leave, I\\nthink, little doubt that he intended the Apocalypse. He\\nspeaks of Cerinthus as one who, in Revelations, written\\nunder the name of a great apostle, introduced forged accounts\\nof marvels, which he pretended had been shown him by\\nangels and taught, that, after the resurrection, there was to\\nbe an earthly reign of Christ, and that men, dwelling in\\nJerusalem, would again become slaves to the lusts and pleas-\\nures of the flesh. t In the last half of the third century,\\nDionysius of Alexandria, referring probably to this passage,\\nsays that some of those before him had ascribed the Apoca-\\nlypse to Cerinthus, regarding it as an unintelligible and inco-\\nherent book and he himself assigns to Cerinthus the same\\nJewish notions concerning the millennium which Caius had\\nrepresented him as holding. In the account of Irenams,\\nCerinthus appears as an early Gnostic but the expectation\\nCont. Hseres., lib. iii. c. 3, 4, p. 177. The same story is told by\\nEpiphanius, not of Cerinthus, but of Ebion. Uteres., xxx. 23, pp. 148,\\n149.\\nt Lib. iii. c. 11, 1, p. 188.\\nJ Apud Euseb. Hist. Eecles., lib. iii. c. 28. Ibid et lib. viii. c. 25.", "height": "4560", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "198 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof a millennial reign of Christ had its origin in the belief of\\nthe Jews, antecedent to Christianity, concerning the temporal\\nreign of their Messiah. The doctrine was Jewish in its origin\\nand character, and altogether foreign from the conceptions of\\nthe Gnostics. They could not but revolt at the idea of\\nassigning to their Christ a glorious reign on this earth, which,\\nin their view, was the dwelling-place of imperfection and evil,\\nover followers reclothed in what they regarded as the pollu-\\ntion of flesh. But, according to Irenseus, Cerinthus coincided\\nwith the Gnostics in holding their essential doctrines of an\\nUnknown God, of an ignorant and imperfect Creator, and\\nof the necessity of a divine interposition through Christ,\\ndescending from the pure world of spirits. But the strongly\\nmarked character of the Apocalypse is such as to render it\\nimpossible that it should have been written by a Gnostic, or\\nby one holding the doctrines that Irenseus attributes to\\nCerinthus. The supposition would have been too glaring\\nan absurdity to have been made by Caius, or countenanced\\nby Dionysius. They, therefore, did not regard him as hold-\\ning those doctrines. On the other hand, they not improbably\\nconsidered him as an Ebionite, according to one part of the\\nrepresentation which, as we shall see, was given by Epipha-\\nnius concerning him.\\nCerinthus is not named (and the fact is of importance in\\nforming a j udgment concerning his history) by Justin Martyr,\\nClement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen. From this we\\nmay conclude, that he was not particularly conspicuous in the\\nfirst century that he left no reputation which had made\\na deep impression on the minds of men that there was no\\nconsiderable body of heretics bearing his name in the second\\nand third centuries and that no writings of his were extant,\\nof any celebrity. Probably there were none whatever for\\nexcept a story of Epiphanius about a pretended gospel, which\\nwe shall elsewhere have occasion to examine, none are re-\\nferred to by any writer.", "height": "4560", "width": "2940", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 199\\nJustin Martyr, as lias been mentioned, does not name\\nCerinthus. On the contrary, he implies his ignorance of any\\nindividuals who separated the man Jesus and the JEon Christ\\nin the manner in which Cerinthus and his followers are said\\nto have done by Irenaeus. In a passage in which he is speak-\\ning of the Gnostics generally, and in which he particularly\\nmentions the names of the leading sects, he describes them as\\nnot teaching the doctrines of Christ, but those of the spirits\\nof delusion yet professing themselves to be Christians,\\nand professing that Jesus who was crucified was the Lord\\nand Christ. According to the account of Irenams, Cerin-\\nthus and his followers could have made no such profession.\\nThe distinction that was in fact supposed by the theosophic\\nGnostics between the ^Eon Christ and the man Jesus, Justin,\\nif it existed in his day, overlooked and it could hardly, there-\\nfore, have been a doctrine that had its origin in the first\\ncentury, when Cerinthus is said to have lived.\\nOf this reputed heretic we have further notices in Epipha-\\nnius t but, with that writer, we enter the region of fable.\\nAfter repeating, in effect, the brief account of Irenaeus, he\\nsubjoins, that Cerinthus was a zealot for the Mosaic Law t\\nthough, with a disregard of probability common enough in his\\nstories, he states, at the same time, that Cerinthus affirmed\\nthat the giver of the Law was not good. Epiphanius,\\namong other fictions, pretends that he was a leader of those\\nJewish Christians, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, who\\ncontended that the Gentile converts must be circumcised.\\nHe thus ascribes to him the two opposite heresies of the\\nGnostics and the Ebionites. It may be noted also, as re-\\nDial, cnrn Tiyph., p. 207.\\nt Haeres., xxviii.; Opp. i. 110, seqq. Ibid., pp. 110-113.\\nIbid., p. 111. Such a representation, says Massuet, the Benedictine\\neditor of Irenaeus, hardly obtains credit with men in their sense-, vix fiihm\\napud sobrios obtlnet. See his Dissertatio Prima in Libb. Irenaei; De Cerintho,\\nB, 127, p. 53.", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "200 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmarkable even among the blunders of Epiphanius, that he\\nfollows Irengeus in stating the belief of Cerinthus to have\\nbeen, that Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ returned\\nto the Pleroma and shortly after asserts, that Cerinthus\\ndared to affirm that Christ suffered and was crucified, and\\nwas not yet raised, but would rise in the general resurrec-\\ntion. f He concludes by expressing his uncertainty whether\\nCerinthus and Merinthus were the same, or two different her-\\netics.\\nFrom the contradictory accounts of Cerinthus from the\\nsilence respecting him of the four Christian writers of highest\\neminence during the period in which they lived, Justin\\nMartyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen from\\nthe implication of Justin, that he knew of no heretics holding\\nsuch opinions as Irenaeus ascribes to Cerinthus and from\\nthe fables which Epiphanius has connected with his name,\\nwe may infer that very little was certainly known concerning\\nhim. Of the stories relating to him, it may seem the most\\nprobable solution, that there was a heretic of that name in\\nthe first century, of whom little or no information had been\\npreserved, except that he was a heretic and that, it not\\nbeing certainly known in what his error consisted, Cerinthus\\nhad hence the ill-fortune to have ascribed to him divers con-\\ntradictory heresies j which different writers supposed to have\\nhad their origin in that early period, and was sometimes\\nmade a Gnostic, sometimes an Ebionite, and sometimes a\\nmillenarian, and the forger of the Apocalypse.\\nFrom the fathers we can derive no information concerning\\nthe existence of Gnostics in the first century, more satisfac-\\ntory than what has been stated. It has been thought, how-\\never, that there are references to them in the New Testament\\nitself; and this is a subject that has been much discussed.\\nHseres., xxviii. p. 111. f Ibid., p. 113.", "height": "4560", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 201\\nIt may be, that they are referred to in what has been called\\nthe Second Epistle of Peter, and in the Epistle ascribed to\\nJude. But these writings were not generally acknowledged\\nby the early Christians as the works of those apostles and\\nwe have no reason to assign them an earlier date than the\\nfirst half of the second century. There seems to me no good\\nreason for believing that Gnostics are taken notice of in any\\ngenuine writing of an apostle nor, I may here add, do I\\nthink it probable that any Gnostic system had been formed,\\nor any Gnostic sect was in existence, before the end of the\\nfirst century.\\nIn the Epistles of St. Paul, the false teachers and the false\\ndoctrines that he refers to were for the most part evidently\\nof Jewish origin. Nor do I perceive in them an allusion\\nto any peculiar doctrine of the Gnostics. When we keep in\\nmind what those peculiar doctrines were, the introduction\\nof an Unknown God the ascribing of the creation, and of\\nthe origin of the Jewish religion, to an imperfect being or\\nbeings the representing of Christ as a manifestation of the\\nUnknown God, cr a messenger from him, who merely used\\nJesus as an organ for his communications, or had only the\\nunsubstantial semblance of a human body and the specula-\\ntions of the theosophic Gnostics, founded on hypostatizing the\\nideas and attributes of God, when we recollect what were\\nthe characteristic doctrines of the Gnostics, we shall perceive,\\nI think, that there is no reference to them in those passages\\nin which St. Paul has been supposed by some to have\\nhad them in view. The strong, general language in which he\\nsometimes speaks of the false teachers of his day, though\\noften sufficiently applicable to a portion of the Gnostics, as it\\nis to false teachers of later times, contains nothing by which\\nthose heretics are particularly designated. Had St. Paul\\nbeen acquainted with any professed expounders of Christian-\\nity, who were attempting to introduce the fundamental doc-\\ntrine of the Gnostics, the doctrine of an Unknown God,", "height": "4552", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "202 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ndifferent from the God of the Jews, his Epistles would have\\nleft no shadow of uncertainty respecting the fact. On this\\nground I think it may be determined from them, that no\\nheretics of such a character existed in his time.\\nNor does it appear probable, that the Gnostics are referred\\nto by St. John, in the introduction to his Gospel. The\\npassage has been explained as if the apostle alluded to a\\nscheme, like that of Valentinus, concerning the derivation of\\nJEons from the Supreme Being. But there seems no reason\\nto suppose that such a scheme, existed in the time of the\\napostle. Valentinus, who did not appear till somewhere\\nabout thirty years later, is represented as the author of the\\nscheme taught by him, with which the language of St. John\\nhas been compared. The names which Valentinus gave to\\nsome of his thirty JEons correspond to names found in the\\nintroduction of St. John s Gospel but it is more probable\\nthat they were suggested to him by this introduction, than that\\nthe apostle referred to them as already employed by Gnos-\\ntics. The Valentinians made use of the passage in question,\\nand accommodated it to their opinions, as they did the rest\\nof the New Testament, as far as was in their power.\\nIt has been especially thought, that St. John, in his first\\nEpistle, animadverts either on the opinion existing in the\\nsecond century among the theosophic Gnostics, that the man\\nJesus was to be distinguished from the .ZEon Christ, as a dis-\\ntinct agent, which was connected with the doctrine, that\\nJesus had not a proper human body of flesh and blood or\\non the opinion of the Docetse, that the apparent body of\\nJesus was a mere phantom. He has been supposed to do so\\nin the passage in which he says, Every spirit [that is, every\\nteacher] professing that Jesus is the Messiah [or Christ]\\ncome in the flesh is from God and every spirit which pro-\\nfesses not Jesus is not from God. But it seems to me\\n1 John iv. 2, 3. I omit, with Griesbach and other critics, the words in", "height": "4560", "width": "2920", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 203\\nmost probable, that the apostle merely had in view individu-\\nals who denied that Jesus was the Messiah, and objected that\\nthe Messiah would not have come, as Jesus had done, to lead\\na life of hardship, and die a cruel and ignominious death\\nthat he would not have come in the flesh, that is, exposed\\nto all the accidents and sufferings of humanity. Perhaps,\\nhowever, by the Messiah s coming in the flesh, St. John\\nmeant nothing more than that he had appeared in the\\nworld, that he had appeared among men. That the\\nwords were not essential to the main idea which he wished\\nto express is evident from his omitting them in a correspond-\\ning passage, where he likewise refers to the false teachers\\nto whom Christians were exposed, and where he simply\\ndescribes them as denying that Jesus is the Messiah. f\\nIn this latter passage, if in either, one might suppose him to\\nhave had Christian heretics in view for he says that those\\nof whom he speaks had separated themselves from the body\\nof Christians t but it is clear that he did not here refer to\\nindividuals as holding any Gnostic doctrine, but to proper\\napostates and unbelievers.\\nIt may appear, therefore, that little or nothing can be in-\\nferred from any authentic source to prove the existence of\\nGnostic systems or sects during the first century.\u00c2\u00a7 The\\nthe last clause, answering to those italicized in what follows And every\\nspirit which professes not that Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God.\\nf 1 John ii. 22.\\nI They have gone out from us. Ibid. ii. 19.\\nIn treating of the heretics of the first century, I, of course, make no use\\nof the pretended Epistles of Ignatius, of which I shall speak in sect. vi. of\\nNote C, pp. 560-566. Jerome (Advers. Luciferianos, Opp. iv. pars. ii. col.\\n304), in a declamatory passage, full, as I conceive, of misstatements, asserts\\nthat, while the apostles were still living, while the blood of Christ was still\\nrecent in Judaea, it was maintained that the body of Christ was a phantom.\\nBut the authority of such a writer, at the end of the fourth century, is of no\\nweight.. Gibbon, however, twice imitates the passage of Jerome, and repeats\\nhis assertion. (History of the Roman Empire, chaps, xxi. and xlvii.)", "height": "4560", "width": "2680", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "204 EVIDENCES OF THE\\naccounts of supposed Gnostics given by Irenasus and others\\nwill not bear the test of examination, as we have seen in the\\ncase of Cerinthus or they re] ate, as in the case of Simon\\nMagus and Menander, not to Christian heretics, but to anti-\\nchristian impostors. But we are now about to quit the\\nuncertain ground over which we have hitherto made our\\nway, and enter on a somewhat more open road. In the\\nearlier part of the second century, light breaks in upon us,\\nand individuals and systems distinctly appear. We likewise\\nfind evidence to confirm the conclusion to which we have\\narrived, that the Gnostics did not before this time make their\\nappearance.\\nThere is no dispute that the leading sects of the Gnostics\\nthat is to say, the Valentinians and the Marcionites, with\\nwhom the Basilidians may perhaps be classed had their\\norigin after the close of the first century.\\nSubsequently to the teaching of the apostles, says Clement\\nof Alexandria, about the reign of Adrian [A.D. 117-138],\\nappeared those who devised heretical opinions, and they continued\\nto live till that of the elder Antoninus [A.D. 138-161]. Of this\\nnumber was Basilides, though, as his followers boast, he claimed\\nGlaucias, the interpreter of Peter, for his teacher;, as it is likewise\\nreported, that Valentinus was a hearer of Theodas, who was famil-\\niar with Paul. As for Marcion, who was their contemporary, he\\ncontinued to remain as an old man with his juniors.\\nThe account of Clement respecting Valentinus and Mar-\\ncion corresponds with what is said by Irenaeus, who states\\nthat Valentinus came to Rome while Hyginus was bishop,\\nflourished during the time of Pius, and remained till that of\\nAnicetus. Marcion was at his height under Anicetus. f\\nThe particular dates assigned to these three bishops of Rome\\nare so various and uncertain as to make it not worth while\\nStromat., vii. 17, pp. 898, 899.\\nt Cont. Hseres., lib. iii. c. 4, 3, pp. 178, 179.", "height": "4560", "width": "2916", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 205\\nto give them but the first died some time before, and the\\nlast survived, the middle of the second century. Justin\\nMartyr, who wrote his first Apology about the year 150,\\ntwice speaks in it of Marcion as then living and Tertul-\\nlian refers both Marcion and Valentinus to the times of\\nAntoninus Pius.f\\nThe Valentinians, Marcionites, and Basiiidians are all\\nmentioned in the remaining works of Justin Martyr. In his\\nDialogue with Trypho. he says, that the existence of men\\nwho. though Christians in profession, teach not the doctrines\\nof Christ, but those of the spirits of delusion, serves to con-\\nfirm the faith of the true believer, because it is a fulfilment\\nof the prophecies of Christ. He had declared that false\\nteachers should come in his name, having the skins of sheep,\\nbut being ravening wolves within. -And accordingly. says\\nJustin, there are and have been many coming in the name\\nof Jesus, who have taught men to say and do impious and\\nblasphemous things. Some in one way. and some in\\nanother, teach men to blaspheme the Maker of all, and\\nthe Messiah who was prophesied as coming from him,\\nand the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. In these\\nwords, Justin refers to the fundamental doctrines of the\\nGnostics, that the maker of the material universe, or\\nthe chief of those by whom it was made, was not the\\nSupreme God, but a being imperfect in power, wisdom,\\nand goodness that the same being was the god of the\\nJews and that the expected Jewish Messiah, who had been\\nforetold as coming from him, had been superseded by an-\\nother, an unexpected messenger of a far higher charac-\\nter and office, coming from and revealing the true God.\\nSome of the heretics mentioned, Justin proceeds to say,\\nI. Apolog.. p. 43. p. 85,\\nt Advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 19, p. 37-i. De Prescript Ha?ret., c. 30,\\np. 212.", "height": "4556", "width": "2668", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "206 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nare called Marcionites, some Valentinians, some Basilidians,\\nsome Saturnilians, and others by different names, after their\\nleaders. The Saturnilians or followers of Saturn ilus, or\\nSaturninus, as he is more commonly called, were an obscure\\nsect which requires no particular notice.\\nThe Marcionites are twice mentioned by Justin elsewhere.\\nMarcion of Pontus, he says, under the impulse of evil\\ndemons, is even now teaching men to deny the God who is\\nthe Maker of all things celestial and terrestrial, and the\\nMessiah his Son, who was foretold by the prophets, and\\nproclaiming a certain other God beside the Maker of all\\nthings, and likewise another Son. f\\nBeside these notices of them in his remaining works,\\nJustin composed, as he himself informs us,J a treatise against\\nall heresies but this is not extant. Irenaeus quotes a book\\nof Justin against Marcion, which was perhaps a portion of\\nthe work just mentioned, but which, whether it were so or\\nnot, is also lost.\\nSuch being the case, the most important authority respect-\\ning the history of the early heretics, except the Marcionites,\\nis Justin s contemporary, Irenaeus. The large work of Ire-\\nnaeus which remains to us (principally in an ancient Latin\\ntranslation) is occupied by the statement and refutation of\\ntheir opinions. Though he gives accounts of other heresies,\\nhe writes with particular reference to the Valentinians,\\nwhom he regarded as the chief of the Gnostic sects. The\\ndoctrine of the Valentinians, says Irenaeus, is a summary\\nof all heresies, and he who confutes those heretics confutes\\nevery other. If He explains at length their theory as it\\nDial cum Tryph., pp. 207-209.\\nf I. Apolog., p. 85; vide etiam p. 43. J I. Apolog., p. 44.\\nCont. Hares lib. iv. c. 6, 2, p, 233.\\nIbid., lib. i. Prsef. 2, p. 3.\\n1 Ibid., lib. iv. Praf 2, p. 2^7: conf. lib. ii. c. 31, 1, p. 163.", "height": "4560", "width": "2908", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 207\\nexisted in his day. not indeed in its original form, as it pro-\\nceeded from Yalentinus. but as it had been subsequently\\nmodified by one of his most distinguished followers. Ptolemy.\\nAfterwards, he gives an account of the original scheme of\\nYalentinus. which does not appear to have differed in any\\nessential particular from the modification of it by Ptol-\\nemy.*\\nThe statements of Irenaeus respecting the Yalentinians are\\nconfirmed by Tertullian in a work written expressly against\\nthat sect.t which so closely resembles the account of Irenceus\\nas to leave little doubt that he took this for the basis of his\\nown though there is no reason for supposing, that his\\nacquaintance with the doctrines of the Yalentinians was de-\\nrived only from the writings of that earlier father. Many\\nnotices of them are found in his other works, and in those of\\nClement of Alexandria, and of Origen. These notices con-\\nfirm generally what is stated by Irenaeus, and add something\\nto the information which he affords.\\n^Ye have also some remains of the writings of Yalentinians\\nthemselves. The most important of them is a letter by\\nPtolemy, preserved by Epiphanius.J It is addressed to a\\nlady, whose name was Flora, and contains an account of his\\nopinions concerning the origin and character of the Jewish\\nLaw. and the god of the Jews, whom he identifies with the\\nMaker of the world. However erroneous may be the opin-\\nions of Ptolemy, he expresses himself with good sense, and\\nhis manner is unobjectionable.\\nEpiphanius has likewise given an extract from the work\\nof some one, whom he calls a Yalentinian. but whose name\\nhe does not mention. It relates to the derivation of the\\nxEons. The writer commences by professing his intention to\\nLib i. c. 11. p. 52. seqq. t Adversus Valentinianos.\\nI Hitres.. xxxiii. p. 216, seqq. The letter of Ptolemy is also printed in\\nthe Appendix to Massuet s edition of Irenteus.\\nHares., xxxi. p. 168, seqq. Apud Irenaei Opp., ed. Ma?siiet. p. 355.", "height": "4560", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "208 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nspeak of things nameless and supercelestial, which cannot\\nbe fully comprehended by principalities nor powers, nor\\nthose in subjection, nor by any one, but are manifest only\\nto the thought of the Unchangeable and he proceeds in\\na manner conformable to this annunciation, so discouraging\\nto a common reader. It is a very offensive specimen of\\nthe extravagances of some of the Gnostics. Epiphanius,\\nas has been mentioned, ascribes it to a Valentinian. But,\\nfrom its want of correspondence with the preceding accounts\\nof the different systems held by Valentinus and his followers,\\nit affords additional proof, either that the speculations of the\\nYalentinians were continually changing their form, or that\\nthe names of ancient sects were very loosely applied in the\\ntime of Epiphanius.\\nThere is also a work consisting, in great part, of extracts\\nfrom one or more writers of the school of Yalentinus.f But\\nit is of less value than might be expected. It presents no\\nconnected system. Its language is very obscure its text\\nappears to have been but ill preserved and there is a diffi-\\nculty in distinguishing between the words and sentiments of\\nthe compiler and those which he quotes.\\nBeside the writings mentioned, Origen has preserved vari-\\nous passages from a commentary on the Gospel of John by\\nHeracleon, a distinguished Valentinian of the second cen-\\ntury and Clement of Alexandria affords us another extract\\nIn the passage quoted by Epiphanius, there are allusions of the grossest\\nkind in reference to the production of the iEons. Such language, as Clement\\nof Alexandria informs us, was used, in his time, by the followers of an indi-\\nvidual, named Prodicus; but Clement, in speaking of them, exculpates the\\nValentinians from the imputation of such impurity. Stromat., iii. 4,\\npp. 524, 525.\\nf The title of this compilation is, From the Writings of Theodotus. The\\nHeads of the Oriental Doctrine, so called, as it existed in the Age of Valen-\\ntinus. I shall quote the work under the name of Doctrina Orientalis.\\nIt may be found in Potter s edition of the Works of Clement of Alexandria,\\np. 968, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2940", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 209\\nV\\nfrom Heracleon, and a few extracts from the works of Valen-\\ntinus himself.*\\nOf the opinions of Marcion and his followers, our informa-\\ntion is nearly or quite as ample. Irenaeus, indeed, gives but\\na short account of them it having been his intention, as\\nhe states, to refute that heretic in a separate treatise. This\\nwork, if he ever accomplished it, which is not probable, is\\nnow lost. The reasons which he assigns for discussing Mar-\\ncion s system by itself deserve attention. He says, Because\\nMarcion alone has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures,\\nand has gone beyond all others in shamelessly disparaging the\\ncharacter of God [the Creator], I shall oppose him by himself,\\nconfuting him from his own writings and, with the help of\\nGod, effect his overthrow by means of those discourses of our\\nLord and his apostle [St. Paul] which are respected by him,\\nand which he himself uses. f In speaking of Marcion s dis-\\nparaging the character of God, Irenaeus refers, as will be\\nreadily understood, not to Marcion s opinions concerning the\\nSupreme Being, but to his opinions concerning that inferior\\nagent whom the Gnostics conceived of as the Maker of the\\nworld. In the view of Irenaeus, the Supreme God and\\nthe Maker of the world being the same, what was said\\nunworthily of the latter he regarded as virtually said of\\nthe former.\\nThe information respecting the Marcionites which we miss\\nin Irenaeus is abundantly supplied by Tertullian in his long\\nand elaborate treatise, Against Marcion; a composition\\nthat so clearly exhibits the workings of a powerful mind,\\nin which striking thoughts are presented with such condensa-\\ntion of language, expressions stand out in such bold relief,\\nThese fragments of Heracleon and Valentinus are collected in the\\nAppendix to Massuet s edition of Irenaeus.\\nf Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 27, 4, p. 106.\\nU", "height": "4560", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "210 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nand arguments are sometimes so rapidly developed, as, not-\\nwithstanding a difficult style and a corrupt text, to fix the\\nattention, and create an interest in the exposition and confu-\\ntation of obsolete errors. Of Marcion and his followers we\\nfind mention, likewise, in other works of Tertullian, and in\\nthose of Clement and of Origen and, in addition to what\\nis given by Tertullian, Epiphanius affords some further infor-\\nmation, which there is no particular reason to distrust, re-\\nspecting Marcion s mutilations of the New Testament.\\nAs regards other Gnostic sects existing in the second cen-\\ntury, our principal information must be derived from the ear-\\nlier fathers who have been mentioned, Irenaeus, Tertullian,\\nClement, and Origen. 5 For the most part, the later fathers\\nwho have written concerning the Gnostics either copy their\\npredecessors, or present us, instead of facts, with misconcep-\\ntions, fictions, and calumnies or perhaps report, under some\\nancient name, the doctrines and practices ascribed to supposed\\nindividuals of their own day, who, if such individuals really\\nexisted, had little in common with those by whom the name\\ngiven to them had been formerly borne. If we would have\\nany just conceptions of Christian antiquity, we must never\\nlose sight of the distinction between the earlier and the later\\nfathers, between those who wrote before, and those who\\nwrote after, the establishment of Christianity as the religion\\nof the empire. It has been greatly neglected. It admits of\\nparticular exceptions and much qualification in favor of indi-\\nviduals. But, generally, a wide separation is to be made\\nbetween the patient or stern sufferers of the ages of persecu-\\nI have already had occasion to mention the addition by another writer\\nto Tertullian s work, De Prsescriptione- (See p. 196, note f.) The date* of its\\ncomposition is uncertain. It is a brief summary of some of the common\\naccounts of the heretical sects, evidently made with little investigation, and,\\nconsequently, of little value. An undue weight is sometimes given it, by its\\nbeing quoted as if written by Tertullian.", "height": "4560", "width": "2936", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 211\\ntion, whose religion was the principle of their lives, and the\\ncourtier bishops who frequented the imperial palace, the fac-\\ntious and virulent party-leaders who reiit the Church with\\ntheir dissensions, and the fiery ascetics to whom monastic\\nsuperstition gave birth.\\nOf the later writers concerning the Gnostics, the first to be\\nmentioned is Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus during\\nthe latter part of the fourth century, and the author of a large\\nwork Against Eighty Heresies. He was a zealot of a\\nmean mind and persecuting temper. He had a childish love\\nof multiplying the sects and names of the heretics, and was\\nunsparing in loading them with opprobrium. He was, un-\\ndoubtedly, credulous, and has sometimes told in good faith\\nwhat cannot be believed but the stories that he relates on\\nhis own authority show that his want of truth was equal to\\nhis want of good sense. In some of those charges which he\\nis ever ready to bring against the heretics, he discovers a\\nmind familiar with the most loathsome conceptions of impu-\\nrity. His work, at the same time, is full of blunders and\\ncontradictory statements, arising from ignorance, negligence,\\nand want of capacity. Still something may be learnt from it\\nand the testimony of Epiphanius may deserve attention, when\\nhis reports are intrinsically probable, when they coincide with\\nand complete the information of some more credible writer,\\nwhen they are in opposition to his own prejudices, or in cases\\nin which there was no temptation to falsehood and small\\nliability to mistake. Sometimes, also, we may form a prob-\\nable conjecture, by considering on what facts a particular\\nmisrepresentation, coming from a writer of such a character,\\nwas likely to be founded. Even where his accounts in their\\noross state are false, it has been found possible, by combining\\nthem with the information received from others, by subject-\\ning them to an analysis and applying the proper tests, to\\ndetect and separate a portion of truth.", "height": "4560", "width": "2656", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "212 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nWe pass to a work on heresies, entitled A Dialogue\\nconcerning the Risdit Faith in God, De Recta in Deum\\nFide* This has sometimes been regarded as a work of Ori-\\ngen but it is the production of a later writer, who lived after\\nthe establishment of Christianity as the religion of the empire,\\nand appears to have borne, like Origen, the name of Aclaman-\\ntius it bein^ now ascribed in its title to an author of that\\nname. In determining the opinions of the ancient heretics,\\ntoo much credit has been given to this work, which deserves\\nlittle or no consideration when its accounts are inconsistent\\nwith those of the earlier fathers. It is the production of one\\nwho was very imperfectly acquainted with the real doctrines\\nof the Gnostics, if he meant to represent them correctly, and\\nwho has, in consequence, improperly assigned to different\\nsects opinions which it was his purpose to confute.\\nIn the latter half of the fourth century, a work on heresies\\nwas composed by Philaster, Bishop of Brescia in Italy, a\\nwriter of the lowest order. It is full of almost pitiable weak-\\nnesses. His reputation, for some reputation he had, serves\\nto show how low the human intellect had sunk in his age\\nwithin the limits of the Western Empire.\\nHis work is, however, quoted as a main source of informa-\\ntion on the subject by Augustin, who has left a name indel-\\nibly impressed on the history of the world, and who, in the\\nfirst half of the fifth century, likewise wrote on heretics. But\\nhis Catalogue of Heresies, as it is entitled, is merely a\\nsynopsis, apparently a hasty production, composed without\\nany critical inquiry. It is of no authority, containing little\\nwhich is not taken from Epiphanius or Philaster and it\\neven appears that he was ignorant of the existence of the\\nwhole work of Epiphanius. His description of the book\\nIt is published in the first volume of De la Rue s edition of Origen.", "height": "4560", "width": "2944", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 213\\nwhich he used is applicable only to an epitome of it. He\\nprobably consulted some manuscript which contained in a\\nLatin translation (for he was ignorant of Greek) only the\\nsynopses that Epiphanius has prefixed to the different divis-\\nions of his work. It is evident that he did not write from\\nany personal knowledge of Gnostics as existing in his time.\\nIn the fifth century, likewise, Theodoret, who holds a high\\nrank among the later Greek fathers, composed a treatise on\\nthe heretics, in five books. t The first three books relate to\\nthose whom he calls ancient heretics, the Gnostics and the\\nManichasans the Ebionites, and those who believed with\\nthem that Christ was only a man and some others, whom\\nhe ranks with neither class. Concerning these ancient here-\\ntics, he professes to have compiled his information from older\\nwriters, Justin Martyr, Xrenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,\\nOrigen, Eusebius the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius of\\nEinesa, Adamantius (the author of the Dialogue De Recta\\nFide), and others of less note, whose works are lost. It is\\nperhaps a proof of his good sense, that he does not name\\nEpiphanius as an authority. He speaks of the ancient sects,\\npreceding the time of Arius, as being for the most part ex-\\ntinct; and apprehends that he may be blamed by some for\\nhaving brought them again from the darkness of oblivion\\ninto the light of memory. t He says, that God, permitting\\nthe evil seed to be sown, had turned the greater part of the\\ntares into wheat, so that most places were free from the Gnos-\\ntic heresies the remaining disciples of Yalentinus and of\\nMarcion, and likewise the Manichoeans, being few. easily\\nnumbered, and thinly scattered in certain cities. In various\\nOpp. (Basil., 1569) vi. col. 10.\\nt Ha?reticarum Fabularum Compendium, in the fourth volume of Sir-\\nmoxid s edition of his works.\\nX Epist. Praefat ad Sporaeium, pp. 188, 189.\\nH*ret. Fab., lib. ii. Praefat. p. 218.", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "214 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nplaces he expresses himself to the same effect. The ancient\\nheresies, he informs us, had passed out of notice they had\\neither been rooted up, or remained, like half- withered trees,\\nin a few cities and villages.\\nLib. iii. Prsefat. p. 226; lib. iii. (adjinem),^. 132; lib. iv. Prajfat. p. 232.\\nCertain assertions, however, in the Epistles of Theodoret may appear, at\\nfirst sight, irreconcilable with those quoted above. In one place (Epist.\\nlxxxi., Opp. iii. pars. ii. p. 954), he says he had converted the inhabitants of\\neight villages, together with those of the neighboring country, from the\\nheresy of Marcion, and brought them over willingly to the truth; in another\\n(Epist. cxiii. pp 986, 987), that, during the twenty-six years he had been\\nbishop, he had delivered more than a thousand souls from the disease of\\nMarcion, adding, that all heresy was thoroughly extirpated from the\\nchurches under his charge; and in a third (Epist. cxlv. p. 1026), that, by\\nhis controversial writings against them, he had made orthodox Christians of\\nmore than a myriad of Marcionites, which, of course, may be considered as\\nan extravagant rhetorical amplification. It is an obvious remark, that a sect\\nmust have been already falling to pieces, from which converts were made so\\nreadily. It is probable, likewise, that Theodoret, who, in these Epistles, is\\ndefending himself against his enemies, and enumerating his services and\\nlabors as bishop, not only exaggerated in the estimate of numbers, but\\napplied the name Marcionite very loosely. The remains of the Marcionites,\\nhowever, from the more simple doctrines and stricter morality and discipline\\nof the sect, were likely to survive those of the other Gnostics.\\nAnother passage of^ one of Theodoret s Epistles has been referred to\\n(Priestley s History of Early Opinions, vol. i. p. 148), as proving that the\\nGnostics were reviving in his time. But the passage has been misunder-\\nstood. Theodoret says, Those who, at the present time, have renewed the\\nheresy of Marcion and Yalentinus and Manes, and the other Docetas, being\\nangry with me for publicly exposing their heresy, have endeavored to de-\\nceive the emperor (Epist. lxxxii. p. 955). He is here speaking, not of any\\nproper Gnostics, but of his enemies, the Eutychians, at that time the domi-\\nnant party in the Church. With reference to their opinions respecting the\\nperson of Christ, he elsewhere describes them as endeavoring to plant anew\\nthe heresy of Yalentinus and Bardesanes, which had been rooted out (Epist.\\ncxlv p. 1024). In his work on Heresies, likewise, he says, that Satan, by\\nmeans of the miserable Eutyches, had caused the heresy of Yalentinus,\\nwithered long ago, to flower again (Haeret. Fab., lib. iv. n. 13; Opp. iv.\\n246.\\nThese passages illustrate the loose manner in which the names of ancient\\nGnostic sects were applied in later times, and serve to show that they were\\nsometimes used as mere terms of reproach toward those who were regarded", "height": "4584", "width": "2960", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 215\\nBeside the writers who have been mentioned, and of whose\\nrespective authority it has been my purpose to give some\\nestimate, there are notices of the Gnostics, though not of much\\nvalue, in Eusebius s Ecclesiastical History and some informa-\\ntion concerning them is scattered, here and there, in the\\nwritings of other later fathers. But, in general, it is little to\\nbe relied on.\\nIn addition, likewise, to what is said of them by Christian\\nwriters, we find some notices of them in the works of the\\nheathen opponents of Christianity. Celsus brought forward,\\nas objections to Christianity, their real or pretended doctrines,\\nin his work which was answered by Origen. In one place,\\nas quoted by Origen,* he says, Let no one think me ignorant,\\nthat some of the Christians agree that their God is the same\\nwith the God of the Jews, while others maintain one opposite\\nto him, from whom they say that the Son came.\\nIn the third century, Gnostics, and individuals holding some\\nof the fundamental doctrines of the Gnostics, were made a\\nsubject of remark by the later Platonists, Plotinus and\\nPorphyry. After the death of Plotinus, Porphyry reduced\\ninto some form, and gave some finish to, the crude mass of his\\nwritings, which he had left unpublished, and prefixed to them\\nan account of his life. In this account, he says that there\\nwere in the time of Plotinus many Christians, and other\\nsectaries, drawn away from the ancient philosophy, the fol-\\nlowers of Adelphius and Acyliuus, two individuals of whom\\nwe have no further knowledge. These sectaries used the\\nworks of writers whose names Porphyry gives, but of whom\\nnothing now remains except their names. They likewise, he\\nstates, had books entitled Kevelations, ascribed to Zoroaster f\\nas coinciding with the Gnostics in some one of their opinions. A similar use\\nof opprobrious appellations has at all times been common.\\nCont. Cels., lib. v. n. 61; Opp. i. 624.\\nMany spurious works were about this time ascribed to Zoroaster. Of", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "216 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nand others. Being, he says, deceived themselves, they\\ndeceived many, pretending that Plato had not penetrated to\\nthe depth of the essence of intelligibles Plotinus, he informs\\nus, had written a treatise concerning them, which he, m his\\narrangement of Plotinus s works, had entitled Against the\\nGnostics. But in the manuscripts of this treatise there is\\nfound another title, more precise and appropriate, which de-\\nscribes it as Against those who affirm that the World and its\\nMaker are Bad. Porphyry says, that he had himself proved\\nat length, that the work ascribed to Zoroaster was spurious,\\nhaving been lately fabricated by those sectaries. It may be\\nremarked, that Clement of Alexandria says, that the followers\\nof Prodicus, a most immoral sect of pseudo- Gnostics, boasted\\nof possessing the secret writings of Zoroaster.\\nPlotinus, in the tract referred to, represents those against\\nwhom he is writing as believing that the sensible universe\\nwas badly formed by an imperfect and erring power, sinking\\ndownward, as it were, with failing wings. He himself taught\\nthat it was eternal, without beginning or end. He refers\\nparticularly to doctrines concerning its formation, coincident\\nwith those ascribed to the Valentinians by Irenseus, which\\nwill be hereafter explained. In reference to the doctrine of\\nthe Gnostics concerning iEons, or hypostatized attributes and\\nideas, emanent from God, and belonging to the totality of his\\nnature, he objects, that, under pretence of investigating more\\naccurately, they so divided the intelligible nature into this\\nmultitude of beings as to make it like the sensible. The\\nthese, his Oracles alone are, in part, extant. They may be found at the\\nend of Stanley s History of Philosophy. But they are not the work\\nreferred to above. They contain nothing peculiarly Gnostic, but are con-\\nformed to the doctrine of the later Platonists, and are quoted with admiration\\nby Proclus, and other writers of that school;\\nNow forming the ninth book of the second Ennead of his Works,\\np. 199, seqq.\\nt Plotini Vita, ubi sup. Stromat., i. 15, p. 357.\\nCont. Gnost., 4, p. 202, passim. Ibid., 4, p. 202, 10, p. 209.", "height": "4560", "width": "2948", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 217\\ndivision, he says, should be as small as possible, into not more\\nthan three* (the trinity of the later Platonists). He dwells\\nupon their blaming the constitution and government of the\\nworld, t He speaks of their hating the body. He says that\\nthey used magical arts. And he represents their doctrines\\nas strongly tending to produce bad morals.\\nIn all this, so far as it goes, there is sufficient agreement\\nwith the representations of the fathers concerning the Gnos-\\ntics. But there is no evidence that Plotinus was writing\\nagainst Christian heretics. Nothing is said by him concerning\\nthat essential part of the scheme of the Gnostics which was\\nfounded on Christianity. The doctrines attacked by him\\nmight have been, and probably were, all held by heathen\\nspeculatists and to such there seems little doubt that he\\nprimarily referred. He nowhere uses the name of Gnostic\\nor Christian in this discussion. He nowhere, throughout his\\nwritings, makes any direct and open attack on Christians, or\\nexpressly recognizes their existence. Thus leaving the great\\nbody of Christians unassailed, it is not likely that he would\\nhave entered into a labored controversy with heretics, dis-\\navowed by them, though claiming the Christian name, and not\\nrecognized as proper heathen philosophers, who consequently\\ncould hardly have been thought by him worthy of so much\\nattention. There are doubtless in his tract Against the\\nGnostics positions asserted contrary to Christian truth, or to\\nwhat was then the common belief of Christians as, for in-\\nstance, he in one place expressly defends polytheism, If and\\nin another argues against ascribing diseases to the agency of\\ndemons but this does not prove that the writer had Chris-\\ntian heretics particularly in view. In supporting his own\\nIbid., 6, p. 204. f Ibid 12, p. 211; 15, p. 213, passim.\\nX Ibid., 17, p. 215, seqq. Ibid., 14, p. 212.\\nIbid., 15, p. 213. f Ibid., 9, p. 207.\\nIbid., 14, pp. 212, 213.", "height": "4560", "width": "2680", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "218 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nphilosophy, he could not but advance what was opposite to\\nChristianity, and to the opinions of Christians. He speaks\\nof those holding the doctrines against which he particularly\\nwrote, as being, some of them, friends of his own, who had\\nadopted those opinions before they became his friends.* If\\nany Christian heretics had become friends of Plotinus, a cir-\\ncumstance very improbable, we can hardly doubt, that in\\ncontroverting their peculiar doctrines, bearing throughout a\\nrelation to Christianity, he would have distinctly brought into\\nview the fact of their being Christians. Porphyry says, that\\nthose against whom his master wrote were followers of\\nAdelphius and Acylinus. Neither of these names, nor any\\nthat may plausibly be substituted for the latter of the two if\\nit be an error of transcription, as has been supposed, is found\\nanywhere in the writings of the fathers as that of the founder\\nof a Gnostic sect. Nor is the use of any of the books, men-\\ntioned by Porphyry as current among the sectaries of whom\\nhe speaks, ascribed by the fathers to any of the Gnostics\\nunless the Revelations of Zoroaster should be supposed an\\nexception to this remark, on the ground of the statement of\\nClement, that the secret writings of Zoroaster were used by\\nthe followers of Prodicus. But the followers of Prodicus\\nwere not, I conceive, Christians.\\nThus we have seen from what writers our information con-\\ncerning the history of the Gnostics is to be derived, and how\\ntheir respective authority is to be estimated. If the views\\nthat have been taken are correct, it is clear that these writers\\nare not to be adduced indiscriminately. We cannot gain a\\ncorrect knowledge of the Gnostics from a modern account, in\\nwhich the statements of Epiphanius, Philaster, Angus tin,\\nand Theodoret are blended, as of equal value, with those of\\nIrenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen.\\nCont. Gnost., 10, p. 209.", "height": "4560", "width": "2940", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 219\\nFrom what has been said, we conclude that there are no\\ndistinct traces of the existence of Gnostic sects or systems\\nduring the first century. But, before the middle of the second\\ncentury, the Gnostics became a well-recognized body, their\\nmost distinguished leaders appeared, and their opinions were\\nformed into different systems. From the writers of this cen-\\ntury and the next, to Origen inclusive, our principal authentic\\ninformation concerning them is to be derived. At the same\\ntime, it is only with the opinions of the Gnostics of the first\\nthree centuries concerning the genuineness of the Gospels\\nthat we are concerned. Those of the Gnostics of a later\\nperiod require no particular investigation, and throw no light\\non the subject. In the latter part of the third century, the\\nsect of the Maiiichaeans arose, nearly allied to that of the Gnos-\\ntics, but presenting a bolder and broader theory of the\\nuniverse, which cast into the shade the system of their prede-\\ncessors. The names of ancient Gnostic sects, however, still\\nremained in the fourth century, sometimes, we may believe,\\nvoluntarily assumed, and sometimes imposed as names of\\nobloquy but it may be doubted, whether the tenets of the\\nsects originally denoted by those names had not, in many\\ncases, undergone great modifications among their reputed\\nsuccessors. By the writers of this century, the Gnostics are,\\nI think, generally treated of in a manner that implies rather\\ntheir past existence than their actual prevalence. Their\\nhistory became full of mistakes and falsehoods. From the\\nthird to the fifth century, they were probably dwindling away\\nand in the fifth century, in the time of Theodoret, they seem,\\nwith the exception of some remaining Marcionites, nearly to\\nhave disappeared. Indeed, according to Gregory Xazianzen,\\nthey had ceased to disturb the Church before the Arian con-\\ntroversy arose, in the beginning of the fourth century.\\nSpeaking of the period immediately preceding, he says,*\\nOrat. xxiii. Opp. i. 414, ed. Morelli.", "height": "4560", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "220 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThere was a time when we had rest from heresies when\\nthe Simonians and Marcionites, the Valentinians, the Basili-\\ndians, and the followers of Cerdo, the Cerinthians and Carpo-\\ncratians, with all their idle and monstrous doctrines, their\\ncomplete division of the God of All, and opposing of the\\nGood God to the Creator, were swallowed up in their own\\nAbyss, and given over to Silence. In the last clause, there\\nis a play upon words Bvdog, the Depth, or the Abyss, being\\nthe name given by the Yalentinians to the Supreme Being,\\nwho was represented by them as having dwelt from eternity\\nwith the -ZEon,- Silence.* After the quotation just made,\\nGregory speaks of the decline of other heresies extant in the\\nthird century and then says, After a short interval, a new\\ntempest rose against the Church, the Arian heresy. He\\ndoes not represent the old heresies as ever reviving. The\\npassage from which I have quoted is undoubtedly rhetorical\\nand inexact but we can hardly infer less from it than that\\nthe Gnostic heresy was dwindling away during the fourth\\ncentury. In the Code of Justinian, however, among the\\nedicts against heretics,! the names of ancient Gnostic sects\\noccur; but how far those to whom they were applied resem-\\nbled the Gnostics of the second and third centuries, may\\nappear, from what has been before said, to be very ques-\\ntionable.\\nRespecting the number of the Gnostics at the time when\\nthey were most numerous, we have no means of approximating\\nto any precise computation but many considerations show\\nthat it must have borne but a small proportion to that of the\\ncatholic Christians. The doctrines of the theosophic Gnostics\\nwere of such a nature, that they were little likely to be em-\\nbraced except by men of a peculiar turn of mind, somewhat\\nThe same play upon words expressive of the same fact is in Theodoret\\nHseret. Fab., lib. iv. Praefat. p. 232. f Lib. i. tit. 5.", "height": "4560", "width": "2896", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 221\\naccustomed to the philosophical speculations of the age\\nespecially as the character of that age, and the external cir-\\ncumstances of Christians, did not favor the affectation of\\nmysticism, or the pride of holding novel theories, among the\\nunlearned. Ptolemy, the Yalentinian, in the beginning of his\\nletter to Flora, before mentioned, says that u not many have\\na right apprehension of the Law given by Moses, meaning,\\nthat not many adopted the Gnostic opinions concerning it.\\nThe followers of Basilides aturmed, according to Irenseus, that\\nfew could understand their mysteries, one only in a thou-\\nsand, and two in ten thousand; and added, that the Jews\\nhad ceased to be, but Christians were not as yet. In the\\nDoctrina Orientalist Theodotus, or some other Gnostic,\\nreferring to a division of men into three classes, made by\\nthe Valentinians, says, that the earthy are numerous, the\\nrational [which class included common Christians] are not\\nnumerous, and the spiritual [the Gnostics] are rare.\\nThese statements correspond to the common representation\\nof the theosophic Gnostics, that their peculiar doctrines were\\nthe esoteric doctrines of Christianity, which had been privately\\nhanded down to those capable of receiving them.\\nWhat has been said applies more particularly to the theo-\\nsophic Gnostics. As regards the Marcionites, they were\\ndistinguished for their abstinence from worldly pleasures.\\nMarriage was not tolerated among them. Those united by it\\nwere obliged to separate, on becoming members of their com-\\nmunity. Their bold doctrines were opposed without dis-\\nguise to the common belief, and to the plain language of the\\nGospels, and were little likely to be received except by indi-\\nviduals possessed of more than usual hardihood of mind. In\\nContra Hiaeres., lib. i. c 24, 6, p. 102. f See before, p. 208, note\\n01 TpvxtKoL Doctrina Orientalis, 56, p. 983.\\nClement. Al. Stromat, iii. 3, p. 515, seq., 4. p. 522, 5, p. 529, 6,\\np. 531, seqq. Tertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. i. c 29, pp. 380, 381; lib. iv.\\nC. 11, p. 422, c. 23, p. 4^8, c. 34, p. 450; lib. v. c. 7, p 469, c 15. p. 430.", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "222 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthe practice of their self-denying virtues or extravagances,\\nthey were not encouraged, as others have been, by popular\\nadmiration. On the contrary, they were objects of odium.\\nThey had no support but from among themselves. They\\nwere rejected by the catholic Christians as heretics, and by\\nthe Heathens they were persecuted as Christians. They\\nwere very conscientious, but very erroneous believers. Such\\na sect we must suppose to have been small, compared with\\nthe catholic Christians though there is some ground for be-\\nlieving, that its number was nearly or quite equal to that of\\nall the other Gnostics.\\nThe fact that the different sects of Gnostics insensibly\\nmelted away at so early a period, and the further fact that\\ntheir doctrines had so little influence upon the belief of sub-\\nsequent Christians, likewise afford proof that they formed only\\na small part of the whole Christian body. The same infer-\\nence may be drawn from the manner in which they were\\ntreated by the early fathers, who manifest no alarm at their\\ngrowth, nor fear of their prevalence, but who write concern-\\ning them in a tone of undoubting superiority. It may be\\nfurther observed, that the early fathers, in the passages in\\nwhich they speak of the multitude of Christians who had\\nspread through the world, neither except nor include the\\nGnostics, but appear not to have had them in mind, though\\nthey certainly did not consider them as belonging to the\\nChurch, or, in other words, to the great body of proper\\nChristians. In the passages, likewise, in which they speak of\\nthe unity of faith in the Church, their modes of expression\\nimply that the Gnostics bore but a small proportion to the\\ncatholic Christians.\\nThe Church, says Irenaeus, though scattered over the\\nwhole world, carefully preserves the faith derived from the apostles\\nand their disciples, as if it were but a single family in one house.\\nIt speaks as with one mouth. For, various as are the languages\\nof the world, the essential doctrine is one and the same. !No", "height": "4560", "width": "2864", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 223\\ndifferent belief has been held or taught by the churches founded in\\nGermany, nor by those in Spain, nor in Gaul, nor in the East, nor\\nin Egypt, nor in Libya, nor by those founded in the middle of the\\nworld [Judaea], But as the sun, the creature of God, in every\\npart of the world is one and the same so the preaching of the\\ntruth shines everywhere, and enlightens all who are desirous of\\nknowing the truth.\\nLanguage such as this could hardly have been used, if there\\nhad been a large body of professed Christians who rejected\\nthe doctrines of the Church.\\nHere, then, we conclude what may be called the external\\nhistory of the Gnostics. In the next chapter, we shall speak\\nof their moral characteristics, in connection with their imper-\\nfect knowledge of Christianity.\\nCont. Haeres., lib. L c. 10, 2, p. 49: conf. 1, p. 48.", "height": "4540", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER IV.\\nON THE MORALS OF THE GNOSTICS, AND THEIR IMPER-\\nFECT CONCEPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.\\nWhen, in the second century, after an interval of obscurity\\nfollowing the times of the apostles, the catholic Christians\\nappear distinctly in view, we find them distinguished, as a\\nbody, by their abhorrence of the vices of the heathen world,\\nby a high and stern morality, by the strictness of the disci-\\npline which respective churches exercised over their members,\\nby a general tendency to the virtues of the ascetic and the\\nmartyr, and by Christian faith, the conviction of the reality\\nof the unseen and the future controlling the sense of present\\npleasures and sufferings. In this character the Marcionites\\nappear to have shared; but what was the state of morals\\namong the theosophic Gnostics is a question less easy to\\ndecide.\\nClement of Alexandria divides the heretics into two\\nclasses. They either teach men, he says, to lead a loose\\nlife, or, with overstrained severity, they preach continence\\nthrough impiety and enmity that is, as Clement meant,\\nenmity towards the Creator. In his view, the latter class in-\\ncluded the Marcionites, and some ascetics among the other\\nGnostics, to all of whom the name of Encratites f was given.\\nStromat., iii. 5, p 529, seqq. conf. 3, 4, p. 515, seqq,\\nf From the Greek eyKpaTqg, practising self-command,\\ncontinent.", "height": "4560", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 225\\nThey taught that it was not right to marry, and bring children\\ninto this imperfect and unhappy world; and, regarding the\\nbody as evil, considered the pleasures of the senses as sinful.\\nIn consequence, Clement ascribes their principles to enmity\\nto the Creator. Through opposition to the Creator, he\\nsays, Marcion rejected the use of the things of this world.\\nA similar account of the self-denial of the Encratites, and of\\nits cause, is given by Irenseus. f To the strict morals of the\\nMarcionites, Tertullian bears indirect but decisive testimony.\\nHe is speaking of their doctrine, that while the Creator was\\njust, and inflicted punishment, the Supreme God, their God,\\nwas good, and not to be feared. Come now, he says, with\\nhis usual force of expression, though the sentiment is incorrect,\\nyou who do not fear God, because he is good, why do you\\nnot indulge in every lust, the chief gratification of life, as far\\nas I know, to all who do not fear God Why not frequent\\nthe customary pleasures of the raging circus, the savage arena,\\nand the lascivious theatre Why, in times of persecution, do\\nyou not at once take the proffered censer,$ and save your\\nlife by denying your faith i Far be it from me you say\\nfar be it from me You fear to offend, then, and thus you\\nprove that you fear Him who forbids the offence. Con-\\nformably to this, Origen speaks of the good morals of some of\\nthe heretics, as one means of drawing men over to their doc-\\ntrines and he states hypothetically the case of such a heretic,\\neither a Marcionite, he says, or a disciple of Valentinus,\\nor of any other sect.\\nBut generally, the accounts of the morals of the theosophic\\nGnostics are very unfavorable. According to the statements\\nStromat., iii. 4, p. 522.\\nf Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 28, 1, pp. 106, 107.\\nThe censer was proffered, that the person accused of Christianity might\\noffer incense to some idol, and thus refute the charge.\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 27, pp. 379, 380.\\nU Homil. in Ezechiel., vii. 3; Opp. iii. 382.\\n15", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "226 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof Irenasus, the Yalentinians, affirming themselves to be dis-\\ntinguished from others by their spiritual nature, which made\\na part of their original conformation, maintained that it was\\nimpossible they should not be saved, whatever they miglit\\ndo. They regarded the spiritual principle identified with\\nthem as incapable of pollution; and compared themselves to\\ngold, which receives no injury from defilement. Hence the\\nperfect among them, he affirms, practised without fear all that\\nis forbidden. They ate idol-sacrifices, and celebrated the\\nheathen festivals some of them did not abstain from the\\nshows of gladiators and the fights with wild beasts, spec-\\ntacles, says Irenreus, with the new feeling of a Christian con-\\ncerning them, hated by God and men and others were\\ngrossly licentious in their lives, seducing and corrupting\\nwomen, by teaching them their principles.*\\nThe erroneous doctrine, mentioned by Irenaeus, concerning\\ntheir spiritual nature, appears, in its essential features, to\\nhave been common to the Yalentinians generally, and also\\nto the other theosophic Gnostics,f but not the moral offences\\nwith which he charges them as its consequence, as may\\nappear in part from the limiting words, some and others,\\nand the perfect among them (used perhaps ironically),\\nwhich he introduces into his account. Of the Yalentinians\\nand other theosophic Gnostics, it is to be recollected, on the\\none hand, that they were Christians, and, on the other, that\\nthey were not rational Christians. As a sect, they enter-\\ntained very erroneous views of our religion, and probably\\nmany of them had been very ill informed concerning it.\\nRepelled, as they were, from the great body of believers,\\nthere is no reason to doubt that there were among them\\nthose whom the power of Christianity was not sufficient to\\nCont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 6, p. 28, seqq.\\nt In addition to what has been quoted from Irenseus, see Clement. Al.\\nStromat., ii. 3, pp. 433, 434, 20, p. 489 v. 1, p. 645.", "height": "4580", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 227\\nwithdraw from the evil influences of the pagan world, by\\nwhich the j were surrounded; whose ties to it were far from\\nbeing altogether broken who still remained enta gied among\\nits corruptions. With some softening, perhaps, of such\\ncharges as those of Iremeus, we have no ground for ques-\\ntioning their applicability to a portion of the theosophic\\nGnostics but, at the same time, we have evidence, to which\\nwe will now advert, that they were true only of a portion.\\nClement of Alexandria, discoursing on self-restraint, quotes,\\nalmost as an authority, a passage from Yalentinus. It begins\\nthus There is One who is good, who has openly manifested\\nhimself through his Son and through him alone can the heart\\nbe made pure, every evil spirit being driven out of it. Yal-\\nentinus compares the heart polluted by the indwelling of evil\\nspirits to a caravansary injured and defiled by the strangers\\nwho lodge in it. But, he says, when the only good\\nFather takes charge of it, it is made holy and enlightened;\\nand thus he who has such a heart is Messed, for he shall see\\nGod, Tatian, who was distinguished for his asceticism, was,\\nsays Clement, of the school of Yalentinus. f Heracleon, a\\ndistinguished Yalentinian, is quoted by Clement, as teaching\\nthat the profession of faith required by Christ of his follow-\\ners is not that made in words only, but that made by works\\nanswering to faith, in him. t And Ptolemy, who remodelled\\nthe system of his master, taught that the fasting enjoined by\\nour Saviour was not bodily abstinence, but absr nence from\\nall sin.\\nBasilides and his followers formed another branch of the\\nStromat., ii. 20, pp 488,489. Yalentinus, it will be perceived, alludes\\nto the words of Christ, Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see\\nGod. The whole passage, as Clement remarks, does not seem easily recon-\\ncilable with the doctrine, that the spiritual are so by natural constitution, and\\nare, in consequence, assured of salvation.\\nt Ibid., iii. 13, p. 553. t Ibid., iv. 9, p. 595.\\nEpist. ad Floram apud Irenaei Opp. p. 360.", "height": "4552", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "228 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ntheosophic Gnostics, nearly allied to the Yalentinians and\\nIrenaeus brings similar charges of immorality against them.\\nBut Clement begins the third book of his Stromata with\\nquoting two passages, one from Basiiides, and the other from\\nhis son Isidore and then proceeds to say, I have adduced\\nthese words for the reproof of those Basilidians who live not\\nas they ought, as if through their perfectness they were free\\nto sin, or as if, though they should now sin, they would be\\nsaved by nature through their innate election for the found-\\ners of their doctrines give them no license so to act. f Thus\\nClement, writing with less prejudice, corrects, and at the\\nsame time confirms in part, the accounts of Irenaeus.\\nBut against certain sects and individuals Clement himself\\nbrings the gravest charges of immorality, so deep-seated as\\nthoroughly to corrupt their principles. I have fallen in\\nwith a sect, he says, whose leader affirmed that we must\\nfight with pleasure by the use of pleasure this genuine\\nGnostic, for he called himself a Gnostic, thus deserting to\\npleasure under the pretence of warring against it. t He\\nthen mentions others, who perverted (one can hardly think\\nseriously) the ascetic maxim, that the body must be abused,\\nand employed it to justify themselves in the most licentious\\nindulgences.\u00c2\u00a7 In another place, he speaks of an individual\\nnamed Prodicus, and of his followers. They affirm, says\\nClement, that by nature they are sons of the First God\\nthat, using the privilege of their birth and freedom, they live\\nas they choose, and that they choose to live in pleasure.\\nThey think that they are under no control, as lords of the\\nSabbath, and born superior to every other race, royal chil-\\ndren for a king, they say, is circumscribed by no law.\\nCont. Ha?res., lib. i. c. 24, 5, p. 102, c. 28, 2, p. 107.\\nf Stromat, iii. 1, p. 510. Ibid., ii. 20, p. 490.\\nIbid., ii. 20, pp. 490, 491: conf. iii. 4, pp. 522, 523.\\nIbid., iii. 4, p. 525.", "height": "4584", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 229\\nThey taught that there was no obligation to pray.* Speak-\\ning of sectaries of a like kind, Clement also says, that there\\nwere some who called intercourse with common women a\\nmystical communion doing outrage to the name. They\\nconsecrate such licentiousness/ he says, and think that it\\nconducts them to the kingdom of God. f The charge of\\nteaching that gross licentiousness was a necessary means\\nof liberating the soul from its entanglement in matter,\\nand consequently was a religious duty, is likewise brought\\nby Irenasus against the Carpocratians, a sect to be hereafter\\nmentioned.\\nClement also speaks of individuals, called Ant it act ce\\n(Opponents) whom he describes as maintaining that the\\nGod of all is our Father by nature, and that all which he\\nmade is good but that one of those produced by him sowed\\ntares, and gave birth to evils, in which he involved us, oppos-\\ning us to the Father whence, to avenge the Father, we,\\nthey say, oppose him, doing contrary to his will. Since,\\ntherefore, he said, i Thou shalt not commit adultery, we\\ncommit adultery to break his command. t The giver of the\\nlaw, it seems, was, in their view, the Devil. Ptolemy, the\\nTalentinian. likewise speaks of some who referred the origin\\nof the Jewish Law to the Devil but he says that they also\\nascribed to him the creation of the world which does not\\nappear to have been true of the persons mentioned by Clem-\\nent. These, it would seem, pretended to be in some sort\\nChristians for Clement, in reasoning against them, im-\\nplies that they affirmed, that the Saviour only was to be\\nobeyed the comparison evidently being between him and\\nthe giver of the Law.\\nThere is a passage of the later Platonist, Porphyry, de-\\nStromat., vii. 7, p. 854. f Ibid., iii. 4, pp. 523, 524.\\nIbid., iii. 4, pp. 526, 527. Epist. ad Florara, pp. 357, 35S.\\nStromat., iii. 4, p. 527.", "height": "4560", "width": "2784", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "230 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nscriptive of individuals resembling some of those spoken of\\nby Clement, in their pretensions and in their licentious\\nprinciples. It is in his work in which he defends the Pytha-\\ngorean doctrine of abstinence from animal food. The\\nopinion, he says, that one yielding to the affections of the\\nsenses can employ his powers about the objects of intellect,\\nhas been the ruin of many of the barbarians; by which term\\nhe means those whose religion and philosophy were not\\nGrecian. They have arrogantly, he continues, indulged\\nin every form of pleasure, saying that he who is conversant\\nwith other things may grant such license to the irrational\\npart of his nature. They compared themselves to the ocean,\\nwhich is undefiled by the pollutions that rivers are con-\\ntinually carrying into it. All things, they said, must be\\nsubjected to us. A small body of water is easily made turbid\\nby any impurity and so it is in regard to food (the particular\\nsubject of discussion) with men of little mmds. But, where\\nthere is a depth of power, men receive all things, and are\\ndefiled by nothing. Thus deceiving themselves, says\\nPorphyry, they act conformably to their error and, instead\\nof enjoying liberty, throw themselves into a gulf of misery\\nin which they perish.\\nThe individuals spoken of by Porphyry were, it appears,\\nready to admit that men of little minds were corrupted by\\nsensual indulgences. So the theosophic Gnostics, according\\nDe Abstinentia ab Animalibus necandis, lib. i. 42. It may be ob-\\nserved, that this work is addressed to an acquaintance, who bad fallen away\\nfrom the Pythagorean doctrine, and that, in appealing to him, Porphyry has\\nthe following allusion to Christians: I would not intimate, that your nature\\nis inferior to that of some ignorant persons, who, embracing rules of conduct\\ncontrary to those of their former life, submit to be cut limb from limb\\n(rofiag re fiopiuv virofiivovcu) and abhor, more than human flesh, certain\\nkinds of animal food in which before they indulged (lib. i. 2). He refers,\\nI suppose, to the abstinence of Christians from the flesh of idol-sacrifices,\\nand the other kinds of food prohibited by the council at Jerusalem (Acts xv.\\n28, 29).", "height": "4584", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 231\\nto Irenaeus, affirmed, that, while they were altogether secure\\nof salvation as being naturally spiritual, common Christians,\\nwho were not so. must attain salvation through good works\\nand a simple faith. simple faith, in contradistinction to that\\nperfect knowledge of spiritual things which they themselves\\npossessed.*\\nThere can be no doubt, I think, that the doctrine, held\\nby the theosophic Gnostics, concerning the spiritual and in-\\ncorruptible nature of a favored portion of mankind, was\\nabused bv certain individuals, and connected with the otoss-\\nest immorality, as is represented by Clement and Porphyry.\\nBut I do not conceive that the individuals of whom they\\nspeak were Christian heretics. The supposition of any seri-\\nous or intelligent belief of the divine mission of Christ is\\nwholly inconsistent with the extreme licentiousness of their\\nprinciples and practice. So far as they were at all connected\\nwith Christianity, we may suppose that they had learnt some-\\nthing concerning it. perhaps through the medium of the Gnos-\\ntics and that such was the character of their minds, that they\\nwere very ready to break through their old restraints, to\\ntreat with contempt the Pagan mythology, to regard them-\\nselves as specially illnminated, and to form their crude\\nconceptions into principles that might sanction their licentious-\\nness, as the privilege of their new liberty and their spiritual\\nnature. Sects and individuals of this class may be denom-\\ninated pseudo- Christian a name to be understood as distin-\\nguishing them, on the one hand, from the Christian heretics,\\nand, on the other, from those heathen Gnostics on whom the\\ninfluence of Christianity, if any, was more remote. Each of\\nthe three classes, however, probably passed into that nearest\\nto it by insensible gradations. Of the pseudo-Christian sects\\nI shall speak in the next chapter and will only here ob-\\nserve, that, taking the name heathen^ not in the distinguishing\\nCent. H.Tres., lib. i. c. 6, 2, p. 29, 4, p. 31.", "height": "4560", "width": "2788", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "232 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nsense just mentioned, but in the extent of its meaning, these\\npseudo-Christians may properly be called Heathens.\\nAs regards the theosophic Gnostics, we have seen that a\\nportion of them were ascetics, as well as the Marcionites;\\nand that immorality was far from being taught or counte-\\nnanced, by the more distinguished of their number. But\\nmany of them, a portion so large as, in the minds of some\\nwriters, to give, whether fairly or not, a character to the\\nwhole, were but partially separated from the heathen world.\\nThey joined in its idol-sacrifices, and shared in its licentious-\\nness. The charges brought against them by Irenasus are\\nconfirmed, as we have seen, by Clement, as regards one of\\nthe two classes into which he divides the heretics. They\\ncorrespond to the representations of Tertullian. And, at\\na still earlier period, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with\\nTrypho, introduces Trypho as saying, that he had learnt\\nthat many of those who said that they professed Jesus, and\\nwho were called Christians, ate idol-sacrifices, that is, joined\\nin the rites of Pagan worship, saying that they were nothing\\nhurt by it. They justified themselves in their practices by\\ndoctrines common to the theosophic Gnostics, which admitted\\nof an easy perversion to the purpose. It is probable, how-\\never, that some of them laid little or no stress on the incor-\\nruptibility of their spiritual nature but merely said, as\\nIrenaeus states in one passage, that God did not care much\\nfor those things. f\\nBut any approach to idolatry is so contrary to the funda-\\nmental doctrine of our religion, and the grosser sensual vices\\nstand in such manifest opposition to the spirituality required\\nby it, and to its express prohibitions, that they would seem to\\nbe among the last offences that one believing himself a Chris-\\nDial, cum Tiyph., p. 207.\\nt non valde haec curare dicentes Deum. Lib. i. c. 28, 2,\\np. 107.", "height": "4556", "width": "2892", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 233\\ntian might imagine to be countenanced or permitted by\\nChristianity. The case of those Gnostics we have been con-\\nsidering presents, therefore, a remarkable phenomenon. But\\nit is one which may be explained, and its existence, conse-\\nquently, be confirmed, by considerations drawn from the ante-\\ncedent history of Christianity, and the state of the ancient\\nworld. To these we will now attend.\\nFrom the Xew Testament we learn how imperfectly some\\nof the first Gentile converts comprehended the undivided\\nworship to be paid to the Supreme Being, and the purity of\\nlife which Christianity requires. They, like the looser Gnos-\\ntics of later times, were guilty of licentiousness and of joining\\nin idolatrous rites. Some, says St. Paul to the Corin-\\nthians, being accustomed to the idol, eat even till now as of\\nan idol-sacrifice and he thus exhorts them, referring to\\nthe ancient Israelites Be not ye idolaters, as were some\\nof them, as is written, The people sat down to eat and drink,\\nand rose up to sport Nor let us commit fornication, as did\\nsome of them, of whom three and twenty thousand fell in one\\nday. t The latter exhortation seems to have been thus inti-\\nmately connected with the former, because debauchery was so\\ncommon a part, or an accompaniment, of the religious festi-\\nvals and rites of the Heathens. As regards idol-sacrifices, it\\nappears that some of the Corinthians thought, that, as an\\nidol was nothing in the world, they might, therefore, sit at\\nmeat in an idol s temple that is, that they might join their\\nformer heathen associates in being present at a sacrifice there\\noffered, and at the entertainment following it, when those\\nportions of the victim which belonged to the offerer were\\neaten, that they might, as St. Paul expresses it, have\\n1 Cor.viii. 7. I read cvvrjdeia, not (as in the Received Text) oweuStjoel\\nBut which is the true reading is doubtful, and, to the present purpose, unim-\\nportant.\\nt 1 Cor. x. 7, 8.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "234 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ncommunion with demons, and partake both of the Lord s\\ntable and the table of demons.\\nThe early history of Christianity affords another remarkable\\nindication of such errors as have been mentioned existing\\namong its converts. When it was determined by the apos-\\ntles and elders at Jerusalem to admit the Gentile converts as\\nChristians to their communion, without their being previously\\ncircumcised, that is, without their first professing themselves\\nproselytes to Judaism, they were specially enjoined to abstain\\nfrom idol-sacrifices and from fornication. It has seemed\\ngood to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to impose upon you no\\ngreater burden than these necessary things To abstain from\\nidol-sacrifices, and from the eating of blood and of things\\nstrangled, and from fornication. f Nothing at first view\\nmay strike a modern reader more strangely than that the\\neating of idol-sacrifices and unchastity should be coupled in\\nthe same prohibition with actions morally indifferent in their\\nnature. But I have referred to this decree (as it has been\\ncalled), because it affords much light on the state of the early\\nChristian community, in reference to the present subject.\\nWe will attend to both parts of it, as their connection re-\\nquires, though only that relating to idolatry and licentious-\\nness is to our immediate purpose.\\nTo explain it, then, two considerations are to be attended\\nto, the prejudices of the Jewish, and the erroneous senti-\\nments and habits of the Gentile, converts. The result of\\nthe deliberations of the council was after much discus-\\nsion, in which those who opposed the admission of the\\nGentile converts into the Church, unless they first became\\nproselytes to Judaism and assumed the observance of the\\nwhole Jewish Law, had, we may presume, particularly\\nurged against them the commission of the acts specially\\nSee 1 Cor. viii. 4, 10; x. 20, 21. f Acts xv. 28, 29.\\nJ Acts xv. 7.", "height": "4560", "width": "2908", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 235\\nprohibited. Why the eating of blood and of things stran-\\ngled should have given strong offence to those who were\\nzealous for the Law may appear from the fact, that the\\ncommand to abstain from them is expressly extended in the\\nLaw to strangers sojourning among the Israelites.* It is\\nalso represented in Genesis as a universal precept, given by\\nGod to Noah and his descendants f and may, therefore, have\\nbeen regarded, even by many of those Jews who were most\\nliberally disposed, as binding upon all men. It is next to be\\nremarked, that many of the Gentile converts, as it appears,\\nhad no correct moral feeling of the offence, either of joining a\\nfeast in honor of an idol, or of unchastity. At such feasts\\nthey had been accustomed to be present and seeing that they\\nknew, as the Corinthians boasted, that an idol was nothing\\nin the world, they saw no harm to themselves or others in\\ncontinuing to enjoy the gratification. As for simple unchas-\\ntity, it had not been considered by the generality of Heathens\\nas a matter of reproach, except in the female sex. Amid the\\nprevalence of more odious vices, and the general disrespect\\nfor woman, it was lightly thought of by the wisest and best\\namong them, and was either permitted by their moralists and\\nphilosophers, or scarcely came within their view as any thing\\nto be reprehended. Thus, while, on the one hand, the strong\\nconscientious prejudices of probably far the greater part of\\nthe Jewish believers required the prohibition of eating flesh\\nwith the life thereof, which is its blood so, on the other\\nhand, the imperfect notions of religion and morality which\\nLev. xvii. 10-13. t Gen. ix. 4.\\nt St. Paul (1 Cor. viii. 1, seqq.) refers to such a boast ironically, with\\nreference to the misapplication which the Corinthians had made of their\\nknowledge Concerning idol-sacrifices we know, for we all have knowl-\\nedge; knowledge puffs up, but love edifies; he who thinks he knows some-\\nthing knows nothing yet as it ought to be known; but he who loves God has\\nbeen taught by him, concerning the eating of idol-sacrifices, then, we\\nknow that an idol is nothing in the world, and there is no other God but\\none. Gen. ix. 4.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "236 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthe Gentile converts brought with them made it necessary to\\ninsist particularly on the graver offences specified, and ex-\\nplicitly to announce that they were forbidden by Christianity.\\nBut the same influences that corrupted the imperfect faith of\\nsome of the earliest Gentile converts continued to operate in,\\nthe second century on the imperfect faith of many of the\\ntheosophic Gnostics nor is there, as some have suggested,\\nany reason to regard those charges as unjust or improbable,\\nwhen made against a considerable portion of their number,\\nwhich we know to be true as respects a portion of the pro-\\nfessed converts of the apostolic age.\\nBut the influence of heathen principles and practice was\\nnot the only source of moral error. Even Christian truths,\\nviewed in relation to the circumstances of the times, were\\nliable to be grossly misrepresented and abused and some-\\ntimes the strong words in which they are expressed by St.\\nPaul were so perverted as to make them contradict the whole\\ntenor of his doctrine. Where the spirit of the Lord is,\\nthere is liberty/ said the apostle, in one of the noblest\\ndeclarations ever uttered. The creation itself will be deliv-\\nered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty\\nof the sons of God. f Stand fast in the liberty with which\\nChrist has made you free. The liberty of which St. Paul\\nspeaks was that enlargement of mind produced by Christian-\\nity, through new conceptions of duty and of God liberty\\nfrom the narrow and bitter prejudices of the Jews, and from\\nthe burdensome ritual of their Law, which, according to a\\nremarkable expression of St. Peter, was a yoke that neither\\nthey nor their fathers had been able to bear and liberty,\\non the other hand, from heathen superstition, its sanctified\\nfollies, its idle terrors, its abominable rites, and its slavery to\\n2 Cor. iii. 17. f Rom. viii. 21.\\nGal. v. 1. Acts xv. 10.", "height": "4548", "width": "2912", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 237\\ngods whose characters were only a source of moral pollution\\nthat system from which Lucretius thought atheism a happy\\ndeliverance\\nHumana ante oculos foede quom vita jaceret\\nIn terns oppressa gravi sub religione.\\nThe liberty of which the apostle spoke was freedom from\\nall those hard and degrading observances and supposititious\\nduties, that servitude to the weak and beggarly principles\\nof the world, through which men have sought the favor of\\nthe being or beings whom they have worshipped, in the neg-\\nlect of moral goodness. It was freedom from that spirit of\\nbondage and fear with which the Jews regarded God, and\\nthe reception of the Christian spirit, which bears witness to\\nour spirits that we are children of God. In a word, it was\\nfreedom from superstition and sin.\\nThis state of mind, this liberty, was to be attained through\\nfaith, by becoming a Christian that is, through the hearty and\\npractical reception of Christian truth. The favor of God was\\nnot, as the unbelieving Jews maintained, to be secured by\\nthe works of the Law that is, by the observance of the\\nJewish Law, according to their notions of what constituted\\nits observance, namely, a strict regard to all its peculiar\\nrequirements and religious rites. Such observance was so\\nfar from being the duty of a Christian, as some of the Jewish\\nbelievers maintained, that the new convert would wholly\\nmistake the character of his religion, if he suffered himself to\\nbe persuaded that it was an essential means of obtaining\\nGod s favor.J It would be seeking for completion in the\\nflesh, after having begun in the spirit. u I tell you, says\\nthe apostle, u ye who seek for righteousness by the Law have\\ndone with Christ ye have fallen away from the dispensation\\nGal. iv. 3, 9. t Rom. viii. 14, 15.\\nSee the Epistle to the Galatians. Gal. iii. 3.", "height": "4560", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "238 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof favor. To have faith, to be a Christian, was all that\\nwas required and the works of the Law, in the sense in\\nwhich that term was used by the unbelieving Jews and\\nbigoted Jewish converts, were not required.\\nBut, further than this, the blessings which believers enjoyed\\nwere not conferred in consequence of any previous merit\\nof theirs, of any works which they had performed, nor of any\\nclaim upon God, such as the Jews believed themselves to\\nhave established by keeping their Law. They were his free\\ngift to a world lying in sin. They w^ere offered equally to\\nthe tax-gatherer and to the harlot, and to him who was, or\\nfancied himself, righteous. It was not the goodness of men\\nwhich had entitled them to this new dispensation of favor it\\nwas their sinfulness and misery which had called for this\\ninterposition of mercy; and now to him, says the apostle,\\nperforming no works (that is, to him who had performed\\nno works), but having faith in God, who receives the sinner\\nto his favor, his faith is accounted righteousness. f His sins\\nwere forgiven upon his becoming a Christian for the first\\nduty of a Christian was reformation, and reformation is the\\nonly ground of the forgiveness of sin.\\nSuch were the truths maintained by St. Paul. But the\\nbold, brief, unlimited, unguarded language, in which they\\nwere occasionally expressed by him, admitted of being misin-\\nterpreted in a manner contradictory to the whole spirit of his\\nteaching, and to the fundamental requirements of Christianity.\\nWe perceive that he sometimes apprehended that his doctrine\\nmight be so perverted. Brethren, he says to the Galatians,\\nye have been called to liberty? only use not your liberty\\nas a pretence for the flesh that is, as a pretence for the\\nindulgence of sinful appetites and passions. St. Peter, like-\\nGal. v. 4. f Rom. iv. 5.\\nGal. v. 13: comp. ver. 19-21, where the apostle enumerates the works\\nof the flesh.", "height": "4584", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 289\\nwise, exhorts that Christians should conduct themselves as\\nfree, and not using their freedom as a cloak for wickedness,\\nbut as servants of God. After strongly stating that the\\npardon of sin was tendered to all by Christianity, St. Paul\\nasks, with reference probably both to the misrepresentations\\nof the unbelieving Jews, and the loose notions of some Chris-\\ntian converts, What then shall we say Shall we con-\\ntinue in sin that the favor may superabound f and\\nearnestly rejects this false inference. How St. Paul s doc-\\ntrine concerning Works was abused, we learn from the\\nEpistle ascribed to St. James, t It is evident that there were\\nthose who thought that to become a Christian, in a loose\\nsense of the word, was all that was required who had false\\nnotions of Christian liberty and of the pardon of sin and who\\ncomprehended the moral duties among the works from which\\ntheir faith absolved them.\\nGreat changes in the religious opinions and sentiments of\\nmen can hardly be effected without producing also extrava-\\ngances of speculation, moral irregularities, and scepticism.\\nThe belief of the larger part of men has rested, and must\\never rest, on authority. They are but sharers in the common\\nbelief of the community or sect to which they belong\\nthough this belief, and especially its practical effects, may be\\ngreatly modified in different individuals by personal qualities,\\ngood or bad. The knowledge of the wisest man is but the\\nresult of the action of his mind on the accumulated wis-\\ndom and judgments of those who have preceded him,\\nand on what he believes, from testimony, to have been the\\nexperience of the past. There are no independent thinkers,\\nin the absolute sense of the words. Independent and judi-\\ncious thinkers, in the more popular sense, are rare. In our\\nintellectual as well as our moral nature, we are parts of each\\n1 Pet. ii. 16. f Rom. vi. 1. J James ii. 14, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2768", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "240 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nother, and cannot, without a severe struggle, release ourselves\\nfrom the traditionary opinions of those with whom we are\\nconnected. One generation inculcates its faith on another\\nand this is received and incorporated into the mind at a\\nperiod too early for examination or doubt, and is thus perpet-\\nuated from age to age. When, therefore, the authority of\\nthe past gives way, the minds of many are liable to be greatly\\nunsettled. To some, the rejection of errors that have been\\nlong maintained seems equivalent to the denial of the best\\nestablished truths for the grounds of their belief in the one\\nand the other are the same, both having been admitted by\\nthem on authority.* They either obstinately defend ail they\\nhave been taught, or, through a tendency to scepticism, impa-\\ntience of doubt, and an inability to estimate moral evidence,\\nand consequently to discriminate what may be proved true,\\nand what false, reject the whole together. Others, again,\\njoin at once in the new movement and, feeling themselves\\nreleased from the ordinary restraints of speculation, confident,\\nlike the Corinthians, that they have knowledge, and elated\\nby their victory over what wiser men have reverenced, pro-\\nHowever obvious is the general truth of the remarks above made, it\\nmaybe thought by some that they are not applicable to the revolution of\\nopinion produced by Christianity; but that, on the contrary, the folly of the\\npagan religions was such, that they could have had no strong hold on the\\nbelief of men through the influence of authority. But, setting aside all other\\nevidence, the proper fanaticism displayed by the Pagans in their contest\\nwith Christianity would alone be sufficient to disprove the error.\\nSometime after writing what is in the text, I was struck by accidentally\\nmeeting with the following passage of Lactantius, which I had read long\\nbefore, but had forgotten. It speaks of the state of things when Christianity\\nhad been preached for two centuries and a half. After remarking on the\\npagan religions, Lactantius says: These are the religions which, handed\\ndown to them from their ancestors, they persevere m most obstinately main-\\ntaining and defending. Xor do they consider of what character they are;\\nbut are confident that they are good and true, because they have been trans-\\nmitted from the ancients. So great is the authority of antiquity, that to\\ninquire into it is pronounced impiety. It is trusted to everywhere with tha\\nsame confidence as is felt in ascertained truth (Institut., lib. ii. 6).", "height": "4584", "width": "2960", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 241\\nmulgate, often in a new dialect, their crude and inconsequent\\ndoctrines, perhaps as the anticipated wisdom of a coming\\nage.\\nIn the breaking-up of old opinions, the true and only\\nappeal is to reason. But the process is difficult, and there\\nare not many capable of carrying it through. When we\\npersonify abstract reason, we must acknowledge that her\\ndecisions are final. But in a large portion of individual\\nminds the actual power of reasoning is small or rather, if\\nwe take into view the whole human race, as spread over the\\nearth, we shall perceive that there is a very large majority in\\nwhom the power of determining by themselves any contro-\\nversy concerning the higher objects of thought cannot be said\\nto exist. In revolutions of religious opinion, therefore, it has\\nbeen common to substitute for reason an imaginary faculty,\\nan intuitive perception of the highest truths. Men claim\\nto know that their opinions are true, on the ground that they\\ndirectly perceive them to be true without the intervention of\\nreasoning. This claim to inward illumination, to an imme-\\ndiate revelation to individual men, has commonly, as in the\\ncase of the Gnostics, been asserted by particular sects as\\ntheir peculiar privilege but in our times the privilege\\nhas been extended, with magnificent absurdity, to the whole\\nhuman race.\\nOne other fact may be remarked. In all reforms, it is\\ncommon for men to discern the truth imperfectly, under one\\naspect alone to mistake general for unlimited propositions\\nand to affirm what is true in a certain sense, and with certain\\nmodifications, as universally true. They seize, perhaps, on\\nsome doctrine recommended to them by its being opposite to\\nan old error and without defining it in their own minds, or\\nreconciling it with admitted truths, or viewing it in its extent\\nand relations, insist on its absolute, unqualified reception.\\nBut, in the interregnum and partial anarchy that take\\nplace between the overthrow of one system and the establish-\\n16", "height": "4560", "width": "2780", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "242 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nment of another, moral disorders commonly break out. The\\npassions throw off their restraints, as well as the understand-\\ning. Men s notions of duty change with their religious be-\\nlief; and they regard as indifferent actions which they before\\nthought obligatory or criminal, or they even ascribe to the\\nsame actions an opposite moral character. The limits of\\nright and wrong are for a time obscured; and there are\\nthose who will take advantage of this uncertainty to trans-\\ngress. The reception of the new system constitutes a\\ndistinction which, in the minds of some, supersedes the\\nnecessity and merit of common virtues. There is a wild\\ngrowth of error and all religious errors, being mistakes con-\\ncerning the nature, relations, and duties of man, tend to moral\\nevil. Thus all great and apparently sudden revolutions of\\nreligious opinion, which are commonly, in some sense, re-\\nforms, as being a re-action against abuses and errors, are\\naccompanied in their turn by new errors and excesses.\\nIt was, I conceive, in contemplation of the demoralizing\\neffects commonly attending sudden changes of religious opin-\\nion, however beneficial in their final or immediate result, that\\nour Saviour, at the commencement of his ministry, thus\\naddressed his hearers Think not that I have come to\\nannul the Law or the Prophets I have not come to annul,\\nbut to perfect. For I tell you in truth, not till heaven and\\nearth pass away shall the smallest letter or stroke pass away\\nfrom the Law; no, not till all things are ended. His\\nmeaning was, Think not that I have come to set aside\\nthose religious and moral principles, the true Law of God,\\nwhich your faith inculcates. I have come to explain them\\nmore fully, and to enforce them more solemnly. They re-\\nmain for ever unchangeable. And thus he goes on to say:\\nWhoever shall break one of these least commandments\\n[that is, one of the least of those which he was about to give]\\nMatt. v. 17, 18.", "height": "4560", "width": "2912", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 243\\nshall be least in the kingdom of heaven. For, unless\\nyour goodness exceed that of the teachers of the Law and the\\nPharisees, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.\\nIt was among the Gentile converts that the Gnostics\\nappeared and we shall perceive, that even under the teach-\\ning of St. Paul, and those associated with him, the notions\\nof many of the Gentile converts concerning our religion\\nmust have been imperfect and erroneous, when we consider\\nwhat opportunities they enjoyed for attaining a knowledge\\nof it, for correcting their former prejudices, and for deter-\\nmining its bearing upon the mass of their old conceptions\\nand opinions. They had not the help of the New Testa-\\nment. With the exception of his own Epistles, the oral\\nteaching of St. Paul and his associates was probably the main\\nsource of instruction to a majority of his converts. But\\nthe apostle, earnest to spread as widely as possible a knowl-\\nedge of Christ, and driven hither and thither by persecution,\\noften rested but a short time in the places which he visited.\\nMany, we may believe, after witnessing his miraculous\\npower, and hearing from him the fundamental facts and\\ndoctrines of Christianity, professed themselves converts,\\nthough they had only a brief opportunity of listening to his\\nexpositions of truth and duty. Some doubtless embraced\\nthe religion under a temporary excitement of feeling, without\\na just notion of its character, or a correct sense of the obli-\\ngations it imposed. We cannot question, that, by the apostle\\nas well as by our Saviour, the seed was often scattered where\\nit sprung up to be choked by weeds. He would encourage\\nevery motion toward good. He would not repel any one\\nwho professed a desire to turn from sin to righteousness,\\nhowever crude and unformed were his conceptions of the\\nnew religion. He would receive as a disciple whoever re-\\nMatt. v. 19, 20.", "height": "4544", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "244 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ngarded it with favor. He would act in the spirit of the\\nwords of his Master, Forbid him not for he that is not\\nagainst you is for you.\\nSuch being the state of things, great errors, schisms, oppos-\\ning parties, and moral irregularities, existed, in consequence,\\namong the earliest Gentile converts. They are often referred\\nto in the Epistles of St. Paul. Into what gross misconcep-\\ntions of Christianity individuals who professed themselves\\nconverts to it might fall, may appear from the fact, that some\\namong: the Corinthians denied its fundamental doctrine of a\\nfuture life. How say some among you, asks the apostle,\\nthat there is no resurrection of the dead The ten-\\ndency to these evils was aggravated by a spirit of opposition\\nto St. Paul. This originated among the bigoted Jews,\\nzealous for the observance of the Levitical Law by the Gen-\\ntile converts and, there can be little doubt, spread from\\nthem to others. In his second Epistle to the Corinthians,\\nthere is much referring to opponents who spoke of him dis-\\nrespectfully and reproachfully. Thus, under the operation\\nof the various circumstances that we have adverted to, indi-\\nviduals were led to form systems for themselves, different\\nfrom the religion taught by the apostles and a way was\\nopened for speculations as extravagant as those of the Gnos-\\ntics, for moral principles as loose as were those of some of\\ntheir number, and for the existence of sects which, deriving\\ntheir origin from the preaching of Christianity, had yet no\\ntitle to the Christian name.\\nBut we must also recollect, that a knowledge of Chris-\\ntianity was spread by others than the apostles, and their\\nimmediate associates, and those whose teaching they sanc-\\ntioned. Of such as were or thought themselves converts,\\nmany would be zealous to communicate the new doctrine to\\n1 Cor. xv. 12.", "height": "4536", "width": "2944", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 245\\nothers. From them it would often pass, more or less muti-\\nlated by their ignorance, or adulterated by their prejudices,\\nor blended with their former errors. Of such teachers from\\namong the Jewish converts, who insisted on the observance\\nof the Levitical Law, we have abundant evidence in St. Paul s\\nEpistles. Beside them, we cannot doubt that there were,\\nfrom the body of Gentile Christians, others with very differ-\\nent conceptions. It is easy to conceive what crude and false\\nnotions of our religion may thus have been spread among its\\nremoter and less-informed professors, and how far it may\\nhave been divested of that solemn authority with which it\\nimpressed the mind of an intelligent believer.\\nGreat errors might be consistent with honest zeal in those\\nwho thus communicated their imperfect conceptions of Chris-\\ntianity. But there also appeared among Christians pretended\\nteachers of our religion, to whom honest zeal cannot be\\nascribed. They are spoken of by St. Paul, in writing to the\\nCorinthians, as false apostles, fraudulent workmen, trans-\\nforming themselves into apostles of Christ, but in truth\\nministers of Satan. They are described by him as the\\nmany who adulterate, for the sake of gain, the doctrine of\\nGod. f The heathen sophists taught for money and,\\nundoubtedly, often sought to distinguish themselves, for the\\nsake of procuring hearers, by novel, paradoxical, and licen-\\ntious opinions. When Christianity opened a wholly new\\nfield for speculation, producing a strong excitement and\\naction of mind wherever preached, men of a similar character\\nwould be ready to take advantage of this state of things.\\nThus we find that among the Corinthians there soon appeared\\nfalse teachers, whose object was to procure a maintenance,\\nand who defrauded and oppressed their disciples. It is in\\nreference to them, or to some one of their number, that St.\\n2 Cor. xi. 13, 15. t Ibid., ii. 17.", "height": "4560", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "246 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nPaul says, Ye bear it patiently, if a man make slaves of\\nyou, if he devour you, if he take your property, if he treat\\nyou insolently, if he strike you on the face. I speak it with\\nshame for it is as if we ourselves suffered. Some, prob-\\nably most or all, of these men, it appears, were Jews for,\\nspeaking of his opponents, he says, Are they Hebrews\\nSo am I f and these Jews might have learned from their\\nown Rabbis to receive fees from their disciples. With the\\nconduct of such false teachers St. Paul contrasts his own in\\ntaking nothing from the Corinthians partly because he\\nwould afford no pretence to those who wished for a pre-\\ntence. t And, what is remarkable, the very circumstance\\nof his preaching gratuitously was made use of by his oppo-\\nnents to depreciate his character and he found himself\\ncalled upon to defend his conduct in this respect. Have I,\\nhe says indignantly, humbling myself that you might be\\nexalted, done wrong in preaching to you the gospel of God\\ngratuitously The Corinthians were so familiar with the\\ncustom of paying the highest fees to those professed teachers\\nof wisdom who were in the most repute, that some of them\\nwere disposed to regard as of little value a teacher who did\\nnot demand money for his instructions.\\nHe alludes to the subject again, late in life, in his Epistle\\nto Titus. There are many, he says, especially among\\nthose of the circumcision, who are disorderly, vain talkers,\\ndeluding men s minds, whose mouths must be stopped, who\\nsubvert whole families, teaching what should not be taught\\nfor the sake of shameful gain. And he also refers to them\\nin his first Epistle to Timothy, written about the same time\\nwith that to Titus. If any one, he says, teach another\\ndoctrine, and hold not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus\\nChrist, and to the doctrine of piety, he is puffed up, under-\\n2 Cor. xi. 20, 21. f Ibid., xi. 22. J Ibid., xi. 12.\\nIbid., xi. 7. Chap. i. 10, 11.", "height": "4560", "width": "2948", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 247\\nstanding nothing, but having a diseased craving for discus-\\nsions and strifes of words, from which proceed ill-will,\\nquarrelling, reviling, malicious surmises, perverse disputa-\\ntions of men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, thinking\\nto make a gain of piety. From such keep away. Piety,\\nindeed, with contentment, is a great gain. We have brought\\nnothing into the world it is clear that we can carry nothing\\nout of it: having, then, food and clothing, with these we\\nshall be satisfied. But they, whose purpose it is to be rich*\\nfall into temptation, and a snare, and many senseless and\\npernicious lusts, which plunge men into destruction and ruin.\\nThe root of all these evils f is the love of money, through\\ntheir craving after which some have strayed from the truth,\\nand have pierced themselves through with many pangs. t\\nThis class of false teachers existed among the Gnostics\\nand probably most of their professors of wisdom, like the\\nheathen sophists, gave instruction only to those disciples who\\nwere able to purchase it. Speaking of some of their doc-\\ntrines, Irenaeus says ironically, It seems to me reasonable\\nthat they should not be willing to teach them openly to all,\\nbut only to those who are able to pay a great price for such\\nmysteries for these doctrines are not like those concerning\\nwhich our Lord said, 6 Freely ye have received, freely give\\nbut are remote from common apprehension, marvellous and\\nprofound mysteries, to be attained with much toil by the lovers\\nof falsehood. Who, indeed, would not spend his whole sub-\\nstance to learn them Such teachers existing, it can be\\nno matter of surprise, that some of them taught systems as\\nunlike Christianity as those of any of the Gnostic sects,\\nReferring, I conceive, to those before spoken of as men of corrupt\\nminds.\\nt Not the root of all evil, as in the common version. The original is,\\nP^a yap ndvrcov t v kclkuv.\\nChap. vi. 3-10.\\nLib. i. c. 4, 3, p. 20: conf. lib. iv. c. 26, 2, p. 262.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "248 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nand that others merely borrowed certain conceptions from our\\nreligion, without pretending to embrace it.\\nHad it, indeed been other than a revelation from God, ex-\\npressing its divine origin in its whole history and character\\nhad it been only a new form of barbaric philosophy, that had\\nsprung up among the Jews in Galilee, then, instead of bear-\\ning down through the heathen world, a broad and ever-\\nwidening stream, it would have been choked by corruptions\\nand errors, through which it could not force its way; it\\nwould have been wasted and lost, like those rivers of Africa\\nand the East that disappear in deserts of sand. One incom-\\nmunicable attribute alone, its divine authority, gave it per-\\nmanence. Whatever might be the mistakes of its disciples\\nconcerning it, yet in its own nature it allowed of no amalga-\\nmation with human opinions, as sharing its paramount claims.\\nIt admitted of no change or addition. This opposed an in-\\nsuperable barrier to all innovations, which did not at least\\nclaim, however falsely, to be original doctrines of Christianity.\\nIt controlled the operation of those causes of error which\\nhave been pointed out. It is the redeeming principle, which\\nwe may hope will yet restore the religion of Christians to the\\nnative purity of Christianity. Had it not possessed this\\ncharacter had it been merely a new system of Jewish philos-\\nophy, having a fabulous origin, a system of assertions with-\\nout proof, for such Christianity is, if it be not a divine\\nrevelation, a multitude of sects would have appeared among\\nits Gentile followers, not hovering, like the Gnostics, on the\\noutskirts of our faith, but seizing on the whole ground, form-\\ning theories of equal authority with the original doctrine, the\\nrecords of which they could but imperfectly understand and\\nat the present day, instead of seeing Christianity the professed\\nreligion of the civilized world, we should know as little of\\ndisciples of Jesus, existing as a distinct body, as we know\\nof disciples of Socrates.", "height": "4560", "width": "2920", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 249\\nIt has appeared, that, with the first propagation of our\\nreligion among the Gentiles, causes of error were operating\\nto produce resistance to the authority of St. Paul and the\\nother apostles, schisms, moral irregularities, false doctrines,\\nand apostasy. It was with a foresight of this state of things\\nthat Jesus said, He who perseveres to the end will be\\nsaved and, at tha same time, predicted that many would\\nfall away, They will deliver up one another, and hate\\none another and many false teachers will arise, and deceive\\nmany and iniquity will so abound, that the love of many\\nwill grow cold. Notwithstanding the vast power which\\nour religion displayed in changing the characters of men, such\\ndisorders and evils were to attend its progress. But know\\nthis, says St. Paul to Timothy, in his last Epistle, when an-\\nticipating his own martyrdom, that hereafter there will be\\nevil times for those men [a class of men of whom he had\\nbefore spoken] will be selfish, avaricious, boastful, haughty,\\ngiven to evil-speaking, disobedient to parents, ungrateful,\\nunholy, without natural affection, without faith, slanderers,\\nof unrestrained passions, without humanity, without love for\\nwhat is good, treacherous, violent, puffed up with pride, lovers\\nof pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a show of piety,\\nbut renouncing its power. From such turn away. Of their\\nnumber are those who creep into houses, and make captive\\nweak women, laden with sins, carried away by divers evil\\ndesires, always learning and never able to gain a knowledge\\nof the truth. But as James and Jambres contended against\\nMoses, so they contend against the truth men whose minds\\nare corrupt, and whose faith is unsound. But they will not\\nproceed far for their folly will be manifest to all, as was that\\nof James and Jambres. f\\nWho those men were, of whom St. Paul thus speaks,\\nappears from what precedes in the Epistle. Put men in\\nMatt. xxiv. 10-12. t 2 Tim. iii. 1-9.", "height": "4552", "width": "2704", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "250 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmind of these things, he says (that is, of certain fundamental\\ntruths of Christianity, which he had just expressed), adjur-\\ning them before the Lord not to engage in idle disputes,\\nwhich profit nothing, but subvert the hearers. Avoid those\\nprofane babblings for these men will go on to greater im-\\npiety, and their doctrine will eat into them like a gangrene.\\nOf their number are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have erred\\nfrom the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken\\nplace, and who are subverting the faith of some. In a\\ngreat house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but\\nalso of wood and clay, and some for honorable and others for\\nmean uses. If, then, one keep himself clear from those things,\\nhe shall be a vessel for honor. Avoid those foolish and\\nunlearned discussions, knowing that they produce strife. 1\\nThe great body of catholic Christians was continually throw-\\ning off these disorders, and separating itself from them. But\\nthere can be no reason to doubt the existence of such dis-\\norders among the heretical as well as pseudo- Christian sects\\nof the second and subsequent centuries.\\nThere is no historical evidence which justifies us in believ-\\ning, that what assumes to be a second Epistle of Peter, and\\nthat which has been ascribed to the apostle Jude, were the\\nworks of those authors and the character and contents of\\nthe writings are unfavorable to the supposition. The ancient\\nChristians are not responsible for any error concerning their\\nauthorship for it does not appear that they were generally\\nconsidered as genuine during the first three centuries. It\\nseems to me most probable, that they were composed in the\\nfirst half of the second century, under the names of those\\napostles and that the writer of each assumed a character not\\nhis own, rather by way of rhetorical artifice, than with inten-\\ntional fraud. In both, individuals of depraved morals are\\n2 Tim. ii. 14-23.", "height": "4544", "width": "2900", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 251\\ndescribed as existing among Christians, in language which, if\\nnot that of the apostles, we may consider as declamatory and\\nexaggerated, but cannot look upon as without foundation. It\\nappears that those spoken of were not yet wholly separated\\nfrom the communion of catholic Christians. They are\\nhidden rocks in your love-feasts, it is said. But they\\nare spoken of as those who are making a separation f and\\nthe feelings expressed toward them in these Epistles are such\\nas must have produced their severance from the catholic body.\\nThey were not only immoral in their lives, but false teachers,\\nsecretly bringing in destructive heresies and the language\\nused may suggest the inference, that these were Gnostic\\nheresies. Thus it is said, that they denied the Sovereign\\nLord who bought them, and our Lord Jesus Christ mean-\\ning, we may suppose, that they denied that the Creator was\\nthe Supreme God, and held opinions concerning Christ so\\ncontradictory to the truth, as to amount to a denial of his\\nreal character. To the pretension of the Gnostics, that they\\nalone were spiritual, and possessed of true knowledge, the\\nwriters may be supposed to refer indignantly and contemptu-\\nously, when they describe those of whom they speak, as\\nanimal, not having the spirit, as speaking evil of what\\nthey understand not, and as brute beasts, governed by\\ninstinct, made to be taken and destroy ed. H They promised\\nmen freedom, it is said, while they themselves were slaves\\nof corruption language corresponding to the representa-\\ntions of the early fathers concerning the pretensions and\\ncharacter of many among the Gnostics. It may be added,\\nthat they taught for money. Through covetousness, it is\\nJude 12: conrp. 2 Pet. ii. 13, where aya-aig seems probably the true\\nreading.\\nf Jude 19, ol aTTodiopL^ovTeg. The word kavrovg i which follows in the\\nReceived Text, does not appear to be genuine.\\n2 Pet. ii. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 1. Jude 4. Jude 19.\\nTf 2 Pet. ii. 12. Jude 10. 2 Pet. ii. 19.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "252 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nsaid, they will make a gain of you by fraudulent dis-\\ncourses and they are compared to Balaam, who loved\\nthe wages of unrighteousness, t having been tempted by the\\nbribes of Balak. Woe for them, says the author of\\nthe Epistle ascribed to Jude for they have walked in the\\nway of Cain, and given themselves up to deceive, like Balaam,\\nfor pay, and brought destruction on themselves through\\nrebellion, like Korah. t It is not, perhaps, improbable,\\nthat these Epistles were written about the time that Gnos-\\nticism was first making its appearance, and before it had yet\\nacquired any reputable or able leaders.\\nThe date of the Apocalypse is uncertain but it is, I think,\\nto be referred either to the latter part of the first, or the\\nearlier part of the second century. In the addresses to\\nthe seven churches of Asia, we find mention of the same\\nvices, as existing among professed Christians, which we have\\nbefore remarked and, in speaking of them, Balaam is intro-\\nduced under a point of view different from that in which he\\nappears in the Epistles ascribed to Peter and Jude. Thus,\\nin the address to the church at Pergamus, it is said, But I\\nhave a few things against thee, for thou hast those who follow\\nthe teaching of Balaam, who instructed Balak how to cause\\nthe Israelites to offend, by eating idol-sacrifices and com-\\nmitting fornication so hast thou, too, those who thus follow\\nthe teaching of the Nicolaitans, that is, thou, too, hast\\nthose who eat idol-sacrifices and commit fornication. The\\nNicolaitans are also mentioned once before and this appel-\\nlation appears to be used as equivalent to followers of\\nBalaam, the significance of Balaam in Hebrew, and\\nNicolaiis in Greek, being the same. The name Nicolaitans\\nwas subsequently applied to Gnostics who led licentious lives,\\n2 Pet. ii. 3. f 2 Pet. ii. 15. Jude II.\\nRev. ii. 14, 15. Rev. ii. 6.", "height": "4584", "width": "2968", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 253\\ntill at last it came to be considered as the name of a sect.*\\nThis sect was then supposed to derive its origin from Xicolaiis f\\n(Nicholas), one of the seven deacons appointed by the\\napostles, t The fable for such it is to be considered is\\nrejected by Clement of Alexandria, who gives an account of\\nNicolaiis, perhaps equally unfounded, in which he is repre-\\nsented as an ascetic. The Xicola itans are the sect before\\nreferred to, as, according to Clement, perverting the maxim,\\nthat the body must be abused, which he ascribes to\\njSlcolaus.\\nIt appears, then, that, from the times of the apostles, im-\\nmoral doctrines and practices had existed among professed\\nChristians, and that, due allowance being made for the\\nlanguage of controversial enmity, and for charges brought\\nagainst Christian Gnostics, which, so far as they were true,\\nwere true only of sects not Christian, there is still no reason\\nto doubt that the principles of a portion of the Gnostics did\\nnot secure them from the common vices of the pagan world\\nand that there were those among them who perverted their\\ndoctrines to defend themselves in criminal irregularities.\\nThe character of the great body of Christians, founded on the\\nrequirements of our religion the supervision exercised by\\ntheir respective churches over the morals of individual mem-\\nbers their rejection from their number of those whose lives\\nor whose principles were essentially unchristian, these\\ncauses, in connection with the persecution which they suffered\\nfrom without, were continually operating to produce a separa-\\ntion between them and such individuals as have been de-\\nscribed. But there was nothing to prevent such individuals\\nfrom forming, or from joining, a looser class of heretics, and\\nIrenaeus, lib. i. c. 26, 3, p. 105 conf. lib. iii. c. 11, 1, p. 1S8.\\nf Ibid. Acts vi. 5.\\nStromat., ii. 20, pp. 490, 491; iii. 4, pp. 522, 523.\\n|j See p. 228.", "height": "4556", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "254 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nannouncing themselves as Gnostics, or, in other words, as\\npeculiarly en ightened.\\nMany of the first converts to Christianity must, as we have\\nseen, have had but very imperfect information concerning it.\\nFormer prejudices still retained a strong hold on their minds.\\nIn the effervescence of the times, false teachers soon arose.\\nThe doctrine of the apostles was resisted on the one hand, and\\nperverted on the other. Such being the state of things in\\nthe first century, the way was prepared for the existence,\\nin the second century, of doctrines as remote from Christianity\\nas those of the Gnostics. They were the fruit of errors that\\nhad sprung up when the Gospel was planted, and had accom-\\npanied its growth.\\nDuring the second century, all those distinctly recognized\\nas heretics among the Gentile converts were, or were repre-\\nsented to be. Gnostics. As has been before observed, it was\\nnatural, that an ill-informed convert, possessed with the com-\\nmon prejudices of the Gentiles, should adopt the Gnostic\\ndoctrine concerning the Old Testament and the God of the\\nJews. It was equally natural, that one who had become\\nseparated from the great body of Christians by an immoral\\nlife, if he did not renounce his religion altogether, should join\\na body of heretics whose extraordinary pretensions at once\\nafforded a cover for his vices and a gratification to his vanity.\\nHe would pass over to the looser class of theosophic Gnostics.\\nThus it may be conceived, that, in the second century, those\\nirregularities and vices settled down among them, which, in the\\nfirst century, appear diffused through the body of Christians.\\nWe have had occasion to bring into view the disorders\\namong Christians, that unquestionably existed during the\\napostolic age. But we must be careful not to have an exag-\\ngerated idea of their nature or extent. They were such as\\ncould not but attend so wonderful a change of thought and\\nfeeling as our religion produced, and the formation of a body", "height": "4548", "width": "2968", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 255\\nof Christians in the midst of such a world as lay around them.\\nIn the latter half of the second century, the catholic Christians\\nwere, as I have said, pre-eminently distinguished by their\\nreligious character and high morality and are liable as a\\ncommunity to no graver charge, than that their virtues bor-\\ndered on asceticism, austerity, and enthusiasm. The commo-\\ntion in men s minds produced by the first preaching of our\\nreligion had subsided. It was better understood. The books\\nof the New Testament, and especially the Gospels, were now\\nopen to the examination of all, and afforded means for study-\\ning its history and character. The great body of Christians,\\nwho were united in a common faith, had been purified by\\nsevere sufferings and persecution, and by the discipline which\\nthey maintained among themselves. They were a new class\\nof men, standing in contrast with their heathen contempo-\\nraries and the grosser vices of the world found either no\\nentrance or no toleration among them. But it is not strange\\nif the overwhelming licentiousness of the times forced itself\\nin, where the weaker faith and the erroneous doctrines of the\\nGnostics presented a feebler resistance, or opened a way for\\nits admission.\\nBut this subject requires some further explanation. We\\nmay readily understand why, at the present day, individuals\\nwithout Christian faith, or without Christian morals, should\\nclaim to be called Christians, or why the generality of men in\\na Christian country, whatever may be the strength of their\\nfaith or its practical influence, should acquiesce in being\\nnumbered as believers but the inquiry may well arise, how\\nit was, that, when to be a Christian was to expose one s self\\nto hatred and persecution, any should take that name, except\\nfrom such sincere conviction and such conscientious motives\\nas would preserve them from indulging in the vices of the\\nheathen world, and especially from justifying such indulgence\\non principle.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "256 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThe solution of the fact is, that the looser heretics did not\\nexpose themselves to persecution. The hatred of the Hea-\\nthens to the Christians manifested itself by irregular out-\\nbreaks. It would- be a great mistake to suppose, that the\\nproceedings against them, at least before the latter part of\\nthe third century, resembled the systematized persecution\\nof infidels and heretics in those Roman- Catholic countries\\nwhere the Inquisition has been established. The steady\\naction of law was unknown throughout the Roman Empire.\\nIts machinery was wholly out of order. Its workings were\\nirregular and interrupted. After the time of Nero till that of\\nDiocletian, the emperors, for the most part, appear rather to\\nhave yielded to the spirit of persecution, than to have excited\\nit. The sufferings of the Christians were occasioned far le.^s\\nby their edicts, than by the superstition and enmity of the\\nlower classes, the cruelty of some of the provincial governors,\\nand the license and rapacity of the soldiery. Such persecu-\\ntors would, in general, select their victims from the most\\nconscientious and zealous among the number of those who,\\nfrom their circumstances in life, might be most easily op-\\npressed, or who, being conspicuous among Christians, had, at\\nthe same time, incurred some particular odium. The more\\nlicentious among the heretics had little to fear. They prob-\\nably called themselves Gnostics, or enlightened men, rather\\nthan Christians for the latter name might not only have\\nexposed them to obloquy and danger, but would have con-\\nfounded them with the great body of believers, whom they\\nlooked down upon with contempt. They were connected\\nwith the heathen world in its vices and in its idol-worship.\\nMoreover, a man devoid of conscientiousness and self-devo-\\ntion need apprehend no danger, even if, by some accident, he\\nmight be accused as a Christian. The judicial trials of\\nChristians were very unlike those of heretics in later times.\\nThe accused had his condemnation or acquittal in his own\\npower. He might save himself by renouncing his faith, or", "height": "4584", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 257\\nby denying it. All that was required of him was to profess\\nhimself not a Christian, and to burn incense before the judge\\nin honor of an idol, or to swear by the genius of the\\nemperor.\\nIt appears, indeed, that many of the theosophic Gnostics\\nwithdrew themselves from that severe discipline of persecu-\\ntion to which the catholic Christians were exposed, and\\nwhich tended essentially to preserve their moral energy, their\\nspiritual character, and their high tone of virtue. Tertullian\\nhas a discourse, written with all his usual vehemence, against\\nsuch as dissuaded from martyrdom. It is entitled Scorpiace,\\nthat is, An Antidote against Scorpions for to scorpions\\nhe compares those whom he considered as endeavoring to\\ninstil poison into others, which would cause their spiritual\\ndeath. When the faith, he says, is vexed with fire, and\\nthe Church is in the midst of flames, like the burning bush,\\nthen the Gnostics break out, then the Yalentinians creep\\nforth, then all the opposers of martyrdom are made active by\\nthe heat to strike, to dart their stings, and to kill. They\\ntaught, that to profess the faith at the cost of life was not\\nrequired by God, who desires the death of no man, but was\\nan act of folly. The true profession they maintained to be\\nthe holding of the true doctrine in the sight of God, not a\\nprofession made openly before men. Similar principles and\\na corresponding practice are charged upon the heretics gener-\\nally by Irenaeus, though he admits that there had been\\nmartyrs from their number. The Gnostics, according to him,\\nmaintained that it was not necessary to submit to martyrdom.\\nTheir doctrine was the true attestation of their faith. f\\nSome, he says, have had the hardihood to despise mar-\\ntyrs, and to cast censure on those who are put to death for\\nthe profession of the Lord. The same account is given\\nScorpiace, c. 1, p. 487. f Cont. Hneres., lib. iv. c. 33, 9, p. 272.\\nIbid., lib. iii. c 18, 5, p. 210.\\n17", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "258 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof one portion of the heretics by Clement of Alexandria.\\nThrough an irreligious and cowardly love of life, he says,\\nthey represented martyrdom as self-murder maintaining the\\ntrue Christian testimony was not a martyr s testimony, but\\ntheir own higher knowledge of Him who is really God.\\nClement, however, says, that other heretics (referring, doubt-\\nless, to the Marcionites) were, through enmity to the Creator,\\neager to expose themselves to martyrdom. A writer quoted\\nby Eusebius observes, that some heretical sects had furnished\\nmany martyrs, and particularly mentions the Marcionites as\\nclaiming this distinction, f\\nAmong the theosophic Gnostics, the ascetics, we may pre-\\nsume, were equally ready with the Marcionites to suffer\\nwhen their faith required it. Of the practice and the doc-\\ntrine of others of that class of Gnostics, but especially of the\\nprinciples of their leaders, we may judge in some degree from\\na passage of the Valentinian, Heracleon, preserved by Clem-\\nent of Alexandria,^ a part of which has been already quo ted.\\nIt, at once, serves to explain, and to give credibility to, what\\nis said concerning them by their catholic opponents. In\\ncommenting on the words of Jesus, in which he speaks of\\nthat profession of him which his disciples were required to\\nmake before men, and especially before those in authority,\\nHeracleon says, that there is a profession which is made by\\nfaith and conduct, and another by words that the latter,\\nwhich is made before those in authority, is erroneously con-\\nsidered by most as the only profession but that it may\\nbe made by hypocrites, and that it has not been made by all\\nthose who have been saved, and, among them, not by several\\nof the apostles. It is only partial, not complete complete\\nprofession is made by works and deeds, corresponding to\\nfaith in Christ. He who makes this profession will make the\\nStromat., iv. 4, p. 571. f Hist. Eccles., lib. v. c. 16.\\nJ Stromat., iv. 9, pp. 595, 596. See before, p. 227.", "height": "4580", "width": "2944", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0292.jp2"}, "293": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 259\\nother, should it become a duty, and reason require it. He\\nwill rightly profess Christ in words who has previously pro-\\nfessed him in his dispositions. Heracleon adds more to the\\nsame effect, but nothing which alters the complexion of the\\npassage. In his comments upon it, Clement says, that here\\nand elsewhere Heracleon, whom he calls the most approved\\nof the Valentinians, appears to agree in opinion with catholic\\nChristians. He conceives, however, that he has disregarded\\nthe fact, that a martyr s profession is alone sufficient proof of\\nsincere faith and observes on the unreasonableness of sup-\\nposing that it might be made by a hypocrite. u To profess\\nour faith, he goes on to say, a is the duty of all. for this\\nis in our power to defend it is not the duty of all. for it may\\nnot be in our power, words that may remind one of\\nLatimer, when, broken by age and suffering, he declared to\\nhis judges, that he could not argue for his religion, but that\\nhe could die for it.\\nHowever unobjectionable, in themselves considered, were\\nthe leading sentiments of Heracleon, they were, when thus\\nnakedly stated, not altogether apposite to the times. It is\\nnot too much to say, that he discovers some tendency to\\ndepreciate that bold profession of Christ, by which, when\\nmade before a persecuting judge, a Christian sealed his con-\\ndemnation to torture and death. It is easy to perceive how\\nhis view of the subject might degenerate into that which\\nTertullian, in his Scorpiace, says was presented by the\\nYalentinians.\\nThere is, indeed, a very striking contrast between the pas-\\nsage of Heracleon, and two treatises which remain to us. one\\nby Tertullian, and the other by Origen. That of Tertullian\\nis entitled Concerning Flight in Persecution. It is a\\nstrong exhortation not to avoid persecution, either by flight,\\nor by buying off those who threatened to become informers.\\nStromat., iv. 9, p. 596.", "height": "4556", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0293.jp2"}, "294": {"fulltext": "280 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nIt is written with the intense earnestness of one who, if he\\nhad not been a Christian, might have raised a warrior s voice,\\nof power\\nTo cheer in the mid battle, ay, to turn the flying.\\nThere can be little doubt, that often, under the circumstances\\nof those times, the course of conduct to which he exhorted\\nwas that most honorable to Christians, most likely to com-\\nmand the respect of their enemies, and best adapted to extend\\nthe knowledge and influence of our religion. In more than\\none instance, persecution appears to have been checked by\\nthe number and intrepidity of those who were ready to sub-\\nmit to martyrdom. There may be errors of reasoning in his\\nwork, but the deepest sincerity is evident throughout and,\\ncompared with his other writings, it has a subdued tone of\\nexpression suited to the subject. It is characterized, at the\\nsame time, by an unshrinking consistency, in which its severe\\npurpose is never for a moment lost sight of, and by a sus-\\ntained energy of wholly unworldly feeling. Tertullian con-\\ncludes it with the following words\\nThis doctrine, brother, perhaps seems to you hard and intol-\\nerable. But recollect what God said, Let him who can receive\\nit receive it that is, Let him who cannot receive it depart. He\\nwho fears to suffer does not belong to Him who suffered. But he\\nwho does not fear to suffer is perfect in love, the love of God for\\nperfect love casts out fear. Thus it is, that many are called, but\\nfew are chosen. He is not sought for, who is ready to follow the\\nbroad way, but he who will take the narrow path. And thus\\nthe Paraclete is necessary, the leader into all truth, the en-\\ncourager to endure all things and they who have received him\\nneither fly persecution, nor buy it off; we having him on our\\nside, both to speak for us when interrogated, and to aid us when\\nsuffering.\\nTertullian, when he wrote this tract, had become a Mon-\\ntanist; and the Holy Spirit, which the Montanists believed to", "height": "4560", "width": "2936", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0294.jp2"}, "295": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE G03PEL3. 281\\nhave spoken by Montanus, they conanionly denominated the\\nParaclete.\\nThere is as great a difference between the treatise of\\nOrigen and that of Tertullian as may well exist between two\\nworks of able writers, relating to the same subject, and\\nhaving nearly the same purpose. That of Origen is of par-\\nticular interest. It was addressed, during a time of persecu-\\ntion, to two friends, with one of whom he appears to have\\nbeen particularly connected, to exhort them to meet suffering\\nand death with Christian fortitude. When we can bring\\nbefore our minds all that is implied in one friend s writing to\\nanother to encourage him to martyrdom, we may. in one\\nrespect, have a distinct conception of the state and character\\nof the early catholic Christians. The address of Origen is\\naffectionate, considerate, and respectful, but with no expres-\\nsion of temporary excitement. On the contrary, it has some-\\nthing of his usual languor and diffuseness of style, and\\noversubtilty of thought. It is characterized by the calmness\\nof one who was thoroughly penetrated by the spirit of our\\nreligion, whose earthly passions had been subdued, whose\\nhopes were fixed on heaven and who had thus learned to\\nlook on life and death indifferently, and to contemplate\\nsuffering as one prepared for it.\\nI would, says Origen, that you may be able through the\\nwhole of this present conflict to bear in mind the great reward\\nwhich is laid up in heaven for those who are persecuted and reviled\\nfor righteousness 1 sake, and for the sake of the Son of man so as\\nto rejoice and exult, and leap for joy, as the apostles in former\\ndays rejoiced, when they were deemed worthy to suffer contumely\\nfor him. Would, indeed, that your souls may not be at all\\nperturbed, but that, when standing before the tribunal, and when\\nthe naked sword hangs over your throats, you may be strengthened\\nby the peace of God which passes all understanding, and made\\ncalm by the thought that they who are absent from the body are\\npresent with the Lord of all But, if we are not able always to\\npreserve our firmness, I would at least that our trouble may not", "height": "4548", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0295.jp2"}, "296": {"fulltext": "262 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nappear, and show itself to those who are alien from our\\nfaith.\\nWhether our profession of Christ be complete or not, we may\\nthus determine. If, through the whole time of the inquisition and\\ntemptation, we yield no place in our hearts to the Devil, who\\nwould corrupt us with evil thoughts of denying our faith, or cause\\nus to hesitate, or pervert us by some sophistry to what is at enmity\\nwith a martyr s testimony and our perfection if, with this, we\\nbring no stain upon ourselves by any word foreign from our pro-\\nfession if we endure all the reproach and mockery and laughter\\nand reviling of our adversaries, and the pity which they seem to\\nhave for us, regarding us as in error and foolish, and speaking to\\nus as deluded and, still more, if the strong love of children, or\\ntheir mother, or any of those dearest to us in this world, do not\\nviolently draw us back to their enjoyment or to this life, but,\\nturning from them all, we can devote ourselves wholly to God,\\nand to that life which is with him, as about to be associated with\\nhis only Son and with his followers, then we may say that we\\nhave fully perfected our profession. f\\nThe tone of mind expressed by Tertullian and Origen is\\nvery different from that of Heracleon. It is to men possessed\\nwith their spirit that we are indebted, through the providence\\nof God, for the preservation of Christianity. Wholly relieved,\\nas we are, from the necessity of practising those high and\\nhard duties which were appointed to them, we may be unable,\\nwithout an effort, to enter into their principles and feelings.\\nLooking, under very different circumstances, to the severe\\nsufferings to which they were summoned, and not having\\nbeen strengthened to meet them by that preparatory discipline\\nwhich they had gone through, we may even shrink from\\nsympathy, and feel rather with those who fled, or bought off\\ntheir accusers, in times of persecution. But let us at least be\\njust, and give honor where honor is due and not suffer our\\nExhortatio ad Martyrium, 4; Origen. Opp. i. 276.\\nt Ibid., 11, p. 281.", "height": "4560", "width": "2952", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0296.jp2"}, "297": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 283\\nattention to be engrossed by the extravagance that sometimes\\nmarked the strength of those virtues which the early Chris-\\ntians displayed, and almost necessarily accompanied them in\\nsuch minds as Tertullian s.*\\nI have spoken of the Gnostics as they existed in the\\nsecond century, and of the charges brought against them by\\nthe early fathers, the fathers of the second and third centuries.\\nAfter this time, there is, as I have before remarked, little\\nreason to believe that any proper Gnostic sects survived in\\nmuch vigor. Their doctrines were such as strike with the\\nglare of novelty, and are thrown aside when that becomes\\ntarnished. They were superseded by the kindred sect of the\\nManichaeans. Through the union of Christianity with the im-\\nperial power, a flood of corruption poured in among Chris-\\ntians and, in the fourth century, a variety of new, bitter,\\nworldly controversies arose, which diverted men s attention\\nfrom the old errors of the Gnostics, except as a matter of\\nhistory, and a means of blackening the name of heretic by\\nodious representations of those who had borne it. There is\\nno reason to doubt that the Gnostics who still remained\\nshared in the degeneracy of that evil age, when darkness was\\nGibbon (chap. xvi. note 100) says, that the treatise of Tertullian is\\nfilled with the wildest fanaticism and the most incoherent declamation.\\nThat a work such as I have described should appear to a writer like Gibbon\\nexpressive of the wildest fanaticism may easily be supposed. But the asser-\\ntion that it is full of incoherent declamation is utterly unfounded. No writer\\never kept his purpose more steadily in view than does Tertullian in this\\ntreatise.\\nVery probably, Gibbon had never read it; but he had perhaps seen what\\nis said by Jortin: In the persecution under Severus, many fled to avoid it,\\nor gave money to redeem themselves. Tertullian, like a frantic Montanist,\\ncondemned these expedients (Remarks on Ecclesiastical History (Lond.\\n1805), vol. ii p. 90). Jortin was a scholar of some elegance and some acute-\\nness, but of little compass of mind, and wanting almost every requisite\\nessential in treating of the history of the early Christians. In aiming at\\nsmartness of style, he sometimes falls into flippancy.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0297.jp2"}, "298": {"fulltext": "264 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nbeginning to close over men, and they were about to enter on\\nthat long series of centuries which marks the history of the\\nworld with its mental and moral desolation. But the specific\\ncharges urged against the Gnostics by the orthodox historians\\nof heresy in the fourth and fifth centuries, with Epiphanius\\nat their head, are so obviously in great part calumnies, as to\\nafford no safe ground for determining what was, or what had\\nbeen, the character of those against whom they are brought.\\nIt appears, then, from what precedes, that there was great\\ndiversity of moral character among the Gnostics. Some were\\ndistinguished for their severe asceticism, and others for their\\nprincipled licentiousness. The inveterate prejudices of the\\nGentiles against the Jews and Judaism the traditionary\\nerrors of the Jews concerning their religion the form, conse-\\nquently, in which it was presented to the minds of the new\\nconverts and their inability to comprehend the subject cor-\\nrectly, and to solve in a satisfactory manner the difficulties\\nwith which it was and is embarrassed, caused a portion of the\\nGentile converts to separate the Mosaic dispensation from\\nthe Christian, and to regard the latter alone as coming from the\\nSupreme Being. These were the Gnostics. But the arbi-\\ntrary hypothesis of a Supreme God and an inferior god, by\\nwhich the Gnostics made a forced separation of Judaism from\\nChristianity, and the inconsistency of their scheme with the\\nplain language of Christ and his apostles, spread confusion\\nand indistinctness through all their conceptions of our religion.\\nNotwithstanding this, the Marcionites, influenced more by\\nmoral and Christian feeling than by any other cause in\\nrejecting the representations of the Old Testament as appli-\\ncable to the true God, did not fall behind the catholic Chris-\\ntians in the strictness or strength of their self-denying virtues.\\nOn the contrary, there seems to have been much of fanaticism\\nmixed with their renunciation of the pleasures of this life.\\nBut the theosophic Gnostics were less detached from the", "height": "4580", "width": "2964", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0298.jp2"}, "299": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 265\\nheathen world. They drew their vague speculations from\\nits philosophy. There was a tendency in their minds to sub-\\nstitute for the realities of God s revelation a baseless, abstract\\nfaith, the evidence of which was the testimony of their own\\nspiritual nature. They seem to have regarded Christianity\\ntoo much as a system of philosophy, and too little as a divine\\nrevelation. They thus stood as a sort of intermediate class\\nbetween the catholic Christians and the Heathens. Many of\\nthem, doubtless, received our religion in good faith, according\\nto their modification of it, and conformed their lives to the\\nmoral purity which it requires but it does not appear that\\nany considerable number felt it to be a means of the moral\\nrenovation of mankind, or regarded themselves as called upon\\nto seal their testimony to it with their blood. It is clear that\\nthey had not that zeal in avowing and defending and propa-\\ngating their faith, as of inestimable value to their fellow-men,\\nwhich exposed the catholic Christians to persecution. Some\\nof them, pretending, perhaps, as men of enlightened minds, to\\nhold in disregard outward forms of religion, joined, of their\\nown accord, in idol-sacrifices while others, like the ancient\\nheathen philosophers, were probably ready to escape odium\\nand vexation by whatever compliances were necessary with\\nthe popular superstitions. It appears, further, that there were\\nsome, perhaps many, of their number, who, though not coun-\\ntenanced by their principal leaders, or the more respectable\\nportion of the theosophic Gnostics, seized on the doctrine of\\nthe incorruptible purity of their spiritual nature, as a pretence\\nfor indulging in gross vices. The existence of such a class\\nof men, not altogether destitute of belief in the divine mission\\nof our Saviour, is, as we have seen, accounted for by causes\\nthat had been in operation from the time when St. Paul first\\ngathered converts from the Gentiles. They were early\\nthrown off from the body of catholic Christians, and became\\napostates or heretics. It may readily be believed that they\\nhad no attachment to Judaism which would prevent them", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0299.jp2"}, "300": {"fulltext": "266 GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.\\nfrom becoming Gnostics, and, in the pride of their new\\nspiritual superiority, looking down upon the unenlightened\\nand over-scrupulous body of Christians by whom they were\\nrejected. In taking this course, they met with no obstacle\\nfor, among the generality of theosophic Gnostics, there was no\\ncombination or discipline which might have repelled or ex-\\ncluded the unworthy from being associated with them.\\nNor was there any thing precisely to define the limits\\nbetween the theosophic Gnostics and individuals holding\\nGnostic opinions, and more or less affected by the widely\\nspreading influence of Christianity, who yet had no title to\\nthe name of Christians. But, though the limits were unde-\\nfined, there was the well-marked general distinction between\\nthose who decidedly belonged to one class or the other, that\\nthe former believed, and the latter did not believe, the divine\\nmission of Christ. In respect, also, to one noted pseudo-\\nChristian sect which has been mistaken for a branch of the\\nGnostics, I mean the Carpocratians, it will appear, I think,\\nfrom what is about to be said, that its members did not even\\nhold Gnostic doctrines. We must therefore separate, as far\\nas possible, the pseudo-Christians from the Gnostics and to\\nthis subject we will next attend.", "height": "4560", "width": "2932", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0300.jp2"}, "301": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER V.\\nON SOME PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN SECTS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO\\nHAVE BEEN IMPROPERLY CONFOUNDED WITH THE GNOS-\\nTICS.\\nTTe have seen that Simon Magus is represented by the\\nfathers as the parent of all the heretical sects while, at the\\nsame time, he is described, not as a. disciple of Christ, but as\\nopposing himself to Christ as a rival. His followers, the\\nSimonians, therefore, were not Christians. These facts may\\ninduce us readily to give credit to the supposition, that among\\nthose who may seem to be, or who are, enumerated as Chris-\\ntian heretics, by some one or more of the fathers, there were\\nother sects or individuals who had no title to the name of\\nChristian though many of them may have held the Gnostic\\ndoctrine, that the material universe is the work of a bein^\\nor beings imperfect or evil. This confusion, if it exist, of\\nChristian and pseudo- Christian sects must be removed, before\\nwe can form a correct notion of the Gnostics and the inves-\\ntigation of the subject may also serve to make us acquainted\\nwith the character of the times, and the effects produced by\\nthe promulgation of Christianity.\\nAmong the sects referred to, the Carpocratians may be\\nfirst mentioned. They had their origin in Alexandria, and\\nbecame conspicuous about the middle of the second century.", "height": "4560", "width": "2656", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0301.jp2"}, "302": {"fulltext": "268 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nBy Xrenaeus they are classed with the Gnostics and, accord-\\ning to him, they affirmed that the world was made by angels.\\nBut a comparison of his whole account with the information\\nafforded by Clement of Alexandria f may lead us to the con-\\nclusion, that the Carpocratians were neither Christians nor\\nheathen Gnostics, but a corrupt sect of Platonists, who pre-\\ntended to regard Christ as a very eminent philosopher among\\nthe barbarians, as Confucius was at one time celebrated by\\nEuropean men of letters. This may appear from what fol-\\nlows.\\nWith Carpocrates was connected, as a founder of the sect,\\nhis son Epiphanes, the author of a work Concerning Just-\\nice, from which Clement quotes a series of passages. J The\\npurpose of them is to maintain that no property should exist,\\nbut that all things should be common to all. The justice\\nof God, Epiphanes says, is a certain equal distribution.\\nFollowing out his principles, he maintains, as Plato had\\ntaught in his Republic, that there should be a community of\\nwomen women in Egypt and Greece, as in the East, being\\nregarded much in the light of property. For his doctrine of\\nequality he argues from the natural order of things accord-\\ning to which, for example, God gives the light of the sun\\nequally to all and a common nature, and food in common, to\\nall the individuals of the different species of animals. This\\norder he vindicates as good he regards it as a manifestation\\nof the great moral law of all beings, and ascribes it to the\\nMaker and Father of all, that is, to the Supreme God.\\nIt appears, therefore, that Epiphanes regarded the order\\nof nature as good, and as proceeding from the Supreme\\nBeing. He differed, therefore, from the Gnostics in their\\nfundamental doctrine. They considered the order of nature\\nCont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 25, pp. 103-105, c. 28, 2, p. 107; lib. ii. cc.\\n31-33, pp. 164-168.\\nf Stromat., iii. 2, pp. 511-515. Stromat., iii., ubi supra.\\np. 512.", "height": "4560", "width": "2892", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0302.jp2"}, "303": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 269\\nas full of defects and evils, and ascribed it, in consequence, to\\nan imperfect Creator. But Epiphanes, it is clear, had no\\nsuch being in view. He ascribes the constitution of things in\\nthe material universe to the Supreme God, whom alone he\\nregards as the Creator. He was, moreover, so far from hold-\\ning the doctrine of the Gnostics, which identified the Creator\\nwith the God of the Jews, that, as quoted by Clement, he\\nconsidered the command, Thou shalt not covet, as ridicu-\\nlous, and more especially the command, f Thou shalt not\\ncovet thy neighbor s wife they being, according to him,\\ndirectly opposite to the ordinances of the Creator as mani-\\nfested in his works. Epiphanes, then, was not a Gnostic,\\nnor was his father Carpocrates, from whom he derived his\\nprinciples, nor the followers of both, by whom they were\\nadopted. Nor had they, I conceive, more title to be consid-\\nered as Christians.\\nIt is the obvious remark of Clement, that the doctrines\\nalleged clearly subvert the Law and the Gospel. Upon\\ntheir first aspect, they show themselves to be the doctrines\\nof one who had no deference for the divine authority of\\nChrist. Their advocate, Epiphanes, was, according to Clem-\\nent, a youth of extraordinary precocity, who died at the age\\nof seventeen, after having been educated by his father in the\\ndifferent branches of knowledge, particularly in the Platonic\\nphilosophy. Clement says that his mother was a native of\\nCephallenia, and that in Same, a city of that island, a temple\\nwas erected to him as a god, and divine honors were paid him\\nafter his death. There seems no reasonable ground for doubt-\\ning this account. There is nothing in it inconsistent with the\\ncustoms of th\u00c2\u00ab Heathens. Clement lived in the same century\\nwith Epiphanes, and in the same city in which he was born\\nand the facts stated by him are of such a kind as hardly to\\nadmit the supposition of any essential mistake concerning\\nthem. But the followers of Epiphanes, who paid him divine\\nhonors, were evidently Heathens. In conformity with this,", "height": "4560", "width": "2668", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0303.jp2"}, "304": {"fulltext": "270 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nIrenreus tells us that tlie Carpocratians had images of Christ,\\ntogether with those of heathen philosophers, as Pythagoras,\\nPlato, and Aristotle, which they crowned with garlands, and\\nhonored after the fashion of the Gentiles.^ It appears, there-\\nfore, that they placed Christ in the same rank with those\\nphilosophers. Some of them, he says, affirmed that they\\nwere like Jesus, and some that in certain respects they were\\nstronger or better.f\\nRespecting their other opinions, Irengeus states, that they\\nbelieved that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and was like\\nother men, except that his soul, being strong and pure, re-\\nmembered what it had seen in its circumgyration with the\\nunoriginated God. t These conceptions were founded on\\nthe doctrine of Plato, who had taught, in his Phasdrus, the\\npre-existent immortality of all souls aDd that those of the\\nbetter class had, before their immersion in matter, ascended\\nto the outer orb of heaven, where they had been borne round\\nin company with the gods, and had beheld the eternal Ideas,\\nthere presented to view, of which all true knowledge is only\\na reminiscence.\u00c2\u00a7\\nIrenasus, attributing Gnostic conceptions to the Carpocra-\\ntians, goes on to say, that, according to them, the soul of\\nCont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 25, 6, p. 105.\\nf Ibid., lib. i. c. 25, 2, p. 103; lib. ii. c. 32, 3, p. 165.\\nt Ibid., lib. i. c. 25, 1, p. 103.\\nPlato in Pha?dro, p. 245, seqq. (I refer here, as elsewhere, to the pages\\nof Henry Stephens s edition (Paris, 1578), which are commonly numbered in\\nthe margin of later editions.) Plato puts the representations there given into\\nthe mouth of Socrates. They appear irreconcilable with those concerning the\\ncreation, and the pre-existent state, of souls, given in his Timaeus, p. 41, seqq.\\nBut his imaginations at different times were not unfrequently at variance\\nwith each other. The words of Plato, in his Phasdrus, in speaking of the\\nvision of eternal Ideas presented to pre-existent souls, as borne round on\\nthe outer orb of heaven, are so characteristic of ancient philosophy as to be\\nworth quoting. ki This supercelestial place, he says, no poet here on earth\\nlias ever celebrated, or will celebrate, worthily. But thus it is; for one must\\ndare to dtsci ibe it truly, especially one who is discoursing of the truth^ (p. 247).", "height": "4584", "width": "2880", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0304.jp2"}, "305": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 271\\nJesus being thus excellent, power was sent it by God to\\nenable it to escape the Makers of the world, and passing\\nthrough them all, and being wholly liberated, to ascend to\\nhim and that the same would be the case with all souls\\nwho followed his course. This conception of Makers of the\\nworld, disposed to impede the ascent of the soul, is Gnostic\\nbut that Trenaeus was in error in ascribing it to the Carpo-\\ncratians may appear by what has been quoted from Epipha-\\nnes. It seems to have been not uncommon to attribute\\nincorrectly to one sect opinions held, or reputed to be held,\\nby another. The mistake of Irenaeus may have arisen in this\\nway alone, or it may be otherwise accounted for. Through\\nthe irregular action of Christianity upon their minds, and the\\nconsequent unsettling of their old faith, the Carpocratians\\nmay have advanced so far toward the opinions of the catholic\\nChristians, as to regard the inferior gods of the later Plato-\\nnists, the heathen divinities, as evil spirits and, if this were\\nso, Irenaeus might easily confound those inferior gods with\\nthe creator-angels of the Gnostics. That such was the case\\nmay be conjectured from what he states to have been said by\\nthem namely, that the soul of Jesus had learned to despise\\nthe Makers of the world, in consequence of having been\\neducated among the Jews.^ Xo Gnostic would have repre-\\nsented Jesus as learning to despise the Makers of the world,\\namong whom they commonly regarded the god of the Jews\\nas the chief, in consequence of his being imbued with Jewish\\nnotions but the Carpocratians, if such as we have supposed\\nthem, might well have assigned this as a cause for his con-\\ntempt of the heathen divinities. It can hardly be, that the\\naccount of Irenaeus is not erroneous.\\nThe morals of the Carpocratians are portrayed in very\\ndark colors by their contemporaries, Irenaeus and Clement.\\nThey represent the sect as having brought reproach on the\\nLib. i. c. 25, 1, p. 103.", "height": "4532", "width": "2668", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0305.jp2"}, "306": {"fulltext": "272 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nChristian name, upon us, says Irenseus, who have no\\ncommunion with them either in doctrine, or in morals, or in\\ndaily life. The Heathens, doubtless, were very ready to\\nimpute to Christians the vices and licentiousness of those\\nwhose minds had merely been put in action by the new faith,\\nof those bands of outlaws, who, not belonging to the num-\\nber of the true followers of our religion, yet accompanied its\\nmarch, and hovered round its outposts. Some modern writers\\nhave been disposed to regard the charges brought against the\\nCarpocratians by their contemporaries as improbable, and in\\ngreat part unfounded. But their principal argument is, that\\nthe Carpocratians were Christians, and that Christians could\\nnot have been guilty of such immoralities. If, on the con-\\ntrary, we regard them as Heathens, on whom the indirect and\\nirregular influence of Christianity had had no other effect\\nthan to set them free from the restraints of common opinion,\\nand who, in consequence, were inflated with a notion of their\\nsuperiority to common prejudices, we shall perceive that they\\nwere in the very state in which moral disorders might be\\nexpected to break out among them. The charges against\\nthem are, to a great extent, confirmed by the principles of\\nEpiphanes, whom they deified. These are advanced in the\\nbroadest manner in the extracts from him given by Clement.\\nHe maintained that all laws for the security of private prop-\\nerty were in violation of the universal law of God, which had\\ngiven all things in common to all and that they alone created\\nthe offences which they punished.f This, indeed, may be con-\\nsidered as little more than a speculative principle, since society\\nimposes such severe penalties on those who act in conformity\\nto it, that none are likely to reduce it to practice from a mere\\nconviction of its truth. But his doctrine respecting the pro-\\nmiscuous intercourse of the sexes, which not only broke down\\nall moral restraint, but represented it as an ordinance of God,\\nLib. i. c. 25, 3, p. 103. f Stroraat., iii. 2, pp. 512, 513.", "height": "4560", "width": "2964", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0306.jp2"}, "307": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 273\\nis sufficient, especially when we consider the state of society\\nin which it was promulgated, to remove any doubt concerning\\nthe reality of the licentiousness of which the Carpocratians\\nwere accused. They were heathen philosophers, and Chris-\\ntian chastity was not to be learned from heathen philosophy.\\nThey were, as we have supposed, of the school of Plato, and\\nin two of his most noted Dialogues they might have found a\\nmixture of philosophical jargon with nameless impurity\\nNor is there any reason to question what Irenasus says of\\nthem,t that they, like the later Platonists, professed the\\nscience and practice of magic or theurgy, and used their\\npretended skill for the purpose of deception.\\nI have reserved for a separate head the mention of one\\ndoctrine which Irenaaus imputes to them because, so far as\\nit may appear to have been held by any individuals, it con-\\nnects them in a class with other pseudo- Christians, main-\\ntaining that the practice of scandalous immoralities was a\\nreligious duty. As followers of Plato, the Carpocratians\\nbelieved the doctrine of the pre-existence and transmigration\\nof souls and maintained, says Irenaeus, that the soul would\\nnot obtain its final liberation from matter till it had been\\nconversant with every kind of life and every mode of action\\nthat is, as he explains their meaning, till it had been con-\\nversant with every kind of impurity and vice. J A strong\\ndoubt may at once arise whether such a doctrine could have\\nbeen professed by any individuals and the idea of acting\\nupon it, to its full extent, appears altogether monstrous and\\nincredible. Irenaeus himself says, that he could not believe\\nthat their practice corresponded to their principles. What,\\nindeed, were the principles or the practice of certain liber-\\nI refer to the Phsedrus and the Banquet.\\nt Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c 25, 3, p. 103 lib. ii. c. 31, 2, p. 164, c. 32, 3,\\np. 165.\\nLib. i. c. 25, 4, pp. 103, 104; lib. ii. c. 32, \u00c2\u00a7.2, p. 165.\\n18", "height": "4560", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0307.jp2"}, "308": {"fulltext": "274 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ntine individuals of the second century, called Carpocratians\\nwhether they were more immoral than some have supposed,\\nor less immoral than their opponents represented, is a sub-\\nject that may seem wholly uninteresting at the present day.\\nCertainly it is so, as far as justice to their memory is con-\\ncerned. But, on the other hand, if they held the doctrine\\nimputed to them by Irenseus, or if they held any doc-\\ntrine which, without being greatly misrepresented, might\\nafford occasion for the statement which he makes, this is a\\nphenomenon in human nature that may well deserve atten-\\ntion.\\nThat they did hold some doctrine of this kind, and that he\\ndid not essentially mistake their meaning, may appear from\\nvarious considerations. Irenseus affirms, that it was expressed\\nin their writings and that they taught that Jesus had com-\\nmunicated it privately to his apostles and disciples, and had\\nappointed them to communicate it to those who were worthy\\nand obedient. They would not have maintained that a doc-\\ntrine concerning morals had been taught privately, if it had\\nbeen such as was correspondent to the tenor of the Gospels.\\nHe says that they accommodated to their doctrine the words\\nof our Saviour, Agree with thine adversary quickly\\nrepresenting the adversary as Satan, one of the angels of the\\nworld, who would not suffer the soul to obtain its freedom\\nfrom imprisonment in some mortal body, till it had paid the\\nuttermost farthing that is, according to his explanation, till\\nit had been conversant in all the works of this world. His\\nappeal to their writings, and the particulars which he gives\\nrelating to their doctrine, serve to show, that, if his account\\nis not true to the letter, it still had an essential foundation in\\ntruth. It is repeated by other writers, particularly by Ter-\\ntullian, who says,* that they represented crimes as the\\ntribute which life must pay facinora tributa sunt vitce\\nDe Anuria, c. 35, p. 291.", "height": "4588", "width": "2896", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0308.jp2"}, "309": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 275\\nand notes the same perversion of Scripture that is mentioned\\nby Irenaeus.\\nThe doctrine in question, stated in its least offensive form,\\nwe may, perhaps, conceive to have been, that the soul must\\nhave full experience of this life before passing into another\\nstate, and that, to this end, it must be conversant with pleas-\\nures commonly considered criminal. To represent indulgence\\nin such pleasures as a matter of religious obligation was con-\\nformable to the teaching of Epiphanes, that promiscuous\\nintercourse of the sexes was an ordinance of God. Irenreus\\nconcludes his account of the moral principles of the Carpo-\\ncratians with saying, that they taught that men were saved\\nby faith and love, but that other things were indifferent;\\nthat, according to the opinions of men, some were accounted\\ngood and others bad, but that nothing was bad by nature.\\nBy faith they may have meant a firm adherence to their\\nphilosophy for to souls purified by philosophy Plato assigned\\nthe highest places after death. But in what they said of\\nfaith and love we may recognize, perhaps, a common tendency\\nof those most licentious in their speculations or their practice\\nto shelter themselves under a show of words expressive of\\ncommon sentiments or belief.\\nIt may appear, then, that the Carpocratians belonged to\\nthe same class with those pseudo-Christians mentioned by\\nClement of Alexandria, as quoted in the last chapter.f The\\nprinciple common to them all was, that the practice of scan-\\ndalous immoralities was a matter of religious obligation. It\\nmay be observed, in connection, that the charges brought\\nagainst them, however general may be the terms in which\\nthey are sometimes expressed, evidently relate principally to\\nthe vices of sensuality and profligacy.\\nThe avowal of such a principle may strike us at first view\\nas a moral absurdity scarcely credible. But it was in truth\\nLib. i. c. 25, 5, p. 104. f See pp. 228-231.", "height": "4560", "width": "2680", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0309.jp2"}, "310": {"fulltext": "276 EVIDENCES OF THE\\na principle with which Paganism had made men familiar, and\\nwhich it had thoroughly sanctioned. In the heathen wor-\\nship, gross indecencies, and abominable extravagances and\\ndebaucheries, were represented as acceptable to many of\\ntheir gods, to Bacchus, Venus, Cybele, and Flora not to\\nmention other inferior divinities of a still baser character.\\nThe public celebration of many of the heathen rites was\\nmarked with deep stains of pollution. In Egypt, where\\nbrute animals were deified, heathen writers tell us (whether\\nwe can believe them or not), that abominations were com-\\nmitted in their worship, with which even those that Epipha-\\nnius charges on the heretics whom he most vilifies are not\\nto be compared.\\nBut, though we receive as essentially true the accounts of\\nIrenseus and Clement respecting the pseudo- Christians whom\\nwe have been considering, we cannot extend the same credit\\nto the outrageous charges brought by writers of the fourth\\nand fifth centuries, particularly by Epiphanius, against some\\nof those whom they represented as heretics. There is a most\\noffensive specimen of them in the account which that writer\\ngives of a pretended sect, to which, with the confusion fre-\\nquent in his writings, he applies the name of Gnostics used\\nnot as a generic, but a specific name.* The origin of his\\nappropriation of the term to a particular sect may be thus\\nexplained.\\nIrenseus speaks of the Gnostics whom he supposes to have\\nexisted antecedently to their being split into different sects\\nand called after different leaders, simply under that generic\\nname, and uses the same general name also concerning those\\nwhom he does not refer to any particular class. Especially\\nat the conclusion of his first book, after having given an\\naccount of the principal Gnostic sects, distinguished by\\nHseres., xxvi. Opp. i. 82.", "height": "4560", "width": "2900", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0310.jp2"}, "311": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 277\\nparticular names, as referred to their respective leaders, he\\nsays, that beside these a multitude of Gnostics arose, whose\\ndifferent doctrines he proceeds to mention, without denoting\\nthose who held them by any specific appellations.^ Among\\nthem were those who were afterwards named Ophians and\\nCainites. Irenaeus likewise says, that the Carpocratians\\ncalled themselves Gnostics f by which appropriation of the\\nname, they, of course, meant nothing more than that they\\nwere enlightened men.\\nThe latter remark of Irenaeus has led Eusebius to affirm,\\nafter speaking of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, and\\nBasilides, that Irenaeus writes, that Carpocrates was the\\nfather of another sect, called that of the Gnostics. J The\\npassage is remarkable, as showing how confused were\\nthe notions of Eusebius concerning the earlier heretics,\\nand may lead to the conclusion, that, in his time, they had\\nalmost sunk out of notice. In fact, he appears to have had\\nlittle or no personal knowledge of them, and to have used\\nIrenaeus as his principal authority in speaking of them.\\nHim, it seems, he had consulted so negligently, that among\\nthe various sects of Gnostics he thus appropriates the name\\nto one, the Carpocratians,\u00c2\u00a7 as if it belonged to them exclu-\\nsively.\\nPerhaps, Epiphanius, also, misapprehended Irenaeus, mis-\\ntaking his use of the term Gnostics as a generic name, in\\nthe passages before mentioned, for its use as a specific appel-\\nlation; and this mistake may have suggested to him the fabri-\\ncation of this sect of subordinate Gnostics. But his real\\nLib. i. cc. 26-31, p. 107, seqq. In the first sentence of chapter twenty-\\nninth, the word Barbelo appears to be an interpolation.\\nf Lib. i. c. 25, 6. J Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. c. 7.\\nIn appropriating it to the Carpocratians, he differs from Epiphanius,\\nwho distinguishes between the Carpocratians and his Gnostics; and who\\nsays (Opp i. pp. 77, 82), that the latter had their origin from the Xico-\\nlaltans.\\nII Hseres., xxvi. Opp. i. 82, seqq.", "height": "4556", "width": "2676", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0311.jp2"}, "312": {"fulltext": "278 EVIDENCES OF THE\\npurpose, I conceive, in his account of this pretended sect, was\\nto cast odium upon all those heretics who bore the name\\nof Gnostics. Accordingly, in his account he makes no dis-\\ntinction between this sect and the whole body of Gnostics, of\\nwhich, if the sect existed, it could at most have been regarded\\nonly as a subdivision. His accusations stand against Gnos-\\ntics generally, without any limitation there being nothing in\\nthis part of his work from which it could be inferred that\\nthere were other heretics who bore the name besides those\\nof whom he is speaking.\\nIn conformity with what may be presumed to have been\\nhis purpose, he has loaded this fictitious sect (as I conceive it\\nto be) with charges of absurd doctrines, abominable crimes,\\nand loathsome impurities. Scruples are felt, says Beau-\\nsobre, about giving the lie to Epiphanius, who represents\\nthis sect as Christians but, for myself, I feel much stronger\\nscruples against ranking among Christian heretics individuals\\nwho were the most pro.fane of men, if what is said of them be\\ntrue. Certainly, such individuals as Epiphanius describes\\ncould not have been Christians but it may further be ob-\\nserved, that his authority is not of a kind to afford ground\\nfor believing that such individuals ever existed, supposing\\ntheir existence possible. Epiphanius is a writer as deficient\\nin plausibility, as in decency and veracity. He has in an\\nextraordinary manner implicated his own character in his\\naccount for, after describing practices which no mind not\\nthoroughly corrupt could regard as other than ineffably\\nodious, he asserts that he had gained his knowledge from\\nwomen belonging to the sect, who, in his youth, had endeav-\\nored to corrupt his virtue and seduce him to join it f that he\\nhad been under strong temptation, but that God in his mercy\\nHistoire de Manich^e et du Manich^isme, torn. ii. p. 68.\\nf According to his own account, he was acquainted with the private sign\\nby which the members of the sect recognized each other (Hseres., xxvi. 4,\\npp. 85, 86).", "height": "4584", "width": "2860", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0312.jp2"}, "313": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 279*\\nhad delivered him, in answer to his prayers and groans and\\nthat then he had denounced the members of the sect, whose\\nnames had before been unknown, to the ki bishops in that\\nplace (what bishops, or what place, he does not specify),\\nand that the city (a nameless city) had in consequence\\nbeen purged by the banishment of about eighty individuals.*\\nTThile, however, we reject in the gross the account of\\nEpiphanius, as not true of any body of men, it does not follow\\nthat it is throughout a mere fabrication. There may have\\nbeen in his age crazy and vicious fanatics, who afforded a\\ncertain foundation for it. Some facts are also to be discov-\\nered in what Epiphanius has brought together, He mentions\\nand quotes a book of some interest, of which he affords the\\nonly account, and concerning which there seems no reason to\\nsuspect him of mistake or falsehood. It was called the\\na Gospel of Eve, as containing the wisdom which Eve had\\nlearned from the Serpent.f That it was so called is one\\namong the many proofs which make evident what we shall\\nhereafter have occasion to observe, that the title Gospel\\ndid not imply that a book to which it was given was a history\\nof the ministry of Jesus. But this book is an object of curi-\\nosity for another reason. It appears from the single passage\\nof it extant, quoted by Epiphanius, to have been founded on\\nthe Egyptian pantheism. Conformably to this, he says.J\\nthat those who used it believed that the same soul is dis-\\npersed in animals and insects and fishes and serpents and\\nmen, and in herbs and trees and fruits. The passage from\\nthe Gospel of Eve is to the following effect. The writer,\\nor the person represented as speaking, says, I stood on a\\nhigh mountain, and I saw a man of large stature, and another\\nmutilated and I heard, as it were, a voice of thunder and I\\nHaeres., xxvi. 17, pp. 99, 100. t Ibid., 2, p. 84.\\nIbid., \u00c2\u00a79, p. 90. Ibid., 3, p. 84.", "height": "4456", "width": "2704", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0313.jp2"}, "314": {"fulltext": "280 EVIDENCES OP THE\\ndrew near to hearken, and it spoke to me, and said, I am\\nthou, and thou art I and, wherever thou mayest be, there\\nam I and I am dispersed in all things and, from whatever\\nplace thou wouldst collect me, in collecting me thou art\\ncollecting thyself.\\nWhat the two figures were intended to symbolize cannot, I\\nthink, be conjectured with any probability. But the words\\nuttered appear evidently to be an expression of the pantheistic\\ndoctrine, according to which all individual beings are but\\nparts of the one, sole, self-subsistent being, the Universe.\\nThere is, perhaps, in the passage, an allusion to the fable of\\nthe mutilation of the body of Osiris by Typhon, and the col-\\nlection of his members by Isis, which, when the absurdities\\nof ancient mythology were transformed by the philosophers\\nof later times into allegories, was mystically explained, as\\nsymbolizing the discerption and disappearance of Ideas, the\\nessential forms of things, the body of Osiris, through the\\naction of the destructive powers of nature, personified as\\nTyphon, and their being collected anew and re-adapted to\\ntheir purpose by the receptive and nutritive powers typified\\nby Isis.* The analogy, also, is striking between the words\\nsaid to be uttered and the inscription which Plutarch reports\\nto have been engraved on the temple of Isis at Sais I\\nam all that has been, is, or will be f Isis being here per-\\nPlutarch, de Iside et Osiride, 53. Moral., torn. ii. pp. 526, 527, ed.\\nWyttenbach.\\nf Ibid., 9, p. 453. Plutarch concludes the inscription thus: And my\\nveil no mortal has ever lifted. Proclus gives it with a different ending.\\nThat it was actually to be found on or in the temple at Sa is is very doubtful.\\nBut, as regards our present purpose, the question is unimportant; since the\\nreport of Plutarch sufficiently shows the existence of this conception of Isis\\nlong before Epiphanius s notice of the Gospel of Eve. See, respecting this\\ninscription, Jablonski s Pantheon iEgyptiorum, pars i. lib. i. c 3, 7, and\\nMosheim s notes in his Latin translation of Cudworth s Intellectual System,\\ntorn. i. p. 510, seqq., and p. 522, ed. secund. In the last note, Mosheim gives\\nthe correct reading of another remarkable inscription to Isis, of similar import,", "height": "4580", "width": "2844", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0314.jp2"}, "315": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 281\\nsonified as Universal Nature. It is to be observed, that\\nthere is great confusion in the Egyptian mythology, the same\\nattributes being ascribed to different divinities. This confu-\\nsion probably originated from the fact that one god was the\\npeculiar object of veneration in one place, and another in\\nanother, so that the highest attributes were in different places\\nascribed to different gods but it was at once both solved\\nand aggravated by the mystical theology, which taught that\\nthey were all only manifestations of Universal Nature,\\neach of them but different names for the One and All, con-\\nsidered under different relations.\\nFrom the title of the book mentioned by Epiphanius, that\\nis, from its being called a gospel from the circumstance\\nthat he ascribes its use to an heretical sect; and from the\\naccount given by him of the pantheistic opinions of this sect,\\nwe may infer that there were individuals who blended con-\\nceptions borrowed from Christianity with the Egyptian\\nmythology and pantheism, and who have been improperly\\nrepresented as Christian heretics. Pseudo-Christians of like\\ncharacter appear to have existed in Egypt at an early period.\\nfound at Capua, which is to this effect: Aerrius Balbinus dedicates thee\\n[that is, a part of the universe, a stone] to thyself, who art one and all things,\\nthe goddess Isis.\\nIt may here be observed, that Cudworth should be read with the notes ot\\nMosheim: unless, indeed, one be so acquainted with the philosophy and reli-\\ngion of the ancients, and so accustomed to reasoning, and to estimating the\\npower and the ambiguity of language, as to be able to correct for himself his\\ndeceptive representations. He deserves the highest praise for integrity as a\\nwriter; his learning was superabundant, and his intellect vigorous enough to\\nwield it to his purpose. But he transfers his own religious conceptions to the\\nheathen philosophers and religionists; he infuses the sentiments of a modern\\ntheist into their words; and he confounds together the doctrines of those who\\npreceded Christianity, and of those who were powerfully acted upon by its\\ninfluence. He thus spreads a luminous cloud over the ancient heathen the-\\nology, which Mosheim has done something to dispel. Mosheim has likewise\\ncorrected many of the other errors of fact, or mistakes of judgment, which run\\nthrough the mass of Cudworth s learning; and has added much to illustrate\\nthe topics of which he treats.", "height": "4560", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0315.jp2"}, "316": {"fulltext": "282 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nWe have some information, such as it is, concerning this\\nsubject in a curious letter of Hadrian, preserved by the\\npagan historian Vopiscus.^ The emperor says Egypt,\\nmy dear Servian, which you recommended to me, I have\\nfound to be light, vacillating, and borne about by every\\nrumor. Those who worship Serapis are Christians, and\\nthose who call themselves Christian bishops are devoted to\\nSerapis. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samar-\\nitan, no Christian priest, who is not an astrologer, a diviner,\\na leader of a sect.f The patriarch t himself, when he comes\\nto Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, and, by others,\\nChrist. The emperor may not have had the best opportu-\\nnities for obtaining information respecting the state of reli-\\ngion among the Egyptians, and he may have trusted too much\\nto the jeers of his courtiers but notwithstanding this, and\\nnotwithstanding the levity and obvious extravagance of his\\nletter, we cannot suppose that what he says was wholly with-\\nout foundation. Some state of things existed in Egypt, in\\nthe first half of the second century, which gave occasion to\\nhis representation. The minds of many, it may be presumed,\\nwere affected by Christianity, who had but a very imperfect\\nknowledge of what Christianity was, and some of whom com-\\nbined it very grossly with their former errors.\\nIn his Life of Saturninus.\\nt A leader of a sect. The Latin word is aliptes, which means an\\nanointer, one who anoints those who have bathed, or the combatants for the\\narena. But, as it is not easy to perceive any appropriateness in this mean-\\ning, I have ventured to render the word in a sense of the Greek akd r Krr]c y\\nwhich is used metaphorically to signify an inciter or leader. Perhaps the\\nemperor wrote the word in Greek letters. But after all, in using the expres-\\nsions which he does, mathematicus, haruspex, aliptes, he may have had in\\nmind a line in Juvenal s description of a needy Greek adventurer (Sat. iii.\\n76), Grammaticus, rhetor, geometres, pictor, aliptes; and may thus, in\\nemploying the word aliptes, have intended only an expression of contempt.\\nJ The patriarch of the Jews must be meant, as the title and dignity of\\npatriarch were not known in the Christian Church till long after the time\\nof Hadrian.", "height": "4560", "width": "2876", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0316.jp2"}, "317": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 283\\nIt seems probable that the book mentioned by Epiphanius,\\nthe Gospel of Eve, containing the wisdom which Eve learned\\nfrom the Serpent, had its origin among certain reputed here-\\ntics, who, according to Origen, were not Christians. They\\nwere called Ophians or Ophites (we might render the name\\nSerpentisis), from the Greek word oopig, a serpent because,\\nas Origen says, they took the part of the Serpent who seduced\\nEye, and represented him as having given good counsel to\\nour first parents/* Irenaeus, in one of the last chapters of\\nhis first book,f before referred to, gives an account of the\\ndoctrines of a certain sect not named by him, but which, as is\\nevident from a comparison with Origen and other subsequent\\nwriters, was that of the Ophians. Nothing entitled to much\\ncredit is added by the later historians of the heretics to the\\nnotices of Irenaeus and Origen.\\nOrigen s mention of them is incidental. There is no reason\\nto distrust its essential correctness, but he enters into no\\ngeneral exposition of their system. The account of Irenasus\\nis confused and improbable, and appears to have been put\\ntogether from imperfect and inconsistent sources of informa-\\ntion. The statements respecting them by him and by the\\nother writers who speak of them as heretics, as the author\\nof the Addition to Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Theodoret,\\nwhen taken in connection, present a system of absurdities so\\npalpably irreconcilable, that no sect could have professed it\\nfor their creed. We may compare it to a machine composed\\nof parts of various others, interfering among themselves in\\nsuch a manner, that evidently it could never have been in\\noperation.\\nWe can therefore admit, with any confidence, only some\\nvery general conclusions respecting the doctrines of the\\nOphians. Whether Christians or not, they appear to have\\nOrigen. cont. Celsuui, lib. vi. 28, Opp. i. pp. 651, 652.\\n1 Cap. 30. See p. 276.\\nSee the account of Irenceus, as before referred to, lib. i. c. 30 and that", "height": "4552", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0317.jp2"}, "318": {"fulltext": "284 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nbeen of the class of theosophic Gnostics, holding very dispar-\\naging opinions of the Creator, whom they regarded as the\\ngod of the Jews. They believed that he, with six other\\npowers produced by him, informed and ruled seven spheres\\nsurrounding the earth (those of the sun and of the planets\\nknowu to the ancients) and that through these spheres the\\nsoul had to pass after death in its ascent to the spiritual\\nworld. The way, which might otherwise be barred by those\\npowers, w T as open to such as were initiated in their mysteries,\\nand had learned the proper invocations which the soul must\\naddress to them in its ascent, to obtain its passage. Their\\ndoctrines have the appearance of being a caricature of the\\ndoctrines of the proper Gnostics. Maintaining the common\\nopinion, that the Creator was not spiritual, and regarding him\\nas being opposed to the manifestation and development of the\\nspiritual principle in man, they honored the Serpent for hav-\\ning thwarted his narrow purposes, withdrawn our first parents\\nfrom their allegiance to him, induced them to eat the fruit of\\nthe tree of knowledge, and thus brought them the knowledge\\nof that Power which is over all. By a serpent, the\\nPhoenicians and Egyptians are said to have symbolized the\\nAgathodsemon, the benevolent power in nature (the god\\nCneph of the Egyptians) and the Ophians, perhaps, re-\\ngarded the Serpent under the same aspect. Clement of Alex-\\nandria once incidentally mentions the Ophians, in speaking of\\nthe origin of the names of different sects. Some, he says,\\nare denominated from their systems, and from the objects\\nthey honor, as the Camists and the Ophians. f The Cainists\\nor Cainites (whom we shall have occasion to notice hereafter)\\nare represented as magnifying Cain. The Ophians honored\\nthe Serpent.\\nof Origen in his work, Against Celsus, lib. vi. Opp. i. pp. 648-661; lib. vii.\\npp. 722, 723; lib. iii. p. 455.\\nEusebii Prseparatio Evangelica, lib. i. c. 10.\\nt Stromat., vii. 17, p. 900.", "height": "4560", "width": "2836", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0318.jp2"}, "319": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 285\\nNothing concerning the Ophians would seem to be better\\nestablished than this fact. But it is not stated by Irenseus.\\nOn the contrary, according to his account of their system, the\\nSerpent was originally vicious, produced by the Creator in\\nthe dregs of matter, and treacherous to him. Afterwards,\\nindeed, he* appears employed by Sophia or Wisdom, the\\noffspring of the Unknown God, the mother but adversary of\\nthe Creator, for the purpose of seducing our first parents to\\neat of the forbidden fruit by which they obtained a knowl-\\nedge of the Supreme Divinity. But the Creator, who was\\nhimself desirous of being regarded as the highest God, being,\\nin consequence, angry with the Serpent, expelled him from\\nheaven, where he had before dwelt, and cast him down to\\nearth. After this fall, he is made to correspond to the ser-\\npent of the Apocalypse, the Devil and is represented as\\nproducing six other evil powers (answering to the six subor-\\ndinate powers of the Creator), and as being, together with\\nthem, full of malice equally toward men and their Maker.\\nBut we have good reason to believe, that Irenaeus, our\\nearliest and one of our two principal authorities, has fallen\\ninto great errors respecting the system of the Ophians, when\\nwe find him saying, notwithstanding what has been stated,\\nthat they affirmed the Serpent to be the Xous (Intellect)\\nhimself for this was the name by which theosophic\\nGnostics designated their first emanation from the Su-\\npreme Being. Elsewhere he says, that some of the Ophians\\nmaintained that Wisdom herself became the Serpent. f\\nAnd, in connection with this, we cannot but be struck\\nwith the intrinsic improbability of the scheme that he as-\\ncribes to the sect according to which, the Devil was em-\\nployed for the purpose of communicating spiritual wisdom\\nand a knowledge of the true God to our first parents. These,\\nLib. i. c. 30, 5, p. 110.\\nf Ibid., 15, p. 112.", "height": "4528", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0319.jp2"}, "320": {"fulltext": "286 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nhowever, are but some of the inconsistencies that present\\nthemselves in the system that he has depicted.\\nThat the Ophians held the Serpent in honor appears from\\nthe testimony of Clement and Origen, the indications fur-\\nnished by Irenseus himself, the reports of later writers, and\\nthe evidence of their distinguishing name. Epiphanius says,\\nthat they glorified the Serpent as God, or as a god, and\\naffirmed him to be Christ though, at the same time, with\\nthe grossest inconsistency, of which he seems to have had\\nsome indistinct consciousness, he gives a mutilated variation\\nof the account of Irenseus by which the Serpent is identified\\nwith the Devil.t The same inconsistency exists in the\\nrelation of the author of the Addition to Tertullian, who fol-\\nlows Irenseus in part, but affirms that the Ophians placed the\\nSerpent above Christ, t And Theodoret, who, I think, was\\nembarrassed by the contradictions of his predecessors, says,\\nthat some of the Ophians worshipped the Serpent.\\nModern writers have, in consequence, conjectured, either\\nthat there were two sorts of Ophians, or that there were two\\nSerpents in their system, one celestial and the other terres-\\ntrial. But it would have been strange, if two classes of\\npersons, one honoring the Serpent as a god, and the other\\nregarding him as the Devil, had both been comprehended\\nunder the same name and as for the conjecture of two\\nSerpents, it is certain that Irenseus, and the other ancient\\nwriters who mention the Ophians, speak only of bne. A\\ngeneral solution of this and of other difficulties concerning\\nthem is to be found in the obscurity of the sect, in the conse-\\nquent ignorance and inaccuracy of the reporters of their doc-\\ntrines, and in the great probability that these doctrines were\\nlittle settled among themselves.\\nIndie, in torn, iii., lib. i. p. 229. Haeres., xxxvii. 1, 2, pp. 268, 269,\\n5, pp. 271, 272.\\nf Ibid., 4, 5, pp. 271, 272. J Apud Tertullian., Opp. 47, p. 220.\\nHseret. Fab., lib. i. n. 14, p. 205.", "height": "4580", "width": "2868", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0320.jp2"}, "321": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 287\\nOur purpose does not require us to enter further into\\nthe detail of their system, and to force our way through the\\ncrude accounts of ancient, and the hypotheses of modern\\nwriters. The labor would in any case be unprofitable. It\\nmay be the duty of one exploring these difficult subjects to\\nspend his own time in pursuing obscure paths, tangled with\\nbriers, till he is satisfied that thev lead to nothing but it can\\nseldom be worth while to conduct others over the same\\nground, that they may enjoy a like gratification.\\nTJie accounts of the Ophians belong, for the most part, to\\nthe fabulous history of the Gnostics. Xor should I have dwelt\\neven so long upon this obscure and insignificant sect (for such\\nwe shall perceive it to have been), were it not for its having\\nbeen magnified into importance by the discussions concerning\\nit in modern times, and, still more, if it were not for the rela-\\ntion in which Origen says the Ophians stood to Christianity.\\nHe speaks of them in his work against Celsus. Celsus\\nhad charged Christians with calling the Creator an accursed\\ngod, upon the ground, as appears, that this was dene by\\nthe Ophians for it was his custom to accuse Christians of\\nthe extravagances and errors of heretical and pseudo- Chris-\\ntian sects. But Origen says, in reply, that the Ophians were\\nso far from being Christians, that they spoke of Jesus not less\\nreproachfully than did Celsus himself, that they admitted no\\none into their fellowship without pronouncing curses against\\nhim, and that they were unwilling to hear his name even as\\nthat of a wise and virtuous man.f Origen calls them a very\\nobscure sect, and speaks of their number as very small\\nthere being, he says, none or very few remaining. Celsus\\nhad brought forward a symbolical diagram, having reference\\nto the ascent of the soul through the seven spheres of the\\nCreator and his angels*; and Origen is principally occupied\\nby an account of this diagram, and the prayers inscribed upon\\nContra Cels., lib. vi. 28; Opp. i. 651. f Ibid., p. 652.\\nIbid., 24, p. 648. Ibid., 26, p. 650.", "height": "4540", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0321.jp2"}, "322": {"fulltext": "288 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nit. It bore names given to the seven Powers, barbarous to\\nGrecian ears, borrowed partly from the Old Testament, and\\npartly, according to Origen, from the art of magic* But he\\nsays, that though he had travelled much, and everywhere\\nsought the acquaintance of men professing to know any thing,\\nyet he had never met with any one who professed to explain\\nit.t\\nIn a passage antecedent to what I have quoted, Origen\\nsays Celsus seems to me to have become acquainted with\\nsome sects that have no fellowship with us even in the name\\nof Jesus. Thus, perhaps, he has heard of the Ophians or the\\nCainites, or of some others, holding doctrines wholly foreign\\nfrom those of Jesus. J\\nOrigen s account of the insignificance of the sect of the\\nOphians is confirmed, if it need confirmation, by the facts,\\nthat they are not named by Irenaeus, nor are their peculiar\\ndoctrines referred to in his long confutation of different here-\\nsies, which forms the greater part of his work that they are\\nbut once incidentally mentioned, as we have seen, by Clement\\nof Alexandria and that they are not noticed at all by Ter-\\ntullian. Their want of notoriety appears likewise from the\\nuncertainty respecting their name. None is given them by\\nIrenaeus. By Clement and Origen they are called Ophians\\nOqjiavoi) by Epiphanius, and some Latin writers who\\nmention them, Ophites Ocplrai). Theodoret speaks of\\nthem as Sethians, or Ophians, or Ophites but Epi-\\nphanius and others make quite a distinct sect of the Seth-\\nians, and the probability is, that no proper sect ever\\nexisted under this name. IF The obscurity of the Ophians is\\nCont. Cels., lib. vi. 32, pp. 656, 657. f Ibid 24, p. 648.\\nIbid., lib. iii. 13, p. 455. Hseret. Fab., lib. i. n. 14, p. 204.\\nThey are the thirty-ninth Heresy of Epiphanius Opp. i. 284.\\nTf The Sethians have been mentioned before (p. 174, note). I coDceive,\\nthat Sethians was, as there explained, only a name by which some of the\\nGnostics denoted the spiritual Seth being regarded as their progenitor or\\nprototype.", "height": "4560", "width": "2892", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0322.jp2"}, "323": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 289\\nmade still more evident by the very confused and inconsistent\\naccounts of their doctrines, accounts such as would not have\\nbeen given of those of any well-known sect.\\nThere is, as we have seen, a disagreement between Origen\\non the one side, and Irenaeus and subsequent writers on the\\nother, concerning the relation in which the Ophians stood to\\nChristianity. Ireneeus represents them as Christian heretics\\nOrigen, as an antichristian sect. The difference would have\\nbeen of no account, if Origen had merely said that they were\\nnot Christians. According to Irenseus, they held that their\\ndoctrines were not openly taught by Christ, but that Jesus,\\nwhom they distinguished from Christ, remaining on earth\\neighteen months after his resurrection, then communicated\\nthem to a few of his disciples, who had capacity for such\\ngreat mysteries.* Thus founding a system of their own\\ninvention on a supposititious basis, they might well be consid-\\nered as not Christians. But Origen says, that they pro-\\nnounced curses against Jesus. With so slight a hold as they\\nhad upon Christianity, and probably with no very fixed belief,\\nthey may have passed through a natural process of deteriora-\\ntion during the interval between Irenaeus and Origen. There\\nis nothing improbable in the supposition, that a vain and\\nfoolish sect should first claim to be a sort of transcendental\\nChristians, and then, finding themselves contemned by the\\ngreat body of believers, and perceiving that their specula-\\ntions were only embarrassed by their pretended faith, should\\nhave determined to rely on their own spiritual wisdom alone,\\nand should have openly professed their rejection of Christian-\\nity with something of the spleen of apostates.\\nThis is an obvious solution of the disagreement between\\nOrigen and Irenams. But perhaps we are to look still far-\\nther for an explanation of it. With more or less analogy to\\nsome later sects, the theosophic Gnostics believed that they\\nCont. Haeres., lib. i. c. 30, 14, p. 112.\\nIll", "height": "4556", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0323.jp2"}, "324": {"fulltext": "290 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwere guided to the truth by the divine light within, that\\nspiritual nature which they considered as peculiar to them-\\nselves. Their systems consequently were the truth. They\\nwere derived from a higher source than reasoning, and were\\nnot amenable to it. They could be judged of only by those\\nwhose spiritual apprehensions were conformed to their recep-\\ntion. These principles, it is true, were not consistently acted\\nupon. The Gnostics appear to have reasoned as well as\\nthey were able and, as we shall hereafter see, were even\\nreputed in their day subtile reasoners from the Scriptures.\\nThe claim of a higher internal source of knowledge, of the\\nnature and operations of which reason is not the judge, is\\ncommonly resorted to only when all other modes of proof\\nfail. Men do not contemn the aid of reason before it is\\nwithdrawn. But it was the tendency of the self-confident\\nstate of mind which characterized the Gnostics to lead them\\nto reject instruction from without. A true Gnostic was his\\nown teacher and, though he found his system in the Gospel,\\nyet his own mind was the book in which it was first read.\\nChristianity was likely thus to become, in his view, an ab-\\nstraction, the name for a body of opinions and imaginations,\\nwhich he had embraced because he knew them to be true,\\nindependently of what others regarded as evidence of the\\ndivine authority of our religion.\\nTogether with this, the theosophic Gnostics generally\\ndistinguished between the being who appeared as a man,\\nJesus, the son of the Creator, and the celestial being, Christ,\\nor the Saviour, or the spiritual Jesus, who, at the baptism of\\nthe former, descended into him from the Pleroma.* To use\\nthe words of Tertullian, they made Christ and Jesus different\\nbeings. The one had escaped from the midst of multitudes,\\nthe other was apprehended the one in the solitude of a\\nIreiueus, lib. i. c. 7, 2, pp. 32, 33; lib. iii. c. 10, 4, p. 186, c. 11, 1,\\n3, pp. 188, 189: conf. lib. i. c. 2, 6, pp. 12, 13.", "height": "4560", "width": "2868", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0324.jp2"}, "325": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 291\\nmountain, overshadowed by a cloud, had been resplendent\\nbefore three witnesses the other, with no mark of distinction,\\nhad held common intercourse with men the one was mag-\\nnanimous, but the other trembling and, at last, Jesus had\\nbeen crucified, and Christ had risen. It was the Christ of\\nthe Pleroma whom they regarded as the teacher of divine\\ntruths and those truths which were most mysterious and\\ntranscendent they conceived him to have taught in secret\\nmeanings and enigmas, and in mere intimations and allusions,\\nrecorded in the Gospels, and in private, unrecorded discourses\\naddressed only to those capable of comprehending them.\\nBut the system of the Ophians appears throughout as a\\ncoarse exaggeration of the doctrines of the theosophic Gnos-\\ntics. In common with those Gnostics, they regarded Jesus\\nas the son of the Creator. But of the Creator they gave the\\nmost disparaging representations, and are said to have pro-\\nnounced him accursed. It is not, then, difficult to believe\\nthat they extended like enmity to his son nor is there any\\nthing very improbable in supposing, that they might have\\npretended to be, in some sort, followers of Christ, while they\\nrejected Jesus as a divine teacher, and even proceeded to\\nthe extravagance, mentioned by Origen, of pronouncing\\ncurses on his name.\\nFrom what has been said, it may appear that sects and\\nindividuals who are not to be considered as Christians have\\nbeen erroneously reckoned among the Gnostics. Nor is\\ntheir existence difficult to be accounted for. Christianity\\nsoon became an object of universal attention. It was a new\\nphenomenon in the intellectual world. A power unknown\\nbefore was in action, and spreading its influence far beyond\\nthe sphere to which it might seem to be confined. Our\\nreligion essentially affected the heathen philosophy contem-\\nDe Carne Christi, c. 24, p. 325.", "height": "4552", "width": "2688", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0325.jp2"}, "326": {"fulltext": "292 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nporary with it, and introduced into it conceptions such as had\\nnot been previously entertained. The doctrines of our faith\\nwere undoubtedly more or less known to many who had\\nnot studied them in the Gospels, nor were acquainted with\\nits evidences as a revelation from God. Though not received\\nby such as of divine authority, and but imperfectly under-\\nstood, they gave a new impulse to thought. Men s minds\\nwere thrown into a state of effervescence, new affinities\\noperated, and new combinations of opinion were formed.\\nThere were, doubtless, those whose vanity prompted them\\nto profess an acquaintance with the new barbaric philosophy,\\nas they deemed it, and to represent themselves as having\\nexercised a critical and discriminating judgment upon it, and\\nas having discovered in it certain important views, and certain\\ntruths not before developed. In some of those affected by\\nour religion, their imperfect and heartless knowledge of it\\nwould be rather destructive than renovating, breaking down\\nall barriers of thought, and opening the way for wild specula-\\ntions. Hence, as we may easily believe, new systems of\\nopinion sprung up, not Christian, but deriving some charac-\\nteristic peculiarities from Christianity, the systems held by\\nthose whom we have called pseudo- Christians.\\nBut how, it may be asked, came the pseudo- Christians to\\nbe confounded with Christian heretics Various considera-\\ntions afford an answer to this question. As I have remarked,\\nno well-defined boundary was apparent between the two\\nclasses. They passed insensibly into each other. In the\\nreliance of the Gnostics upon the revelations of their own\\nspiritual nature, we may perceive a tendency to infidelity.\\nIt was an error which would lead many to undervalue, and\\nsome to reject, the authority of Christ. The pseudo-Chris-\\ntians were reckoned among the Gnostics, because many of\\nthem held Gnostic opinions and such opinions were attributed\\neven to those, the Carpocratians, by whom they were not", "height": "4560", "width": "2876", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0326.jp2"}, "327": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 293\\nheld. Another cause of this confusion may be found in the\\nfact, that the Heathens would naturally blend together in one\\ngeneral class all those who. breaking away from the old forms\\nof philosophy, were evidently involved in the new movement\\nin the intellectual world produced by Christianity. The ene-\\nmies of our religion charged upon Christians what might be\\ntruly or falsely said of such sectaries as we have been consid-\\nering. And, on the other hand, the catholic Christians,\\nregarding the Gnostics as not true believers, as not belonging\\nto the Christian body, were not careful to discriminate be-\\ntween them, and those who, though corresponding with them\\nin many respects, had yet no title to the Christian name.\\nHence it was, we may conceive, that the Gnostics were\\nclassed with individuals whose doctrines and whose lives\\nmany of them regarded with as strong disapprobation as did\\nthe catholic Christians.\\nIn the preceding chapters, we have taken a general view of\\nthe Gnostics, and of their relation to the catholic Christians.\\nWe have traced their external history, and attended to the\\nrespective characters of those writers from whom our knowl-\\nedge of them is derived. We have considered their morals,\\nan essential point in determining how far they may be\\nregarded as sincere though erroneous believers and we have\\ndiscriminated them from sectaries with whom they have been\\nconfounded, who, though borrowing some conceptions from\\nChristianity, were not Christians.\\nIt has been suggested, likewise, that the occasion of Gnos-\\nticism was to be found in the aversion of the Gentiles to\\nJudaism, in the form in which it was presented to their\\nminds and to this subject we will next attend.", "height": "4560", "width": "2684", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0327.jp2"}, "328": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER VI.\\nON GNOSTICISM, CONSIDERED AS A SEPARATION OF JUDA-\\nISM FROM CHRISTIANITY.\\nEvery heretic, as far as I know, says Tertullian, ridi-\\ncules the whole of the Old Testament. To separate the\\nLaw from the Gospel, he observes in another place, is\\nthe special and principal object of Marcion. f The labor\\nof the heretics, he says, is not in building up an edifice of\\ntheir own, but in destroying the truth. They undermine ours\\nto erect their own. Take away from them the Law of Moses,\\nand the Prophets, and the Creator God, and they will have\\nnothing to urge against us. t It is the case with all those,\\nsays Irenaeus, who hold pernicious doctrines, that, being influ-\\nenced by the opinion that the Law of Moses is different from,\\nand contrary to, the doctrine of the Gospel, they have not\\nturned to consider the causes of the difference between the\\ntwo Testaments.\\nOrigen, in maintaining the necessity of interpreting the\\nScriptures allegorical ly, says, that many have fallen into\\ngreat errors from not understanding them in their spiritual\\nsense. He first instances the unbelieving Jews, who, he says,\\nrejected the Messiah in consequence of interpreting the\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. v. c. 5, p. 467. f Ibid., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374.\\nDe Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 42, p. 217.\\nCont. Haeres., lib. iii. c. 12, 12, p. 198.", "height": "4560", "width": "2896", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0328.jp2"}, "329": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 295\\nprophecies concerning him literally. He then proceeds\\nthus\\nThe heretics, too, when they read, Afire has blazed from my\\nwrath; -I am a jealous God, requiting the sins of fathers upon\\nchildren to the third and fourth generation f I repent that I\\nhave anointed Saul to be king I am the God who makes peace\\nand creates evil and, in another place, There is no evil in a city\\nichich the Lord hath not wrought and yet further, Evil came\\ndown from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem and, An evil\\nspirit from the Lord tormented Saul,** when they read these and\\nten thousand other similar passages, they do not indeed venture\\nto reject the divine origin of the Scriptures [the Jewish Scrip-\\ntures] but they believe them to have proceeded from the Creator\\nwhom the Jews worship. Regarding him, in consequence, as\\nimperfect, and not good, they think that the Saviour came to make\\nknown the more perfect God, who, they affirm, is not the Creator.\\nHolding various opinions concerning this subject, and having de-\\nserted the Creator, who is the unoriginated only God, they have\\ngiven themselves up to their own fabrications and have formed\\nmythological systems, according to which they explain the pro-\\nduction of things visible, and of other things, invisible, the exis-\\ntence of which they have imagined. But indeed, continues\\nOrigen, the more simple of those who boast that they belong\\nto the Church, who regard none as superior to the Creator, and\\nin this do well, have yet such conceptions of him as are not to be\\nentertained of the most cruel and most unjust of men, in con-\\nsequence, as he immediately remarks, of their understanding the\\nJewish Scriptures, not according to their spiritual sense, but\\naccording to the naked letter. f f\\nThe most ungodly and irreligious among the heretics, says\\nOrigen, in his Commentary on Leviticus, not understanding\\nthe difference between visible Judaism and intelligible Judaism,\\nthat is, between Judaism in its outward form and Judaism in its\\nJer. xv. 14. f Exod. xx. 5. 1 Sam. xv. 11.\\nIsa. xlv. 7. Amos iii. 6, so quoted by Origen.\\nTf Micah i. 12. 1 Sam. xvi 14.\\nft De Principiis, lib. iv. 8; Opp. i. 164, seqq.", "height": "4536", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0329.jp2"}, "330": {"fulltext": "296 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nhidden purport, have at once separated themselves from Judaism,\\nand from the God who gave these Scriptures and the whole Law,\\nand have fabricated for themselves another God beside him who\\ngave the Law and the Prophets, and made heaven and earth.\\nOf the opinions of Ptolemy, the Valentinian, respecting\\nthe Jewish Law, we have a detailed account in his Letter to\\nFlora, which he seems to have intended as a sort of introduc-\\ntion to Gnosticism, as an exposition and defence of its\\nfundamental doctrine. He begins by stating, that some\\nbelieve the Law to have been ordained by God the Father,\\nand others by the Adversary, Satan. Both opinions he\\nrejects as altogether erroneous. It could not have proceeded\\nfrom the Perfect God and Father, because it is imperfect,\\nand contains commands unsuitable to the nature and will of\\nsuch a God; nor, on the other hand, can the Law, which\\nforbids iniquity, be ascribed to the Evil Being. His own\\nopinion, he conceives, may be proved by the words of Christ,\\nto which alone, he says, we may safely trust in investigating\\nthe subject. It is, that the Law contained in the Pentateuch\\ndoes not proceed from a single lawgiver, consequently not\\nfrom the god of the Jews alone. A part of it is to be\\nascribed to him another part was given by Moses on his\\nown authority and a third portion consists of laws inter-\\npolated by the elders of the people. In proof that some\\nlaws proceeded from Moses alone, he quotes the words of\\nChrist, Hoses, on account of the hardness of your hearts,\\npermitted you to put away your wives but in the beginning\\nit was not so, for God established the connection and what\\nthe Lord has joined together, let no man put asunder. f To\\nthe laws interpolated by the elders, he regards Christ as\\nreferring, when he taught the Jews that they had set aside\\nthe Law of God by the traditions of their elders. Of that\\nPhilocalia, c. 1, adjinem; Opp. ii. 192.\\nf Matt. xix. 4-8. J Mark vii. 3-9.", "height": "4560", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0330.jp2"}, "331": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 297\\nportion of the Law which he ascribes to the god of the\\nJews, some of the precepts, according to him, are wholly\\nunmixed with evil. They constitute the Law, properly so\\ncalled, that Law which the Saviour came not to destroy, but\\nto perfect. They are those of the Decalogue/* Other pre-\\ncepts have a mixture of something bad and wrong, and were\\nabrogated by the Saviour. Such, for instance, is the law\\nrespecting retaliation, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a\\ntooth. A third class, consisting of the ceremonial law,\\nrelates to things typical of those to come, more spiritual and\\nexcellent, in the Christian dispensation. Why the laws of\\nthe god of the Jews should contain types of Christianity,\\nPtolemy does not explain in this Letter. He probably ac-\\ncounted for it through a secret influence from the Pleroma,\\nunder which, as we shall hereafter see, the Creator was rep-\\nresented by the Yalentinians as acting.\\nPtolemy next proceeds to answer the inquiry, Who was\\nthat god who gave the Law He was not, he repeats, the\\nPerfect God, nor was he Satan but he was the Fashioner\\nand Maker of this World, and of the beings contained in it,\\nnot good (that is, not possessing unmingled goodness), like\\nthe Supreme God, nor evil and wicked like Satan but stand-\\ning in the midst between them, one who may properly be\\ncalled Just, as one who rewards and punishes according to\\nhis measure of goodness not unoriginated, like the Supreme\\nGod, but being an image of him.\\nIn this account of his opinions, Ptolemy probably gives as\\nThere is bere, apparently, an example of that inconsistency of which\\nwe find so much in the theological speculations of the ancients. Christ,\\naccording to Ptolemy, retained and perfected the ten commandments.\\nBut Ptolemy believed these to have been given, not by the Supreme Being,\\nbut by the god of the Jews. Xow the first of them is, Thou shalt have no\\nother God beside me; a command which, according to his system, it is\\nimpossible that Christ should have confirmed, since Ptolemy regarded him\\nas having come to reveal another and far greater God than the god of the\\nJews.", "height": "4560", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0331.jp2"}, "332": {"fulltext": "298 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nfavorable a view as was entertained by any Gnostic of the\\nJewish Law, and of the god of the Jews.\\nIt is to be observed, that the Gnostics did not reject the\\nPentateuch, and the other books of the Old Testament, as\\nunworthy of credit. On the contrary, their system was\\nfounded on the supposition, that those books contained a\\ncorrect account of the Jewish dispensation, and of the events\\nconnected with it. Difficulties and objections then pressed\\nupon them. There was much that offended their reason,\\ntheir moral sentiments, and their prejudices as Gentiles.\\nReceiving the history as true, and understanding it in its\\nobvious sense, they could not believe that the god of the\\nJews was the same being as the God of Christians. Thus\\nthey were led to separate the Law from the Gospel, and to\\nintroduce the agency of another being, wholly distinct from\\nthe Supreme God, in the government of the world. The\\ncorner-stone of Gnosticism was thus laid.\\nBut in regarding many of the representations given of\\nGod in the Old Testament as unworthy of the Supreme\\nBeing, the Gnostics did not stand alone. The more intelli-\\ngent of the catholic Christians, contemporary with them,\\nstrongly felt and expressed these and other objections to\\nwhich the Old Testament was, in their view, exposed, if\\nunderstood in its obvious sense. This feeling is shown in\\nthe quotations before given from Origen, and the subject well\\ndeserves further consideration for there are few of more\\nimportance in the history of Christian opinions.\\nThere is a work called the Clementine Homilies, or the\\nClementines, the author of which is unknown. The time\\nof its composition is likewise uncertain but, judging from\\nthe fact, that, though its contents are such as would have\\nbeen likely to attract the attention of Irenaeus, Clement of\\nAlexandria, and Tertullian, it is yet not noticed by any one", "height": "4584", "width": "2904", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0332.jp2"}, "333": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 299\\nof them, and, from other considerations, it probably was not\\nwritten before, or much before, the end of the second century.\\nIt is remarkable as an ancient work of fiction, resembling a\\nmodern romance. It is written in the form of an autobio-\\ngraphy of an individual bearing the name of Clement, Cle-\\nment represents himself as having been converted to Chris-\\ntianity by the preaching of Barnabas and Peter, and as\\nhaving been present at many of the discourses of the latter,\\nparticularly with Simon Magus, who was represented by the\\nwriters against the Gnostics as the founder of their heresy.\\nThere is much relating to the objections to the god of the\\nJews (that is, in the view of the writer, to the Supreme\\nGod), which the Gnostics derived from the Old Testament;\\nand of these objections the author, under the person of Peter,\\npresents a bold solution. He gives up at once to reprobation\\nthe passages on which they were founded, maintaining that\\nthey are false representations of God. He represents them\\nas existing in the Jewish Scriptures, through the permitted\\nagency of Satan, to serve as a test for distinguishing between\\nthose who are, and those who are not, willing to believe evil\\nconcerning Gocl. According to him, what in those Scriptures\\nis accordant with right conceptions of God is to be received\\nas true, and what is not so is to be rejected as false.f\\nBut in his view of the general character of the Old Testa-\\nment, the author of the Homilies stood apart from the other\\nChristian writers of the second and third centuries. They\\nreceived its books from the Jews, and received them with\\nthe Jewish notions of their divine authority, and were there-\\nfore obliged to resort to modes different from those of the\\nGnostics, or the author of the Clementine Homilies, for solv-\\ning the difficulties which they equally felt.\\nHomil. ii. 38-52; Homil. iii. 5.\\nf Homil. ii. 40, seqq. Homil. iii. 42, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0333.jp2"}, "334": {"fulltext": "300 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nIn the solution that I shall first mention, as resorted to by\\nthe catholic Christians, will be perceived that remarkable\\nresemblance, without coincidence, which often appears be-\\ntween their doctrines and those of the Gnostics. In com-\\nparing them together, we see sometimes, as in the present\\ncase, a striking likeness fashioned out of materials essentially\\ndifferent, while in other cases the material is the same, but\\nmoulded into a different form. In the solution of which I\\nnow speak, the Logos of the catholic Christians takes the\\nplace of the Creator of the Gnostics as the god of the Jews\\nthose representations of the Divinity in the Old Testament,\\nwhich catholic Christians, equally with the Gnostics, regarded\\nas incompatible with the character of the Supreme Being,\\nbeing referred by them to the Logos.\\nIn his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr says: I will\\nendeavor to prove to you from the Scriptures, that he who is\\nsaid to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses,\\nand is called God, is another god [that is, divine being], dif-\\nferent from the God who created all things another, I say,\\nnumerically, not in will for I affirm that he never did any\\nthing at any time but what it was the will of Him who cre-\\nated the world, and above whom there is no other God, that\\nhe should do and say.\\nJustin, among many other similar proofs that there is\\nanother god beside the Supreme God, quotes those passages\\nin which it is said, that God ascended from Abraham that\\nGod spoke to Moses that the Lord came down to see the\\ntower of Babel which the sons of men had built; and that\\nGod shut the door of the ark after Noah had entered. Do\\nnot suppose, he says, that the unoriginated God either\\ndescended or ascended; for the ineffable Father and Lord\\nof all neither comes anywhere, nor walks nor sleeps nor\\narises but remains in his own place, wherever that may be.\\nDial, cum Tryph., p. 252.", "height": "4560", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0334.jp2"}, "335": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 301\\nAfter describing the greatness, omniscience, and omnipres-\\nence of the Supreme God, he proceeds: Plow, then, can he\\nspeak to any one, or be seen by any one, or appear in a little\\nportion of the earth, when the people could not behold on\\nSinai even the glory of him whom he sent Neither\\nAbraham, therefore, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man,\\never saw the Father, the ineffable Lord of all, even of Christ\\nhimself; but they saw him who, through the will of the\\nFather, was a god, his Son, and likewise his angel, as min-\\nistering to his purposes.\\nTertullian regarded the Son, or the Logos, as having been\\nthe minister of God in creation and in all his subsequent\\nworks. To him he ascribes whatever actions are ascribed\\nto God in the Old Testament. He always descended to\\nconverse with men, from the time of Adam to that of the\\npatriarchs and prophets. He who was to assume a\\nhuman body and soul was even then acquainted with human\\naffections asking Adam, as if ignorant, Where art thou,\\nAdam? repenting of having made man, as if wanting pre-\\nscience putting Abraham to trial, as if ignorant of what was\\nin man offended and reconciled with the same individuals\\nand so it is with regard to all which the heretics [the Gnos-\\ntics] seize upon to object to the Creator, as unworthy of God\\nthey being ignorant that those things were suitable to the\\nSon, who was about to submit to human affections, to thirst,\\nhunger, and tears, and even to be born and to die.\\nHow can it be, that God, the Omnipotent, the Invisible,\\nwhom no man hath seen or can see, who dwells in light inac-\\ncessible, walked in the evening in paradise, seeking Adam,\\nand shut the door of the ark after Noah had entered, and\\ncooled himself under an oak with Abraham, and called to\\nMoses from a burning bush These tilings would not\\nbe credible concerning the Son of God, if they were not writ-\\nDial, cum Tryph., pp. 410, 411.", "height": "4560", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0335.jp2"}, "336": {"fulltext": "302 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nten perhaps they would not be credible concerning the\\nFather, if they were.\\nIn his work against Marcion, Tertullian, after explaining\\nvarious particular passages of the Old Testament objected to\\nby him, says, that he will give a summary answer to the rest.\\nI will give, are his words, a simple and certain account\\nof whatever else you have objected to the Creator, as mean\\nand weak and unworthy. It is, that God could not have had\\nintercourse with men, unless he had assumed the feelings and\\naffections of humanity, by which he humbled and tempered to\\nhuman infirmity the intolerable might of his majesty. Un-\\nworthy indeed it was in respect to himself, but necessary for\\nman and therefore became worthy of God, since nothing\\ncan be so worthy of God as the salvation of man. Marcion\\nhimself believed that God had manifested himself as Christ;\\nand Tertullian proceeds, in language so foreign from what\\nwe are accustomed to, that it hardly admits of a literal trans-\\nlation Why do you think that those humiliations [the facts\\nin the Old Testament which Marcion so regarded] are un-\\nworthy of our God, seeing that they are more tolerable than\\nthe contumelies of the Jews, and the cross, and the tomb\\nAre not those humiliations ground for concluding,! that\\nChrist, subjected as he was to the accidents of man, came\\nfrom the same God whose assumption of humanity is made\\nby you a matter of reproach? For we further maintain,\\nthat Christ has always been the agent of the Father in his\\nname, that it was he who from the beginning was conversant\\nwith men, who had intercourse with the patriarchs and proph-\\nets being the son of the Creator, his Logos, whom he made\\nhis Son by producing him from himself, and then set him over\\nall that he disposed and willed making him a little lower\\nAdvers. Praxeam, c. 16, pp. 509, 510.\\nf An hae sunt pusillitates quae jam pnejudicare debebunt, c. For\\nAn, we may read An non, as the sense (about which there is no uncer-\\ntainty) seems to require.", "height": "4552", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0336.jp2"}, "337": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 303\\nthan the angels/ as was written by David. In thus being\\nmade lower than the angels, he was prepared by the Father\\nfor those assumptions of humanity with which you find fault.\\nHe learnt from the beginning, being then already a man, what\\nhe was to be at last. It was he who descended, he who ques-\\ntioned, he who demanded, he who swore. But that the\\nFather has been seen by none, the Gospel common to us\\nboth* bears witness; for in this Christ says, k No one has\\nknown the Father but the Son. For he had pronounced in\\nthe Old Testament likewise, *Xo one shall see God and live;\\nthus determining that the Father is invisible, in whose name\\nand by whose authority he who became visible as the Son of\\nGod w T as God. Thus whatever you require as worthy\\nof God will be found in the invisible Father, remote from\\nhuman intercourse, calm, and, if I may so speak, the God\\nof the philosophers but whatever you censure as unworthy\\nwill be ascribed to the Son, who was seen, and heard, and\\nhad intercourse with men, who sees the Father and ministers\\nto him, who unites in himself humanity and divinity, being\\nin his powers divine, in his humiliation a man, that what he\\nparts with from his divinity he may confer on man. All, in\\nfine, that you regard as dishonorable to my God is the\\npledge of human salvation.\\nIn the passage just quoted, beside the doctrine, that the\\nLogos, or Son, was the being represented as God in the Old\\nTestament, and that to him actions might be ascribed which\\nwould be unsuitable to the Father, there appears another\\nconception, which is often presented in the waitings of Ter-\\ntullian, and is employed by him elsewhere to answer the\\nobjections of the Gnostics to the Old Testament. It is. that,\\nin both the Jewish and Christian dispensations, the means\\nThat is, the Go pel of Luke as used by Marcion.\\nf Advers. Marcion., lib. ii. c 27, pp. 395, 396.", "height": "4556", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0337.jp2"}, "338": {"fulltext": "304 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nused by God to effect his purposes are such as in the view\\nof man may appear unworthy, incongruous, and contemptible.\\nHe regards this as characteristic of the special manifestations\\nof God. He grounds the conception particularly on a passage\\nof St. Paul, which he frequently quotes or alludes to God\\nhas chosen the foolish things of the world to put wise\\nmen to shame, and the weak things of the world God has\\nchosen to put to shame the strong, and the mean things of\\nthe world, and the despised, has God chosen and things that\\nare nought, to do away what exist. Tertullian, under-\\nstanding this passage as he did, was able to reconcile himself\\nto much that might otherwise have offended him in the Old\\nTestament. Nothing, he says, ordained by God is truly\\nmean, and ignoble, and contemptible, but only what proceeds\\nfrom man. But many things in the Old Testament may be\\ncharged upon the Creator as foolish and weak and shameful\\nand little and contemptible. What more foolish, what more\\nweak, than the exaction by God of bloody sacrifices and\\nsweet smelling holocausts? What more weak than the\\ncleansing of cups and beds? What more shameful than to\\ninflict a new blemish on the ruddy flesh of an infant What\\nso mean as the law of retaliation What so contemptible as\\nthe prohibition of certain kinds of food Every heretic, as\\nfar as I know, ridicules the whole of the Old Testament.\\nFor God chose the foolish things of the world to confound\\nits wisdom. f\\nIt is to be observed, however, that Tertullian had, in a\\nformer part of his work, J ably defended the reasonableness\\nof all the requisitions of the Law of which he here speaks,\\nexcept circumcision and that the defence of the Old Testa-\\nment, in its literal or obvious sense, was not neglected by\\nother fathers.\\n1 Cor. i. 27, 28. f Advers. Marcion., lib. v. c. 5, p. 467.\\nJ Ibid lib. ii. c. 18, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2904", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0338.jp2"}, "339": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 305\\nBut, in connection with those that have been mentioned,\\nanother solution was found for its difficulties in the supposi-\\ntion of a hidden or allegorical sense. This imaginary sense\\nwas believed not to be expressed by the words in their direct\\nmeaning, but to be one of which the direct meaning presented\\nan allegory, a type, a symbolical representation, or an enig-\\nmatical expression. The allegorical mode of interpretation\\nwas unsupported by any tenable reasoning it proceeded on\\nno settled principles it had no definite limits in its applica-\\ntion there was not, even professedly, any test of its correct-\\nness nor, generally, does there appear to have been a distinct\\napprehension that the meaning educed by it was intended by\\nthe writer to whose words it was ascribed/* The subject\\nThe following may serve as a specimen of allegorical interpretation.\\nIn Exod. xv. 23-27, it is related, that the Israelites, after crossing the Eed\\nSea, came to the waters of Marah. which were so bitter that they could not\\ndrink them but that the Lord showed Moses a tree, which, when he cast\\ninto the water, it became sweet and that afterwards, the Israelites arrived at\\nElim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees.\\nu It is very strange, says Origen, that God should show Moses a tree to\\ncast into the water, to make it sweet. Could he not make the water sweet\\nwithout a tree? But let us see what beauty there is in the inner sense.\\nHe accordingly explains, that, allegorically understood, the bitter waters of\\nMarah denote the Jewish Law, which, in its literal purport, is bitter enough\\nso that of its bitterness the true people of God cannot drink. u What, then,\\nis the tree which God showed to Moses? Solomon teaches us, when he says\\nof Wisdom, that she is a tree of life to all who embrace her. If, therefore, the\\ntree of wisdom, Christ, be cast into the Law, and show us how it ought to\\nbe understood (I compress several clauses into these words), then the water\\nof Marah becomes sweet, and the bitterness of the letter of the Law is changed\\ninto the sweetness of spiritual intelligence and then the people of God can\\ndrink of it. Origen afterwards remarks on the subsequent arrival of the\\nIsraelites at Elim with its twelve springs and seventy palm-trees. Do you\\nthink. he asks, that any reason can be given why they were not first led\\nto Elim? If we follow the history alone, it does not much edify us to\\nknow where they first went, and where they next went. But, if we search\\nout the mystery hidden in these things, we find the order of faith. The\\npeople is first led to the letter of the Law, from which, while this retains its\\nbitterness, it cannot depart. But, when the Law is made sweet by the tree\\nof life, and begins to be spiritually understood, then the people passes from\\n20", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0339.jp2"}, "340": {"fulltext": "306 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwas still further confused by the circumstance, that the term\\nto allegorize was applied to the use of simply figurative\\nlanguage, of which the true meaning was sufficiently obvious\\nand such language, in consequence, was confounded with that\\nto which an imaginary mystical sense was assigned. Thus,\\nClement of Alexandria, in remarking on the words of our\\nSaviour, The good shepherd lays down his life for his\\nsheep, speaks of Christ as by sheep expressing allegorically\\na flock of men.* As to Origen, though it is not probable that\\nhe had ever so stated the subject to his own mind, yet his\\ncustomary modes of speaking in relation to it imply that all\\ninterpretation of Scripture which is not literal is allegorical,\\nand that there is no choice but of the one mode or the\\nother.\\nThe allegorical mode of interpretation thus affords a strik-\\ning illustration of the indistinct conceptions and unsubstantial\\nthe Old Testament to the. New, and comes to the twelve fountains of the\\napostles. In the same place, also, are found seventy palm-trees. For not\\nalone the twelve apostles preached faith in Christ; but it is related, that\\nseventy others were sent to preach the w ord of God, through whom the world\\nmight acknowledge the palms of the victory of Christ. HomiL in Exod.\\nvii. 1, 3, Opp. ii. 151, 152.\\nSuch is the style of interpretation which, intermixed with good sense, just\\nremarks, and correct moral and religious sentiments, prevails throughout the\\nexpository works of Philo and Origen, and is frequent in the writings of\\nmany of the other fathers beside Origen especially, as regards our present\\npurpose, in those of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian.\\nCe qu il y a de commode, says Le Clerc, dans cette maniere d expli-\\nquer la Bible, c est que Ton fait de son texte la meme chose que les Peripate-\\nticiens font de leur matiere premiere, quce neque est quid, neque quale, neque\\nquantum, neque quicquam eorum quibus ens denominatur. On le tourne comme\\non veut; on lui donne la forme que Ton trouve a propos; et Ton y trouveroit\\n^galement son compte, quand il auroit dit tout le contraire. Bibliotheque\\nUniverselle, torn. xii. p. 20.\\nEi de 7] 7TOc/Ltvv 7] aKknyopoviievn Trpbc rov Kvptov ovdsv aXko rj\\nayekj] tlc avOpcjirajv ear tv, k. t. 7i. Stromat. i. p. 421. The same use of\\nuXknyopeu, or an equivalent term, may be found on p. 104, 11. 17, 30; p. 129,\\n11. 20, 29; p. 138, 1. 5 p. 148, 1. 5; p. 528, 1. 21; p. 708, 1. 11; p. 771, 1. 23;\\np. 806, 1. 17.", "height": "4584", "width": "2936", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0340.jp2"}, "341": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 307\\nreasoning of the ancients. For we must not suppose that it\\nwas adopted by the fathers alone, or confined in its applica-\\ntion to the Scriptures. It was prevalent in the age of which\\nwe speak. It had for a long time been applied by the heathen\\nphilosophers to the offensive fables of their mythology, the\\nscandal of which they endeavored to remove by representing\\nthem as symbolical representations of certain truths concern-\\ning the physical and moral world a mode of explanation\\nwhich, with little good sense, has been continued to our own\\nday,* The revelations in the heathen mysteries probably\\nconsisted in great part of such interpretations of the heathen\\nmythology. The philosophical Jews also had resorted to\\nit in the exposition of the Old Testament and, in applying\\nit to the same book, the fathers only followed in the broad\\npath which had been cleared by Philo. His explanations of\\nthe Old Testament are throughout allegorical. He had the\\nsame feeling as the Christian fathers of the objections to\\nwhich it is liable, if understood in its obvious sense, and of\\nthe supposed necessity of recurring to a hidden meaning.\\nThus, in reference to the account of the formation of Eve, he\\naffirms that what is said concerning it is fabulous that is,\\nthat the obvious meaning is fabulous. How can any one,\\nhe asks, credit that a woman, or any human being, was\\nmade out of the rib of a man And after various objec-\\ntions to the story, he proceeds to convert it into an allegory.j\\nSpeaking of the serpent which tempted Eve, and of the\\nbrazen serpent of Moses, he says, These things, as they\\nare written, are like prodigies and portents but, when alle-\\ngorically explained, the fabulous immediately disappears, and\\nthe truth is manifestly discovered. J After quoting the\\nOn this subject, see (in the Bibliotheque Choisie, torn. vii. p. 88, seqq.)\\nthe remarks of Le Clere, who, in the compass of a few pages, treats it with his\\ncustomary clearness and judgment.\\nf Legis Allegorise, lib. ii. Opp. i. 70, ed. Mangey.\\nX De Agriculture, Opp. i. 315.", "height": "4552", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0341.jp2"}, "342": {"fulltext": "308 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwords, And God planted a garden in Eden, he says, that\\nto understand this of his planting vines, or fruit-trees of any-\\nkind, would be great and hardly curable folly. We must\\nhave recourse to allegory, the friend of clear-sighted men.\\nThus, also, in commenting on the passage, Cain departed\\nfrom the face of God, he regards it as proving that wiiat is\\nwritten in the books of Moses is to be understood tropologi-\\ncally (that is, allegorically), the apparent meaning presented\\nat first sight being far from the truth. For if God have\\na face, and he who wills to leave him may easily remove else-\\nwhere, why do we reject the impiety of the Epicureans, or\\nthe atheism of the Egyptians, or the mythological fables of\\nwhich the world is full f Many similar passages occur in\\nhis writings.\\nNor was the allegorical mode of understanding the Jewish\\nScriptures introduced by Philo. He celebrates the Thera-=\\npeutae, a sect among the Jews who devoted themselves to\\nreligious exercises and meditation, and of them he relates,\\nthat they occupied much of their time in the allegorical expo-\\nsition of the sacred writings, regarding the literal meaning as\\nsymbolical of hidden senses, expressed enigmatically. He\\nsays, that they compared the whole Law to an animal, its\\nbody being the literal precepts, but its soul the invisible sense\\nlying treasured up in the words and adds, that, in their alle-\\ngorical exposition, they had for models the writings of ancient\\nmen, the founders of the sect. Elsewhere, Philo repeatedly\\nrefers to this mode of interpretation as common. I have\\nheard, he says in one place, another explanation from in-\\nDe Plantatione Noe, Opp. i. 334 conf. De Mundi Opificio, Opp. i. 37\\nLegis Allegorise, lib. i. Opp. i. 32.\\nf De Posteritate Caini, Opp. i. 226.\\nAs, for example, Legis Allegorise, lib. ii. Opp. i. 70, lib. iii. 88. Quod\\nDeterius Potiori insidiari soleat, Opp. i. 194, 209, 223. De Posteritate Caini,\\nOpp. i. 232, 234, 235. Quod Deus sit immutabilis, Opp. i. 292, et alibi.\\nDe Vita Contemplativa, Opp. ii. 475, 483.", "height": "4560", "width": "2932", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0342.jp2"}, "343": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 309\\nspired men, who consider most things in the Laws as visible\\nand spoken symbols of the invisible and unspeakable. The\\nconfidence with which, throughout his works, be proceeds on\\nthe system of allegorical exposition, without explaining or\\ndefending it, shows that it was well known and admitted. Its\\ngenera] prevalence is likewise made evident by the fact, that\\nit appears in quotations from the Jewish Scriptures in the\\nNew Testament, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews.\\nThe Christian fathers, from the beginning, adopting the\\nconceptions of their age, interpreted the Old Testament alle-\\ngoriealiy. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho,\\nabounds in such expositions of it but, in a controversy with\\na Jew, he was not called upon to defend it. He makes\\nevident, however, his notions of its character, as requiring to\\nbe thus explained. After having represented the blood of\\nthe passover, with which the Israelites sprinkled their door-\\nposts when the first-born of the Egyptians were destroyed,\\nand the scarlet line which the harlot Rahab hung out\\nwhen Jericho was taken, as both intended for types of the\\nblood of Christ, shed for the deliverance of men, he thus\\naddresses Trypho But you, who explain these things in\\na low sense, impute much weakness to God, through under-\\nstanding them so simply, and not inquiring into the true\\npurport of what is said. For thus [that is, by understanding\\nthe Scriptures thus literally] even Moses may be judged a\\ntransgressor since, after commanding that no likeness should\\nbe made of any thing either in heaven, or on the earth, or in\\nthe sea, he himself made a brazen serpent, and, setting it up\\nfor a sign, directed those who were bitten to look upon it\\nand, by looking upon it, they were saved. So the serpent,\\nthen, whom God cuived in the beginning, and destroyed, as\\nIsaiah proclaims, with a great sword.| will be thought to\\nhave then saved the people and thus we shall understand\\nDe Specialibus Legibus, Opp. ii. 329. t Isa. xxvii. 1.", "height": "4560", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0343.jp2"}, "344": {"fulltext": "310 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nsuch things foolishly, like your teachers, and not as symbol-\\nical.\\nIrenseus does not resort to allegorical interpretation in\\ndirectly answering the objections of the Gnostics to the Old\\nTestament. He defends it in its obvious meaning, in much\\nthe same manner as modern divines have done. But, in\\nmaintaining its connection with Christianity, he represents it\\nas full of types, shadowing forth in their hidden senses the\\ncoming dispensation and in such hidden senses it appears\\nthat he himself was disposed to take refuge from the difficul-\\nties that pressed upon its obvious meaning. Thus he says\\nOne of the ancient presbyters relieved my mind by\\nteaching me, that when the wrong actions of the patri-\\narchs and prophets are simply related in the Scriptures with-\\nout any censure, we ought not to become accusers (for we\\nare not more observing than God, nor can we be above our\\nmaster), but to look for a type. For no one of those actions\\nwhich are mentioned thus uncensured in the Scriptures is\\nwithout its purpose. f\\nTertullian does not dwell at length on the objections of the\\nheretics to the Old Testament in any of his works except that\\nagainst Marcion. Marcion rejected the allegorical mode of\\ninterpretation J and, in reasoning with him, Tertullian de-\\nfends, and with ability, portions of the Jewish Law and\\nhistory understood in their obvious sense, except so far as\\nthis sense was modified by his belief, before mentioned, con-\\ncerning the agency of the Logos. But he abounds, at the\\nsame time, in allegorical expositions of the Old Testament,\\nsome of them exceedingly forced. He speaks of the secret\\nmeanings of the Law, spiritual as it is, and prophetical, and\\nDial, cum Tryph., pp. 374, 375.\\nt Cont. Hseres-, lib. iv. c. 31, 1, p. 268.\\nTertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. ii. c. 21, p. 392; lib. iii. cc. 4, 5, pp.\\n398, 399. Origen. Comment, in Matt., torn. xv. 3, Opp. iii. 655. In Epist.\\nad Romanes, lib. ii. Opp. iv. 494, 495.", "height": "4584", "width": "2944", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0344.jp2"}, "345": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 311\\nfull of figures in almost every part. And, in another\\nplace, he describes God, the God of the Old Testament, as\\nmaking foolish the wisdom of the world, choosing its foolish\\ntilings, and disposing them for man s salvation this being,\\nhe says, the hidden wisdom of which the apostle speaks,\\nwhich was in foolish and little and shameful things, which\\nlay hid under figures, allegories, and enigmas, and was after-\\nwards to be revealed in Christ. f\\nCelsus, who lived in the second century, was acquainted\\nwith this manner of explaining and defending the Old Testa-\\nment, and expressed himself vehemently against it. He\\nattacks the history of Moses, says Origen, and finds fault\\nwith those who explain it tropologically and allegorically. t\\nHe seems to me to have heard of writings containing the\\nallegories of the Law, which if he had read, he would not\\nhave said, The pretended allegories written concerning\\nthese fables are far more offensive and absurd than the fables\\nthemselves for, with marvellous and altogether senseless\\nfolly, they bring together things which can in no way what-\\never be fitted to one another. He seems, continues Origen,\\nto refer to the writings of Philo, or to others still more\\nancient, as those of Aristobuius. But Origen did not\\nmean to imply, that Celsus, in his attack on the allegorical\\ninterpretations of the Old Testament, had not in view Chris-\\ntian allegorists as well as Jewish. He had a little before\\nquoted from him a passage, in which Celsus, speaking of some\\nof the narratives in Genesis and Exodus, says, that the more\\nrational of the Jews and Christians turn them into allegories.\\nThey take refuge in allegory because they are ashamed of\\nthem. In reply, Origen makes a strong retort upon the\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. ii. c. 19, p. 391.\\nt Ibid., lib. v. c. 6, p. 467.\\nt Cont. Cels., lib. i. IT, Opp. i. 336.\\nIbid., lib. iv. 51, p. 542.", "height": "4556", "width": "2636", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0345.jp2"}, "346": {"fulltext": "812 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nobscene fables of the mythology of the Pagans, which their\\nphilosophers represented as allegories.*\\nThe early fathers, in general, allegorized freely in their\\nexpositions of the Old Testament, and evidently regarded\\nthis mode of exposition as a means of removing objections to\\nit. But no other of their number has recurred to this method\\nso confidently as Origen, of whom Jerome, before he began\\nto regard his opinions as heretical, declared, that none but\\nan ignorant man would deny, that, next after the apostles, he\\nwas the master of the churches. Origen, proceeding on\\nthe hypothesis of the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures,\\nallegorized the New Testament as well as the Old perceiving\\nno other method of solving the great difficulties which, on\\nthat hypothesis, often presented themselves to his mind in\\nthe verbal meaning of the Gospels and Epistles. His no-\\ntions of the Old Testament appear in the passages already\\nquoted but it may be worth while to adduce a few others.\\nThere are many of the laws of Moses, he says, u which,\\nas regards their literal observance, are absurd or impossible.\\nIt is absurd to forbid the eating of vultures, a kind of food\\nw T hich none, however pressed by hunger, would resort to.\\nAn infant not circumcised on the eighth day, it is said, shall\\nbe cut off from the people. Were any law which was to be\\nunderstood literally, required respecting this matter, it ought\\nto have been, that the parents, or those who have the care of\\nsuch an infant, should suffer death. If I n one of his Hom-\\nilies, speaking of the directions concerning the sin-offering\\nin Leviticus, he says, All this, as I have often before\\nobserved when the passage was recited in the church, unless\\nCont. Cels., 48, p. 540 50, p. 542.\\nt Praefat. in lib. de Interpret. Nomin. Hebrseor. Opp. ii. 3.\\nX See p. 103. Lev. xi. 14. Deut. xiv. 13. Gen xvii. 12, 14.\\nTf De Principiis, lib. iv. 17, Opp. i. p. 176. Origen treats at length of\\nthe subject of allegorical interpretation, in the work just referred to, p. 164,\\nseqq. Chap. vi. 24-30.", "height": "4560", "width": "3028", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0346.jp2"}, "347": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 313\\nit be understood in a sense different from the literal, is more\\nlikely to be a stumbling-block in the way of Christianity, and\\nto overthrow it than to be matter for exhortation and edifica-\\ntion. Elsewhere, in treating of the distinction of clean\\nand unclean food, after having allegorized the laws respecting\\nit, he thus goes on If we say that the great God pro-\\nmulgated laws to men which are to be thus understood, I\\nthink that they will appear worthy of the divine majesty.\\nBut if we cleave to the letter, and receive them as they are\\nunderstood by the Jews, or as they are commonly understood,\\nI should blush to affirm and profess that such laws were given\\nby God. The laws of men, as those of the Romans, or of\\nthe Athenians, or of the Lacedaemonians, would seem more\\nrefined and reasonable. But if the Law of God be under-\\nstood, as is taught by the Church, then it evidently surpasses\\nall human laws, and may truly be believed to be the Law of\\nGod. f\\nA few more passages will sufficiently illustrate Origen s\\nopinions on this subject. Speaking of different narratives in\\nExodus, he says, These are not written to afford us\\ninstruction in history, nor is it to be supposed that the divine\\nbooks relate the acts of the Egyptians but what is written\\nis written to afford us instruction in doctrine and morals.\\nWe, who have learned to regard all that is written, not\\nas containing narratives of ancient times, but as written for\\nour discipline and use, perceive that what is here read takes\\nplace now, not only in this world, which is figuratively called\\nEgypt, but in each one of ourselves. This mode of alle-\\ngorizing Egypt into the world and the inferior part of our\\nnature was, with much else of the same character, derived by\\nOrio-en from Philo. In answering certain objections of\\nHomil. in Lev., v. 1, Opp. ii. 205. f Ibid., vii. 5, Opp. ii. 226.\\nHomil. in Exod., i. 5, Opp. ii. 131. Ibid., ii. 1, Opp. ii. 133.\\nH Philo de Migratione Abrahami, passim.", "height": "4560", "width": "2620", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0347.jp2"}, "348": {"fulltext": "314 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nCelsus, founded on the Old Testament, he has these words\\nWe say the law is twofold, literal and allegorical, as\\nothers have taught before us. The literal has been pro-\\nnounced, not so much by us as by God, speaking in one of\\nthe prophets, to consist of ordinances not good, and statutes\\nnot good f but the allegorical, according to the same prophet,\\nis said by God to consist of good ordinances and good stat-\\nutes. Certainly the prophet does not here [in speaking of\\nthe Law in the passages referred to] assert manifest contra-\\ndictions. And, conformably to this, Paul says, The letter,\\nthat is, the Law understood literally, kills but the spirit, that\\nis, the Law understood allegorically, gives life.\\nThe allegorical or hidden meaning was divided into the\\nmoral, and the mystical or spiritual the moral being sup-\\nposed to relate to morality, and the mystical to the doctrines\\nof religion. In remarking on the declaration of St. Paul,\\nThe works of the flesh are apparent, Origen allegorizes the\\npassage as referring to the literal sense of the Old Testament.\\nThis was figuratively called the carnal sense, being compared\\nto the body in man while the two branches of the allegori-\\ncal the moral, and the mystical or spiritual were compared\\nto the soul and to the spirit, according to the threefold divis-\\nion of man in ancient theology. The history of the divine\\nvolumes, he says, contains the works of the flesh, and is of\\nlittle benefit to those who understand.it as it is written.\\nCont. Cels., lib. vii. 20, Opp. i. 708.\\nt Ezek. xx. 25. Ezek. xx. 11.\\n2 Cor. iii. 6. This is a passage which, from the time of Origen to the\\npresent day, has been often so quoted as to pervert its meaning. The word\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0ypaufia, incorrectly translated letter, 1 means what is written, the writ-\\nten Law, the Jewish Law. St. Paul says, that he was not a minister of\\nthat Law, but of the Spirit, or, in other words, of the spiritual blessings\\nto be received through Christ for the written Law causes death [that is, to\\nsuch as adhere to it in opposition to Christianity], but the Spirit gives life.\\nThere is no reference to the distinction between the letter and the spirit of any\\nparticular writing. |J Gal. v. 19.", "height": "4580", "width": "2952", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0348.jp2"}, "349": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 315\\nThe examples of the patriarchs, according to him, lead to\\ndissoluteness, and the sacrifices of the Law to idolatry, if the\\nhistory of the former, and the injunctions concerning the latter,\\nare not supposed to have a further meaning than appears in\\nthe letter. That the language of Scripture, he adds,\\nin its obvious sense, teaches hatred, is shown by this pas-\\nsage Wretched daughter of Babylon Blessed be he who\\nshall requite thee as thou hast treated us. Blessed be he\\nwho shall take thy little ones and dash them against the\\nstones and by this passage: In the morning, I slew all the\\nsinners of the landjf And there are others of a similar kind,\\nexpressive of contention, rivalry, anger, strife, dissension\\nwhich vices the examples set before us in the history, if we\\ndo not look to their higher meaning, are more likely to\\nproduce than to restrain. Heresies, likewise, owe their ex-\\nistence rather to understanding the Scriptures carnally [liter-\\nally] than, as many think, to the works of the flesh. The\\nlast sentence shows the liberality of Origen. From this, as\\nwell as from passages before cited, we perceive what he\\nthought the main occasion of the heresy of the Gnostics, and\\nconsequently what he regarded as its essential characteristic,\\nthat is to say, their doctrine concerning the Jewish dispensa-\\ntion. All the passages quoted from him prove, likewise, that\\nhe agreed with the Gnostics in regarding the opinions of the\\nJews respecting their Scriptures as untenable, if these Scrip-\\ntures were to be understood only in their obvious meaning.\\nBut, if the metaphor may be allowed, he thought that their\\ndifficulties were to be solved in the menstruum of allegor-\\nical interpretation, and that the essential meaning might thus\\nbe obtained in crystalline purity.\\nPsami cxxxvii. 8. 9. f Psalm ci. 8.\\nt Ex decimo Stromatum Origen. Lib. (apucl Hieronymi Comment, in Ep.\\nad Galat, Opp. iv. pars 1, coll. 294, 295), Origenis Opp. torn. i. p. 41.\\nSee pp. 295, 296.", "height": "4560", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0349.jp2"}, "350": {"fulltext": "316 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nAmong the Gnostics, Marcion, as I have said, rejected the\\nallegorical mode of interpretation. Other Gnostics, particu-\\nlarly the Valentinians, allegorized at least as extravagantly\\nas the fathers but they were not disposed, like them, thus to\\ndo away the difficulties of the Jewish Scriptures. They, per-\\nhaps, felt more strongly the common dislike of the Gentiles\\nto the Jews. They were not so ready to overcome the first\\nunfavorable impressions which those books made upon their\\nminds. Their faith as Christians was more imperfect it\\nwas more implicated with their philosophical speculations\\nand they were not as solicitous as the catholic Christians\\nto receive all which they supposed to be taught or implied in\\nthe New Testament. Their hypothesis respecting the Jewish\\ndispensation, that it proceeded from an inferior divinity, was\\nequally in accordance with the notions of the times, as the\\nsupposition that the books of the Jews were to be interpreted\\nallegorically. By their theory, by admitting the existence\\nand acts of the God of the Jews, but denying him to be the\\nSupreme Being, they accounted, as they believed, for the\\notherwise inexplicable phenomena which those books pre-\\nsented while the catholic Christians thought themselves\\nenabled to escape the force of the objections founded on those\\nphenomena, by the allegorical mode of interpretation, and the\\nother expedients to which they had recourse.\\nIt may appear, then, that the principal occasion of the\\nexistence of the Gnostics, that is, of proper Christian Gnos-\\ntics, was the impossibility, as it seemed to them, of regarding\\nthe God of the Old Testament and the God of Christians as\\nthe same being. It is true, that their systems, as we shall\\nsee, were intended to give an account of the evil in the world.\\nBut, in having this object in view, they did not differ from the\\ncatholic Christians, nor from heathen philosophers. What\\ncharacterizes them is their regarding the Jewish dispensation\\nas an essential part of the evil and imperfection to be ac-", "height": "4560", "width": "2932", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0350.jp2"}, "351": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 317\\ncounted for, and the- character and agency which they conse-\\nquently assigned in their systems to the God of the Jews.\\nThey were constituted a peculiar class by being Christians\\nwho separated Judaism from Christianity. In the contro-\\nversy with their catholic opponents, the strength of their\\ncause evidently lay in their objections to the Old Testament.\\nThese they appear to have been most ready to bring forward\\nin defending their systems. In them they had a vantage-\\nground above their opponents, and could become assailants in\\ntheir turn. Such was the state of opinion and feeling in the\\nearly age when the Gnostics were most numerous and re-\\nspectable, that we might reasonably suppose that a consid-\\nerable number of individuals would embrace Christianity with\\nmore or less imperfect faith, who would not extend their\\nbelief so far as to acknowledge Judaism also as a dispensation\\nfrom God.\\nThe belief of the catholic Christians in the divine origin of\\nJudaism was a genuine consequence of their Christian faith.\\nBut with this belief, as if the one thing were necessarily\\nconnected with the other, they went on to adopt, likewise,\\nthe ojmrions of the Jews concerning the divine authority of\\nthe books of the Old Testament. Those opinions were not,\\nindeed, at once received by all Christians not Gnostics, as we\\nhave seen in the case of the author of the Clementine Hom-\\nilies but they soon obtained general reception. The belief\\nof the divine authority of the Jewish books was even extended\\nby the catholic Christians to embrace most of those which\\nconstitute the Apocrypha of our modern Bibles.\\nThere are few phenomena in the history of opinions more\\nremarkable than this reception of the Jewish notions concern-\\ning the Old Testament by the generality of the early Chris-\\ntians. The Jews had been regarded with aversion by other\\nnations. The unbelieving Jews continued to be so by the\\nGentile Christians and the believing Jews were an heretical", "height": "4560", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0351.jp2"}, "352": {"fulltext": "318 EVIDENCES OP THE\\nsect in little repute. The books of the Old Testament,\\nthough accessible to every Greek and Roman scholar through\\nthe medium of the Greek translation of .them, the Septuagint,\\nhad heretofore been treated with contemptuous neglect. The\\nGentile Christians, by whom they were received as of divine\\nauthority, were, with very few exceptions, wholly unac-\\nquainted with their original language, and obliged to recur\\nfor its meaning to copies of the Septuagint or of other trans-\\nlations, the correctness of which was denied by their oppo-\\nnents, the unbelieving Jews. At the same time, they had a\\nstrong feeling of the objections to which the Pentateuch and\\nother parts of the Old Testament are exposed, if understood\\nin their obvious meaning, or, as they expressed it, in their\\nliteral sense and notwithstanding the allegorical mode of\\ninterpretation, and the other expedients by which they es-\\ncaped from these difficulties, they were reduced to straits,\\nboth in reconciling many passages to their own reason and\\nmoral sentiments, and in defending them against the attacks\\nof Gnostics and unbelievers. Still they encumbered their\\ncause, and gave great advantage to their opponents, by as-\\nserting the Jewish opinions concerning the character of those\\nbooks, in consequence of the belief that the truth of Chris-\\ntianity implied, not merely the fact of the divine mission of\\nMoses, but the truth of those Jewish opinions. The scholars\\nand philosophers, for scholars and philosophers they were,\\nnotwithstanding any modern prejudices to the contrary,\\nwho during the first three centuries appear as Christian fath-\\ners, received from the Jews, with whom as a people they had\\nno friendly intercourse, all their canonical books regarding\\nthem as of divine origin, and ascribing to them equal author-\\nity with the records of Christianity. It must have been a\\npowerfully operative cause which produced this result. It\\nstrikingly evinces the strength of evidence that accompanied\\nour religion. Its proofs must have been overwhelming,\\nwhen, in addition to establishing an invincible faith in the", "height": "4560", "width": "2916", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0352.jp2"}, "353": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 319\\nreligion itself, they occasioned, notwithstanding such obstacles,\\nthe adoption of the Jewish opinions respecting the Old Testa-\\nment.\\nThe fundamental difference, then, between the Gnostics\\nand the catholic Christians consisted in their different views\\nof Judaism, and of the author of the Jewish dispensation.\\nBut, like other speculatists of their day, the Gnostics formed\\nfor themselves a system of the universe, in which, answer-\\nably to the declarations of the Old Testament, he whom they\\nregarded as the god of the Jews appears as the Creator of\\nthe physical world. Such a system necessarily embraced\\nsome solution, or rather some account, of the evil that exists\\nand this was partly found in the supposed character of the\\nCreator, and partly, in the evil nature ascribed to matter.\\nThe topics treated of in this chapter naturally suggest\\nthe inquiry, In what manner should the Jewish dispensation\\nand the books of the Old Testament be regarded The\\nviews that have been given of the opinions of the early Chris-\\ntians, both Catholics and Gnostics, involve the whole subject\\nin doubts and difficulties, of which no rational solution is\\nafforded. But the Jewish is intimately connected with the\\nChristian dispensation, and one may therefore reasonably be\\nunwilling to dismiss the inquiry without some attempt to\\nanswer it. I have accordingly considered the subject else-\\nwhere.*\\nSee the original edition of this work, vol. ii., Additional Note, D.", "height": "4548", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0353.jp2"}, "354": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER VII.\\nOF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE GNOSTICS RECONCILED\\nTHEIR DOCTRINES WITH CHRISTIANITY.\\nIn comparing the peculiar doctrines of the Gnostics with the\\nteaching of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, or with the\\nChristian Scriptures generally, the question naturally arises,\\nHow could they imagine those doctrines to have been taught\\nby the Master whom they professed to follow, or identify\\nthem in any way with Christianity We may, at first view,\\nbe inclined strongly to suspect that they held the common\\nhistories of Christ, and the other books of the New Testa-\\nment, in no esteem and to adopt the inference of Gibbon,\\nthat it was impossible that the Gnostics could receive our\\npresent Gospels.\\nBut, on further attention to the subject, we may perceive\\nthat there is nothing peculiar in the case of the Gnostics.\\nTheir systems have long been obsolete they are foreign\\nfrom our thoughts and imaginations and, in comparing\\nthem with the systems of other sects, we are apt to\\nmeasure their relative distance from Christianity by their\\nrelative distance from the forms of Christian belief with\\nwhich we are familiar. Of opinions equally false, those\\nwith which we have long been acquainted seem to us much\\nless extraordinary than such as are newly presented to our\\nSee p. 161.", "height": "4548", "width": "2948", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0354.jp2"}, "355": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 321\\nminds. In inquiring, therefore, how the Gnostics could mis-\\ntake their doctrines for the doctrines of Christianity, the first\\nconsideration to be attended to is the fact, that their mistake\\nwas not greater than that which has been committed by a\\nlarge majority of the professed disciples of Christ. The faith\\nof the whole Christian world for ten centuries before the\\nReformation had no advantage over that of the Gnostics, in\\nbeing more accordant with reason and Christianity. The\\ngross literal errors and absurdities, maintained by the Catho-\\nlics of this period, are in as strong contrast with the truths of\\nour religion, as the mystic extravagances of the early heretics.\\nThe system by which the Catholic faith was supplanted among\\nProtestants, with its doctrines concerning the threefold per-\\nsonality of God, and concerning God s government of his\\ncreatures with its representations of the totally depraved\\nnature, capable only of moral evil, with which he brings men\\ninto being with its scheme of redemption required by man s\\nutter misery and helplessness its infinite satisfaction to the\\njustice of God the Father, made by the sufferings of God\\nthe Son; and its horrible decrees, may perhaps appear,\\nto a rational believer of the present day, to stand in as open\\nand direct opposition to Christianity as the systems of the\\nleading Gnostics. Or, to come down to a later period,\\nthe hypotheses and expositions by which the Gnostics recon-\\nciled their conceptions with the declarations of Christ and\\nhis apostles could not, as many will think, be more irrational\\nand extravagant than the hypotheses and expositions of that\\nmodern school of German theologians, who, admitting the\\nauthenticity of the Gospels, find nothing supernatural in the\\nI borrow the expression from a well-known passage of Calvin. Unde\\nfactum est, ut tot gentes una cum liberis eorum infantibus seternae morti\\ninvolveret lapsus Adae absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est?\\nDecretum quidem horribile fateor. Whence is it, that the fall of Adam\\ninvolved so many nations, with their infant children, in eternal death, without\\nremedy, except that it so seemed good to God? It is a horrible decree,\\nI confess. Institut., lib. iii. c. 23, 7.\\n21\\ni", "height": "4548", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0355.jp2"}, "356": {"fulltext": "322 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nhistory, but explain, as conformable to the common laws of\\nnature, events which, according to their theory, have, from\\nthe time of their occurrence to the present day, been mistaken\\nfor miracles. I refer to the opinions of large bodies of Chris-\\ntians, or of men claiming to be called Christians and to\\nspeculations which have been defended by such as were, or\\nhave been reputed to be, learned and able. It is not neces-\\nsary to pursue the illustration by adverting to the doctrines\\nof smaller sects. I will only observe further, as the case\\nseems to me particularly analogous, that the disciples of\\nSwedenborg are believers in our religion, that they have\\ntheir full share of the Christian virtues, and that they\\nhave reckoned among their number men of more than com-\\nmon powers of mind while he who rejects the systems both\\nof Ptolemy and of Swedenborg will probably think that there\\nis no reason for preferring one to the other, on account of\\nits being the more rational faith, or having a better founda-\\ntion in the Gospels.\\nWhatever opinions a thinking man may entertain of Chris-\\ntianity, or of religion unconnected with Christianity, when\\nhe compares them with those which have existed, or are\\nexisting, among mankind, he will find himself in a small\\nminority. Whoever may really have attained to the\\nbene munita,\\nEdita doctrina sapientum, templa serena,\\nto the serene temples, well fortified, built up hy the learning\\nof the wise,\\nDespicere unde queas alios, passimque videre\\nErrare atque viam palenteis quserere vitse,\\nwill assuredly not find them thronged and, from their\\nheight, he will see not a few others wandering in errors as\\nextravagant as those of the Gnostics.", "height": "4560", "width": "2932", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0356.jp2"}, "357": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 323\\nSuch have, for many centuries, been the doctrines of the\\nlarger portion of the professed followers of Christ, that faith\\nhas been formally disconnected from reason and reason, or,\\nas the term is usually qualified, human reason, has been\\nrepresented as its dangerous enemy. From the time of the\\nGnostics to our own, there has always been a very numerous\\nclass, composed of individuals who have held different and\\nopposite tenets, but who have all in common appealed, in\\nsome form or other, to an inward sense, a spiritual discern-\\nment, infallible in its perceptions, surpassing the powers of\\nthe understanding, and superseding their use. The natural\\nman, says St. Paul, meaning the unconverted, him who\\nrejected revelation, receives not the truths of the spirit of\\nGod for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know\\nthem, because they are spiritually discerned; that i$Jo\\nsay, spiritual things, the truths taught by Christianity, are\\nto be discerned only through the light which Christianity\\naffords. But the words of the apostle were early perverted\\nby the theosophic Gnostics f and there are none that have\\nbeen more commonly or more mischievously abused. One\\nmain occasion of the existence, not only of the Gnostics, but\\nof other sects of religionists, has been the vanity of belonging\\nto a spiritual aristocracy, from which good sense, learning,\\nand rational piety only form a ground of exclusion. Those\\nGnostics, with their pretence to spiritual discernment, had no\\nmore difficulty than later sects in finding what they looked\\nfor in the teachings of Christ.\\nThe ease with which different parties among Christians\\nhave discovered apparent support for doctrines the most\\nirrational has been essentially connected with a fundamental\\nerror respecting the nature of those writings which compose\\nthe Old and New Testaments. All these writings, so different\\n1 Cor. ii. 14. f Irenams, lib. i. c. S, 3, p. 39.", "height": "4560", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0357.jp2"}, "358": {"fulltext": "324 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nin character and value, have been represented as constituting\\nthe Revelation from God. They have been ascribed to God\\nas their proper author the human writers being considered\\nonly as agents under his immediate direction. When, there-\\nfore, all these different writers, with all their imperfect and\\nerroneous conceptions, were thus transformed into infallible\\ndivine instructors, there is no wonder, that their words, even\\nif correctly understood, should afford support for many errors.\\nBut, beside the direct consequence of this fundamental misap-\\nprehension, there has been an indirect consequence not less\\nimportant. The words contained in the books of the Old\\nand New Testaments being regarded as the words, not of men,\\nbut of God, the rational principles of interpretation, which\\nwould apply to them as the words of men, have been set\\naside. These principles would lead us to study the respective\\ncharacters of the authors of those books, and the various influ-\\nences which were acting upon them, and to make ourselves\\nacquainted with the particular occasion and purpose of their\\ndifferent writings, and with the characters, circumstances,\\nopinions, errors, and modes of expression of those for whom\\ntheir writings were immediately intended and when we had\\nthus enabled ourselves, as far as possible, to sympathize with\\nthem, we should determine their meaning with a constant\\nregard to the considerations which we had thus grouped\\ntogether. But such knowledge is foreign from the purpose,\\nif the books to be explained are not properly the works of\\nhuman authors. It has, accordingly, been disregarded. The\\nessential elements and rules of a correct interpretation have\\nbeen neglected and the work of explaining the Scriptures\\nhas been denied to reason and judgment, and delivered over\\nto men s preconceptions, caprices, imaginations, and spiritual\\ndiscernment. The consequence has been, that, in the per-\\nformance of this work, we may find all varieties of error,\\nfrom the wildest allegories and cabalistic follies, down to\\nthe imposition of verbal meanings which are verbal or moral", "height": "4580", "width": "2912", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0358.jp2"}, "359": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 325\\nabsurdities. The false modes of interpretation common in\\ntheir day afforded the theosophic Gnostics, as false modes of\\ninterpretation have afforded later sects, a ready means of ap-\\n]3arently reconciling their opinions with the Scriptures.\\nEvery one acquainted with theological controversy must\\nbe familiar with the fact, that, in defending doctrines contrary\\nto the teaching of Christ, a few texts are seized upon, the\\nwords of which, when standing alone, admit an interpretation\\nfavorable to those doctrines and that their defenders, fixing\\ntheir attention on these texts, are able to close their eyes to\\nthe whole opposing tenor of the Xew Testament. But the\\nGnostics could have been in no want of such texts as might\\nreadily be accommodated to the support of their fundamental\\ndoctrine, that the God of the Jews was not the God of\\nChristians. Marcion wrote a work on this subject, which he\\nentitled ki Antitheses/ the main object of which was to point\\nout the contrariety between the representations given by\\nChrist of his Father, and those given of God in the Old\\nTestament.^ The opposition between Christianity and some\\nof the views of religion and morals presented in the Penta-\\nteuch (which I have had occasion to remark) furnished the\\nGnostics with a storehouse of arguments from Scripture. As\\nregards another principal point, the claim set up by the the-\\nosophic Gnostics to be by nature the chosen, or the elect, of\\nGod, as being the spiritual, they could have found no more\\ndifficulty in supporting their pretensions from the Xew\\nTestament, than one of those who, since their day. have\\nclaimed to be elected as the spiritual through a decree of\\nGod, irrespective of any merits of their own. Similar modes\\nof misinterpretation would apply as well in the one case as\\nthe other, and furnish a similar harvest of apparent proofs.\\nTertullian. advers. Marcion., lib. i. c. 19, p. 374; lib. iv. c. 1, p. 413,\\nC. 6, p. 416.", "height": "4544", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0359.jp2"}, "360": {"fulltext": "326 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nAfter these general remarks, we will proceed to consider\\nmore particularly the means by which the Gnostics reconciled\\ntheir doctrines with their Christian faith. The inquiry is one\\nof particular interest, on account of the proof which it affords\\nthat the Gnostics had no other Gospel-history than that which\\nwas common to them with the catholic Christians and with\\nourselves and that, together with the catholic Christians,\\nthey used some one, or all, of our present Gospels, as the\\nonly document or documents of any value respecting the min-\\nistry of Christ.\\nIn the first place, then, the theosophic Gnostics, in common\\nwith the catholic Christians, applied the allegorical mode of\\ninterpretation to the New Testament. Neglecting the proper\\nmeaning of words, they educed from them mystical senses.\\nOf these, I have already, in the course of this work, produced\\nexamples and many more are given by their early oppo-\\nnents, particularly by Irenseus. This afforded a ready means\\nof accommodating the language of the New Testament to\\ntheir conceptions. But their whole system of interpretation\\nwas, besides, arbitrary, and unsupported by any correct prin-\\nciples. The vocabulary of the theosophic Gnostics, like that\\nof other erring sects, consisted, in great part, of words from\\nthe New Testament, on which they had imposed new senses.\\nThe names of the JEons most frequently mentioned were\\nborrowed from the New Testament and, as the same name\\nwas applied by them to different individuals, as the name\\nof God, for example, was given both to the Gnostic Creator\\nand to the Supreme Being, and that of Jesus both to the .iEon\\nso named and to the man Jesus, it thus became easy for\\nthem, on the one hand, to find supposed references to their\\ntheory, and, on the other, to explain away much that was\\ninconsistent with it.\\nLike other false expositors of Scripture, the Gnostics\\ndetached particular passages from their connection, and in-", "height": "4556", "width": "2948", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0360.jp2"}, "361": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 327\\nfused a foreign meaning into the words. Irenreus, after\\nsaying that they appealed to unwritten tradition as a source\\nof their knowledge, o oes on to remark, that, twisting, ac-\\ncording to the proverb, a rope of sand, they endeavor to\\naccommodate, in a plausible manner, to their doctrines the\\nparables of the Lord, the declarations of the prophets, or\\nthe words of the apostles, so that their fiction may not seem\\nto be without proof. But they neglect the order and connec-\\ntion of the Scriptures, and disjoin, as far as they are able,\\nthe members of the truth. They transpose and refashion,\\nand, making one thing out of another, they deceive many by\\na fabricated show of the words of the Lord which they put\\ntogether. The Gnostics, according to him. in thus putting\\ntogether proofs from Scripture, resembled one who, taking a\\nmosaic representing a king, should separate the stones, and\\nthen form them into the likeness of a dog or a fox.| He\\nafterwards compares them to those who made centos from\\nlines of Homer, by which some story was told altogether\\nforeign from any thing in his works 4 They allowed, he\\nsays, that the unknown God, and the transactions within the\\nPleroma, were not plainly declared by the Saviour, because\\nall had not capacity to receive such knowledge but, to those\\nwho were able to understand them, they were signified by\\nhim mystically and in parables.\\nIn addition to these modes of interpretation, the theosophic\\nGnostics likewise maintained a principle similar to a funda-\\nmental doctrine of the Roman Catholics namely, that reli-\\ngious truth could not be learned from the Scriptures alone,\\nwithout the aid of the oral instructions of Christ and his\\napostles, as preserved by tradition. When, says Irenreus,\\nCont. Haeres., lib. i. c 8, 1, p. 36. For aooia, in the last sentence, I\\nadopt the reading. (JKLyraola, or (pavrdaiiari. See Massuet s note.\\nf Ibid. Lib. i. c. 9, 4, pp. 45, 46.\\nLib. i. c. 3, 1, p. 14; lib. ii. c. 10, 1, p. 126; c. 27, 2, p. 155.", "height": "4552", "width": "2636", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0361.jp2"}, "362": {"fulltext": "828 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthey are confuted by proofs from the Scriptures, they turn\\nand accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not\\ncorrect, nor of authority they say that they contain contra-\\ndictions, and that the truth cannot be discovered from them\\nby those who are ignorant of tradition. For that it was not\\ndelivered in writing, but orally whence Paul said, We\\nspeak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this\\nworld. The heretics, says Tertullian, pretend that\\nthe apostles did not reveal all things to all, but taught some\\ndoctrines openly to every one, some secretly, and to a few\\nonly. t What was peculiar in their own doctrines they\\nregarded as that esoteric teaching which had come down to\\nthem by oral tradition.\\nConformably to this, the Gnostics, in particular cases,\\npointed out certain individuals, supposed disciples of the\\napostles, from whom their leaders had received their systems.\\nThus, Valentinus was said to have been taught by Theodas,\\nan acquaintance of Paul, and Basilides by Glaucias, a com-\\npanion of Peter. It would seem, likewise, from a single\\npassage in Clement of Alexandria, that the Gnostics gener-\\nally boasted that their opinions were favored by Matthias,\\nwho was chosen an apostle in the place of Judas. Though\\nthe remark is not made by Clement, yet it is evident that\\nthis appeal to the authority of a particular apostle one of\\nwhom scarcely any thing is now known, and of whom it\\nfollows that scarcely any thing was known in the second\\ncentury proves that the Gnostics did not appeal with any\\nconfidence to the authority of the other apostles.\\nIrenseus earnestly opposes the doctrine of a secret oral\\ntradition. U But it was maintained by Clement as expressly\\nand fully as by the Gnostics. It was altogether consistent\\nLib. iii. c 2, 1, p. 174.\\nt De Praescriptione Haereticerum, cap. 25, p. 210.\\nClement. Al. Stromat., vii. 17, p. 898. Ibid., p. 900.\\nActs i. 26. If Cont. Haeres., lib. iii. capp. 2-4, pp. 174-179.", "height": "4584", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0362.jp2"}, "363": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 329\\nwith his conceptions, that the more recondite truths of\\nphilosophy were to be exhibited under a veil, and not to\\nbe communicated to the generality. This higher knowledge,\\nthe philosophy of Christianity, to which he gave the same\\nname (yvcaotg) which the Gnostics gave to their specula-\\ntions, he supposed was to be attained only by those who\\nwere in his view true Gnostics (jvwotmoi), that is, truly\\nenlightened. The greater number of Christians had only\\nsimple faith, faith in the essential truths of Christianity,\\nwhich was sufficient for them. On this faith, as its founda-\\ntion, all higher knowledge rested. 5 It was the notion of\\nClement, that the secret wisdom of which he speaks was first\\ncommunicated by our Lord to Peter, James, John, and Paul,\\nfrom whom it had been transmitted-! Our Lord, he says,\\ndid not at once reveal to many those truths which did not\\nbelong to many but he revealed them to a few to whom he\\nknew them to be adapted, who were capable of receiving\\nthem, and of being conformed to them. But secret things, as\\nGod [meaning, I conceive, philosophical speculations con-\\ncerning God], are committed, not to writing, but to oral dis-\\ncourses. t\\nThis notion of a secret tradition is not found in Justin\\nMartyr, Irenasus, or Tertullian. When the two latter speak\\nof tradition, they mean that traditionary knowledge of the\\nhistory and doctrines of Christianity which necessarily ex-\\nisted among Christians. It is described by Irenaeus as a\\ntradition manifest throughout the world, and to be found in\\nevery church. By it, he says, a knowledge of our religion\\nwas preserved without books among believers in barbarous\\nnations. At the end of about a century from the preaching\\nof the apostles, there must have been, throughout the com-\\nSee, among many passages to this effect, Stromat., vii. pp. S90, 891.\\nt Stromat., i p. 322. Etiam apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. ii. c. 1.\\nt Stromat., i. p. 323. Lib. iii. c. 3, 1, p. 175.\\nIbid., c. 4, 2, p. 178.", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0363.jp2"}, "364": {"fulltext": "330 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmunities which they had formed, a general acquaintance with\\nwhat they had taught, even had no written records of our\\nreligion been extant. In regard, likewise, to facts important\\nin their reference to Christianity, as, for example, the genu-\\nineness of the books of the New Testament, the Christians\\nof the last half of the second century must have relied on the\\ntestimony of their predecessors. It is this traditionary knowl-\\nedge concerning Christianity, not secret, but open to all, which\\nIrenseus and Tertullian appeal to, with justifiable confidence,\\nin their reasonings against the heretics, when they distinguish\\nbetween the evidence from tradition and the evidence from\\nScripture. The tradition of which they speak is altogether\\ndifferent from the secret tradition of Clement.\\nThe origin of the opinion common to Clement and to the\\ntheosophic Gnostics may be explained by the supposition,\\nthat inferences, true or false, from the truths taught by\\nChrist and his apostles, and theories built on those truths,\\nwere conceived of, and represented, as having been taught by\\nthem and, since it did not appear that they made a part of\\ntheir public teaching, the notion in consequence grew up, that\\nthey were taught by them privately. This notion would ally\\nitself with the conceptions of both Clement and the Gnostics\\nconcerning that higher esoteric wisdom which few only were\\ncapable of receiving. In holding their common belief, it is\\nprobable that neither had a distinct conception of what was\\nembraced in the tradition the existence of which they as-\\nserted. It appears from the whole tenor of the Stromata of\\nClement, that, in his view, the true knowledge, which, in\\nunion with accordant virtues, constituted an enlightened\\nChristian (his Gnostic), in the highest sense of the words,\\ncomprehended the whole compass of intellectual philosophy,\\nand particularly all that can be known by men respecting the\\nnature, attributes, and operations of God. If he had been\\nInstead of producing at length the authorities and reasons for this", "height": "4584", "width": "2920", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0364.jp2"}, "365": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 331\\nasked, whether he believed that all this knowledge had\\nbeen handed down by a secret tradition, the question might\\nhave presented the subject to his mind under a new aspect,\\nbut he undoubtedly would have answered in the negative.\\nHad he then been requested to point out what particular part\\nof it he conceived to have been thus handed down, I think he\\nwould have been embarrassed by the inquiry.\\nIn connection with their notion of a secret tradition, the\\nGnostics, or some of the Gnostics, said, according to Irenasus,\\nstatement, which would carry us too far away from our main purpose, I will\\nquote a few sentences from the valuable work of the present Bishop of Lin-\\ncoln (Dr. Kaye), entitled Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of\\nClement of Alexandria. It is the most important work on the subject\\nof which it treats. The author says (pp. 238-241)\\nBy yvtioig [the higher esoteric knowledge] Clement understood the\\nperfect knowledge of all that relates to God, his nature and dispensa-\\ntions. The Gnostic [Clement s Gnostic] comprehends not only the First\\nCause and the Cause begotten by him [the Logos], and is fixed in his no-\\ntions concerning them, possessing firm and immovable reasons; but also,\\nhaving learned from the truth itself, he possesses the most accurate truth\\nfrom the foundation of the world to the end, concerning good and evil, and\\nthe whole creation, and, in a word, concerning all which the Lord spake\\nWith respect to the source from which this knowledge is derived, Clement\\nsays, that it was imparted by Christ to Peter, James, John, and Paul, and\\nby them delivered down to their successors in the Church. It was not\\ndesigned for the multitude, but communicated to those only who were capa-\\nble of receiving it; orally, not by writing.\\nThe notions of Clement respecting this sacred tradition are not only to be\\ndistinguished from the reasonable conceptions of other fathers respecting that\\npublic traditionary knowledge concerning Christianity which necessarily\\nexisted among Christians, but equally also from an opinion which began to\\nprevail in the latter half of the fourth century, and which has become funda-\\nmental in the Roman-Catholic Church. This opinion is, that certain doctrines\\nand rites, which are not to be kept secret, but are to be made known to all,\\nand to be believed or practised by all, are not expressly taught or enjoined\\nin the Xew Testament, but are derived from the oral teaching or the appoint-\\nment of Christ or his apostles, a knowledge of which has been preserved by\\ntradition. This principle was, perhaps, first clearly avowed by Basil of\\nCaesarea, in the latter half of the fourth century, in his treatise, Concerning\\nthe Holy Spirit.", "height": "4540", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0365.jp2"}, "366": {"fulltext": "OoZ EVIDENCES OF THE\\nthat the apostles, practising dissimulation, accommodated\\ntheir doctrine to the capacity of their hearers, and their\\nanswers to the previous conceptions of those who questioned\\nthem, talking blindly with the blind, weakly with the weak,\\nand conformably to their error with those who were in error\\nand that thus they preached the Creator to those who thought\\nthat the Creator was the only God, but to those able to\\ncomprehend the unknown Father they communicated this\\nunspeakable mystery in parables and enigmas. Some,\\nsays Irenaeus, ik impudently contend, that the apostles, preach-\\ning among the Jews, could not announce any other God but\\nhim in whom the Jews had believed. f\\nAgain some of the Gnostics, especially the Marcionites,\\nmaintained that Paul was far superior to the other apostles\\nin the knowledge of the truth the hidden doctrine having\\nbeen manifested to him by revelation. t They represented\\nthe other apostles as having been entangled by Jewish preju-\\ndices, from which he was in a great measure free. Hence\\nTertullian, in one place, calls him the Apostle of the Here-\\ntics. In support of this opinion, Marcion relied much on\\nthat passage in the Epistle to the Galatians in which Paul\\nrepresents himself as having reproved Peter and Barnabas\\nfor not acting conformably to the principles of Christianity,\\nbut by their conduct compelling the Gentiles to Judaize,\\nthat is, to observe the Levitical Law.^1 Marcion regarded\\nthe Gospels as expressing the false Jewish opinions of their\\nwriters. But among the Gospels he conceived that there\\nwas ground for making a choice and he selected, for his\\nown use and that of his followers, the Gospel of Luke, the\\nLib. iii. cap. 5, 1, p. 179. t Ibid., cap. 12, 6, p. 195.\\nIbid c. 13, 1, p. 200. Advers. Marcion., lib. iii. c. 5, p. 399.\\nChap. ii. 11, seqq.\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 3, pp. 414, 415; lib. i. c. 20, p. 375: conf.\\nDe Prescript. Heretic, c. 23, p. 210.", "height": "4560", "width": "2908", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0366.jp2"}, "367": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 833\\ncompanion of Paul. This lie further adapted to his purpose\\nby rejecting from it what he viewed as conformed to those\\nopinions. Nor did he consider Paul himself as wholly free\\nfrom Jewish errors, but likewise struck out, from those of his\\nEpistles which he used, the passages in which he thought\\nthem to be expressed.\\nSometimes, according to Irenaeus, the Gnostics, apparently\\nwithout making an exception in favor of St. Paul, charged\\nthe apostles generally with Jewish errors and ignorance con-\\ncerning the higher truths and mysteries of religion. All\\nthose, he says, who hold pernicious doctrines, have departed\\nid their faith from Him who is God, and think that they have\\nfound out more than the apostles, having discovered another\\nGod. They think that the apostles preached the Gospel\\nwhile yet under the influence of Jewish prejudices, but that\\ntheir own faith is purer, and that they are wiser than the\\napostles. He states that Marcion proceeded on these prin-\\nciples in rejecting the use of some of the books of Scripture,\\nand of portions of those which he retained.^ The heretics,\\nsays Tertullian, u are accustomed to affirm that the apostles\\ndid not know all things while at other times, under the\\ninfluence of the same madness, they turn about, and maintain,\\nthat the apostles did indeed know all things, but did not\\nteach all things to all. t I cannot help wondering, says\\nClement of Alexandria, how some dare to call themselves\\nperfect, and Gnostics, thinking themselves superior to the\\napostles. But the theosophic Gnostics did not stop here.\\nIremeus, after saying that the heretics, when confuted from\\nthe Scriptures, appealed to oral tradition, goes on thus But\\nwhen we, on the other hand, appeal to that tradition which,\\nproceeding from the apostles, has been preserved in the\\nChurch by a succession of elders, then they oppose tradition,\\nLib. iii. c, 12, 12, p. 198. f De Prescript. Heretic, c. 22, p. 209.\\nPsedagogus, lib. i. c. 6, pp. 128, 129.", "height": "4560", "width": "2660", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0367.jp2"}, "368": {"fulltext": "334 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nsaying that they, being not only wiser than the elders, but\\nwiser than the apostles, have discovered the pure truth. For\\nthe apostles, they say, mixed their legal notions with the\\nwords of the Saviour and not only the apostles, but the Lord\\nhimself, spoke sometimes from the Creator [as the Messiah\\nof the Creator], sometimes from the Middle Space [that is,\\nconformably to the spiritual nature which he had derived\\nfrom Achamoth], and sometimes from the highest height [as\\nthe JEon Christ from the Pleroma] but that they them-\\nselves know with full assurance the hidden mystery, un-\\nmixed, in all its purity. f The opinion of the Gnostics,\\nhere expressed, concerning the discourses of Christ, is analo-\\ngous to the Orthodox doctrine, still extant, that he spoke\\nsometimes as a man, sometimes as God, and sometimes in\\nhis mediatorial character, as neither God nor man simply,\\nbut as both united and that, as a man, he was ignorant of\\nwhat, being God, he knew.\\nThere is nothing to object to the general proposition of the\\nGnostics, that the apostles were under the influence of Jew-\\nish prejudices, nor to the proof which they brought of this\\nfact from the conduct of Beter and Barnabas, which was\\nreproved by Paul. Their extravagance consisted in the\\nirrational misapplication which they made of this principle.\\nThe spirit of God, which enlightened the minds of the apos-\\ntles as to all essential truths of religion, did not deliver them\\nAccording to the verbal construction of the old Latin Translation of\\nIrenreus, which is here our authority, and which I have followed in my\\ntranslation, though not in my exposition, these clauses apply equally to the\\napostles as to Christ. But I cannot think that this meaning was intended\\nby Irenseus, or, at least, that this was the meaning of the Gnostics. Irenreus\\nelsewhere (lib. i. c. 7, 3, p. 34) gives a similar account of their opinions re-\\nspecting the preaching of Christ, without mentioning the apostles. Nor is\\nthere any probability that the Gnostics believed in the inspiration of men\\nfrom the Pleroma, which opinion would be implied in the supposition that\\nthe apostles sometimes spoke from the highest height.\\nf Lib. iii. c. 2, 2, p. 175.", "height": "4560", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0368.jp2"}, "369": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 335\\nfrom all error, and transform them into all-wise and all-\\nknowing philosophers. But, if the apostles were liable to\\nany errors, they were particularly exposed to the influence of\\nthose in which they had been educated, and could hardly\\nescape being more or less affected by the inveterate concep-\\ntions and errors of their countrymen. It being the object of\\nthe Gnostics to separate Judaism from Christianity, and to\\ndistinguish the God of the Jews from the God of Christians,\\nthey naturally seized upon this truth to effect their purpose\\nand as no strongly marked line can be drawn, defining the\\nsphere within which alone the apostles were liable to error,\\nthey applied, or rather misapplied, a principle, correct in\\nitself, to ail cases in which the words of the apostles so\\nexplicitly contradicted their doctrine, as to be incapable, by\\nany force, of being conformed to it.\\nIt remains to add a few words concerning the belief of the\\ntheosophic Gnostics in their own infallible spiritual knowl-\\nedge. This they conceived of as the result of their spiritual\\nnature. They object to us, says Clement of Alexandria,\\nthat we are of another nature, and unable to comprehend\\ntheir peculiar doctrines. A similar pretension to that of\\nthe Gnostics has been common among Christians. An\\nessential doctrine of the Roman-Catholic Church is its own\\ninfallibility, an infallibility which must reside in some of its\\nindividual members. Among the sects into which Protes-\\ntants have been divided, the generality have, at least in the\\nearlier stages of their growth, maintained the principle,\\nexpressed in the perverted language of St. Paul, that spir-\\nitual things are spiritually discerned, and have, of course\\nconfined this unerring spiritual discernment to themselves.\\nCalvin taught that the first step in the school of the Lord\\nis to renounce human reason.f For, as if a veil were inter-\\nStroniat, vii. 16, pp. 891, 892. f Humana perspicacia.", "height": "4560", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0369.jp2"}, "370": {"fulltext": "336 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nposed, it hinders us from attaining to the mysteries of God,\\nwhich are not revealed but to little children and, after\\nthese words, he proceeds to quote, as might be expected, the\\noften-quoted passage of St. Paul just referred to. Even\\nthe genuineness and inspiration of the books of the Bible,\\nor, as he expresses it, the fact that they had proceeded from\\nthe very mouth of God (ah ipsissimo Dei ore ftuxisse),\\nwere not to be submitted to reasoning and arguments, but\\nwere spiritually discerned so as to be known with the same\\ncertainty as men know that black is not white, and sweet is\\nnot bitter. f The theosophic Gnostics, in expressing their\\nsense of the incapacity of common Christians to understand\\ntheir doctrines, could not have used stronger language than\\nthat of Calvin concerning the natural blindness of the unre-\\ngenerate to the truths of religion. It was, in his view, the\\nspiritual illumination of the elect which enabled them clearly\\nto discern these truths or, in other words, clearly to discern\\nthe identity of the system which he taught with the teachings\\nof Christ.\\nThe Gnostics, as we have seen, were equally able with\\nCalvin to identify their systems with Christianity. In the\\nmodes by which they effected their purpose, we may observe\\nthe same operations of the human mind as have been going\\non from their day to our own. One of the most effectual\\nmeans of checking their further progress is, by directing atten-\\ntion to the extravagances to which they lead. It is a main\\nadvantage resulting from the study of obsolete errors, and\\none which this study alone can furnish, that, as we have no\\nprejudices in their favor, we are able, without disturbance, to\\ntrace them to their sources and when those sources are dis-\\ncovered, we may perceive that they are still in full action\\nproducing new errors, or more commonly, perhaps, repro-\\nInstitut., lib. iii. c. 2, 34. f Ibid., lib. i. c. 7.", "height": "4560", "width": "2904", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0370.jp2"}, "371": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 337\\nducing old ones under a new form. It may be doubted,\\nwhether a History of Human Folly would not be a more\\ninstructive work than our Histories of Philosophy but its\\ncontents would not be throughout so different from theirs as\\nits different title might lead one to expect.\\nAmong the Gospels, the Marcionites used only their copy ,._\\nof that of Luke. To this they joined ten Epistles of St. Paul,\\nfrom which, as from the Gospel, they rejected certain pas-\\nsages, as I have before mentioned. On this history of Christ,\\nand on these Epistles, they founded their system, and from\\nthem they reasoned. They appealed to them as freely and\\nconfidently as did the catholic Christians, and the theosophic\\nGnostics, to the books of the New Testament in general.\\nThe arguments which they drew from them are presented to\\nview in the writings of their opponents, especially of Tertul-\\nlian. From those books they derived their knowledge of\\nChrist and of Christianity. It does not appear that they\\nmade a pretence to any exclusive spiritual discernment, or\\nthat they relied on any secret tradition. It does appear that\\nthey made no use of any other history of Christ besides the\\nGospel of Luke. No apocryphal gospel is said to have been\\nextant among them. They are never charged with having\\nrested their system, wholly or in part, on any such gospel.\\nBut, had there been ground for the charge, it would undoubt-\\nedly have been made. The controversy between them and\\nthe catholic Christians would have brought out such a fact\\nwith the broadest distinctness. It would have been, to say\\nthe least, as much insisted upon as the fact that they struck\\nout some passages from the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles\\nof Paul, notices of w r hich are continually recurring in the\\nwritings of their opponents. Those passages the Marcionites\\nrejected, and they disavowed 4 the authority of the other three\\nGospels, not on the ground that they w^ere not genuine,\\nbut because, believing them to be genuine, they believed\\n22", "height": "4560", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0371.jp2"}, "372": {"fulltext": "338 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ntheir authors to be under the influence of Jewish preju-\\ndices.\\nBut were those which have been mentioned the only means\\nthat the Gnostics made use of to find support for their systems\\nin the real or supposed teaching of Christ? Had they not, as\\nlias been imagined, gospels of their own, presenting a view of\\nhis ^ministry and instructions, different from that contained\\nin the catholic gospels accounts of Christ, which they pre-\\nferred and opposed to those given by the evangelists Every\\none has heard of apocryphal and Gnostic gospels.\\nAs regards the Marcionites, these questions have been\\nanswered. It is evident that they had no such gospels or\\ngospel. Those theosophic Gnostics, who adopted the means\\nthat have been explained of reconciling their doctrines with\\nChristianity, could, likewise, have had no such gospels. It\\nhas appeared, not only in the present chapter, but through-\\nout this work, that their systems, equally with the faith of\\nthe catholic Christians, were founded on the common account\\nof Christ s ministry. In their reasonings, they constantly\\nreferred to the Gospels. They therefore could have received\\nas of authority no history of his ministry which varied essen-\\ntially from those Gospels. Whether they had any other\\nhistories of his ministry, which did not vary essentially from\\nthe Gospels, is an unimportant question, so far as it regards\\nthe main purpose which we have in view. For, if those\\nhistories proceeded from authors who wrote from independent\\nsources of information, they would serve, by their agreement,\\nto confirm the accounts of the catholic Gospels; while, if\\nthey were merely founded on those Gospels, or on some one\\nof them, they would serve to show the authority which the\\nlatter had very early attained.\\nBut a question may be virtually settled without all the\\nexplanation having been given which is necessary to our", "height": "4584", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0372.jp2"}, "373": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 339\\nsatisfaction, and to a full understanding of the subject. After\\nall that has appeared, the inquiry may still recur, What, then,\\nwere those apocryphal and Gnostic gospels about which so\\nmuch has been said To this inquiry I propose to give an\\nanswer in the next chapter.", "height": "4552", "width": "2612", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0373.jp2"}, "374": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER VIII.\\non the question, whether the gnostics opposed to\\nthe four gospels any other written histories or\\nhistory of Christ s ministry.\\nThis question will lead us to consider all those books that\\nhave been called apocryphal gospels which we have any reason\\nfor supposing to have been extant during the first two cen-\\nturies, except the Gospel of the- Hebrews and the Gospel of\\nMarcion. We examine elsewhere the grounds for believing\\nthat the former, as it was first used by the Hebrew Chris-\\ntians, was the Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew,\\nthough its text, in some or many copies, may have afterwards\\nbecome much corrupted.^ The latter was merely the Gos-\\npel of Luke mutilated by Marcion. f The authority of\\nneither of these books, therefore, could be opposed to that\\nof the catholic Gospels nor can the epithet apocryphal, with\\nits common associations, be properly applied to them. JSo\\nbook which was not in existence till after the end of the\\nsecond century, could have been used by the Gnostics as a\\nba-is for their opinions, or could, by any sect whatever, have\\nbeen brought into competition with the four Gospels, as an\\noriginal history of Christ s ministry. All that is necessary to\\nbe said in direct reply to the question proposed lies within a\\nSee Note A., section iv.\\nt See Additional Note, C, in vol. Hi. of the former editions of the Genu-\\nineness of the Gospels: On the Gospel of Marcion.", "height": "4560", "width": "2936", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0374.jp2"}, "375": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 341\\nsmall compass. But the subject of apocryphal gospels, as\\nwell as that of apocryphal books in general, has been treated\\nin such a manner as necessarily to produce confused and\\nerroneous conceptions respecting them. It is a subject which\\ndemands explanation, where argument is not needed and the\\ninquiry on which we are about to enter will, through its\\nincidental relations, extend much beyond the second century,\\nand embrace books which were not extant till long after that\\nperiod.*\\nIn respect to the apocryphal gospels, the modern writer, whose informa-\\ntion is principally relied on, is Fabricius In his Codex Apocryphus Novi\\nTestamenti, he has given a full and accurate account of all the passages\\nrelating to them which are to be found in ancient writers. I say, a full and\\naccurate account; because his work has now sustained that reputation\\nunquestioned for more than a century. Fabricius, however, has merely\\nbrought together a mass of materials, without applying them to the illustra-\\ntion of any fact whatever. He has not arranged the books which he treats\\nof chronologically, with reference to the period when they are first mentioned,\\nor when they may be supposed to have appeared. Such an arrangement\\nwould at once show, that far the greater number deserve no consideration\\nfrom any supposable bearing on the authority of the Gospels. He has\\narranged them in the alphabetical order of their titles, which tends to produce\\nthe impression, that they all equally deserve attention.\\nFabricius was followed by Jones in the first two volumes of his New and\\nFull Method of settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament\\nBut the principal value of Jones s work consists in its giving, in an English\\ndress, the information to be found in Fabricius, and in the republication of\\nsome of the later apocryphal writings (also published by Fabricius) with\\nEnglish translations. He had no clear comprehension of his own purpose in\\nwriting; and his views and reasonings only tend to perplex the subject. He\\nfollows Fabricius in arranging the books in the alphabetical order of their\\ntitles.\\nIn 1832, J. C. Thilo published the first volume of his Codex Apocryphus\\nNovi Testamenti, a work commenced on an extensive plan, but of which\\nno other portion has appeared. The first volume contains the later apocry-\\nphal writings, which had previously been published, with others in addition,\\nall apparently edited in a careful and thorough manner, with Prolegomena\\nand notes It contains also the Gospel of Luke used by Marcion, as restored\\nby Hahn, who has made Marcion s Gospel a particular subject of study.\\nI shall refer to the three works which I have mentioned, by the names of\\nthen respective authors. The copy of Fabricius which I use is of the second", "height": "4560", "width": "2620", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0375.jp2"}, "376": {"fulltext": "342 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nI begin by stating the most important considerations re-\\nspecting the question proposed and I hope to be excused for\\nsome repetition in hereafter recalling attention to them with\\nreference to different writings.\\nOf the controversy carried on by the catholic Christians\\nwith the Yalentinians and the Marcionites, we have,* as has\\nbeen seen, abundant remains. The opinions and arguments\\nof those heretics are brought forward in order to be confuted\\nand though we may not regard them as fully and fairly\\nstated, yet, on the other hand, it cannot be supposed that any\\nstriking peculiarity in their opinions, or any main topic of\\ntheir reasoning, has been passed over in silence. If they had\\nopposed other histories of Christ to the four Gospels, if they\\nhad relied for the support of their systems on accounts of his\\nministry different from those we now possess, we should find\\nfrequent notices of the fact. If they and the catholic Chris-\\ntians had been at issue on the question, which among dis-\\ncordant histories of Christ was to be received as authentic,\\nthis would necessarily have been the main point in contro-\\nversy, the question to be settled before all others. We find\\nin the case of the Marcionites, that their confining themselves\\nto the use of a mutilated copy of Luke s Gospel is a circum-\\nstance continually presented to view and we have particular\\nnotices of the use which other heretics made of a few passages\\nrelating to Christ, not found in the evangelists. The fathers\\nwere eager to urge against the Gnostics the charges of cor-\\nrupting and contemning the Scriptures, and of fabricating\\napocryphal writings. Had there been occasion to make it,\\nthey would not have passed over what in their view would\\nhave been a far graver allegation, that the Gnostics pretended\\nto set up other histories of Christ in opposition to those re-\\nedition, printed in 1719, in three parts. That of Jones is of the Oxford edition,\\nprinted in 1798.", "height": "4584", "width": "2928", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0376.jp2"}, "377": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 343\\nceived by the great body of Christians. Such a fact, from its\\nvery nature, neither would nor could have remained unno-\\nticed. Ample evidence of it must have come down to\\nus and, if. no evidence is to be found, we may conclude\\nwithout hesitation, that the Gnostics made no pretence to\\nhaving more authentic histories of Christ than the Gospels.\\nWhat, then, is the state of the case I answer, in the\\nfirst place, that Irenaeus and Tertullian were the two prin-\\ncipal writers against the Gnostics, and from their works it\\ndoes not appear that the Yalentinians, the Marcionites, or\\nany other Gnostic sect, adduced, in support of their opinions,\\na single narrative relating to the public ministry of Christ,\\nbesides what is found in the Gospels. It does not appear\\nthat they ascribed to him a single sentence of any imaginable\\nimportance, which the evangelists have not transmitted. It\\ndoes not appear that any sect appealed to the authority of any\\nhistory of his public ministry, besides the Gospels, except\\nso far as the Marcionites, in their use of an imperfect copy\\nof St. Luke s Gospel, may be regarded as forming a verbal\\nexception to this remark. The question, then, which we\\nhave proposed for consideration, would seem to be settled.\\nThe Gnostics did not oppose any other history of Christ\\nto the catholic Gospels. Had they done so, it is altogether\\nincredible that the fact should not have been conspicuous\\nthroughout the controversial writings of Irenaeus and Tertul-\\nlian.\\nBut what, then, were those ancient books which have been\\ncalled apocryphal gospels I answer, that, with the ex-\\nception of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Marcion,\\nand a narrative which Tatian formed out of the four evange-\\nlists, it is not .probable that any one of them was a professed\\nhistory of Christ s ministry. The main evidence of this fact\\nwill appear from a particular examination of the accounts which\\nhave been given of them. But it may be here observed, that\\nthe name gospel, signifying in its primary meaning u a", "height": "4560", "width": "2620", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0377.jp2"}, "378": {"fulltext": "344 EVIDENCES OF THE\\njoyful message, glad news/ was given as a title to the\\nworks of the evangelists, because they contained an account\\nof the joyful message which Christ gave from heaven to\\nmen. It but indirectly denoted their character as histories\\nof his ministry. The name gospel has ever been used to\\nsignify the whole scheme of Christianity and a book, con-\\ntaining the views of its writer concerning this system, or the\\nviews ascribed by him to a particular apostle, might hence be\\nentitled his gospel, or denominated by him the gospel of that\\napostle. There was a book in common use among the\\nManichaeans, called a gospel, which, as Cyril of Jerusalem\\nexpressly mentions, contained no account of the actions of\\nChrist.^ In later times, in the latter part of the seventeenth\\ncentury, a book was published by Dr. Arthur Bury, which\\nhe entitled The Naked Gospel. Another work appeared\\nabout the same time in Germany, which was called The\\nEternal Gospel and another with the same title was pro-\\nduced in the thirteenth century.t It is not improbable, like-\\nwise, that the fathers may have used the term gospel in\\nthe same way in which it has been used by controvertists\\nin modern times, when they have charged their opponents\\nwith teaching another gospel. There is a French book\\nentitled The New Gospel of Cardinal Pallavicini, revealed\\nby him in his History of the Council of Trent I Scioppius,\\nin one of his letters, talks of the fifth gospel of Luther\\nand the Jesuit Rene Rapin published against the Jansenists a\\nwork which he called The Gospel of the Jansenists.\\nThus in ancient times the charge of teaching a new gospel\\nmight occasion the title gospel to be given to some book\\nby which it was not assumed or even lead to the false\\nIt is ascribed by him to Scythianus as its author. Catachesis, vi. 13,\\np. 92.\\nf Fabricius, i. 337*, 338. Ibid., i. 339, note.\\nLa Roche s Memoirs of Literature, vol. ii. p. 252.\\nU Fabricius, i. 339, note.", "height": "4560", "width": "2940", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0378.jp2"}, "379": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 345\\nsupposition, that there was some book which bore that title,\\nor to which it might be applied, when no such book existed.\\nAmong what have been called the Gnostic gospels, we find,\\nas I have formerly mentioned, one under the name of The\\nGospel of Eve, probably used by the Ophians, which pro-\\nfessed to contain that wisdom which Eve learned from the\\nSerpent. This gospel, therefore, was not a history of the\\nministry of Christ.* Nor can we reasonably suppose that\\nthis character was ascribed to another, said to be in use\\namong the Cainites, called The Gospel of Judas, meaning\\nJudas Iscariot.f Epiphanius mentions a book as in use\\namong Gnostics, which he says was named The Gospel of\\nPerfection. t Its title, and the brief account which he\\ngives of it, imply that it was not an historical book, if indeed\\nany such book existed. These remarks are merely prelimi-\\nnary. As we proceed, I trust it will appear that there is no\\nground for believing that any work which may properly be\\ncalled a Gnostic gospel was a professed history of Christ s min-\\nistry, or that any history of his ministry was in circulation\\nduring the second century, among either the catholic Chris-\\ntians or the Gnostics, besides the catholic Gospels, and books,\\nlike those of Marcion and Tatian, founded upon one or all of\\nthem.\\nWith this understanding of what might be meant by the\\ntitle gospel, let us next inquire what we may find respect-\\ning Gnostic or apocryphal gospels in Irenaeus and Tertul-\\nlian.\\nTertullian often mentions the mutilated copy of Luke s\\nGospel used by the Marcionites. But this, as I have said,\\nshould not be spoken of as an apocryphal gospel. He no-\\nSee p. 279, seqq. f Irenaeus, lib. i. c. 31, 1, p. 112.\\nX- Hseres xxvi. 2, p. 83.", "height": "4560", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0379.jp2"}, "380": {"fulltext": "346 EVIDENCES OP THE\\nwhere, throughout his writings, ascribes to the Gnostics the\\nuse of any proper Gnostic gospel, in any sense of the term\\ngospel. He nowhere speaks of any apocryphal gospel\\nwhatever, or intimates a knowledge of the existence of such\\na book. The conclusion is unavoidable. Either he did not\\nknow of the existence of any such book, or, if he did, he re-\\ngarded it as too obscure and unimportant to deserve notice.\\nBut neither could have been the case in respect to any book\\nwhich the Gnostics brought into competition with the Gos-\\npels.\\nOnce, and once only, Irenaeus speaks of what he calls a\\ngospel, as used by the Valentinians, in addition to the four\\nGospels. He thus expresses himself concerning it The\\nfollowers of Valentinus, throwing aside all fear, and bringing\\nforward their own compositions, boast that they have more\\ngospels than there are. For they have proceeded to such\\nboldness as to entitle a book not long since written by them\\nThe True Gospel, [verbally The Gospel of the Truth,\\na book which agrees in no respect with the Gospels of the\\napostles, so that not even the Gospel can exist among them\\nwithout blasphemy. For if that which is brought forward\\nby them be the true Gospel, but differ at the same time from\\nthose Gospels which have been handed down to us by the\\napostles (those who wish may learn in what manner from the\\nwritings themselves), then it is evident that the Gospel\\nhanded down by the apostles is not the true Gospel.\\nThe author of the Addition to Tertullian, probably copy-\\nSi enim quod ab iis profertur veritatis est Evangelium, dissimile est\\nautem hoc illis [sc. Evangeliis] quae ab Apostolis nobis tradita sunt; (qui\\nvolunt possunt discere quemadmodum ex ipsis scripturis;) ostenditur jam\\nnon esse id quod ab Apostolis traditum est veritatis Evangelium. Lib. iii.\\nc. 11, 9, p. 192. This difficult passage may, perhaps, be thus arranged with\\na change of pointing, a parenthesis, and the printing of scripturis without an\\ninitial capital. But no difference of arrangement or translation is important\\nas regards the present subject.", "height": "4584", "width": "2948", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0380.jp2"}, "381": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 347\\ning Irenasus, says, Yalentinus likewise has his gospel\\nbesides ours. By Yalentinus is here, I presume, meant the\\nYalentinians sects being not unfrequently by the fathers thus\\ndesignated from their leaders. These are the only notices to\\nbe found of the Yalentinians, as a sect, having used any\\nother book called a gospel besides the canonical Gospels.\\nIt is evident from the passage of Irenseus, as well as from\\nmuch other equally unequivocal testimony, that the Yalentin-\\nians received the four Gospels in common use. The charge\\nagainst them is, that they had more gospels than the catholic\\nChristians, that is, one more. This additional gospel, there-\\nfore, could have contained no history of Christ s ministry at\\nvariance with that in the four Gospels, which they also admit-\\nted. But (if such a gospel existed) there is no. probability\\nthat it was an historical book of any sort. It was a gospel, we\\nmay reasonably presume, of the kind before described, contain-\\ning an account of what its author believed to be the doctrines\\nof the Gospel. If it had been a history presenting any addi-\\ntions to the narratives of the evangelists, adopted by the\\nYalentinians to support their opinions, they would have\\nquoted it for this purpose and of the additional accounts,\\nand of the arguments founded upon them, we should have had\\nabundant notices in the writings of their opponents, and in\\nthe fragments still extant of their own. But there are no\\nsuch notices whatever.\\nSuch is the state of the case, if the Yalentinians really had\\namong them a book with the title supposed. But, though\\nthe account of Irenasus, so far as it relates to the existence of\\nthe book, may be correct, there is reason for doubting it alto-\\ngether. If he has fallen into a mistake, it is one that may\\neasily be explained. The Yalentinians, we may suppose, pro-\\nfessed that they alone had the true Gospel, meaning that\\nthey alone held the true doctrines of the Gospel and some\\nDe Prescript. Hasretic, c. 49, p. 222.", "height": "4560", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0381.jp2"}, "382": {"fulltext": "348 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nof their opponents misunderstood them as meaning that they\\npossessed a book with that title. Had they really, as Ire-\\nnreus says, boasted of possessing such a gospel, it must have\\nbeen an important book in reference to the exposition of their\\ndoctrines. But, as I have said, it is nowhere referred to\\nby Irenseus himself, except in the passage just quoted. It is\\nmentioned by no subsequent writer except the author of the\\nAddition to Tertulliau, who probably took his notice of it\\nfrom Irengeus. Tertullian himself, who was well acquainted\\nwith the works of Irenseus, affords proof, by his silence con-\\ncerning it in his writings against the Valentinians, that he\\nwas not aware of its existence, or regarded it as not worth\\nnotice. It follows, therefore, either that Irenseus was in\\nerror in supposing that there was such a book, or that he\\nwas in error in supposing that the Valentinians, generally,\\nattached any importance to it.\\nIrenaeus gives one other title (before mentioned), purport-\\ning to be that of an apocryphal gospel which he supposed\\nto be in existence, and to be called The Gospel of Judas,\\nthat is, of Judas Iscariot. He represents it as having been\\nused by the Cainites. According to him, these heretics were\\ndistinguished by their abominable immorality, by their de-\\ngrading the character of the Creator, and by their celebrating\\nsuch personages in the Old Testament as Cain, Esau, Korah,\\nand the Sodomites. They regarded them as allied to them-\\nselves by the possession of the same spiritual nature, and as\\nhaving been, on account of this nature, persecuted by the\\nCreator. They apparently considered Cain as the head of\\nthe spiritual among men. He was from the higher power\\n(a superior e principalitate). The truth, on these subjects,\\nthey said, was known to Judas alone and in consequence of\\nthis knowledge, u he performed the mystery of delivering up\\nhis master and thus through Judas all things earthly and\\nheavenly [all the works of the Creator] were dissolved.", "height": "4580", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0382.jp2"}, "383": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 349\\nAnd they produce. adds Irenaeus, a fabrication to this\\neffect, calling it The Gospel of Judas. The account of\\nIrenaeus is repeated by Epiphanius and Theodoret.\\nIf there were such a book as Irenasus names, there is no\\nground for believing it to have been a fabricated history of\\nChrist s ministry. But it is highly improbable that any sect\\nor any book existed, such as Irenaeus describes. It is a\\nmoral absurdity to suppose that there was a Christian sect\\nwhich held such doctrines, and were guilty of such vices, as\\nhe imputes to the Camites that there were Christians\\navowing Cain to be their spiritual head, claiming alliance\\nwith the Sodomites, and taking Judas for their religious\\nteacher. Xor would there be much less absurdity in imagin-\\ning that any pseudo- Christian Gnostics exposed themselves\\nin this barefaced manner to infamy and detestation that they\\nclaimed to be on a level with the worst characters in the Old\\nand Xew Testaments, and avowed doctrines at once so mon-\\nstrous, and so intimately connected with Judaism and Chris-\\ntianity. Without supposing the existence of any such sect, it\\nis not difficult to explain the origin of the stories concerning\\nit, in connection with the origin of the name. TTe have good\\nreason to think that the name Xicolaitans was derived\\nfrom passages in the Xew Testament and especially from\\ntwo in the Apocalypse, in which it is applied to those who,\\nhaving professed themselves Christians, indulged in licen-\\ntiousness.! That of Camites, we may suppose, was de-\\nrived from a passage (formerly quoted) in the Epistle of\\nJude, in which certain individuals are thus spoken of:\\nWoe for them for they have walked in the way of Cain,\\nand given themselves up to deceive, like Balaam, for pay,\\nand brought destruction on themselves through rebellion, like\\nKorah. t The name was applied to those otherwise called\\nConk Haeres., lib. i. c. 31, pp. 112, 113. t See pp. 252, 253.\\nt Jude, ver. 11. See p. 252.", "height": "4560", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0383.jp2"}, "384": {"fulltext": "350 EVIDENCES OP THE\\nNicolaTtans, as we are informed by Tertullian in the only\\npassage in which he mentions it. 1 But there was probably\\nstill another occasion of its use. The theosophic Gnostics\\nconsidered Seth as the representative and head of the spir-\\nitual among men, and, in consequence, appear to have some-\\ntimes given themselves the name of 8ethians.| But the\\nassumption of this name might naturally provoke the more\\nangry among their opponents to apply the opposite name of\\nCainites to those Gnostics, at least, whom they regarded as\\nguilty of gross vices. The name being given, a system of\\ndoctrines corresponding to it would be easily fabricated, out\\nof exaggerations, misconceptions, and false reports and one\\nmay find little difficulty in supposing that the assertion, that\\nthose to whom it was applied were traitors to Christ, teaching\\nnot his gospel, but the gospel of Judas Iscariot, gave occasion\\nto the notion that they had a book with that title. If there\\nwere no sect holding the doctrines imputed to the Cainites,\\nthere was no gospel in existence conformed to those doc-\\ntrines. Should it, however, still be thought that there may\\nhave been such a book, it is to be recollected that it must\\nhave been a book not used by Christians, of no authority,\\nand, as appears from the little attention it received, of no\\nnotoriety.\\nSuch is all the information concerning Gnostic or apocry-\\nphal gospels afforded by the two principal writers against the\\nGnostics. Tertullian, throughout his works, mentions no\\nsuch gospel. Irenseus gives two titles supposed by him to\\nbelong to such books. But it is very improbable that there\\nwas any such book as The Gospel of Judas. The exist-\\nence of The True Gospel, also, is doubtful. But, if there\\nTertullian, after referring to the Nicolaitans mentioned in the Apoca-\\nlypse, says: Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitae; Caiana haeresis dicitur. De\\nPrescript. Ha?retic, c. 33, p 214.\\nf See p. 174, note; and p. 288.", "height": "4548", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0384.jp2"}, "385": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 351\\nwere a book bearing that title, we cannot reasonably suppose\\nit to have been a history of Christ s ministry at variance with\\nthe four Gospels.\\nThe Valentinians and Marcionites were the two principal\\nsects of the Gnostics, and probably comprehended far the\\ngreater part of their number. Excepting the story of Ire-\\nnseus concerning The True Gospel, there is no charge\\nagainst either sect, that they appealed to apocryphal gospels\\nunless that name be given to Marcion s defective copy of\\nLuke s Gospel. Xext to those two sects, the Basilidians\\nappear, for some reason or other, to have been regarded\\nas the most inrportant; and we will now attend to what is\\nsaid of their use of an apocryphal gospel.\\nOf any work called a u gospel. different from the four\\nGospels, which was in use among the Basilidians. there is no\\nmention in Irenasus or in Clement of Alexandria, who are\\nthe principal sources of all the information concerning them\\nto which any credit can be attached. Nor is such a work\\nmentioned by Epiphanius. who in general brought together\\nail that he could find, true or false, to the prejudice of the\\nheretics; nor by Eusebius. among the apocryphal writings\\nwhich he enumerates nor by Theodoret. who compiled his\\naccounts of the heretics from many earlier authors. Such\\na book is first named by the author of the Homilies on Luke,.\\nwhich have been ascribed to Origen. That writer speaks of\\nit in a passage in which he gives the titles, real or supposed,\\nof various apocryphal gospels, to be hereafter noticed. He is\\ncommenting on the words with which Luke begins his Gos-\\npel, -Since many have undertaken to arrange a narrative\\nof the events accomplished among us. He regards the term\\nundertaken as perhaps implying a censure on the works\\nreferred to by Luke. The four evangelists, he says, did not\\nu undertake they wrote under the impulse of the Holy", "height": "4560", "width": "2768", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0385.jp2"}, "386": {"fulltext": "352 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nSpirit. But others (since their day) had undertaken, and\\namong them Basilides, he says, had the boldness to write\\na c Gospel according to Basilides. The whole passage,\\nwith this notice of a gospel ascribed to Basilides, was imitated\\nby Ambrose f and Jerome t toward the end of the fourth\\ncentury.\\nSuch is the evidence that a gospel was written by Basilides.\\nIt consists in the assertion of an unknown writer, who must\\nhave lived more than a century after the death of Basilides,\\nand the repetition of this assertion by two other writers, more\\nthan two centuries after that event. This evidence is of no\\nweight to counterbalance the great improbability, that such\\na gospel should not have been taken notice of by the earlier\\nopponents of Basilides, nor by any writer of a later age who\\nhas professed to give an account of his doctrines and sect.\\nThe fathers were very ready to charge the heretics with using\\nbooks of no authority, apocryphal books. Why should we\\nnot have heard as much of a gospel written by Basilides,\\nas of the defective Gospel of Luke used by the Marcionites\\nThe notion that Basilides wrote a gospel probably arose\\nfrom the fact, that he wrote a commentary on the Gospels.\\nIn this he of course explained his views of Christianity and\\nthese views, or the book in which they were contained, might\\nbe called his gospel. Agrippa Castor, who, according to\\nEusebius, was a contemporary of Basilides, and whose most\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2able confutation Eusebius says was extant in his time,\\napparently knew nothing of any Gospel of Basilides, but\\ndid mention that he wrote twenty-four books on the Gos-\\npel, meaning by that term the four Gospels. From the\\ntwenty-third book of this Commentary Clement of Alexandria\\nquotes several passages in connection. The Commentary of\\nHomil. i in Lucam. Origen, Opp. iii. 933.\\nf Expositio Evang. Lucse, lib. i. Opp. i. 1265, ed. Benedict.\\nI Comment, in Matth. Proem., Opp. torn. iv. pars i. p. 2.\\nStromat., iv. 12, pp. 599, 600.", "height": "4588", "width": "2960", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0386.jp2"}, "387": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 353\\nBasilides is one among the decisive proofs of the respect in\\nwhich the Gospels were held by the theosophic Gnostics.\\nIf the account of the author of the Homilies on Luke were\\nfounded on the existence of any work, this Commentary, in\\nall probability, was the work, which, having heard of it and\\nnot having seen it, he called The Gospel of Basilides.\\nBut, were there another, book bearing that title, it could not\\nhave been a history of Christ s ministry at variance with our\\npresent Gospels. Of such a book we should have had far\\nother information than an incidental mention of its title first\\nmade more than a century after the death of its author.\\nIn what precedes, we have seen the whole amount of infor-\\nmation concerning apocryphal gospels, the use of which is\\nattributed to either of the three principal Gnostic sects. This\\ninformation consists of two stories, one concerning The True\\nGospel, and the other concerning The Gospel of Basilides.\\nIt is doubtful, as we have seen, whether any books existed\\nbearing those titles but, did such books exist, they must have\\nbeen works of no celebrity, not current among the Gnostics,\\nand not regarded by them as of authority. No writer pro-\\nduces an example of their drawing an argument from either\\nof them, or of their appealing to them for any purpose what-\\never.\\nWe have seen, likewise, that, of the two principal writers\\nagainst the Gnostics, Tertullian makes no mention of apocry-\\nphal gospels and we have considered what is the amount of\\nevidence which Irenseus affords of their existence and use.\\nNext to Irenasus and Tertullian, their contemporary, Clem-\\nent of Alexandria, is our most important authority concern-\\ning the Gnostics. He was a man of extensive information, a\\nwide reader, quoting from a great variety of authors, and\\nacquainted with the writings of the principal theosophic\\nGnostics, whose words he often cites. From him, therefore,\\n23", "height": "4560", "width": "2760", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0387.jp2"}, "388": {"fulltext": "354 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nif from any one, we should expect authentic notices of apocry-\\nphal gospels and, accordingly, we do find mention of one\\nsuch book, which, there is no doubt, really existed. It was\\ncalled The Gospel according to the Egyptians.\\nThis book has, in modern times, been particularly remarked.\\nIt has been thought by many to have been a history of Christ s\\nministry, used by the Gnostics and some have even imagined\\nthat it was one of those gospels referred to by Luke in the\\nintroduction to his own.* The facts concerning it are these.\\nClement, in reasoning against those heretics who denied the\\nlawfulness of marriage, gives the following passage, as adduced\\nby them in support of their doctrine. When Salome asked\\nthe Lord, 6 How long death should have power, he replied,\\n6 As long as you women bear children. f This, Clement\\nasserts, is only a declaration that death is the natural conse-\\nquence of birth. Considering the passage, therefore, as hav-\\ning no force to prove the point for which it was adduced,\\nnamely, our Lord s disapproval of marriage, he does not\\nremark upon the question of its authenticity, nor mention in\\nthis place from what book it was taken. But a few pages\\nafter he says, But those who, through their specious conti-\\nnence, oppose themselves to the creation of God, cite what\\nwas uttered to Salome, of which I have before taken notice.\\nThe words are found, as I suppose, in the Gospel according\\nto the Egyptians. For they affirm that our Saviour himself\\nsaid, I have come to destroy the works of the female by\\n6 the female meaning lust, by the works generation and\\ncorruption. X\\nClement explains the words ascribed to Jesus in a different\\nsense from that in which they were understood by those\\nagainst whom he wrote. It is unnecessary to give his re-\\nmarks. Toward the conclusion of them he asks,\\nThe opinions of modern authors respecting it are collected by Jones, i.\\n201, seqq.\\nf Stromat., iii. 6, p 532. Ibid., 9, pp. 539, 540.", "height": "4560", "width": "2920", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0388.jp2"}, "389": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 355\\nBut do not those who prefer any thing to walking by that\\ngospel rule which is according to the truth, also allege what\\nfollows of the conversation with Salome? For, upon her\\nsaying, I have done well in not bearing children, as if there\\nwere something improper in it, the Lord replied, Eat of\\nevery herb, but of that which is bitter eat not by which\\nwords he signifies that celibacy or marriage is a matter within\\nour own choice, neither being enforced by any prohibition of\\nthe other.\\nI proceed to the last passage which he quotes. He is\\nhere arguing particularly against a writer named Julius\\nCassian.\\nCassian [in defending his doctrine respecting celibacy]\\nsays, Upon Salome s asking when those things should be\\nknown concerning which she inquired, the Lord answered,\\n1 When ye shall tread under foot the garment of your shame,\\nand when the two become one, and the male with the female\\nneither male nor female. f\\nBy the garments of shame, that is, the garments of skin,\\nwhich, according to the story in Genesis, God made for Adam\\nand Eve, Cassian, in common with other ancient allegorists,\\nunderstood human bodies, the flesh, the seat of corrujDtion.\\nThe body was the garment of shame which he believed was\\nto be trodden under foot, t\\nPart of the words ascribed to Christ in the passage last\\nquoted are likewise given as a saying of the Lord, without\\nreference to any book, in a spurious work called the Second\\nEpistle of Clement, of Rome.\\nThe words in the passage first quoted occur in the Doc-\\nStromat., iii. 9, p. 541. t Ibid., 13, p. 553.\\nX See the context of the passage in Clement, p. 554, and Beausobre, His-\\ntoire du Manicheisme, torn. ii. pp. 135, 136.\\nThe words are found at the end of the fragment of this epistle which\\nremains.\\n|i See before, p. 354.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0389.jp2"}, "390": {"fulltext": "S56 EVIDENCES OF THE\\ntrina Orientalist as follows When the Saviour said to\\nSalome, Death shall continue as long as women bear chil-\\ndren, he did not mean to blame the generation of children.\\nThe Gnostic writer, who here quotes the words, rejected, like\\nClement of Alexandria, the use made of them by the ascetics.\\nHe supposed them to have a mystical meaning, referring to\\nAchamoth.\\nThe title of The Gospel according to the Egyptians is\\nmentioned by the author of the Homilies on Luke, in the\\npassage before referred to, and after him by three writers who\\nhave imitated that passage namely, Jerome, Titus Bostrensis,\\nand Theophylact.f\\nEpiphanius, in his article on the Sabellians, after saying\\nthat they make use of all the writings both of the Old and\\nof the New Testament, selecting passages to their purpose,\\nadds, But their whole error, and the main support of their\\nerror, they derive from certain apocryphal books, particularly\\nthat called The Egyptian Gospel, a name which some have\\ngiven it. For in that there are many things to their purpose,\\nof an obscure, mystical character, which are ascribed to the\\nSaviour as if he himself had made known to his disciples\\nthat the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were the same\\nperson.\\nAn improbable story, resting solely on the testimony of\\nEpiphanius, is not entitled to credit and this story about the\\nSabellians is altogether improbable. Epiphanius does not\\nseem to have known even the proper title of the book which\\nhe charges them with using. He says that it was called\\nThe Egyptian Gospel the other writers who mention it\\ngive it the title of The Gospel according to the Egyptians.\\nI have quoted all the fragments, and, I believe, mentioned\\n67, p. 985. f Fabricius, i. 335*, note.\\nt Hseres., lxii. 2, Opp. i. 513, 514.", "height": "4560", "width": "2924", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0390.jp2"}, "391": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 357\\nall the notices of this apocryphal gospel which have come\\ndown to us. One unaccustomed to such studies might be sur-\\nprised to see the hypotheses and assertions that have been\\nfounded upon them in modern times. What in fact appears\\nis, that it was an anonymous book, extant in the second cen-\\ntury, and probably written in Egypt, in the dark and mystical\\nstyle that prevailed in that country. In judging of its noto-\\nriety and importance, we must compare the few writers who\\nrecognize its existence with the far greater number to whom\\nit was unknown, or who were not led by any circumstance to\\nmention it. It was a book of which we should have been\\nignorant, but for a few incidental notices afforded by writers,\\nnone of whom give evidence of having seen it. 5 Neither\\nClement, nor any other writer, speaks of it as a Gnostic gos-\\npel. It does not appear that it had any particular credit or\\ncurrency among the generality of the Gnostics. Some asce-\\ntics of their number, in maintaining the obligation of celibacy,\\nargued from a passage found in it, as they did undoubtedly\\nfrom passages. found in the four Gospels; but other Gnostics,\\nas we have seen from the Doctrina Orientalis, rejected their\\ninterpretation. The Gnostics did not appeal to it in support\\nof their more distinguishing and fundamental doctrines for,\\nhad they done so, we should have been fully informed of the\\nfact.\\nAs this is the first apocryphal gospel the former existence\\nof which we have clearly ascertained, the question arises,\\nwhether it were or were not a history of Christ s ministry.\\nThat it had not been seen by Clement of Alexandria, from whom our\\nprincipal information concerning it is derived, appears from his turns of\\nexpression in remarking on the quotations from it: The words are found,\\nas I suppose (ot/zat), in the Gospel according to the Egyptians: k They\\naffirm, that the Saviour himself said; and where, in appealing to a pas-\\nsage in the conversation with Salome, as justifying his own views, he refers\\nto it as quoted by those whom he is opposing, and not as otherwise known to\\nhim, thus, Do they not also allege what follows? See Jones, i. 206.", "height": "4544", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0391.jp2"}, "392": {"fulltext": "358 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThe only argument of any weight for believing it to have\\nbeen so is, that it contained a narrative of a pretended con-\\nversation of Christ with Salome. But if it were not an his-\\ntorical, but a doctrinal, book, there is no difficulty in supposing\\nthat the writer might find occasion to insert in it a traditional\\naccount of a discourse of Christ. A few such traditional ac-\\ncounts of sayings of our Lord are found in other writers of\\nthe first three centuries/* As regards the words ascribed to\\nhim in the conversation with Salome, it is evident that the\\ntradition concerning them was false. Our Saviour never\\nexpressed himself as he is reported to have done in the pas-\\nsages that have been quoted. The writer had an erroneous\\nconception of his character. But if the book had been an\\nhistorical gospel, this conception would have pervaded it, and\\nwould have been prominent in many other particular passages.\\nA history of Christ s ministry, so foreign in its character from\\nthe Gospels as this must have been, could not have existed\\nin the last half of the second century, whether it were a com-\\nposition of an early age, or a fiction of later times, without\\nhaving been an object of far greater attention than that which\\nthis book received. Especially, had it been brought forward\\nby any sect in opposition to the Gospels, it would hava been\\na primary subject of discussion. But we have seen that the\\nbook in question was little regarded or known. It could not,\\ntherefore, have been a history of Christ s ministry.\\nThis is the only apocryphal gospel, unless the Gospel\\naccording to the Hebrews be regarded as apocryphal, the title\\nof which is mentioned by Clement. According to his present\\ntext, he quotes one other without giving its title. But there\\nare good reasons for believing that his text, as it stands, is\\ncorrupt, and that there was originally no mention in it of a\\ngospel.t\\nSee pp. 130, 131. Fabricius, i. 321*, seqq. Jones, i. 405, seqq.\\nt Clement (Stromat., v. 10, p. 684) is treating of the hidden wisdom on", "height": "4540", "width": "2964", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0392.jp2"}, "393": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 359\\nIf this be so, then, with the exception just mentioned of\\nthe Gospel according to the Hebrews, supposing that this ex-\\nception should be made, the Gospel according to the Egyptians\\nis the only apocryphal book, bearing the title of a gospel, that\\nis mentioned by any writer during the three centuries suc-\\nceeding our Lord s death, from which a single quotation is\\nprofessedly given, or of which it is probable that a single\\nfragment remains.\\nAs I have said, the title of no other apocryphal gospel,\\nused by any Gentile Christians, is mentioned by Clement.\\nBut it is desirable to give the fullest information on the sub-\\nject which we are examining for, as I have before remarked,\\nwhich he so much insists. He professes to quote a passage from a prophet,\\napparently intending Isaiah, though nothing very like it is found in his\\nwritings, or elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is this: Who shall under-\\nstand the parable of the Lord [Jehovah], but the wise and understanding,\\nand he who loves his Lord? Clement then, as his text now stands, goes\\non thus: For it is in the power of few to understand these things. For the\\nLord, though not unwilling to communicate, the prophet says [or, the Scrip-\\nture says], declared in a certain g r sj)el, My secret is for me and the sons\\nof my house. Ov yap gdovcJv, orjac, 77 apTjyyet/.sv 6 Kvptog ev nvi\\nevay/eTui? k. t. I suppose the words in a certain gospel to be an\\ninterpolation. The passage quoted corresponds to what is found in some\\ncopies of the Septuagint at Isa. xxiv. 16. (See the note on the passage in\\nPotter s edition of Clement, where, in the first* line, cap. 2 is a misprint\\nfor cap. 24. The verb 6r/ a U says, must have for its subject, either the\\nprophet mentioned immediately before, or the Scripture (the ellipsis supposed\\nin the last case being not uncommon). But Clement cannot be imagined to\\nhave made so incongruous an assertion as that The prophet says, or\\nThe Scripture says. that the Lord [Christ] declared in a certain gospel.\\nThat he considered himself as borrowing the words. My secret is for me\\nand my children, not from a certain gospel, but from Isaiah, appears also\\nfrom the circumstance, that, a few lines after them, he gives a quotation from\\nIsaiah, introducing it with the words, The prophet says again (Ua/j.v 6\\nn po pT]Trjc.) I suppose, therefore, that the words in a certain gospel were\\noriginally a marginal gloss made by a transcriber, who attributed to Christ\\nthe declaration quoted by Clement, and who, knowing that it was not found\\nin the four Gospels, thought it must be in some gospel or other. -(See Jones,\\ni. 422, seqq.)", "height": "4560", "width": "2780", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0393.jp2"}, "394": {"fulltext": "360 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nit is a subject that requires elucidation rather than argument.\\nI will therefore advert to another work, which he quotes\\nunder the name of The Traditions, and which has been\\nimagined to be the same with an apocryphal gospel called\\nThe .Gospel according to Matthias. He speaks of the\\nTraditions in the following passages\\nTo attain wisdom we must begin with wondering at things,\\nas Plato says in his Theastetus and Matthias, in the Tra-\\nditions, thus concludes, Wonder at present things making\\nthis the first step of our progress in knowledge.\\nIn arguing against the licentiousness of the Carpocratians,\\nhe adduces another passage, thus\\nIt is said, likewise, that Matthias also thus taught We\\nmust contend against the flesh and humble it, granting it no\\nintemperate pleasure, but promote the growth of the soul\\nthrough faith and knowledge. f\\nHe again quotes a passage ascribed to Matthias, for the\\npurpose, as before, of confirming his own doctrine It is\\nsaid in the Traditions, that Matthias, the apostle, often re-\\npeated, that, if the neighbor of one of the elect sin, he him-\\nself has sinned for, if he had conducted himself as Reason\\n(the Logos) dictates, his neighbor would have so reverenced\\nhis course of life as not to sin. The language is too un-\\nlimited, but the morality is good.\\nIn what is supposed to be a Latin translation of a portion\\nof a lost work of Clement, called Hypotyposes, or Institu-\\ntions, there is another strange passage quoted from the Tra-\\nditions, as agreeing with the conceptions of the writer.\\nClement, if he be the writer, is commenting on the first\\nwords of the First Epistle of John, which to render as he\\nunderstood them are these What was from the begin-\\nning, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have heard,\\nStromat, ii. 9, pp. 452, 453. f Ibid., iii. 4, p. 523.\\nIbid., vii. 13, p. 882.", "height": "4560", "width": "2976", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0394.jp2"}, "395": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 361\\nand our hands have touched, concerning the Logos of life.\\nHe maintains (conformably to what Photius says* was a\\nheresy affirmed by Clement in the work just mentioned), that\\nthe Logos who was from the beginning is to be distinguished\\nfrom the Logos who became incarnate. The latter consisted\\nof those powers of the former which proceeded from him as\\na ray from the sun and this ray, coming in the flesh,\\nbecame an object of touch to the disciples. Thus, he\\nsays, it is related in the Traditions, that John, touching\\nhis external body, plunged his hand in, the hardness of the\\nflesh offering no resistance to it, but giving way to the hand\\nof the disciple. Hence it is that John affirms, Our hands\\nhave touched concerning the Logos of life f that which\\ncame in the flesh being made an object of touch. t Such\\ntraditions strikingly illustrate what would have been the state\\nof the history of Jesus in the latter half of the second century,\\nhad it not been for the early existence and authoritative char-\\nacter of the Gospels.\\nThere is no reason to suppose that the book called The\\nTraditions was in favor with any Gnostics. Clement does\\nnot represent it as having been cited by any heretical writer.\\nOn the contrary, he himself quotes it as confirming his own\\nopinions. He does not entitle it The Traditions of Mat-\\nthias, as it has been called in modern times, but simply The\\nTraditions. The former title has been given it, because, in\\nthe three passages quoted by Clement in his Stroma ta, the\\nname of Matthias occurs and this title having been given it,\\nthe book has been fancied by some to be the same with an\\napocryphal gospel called The Gospel according to Mat-\\nthias.\\nOf this book, nothing but the title remains. It is first\\nPhotii Bibliotheca, col. 285, ed. Schotti.\\nt Propter quod et infert, Et manus nostra contrectaverunt de verbo vitce.\\nX Apud dementis Fragmenta, Opp. p. 1009.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0395.jp2"}, "396": {"fulltext": "862 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nmentioned by the author of the Homilies on Luke after him,\\nby his imitators, Ambrose and Jerome, and also by Eusebius.\\nPossibly the notion that there was such a book may have\\narisen from the fact mentioned by Clement,* that the Gnostics\\nboasted that their opinions were favored by Matthias, or, in\\nother words, that they taught the Gospel as it was understood\\nby Matthias, the Gospel according to Matthias. Had they\\npossessed a book with that title known to Clement, it seems\\nlikely that he would have spoken of it, when thus taking\\nnotice of their claim to the countenance of Matthias. Con-\\nsidering the tendency of the fathers to charge the heretics\\nwith using books of no authority, the bare titles of supposed\\napocryphal and heretical works given by the author of the\\nHomilies on Luke, and by writers after the end of the third\\ncentury, deserve little consideration.\\nBefore the time of Origen, no writer besides Irenasus\\nand Clement mentions any apocryphal gospel, real or sup-\\nposed, except Serapion, as quoted by Eusebius. Serapion,\\nwho was bishop of Antioch about the close of the second\\ncentury, wrote, concerning a gospel called The Gospel ac-\\ncording to Peter, a tract, of which Eusebius gives the follow-\\ning account.f\\nAnother tract was composed by Serapion concerning the\\nGospel according to Peter, so called, the object of which was\\nto confute the errors contained in it, on account of some in\\nthe church at Rhossus who had been led by this book to\\nadopt heterodox opinions. From this it may be worth while\\nto quote a few words in which he expresses his opinion con-\\ncerning it. We, brethren, he writes, acknowledge the au-\\nthority both of Peter and the other apostles, as we do that of\\nChrist; but we reject, with good reason, the writings which\\nfalsely bear their names, well knowing that such have not\\nSee before, p. 328. f Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. c. 12.", "height": "4560", "width": "2932", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0396.jp2"}, "397": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 363\\nbeen handed down to us. I, indeed, when I was with you,\\nsupposed that you were all going on in a right faith and, not\\nreading through the gospel under the name of Peter which\\nwas produced by thern [those who were pleased with it]. I\\nsaid, If this is all that troubles you. let the book be read.\\nBut having since learnt from what has been told me. that\\ntheir minds had fallen into some heresy, I hasten to be with\\nyou again, brethren, so that you may expect me shortly.\\nNow we, brethren, know that a like heresy was held by\\nMarcion, who also contradicted himself, not comprehending\\nwhat he said, as you may learn from what has been written\\nto you.* For we have been able to procure this gospel from\\nothers who use it. that is, from his followers, who are called\\nDocetce (for the greater part of the opinions in question be-\\nlong to their system), and. having gone through it, we have\\nfound it for the most part conformable to the true doctrine of\\nthe Saviour but there are some things exceptionable, which\\nwe subjoin for your information.\\nWe may conclude, from this account, that the Gospel of\\nPeter was not a history of Christ s ministry. Serapion would\\nnot have regarded with such indifference as he first manifested\\na history of our Lord, ascribed to the apostle Peter, which he\\nhad not before seen. Were it genuine, it must have been to\\nhim, as to any one else, an object of great interest. But the\\nsupposition of its genuineness is too extravagant to require\\ndiscussion. Xor can we suppose it to have been an original\\nA? this sentence is unimportant, and as I belieVe the present text to be\\ncorrupt, I have ventured to render it as perhaps it should be amended. It\\nnow stands thus: Huelg 6e, ade /.ool, Kara/.aSnuevoi 6-olag r/v aipeaeug 6\\n^lapKcavbg, nal eavru jfvavTUWTO, t urj vouv a t/A/.si, a uad^Gsade un vulv\\nb/pao?]. Edvrr/dr-uc.v yap Trap a/J.uv, k. r. I would read the first words\\nas follows: Hutig ve, udt/.pol, kcltz/uSoilev on dfiolag tjv aipeaeug 6 N.apKtuv,\\nbg nal eavrcp t/vcivtlovto, k. t.\\nThere is also some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the next\\nsentence; but, fortunately, this uncertainty does not extend to any thing\\nimportant in the paragraph.", "height": "4560", "width": "2672", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0397.jp2"}, "398": {"fulltext": "364 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nhistory (that is to say, not a compilation from any one or\\nmore of the four Gospels), which, though not the work of\\nPeter, was yet entitled to credit. For it is impossible that\\nthe existence of such a history should not have been notori-\\nous that it should not have been a frequent subject of re-\\nmark that it should have been unknown to Serapion, himself\\na bishop and a controversial writer or, even if previously\\nunknown, that it should not at once have excited his atten-\\ntion. Nor can it have been a history founded upon one or\\nmore of the four Gospels, with certain additions favoring the\\nopinions of the Docetse. When we recollect the abundant\\nnotices of Marcion s gospel, which was only a mutilated copy\\nof Luke s, it cannot be believed that there was another his-\\ntorical book extant among Marcion s followers, of a similar\\ncharacter (except that it contained some obnoxious additions),\\nof which the notices are so scanty, and which is never men-\\ntioned as an historical book. There is still another supposi-\\ntion, that it was a history undeserving of credit, a history\\ncontaining many fabulous accounts. But this is inconsistent\\nwith the manner in which Serapion mentions it for he\\nspeaks of it with but slight censure, commending the general-\\nity of its contents as no catholic writer of his time would\\nhave spoken of such a professed history of Christ s ministry\\nas we have last imagined.\\nThe Gospel according to Peter, then, was not an historical\\nbook and this appears, not merely from what has been said,\\nbut from the fact, that neither Serapion nor Eusebius gives\\nany intimation that it bore that character. Serapion s trea-\\ntise was in the hands of Eusebius, as it probably had been in\\nthose of many before him. It treated of the errors in the\\nbook it was written to refute them and, had these errors\\nconsisted in false narratives concerning Christ, there is no\\nreasonable doubt that plenary evidence of the fact would have\\nexisted, both in the writings of Serapion and Eusebius, and\\nin those of other fathers. It appears that it was used by the", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0398.jp2"}, "399": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 365\\nGnostics, and, had it been a professed history of Christ s min-\\nistry used by them, we should certainly have had much more\\nfull information concerning it. The supposition that it was\\nnot an historical book, and. this alone, it may be further ob-\\nserved, agrees with the manner in which Serapion describes\\nit, as for the most part conformable to the true doctrine\\n(not the true history) of the Saviour, but containing some\\nthings exceptionable.\\nThe book, it may be added, was not of any importance or\\nnotoriety. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, in his time the prin-\\ncipal see in the East, was, as we have seen, unacquainted with\\nit, till his attention was called to it by some Christians of his\\ndiocese, as favoring heretical doctrines. We may conclude,\\ntherefore,* that it was unknown to a great majority of Chris-\\ntians, his contemporaries. Besides the notice of it by him,\\nwe find the following passage in Origen Some say that\\nthe brothers of Jesus were the sons of Joseph by a wife to\\nwhom he was married before Mary, relying upon the tradi-\\ntion in the Gospel according to Peter or the book of James.\\nIt is also referred to by Eusebius and Jerome, who mention\\nit as an apocryphal work falsely ascribed to Peter. Eusebius\\nespecially enumerates it among those books which were\\nbrought forward by the heretics under the names of apostles\\nsuch as no writer of the Church had thought worth commem-\\norating, they being altogether devoid of good sense and piety.\\nNo fragment of it remains, and these are all the notices of it\\nfound in the first four centuries.\\nWe now come to Origen. It is doubtful whether the\\nHomilies on Luke, which have been so often mentioned in\\nthis chapter, are to be referred to him as their author, f If\\nthey are not, there is no passage in all Origen s works in\\nComment, in Matth., torn, x., Opp. iii. 462, 463.\\nf See the Preface to the third volume of De la Rue s edition of Origen.", "height": "4560", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0399.jp2"}, "400": {"fulltext": "868 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwhich he speaks of an apocryphal gospel as used by any\\nGentile Christians, catholic or heretical, besides that relating\\nto the Gospel of Peter which has just been quoted. Of the\\nbook of James, mentioned in connection with it, I shall speak\\nhereafter.\\nI have remarked on three titles of apocryphal gospels men-\\ntioned by the author of the Homilies on Luke. There is one\\nother, The Gospel according to Thomas, to which likewise\\nI shall advert hereafter.\\nBesides those writers whom I have quoted, there is none\\nwho speaks of apocryphal gospels before Eusebius, in the first\\nhalf of the fourth century. He enumerates among heretical\\nbooks, altogether absurd and irreligious, three of those\\nalready mentioned, namely, the gospels of Peter, Thomas,\\nand Matthias,^ but gives no further information concerning\\nthem, and adds no new title to the list.\\nI have brought down the inquiry respecting apocryphal\\ngospels to a much later period than was necessary. No one\\nwill suppose that a book of which there is no mention before\\nthe fourth century could have served the Gnostics as a basis\\nfor their doctrines. If any book appeared after the com-\\nmencement of the fourth century, pretending to be an origi-\\nnal history of Christ s ministry, of which we have no\\nproof, and which, in the nature of things, is altogether im-\\nprobable, no one will imagine that it was entitled to\\nregard. Of any book of an early age, purporting to give an\\naccount of his ministry different from that contained in the\\nfour Gospels, it is a moral impossibility that we should not\\nhave received full and unequivocal information, from writers\\nbefore the time of Eusebius.\\nHist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 25.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0400.jp2"}, "401": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 367\\nThere is no reason, as I conceive, to suppose that the apoc-\\nryphal gospels which have been mentioned, or the other\\napocryphal books extant during the first three centuries,\\nwere commonly written with the fraudulent design of fur-\\nnishing the pretended authority of Jesus or his apostles in\\nsupport of false doctrines or spurious history or that, when\\nthey bore the name of an apostle, it was intended that they\\nshould be ascribed to him as his proper work. The\\nauthor of such a book may have put his own opinions into\\nthe mouth of an apostle by a common rhetorical artifice, as\\nPlato in his dialogues introduces Socrates and Timasus as\\nteaching his doctrines or as if one, at the present day, were\\nto publish a work, calling it The Gospel as taught by {ac-\\ncording to) St. Paul, or The Gospel as taught by St.\\nJames. Of this mode of writing we have a remarkable ex-\\nample in the Clementine Homilies, the author of which could\\nhave intended no deception. But the whole account given in\\nthem of the actions of Peter is a fiction, and the discourses\\nascribed to him contain only the writer s own views of the\\ncharacter of Christianity. According, however, to the an-\\ncient use of language, this book might have been, and possibly\\nwas, called The Gospel according to Peter. Such books\\nmight be, or it might be fancied that they were, founded on\\nsome traditionary information respecting the teaching of an\\napostle. Thus a book called The Preaching of Peter, or\\nThe Preaching of Peter and Paul, was regarded both by\\nClement of Alexandria and by Lactantius as a work of some\\nauthority. Lactantius supposed it to be a record of their\\npreaching while together at Rome.* Clement quotes it in\\nthe same manner as he quotes The Traditions before men-\\ntioned, and the works of the Pagan philosophers, not in evi-\\ndence of facts, but as corresponding with and confirming his\\nown opinions.\\nInstitut., lib. iv. c. 21.", "height": "4532", "width": "2660", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0401.jp2"}, "402": {"fulltext": "368 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nIrenasus speaks, at we have seen, of a gospel by Judas\\nIscariot. There was reported to be another under the name\\nof Matthias, and another under the name of Thomas but\\nthese titles are not mentioned before the third century. Of\\nthe books or of the titles which have been enumerated, bear-\\ning the names of apostles, there is besides only the Gospel of\\nPeter, which became known to Serapion about the close of the\\nsecond century. But it is altogether incredible that any Gen-\\ntile Christian in the second century should have engaged in\\nso hopeless and foolish an attempt, as to endeavor to pass off\\na composition of his own as a gospel written by an apostle,\\na gospel which had never before been heard of. Nor is it\\nmuch more likely that any Gentile Christian, without ascrib-\\ning his work to an apostle, would, after the destruction of\\nJerusalem, have pretended to give an original history of\\nChrist s ministry, at variance with the four Gospels. As we\\nhave already seen, there is no evidence that any such work\\nexisted.\\nThe subject of the apocryphal gospels has, as it was natural\\nit should, attracted much attention. It is a subject which de-\\nserved to be thoroughly examined. But the unavoidable\\nconsequence of the manner in which it has been treated has\\nbeen to produce a very false impression of their importance.\\nThey were obscure writings, very little regarded or known\\nby any Christians, catholic or heretical. We find in Justin\\nMartyr and Tertullian nothing concerning them in Irenasus,\\ntwo titles, one purporting to be that of a book, which most\\nprobably was not extant, and the other likewise perhaps\\noriginating in mistake, but supposed to belong to a Vaien-\\ntinian gospel, which there is no evidence that the Yalentinians\\never appealed to. Clement gives some extracts from a gospel\\nwhich he found quoted by the Encratites or ascetics. Serapion\\nmentions the Gospel of Peter, as in the hands of persons be-\\nlonging to a parish in his diocese, called Rhossus, and as used\\nby some of the Docetae. Origen once refers to the same book.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0402.jp2"}, "403": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 369\\nAnd the author of the Homilies on Luke adds three other\\ntitles of books of which he gives no account.* These are all\\nthe notices of apocryphal gospels to be found in all the writers\\nof Christian antiquity before the end of the third century.\\nHad they been works of any notoriety, works possessing any\\nintrinsic or accidental importance, we should have had page\\nafter page of controversy, discussion, and explanation con-\\ncerning them.\\nAbout the beginning of the last century, a manuscript was\\nmade known of a gospel ascribed to Barnabas, in the Italian\\nlanguage, but supposed to be translated from the Arabic. It\\nis the work of a Mahometan, or a work interpolated by a\\nMahometan. Much more has been written by different\\nauthors about this bookf than all that is to be found in the\\nChristian writers of the first three centuries concerning apoc-\\nryphal gospels. Yet it is a book of which, probably, few of\\nmy readers have ever heard and of which he who has known\\nany thing may have forgotten what he knew. It is easy to\\nI have not adverted in the text to one title mentioned by the author\\nof the Homilies; namely, The Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles;\\nbecause, as we leam from Jerome (Advers. Pelagianos, lib. iii. Opp. torn. iv.\\npars ii. col. 533), this was only a name which was sometimes given to the\\nGospel of the Hebrews. It may naturally have had its origin in the cir-\\ncumstance that the Hebrew Christians affirmed that the Gospel of Matthew,\\nwhich alone they used, contained the Gospel as taught by the apostles, or, in\\nother words, was the Gospel according to the apostles. But there is some-\\nthing more to be observed. The title given is not simply, The Gospel\\naccording to the Apostles, but The Gospel according to the Twelve Apos-\\ntles. The Hebrew Christians, generally, did not recognize the apostleship\\nof St. Paul, but regarded him as a false teacher. They revolted at his\\ndoctrine of the abolition of their Law, and of their peculiar national distinc-\\ntions. Hence they may have called their gospel the Gospel according to the\\nTwelve Apostles, of whose number he was not, in order to imply that it was\\nfrom the twelve apostles, and not from him, the preacher to the Gentiles, that\\nthe true doctrines of the Gospel were to be learned.\\nf See Fabricius, iii. 373, seqq. Jones, i. 162, seqq. Sale s Translation\\nof the Koran (ed. 1825), in his Preliminary Discourse, p. 102, and in his\\nNotes, vol. i. pp. 61, 170; and the works referred to by the authors men-\\ntioned.\\n24", "height": "4560", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0403.jp2"}, "404": {"fulltext": "370 EVIDENCES OF THE\\napply this fact to assist ourselves in judging of the importance\\nto be attached to the notices of apocryphal gospels found in\\nthe fathers.\\nIt may seem as if, in reference to our present inquiry, any\\nfurther discussion of the subject must be useless; and it would\\nbe so, but for the misapprehensions which have existed con-\\ncerning it. There are some fabulous books still extant, which,\\nthus standing as it were in the foreground, are more likely, at\\nfirst view, to be taken for true representatives of ancient apoc-\\nryphal gospels, than those titles and fragments, appearing in\\nthe remote distance, with which alone we are in fact con-\\ncerned. These books have, in modern times, been called\\nGospels of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, and Gospels\\nof the Infancy, that is, of the infancy of Jesus. They have,\\nlikewise, directly or indirectly, been brought into competition\\nwith the four Gospels. But whatever tends to weaken the\\nexclusive authority of the catholic Gospels, or to confound\\nthem in the same class with fabulous writings, opens the way\\nfor a vague conjecture that there may have been in early times\\nother histories of the ministry of Christ at variance with those\\nGospels, and entitled to as much or more credit. We will,\\ntherefore, go on to take notice of the works referred to.\\nIn the quotation that I have given from Origen,^ besides\\nthe mention of the Gospel of Peter, there is mention, likewise,\\nof a book of James. About the middle of the sixteenth cen-\\ntury, the celebrated visionary Postel brought to the notice of\\nEuropean scholars a work written in Greek, a manuscript\\nof which he found in the East. It is a book of about a quarter\\nof the size of the Gospel of Mark. He entitled it The\\nProtevangelion (that is, the First Gospel) of St. James the\\nLess f the pretended events which it relates being sup-\\nSee before, p. 365.\\nThe work has been republished by Fabricius, Jones, and Thilo.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0404.jp2"}, "405": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 371\\nposed by him to have occurred prior to those recorded by St.\\nMark, to whose Gospel he fancied it intended for an intro-\\nduction. But a number of manuscripts of it are now known,\\nand the title Protevangelion is not supported by their au-\\nthority. The author, in the conclusion of the work, gives\\nhis name as James. It is a collection of legendary fables\\nprincipally concerning the nativity of the Virgin Mary, her\\nhistory and that of Joseph, and the nativity of Jesus. The\\nnativity of the Virgin is represented to have been miraculous,\\nlike that of Samuel, and to have been announced by an angel.\\nSome things are interwoven from the first two chapters\\nascribed to Matthew, and from the account of our Saviour s\\nbirth given by Luke. There are two coincidences of its\\nnarrative with what is found in ancient authors, which\\ndeserve notice. The first relates to the passage of Origen\\njust referred to.\\nOrigen says, that, conformably to the book of James, the\\nindividuals called in the Gospels the brothers J of Jesus were\\nchildren of Joseph by a former wife. In the Protevangelion,\\nMary is represented as having been dedicated by her parents\\nas a virgin to the service of God in the Temple, but at the\\nage of twelve years as having been removed thence by the\\npriests, and committed in trust to Joseph, with the purpose\\nof her becoming his wife. Before receiving her, he is repre-\\nsented as saying, I am an old man and have children. J\\nIts title is given with much diversity in different manuscripts but in\\nall its variations expresses that the subject of the work is a History of the\\nNativity of Mary. In what is supposed to be the oldest manuscript it\\nruns thus: A Narration and History how the superholy Mother of God\\n(rj vTcepayta QeoTonog) was born. (Thilo, p. liii.) But the book is not\\nconfined to a mere account of the nativity of Mary: it extends (as appears\\nabove) to the history of her life.\\nt The word in the original, adefyoi, should be rendered linsme?i, accord-\\ning to a common use of it. It does not in the passage in question denote\\nbrothers, in the limited sense of the English word.\\nJ Protevangelion, c. 9.", "height": "4560", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0405.jp2"}, "406": {"fulltext": "372 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nThe story, that Joseph, when he married Mary, was an old\\nman with children by a former wife, is found in many writers\\nafter the middle of the fourth century.\\nOne of the fables in this book is, that Mary, after child-\\nbirth, remained in all respects as a virgin.* The story is\\nreferred to and countenanced by Clement of Alexandria, f\\nTertullian, on the contrary, in contending against those\\nGnostics who asserted that the body of Christ .was not a body\\nof flesh and blood, and that it was in no part derived from\\nhis mother, insists on his proper birth, and incidentally repre-\\nsents it as in all respects like that of others. It is not,\\nhowever, to be inferred that the Gnostics maintained the\\nopinion just mentioned for, on the one hand, the Marcion-\\nites denied altogether the nativity of Christ and, on the\\nother, that opinion was not necessarily connected with the\\ndoctrine of the theosophic Gnostics, who ascribed to Christ\\na body, though not a human body. But, with a strange\\napproximation to the Gnostic denial of the proper body of\\nChrist, it has become the established faith of the Roman\\nCatholic Church. It was made an article of orthodox belief\\nby the Lateran Council, held under Pope Martin the First,\\nin the year 649.\\nUnless Origen, under the name of the book of James,\\nProtevangelion, cc. 19, 20. f Stromat., vii. 16, pp. 889, 890.\\nX In his tract De Carne Christi.\\nII convient toutefois qu il est de la foi eatholique, que Marie est\\ndemeure e Vierge apres renfantement comme devant. (Fleury, Hist.\\nEccles. An. 847.) In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pars i. art. 3,\\nn. 13) it is said, Prseterea, quo nihil admirabilius dici omnino, aut cogitari\\npotest, nascitur [Christus] ex matre sine ulla maternse virginitatis diminu-\\ntione, et quo modo postea ex sepulcro clauso et obsignato egressus est, atque\\nad discipulos clausis januis introivit: vel, ne a rebus etiam, qua? a natura\\nquotidie fieri videmus, discedatur, quo modo solis radii concretam vitri sub-\\nstantiam penetrant, neque frangunt tamen, aut aliqua ex parte laedunt;\\nsimili, inquam, et altiori modo Jesus Christus ex materno alvo, sine ullo\\ninaternae virginitatis detrimento, editus est, ipsius enim incorruptam virgini-\\ntatem verissimis laudibus celebramus.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0406.jp2"}, "407": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 373\\nrefers to some work like the Protevangelion, that is, to some\\npretended history of the mother of our Lord, which may\\nhave served for the foundation of that now extant, there is\\nno mention of any such work before the latter half of the\\nfourth century. In the fourth and fifth centuries, it seems\\nprobable that there was more than one narrative of this kind\\nin existence but that these narratives were generally re-\\ngarded as fabulous and worthless.* During the ages of\\ndarkness that followed, the legends concerning the Virgin\\nfound favor, in common with other fables which overspread\\necclesiastical and profane history. They have entered into\\nthe established mythology of the Eoman Catholic Church,\\nand have furnished conceptions for its great masters in the\\nart of painting. But the particular book we are considering,\\nthe Protevangelion, never obtained such credit in the West\\nas in the East. In the West, its existence had become un-\\nknown before it was brought to light by Postel. In the\\nEast, it seems probable that it was at one period read in some\\nchurches on certain holydays, in the same manner as the le-\\ngends of Saints were read on their festivals.! The oldest man-\\nuscript of it now known is referred to the tenth century, t\\nThe fables respecting the nativity and history of Mary, like\\nthose which went to the compilation of other apocryphal\\nwritings, being destitute of all authority, were recast in differ-\\nent forms by different hands. They are extant, with much\\ndiversity from the Protevangelion, in a work found in two\\nLatin manuscripts, one of the fourteenth and the other of the\\nfifteenth century, in which they are connected at the end\\nwith a few stories of miracles performed by our Lord in his\\ninfancy. In Latin, also, there is another work, shorter and\\nThilo, p. lx. seqq.; p. xci. seqq: conf. Epiphanius, Hasres., xxiv. 12,\\np. 94.\\nf Thilo, pp. lix., lx. t Ibid., p. liii. Ibid p. cviii.\\nThe work is published by Thilo under the title of Historia de Xativi-\\ntate Marias et de Iufantia Salvatoris.", "height": "4560", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0407.jp2"}, "408": {"fulltext": "374 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nless extravagant than those which have been mentioned, re-\\nlating to the birth and history of Mary, of which the modern\\ntitle is The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary. Of this\\nthe pretended Hebrew original was ascribed to the Apostle\\nMatthew, and the translation to Jerome. The fiction by\\nwhich Jerome is represented as its translator shows that its\\ncomposition must have been later than the fourth century.\\nWe proceed to the Books of the Infancy. As I have men-\\ntioned, the author of the Homilies on Luke gives the title of\\na Gospel according to Thomas and the same title is found in\\nsubsequent writers.f We may conjecture it to have been\\none of those professed expositions of Christianity which were\\ncalled gospels. Nor is there any thing in the ancient\\nwriters who mention it to countenance a different supposition.\\nBut there is now extant in Greek a collection of fables con-\\ncerning the infancy and childhood of Jesus, which is not, in\\nthe manuscripts of it, entitled a gospel, but the writer of\\nwhich announces himself as Thomas an Israelite, t This\\nbook has been thought to be essentially the same with the\\ngospel mentioned by the author of the Homilies, and to have\\nbeen in existence in the second century. But of such books,\\nmore or less resembling one another, there are a number ex-\\ntant, which have passed in modern times under the name of\\nGospels of the Infancy.\\nOne of this number (much larger than the book ascribed to\\nThomas in its present state) is written in Arabic. It was\\npublished with a Latin translation in the year 1697, by\\nHenry Sike, Professor of the Oriental Languages in the Uni-\\nversity of Cambridge. With this the name of Thomas is not\\nIt may be found in Fabricius, Jones, and Thilo.\\nf See Fabricius, i. 131, seqq Thilo, lxxix. seqq.\\nA fragment the first part of this book may be found in Fabricius\\nand Jones. The whole, as now extant, is given by Thilo.\\nThe Latin version has been republished by Fabricius and Jones and\\nthe original with the version, by Thilo.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0408.jp2"}, "409": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 375\\nconnected. It consists of stories of pretended miracles, which\\naccompanied the birth and infancy of our Saviour, and which\\nhe himself performed when a child. There is some fancy in\\nthese fictions. They have a tinge of Eastern invention, but\\nare essentially of the same character as the common legends\\nof the Middle Ages. The relater sometimes refers to facts in\\nthe Gospels, and connects his story with them. Thus he\\ngives a narrative concerning two robbers, whom he represents\\nas the same afterwards crucified with Jesus/* These and simi-\\nlar fables became popular in the East, particularly among the\\nfollowers of Mahomet. Two of them appear in the Koran.f\\nand others have been current among Mahometan writers, t\\nThe compilation in Greek that bears the name of Thomas\\nhas a general correspondence with the last half of the preced-\\ning. Omitting those pretended miracles which accompanied\\nthe nativity and infancy of Jesus, it begins with those per-\\nformed in his childhood. Of these, about half the stories\\nin one work correspond to those in the other, though the\\norder in which they are arranged is not the same, and they\\nare often differently told. Both works imply a very low\\nstate of intellect and morals in those by whom and for whom\\nthey were written. In some of the fictions, Jesus, as a child,\\nis represented as violent and cruel, so that his father, Joseph,\\nis introduced as saying, From this time we will not suffer\\nhim to go out of the house for whoever makes him angry is\\nkilled. The notions of the writer of either book seem in\\nthis respect to have been derived from the use of power by an\\nOriental despot.\\nCap. 23.\\nf One is of Christ s speaking while in his cradle (Arabic Gospel of the\\nInfancy, c. 1), which he did according to the Koran (chap. 3, vol. i. p. 58,\\nand chap. 19, vol ii. p. 145). The other is of his making birds of clay, to\\nwhich he gave life (Arabic Gospel, cc. 36, 46), which is referred to in the\\nKoran (chap. 3, vol. i. p. 59, and chap. 5, vol. i. p. 139).\\nX See Sike s notes (republished by Thilo).\\nArabic Gospel, c. 49. Gospel of Thomas, c. 14.", "height": "4560", "width": "2688", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0409.jp2"}, "410": {"fulltext": "S76 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nA similar collection of fables appears to be, or to have\\nbeen, extant in different languages of the East.* Several\\nmanuscript collections of them are extant in Latin, more or\\nless diverse from one another, and from the Arabic and the\\nGreek compilation. One only of these is known to bear the\\nname of Thomas. The author s name is otherwise given as\\nMatthew the Evangelist, or James the son of Joseph (to\\nwhom the Protevangelion is ascribed) and in one copy the\\npretended authors are Onesimus and John the Evangelist.f\\nIn regard to these fables respecting the infancy and child-\\nhood of Jesus, we find an early notice of one of them in\\nIreneeus. He is giving an account of a sect, the Marco-\\nsians, who believed, like the Jewish Cabalists, that there\\nwere profound mysteries hidden in the letters of the alpha-\\nbet. After speaking of their perversion of the Scriptures,\\nIrenasus says,\\nMoreover, they bring forward an unspeakable number of\\napocryphal and spurious writings, which they have fabricated, to\\nconfound the simple, and such as are ignorant of those writings\\nwhich contain the truth. To this end, they also adopt that fiction\\nconcerning our Lord, that, when he was a child, and learning the\\nalphabet, his master, as usual, told him to say Alpha (A) and\\nthat, upon his repeating Alpha, when his master next told him to\\nsay Beta (B), the Lord replied, Do you first tell me what Alpha\\nis, and then I will tell you what Beta is. And this they explain\\nas showing that he alone knew the mystery, which he revealed, in\\nthe letter Alpha. J\\nWe may first incidentally remark on this passage, that the\\nmany apocryphal books fabricated by the Marcosians could\\nhave had but a short-lived existence, and were but of little\\nnote since no one of them is specified by name in any\\nwriter nor does Irenseus, in his long article on the sect, nor\\nThilo, p. xxxii. seqq. f Ibid., p. cv. seqq.\\nX Cont. Hseres., lib. i. c. 20, p. 91.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0410.jp2"}, "411": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 377\\nany other writer, refer elsewhere to any use which the Mar-\\ncosians made of them. It may next be observed, that the\\npassage is remarkable, as affording one of the only two exam-\\nples which are reported by the writers during the three\\ncenturies succeeding the death of our Lord, of an argument\\nfor a Gnostic doctrine, founded on a narrative concerning\\nhim not related in the Gospels.* But that this narrative was\\nalready incorporated into a collection of like stories does not\\nappear from Irenseus. His words, on the contrary, rather\\nimply that it was not. In addition, he says, to their apoc-\\nryphal books, for this is the force of his language, they\\nadopt for the same purpose that fiction, a well-known fiction,\\nas is implied, concerning the Lord.\\nThis fiction has become the foundation of two different\\nstories in the Arabic compilation,! and of three in the Greek, t\\nin the former our Saviour being represented as having had\\ntwo successive schoolmasters, and in the latter, three and, as\\nmight be expected from its antiquity, none of the fables of\\nthe same class appears to have been more widely circulated.\\nThe other example which I refer to is the use, before mentioned (see\\np. 354, seqq.), which was made by the Encratites of a passage in the Gospel\\nof the Egyptians.\\nf Cc. 48, 49. t Cc. 6, 7, 8, 14, 15.\\ni; As to the life of Jesus Christ, says Chardin, the Persian legends\\ncontain not only what is in the Gospels, but likewise all the tales found in\\nthe legends of the Eastern Christians, and particularly in an Armenian\\nlegend, entitled VEvangile Enfant* which is nothing but a tissue of fabulous\\nmiracles; such, for example, as that Jesus, seeing Joseph much troubled at\\nhaving cut a board of cedar too short, said to him, Why are you so troubled\\nGive me one end of the board and pull the other, and it will grow longer.\\nAnother story is, that, being sent to school to learn the alphabet, his master\\ndirected him to pronounce A. He paused, and said to his master, Tell me,\\nfirst, why the first letter of the alphabet is formed as it is. Upon this, his\\nmaster treating him as a talkative little child, he answered, I will not say\\nA, till you tell me why the first letter is made as it is. But his master\\ngrowing angry, he said to him, I will instruct you, then. The first letter\\nThe title is so rendered by Chardin.", "height": "4556", "width": "2736", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0411.jp2"}, "412": {"fulltext": "378 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nDuring a long interval after Irenseus, we hear nothing\\nmore of fables respecting the infancy and childhood of Christ.\\nThere is nothing necessarily miraculous in the supposed fact\\nrelated in the story which he quotes on the contrary, none\\nbut the Marcosians, or those who entertained like notions\\nwith them of the mysterious significance of the letters of the\\nalphabet, could have inferred from it any supernatural knowl-\\nedge in the infant Jesus. Epiphanius is the first writer who\\ndistinctly refers to stories of fabulous miracles performed by\\nJesus in his childhood and these stories he does not alto-\\ngether reject. The miracle at the marriage feast at Cana, he\\nsays, was the first performed by Jesus, except, perhaps,\\nthose which he is reported to have performed in his youth, in\\nplay as it were, according to what some say. After him,\\nChrysostom expresses his opinion, that the miracle of Cana\\nwas the first performed by our Saviour, and rejects, as wholly\\nundeserving of credit, the fables concerning miracles per-\\nformed by him in his childhood.f\\nAs regards the book now extant, of which the author calls\\nhimself Thomas, it could not have been that referred to by\\nthe author of the Homilies on Luke, and subsequently by some\\nother ancient writers, under the name of the Gospel of\\nThomas for it is evidently a composition of the Middle Ages.\\nAll, it would seem, that can be meant by those modern\\nof the alphabet is formed of three perpendicular lines on a horizontal line\\n(the Armenian A is thus formed, very like an inverted m) to teach us that\\nthe Beginning of all things is one Essence in three persons. Voyages en\\nPerse, torn. ii. pp. 269, 270, ed. 4to, 1735.\\nThe difference between the Armenian version of the story of the alpha-\\nbet and that given by the Marcosians shows the changes to which fables of\\nthis sort were exposed. Two stories, different from each other, but both\\ncorresponding essentially to the marvel of lengthening the cedar board, are\\nfound, one in the Arabic Gospel (c. 39), and the other in the Gospel of\\nThomas (c 13).\\nHseres., Ii. 20, Opp. i. 442.\\nHomil. in Joannem, xx. col. 132, ed. 1697. Homil. xvi. col. 108.\\nHomil. xxii. col. 124.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0412.jp2"}, "413": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 379\\nwriters who have regarded the two books as the same, is,\\nthat the one anciently called the Gospel of Thomas served as\\na basis for the present compilation of fables. But the present\\nbook bears so thoroughly, in its matter and style, the charac-\\nter of an age far later than that in which the Gospel of\\nThomas is first mentioned, that, should we attempt to sep-\\narate this character from it, we should find that nothing\\nwould be left. Besides, of those different compilations of\\nfables that have been mentioned, only one set professes to have\\nbeen written by an author called Thomas and no copy which\\nbears his name assumes to be called a gospel. The supposi-\\ntion, that the ancient Gospel of Thomas was so remarkable a\\nbook, as one containing a collection of stories respecting our\\nLord s childhood must have been regarded during the first\\nthree centuries, cannot be reconciled with the facts, that we\\nare not informed of its contents by any ancient writer that\\nit is not quoted under that name by any ancient writer\\nthat those who mention the fables cfo not speak of the Gospel\\nof Thomas, and that those who mention the Gosj^el of Thom-\\nas do not speak of the fables.^\\nThere is another book that has been reckoned among apocryphal\\nwritings, The Gospel of Nicodemus, so called,\u00e2\u0080\u0094 of which, when the\\nfirst edition of this work was published, it did not seem to me that there was\\noccasion to give an account in relation to the argument before us, or that\\nthere would be any propriety in doing so incidentally. But I have remarked\\nthat one of the most noted modern champions of infidelity (Strauss), in\\ntreating of the death of our Lord, and elsewhere, often quotes it, and com-\\npares its statements with those of the evangelists as he has also quoted, in\\nlike manner, the Protevangelion of James, the History of the Nativity of\\nMary (see before, p. 374), and the Gospels of the Infancy.\\nThe Gospel of Xicodemus is equally fabulous with the books just men-\\ntioned. The Greek original has been published, from a collation of different\\ncopies, with elaborate notes, by Thilo. A Latin translation, which differs\\nfrom it in many particulars, may be found in Fabricius and Jones. The\\ncopies of this book, like those of others of the same class, vary much from\\none another.\\nAccording to the Greek text, a person who announces himself as Ananias,\\na Jew, says, that, in the reign of Theodosius (his blunders in chronology", "height": "4540", "width": "2688", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0413.jp2"}, "414": {"fulltext": "880 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nBut. it may be asked, were the fables contained in the\\nProtevangelion and the Books of the Infancy ever really\\nbelieved The question falls into the same wide class with\\nare such as to leave it uncertain whether he meant the first or second emperor\\nof that name), he had discovered this book; that it was written originally\\nin Hebrew by Nicodemus, and that he had translated it into Greek.\\nThe book which follows this proem consists, first, of an account of the\\ntrial of our Lord before Pilate, founded on the relations of the evangelists.\\nIt is swelled by a narrative of the appearance before Pilate of many who had\\nbeen the subjects or witnesses of his miracles, miracles recorded in the\\nGospels, who are introduced as testifying in his favor. Then, after an ac-\\ncount of his death and burial, follows a marvellous story respecting Joseph\\nof Arimathea, who is represented as having been persecuted by the Jews on\\naccount of the honor paid by him to the body of Jesus, and to have been\\ndelivered from confinement by Jesus immediately after his own resurrection\\nand narratives of individuals supposed to have witnessed the ascension of\\nour Lord, and to have testified to this fact before the Jewish Sanhedrim.\\nHere it seems probable that the book originally ended; but, in some manu-\\nscripts, a conclusion is found, which consists of an account of our Lord s\\ndescent to Hades, and of his carrying away thence the souls of the just who\\nhad died before his time. It is given in the form of a deposition before the\\nSanhedrim of two of the dead, who were present in Hades upon the occasion\\nwhich deposition they themselves committed to writing, and gave into the\\nhands of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. This concluding legend\\nappears to have been the immediate source of those conceptions respecting\\nour Lord s descent to Hell, or the Harrowing of Hell, as it was called in\\nold English literature, which were common in the latter part of the Middle\\nAges.\\nISuch is the Gospel of Nicodemus. It is not named by any Greek or\\nLatin father nor is there any clear proof of its existence till a very late\\nperiod. (See the Testunonia et Censurce collected by Fabricius, i. 214-237,\\nand the Prolegomena of Thilo.) There would be no greater want of good\\nsense in quoting a miracle-play of the Middle Ages for the purpose of con-\\nfronting its representations with those of the evangelists, than what appears\\nin quoting for this end the Gospel of Nicodemus; or, it may be added, in\\nthus quoting the Protevangelion of James, the History of the Nativity, and\\nthe Gospels of the Infancy.\\nBut as this book has been mentioned, it may be well to enter into some\\nfurther explanation respecting it. There has been, as I conceive, a great\\nconfusion of ideas concerning it, arising from the error of giving it the addi-\\ntional name of The Acts of Pilate. This error appears to have had its\\norigin from two passages in the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours,", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0414.jp2"}, "415": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 881\\nmany others, to all which a common answer is to be given.\\nWere the legends with which the whole history of Christen-\\ndom was swarming from the fourth ceriturv to the fifteenth\\nwritten in the latter part of the sixth century. In the first of these passages\\n(lib. i. cap. 21), Gregory makes a very brief mention of the imprisonment of\\nJoseph of Arimathea by the chief-priests (the story before referred to), which\\nhe says was related in the Acts of Pilate (Gesta PUaii). sent by him to the\\nEmperor Tiberius: and in the second (ibid., c. 24) he mentions these Acts\\nagain, as containing information, given by Pilate to the emperor, of the\\nmiracles, death, and passion of Jesus, and as being still extant. The cir-\\ncumstance, that, in the first passage, he has referred to the persecution of\\nJoseph of Arimathea. which is related in the Gospel of Xicodemus, has led\\nto the belief that this work is, or was originally, the same book with the Acts\\nof Pilate. But the argument would in no case avail to prove this identity,\\nsince the author of the Gospel of Xicodemus may, equally with Gregory,\\nhave derived the story, directly or indirectly, from some book which bore\\nthat title. It may even be that Gregory himself furnished him with the\\ngerm of his fable.\\nHere two questions arise: What was the original meaning of that title,\\nThe Acts of Pilate and how must it be understood in relation to the\\nsubject before us?\\nThe accounts which the Roman provincial governors were accustomed to\\nsend to the emperor of their own doings, and of remarkable events in their\\nrespective provinces, were sometimes called Acts {Acta in Latin, or, as\\nwritten in Greek letters, Asra). There can be little doubt that Pilate did\\nsend home such an account relating to Jesus. Rumors concerning him must\\nhave reached Rome and his reputed miracles and claims, and the circum-\\nstances connected with his history and death, were not matters to be passed\\nover in silence in the reports of a procurator who was under the eye of\\nTiberius.\\nAccordingly. Justin and Tertullian. in their Apologies, refer briefly in gen-\\neral terms to the account of Pilate, which Justin calls his Acts, as confirm-\\ning their statements respecting the miracles and death of Jesus. But it- is\\nnot probable that either of them had seen an authentic copy of those Acts,\\nor that such copies were ever in circulation. They either spoke from private,\\ninformation, direct or indirect, or perhaps inferred, from the nature of the\\ncase, that the account given by Pilate must tend to confirm their own.\\nIn the beginning of the fourth century, according to the relation of Euse-\\nbius (Hist. Eccles., lib. ix. c. 5: conf. lib. i. cc. 9, 11), during the persecu-\\ntion under Maximin. pretended Acts of Pilate, full of calumnies against our\\nLord, were fabricated and zealously circulated\\nAfterward, as we learn from Epiphanius (Ha?res., 1 Opp. i. 420), there\\nwere extant among Christians, in the fourth century, other spurious Acts of", "height": "4560", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0415.jp2"}, "416": {"fulltext": "382 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nreally believed How was it with the mythology and marvels\\nof Greek and Roman Paganism, interwoven as they were\\nwith the religions sentiments and rites and daily usages of\\nPilate, which were appealed to by certain heretics, in proof that our Lord\\nsuffered on the eighth of the Calends of April, the anniversary of which day\\nthey commemorated. Epiphanius says (but whether truly or not may be a\\nquestion) that he had seen copies of those Acts giving a different date. The\\nauthor of a Homily ascribed to Chrysostom (Chrysostomi Opp. v. 942, ed.\\nSavil.) says that the day of our Lord s death was known, from the Acts of\\nPilate, to be the eighth of the Calends of April. The same date is also\\nfound in the Gospel of Nicodemus.\\nThis is the sum of all the information concerning any renl or pretended\\nActs of Pilate furnished by all the writers before Gregory of Tours.\\nNo one can be supposed to imagine, that the Gospel of Nicodemus is\\neither the authentic Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin and Tertullian. or\\nthose spurious Acts which were put into circulation during the persecution\\nunder Maximin. It follows, that those who believe the Gospel to be the\\nsame book with the Acts must believe it to be the Acts of which Epiphanius\\nspeaks, of the contents of which we know nothing, except that they specified\\na particular day as that of our Lord s death.\\nBut this belief must be entertained in opposition to the clear and decisive\\nevidence furnished by the book itself.\\nThe Greek Gospel published by Thilo begins with a statement that the\\nHebrew original was found and translated into Greek in the seventeenth\\nyear of Theodosius, the first or second of that name. At the end of the\\nLatin version edited by Fabricius, Theodosius the Great is said to have\\ndiscovered it in the Praetorium of Pilate at Jerusalem, which extraordinary\\nstory shows that the times of Theodosius must have been to the author of\\nthis version a fabulous age. No copy of the work assigns an earlier date\\nfor its discovery.\\nBut no one will credit the fable of the Hebrew original of the book. The\\nGreek text is the original; and this, it appears, claims for itself no higher\\nantiquity than the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth.\\nIt is probably of much later date. But, on its own showing, it could not\\nhave been the book quoted, as Epiphanius reports, under the name of The\\nActs of Pilate, by heretics in the fourth century.\\nThe character of the Gospel of Nicodemus is such as to render the sup-\\nposition utterly incredible, that any one could have put it forth under the\\nname of u The Acts of Pilate; that title being understood, as it undoubtedly\\nwas during the first four centuries, to denote an official account of his doings\\nconcerning Jesus sent by Pilate to the emperor. It has nothing of the\\nnature or form of an official communication. It is a legendary fable. There\\nis no inscription to Tiberius, nor any address to him throughout the book.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0416.jp2"}, "417": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 383\\nthe most enlightened nations of antiquity Had the Egyp-\\ntians a true faith that a particular bull was their god Apis\\nDid they believe in the divinity of the Crocodile and the\\nIbis What was their state of mind in respect to their other\\ngods, quaJia demens ^Egyptus portenta colehat, with all\\nthe strange and disgusting histories attached to them? How\\nhas it been with the Hindus, one of the few nations out of\\nthe European family which have approached to European\\nintelligence Have they believed or not the enormous fables\\nthat even a healthy imagination shrinks from which are\\nreported as true in their sacred books How much of the\\nhistory of human opinions on all the higher subjects of\\nthought is a history of human errors, often of errors the\\nmost repulsive to reason, yet widely prevailing, and obsti-\\nnately maintained from century to century Have not those\\nerrors been believed\\nThe general answer to be given to these questions em-\\nbraces the particular reply to the inquiry by which they\\nwere suggested, respecting the fables of the Protevangelion\\nand of the Books of the Infancy. Throughout the history of\\nmankind, we find, as regards both facts and doctrines, the\\nbroadest exhibitions of credulitv, which, if the delusion have\\nXor is it pretended in the book itself that Pilate was its author. Ac-\\ncording to its own statement, it was composed by Xic ;demus. In the Greek\\ncopies, there is no mention of Pilate as having any thing to do with it.\\nXor does it appear, that the title, Acts of Pilate, wis given it in any manu-\\nscript, Greek or Latin. In an addition made in Latin copies (Thilo, p. 788),\\nit is said, that Pilate, having been informed by Joseph of Arimathea and\\nKicodemus of all that passed in the Jewish Sanhedrim, wrote all which\\nhad been done and said by the Jews concerning Jesus {omnia quce gesta et\\ndicta sunt cle Jesu a Judceis), and put all the words in the public books of his\\nPraetorium. This story, and the words omnia quas gesta, may perhaps\\nhave countenanced the error of calling it the Acts of Pilate Gesta Pilati).\\nBut the only title which could with any plausibility be derived from the\\npassage would be Acts of the Jews Gesta Judceorum), meaning, in a sense\\nof the word Gesta familiar in the Middle Ages, Deeds (or Doings) of the\\nJews. Note to Second Edition, 1847.", "height": "4560", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0417.jp2"}, "418": {"fulltext": "384 EVIDENCES OF THE\\npassed away, or if we are out of the sphere of its influence,\\nwe can hardly help regarding as monstrous and unnatural, till\\nwe recollect how prevalent they have been, and consequently\\nhow consistent with our common nature. There are other\\navenues, more trodden than the narrow way of reason, by\\nwhich opinions enter the mind. What impresses the imagi-\\nnation, affects the feelings, and is blended with habitual asso-\\nciations, is received by the generality as true. Fables\\nhowever absurd, conceptions however irrational, even un-\\nmeaning forms of words, which have been early presented to\\nthe mind, and with which it has been long conversant, make\\nas vivid an impression upon it as realities, and assume their\\ncharacter. No opinions inhere more strongly than those\\nabout which the reason is not exercised for they are unas-\\nsailable by argument. It would be well to have different\\nwords to distinguish between the two different states of\\nmind, in the one of which we receive conceptions as true\\nwithout reasoning, while in the other our assent is given\\nthrough an exercise of judgment. The term to credit is now\\nused in one of its significations merely as synonymous with\\nthe term to believe. We might confine the use of the former\\nterm to denoting the first kind of assent, assent without the\\nexercise of the understanding and employ the latter only to\\nsignify a faith that relies on reason. Using the words in\\nthese senses, we might say that the mass of errors which\\nhave been credited bears a vast disproportion to the amount\\nof truths which have been believed. Nor shall we find it\\nhard to conceive, nor regard it as a very extraordinary fact,\\nthat the fables respecting the mother of our Lord and our\\nLord himself have been credited, as well as the doctrine of\\ntransubstantiation. Undoubtedly the world has grown wiser\\nor, rather, a small portion of the world has grown wiser and\\nwe may hope that the light will become less troubled, stead-\\nier, and brighter, and spread itself more widely. Aliud ex\\nalio clarescet. Res accendent lumina rebus.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0418.jp2"}, "419": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 385\\nFrom what has appeared in this chapter, it is evident that\\nthe Gnostics did not oppose to the four Gospels any other\\nhistory of Christ s ministry or, to state the conclusion in\\nmore general terms, it is evident, that, during the first three\\ncenturies, no history of Christ s ministry at variance with\\nthe four Gospels was in existence. The history of his min-\\nistry, such as it is contained in them, or in some one of them,\\nserved as a common basis for the opinions of all Christians,\\nboth catholic and heretical.\\nIf the Gospel of the Hebrews, in its uncorrupted state,\\nwas, as we have seen reason to believe, the Gospel of Mat-\\nthew, then there is no probability that any work besides those\\nof the evangelists, professing to be an original history of our\\nLord s ministry, was ever in circulation after the appearance\\nof the first three Gospels, somewhere, probably, about the\\nyear 65. Luke mentions imperfect accounts which preceded\\nhis own. But, after the appearance of the first three Gos-\\npels, though the copies of such accounts might not be\\ndestroyed, they would cease to be multiplied and circulated.\\nWe accordingly find no trace of their existence subsequent\\nto the notice of them by Luke.\\nIt may seem again as if nothing further were to be said\\nbut, in order to exhaust the general subject we are consider-\\ning, a few more remarks remain to be made concerning some\\nsupposed gospels, formerly mentioned, which Eichhorn main-\\ntains to have been in common use during the second century\\npreviously to the use of the catholic Gospels, or even to the\\nexistence of the latter in their present state.* I have\\nalready had occasion to take notice of all the titles which he\\nenumerates, except two. These two, to which we will now\\nattend, are gospels used by Tatian in composing his Dia-\\ntessaron, and .The Gospel of Cerinthus. f\\nSee pp. 61-62 comp. p, 5, seqq.\\nCerinthi Evangelium. Eiehhorn s Einleit. in das X.T., i. 107.\\n25", "height": "4500", "width": "2676", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0419.jp2"}, "420": {"fulltext": "EVIDENCES OF THE\\nTatian, the disciple of Justin Martyr, and the contempo-\\nrary of Irenseus, became an ascetic, and a Gnostic of the\\nYalentinian school. Respecting his Diatessaron, Theodo-\\nret, as we have formerly remarked,* speaks of his having\\nfound two hundred copies of it among the Christians of his\\ndiocese, which he removed, and supplied their place by copies\\nof the Gospels. He says, Tatian put together what is\\ncalled i The Gospel out of the Four (that is, a gospel com-\\nposed out of the four Gospels, a Diatessaron), cutting\\naway the genealogies, and all else which shows that the Lord\\nwas born of the race of David according to the flesh. And\\nthis book is used, not only by those of his sect, but by those\\nwho adhere to the doctrines of the apostles they not know-\\ning the fraud in its composition, but using it, in their simpli-\\ncity, as a compendious book. f It is evident, that Theodoret,\\nwith the book before his eyes, regarded it as a history of\\nChrist compiled from the four Gospels nor does he object\\nany thing to it but the omissions which he specifies. Euse-\\nbius gives the same account of the composition of the book\\nfrom the four Gospels; remarking in connection, that the\\nEncratites (of which sect, he says, Tatian was the founder)\\nused the Gospels, t But, in opposition to all testimony and\\nprobability, it was fancied by Eichhorn that Tatian did not\\nuse our present four Gospels, but four others very like\\nthem, so like them, it appears, that they were mistaken\\nfor them. There is not a sufficient show of argument in\\nsupport of this conjecture to admit of any particular confuta-\\ntion. It may be worth while to discuss it, when the suppo-\\nsition can be rendered plausible, that, in the time of Irenaeus,\\nsimultaneously with our four Gospels, four other gospels\\nexisted very like them, but not the same.\\nSee p. 32. f Ha-ret. Fab lib. i. n. 20, Opp. iv. 208.\\nHist. Eccles., lib. iv. c. 29. Einleit. in das ET., i. 110-113.\\nu Tatian s Gospel, says Eichhorn, was called by many the Gospel of\\nthe Hebrews; and he asks, Whence could this name have arisen, except", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0420.jp2"}, "421": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 887\\nThe Diatessaron of Tatian, then, is one among the abun-\\ndant proofs which the theosophic Gnostics made of the four\\nGospels, and of the authority which they ascribed to them.\\nTTe proceed to the supposed gospel of Cerinthus. Eich-\\nhorn quotes, concerning this, two passages from Epiphanius,\\nwho is his sole authority.\\nThat writer, in his account of the Cerinthians, affirms that\\nthey used the Gospel of Matthew, not complete, however,\\nbut in part only and. in his account of the Ebionites, he\\nsays that Cerinthus used the same Gospel of Matthew with\\nthe Ebionites, except that he retained the genealogy for the\\npurpose of proving from it that Jesus was the son of Joseph\\nand Mary.f\\nRegarding Epiphanius as a trustworthy writer, and as\\nbeing alone a sufficient representative of Christian antiquity,\\nEichhorn asserts that it is undeniable that Christian anti-\\nfrom the circumstance that that gospel served for its basis? The only\\nauthority for his assertion is a passage of Epiphanius.\\nEpiphanius, as his text now stands, says (Uteres., xlvi. 1, Opp i. 391),\\nFrom Tatian, those who are called Encratites derive their origin, partaking\\nof the same venom: and it is said that The Gospel out of the Four, which\\nsome call The Gospel according to the Hebrews, was made by him. But\\nthere can be no doubt that the Diatessaron of Tatian and the Gospel of the\\nHebrews were very different books; and the supposition that the Hebrew\\nGospel of the Jewish Christians was written in Greek by a Gnostic, toward\\nthe close of the second century, is too gross an absurdity J or any one to have\\nentertained. X ;r is there the least probability that the title of The Gospel\\naccording to the Hebrews was ever common to the book to which it prop-\\nerly belonged and to Tatian s Diatessaron. If the text of Epiphanius be\\ncorrect, his assertion can only be reckoned as one among his numberless\\nblunders. But it seems most probable, that his text is corrupt: and that,\\ninstead of Kara r E, 3p 2\u00c2\u00a3Ouc, according to the Hebrews, we should read\\nKara EyKfjarlrac, according to the Encratites. This will accord with his\\nspeaking of Tatian s Diatessaron in immediate connection with his mention\\nof the Encratites as deriving their origin from him. They, of course, were\\nlikelv to make particular use of his Diatessaron; and this therefore might\\nnaturally be called by some The Gospel according to the Encratites.\\nHa^res., xxviii. 5, p. 113. f Ha?res., xxx. 14, p. 138.", "height": "4596", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0421.jp2"}, "422": {"fulltext": "388 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nquity ascribed to Cerinthus the use of Matthew s Gospel, but\\nwith a shorter te_xt; and he infers that the Gospel of\\nGerinthus was an earlier gospel than that of Matthew that\\nis to say, the Gospel which we now call Matthew s in a yet\\nimperfect state. f\\nIt is needless to inquire by what process this might be\\ninferred from the words of Epiphanius, supposing him to be\\na writer of good authority. As we have formerly seen,\\nhe is entitled to no credit in his account of the Cerinthians.\\nHe has manufactured a sect, to which, ascribing the doctrines\\nof the Ebionites, he has likewise ascribed the use of the\\nGospel of the Ebionites.\\nBut there is another passage of Epiphanius, which Eich-\\nhorn has omitted to notice. It is in his account of the Alogi.\\nLuke, he says, in the first words of his Gospel, since\\nmany have undertaken, that. is, to write gospels, points\\nto some undertakers, as Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others.\\nHe had before told us that Cerinthus and his followers used\\nthe Gospel of Matthew, with some omissions. He here tells\\nEinleit. in das N.T., i. 110. It may be worth while here to take notice\\nof what we might call an extraordinary oversight of Eichhorn, if such over-\\nsights did not often occur in the works of the modern theologians of Ger-\\nmany. Cerinthus is represented, by all the ancient writers who pretend to\\ngive an account of him, as teaching that Jesus was the son of Joseph and\\nMary. But Eichhorn, after quoting his authority, Epiphanius, to this effect,\\nproceeds, a few lines after (p. 108), to observe, that, as the gospel of Cerin-\\nthus had the genealogy of Jesus, so it probably had also the whole evange-\\nlium mfantke (gospel of the infancy) which is now contained in the first two\\nchapters of Matthew. That is to say, Eichhorn supposes, that, though\\nCerinthus rejected the belief of the miraculous conception of our Lord, he\\nreceived the account of it as authentic.\\nIt is by conjectures which have more or less of a like character, and by\\ncritics equally inconsiderate, that the genuineness and authenticity of the\\nGospels have been assailed in modern times in Germany. Among those\\ncritics, I know of none who is to be ranked higher than Eichhorn for theo-\\nlogical knowledge, clearness of mind, and power of reasoning.\\nf Einleit. in das N.T., i. 109. See pp. 199, 200.\\nHaeres., li. 7, p. 428.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0422.jp2"}, "423": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 389\\nus that Cerinthus wrote a gospel before Luke wrote his.\\nFollowing him, therefore, as a well-informed and credible\\nwriter, and putting his different accounts together, we must\\nconclude that Cerinthus was the original composer of Mat-\\nthew s Gospel, Eeasoning after a fashion with which every\\none acquainted with modern German theology must be* famil-\\niar, we might go on to infer, as highly probable, that Merin-\\nthus was the author of the Gospel of Mark. But here we\\nshould be met by a difficulty, arising from what Epiphanius\\nelsewhere says, that he did not know whether Cerinthus and\\nMerinthus were different persons, or only different names of\\nthe same person/* But the existence of the very early\\ngospel of Merinthus, which, I believe, no one has yet under-\\ntaken to patronize, rests on as good ground as that of the\\ngospel of Cerinthus.\\nIn pursuing the inquiry concerning the supposed existence\\nof Gnostic gospels, we have enabled ourselves to form a\\ncorrect judgment of the character and importance of all\\nthose books which have been called apocryphal gospels, and\\nof their bearing on the genuineness and authenticity of those\\nfour books which in ancient times were universally recognized\\nas the original histories of Christ s ministry, given by his\\nimmediate followers, or those who derived their knowledge\\nfrom them. On the subject of apocryphal gospels, there\\nhave been vague and incorrect notions, that have continued,\\nin one form or other, down to our time, among those who\\nhave been disposed to invalidate the authority of the four\\nGospels. They cannot, perhaps, be more clearly or more\\nbriefly explained than in the words of the Jew Orobio, in his\\ncelebrated controversy with Limborch* respecting the truth\\nof Christianity. There were, he says, besides the four\\nGospels many others, some of which are referred to by\\nHasres., xxviii. 8, p. 115.", "height": "4548", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0423.jp2"}, "424": {"fulltext": "390 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nJerome and other fathers, which were the foundation of\\ndifferent heresies. Such were the gospel to the Egyptians,\\nthat to the Hebrews, that of Thomas, that of Bartholomew,f\\nthat of the Twelve Apostles, t that of Basilides, that of Har-\\npocras, and others that it would be superfluous to mention,\\nevery one of which had its adherents, and gave occasion to\\ndispute. All these gospels, conflicting with one another in\\nregard to the truth of the history, were in the course of time,\\nand by the authority of councils, rejected the four only being\\nadmitted in Europe, as corresponding best with each other.\\nOn the ground of such statements, it has been argued, in\\neffect, that there were originally many various accounts of\\nChrist s ministry, differing much from one another, so that\\nthe truth was altogether unsettled and that our four Gospels,\\nwhich had no particular claim to credit, obtained general\\ncurrency, to the exclusion of other works of the same kind,\\nin consequence only of their finding favor with the prevalent\\nparty among Christians, and hence being sanctioned by the\\ndecrees of councils. Respecting this supposition, it is here\\nunnecessary to recur to that evidence for the universal recep-\\ntion of the four Gospels by the great body of Christians,\\nwhich shows it to be altogether untenable. In the present\\nThe imperfect and erroneous view of the subject taken by Orobio is\\nsufficiently evident from this reference to Jerome. Books which could have\\ncome into competition with the four Gospels must have been very conspicu-\\nous books long before the time of Jerome.\\nt This title is first mentioned by Jerome in his Proem to Matthew s Gos-\\npel. The existence of any book answering to it is doubtful.\\nThis was another title for the Gospel of the Hebrews. See before,\\np. 369, note.\\nBy Harpocras must, it would seem, be meant Carpocrates and Orobio\\nprobably had in mind an indistinct recollection of the story of Epiphanius\\n(Hseres., xxx. 14, p. 138), that Carpocrates used the Gospel of Matthew,\\ncorrupted, in common with the Ebionites. Except this title, and that of\\nThe Gospel of Bartholomew, the others enumerated by Orobio have been\\nalready remarked upon.\\nThe passage is quoted by Fabricius, i. 146.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0424.jp2"}, "425": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 391\\nchapter, we have examined, or adverted to, every book, real\\nor supposed, passing under the name of a gospel, the title of\\nwhich is mentioned by any writer before Epiphanius. Among\\nthem are the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Gospel of\\nMarcion. The existence of neither of these books can\\nweaken the proof of the authority and general reception of\\nthe four Gospels. But it would be idle to suppose that any\\nother of those which have been mentioned was brought into\\ncompetition with the four Gospels as a different history of\\nChrist s ministry and still more idle to suppose this of any\\nbook, the very title of which is not mentioned till after the\\nmiddle of the fourth century.*\\nThe main purpose of our inquiry respecting the Gnostics\\nhas been to determine whether they afford evidence for the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels. That they do afford such evi-\\ndence has abundantly appeared. But something remains to\\nbe said. In the next chapter, we shall conclude with bring-\\ning into one view the facts already adduced, in connection\\nwith others not yet adverted to, and attending to the relations\\nand bearings of the whole.\\nA degree of confusion and misapprehension respecting the subject of\\napocryphal gospels may have been produced by the fact, that Fabricius\\ngives an account of such gospels under fifty titles, which, as the same book\\nsometimes passed under two or more different titles, he supposes may repre-\\nsent about forty books (i. 335,* note). But in making this collection he has\\ntaken a very wide range. He has included writings which have no claim to\\nthe title of gospel. either in the ancient or modern sense of the word: and\\nhe has brought his catalogue down to the year 1600, mentioning a History\\nof Christ in Persian, published that year by the missionary Jerome Xavier,\\nfor the benefit of his converts. Many of the titles collected by him rest on\\nno good authority. Some evidently had their origin in ignorance and mis-\\napprehension With the exception of those which have been remarked upon,\\nthey are to be found only in writers from Epiphanius downward. Their\\nalphabetical arrangement, however, tends, at first view, to give the impres-\\nsion, that one deserves as much attention as another. But, of the works\\nmentioned by Fabricius, all that can with any reason be supposed to have\\nbeen extant before the middle of the third century have been taken notice\\nof in this chapter.", "height": "4540", "width": "2720", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0425.jp2"}, "426": {"fulltext": "CHAPTER IX.\\nCONCLUDING STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE GENU-\\nINENESS OF THE GOSPELS AFFORDED BY THE GNOSTICS.\\nThe facts that have been brought forward show in what\\nmanner the Gospels were regarded by the Gnostics. It has\\nappeared, that the theosophic Gnostics recognized the author-\\nity of the four Gospels in common with the catholic Chris-\\ntians while the Gospel used by the Marcionites was essentially\\nthe same with the Gospel of Luke^ But we will now review\\nthose facts in connection with some others which have not\\nyet been stated, and consider more particularly what infer-\\nences may be drawn from the whole. In pursuing the\\nsubject, we will first confine our attention to the Marcion-\\nites.\\nAn unjustifiable application of a principle common to all\\nthe Gnostics led the Marcionites to reject certain passages\\nfrom the text of Luke, and to decline any appeal to the\\nauthority of the three remaining Gospels. But the very\\nprinciple on which they proceeded, that the apostles and\\ntheir followers were under the influence of Jewish prejudices,\\nimplies that they recognized the genuineness of the passages,\\nand of the Gospels, which they rejected. It may be further\\nremarked, that their having recourse to the mutilation of\\nSee before, p 332, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0426.jp2"}, "427": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 393\\nLuke s Gospel shows that no other history of Christ s minis-\\ntry existed more favorable to their doctrines that in the\\nfirst half of the second century, when Marcion lived, there\\nwas no Gnostic gospel in being, to which he could appeal.\\nThe fact, that Marcion s gospel was founded on that of\\nLuke, proves the existence and authority of Luke s Gospel at\\nthe time when Marcion lived. We may therefore recur to\\nthe reasoning which has before been used, to show that the\\nexistence and authority of any one of the four Gospels at a\\nparticular period implies the contemporaneous existence and\\nauthority of the other three.* In proving their genuineness,\\nif that reasoning be correct, they may be regarded as virtually\\none book. Had any other of the Gospels not existed together\\nwith that of Luke at the commencement of the second cen-\\ntury, or had it not then been regarded as of authority, it\\nnever could afterward have attained to the high estimation in\\nwhich Luke s Gospel was held.\\nWe will next attend to the broad distinction that was made\\nbetween the Marcionites and the theosophic Gnostics in con-\\nsequence of the fact, that the Marcionites admitted, as of\\nauthority among the Gospels, only their mutilated copy of\\nLuke. On this ground Irenaeus, as we have seen,f declined\\ncontroverting their opinions in connection with those of the\\nother Gnostics and Tertullian, in confuting them, expressly\\nlimited himself to the use of their own gospel. The distinc-\\ntion was, that the Marcionites recognized only the authority\\nof their own gospel while the other Gnostics, as is thus\\ntestified by their opponents, appealed equally with the catho-\\nlic Christians to the authority of all the four Gospels.\\nThis is the concession of their opponents. But we will go\\non, and see what further evidence of the fact exists.\\nI have repeatedly had occasion to refer to the letter of\\nSee pp. 102-107. t p. 209.", "height": "4560", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0427.jp2"}, "428": {"fulltext": "394 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nPtolemy, the Valentinian, to Flora, in which he gives an\\naccount of his doctrines respecting the Supreme Being and\\nthe Creator. In this letter he says, that he shall prove what\\nhe asserts by the words of the Saviour, which only are an\\ninfallible guide to the apprehension of the truth and he\\naccordingly confirms his positions throughout by quotations\\nfrom the Gospels. In the conclusion of the letter, he intro-\\nduces the mention of those apostolic traditions to which the\\nGnostics appealed, but speaks of them only as an additional\\nand subordinate means of knowledge. He promises to give\\nfurther explanations, founded on the doctrine of the apostles\\nreceived by tradition every thing at the same time being\\nconfirmed by the teaching of the Saviour, which must be\\ntaken as the standard. Heracleon, another Valentinian, who\\nlived in the second century, and was highly esteemed, as we\\nare told, by those of his own sect, wrote a commentary on\\nthe Gospel of John, which is often quoted by Origen. The\\nviews of the Basilidians respecting the Gospels may be in-\\nferred from the fact, that Basilides himself wrote a commen-\\ntary on the Gospels.^ Tatian, who was a Gnostic, composed,\\nas we have seen, a Harmony of the Gospels, f And, in the\\nDoctrina Orientalis, the Gnostic writer appeals to the Gos-\\npels to countenance his opinions as freely as a catholic Chris-\\ntian might have done, and appeals to no other history of\\nChrist. It is throughout to be kept in mind, that the theo-\\nsophic Gnostics, while they thus used the Gospels, used no\\nother books of the same class as of like authority that they\\ndid not, any more than the catholic Christians, bring any\\nother history of Christ s ministry into competition with\\nthem.\\nIn treating of the doctrines of the theosophic Gnostics, I\\nhave incidentally given examples of the use made by them\\nSee before, pp. 352, 353. f See before, pp. 385-387.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0428.jp2"}, "429": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 395\\nof passages of the Gospels. Many more might be adduced.\\nBut a particular enumeration of passages to which they\\nappealed is unnecessary, since their use of the Gospels is\\nfully acknowledged by their catholic opponents.\\nIrenaeus begins his w T ork by charging them with deceiving\\nmen by ki corrupting the oracles of the Lord, being evil inter-\\npreters of what has been well spoken. He often remarks\\non their ingenuity in perverting the Scriptures. Speaking\\nparticularly of the Valentinians, he says, You see the\\nmethod they use to deceive themselves, wresting the Scrip-\\ntures, and endeavoring to find support in them for their\\nfictions. f He gives connectedly many passages from the\\nGospels, w T hich they applied to the proof of their doctrines,\\nand afterwards confutes their interpretations, t He sj)eaks\\nof them as making use of every part of the Gospel of John.\\nI have already quoted a passage, in which he says, that those\\nheretics, in putting together detached passages of Scripture,\\nresemble one who should separate the stones of a mosaic\\nrepresenting a king, and employ them to make the figure of a\\nfox or a clog and another, in which he compares their abun-\\ndant use of Scripture language to the labor of one stringing\\ntogether verses of Homer to form a cento.1T There is such\\nassurance, he says, concerning the Gospels, that the her-\\netics themselves bear testimony to them, and every one of\\nthem endeavors to prove his doctrine from them. As,\\nthen, those who oppose us bear testimony in our favor, and\\nuse these Gospels, it follows that what we have shown that\\nthe Gospels teach is established and true.\\nThere could not be heresies, says Tertullian, if the\\nLib. i. Prsefat, 1, p. 2. f Lib. i. c. 9, 1, p. 43.\\nf Lib. i. cc. 8, 9, pp. 85-47. Lib. iii. c. 11, 7, p. 190.\\nLib. i.e. 8, \u00c2\u00a71, p. 36.\\nH Lib. i. c. 9, 4, pp. 45, 46. Tertullian uses the same comparison, De\\nPrescript. Heretic., c. 39, p. 216.\\nLib. iii. c. 11, 7, pp. 189, 190.", "height": "4552", "width": "2740", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0429.jp2"}, "430": {"fulltext": "896 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nScriptures were incapable of being misinterpreted. They\\ncould not venture to show themselves without some pre-\\ntence from the Scriptures. The heretics plead their\\ncause from the Scriptures, and draw their arguments from\\nthe Scriptures. Yfhence, indeed, could they draw their argu-\\nments concerning the subjects of faith, except from the books\\nof the faith t\\nIt appears, then, that the theosophic Gnostics abundantly\\nappealed to the Scriptures, and particularly to the Gospels, in\\nsupport of their opinions. The passages I have quoted, and\\nothers of a similar character, are not to be considered as mere\\ncommon testimony to this fact. They are the admissions of\\ntheir opponents. So far as there was any ground for it, the\\ncatholic Christians were easier to charge the Gnostics with mu-\\ntilating, rejecting, and undervaluing the writings of the New\\nTestament. In the case of the Marcionites, this accusation\\nwas strongly urged. But, as respects the theosophic Gnos-\\ntics, we have the testimony of the earliest and most elaborate\\nwriters against them, of Irenasus and Tertullian, that they\\nmade use of the Gospels, and other writings of the New\\nTestament, and constantly appealed to them for proof of\\ntheir doctrines, as freely as the catholic Christians.\\nThe Marcionites made similar use of those portions of the\\nNew Testament the authority of which they admitted. This\\nis abundantly apparent from Tertullian s whole controversy\\nwith them and might be inferred simply from the fact, that\\nthey did acknowledge the authority of those portions which\\nthey retained.\\nBut the evidence which has been brought forward of the\\nfacts just stated, however conclusive, is not perhaps the most\\nstriking that may be adduced. There is a remarkable work\\nDe Resurrectione Carnis, c. 40, p. 349. f Ibid., c. 63, p. 365.\\nt De Prescript. Haeret, c. 14, p. 207.\\nA", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0430.jp2"}, "431": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 397\\nof Tertullian, entitled De Prgescriptione Hrereticorum.\\nThe word prcescriptio, used in this title, was a forensic term,\\ndenoting an exception taken by a defendant to the plaintiff s\\nright to maintain an action. The title of Tertullian s work\\nmight be rendered, On the Plea in Bar against the Here-\\ntics. Its purpose is to show that the heretics should not be\\nallowed to argue their cause from the Scriptures. The posi-\\ntion which he maintains is, that the history of the catholic\\ndoctrine, and of the doctrines of the heretics, alone determines\\nthe former to be true, and the latter false, without further\\ninquiry. His argument proceeds as follows\\nChrist, whoever he was, of whatever God he was the son,\\nwhatever was the substance of his divine and of his human\\nnature, whatever faith he taught, whatever rewards he prom-\\nised, declared, while on earth, what he was, what he had been,\\nthe will of his Father, and the duty of man, either publicly to\\nthe people, or apart to his disciples. He sent forth his\\napostles, who had been chosen by him for this purpose, to\\npreach to the world the same doctrine which he had taught.\\nThey founded churches in every city where they went,\\nfrom which other churches had been and were still derived.\\nThese all traced back their origin to the apostles, and\\nformed one great apostolic Church, held together in brother-\\nhood by the reception of the same religion handed down\\nto all.\\nBut, if Christ gave authority to his apostles to preach his\\nreligion, no other expositors of it are to be listened to. What\\nthey preached is what he revealed and, in order to ascertain\\nwhat they preached, we must recur to the churches which\\nthey founded, and instructed orally and by their epistles.\\nWhatever doctrine is held by those churches is true, as\\nderived from the apostles, and through them from Christ, and\\nthrough Christ from God. Every other doctrine is false.\\nBut we, says Tertullian, hold communion with the apos-\\ntolic churches there is no difference of belief between us", "height": "4536", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0431.jp2"}, "432": {"fulltext": "398 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nand them and this is the proof of the truth of our doc-\\ntrines.\\nThe argument stated in its most concise form, it will be\\nperceived, is this, that it was matter of history that the\\ncatholic churches had, from the days of the apostles, held the\\nsame, doctrines as they did in the time of Tertullian and\\nthat these doctrines, therefore, were the original doctrines of\\nthe religion derived through the apostles from Christ. It\\nwas equally a matter of history, he continues, that the\\nfounders of the principal heretical sects, Valentinus and Mar-\\ncion, for instance, had lived after the times of the apostles,\\nand had introduced new doctrines not before held by the\\nchurches. If their doctrines were true, the churches had\\nbefore been in error from the beginning. Thousands of\\nthousands had been baptized into a false religion. Let\\nthem show me, says Tertullian, by what authority they\\nhave come forward. Let them prove themselves to be\\nnew apostles let them affirm that Christ has again descended,\\nhas again taught, has again been crucified, has again died,\\nand has risen again. It was thus that he formed his apos-\\ntles giving them, moreover, the power of working the same\\nmiracles which he did. I wish them to produce their mira-\\ncles. f\\nThe main scope of the reasoning of Tertullian is apparent.\\nIt is, he maintains, a well-known historical fact, that the\\ncatholic doctrine, as opposed to that of the Gnostics, has been\\nheld from the beginning by the churches which the apostles\\nfounded, and by all other churches in communion with them.\\nThis fact precludes the necessity of any further argument\\nwith those heretics. They have no claim to be heard in\\nappealing to the Scriptures in support of their opinions.\\nTertullian remarks at length upon the various objections\\nwhich were made to his argument by different individuals, or\\nCc. 20, 21, pp. 208, 209. f Cc. 29, 30, pp. 212, 213.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0432.jp2"}, "433": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 399\\nby the same at different times. All of them, it may be\\nobserved, are founded on passages of the New Testament.\\nWith the exception of the last to be here mentioned, they\\nhave already been spoken of. The Gnostics sometimes said,\\nthat the apostles did not know all things sometimes, that\\nthe apostles had a public and a private doctrine, and did not\\ncommunicate all truths openly to all f and, finally, they con-\\ntended, that the catholic churches, from the earliest times, had\\nfallen into error through not understanding what the apostles\\ntaught.\\nIt is not necessary to dwell on the answers of Tertullian to\\nthese objections. His main argument, considering the early\\nperiod when it was adduced, and its application as against the\\ndoctrines of the Gnostics, is evidently conclusive. I have\\ngiven this brief account of it for the purpose of introducing\\nthe reason which he assigns for urging it. This reason is,\\nthat in the controversy between the catholic Christians and\\nthe Gnostics, when the Gnostics were allowed to appeal to\\nthe Scriptures in proof of their doctrines, they argued so\\nplausibly as to leave the victory uncertain to make converts\\nof some, and to instil doubts into others.\\nWe come, then, he says, to the subject proposed. Our\\nopponents put forward the Scriptures, and their boldness has an\\nimmediate effect upon some. In the first encounter, they fatigue\\nthe strong, they take captive the weak, and dismiss others with\\ndoubts. Here, then, I meet them at the onset they are not to be\\nadmitted to argue from the Scriptures. 1\\ni( Will he for the sake of whose doubts you engage in an argu-\\nment from the Scriptures, be inclined in consequence more to the\\ntruth or to heresy When he sees that you make no advance\\nthat, the other party maintaining his ground, you both equally\\ndeny and defend, he will surely go away from this conflict more\\nSee before, pp. 332, 333. f See before, pp.^ 327-332.\\nX Cap. 15, p. 207.", "height": "4548", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0433.jp2"}, "434": {"fulltext": "400 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nuncertain than before, and ignorant on which side the heresy\\nlies.\\nThe appeal, therefore, is not to be made to the Scriptures,\\nnor is the decision of the controversy to be rested on them for\\nthey will afford no victory, or an uncertain one, or one no better\\nthan uncertain. Even though the mutual appeal to Scripture\\nshould not leave each party on an equality,! yet the order of\\nthings demands that that consideration should be first brought\\nforward which is the sole subject of the present argument, To\\nwhom does the faith [the religion] itself belong Whose are the\\nScriptures From whom, and through whom, and when, and to\\nwhom, was the instruction delivered, by which men are made\\nChristians For, wherever it may appear that the true Christian\\ninstruction and faith are to be found, there will be the true Scrip-\\ntures, and their true exposition, and all true Christian traditions.\\nThus it appears, that, whatever difficulties the theosophic\\nGnostics found in reconciling their doctrines with the New\\nTestament, they recognized the necessity of doing so that\\nthey were ready to meet their opponents on this ground\\nthat they furnished plausible explanations of those difficulties,\\nand drew from the New Testament plausible arguments in\\ntheir own favor. But this is but a partial statement. The\\ntheosophic Gnostics appealed to the Gospels as freely and as\\nconfidently as did the catholic Christians contending that\\nthey alone had the true key to their meaning, and that other\\nChristians, not being spiritual, could not comprehend their\\nhidden and higher senses. They believed, indeed, that the\\napostles and evangelists were not infallible that they were\\nliable to human errors, and that they were affected by preju-\\ndices and false opinions, common to their countrymen, which\\nhad been implanted in their minds in childhood, had grown\\nwith their growth, and had not been wholly eradicated. But\\nCap. 18, p. 208.\\nf I adopt the reading, ut utramque partem parem sisteret.\\nt Cap. 19, p. 208.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0434.jp2"}, "435": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 401\\nthe theosophic Gnostics, who allegorized and spiritualized the\\nwords of the Gospels, had not the same occasion to misapply\\nthis principle as the Marcionites, who were not allegorists.\\nThe Marcionites regarded the Gospels as colored throughout\\nby the Jewish prejudices of their writers. But, by taking\\nthe work of him whom they considered as the most en-\\nlightened of the evangelists, St. Luke, and rejecting from\\nit some errors, they thought themselves able to obtain a\\nhistory altogether correct and this was the basis of their\\nsystem.\\nStill, had any seemingly credible history of Christ s minis-\\ntry existed, more favorable to the opinions of the Gnostics\\nthan the four Gospels, there can be no doubt that they would\\nhave used that history in preference. The manner, therefore,\\nin which they appealed to the four Gospels, or to the history\\nof Christ as contained in the Gospel of Luke, without bring-\\ning any Gnostic history into competition with them, is proof\\nthat no such history existed. All Christians, the catholics,\\nthe theosophic Gnostics, the Marcionites, and, as we have\\nbefore seen, the Hebrew Christians, were equally ignorant\\nof any history of Christ s ministry different from that given\\nby the evangelists. No party relied on any other no party\\nhad any other to produce.\\nBut it has been suggested, or implied, that the early\\nfounders of the Gnostic sects drew their systems from their\\nphilosophy, and connected them only with some general be-\\nlief that the coming of Christ was a manifestation of the\\nSupreme God for the purpose of delivering men from moral\\nevil and its consequences and that it was merely by way of\\nreasoning ad hominem with the catholic Christians, that the\\nGnostics made use of the Gospels.* Let us try the probabil-\\nSee, for example, Walch s Historie der Ketzereien, i. 374; Matter,\\nHistoire da Guosticisme, ii. 172, 190.\\n26", "height": "4556", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0435.jp2"}, "436": {"fulltext": "402 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nity of this supposition by applying it to a particular case,\\nthat of the Yalentinians.\\nWe have seen, that the Yalentinians so fully, and in such\\nvarious ways, professed their belief in the truth of the Gos-\\npels, that their opponents did not accuse them of denying it\\nthough this charge would unquestionably have been brought\\nagainst them, had there been a foundation for it. But they\\nmade use of the Gospels, it may be said, not in good faith\\nthey quoted them only to satisfy those who demanded\\nproofs from Scripture, or undertook to explain them by\\nw r ay of answering the objections of those who regarded the\\nGospels as of authority. The statements already made show\\nthat these suppositions have no probability to recommend\\nthem but let us examine a little farther. According to this\\nhypothesis, the Yalentinians did not believe the authenticity\\nand genuineness of the Gospels they did not sincerely rec-\\n.ognize their authority they did not believe them to favor\\ntheir own opinions and, consequently, they did not believe\\nthem to teach what they thought true Christianity. At the\\nsame time, it is evident that these books were principally\\nrelied on by their opponents as a storehouse of arguments\\nagainst them. We have, indeed, no reason to doubt that\\nthere was a foundation for the strong language which has\\nbeen quoted from Tertullian, respecting their skilful and suc-\\ncessful use of the Scriptures. We may believe that the\\nGnostics sometimes made converts from among the catholic\\nChristians, and showed much talent, after the fashion of their\\ntimes, in reconciling their doctrines with the New Testament,\\nand in persuading themselves and others that they were indi-\\ncated in the parables or supported by the declarations of\\nChrist, as recorded in the Gospels. But, after all, it is evi-\\ndent that the Gospels do not teach the Gnostic doctrines, but\\ndo teach what is irreconcilable with those doctrines. It is\\nWalch, ubi supra.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0436.jp2"}, "437": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 403\\nequally certain, that this fact was recognized by a great\\nmajority of early believers (for the catholic Christians far\\noutnumbered the Gnostics), and even by a very large and\\nrespectable portion of the Gnostics themselves, the Marcion-\\nites, as appears from the expedient to which they had\\nrecourse, of rejecting the use of three of the Gospels, and\\nmutilating that which they retained. Would fhe Valentin-\\nians, then, have professed to regard those books as authentic,\\nhad there been good reasons for questioning their authen-\\nticity Is it credible, that they would, with such a consistent\\nshow of conviction as to deceive and silence their opponents,\\nhave professed their belief in the truth of the Gospels, had\\nthey not believed them true So far from it, they would\\nat once have seized on the triumph, or at least the advantage,\\nwhich was evidently in their power, could the genuineness\\nand authority of the books relied on by their opponents have\\nbeen fairly denied or fairly questioned. The course to be\\npursued would have been clear and neither an honest man,\\nnor a controvertist of common ability, could have neglected to\\ntake it. The Yalentinians, and. the other theosophic Gnos-\\ntics, would not have persisted in dishonestly affirming or\\nimplying their belief of the authenticity of books which they\\ndid not believe to be authentic, and which furnished their\\nopponents with arguments against their doctrines, conclusive\\nin themselves, and by most regarded as conclusive.\\nLet us view the subject under another aspect. The Gos-\\npels were either known to Valentinus himself, or they were\\nnot. If they ware known to him, they were either regarded\\nby him as genuine and authentic, or they were not. He\\nlived at so early an age, in the first half of the second century,\\nthat no question could have existed in his time, whether they\\nwere entitled to that character. The fact must have been\\nknown, either that they were, or that they were not, entitled\\nto it. If he regarded them as genuine and authentic, there\\ncan be no doubt that they were so regarded by his followers,", "height": "4540", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0437.jp2"}, "438": {"fulltext": "404 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nand by the great body of contemporary Christians and our\\ninquiry is at an end. Let us suppose, then, either that\\nthey were not known to him, that they were not in existence,\\nor that, being known to him, they were rejected by him as\\nunworthy of credit. In either case, he built his system on\\nother foundations, and supported it by other arguments, than\\nwhat those books might afford. In either case, it is evident\\nthat his followers would never have admitted or implied the\\ntruth of the Gospels. They would never have consented to\\nreceive, as genuine and authentic, books not known to their\\nmaster, or which he had rejected, books which they them-\\nselves must have believed to be the fabrications of opponents\\nwho had excluded him and them from their community, and\\nwhich furnished those opponents with the strongest arguments\\nagainst what they regarded as true Christianity. They\\nwould not have exposed themselves to such expostulations as\\nthose of Tertullian If they are heretics, they are not\\nChristians, not deriving their doctrine from Christ. Not\\nbeing Christians, they have no property in the books of\\nChristians. It may justly b.e said to them, Who are you\\nWhen and whence did you come What are you, who do\\nnot belong to me, doing on my premises By what right,\\nIMarcion, do you cut down my woods By what license,\\nYalentinus, do you divert the water of my springs By\\nwhat authority, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks\\nHow is it, that you others are sowing and pasturing here\\nat your pleasure It is my possession I have possessed it of\\nold; I trace back my title to its original source; I am heir\\nof the apostles. To such language it would have required\\nneither an acute nor an angry controvertist to give the an-\\nswer, that this disputed possession was not worth claiming,\\ncould such an answer have been given with truth.\\nDe Prescript. Haeretic, c. 37, p. 215.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0438.jp2"}, "439": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OP THE GOSPELS. 405\\nIn examining (in the Second Part of this work) the direct\\nhistorical evidence of the genuineness of the Gospels, we\\nhave seen, that it does not mainly consist, as in the case of\\nother books, of assertions and implications of individual\\nwriters concerning their authorship. It rests on the fact, that\\nthey were universally received, as the works of those to\\nwhom they are ascribed, by the great body of catholic Chris-\\ntians, at so early a period that no mistake on the subject\\ncould have been committed and on another consideration of\\nequal weight, that this general reception of the Gospels as\\ngenuine, wherever Christianity had been preached, is a phe-\\nnomenon which can be accounted for only on the supposition\\nof their genuineness.\\nBut, in turning from the catholic Christians to the Gnos-\\ntics, it might not be unreasonable to apprehend, considering\\nthe opposition in which the two parties stood to each other,\\nthat something would appear to cloud the testimony of the\\nformer, and perhaps to shake our confidence in it as conclu-\\nsive. Certainly, had there been, during the first ages of\\nChristianity, any doubt concerning the genuineness of the\\nGospels, we should have learned it from the Gnostics. But,\\nso far from any doubt being suggested by the examination\\nwhich we have gone through, we find the Gnostics strongly\\nconfirming the testimony of their catholic opponents. Yalen-\\ntinus and Basilides carry us back to the earlier part of the\\nsecond century and they, in common with the catholic\\nChristians, received the Gospels as the authentic histories of\\nthe ministry of Christ. About the same period, Marcion\\naffords his evidence to the general reception of one of the\\nGospels, and consequently, as we have seen, proof of the re-\\nception of the other three. f On the Gospels, or, to include\\nthe case of the Marcionites and the Hebrew Christians, on a\\nhistory of Christ, such as is found in one of the Gospels,\\nSee pp. 204, 205. f See before, p. 393.", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0439.jp2"}, "440": {"fulltext": "406 EVIDENCES OP TEIE\\nevery form of Christian faith rested as its foundation. No\\nhistory presenting a different view of his ministry was in\\nexistence.\\nHere, then, we conclude our statement of the hi torical\\nevidence, both direct and subsidiary, of the Genuineness of\\nthe Gospels. The catholic Christians bear testimony to their\\nhaving been written by the particular individuals to whom\\nthey are ascribed. The Gnostics confirm this testimony by\\nthe proofs which they afford of their general reception and\\nauthority.\\nWe have pursued this investigation carefully and at length,\\nas if there was some intrinsic improbability in the proposition,\\nthat the Gospels were written by the authors to whom they\\nare ascribed some presumption against it, such as to re-\\nquire a patient removal of difficulties, and an accumulation of\\nstrong evidence, to establish its truth. But, on the contrary,\\nit is apparent that the Gospels were written by early be-\\nlievers in our Lord there is not a show of evidence that\\nthey were written by any other believers than those to whom\\nthey have been ascribed; and nothing is more probable, than\\nthat some of his immediate disciples, or of their intimate com-\\npanions, should have left us such narratives of his life.\\nThe Founder of our religion, whether one believe or not\\nthat he was authorized by God to speak in his name, was\\nunquestionably the most wonderful individual who ever ap-\\npeared on earth. A Jew, a Galilean, in humble life, poor,\\nwithout literary culture, without worldly power or influence\\nteaching but for a short time (probably not more than two\\nyears) wandering about the shores of the Lake of Galilee and\\nof the Jordan scarcely entering Jerusalem but to be driven\\naway by persecution, till at last he went thither to perish\\nunder it collecting during his lifetime only a small body of\\nilliterate and often wavering followers; addressing men", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0440.jp2"}, "441": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 407\\nwhose incapacity, prejudices, or hatred continually led them\\nto mistake or to pervert his meaning surrounded, and\\napparently overpowered, by his unbelieving countrymen, who\\nregarded him as a blasphemer, and caused him to suffer the\\ndeath of the most unpitied of malefactors, this person has\\nwrought an effect, to which there is nothing parallel, on the\\nopinions and on the condition of the most enlightened portion\\nof our race. The moral civilization of the world, the noblest\\nconceptions which men have entertained of religion, of their\\nnature, and of their duties, are to be traced back directly to\\nhim. They come to us, not from the groves of the Academy,\\nnot from the w T alks by the Ilissus which Aristotle frequented,\\nnor from the Painted Portico of Athens where Zeno taught\\nbut from the mountain on which Jesus delivered his first\\nrecorded discourse from the synagogue and the streets of\\nthe small town of Capernaum, of which not a ruin remains to\\nfix its site from fishing-boats on the Lake of Galilee from\\nthe less inhabited tracts the deserts, as they have been\\ncalled of Palestine from the courts of the Jewish temple,\\nwhere he who spoke was confronting men plotting his de-\\nstruction from the cross of one expiring in agony amid the\\nsavage triumph of his enemies. After witnessing such a\\ndeath, his disciples lost all their doubts. They affirmed their\\nMaster to be the Saviour of the world, the Son of God.\\nThey devoted themselves to labor and suffer, and, if need\\nwere, to die, in making him known- to men. What they\\nstrove to impress upon the minds of others was what, as they\\nasserted, he had done and taught. They knew nothing but\\nJesus Christ and him crucified. It was the history, real or\\npretended, of his ministry on earth, which was the basis of all\\ntheir teaching the essential instruction to be first commu-\\nnicated to all who were summoned to put their trust in him,\\nto take up their cross, and follow him in the new path\\nwhich he had opened from earth to heaven. Now, there can\\nbe no supposition more irrational, than that the history of", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0441.jp2"}, "442": {"fulltext": "408 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nChrist, which was thus promulgated by all his first disciples,\\nand received by all their first converts, was lost before the\\nbeginning of the second century, and another history substi-\\ntuted in its place. But, if the Gospels contain the history of\\nChrist as it was promulgated by his apostles, there can be no\\nground for doubting that they were written by the authors to\\nwhom they are ascribed, by apostles, and companions of\\napostles.\\nTo all the weight of evidence that the Gospels were written\\nby the authors to whom they have been ascribed, what other\\naccount of their origin has been or may be opposed The\\ngenuineness of the Gospel of John has been directly im-\\npugned by some modern German theologians. Their hypoth-\\neses are, necessarily, only developments of one essential\\nproposition, that this Gospel is a spurious work, fraudulently\\nascribed to the apostle by its original writer, or by some\\nother individual or individuals. There can be no direct evi-\\ndence of the truth of this supposition and with it another\\nmust be connected, namely, that this imagined fraud was so\\nsuccessful as to impose on all Christians, catholic and hereti-\\ncal, from the beginning of the second century. But, if this\\nbe a moral impossibility, then there is a moral certainty that\\nthe Gospel ascribed to John was the work of that apostle.\\nYet this brief statement, decisive as it may be, gives but a\\nvery imperfect view of those facts and considerations, hereto-\\nfore presented, which show that any other supposition is alto-\\ngether incredible.\\nIn respect to the other three Gospels, the attacks on their\\ngenuineness and authenticity by many of the modern German\\ntheologians have been more elaborate. But, if their genuine-\\nness be denied, there are only two fundamental suppositions,\\none or the other of which must be made. One is of the same\\nnature with that which has been advanced concerning St.\\nJohn s Gospel. It may be asserted that each of them is a", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0442.jp2"}, "443": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 409\\nspurious work of some one unknown author. But this suppo-\\nsition has been generally felt to be too indefensible. Recourse\\nhas therefore been had to different hypotheses, which may all\\nbe resolved into one fundamental supposition, that the first\\nthree Gospels are, respectively, aggregates of stories by differ-\\nent hands, brought together by different compilers. In the\\nFirst Part of this work, we have examined this supposition\\nunder as plausible a form as any in which it has appeared\\nand, if the view there taken of the subject be correct, there is\\nsomething like mathematical demonstration of its falsity.\\nBut so far as those hypotheses are connected, as they have\\nbeen, with the supposition that the narratives contained in\\nthe first three Gospels are distorted and discolored by tradi-\\ntion, there is a moral demonstration of their falsity. The\\ncharacter of Jesus Christ as exhibited in any one of the first\\nthree Gospels, or in all of them taken together, is equally\\nconsistent and wonderful. It is, at the same time, a charac-\\nter to which nothing in human history, before or after, pre-\\nsents a parallel or a resemblance. He appears as one acting\\nunder the miraculous conviction, that he was the instrument\\nof God, to assure men, on His authority, of their relations to\\nHim and to eternity and this conception of his character is\\nfully sustained. In the midst of men who appear, as we\\nshould expect the Jews of that age to appear, ignorant, nar-\\nrow-minded, dull in their perceptions, indocile, many of them\\nhating him with all the hatred of bigotry throughout trials\\nof every sort under external circumstances so humiliating\\nthat we shrink from the thought of them, -he shows always\\nthe same unalterable elevation of character, requiring no\\nhuman support. We feel that he was not to be degraded by\\nany insult and that no praise could have been addressed to\\nhim, had it come from the highest of men, which would not\\nhave been a strange impertinence. If our natural feelings\\nhave been unperverted, we follow him, if not with the convic-\\ntion, that conviction has been resisted, but certainly", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0443.jp2"}, "444": {"fulltext": "410 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nwith a sentiment, continually prompting us to say, Truly,\\nthis was the Son of God. But it is folly to suppose, that\\nsuch a portraiture of character could have been the result of\\nan aggregation of fabulous traditionary stories which had\\nbeen moulded by different minds, Jewish or Gentile. The\\ncomparison is unworthy of the subject but it would not be\\nmore absurd to imagine, that the finest works of ancient\\nplastic art, the display of perfect physical beauty in the\\nApollo Belvidere, had been produced by putting together\\nthe labors of different artists at different times, all woik-\\ning without a model, this making one part or member, and\\nthat another.\\nWe may enter on the inquiry respecting the genuineness\\nof the Gospels merely as scholars and critics, without any\\nprevious opinion respecting their contents. To a thinking\\nman, whatever may be his opinion, it muat appear an object\\nof great curiosity to determine the authorship of books so\\nextraordinary, and which have had such vast influence. In\\ntreating the historical evidence for their genuineness, we deal\\nwith historical facts, and our reasoning is of a kind with\\nwhich we are familiar, and which is fully within the cogni-\\nzance of our judgment. But if, from the preceding examina-\\ntion of this evidence, it appears that the Gospels are the\\nworks of those to whom they have been ascribed, then the\\nargument we have pursued, and which we ought to pursue,\\nmerely as scholars and critics, or, I may better say, as intelli-\\ngent men, capable of understanding the force of reasoning,\\nleads to results of the deepest moment. Upon arriving at\\nthe end of our journey, on quitting the detail of history and\\ncriticism, through which it has lain, considerations of another\\nclass present themselves to view we see rising before us\\nobjects the most solemn and sublime we have been brought\\nto the contemplation of all that is of permanent and essential\\ninterest to man. Let us examine the reasoning thoroughly as", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0444.jp2"}, "445": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 411\\nlogicians but, if it will bear this examination, then the con-\\nclusion to which it leads is to be regarded with very different\\nfeelings from what may have been called forth during its\\nprocess. If the Gospels were written by the authors to whom\\nthey are ascribed, two of them by individuals who were inti-\\nmate companions of Jesus, eye-witnesses of his ministry, who\\nknew the facts, whatever they were, of his public life, and\\nthe other two by those who received their accounts immedi-\\nately from such eye-witnesses, then the narrative of his min-\\nistry contained in the Gospels is true. The apostles could\\nnot have been deceived respecting the facts which they pro-\\nfess to relate. If Jesus Christ did not, by a series of miracles\\nperformed before crowds of spectators, by his doctrines, and\\nby an exhibition of character altogether conformed to his\\nclaims, give full evidence of his being authorized to speak in\\nthe name of God, then the Gospels are not a collection of\\nlegends, the growth of tradition in an ignorant and marvel-\\nloving age, that supposition is excluded by the proof of\\ntheir genuineness they are throughout a tissue of mon-\\nstrous and inexplicable falsehoods. If the Gospels be gen-\\nuine, there but two conclusions which are possible. The\\nnarrative of the public life of Jesus contained in them is\\neither essentially false, or it is essentially true; and, if\\nfalse, it is so thoroughly false, that we know nothing\\nconcerning his character and actions. His immediate fol-\\nlowers have buried his history under a mass of prodigious\\nfictions and these fictions they propagated, in the face of his\\nenemies and their own, among those whom they affirmed to\\nhave witnessed the pretended events which they related.\\nThe true history of Jesus Christ, of him who really has\\nwrought such vast changes in the condition of men, is un-\\nknown and, instead of it, we have a fiction of inexpressible\\ngrandeur, the conception of some Jews of Galilee, fishermen,\\ntax-gatherers, and others, who were shamelessly and reck-\\nlessly destitute of veracity. But we have brought the argu-", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0445.jp2"}, "446": {"fulltext": "412 EVIDENCES OF THE\\nment to an absurdity so repulsive, that it would be equally\\noffensive and unprofitable to dwell on it longer.\\nIt follows, then, that the history of Jesus contained in the\\nGospels is true. The essential facts of religion have been\\nexpressly made known to men on the authority of God.\\nThey are facts, glorious, solemn, overwhelming, but as real as\\nthe ordinary objects of every -day life, certain as nothing\\nfuture in life can be. In our day, the belief of these facts is\\nopenly rejected; the evidence of them is continually as-\\nsailed, directly and indirectly baseless and thoroughly irre-\\nligious speculations are confidently put forth and widely\\nreceived as substitutes for Christian faith, of which, as in\\nmockery, they assume the name and there are many who\\nacquiesce in a general notion that religion may be true, and\\nwho regard this notion as a source of consolation and hope,\\nwithout any such settled conviction of its truth as may essen-\\ntially affect their characters. But if there be a God in whose\\ninfinite goodness we and all things are embosomed if there\\nbe a future life which spreads before us, and all whom we\\nlove, exhaustless scenes of attainable happiness if that Infi-\\nnite Being who so eludes the grasp of human thought, have\\nreally brought himself into direct communication with man-\\nkind if the character of Jesus Christ be not an inexplicable\\nriddle, but a wonderful reality, these are truths of which a\\nwise man may well desire fully to assure himself. And per-\\nhaps there is no way in which he may attain a stronger\\nfeeling of certainty, than when he approaches them, as we\\nhave done, through reasoning conversant about ordinary sub-\\njects of thought, requiring no exercise of judgment beyond\\nthe common capacity of every intelligent man, not taking us\\ninto the dim light of metaphysical inquiry, involving the use\\nof no uncertain language, and calling forth no doubts from\\nthat region which lies on every side beyond the bounds of\\nour knowledge and our powers. The way which we have\\ntravelled is such, that it may by contrast heighten the effect", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0446.jp2"}, "447": {"fulltext": "GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS. 413\\nof the prospect on which it opens. It is somewhat as if, by\\nan easy ascent, we found ourselves standing on a vast height,\\nwith the unbounded ocean spreading out before us.\\nBut, however convinced we may be of the genuineness of\\nthe Gospels, one distinct and very important branch of the\\nevidence of that fact has not yet been treated. It is the evi-\\ndence founded on the intrinsic character of the Gospels them-\\nselves, evidence in which the proofs of their genuineness\\nand their truth are essentially blended together. The main\\nproposition to be established by it is, that the Gospels are of\\nsuch a character, that they could have been written only by\\nindividuals of such a character, and so circumstanced, as those\\nto whom they are ascribed.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0447.jp2"}, "448": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0448.jp2"}, "449": {"fulltext": "ADDITIONAL NOTES.", "height": "4536", "width": "2740", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0449.jp2"}, "450": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0450.jp2"}, "451": {"fulltext": "ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nNote A.\\n(See pp. 15, 16, 18.)\\nFURTHER REMARKS OX THE PRESENT STATE OF THE\\nTEXT OF THE GOSPELS.\\nSection I.\\nOn the Character and Importance of the Various Headings of the\\nNew Testament.\\nWhen attention was first strongly directed to the number of vari-\\nous readings upon the Received Text of the New Testament, and\\nthe critical edition of Mill was published, which was said to con-\\ntain thirty thousand,* two classes of individuals were very differ-\\nently affected. Some sincerely religious men, among whom was\\nWhitby, who wrote expressly against the labors of Mill, were\\napprehensive that the whole text of the New Testament, the foun-\\ndation of our faith, would be unsettled while the infidels of the\\nage, among whom Collins was prominent, were ready, with other\\nfeelings, to adopt the same opinion. The whole number of various\\nreadings of the text of the New Testament that have hitherto been\\nnoted exceeds a hundred thousand, and may perhaps amount to a\\nhundred and fifty thousand.\\nThat is to say, thirty thousand variations from the Received Text.\\nBut, when the Received Text varies from other authorities, its readings\\nshould also be considered as various readings of the text of the New Testa-\\nment. Including these, therefore, Mill s edition presents about sixty thousand\\nvarious readings.\\n27", "height": "4556", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0451.jp2"}, "452": {"fulltext": "418 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nBut this number is, I presume, less in proportion than that of\\nthe various readings extant upon most classic authors, when com-\\npared with the quantity of text examined, and the, number of\\nmanuscripts and other authorities collated in each particular case.*\\nBentley, in his Remarks on Free-thinking, in answer to Collins,\\nsays:\\nTerence is now in one of the best conditions of any of the classic\\nwriters. The oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican Library,\\nwhich comes nearest to the poet s own hand but even that has hundreds\\nof errors, most of which may be mended out of other exemplars, that are\\notherwise more recent and of inferior value. I myself have collated several,\\nand do affirm that I have seen twenty thousand various lections in that little\\nauthor, not near so big as the whole New Testament and am morally sure,\\nthat, if half the number of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that\\nniceness and minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New\\nTestament, the number of the variations would amount to above fifty\\nthousand.\\nIn the manuscripts of the New Testament, the variations have been\\nnoted with a religious, not to say superstitious, exactness. Every difference\\nin spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the very order or\\ncollocation of words, without real change, has been studiously registered.\\nNor has the text only been ransacked, but all the ancient versions, the\\nLatin Vulgate, Italic, Syriac, iEthiopic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic,\\nand Saxon nor these only, but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and\\nLatin fathers in a course of five hundred years. What wonder, then, if, with\\nall this scrupulous search in every hole and corner, the varieties rise to thirty\\nthousand; when, in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof the manu-\\nscripts are numerous, the variations are as many, or more, and yet no ver-\\nsions to swell the reckoning?\\nThe editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, or\\nrisk their own reputation, by an useless list of every small slip committed\\nby a lazy or ignorant scribe. What is thought commendable in an edition\\nof Scripture, and has the name of fairness and fidelity, would in them be\\ndeemed impertinence and trifling. Hence the reader not versed in ancient\\nmanuscripts is deceived into an opinion, that there were no more variations\\nin the copies than what the editor has communicated. Whereas, if the like\\nscrupulousness was observed in registering the smallest changes in profane\\nauthors, as is allowed, nay required, in sacred, the now formidable number\\nof thirty thousand would appear a very trifle.\\nIt is manifest that books in verse are not near so obnoxious to varia-\\ntions as those in prose the transcriber, if he is not wholly ignorant and\\nstupid, being guided by the measures, and hindered from such alterations as\\ndo not fall in with the laws of numbers. And yet, even in poets, the varia-", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0452.jp2"}, "453": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 419\\nHow such an amount of various readings exists upon the text\\nof ancient works, we mar understand, when we consider, what\\nevery one who has had experience on the subject is aware of, that\\nno written copy of an exemplar of any considerable length, if\\nmade only with ordinary care, is without variations and errors.\\nNotwithstanding the extreme care which has in some cases been\\ntaken, it is doubtful whether even a printed book exists which\\ncorresponds throughout to its proposed archetype, or which, in\\nother words, is wholly free from errata. There is no hazard in say-\\ning, that the variations in the printed copies of King James s version\\nof the Bible, such variations as are noted in the manuscripts of\\nthe New Testament, are to be reckoned by thousands, and if, as\\nin the case of the Greek text of the New Testament, we were\\nto take the quotations of different writers into account, by tens of\\nthousands. But, in producing copies by transcription, the num-\\nber of errors resulting will be vastly greater than in producing the\\ntions are so very many as can hardly be conceived without use and experi-\\nence. In the late edition of Tibullus, by the learned Mr. Broukbuise, you\\nhave a register of various lections in the close of that book, where you may\\nsee at the first view that they are as many as the lines. The same is visible\\nin Plautus set out by Pareus. I myself, during my travels, have had the\\nopportunity to examine several manuscripts of the poet Manilius and can\\nassure you that the variations I have met with are twice as many as all the\\nlines of the book. (pp. 93-95, 8th ed\\nTo take a few books immediately at hand, I perceive, by a loose compu-\\ntation from a table at the end of ^Yakeneld s Lucretius, that he has collected\\nabout twelve thousand various readings of that author (exclusive of mere\\ndifferences of orthography), from five printed copies only. Weiske s edition\\nof Longinus presents more than three thousand various readings of the\\nTreatise on the Sublime, a work of about the length of the Gospel of Mark,\\ncollected from eight manuscripts and two early editions. And Bekker has\\npublished variations from his text of the writings contained in his edition of\\nPlato, which fill seven hundred and seventy-eight crowded octavo pages,\\nand amount to I know not how many more than sixty thousand; the\\nmanuscripts used on each of the different writings being on an average\\nabout thirteen. The various readings of the New Testament, it is to be\\nremembered, have been collected from a very great number of manuscripts\\nof the original, manuscripts of numerous ancient versions, in which it is\\nnot to be supposed that the translator always rendered in a manner scrupu-\\nlously literal, and also from the citations of a long series of fathers, who, we\\nknow, were not commonly attentive to verbal accuracy in quoting.", "height": "4552", "width": "2736", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0453.jp2"}, "454": {"fulltext": "420 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nsame number of copies by the press; since -far more liability to\\nerror will exist in the case of every particular copy transcribed,\\nthan exists in regard to a whole edition of printed copies. With\\nthese general views, it is not necessary to dwell on the particular\\ncauses of mistakes and errors in ancient manuscripts, which are\\nmore numerous than may at first thought be supposed. They have\\nbeen often pointed out by different writers.\\nI proceed, then, to observe, that, of the various readings of\\nthe New Testament, nineteen out of twenty, at least, are to be\\ndismissed at once from consideration not on account of their\\nintrinsic unimportance, that is a separate consideration, but\\nbecause they are found in so few authorities, and their origin is so\\neasily explained, that no critic would regard them as having\\nany claim to be inserted in the text. Of those which remain, a\\nvery great majority are entirely unimportant. They consist in\\ndifferent modes of spelling in different tenses of the same verb,\\nor different cases of the same noun, not affecting the essential\\nmeaning in the use of the singular for the plural, or the plural\\nfor the singular, where one or the other expression is equally\\nsuitable in the insertion or omission of particles, such as av and\\n5e, not affecting the sense, or of the article in cases equally unim-\\nportant in the introduction of a proper name, where, if not in-\\nserted, the personal pronoun is to be understood, or of some other\\nword or words expressive of a sense which would be distinctly\\nimplied without them; in the addition of Jesus 1 to Christ,\\nor Christ to Jesus in the substitution of one synonymous\\nor equivalent term for another in the transposition of words,\\nleaving their signification the same in the use of an uncorn-\\npounded verb, or of the same verb compounded with a preposition,\\nthe latter differing from the former, if at all, only in a shade of\\nmeaning and in a few short passages, liable to the suspicion of\\nhaving been copied into the Gospel where we find them from some\\nother evangelist. Such various readings, and others equally unim-\\nportant, compose far the greater part of all, concerning which\\nthere may be, or has been, a question whether they are to be ad-\\nmitted into the text or not and it is therefore of no consequence\\nin which way the question has been, or may be, determined.\\nBut after deducting from the whole amount of various readings,\\nfirst those of no authority, and next those of no importance, a", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0454.jp2"}, "455": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 421\\nnumber will remain which are objects of a certain degree of curi-\\nosity and interest. To three of them an extravagant importance\\nhas been attached, from their supposed bearing upon the theologi-\\ncal doctrine of the Trinity. But the principal of these, the\\nfamous passage in the first Epistle of John (chap. v. 7), is a mani-\\nfest interpolation. In the case of this and of most other passages,\\nwhere the true reading is a matter of any interest, we may com-\\nmonly arrive at a satisfactory judgment concerning it; and, in\\nregard to the cases in which we cannot, it is clear, that no opinion,\\nnor any inference whatever, respecting the meaning of the writer,\\nis to be founded on an uncertain reading.\\nThe Received Text, as it has been called, of the New Testa-\\nment that is, the text which for almost two centuries, till after the\\ntime of Griesbach, was found with little variation in the common\\neditions of the New Testament was formed during the sixteenth\\ncentury, with comparatively few helps, and in the exercise of no\\ngreat critical judgment. But the chief value of the immense\\namount of labor which has since been expended upon the text of\\nthe New Testament does not consist in its having effected im-\\nprovements in the Received Text. Its chief and great value\\nconsists in establishing the fact, that the text of the New Testa-\\nment has been transmitted to us with remarkable integrity that\\nfar the greater part of the variations among different copies are\\nof no authority or of no importance and that it is a matter\\nscarcely worth consideration, as regards the study of our religion\\nand its history, whether, after making a very few corrections, we\\ntake the Received Text formed as it was, or the very best which\\nthe most laborious and judicious criticism might produce.\\nIn his edition of the New Testament, Griesbach presents the\\nReceived Text in constant comparison with his own. He notes\\nconspicuously, as preferable, or probable, or deserving attention,\\nall those variations from it which he so regards, when he does not\\nadmit them into his text. The comparison between all the read-\\nings, which have in his view any grade of probability, is thus\\nrendered a mere matter of ocular inspection. As a fair specimen\\nof the whole, I will give all those which he thus presents on the\\nfirst eight chapters of Matthew. When it may be done, I will\\nexpress the change in English but, in some cases, the variation is\\nso trifling as to admit of no corresponding variation in a transla-", "height": "4496", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0455.jp2"}, "456": {"fulltext": "422\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\ntion. The first column of the following table contains the read-\\nings of the Received Text the second, the variations from it.\\nThose unaccompanied with any note (except here and there a\\nremark of my own) are what Griesbach has admitted into his text.\\nIn other cases, I have noted with sufficient distinctness the degree\\nof probability that he assigns to them.*\\nVARIATIONS ADOPTED OR SUGGEST-\\nRECEIVED TEXT.\\nED BY GRIESBACH.\\nChap.\\ni. 1. AaSld\\na xr The names of David\\n6. LoXofiuvra\\nv .j and Solomon differ-\\nZoAOfiuva I\\nj ently spelt.\\n18. Jesus\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\nyevvrjoig (generation)\\nyeveoig (birth)\\n19. napadeiy/LtaTLoai, (to\\nperhaps, der/fLarioac (to expose)\\nexpose to shame)\\n22. tov\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\nChap.\\nii. 8. carefully search out\\nperhaps, search out carefully\\n9. Iottj\\nperhaps, koTudn (no change in the\\nsense.)\\n11. they found\\nthey saw t\\n15. TOV\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\n17. vtzo\\nperhaps, dta\\n18. lamentation and\\nprobably to be omitted.\\n22. em\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\nChap.\\niii. 1. Se\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\n3 vnb\\nperhaps, dia\\n8. fruits worthy\\nfruit worthy\\n10. Kal\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\n11. with fire\\nperhaps to be omitted. (If so, it\\nwas borrowed from Luke iii. 16,\\nwhere there is no doubt of its\\ngenuineness.)\\n12. his wheat\\nperhaps, the wheat\\nChap.\\niv. 4. a man\\nperhaps, man (6 being added be-\\nfore uvdptoTrog.)\\nkid (upon)\\nprobably, ev (by).\\nI have used both Griesbach s last critical edition and his manual edition\\nbut of course have not quoted those readings of the latter which he notices\\nonly as on some account remarkable, and which are not such as he admits\\nbetween the lines below the text of his critical edition.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0456.jp2"}, "457": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS.\\n423\\n5. sets sets him on the\\npinnacle of the\\ntemple\\n10. Go from me, Satan\\n12. Jesus\\n13. Karrepvaovfc\\n18. Jesus\\nChap. v. 9. avrol\\n11. ipevdopevoL (speaking\\nfalsely)\\n20. i] dcKatoovvrj v/utiv\\n25. whilst thou art in the\\nway with him\\n27. to them of old time\\n28. avrr/c\\n31. on\\n32. whoever shall put away\\n44. bless those who curse\\nyou, do good to those\\nwho hate you\\nIn the last clause, if\\nit be retained, for\\nrove (iLGovvrag\\ndespitefully use you\\n(rather, harass you)\\nand\\n47. brethren\\npublicans\\ndo thus\\n48. 077\u00c2\u00a3p\\nyour Father in heaven\\nChap. vi. 1. alms\\n4. avrbc he will reward\\nyou\\nopenly\\n5. when thou pray est, thou\\nshalt not be\\nperhaps, set\\nGo behind me, Satan (the words\\nbniau) (iov being added by Gries-\\nbach.)\\nprobably to be omitted,\\nprobably, Kacpapvaovfi (a different\\nspelling of the name of the city,\\nCapernaum.)\\nomitted,\\nperhaps to be omitted. (Xo change\\ncan be made in a translation.)\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\nperhaps, vii v i) diKacoavvij\\nperhaps, whilst thou art with him in\\nthe way\\nomitted,\\nprobably, avrrjv\\nperhaps to be omitted,\\nperhaps, every one putting away\\nprobably to be omitted. (If so, it\\nwas borrowed from Luke.)\\nTOLC (1LOOVOLV\\nperhaps to be. omitted.* (If so, it\\nwas borrowed from Luke.)\\nperhaps, friends\\ngentiles\\nperhaps, do the same\\nperhaps, cog\\nprobably, your heavenly Father\\nrighteousness (The propriety of\\nthis change is doubtful.)\\nperhaps to be omitted. (So as to\\nread will reward you, only.)\\nprobably to be omitted,\\nperhaps, when ye pray, ye shall not\\nbe", "height": "4540", "width": "2644", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0457.jp2"}, "458": {"fulltext": "424\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nthat that they have\\ntheir reward\\n6. tg) pray to thy Fa-\\nther who is in se-\\ncret\\nopenly\\n13. For thine is the king-\\ndom and the power\\nand the glory for\\never. Amen.\\n15. their offences\\n16. that u that they have\\ntheir reward\\n18. KpvTTTC) (twice)\\nopenly\\n21. your treasure\\nyour heart\\n24. fMZ(J,fJ.G)V\\n25. and what ye may drink\\n34. to, (in the Common\\nVersion rendered\\nthe things of\\nChap. yii. 2. avrLizeTpTjOrjaerac (it\\nshall be measured\\nin return)\\n9. EOTLV\\n12. ovroc (this)\\n14. On u Because strait\\nis the gate\\nprobably to be omitted.\\nthat, probably to be omitted.\\nperhaps to be omitted. (So as to\\nread pray to thy Father in\\nsecret.\\nprobably to be omitted.\\nomitted. (When our Lord s pray-\\ner was used in the liturgies of\\nthe ancient Church, this doxol-\\nogy was subjoined and tran-\\nscribers, being accustomed to it\\nin this connection, introduced\\nit into their copies.)\\nprobably to be omitted.\\nthat, probably to be omitted.\\nperhaps Kpvfjxiiy (an improbable\\nsuggestion.)\\nomitted.\\nperhaps, thy treasure,\\nperhaps, thy heart.\\nftaucjva\\nprobably to be omitted. (If so, it\\nwas borrowed from Luke.)\\nprobably to be omitted.\\n[lerprjdrjaeTai (it shall be measured)\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\nperhaps, ovroc (thus)\\nTl How straight is the gate\\n..2. eXddv (coming)\\nperhaps, irpoae?i6uv (coming up,\\nnamely, to him.)\\n3. Jesus\\nperhaps to be omitted.\\n4. Moor/c\\nperhaps Movoqg\\n5. to Itjgov as\\nJesus\\navrti as he was entering\\nwas entering\\n8. \\\\byov\\nAoyo\\n13. enaTovTupxv\\nEKarovrapxy", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0458.jp2"}, "459": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 425\\n15. av~olc waited upon perhaps, airnp waited upon\\nthem him\\n25. avrov his disci- omitted the disciples\\npies\\n28. Gergesenes probably, Gerasenes perhaps, Ga-\\n29. Jesus omitted. [darenes.\\n31. suffer us to go send us\\n32. the herd of swine the swine\\nthe herd of swine of swine, omitted.\\nSuch are the various readings which have been represented by\\nother critics beside Griesbach as rendering one text different from\\nanother in its whole conformation and entire coloring.\\nOf the passages of more importance in the Gospels, concerning\\nwhich there is reason to think that they did not proceed from the\\nevangelists, I shall speak in a following section. Those, how-\\never, in the Gospel of Matthew are not various readings, nor is\\nthere any reasonable doubt that they always made a part of our\\npresent Greek Gospel. Whether they likewise were to be found\\nin the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as it came from the pen of the\\nevangelist, is another question. But, before proceeding to its\\nexamination, we will attend to the questions respecting the origi-\\nnal language of Matthew s Gospel, and its use by the Hebrew\\nChristians.\\nSection n.\\nOn the Original Language of Matthew s Gospel, and its Use by the\\nHebrew Christians.\\nWe believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, meaning\\nby that term the common language of the Jews of his time, because\\nsuch is the uniform statement of all ancient writers who advert to\\nthe subject. To pass over others whose authority is of less weight,\\nhe is affirmed to have written in Hebrew by Papias,* Irenseus,t\\nOrigen,\u00c2\u00b1 Eusebius, and Jerome nor does any ancient author\\nSee before, p. 139. f See before, p. 72. See before, p. 82.\\nHist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 24. Qusestiones ad Marinum, ap. Maii Scrip-\\ntorum Veterum Nov. Collect., torn. i. p. 64.\\nThe fact is stated or implied by Jerome in passages so numerous, that\\nit is not worth while to refer to them particularly.", "height": "4516", "width": "2684", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0459.jp2"}, "460": {"fulltext": "426 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nadvance a contrary opinion. This testimony is of the more weight,\\nbecause, if there had been any prejudice on the subject, it would\\nhave operated against the common belief, as the prejudices of\\nmodern Christians have done. It would have led the great body\\nof ancient Gentile. Christians, from whom we receive the account,\\nto prefer considering their Greek Gospel of Matthew as the origi-\\nnal, not as a translation.\\nIf we will not, then, reject the testimony of all Christian anti-\\nquity to a simple fact, in which there is no intrinsic improbability,\\nwe must believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Noth-\\ning has been objected to that testimony which I can regard as of\\nsufficient force to justify a protracted discussion. On the con-\\ntrary, it is confirmed by the corresponding evidence of the fathers,\\nthat the Hebrew original of Matthew was in common use (either in\\na pure or a corrupt form) among Jewish Christians.\\nOne of the last notices of the Jewish Christians in the !N ew\\nTestament is in the words addressed by the other apostles to\\nSt. Paul, during his last visit to Jerusalem: Thou seest, brother,\\nwhat multitudes of Jews there are who believe and tliey are all\\nzealous for the Law. But they have heard concerning thee, that\\nthou art teaching all the Jews living among the Gentiles to become\\napostates from Moses telling them not to circumcise their children,\\nnor to observe the ancient customs The same attachment to\\ntheir Law continued to distinguish the great body of Jewish Chris-\\ntians, though there were freethinkers among them, who, as Origen\\nsays, relinquished the ancient customs under the pretext of ex-\\npositions and allegories. f Even these, however, there is no\\nreason to doubt, retained the rite of circumcision. And, on the\\nother hand, the more bigoted among them contended that the literal\\nobservance of the Jewish Law was not only binding upon Jewish,\\nbut equally upon Gentile Christians. As a general distinction, the\\nJewish Christians believed Christ to have been only a man, in\\nopposition to the doctrine of his divine nature, which, in some\\nsense or other, began very early to be maintained by the Gentile\\nfathers. Some of their number at the same time received, and\\nothers rejected, the belief of his miraculous conception. And,\\nActs xxi. 20, 21. f Origen. cont. Celsum, lib ii. n. 3 Opp. i. 388.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0460.jp2"}, "461": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 427\\nbesides the differences which have been mentioned, the separation\\nbetween the Jewish and Gentile Christians was undoubtedly in a\\ngreat degree produced and perpetuated by the feelings with which\\nJews and Gentiles had previously, for an indefinite time, regarded\\neach other. In the second century, the Jewish Christians, gener-\\nally, were considered as heretics, and denominated Ebionites.\\nIt appears from the language in which Matthew wrote, and\\nfrom the internal character of his Gospel, that he intended it par-\\nticularly for Jewish Christians. Conformably to this, we have\\nsatisfactory evidence, that, as an heretical sect, they used it exclu-\\nsively of the other three Gospels from the second century down-\\nwards.\\nIrenseus, speaking of the Jewish Christians under the name of\\nEbionites, repeatedly mentions briefly, as if it were a fact of com-\\nmon notoriety, that they used the Gospel of Matthew alone.*\\nSymmachus, one of the ancient well-known Jewish translators\\nof the Old Testament into Greek, was an Ebionite. He wrote\\ncommentaries in defence of the doctrine of his sect, which are\\nmentioned by Eusebius (with whom his translator Rufinus is to be\\ncompared), Jerome, and others, who speak of his reference to, or\\nuse of, the Gospel of Matthew, without intimating his use of any\\nother book. Jerome says, that his commentaries were written on\\nthe Gospel of Matthew. f\\nBy the name of Ebionites, the Jewish Christians, generally, con-\\ntinued to be denominated till the time of Epiphanius in the fourth\\ncentury. Epiphanius divides them into Ebionites and Xazarenes,\\nbeing the first writer who uses the latter name as that of an heret-\\nical sect. His unsupported authority deserves no credit, when he\\nCont. Hares., lib. i. c. 26, 2; lib. hi. c. 11, 7.\\nt See Lardner, Works, 4to, i. 447. Eusebius (H.E., lib. vi. c. 17) says,\\nas I suppose his words should be literally rendered, that Symmachus main-\\ntained his heresy, strongly contending against the Gospel of Matthew;\\nfrom which may be inferred the peculiar authority of the Gospel of Matthew\\nwith the Ebionites. The meaning of Eusebius apparently was, that Sym-\\nmachus contended strongly against the true sense of the Gospel of Matthew.\\nRunnus, rendering the passage, as I conceive, somewhat loosely, makes\\nEusebius say, that Symmachus endeavored to maintain his heresy from\\nthe Gospel of Matthew.", "height": "4504", "width": "2684", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0461.jp2"}, "462": {"fulltext": "428 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nrelates what is improbable, or attacks the character of those whom\\nhe assails, or was under any temptation to falsehood. But there\\nis no ground for distrusting the main truth of his assertions\\nrespecting the use which the Hebrew Christians made of the Gos-\\npel of Matthew. Of those whom he calls ISTazarenes, he says,\\nThey have the Gospel of Matthew very complete for it is well\\nknown, that this is preserved among them, as it was first written,\\nin Hebrew. Of those whom he calls Ebionites, he says that\\nthey used the Gospel of Matthew alone, in the original Hebrew,\\ncalling it the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the truth is,\\nhe adds, that Matthew alone, of all the writers of the New Testa-\\nment, composed in Hebrew.f\\nAbout the end of the fourth century, Jerome states that Mat-\\nthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and that he had obtained leave\\nto transcribe a copy of the Hebrew original from the Nazarenes of\\nBeroea in Syria, by whom it was used. J Afterwards, speaking of\\nthis same work under the name of the Gospel according to the\\nHebrews, he mentions that he had translated it both into Greek\\nand Latin, and repeatedly observes that it was generally consid-\\nered (ut plerique autumant) as the Gospel of Matthew.\\nThe original of Matthew s Gospel, being used by the Hebrew\\nChristians, naturally obtained the name of the Gospel according\\nto the Hebrews. But copies of it were extant containing spuri-\\nous additions and variations. The fathers, with rare exceptions,\\nsuch as Origen and Jerome, from their ignorance of the Hebrew\\ncould have known but little of the contents of any copy except by\\nreport. Jerome particularizes certain additions, which he found\\nin that used by him. But we have no assurance, that there were\\nnot other copies extant, even in his time, more conformed to the\\noriginal text. No father, it may safely be presumed, had collated\\nOpp. i. 124. Epiphanius s want of accuracy, however, appears in what\\nhe immediately subjoins: But I do not know whether they take away the\\ngenealogy from Abraham to Christ; from which words we may conclude,\\nlikewise, that he had not seen the book of which he speaks.\\nt Opp. i. 127.\\nJ Catal. Vir. Illust. in Matth. Opp. torn. iv. pars ii. col. 102.\\nAdvers. Pelagianos, lib. iii. Opp. torn. iv. pars ii. col. 533. Comment,\\nin Matth. xii. 13 Opp. torn. iv. pars i. col. 47.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0462.jp2"}, "463": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 429\\ndifferent copies. But the spurious additions of which the fathers\\nhad heard, and which a very few of their number may have seen\\nin some particular copy, and the omission in many copies of the\\nfirst two chapters ascribed to Matthew (of which we shall here-\\nafter speak), threw a suspicion on the work and, under the name\\nof the Gospel of the Hebrews, it came to be regarded as not a\\ncanonical book. Hence, in modern times, the opinion has been\\nmaintained that the Gospel of the Hebrews was originally a differ-\\nent work from the Gospel of Matthew. This opinion has been\\nstrengthened by a false account given by Epiphanius of the Gospel\\nof the Hebrews, as he pretends that it existed among those whom\\nhe calls Ebionites.\\nBut in regard to those interpolations and changes found in the\\nGospel of the Hebrews, of which we have any authentic informa-\\ntion, there seems to be no difficulty in explaining their origin.\\nThe Ebionites, generally, were illiterate. Very few of them, it is\\nlikely, were acquainted with other books than those of the Old\\nTestament and the Gospel of Matthew. Probably there were\\nnone among them who were transcribers by trade, and none,\\ntherefore, who had acquired those habits of accuracy and consider-\\nation, and that feeling of responsibility, which might be found in a\\nregular transcriber. It was to be expected, therefore, that the\\nGospel of Matthew w r ould suffer in their hands. It was, we may\\nsuppose, carelessly copied the number of copies was small, and\\nthey were not compared together for the sake of correcting one by\\nanother; marginal additions, by a common mistake of transcribers,\\nof which I have before spoken, and which I shall have repeated\\noccasion to notice, were introduced into the text and it would\\nnot be strange if there were transcribers who sometimes allowed\\nthemselves to insert a passage which they had derived from tradi-\\ntion, or from some other source, and which they regarded as true\\nand to the purpose.\\nPutting aside the fabulous account of Epiphanius, there are no\\nvariations in the Gospel of the Hebrews from the Gospel of Mat-\\nthew but such as may be thus explained. There is no appearance,\\nthat the Jewish Christians, or any portion of them, undertook to\\nrefashion the Gospel of Matthew. Nor are the interpolations or\\nchanges specified such as have the appearance of being made to\\nfavor their peculiar opinions.", "height": "4492", "width": "2692", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0463.jp2"}, "464": {"fulltext": "430 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nIn regard to the essential identity of the Gospel of the Hebrews\\nwith the Gospel of Matthew, it is to be observed, that all the inter-\\npolations and changes in the former, of which we have any credible\\naccount, bear but a very small proportion to the contents of the\\nGospel of Matthew. Yet it is probable that Jerome has noticed\\nall or nearly all the remarkable variations existing in his copy of\\nthe Gospel of the Hebrews. It appears, therefore, that, through-\\nout far the greater part of their contents, they coincided with each\\nother. This must have been the fact, or it would not have been\\nbelieved that they were originally the same book. Thus agreeing\\ntogether in far the greater part of their contents, they were the\\nsame book. The variations found in copies of the Gospel of the\\nHebrews can be considered *only as variations in particular copies\\nof a common original. The supposition, therefore, is altogether\\ngroundless, that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of the\\nHebrews were different works, by different authors.\\nMatthew wrote in the native language of the Jewish Christians.\\nHe wrote particularly for their use. There was nothing in his\\nGospel to offend their national prejudices. It is not to be be-\\nlieved, therefore, that they rejected his Gospel, and substituted an\\nanonymous gospel in its stead.\\nIt was, as we have seen, the common belief of the Gentile Chris-\\ntians, that the Jewish Christians used the original of Matthew s\\nGospel in a pure or a corrupted state. The Jewish Christians,\\nconsequently, affirmed that they used Matthew s Gospel for other-\\nwise such a belief could not have prevailed. But no probable\\nreason can be given why one party should have affirmed this fact,\\nor why the other party should have believed it, except its truth.\\nWe conclude, then, that Matthew s Gospel was originally\\nwritten in Hebrew and that it was preserved in this language, in\\ncopies with a text more or less pure, by the Jewish Christians till\\nabout the fifth century, when the traces of their existence as a\\nsect disappear from history.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0464.jp2"}, "465": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 431\\nSection III.\\nOn some Passages in the Received Text of the Gospels, of which the\\nGenuineness is doubtful.\\nTHE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF THE PEESEXT GEEEK GOSPEL OF\\nMATTHEW,\\nThe first passage to be examined consists of the first two chap-\\nters of Matthew s Gospel. There is no doubt that they have\\nalways made a part of our Greek translation but this does not\\ndecide the question, whether they proceeded from the apostle.\\nAs has been already suggested,* they may have been an ancient\\ndocument, written in Hebrew, originally a separate work, but\\nwhich, on account of its small size and the connection of its sub-\\nject, was transcribed into manuscripts of the Hebrew original of\\nMatthew, till in time it became blended with his Gospel as a part\\nof it, in some copies, one or more of which came into the hands of\\nhis translator.\\nThe first point, then, to be attended to in this inquiry is, that a\\nlarge portion of the Jewish Christians did not believe the miracu-\\nlous conception of our Lord, and had not the account of it, that is,\\nthe two chapters in question, in their copies of Matthew s Gospel.\\nThere was nothing in their prejudices or habits of mind which\\ncould have led them to reject the belief of that fact, and especially\\nto mutilate their Gospel in order to get rid of the account of\\nit. But if this be so, as it is altogether improbable that the two\\nchapters would be lost by accident from any number of copies, it\\nfollows that they were an addition to the original in the copies in\\nwhich they were found, and not an omission in those in which they\\nwere wanting.\\nThe chapters themselves are next to be examined, in order to\\ndetermine whether the narrative contained in them is such as we\\ncan believe to have proceeded from the apostle and, in doing so,\\nwe must compare it with the account of the nativity given by\\nSee before, p. 16.", "height": "4448", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0465.jp2"}, "466": {"fulltext": "432 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nLuke, which, there is no plausible reason for doubting, always\\nmade a part of his Gospel. Respecting this account, however, a\\nfew preliminary remarks are necessary.\\nI agree with many critics in supposing, that it existed in a\\nwritten form in Hebrew, previously to the composition of Luke s\\nGospel, in which he inserted a translation of it, perhaps his own,\\nperhaps one already made. The language differs from that of the\\nrest of his Gospel, as being more conformed to the Hebrew idiom\\nand the cast of the narrative has something of a poetical and even\\nfabulous character, very different from the severe simplicity with\\nwhich he, in common with the other evangelists, relates events in\\nhis own person. But his adopting this narrative proves that he\\nregarded it as essentially true and he would not have so regarded\\nit, had not the main fact of the miraculous birth of Jesus been\\nbelieved to be true by the apostles and other early Christians with\\nwhom he associated. Now, considering that two, and probably\\nthree, of the apostles were relatives of Jesus, and that others of\\ntheir number, as John, were familiar with his mother and family,\\nthere can be little doubt that the belief of the apostles rested on\\ninformation derived from them.\\nThe account of Luke, then, being in its more important features\\nconformable to the belief of the apostles, any other account incon-\\nsistent with this, or contradictory to it, cannot be received as pro-\\nceeding from an apostle. Let us apply this test to the two\\nchapters in question.\\nWe are first struck with the discrepance between the two gene-\\nalogies given the one by the author of those chapters, and the\\nother by Luke. I shall not enter into an examination of the\\nvarious attempts that have been made to show that both may be\\ntrue. They are all conjectural and each is exposed to particular\\nobjections, of a nature to prevent its being received. If, for in-\\nstance, according to a common notion, Luke had intended to give\\nthe genealogy of Mary, he would have said so. He would not have\\nindicated his meaning so ambiguously and circuitously as by affirm-\\ning that Joseph was the son of Heli, when he meant only that he was\\nhis son-in-law, Heli being Mary s father. But there is a general\\nJames the son of Alpheus and his brother Jude, and probably Simon\\nthe Canaanite.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0466.jp2"}, "467": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 4oo\\nremark which applies to them all. If Matthew were the author of\\nthe two chapters, the genealogy given by him was regarded as cor-\\nrect by the other apostles. So also we may infer, with equal confi-\\ndence, that the genealogy given by Luke was regarded by them as\\ncorrect. It follows, then, that the apostles were acquainted with\\ntwo genealogies, both correct, but at first view irreconcilable with\\neach other, and the apparent contradiction of which has been re-\\ngarded since the second century as presenting a serious difficulty.\\nIn giving either of the two, an apostle or evangelist, aware that\\nit might be confronted by another, entitled to equal credit, would,\\nwe may reasonably believe, have had regard to this fact, and\\ninserted a few words of explanation. The supposition, it may be\\nadded, is very unlikely, that, according to the usages of the Jews,\\nthere should have been two modes of reckoning the descent of the\\nsame individual, both equally proper. We know nothing to coun-\\ntenance such an opinion.\\nIf, then, the genealogy contained in the two chapters be irrec-\\noncilable with that of Luke, it cannot have proceeded from Mat-\\nthew. The most probable conjecture, perhaps, is, that we owe\\nit, in common with the remainder of the two chapters, to some\\nHebrew convert, who composed the narrative shortly after the\\ndestruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, and who,\\nhaving found a genealogy of some individual by the name of\\nJoseph, represented as a descendant of David, mistook it for the\\ngenealogy of Joseph the husband of Mary.\\nAs we proceed, the discrepance between the account of the\\nnativity of Jesus, as contained in the two chapters, and the ac-\\ncount of Luke, continues to be very striking.\\nAccording to Luke, Joseph and Mary dwelt in Xazareth. On\\nthe occasion of a proposed census, they both journeyed to Beth-\\nlehem, where Jesus was born, and where he was visited by shep-\\nherds, to whom his birth had been announced by angels. Forty\\ndays after his birth, that is, when the days of Mary s purification,\\naccording to the Jewish Law, had been accomplished, he was\\npresented in the temple, when his high destiny was publicly an-\\nnounced. Then, after performing all the rites of the Law, Joseph\\nand Mary returned to Xazareth.\\nThe author of the two chapters, without mentioning any pre-\\nvious residence of Joseph and Mary at Xazareth, relates, that\\n28", "height": "4500", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0467.jp2"}, "468": {"fulltext": "484 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nJesus was born at Bethlehem that certain Magi from the East,\\nhaving seen his star, came to pay him reverence that their in-\\nquiries at Jerusalem concerning the new-born king of the Jews\\nthrew Herod and the whole city into commotion that they were\\ndirected by Herod to inform him when they had found the child,\\nbut were divinely warned not to do so and that Joseph was at\\nthe same time warned that the child s life was in danger, and\\ndirected to fly with him and his mother into Egypt, which he\\naccordingly did, and remained there till after the death of Herod.\\nIn the account of Joseph s return, the writer shows that he sup-\\nposed Bethlehem to have been his previous place of residence for\\nhe represents him as prevented only by a new divine warning\\nfrom returning to that city, and as led in consequence to take up\\nhis abode at Nazareth.\\nAs it may be a matter of curiosity to those not familiar with the\\nsubject, I will mention the manner in which it has been attempted\\nto reconcile these two accounts. Luke says (ii. 39), that after the\\npurification of Mary in the temple, when they [Joseph and\\nMary] had performed all things according to the Law of the Lord,\\nthey returned to Galilee, to their own town, Nazareth, 1 But it is\\ncontended, that, though Luke has so expressed himself, yet the\\nreturn to Nazareth actually meant by him was that following the\\nflight into Egypt that Joseph and Mary did not go from Jerusa-\\nlem to Nazareth, but for some reason or other went to reside at\\nBethlehem that, during this residence at Bethlehem, the visit of\\nthe Magi took place and, consequently, that it was after the mi-\\nraculous display of angels at the birth of Jesus, and after the pre-\\ndictions which accompanied his public presentation in the temple,\\nthat Jerusalem was first thrown into commotion, and the jealousy\\nof Herod excited, by the reports and inquiries of those strangers.\\nThis, then, is the second very improbable solution of an ap-\\nparent contradiction between the account in the two chapters and\\nthe account of Luke and it is to be observed, that the improb-\\nability of the truth of any narrative increases in a very rapid ratio\\nto the number of such solutions required.\\nWe must consider, that, if the account of Luke respecting the\\nbirth of Jesus be authentic in its essential features, it must have\\nbeen derived from the mother and family of Jesus, as its original\\nsource; for they only could furnish an authentic account. But", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0468.jp2"}, "469": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 435\\nthe circumstances related in the two chapters are of such a charac-\\nter, that they could not have been forgotten or omitted in their\\nnarrative, had they taken place nor can we refer to the same\\nauthentic source two narratives apparently so contradictory, which\\ncoincide in scarcely a singie circumstance, and which, in their gen-\\neral complexion, present an aspect so different. The account\\nof Luke being that received by the apostles, we cannot Lelieve\\nanother so unlike it to have proceeded from the Apostle Mat-\\nthew.\\nTo the narrative in the two chapters, there are other objections,\\narising from its intrinsic character. In the story of the Magi we\\nfind represented a strange mixture of astrology and miracle. A\\ndivine interposition is pretended, which was addressed to the\\nfalse opinions of certain Magi, respecting the significance of the\\nstars, and for which no purpose worthy of the Deity can be\\nassigned. They are represented as having been guided by a star,\\nwhich at last stood over the place where the child was though an\\nobject but a little elevated iu the heavens changes its apparent\\nposition in reference to objects seen on the earth, according to the\\npoint of view of the spectator. Distrusting, however, the guid-\\nance of the star, which had led them as far as Jerusalem, and\\nwhich finally, as we are told, guided them right, they are repre-\\nsented as inquiring in that city where the object of their search\\nwas to be found and, in making this inquiry, we find them using\\nlanguage Where is the new-born king of the Jews% that must\\nhave been altogether unintelligible to those not equally favored\\nwith themselves by a divine communication respecting his birth.\\nThese inquiries, according to the account, excited great alarm in\\nHerod, who was fast approaching the grave, worn out with insane\\npassions, disease, and old age and whose want of faith in the\\nJewish religion, and natural temperament, would have led him\\nto regard with derision the Jewish expectations of a Messiah. He\\ncould not have apprehended, that the remainder of his life would\\nbe disturbed by the future claims to his throne of an infant just\\nborn in obscurity and his solicitude about what might happen,\\nyears after his death, to those of his children whom he had not\\ndestroyed, was little likely to disturb him. Yet he is represented\\nas having been so carried away by fear and passion, as to act, not\\nonly with the greatest barbarity, but the greatest folly, to have", "height": "4532", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0469.jp2"}, "470": {"fulltext": "436 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nordered an indiscriminate massacre, from which his intended victim\\nactually escaped when it is clear, that if the preceding circum-\\nstances related by Luke, or even those related by the author of the\\ntwo chapters, be true, that victim had become far too conspicuous\\nnot to be very easily identified.\\nBut, if we reject the two chapters, a difficulty arises as the\\noriginal Hebrew Gospel could not have commenced with the first\\nwords of the third chapter, But in those days. The diffi-\\nculty, however, is removed by considering, that these words\\nmay have been added as a form of transition to a new subject,\\nwhen the two chapters were blended with the Gospel, and that\\nthe Gospel may originally have begun with the words that fol-\\nlow, John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of\\nJudea that is, in a manner corresponding to the commencement\\nof Mark s Gospel. Or the first words may originally have been,\\nIn the days of Herod, meaning Herod the tetrarch of Galilee,\\nwhich supposition is, perhaps, countenanced by the story of Epi-\\nphanius, before mentioned, that the Gospel of the Ebionites began,\\nIn the days of Herod, king of Jadcea the addition of which last\\nwords, king of Judcea, seems to have been a blunder of his own.\\nBut the commencement of the third chapter, In those days,\\npresents a more serious difficulty upon the supposition that what\\nprecedes was written by Matthew. The last events mentioned at\\nthe close of the second chapter are the accession of Archelaus as\\nruler of Judsea, and Joseph s going to reside at ^Nazareth. But it\\nwas not in the time of those events, it was not in those days,\\non the contrary, it was about thirty years afterward, that\\nJohn the Baptist was preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.\\nThe reasons that have been given may, I think, satisfy us that\\nthe two chapters in question did not proceed from the Apostle\\nMatthew. When we turn to the narrative of Luke, no important\\ndifficulties will, I think, present^ themselves to the mind of one\\nwho has not determined to reject the belief of all miraculous inter-\\nposition. The narrative is, as I have said, in a style rather poetical\\nthan historical. It was probably not committed to writing till\\nafter the death of Mary, and of all the other individuals particu-\\nlarly concerned. With its real miracles the fictions of oral tradi-\\ntion had probably become blended and the individual by whom\\nit was committed to writing probably added what he regarded as", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0470.jp2"}, "471": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 437\\npoetical embellishments. It is not necessary to believe, for exam-\\nple, that Mary and Zachariah actually expressed themselves in the\\nrhythmical language of the hymns ascribed to them; or to receive\\nas literal history the whole account respecting the birth of John\\nthe Baptist, or of the different appearances of an angel announcing\\nhimself as Gabriel. With our present means of judging, however,\\nwe cannot draw a precise line between the truth, and what has\\nbeen added to the truth. But in regard to the main event related,\\nthe miraculous conception of Jesus, it seems to me not difficult to\\ndiscern in it purposes worthy of God. Nothing could have served\\nmore effectually to relieve him from that interposition and embar-\\nrassment in the performance of his high mission, to which he\\nwould have been exposed on the part of his parents, if born in the\\ncommon course of nature. It took him from the control of Mary\\nand Joseph, and made them feel, that, in regard to him, they\\nwere not to interfere with the purposes of God. It gave hmi an\\nabiding sense, from his earliest years, that his destiny on earth\\nwas peculiar and marvellous and must have operated most pow-\\nerfully to produce that consciousness of his intimate and singular\\nconnection with God, which was so necessary to the formation of\\nthe character he displayed, and to the right performance of the\\ngreat trust committed to him. It corresponds with his office\\npresenting him, to the mind of a believer, as an individual set\\napart from all other men, coming into the world with the stamp\\nof God upon him, answerably to his purpose here, which was to\\nspeak to us with authority from God.\\nII.\\nMATTHEW, CHAP. XXYH. 3-10.\\nIn reference to the original text of our present Greek transla-\\ntion of Matthew, I know of nothing extant in any considerable\\nnumber of copies, which can be considered as an interpolation of\\nany importance. The most remarkable, perhaps, is the doxology\\nat the, end of our Lord s prayer, already noticed.* But, beside\\nthe two chapters that have been discussed, there are other pas-\\nsages which are liable to the suspicion of having been interpolated\\nSee before, p. 424.", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0471.jp2"}, "472": {"fulltext": "438 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nin the copy, or in copies, of the original Hebrew, used by the\\ntranslator.\\nIt is to be remarked, that, for determining the text of Matthew s\\nHebrew Gospel, we have but a single authority, the Greek transla-\\ntion, the representative perhaps of but one manuscript, probably\\nnot of many. But, where we have but a single manuscript for\\ndetermining the text of an author, and our single authority, the\\nGreek translation, amounts to but little more, its evidence is not\\nof great weight against a strong presumption of the spuriousness\\nof a passage.\\nOf the passages referred to, the genuineness of which is suspi-\\ncious, one is the account of the conduct and fate of Judas on the\\nmorning after the apprehension of Jesus. I will give it with the\\ncontext, Matt, xxvii. 1-11\\nBut in the morning, early, all the chief priests and the elders\\nof the people met in council to devise how they might procure the\\ndeath of Jesus. And, having bound him, they carried him before\\nPilate the governor, to deliver him up to him. [Then Judas, who\\nhad put him in their power, seeing that he was condemned, re-\\npented, and carried back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief\\npriests and elders, saying, I have sinned in betraying the blood of\\nan innocent man. But they said to him, What is that to us Do\\nyou look to it. And he threw down the money in the temple, and\\nwithdrew, and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests,\\ntaking the money, said, It is not lawful to put it into the sacred\\ntreasury, since it is the price of blood. And, after consulting\\ntogether, they determined to purchase with it the Potter s Field, as\\na burial-place for strangers. Hence that field has been called the\\nField of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what was said by\\nJeremiah the prophet And they took the thirty pieces of silver,\\nthe price of him who was appraised, ivhom the children of Israel\\nappraised and they gave them for the Potter s Field, as the Lord\\nhad appointed for me.] Then Jesus stood before the governor,\\nand the governor questioned him, saying, Art thou the king of the\\nJews\\nAt first view, this account of Judas has the aspect of an interpo-\\nlation. It is inserted so as to disjoin a narrative, the different\\nparts of which, when it is removed, come together as if they had\\nbeen originally united. Whether it be or be not an interpolation,", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0472.jp2"}, "473": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 439\\nit is clearly not in a proper place. The whole story apparently\\nrefers to a period subsequent to the point of time where it is intro-\\nduced. Between the evening in which Jesus was apprehended\\nand early in the morning, no circumstance could have occurred\\nto produce a great change in such a mind as that of Judas, or in\\nany other. When he betrayed his Master, he knew that he was\\ndelivering him into the hands of his enemies, whose immediate\\npurpose it was to take his life. As the account is now placed, it\\nis said, that, in the morning, Judas was affected with bitter remorse,\\nbecause he saw that Jesus was condemned. But no condemna-\\ntion had yet been passed upon him by the Roman governor, and\\nJudas could have had no new conviction that the Sanhedrim would\\nuse all their efforts to procure his death. Though it may be pos-\\nsible to put a different meaning on the words, yet the account,\\naccording to its obvious sense, represents Judas as having had an\\ninterview with the chief priests and the elders (that is, with the\\nSanhedrim) in the temple, which is irreconcilable with the course\\nof events as represented by Matthew, in the context of the pas-\\nsage, as well as by the other evangelists. Matthew could not\\nhave described the Sanhedrim as holding a council in the house of\\nCaiaphas, and proceeding thence to the house of Pilate, and also\\nas being in the temple, where Judas returned them their money,\\nand they deliberated what they should do with it.\\nThe account of Judas we are considering is irreconcilable with\\nthat given by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (chap. i. 18, 19).\\nLuke says\\nV This man purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity, and,\\nfalling headlong, burst asunder, so that all his bowels gushed out\\nand this was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the\\nfield was called in their language Aceldama; that is, The Field of\\nBlood:\\nWhen Luke says that this was known to all the inhabitants\\nof Jerusalem, 1 we understand him as meaning that it was a com-\\nmon report in Jerusalem, and that he himself believed it. I will\\nnot remark on the attempts which have been made to force his\\naccount into correspondence with that now found in Matthew s\\nGospel. To me it seems clear, that, if Luke s be correct, that\\nwhich we are examining must be erroneous in every particular.\\nBut there is no doubt that the passage quoted from the Acts", "height": "4544", "width": "2732", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0473.jp2"}, "474": {"fulltext": "440 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nis genuine and Luke, in giving the common report, may be pre-\\nsumed to have stated what was believed by the apostles, as well as\\nothers.\\nIn the conclusion of the account found in Matthew s G-ospel,\\nthere is an extraordinary misuse of a passage of Zechariah, which\\nthe writer professes to quote from Jeremiah. I put out of view\\nthe notion, that he may have found words answering to what he\\nhas given in an apocryphal book ascribed to Jeremiah, of which\\nwe nowhere find mention except in a single passage of Jerome,\\nmore than three centuries after the Gospel of Matthew was\\nwritten. The mistake of the name Jeremiah for Zechariah seems\\nto show that the writer quoted from memory and this may serve\\nin part to explain the strange use which he makes of the words of\\nthe latter. The changes of sense, which could not have had this\\norigin, may be accounted for by the allegorical and cabalistical\\nmodes of interpreting the Old Testament that existed among the\\nJews. The passage of Zechariah (chap. xi. 12, 13), may be thus\\ntranslated\\nThen I said to them, If it seem good in your eyes, give me\\nmy wages. If not, keep them. And they weighed for my wages\\nthirty shekels of silver. And Jehovah said to me, Cast it into the\\ntreasury, the goodly price at which I was valued by them. And I\\ntook the thirty shekels of silver, and cast them into the house of\\nJehovah, into the treasury.\\nThe word here rendered treasury commonly means pot-\\nter n and the only reason for not so rendering it in the present\\ncase is the difficulty of explaining why a potter should be spoken\\nof as being in the house of the Lord. In the quotation found in\\nMatthew, the potter is changed into the Potter s Field.\\nThe inapplicability of the words of Zechariah to the purpose for\\nwhich they are cited in the passage under consideration needs no\\nillustration. Similar perversions of the Old Testament, by chan-\\nging the words and sense of the original, may be found in the Kab-\\nbinical writings but no other quotation of the same character is\\nI give the translation of my friend, the Rev. Professor Noyes (New\\nTranslation of the Hebrew Prophets, iii. 210). Jehovah considers the wages\\nof the prophet as his own wages, and the contempt of the prophet the same\\nas the contempt of himself.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0474.jp2"}, "475": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 441\\nadduced by Matthew. If we believe the first two chapters to be\\nthe work of another hand, we may say that he has nothing resem-\\nbling this quotation from Zechariah. On the contrary, in the\\nquotations which are found elsewhere in his Gospel, the appli-\\ncability of the words of the original to the subject about which he\\nhas used them is apparent. This fact indicates the habit of his\\nmind, from which we conclude that it is not probable the quo-\\ntation in question was made by him.\\nin.\\nMATTHEW, CHAP. XXYTL, PART OF VEE. 52 AXD 53.\\nAnother passage which one may believe to have been interpo-\\nlated in the copy, or in copies, of the original Hebrew used by the\\ntranslator, is that answering to the words of the following quota-\\ntion which are included in brackets.\\nAnd lo the veil of the temple was torn asunder from the top\\nto the bottom and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were\\nrent, and the sepulchres laid open [and many bodies of saints\\nwho slept were raised, and, leaving their sepulchres, after his res-\\nurrection, entered the holy city and appeared to many.]\\nWho, it may be asked, were these saints Not disciples of\\nChrist for many of them had not died. Not unconverted Jews\\nof that time for to them such a title would not be applied. How\\nlong had they lain in their sepulchres We cannot but suppose,\\nthat corruption had done its work on the larger portion and is it\\nto be thought, that God would re-create, as it were, those moulder-\\ning bodies without some purpose far different from what can be\\ndiscerned? What purpose, indeed, can be discerned? They\\nappeared, it is said, to many but we do not find that any converts\\nwere made in consequence, nor can we perceive that any good\\nwhatever followed, directly or indirectly, from their appearance.\\nSupposing the story to be true, many to whom they did not appear\\nwould regard it as a fable and its circulation would only tend to\\nthrow discredit on the testimony to the resurrection of Christ\\nhimself. Were those saints in fact recalled to life, and did\\nthey die again, and their bodies resume their places, when\\ntheir supposed mission to the living was accomplished? Is it\\npossible, if such an astonishing miracle had been performed, a", "height": "4552", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0475.jp2"}, "476": {"fulltext": "442 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nmiracle more adapted to excite consternation than any in the\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0whole history of the evangelists, that one really acquainted with\\nsuch a fact should have known nothing of the consequences that\\nmust have resulted from it, or that, knowing those consequences,\\nhe should not have thought it worth while to record them Is it\\nlikely, that so strange a marvel, about which all Jerusalem must\\nhave been full of excitement, should have been mentioned but by\\none evangelist, and that so slightly Is it credible, that when, as\\nfar as we know, but three individuals were restored to life by\\nJesus himself, and this in solemn attestation of his divine mission,\\nmany bodies of saints should have been raised under such circum-\\nstances as that the fact should contribute little or nothing to estab-\\nlish the truth of our religion\\nAfter Chris fs resurrection, it is said, they left their sepulchres,\\nand went into the holy city. In this extraordinary statement we\\nmay recognize, I think, the fabrication of some relater of the\\nstory. He apprehended, that, if the saints were represented as\\nrising and appearing on the day when Christ was crucified, it\\nmight seem to deprive him of the title of First-born from the\\ndead and therefore had recourse to the not very successful expe-\\ndient of postponing their appearance till after his resurrection.\\nIf these views are correct, the story must be regarded as a\\nfable probably one which, in common, perhaps, with others now\\nutterly forgotten, was in circulation among the Hebrew converts\\nafter the destruction of Jerusalem. Some possessor of a manu-\\nscript of Matthew s Hebrew Gospel may be supposed to have\\nnoted it in the margin of his copy, whence it found its way into the\\ntext of others, one or more of which fell into the hands of the\\nGreek translator.\\nIn connection with the mention of supposed interpolations in the\\nGospels, I have referred to the words ascribed to our Lord, in the\\nfortieth verse of the twelfth chapter of Matthew.* On this pas-\\nsage I remark below, f\\nSee before, p. 17, note.\\nt I do not speak of the passage in the text, because I do not believe it\\nto be an interpolation. I give the words in brackets, with those preced-\\ning:\u00e2\u0080\u0094", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0476.jp2"}, "477": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 443\\nIV.\\nTHE COXCLTJSIOX OF MARK S GOSPEL. (CHAP. XVI. 9-20.)\\nWe pass to the Gospel of Mark. In this there is but one pas-\\nsage that demands consideration. It consists of the last twelve\\nverses of his Gospel, from the ninth verse of the sixteenth chapter,\\ninclusive, to the end.\\nA wicked and apostate race would have a sign but no sign will be\\ngiven it, except the sign of Jonah the prophet. [For as Jonah was three\\ndays and three nights in the belly of the fish, so will the Son of man be\\nthree days and three nights in the heart of the earth.]\\nThe words of our Lord are thus reported by Luke, chap. xi. 29, 30\\nThis is a wicked race. It would have a sign but no sign will be given\\nit, except the sign of Jonah. For such a sign as Jonah was to the Xinevites\\nwill the Son of man be to this generation.\\nIf we regard what is given by Luke as a correct report of what was said\\nby Jesus, we may suppose, that the explanation of the sign of Jonah, by\\na comparison of his being three days and three nights in the belly of a\\nfish with our Lord s being three days and three nights in a tomb, which\\nis found in Matthew, but not in Luke, was introduced into our Lord s\\ndiscourse during the time that it was preserved by oral tradition. His own\\nbrief words leaving his meaning undefined, they were understood by some\\nas referring to the extraordinary marvel related in the story of Jonah and,\\nbeing so understood, this explanation became connected with them. There\\nseems to be no reason for supposing, that it was inserted in Matthew s Gos-\\npel by any other than the evangelist himself.\\nBut it cannot readily be believed, that our Lord would have represented\\nhis being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth as the only\\nsign of his divine mission to be given to the Jews. This would have been\\nadmitting what they had just implied, that no sign of his divine mission\\nhad already been given them.\\nNor, if we regard as fabulous the story that Jonah remained alive for\\nthree days and three nights in a fish by which he had been swallowed, is it\\ncredible that our Lord would have referred to a fiction of this sort in the\\nmanner represented; especially as it does not appear from the narrative con-\\ncerning Jonah, that the supposed miracle was any sign to the Xinevites, or\\nwas even known to them.\\nIt may be added, that our Lord is made to say, that he would be three\\ndays and three nights in the tomb. He was, in fact, laid in the tomb on the\\nnight of Friday, probably late at night, and rose before the dawn of\\nSunday morning; and no use of language can be produced which may justify\\nthe calling of such a period of time three days and three nights. Its being", "height": "4548", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0477.jp2"}, "478": {"fulltext": "444 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nIt is remarkable, that while Griesbach does not, in his Xew\\nTestament, affix to them any mark of doubt, he argues at length\\nagainst their genuineness in his Commentarius Criticus. The\\nstate of external testimony respecting them is as follows\\nThey are not found in the Vatican manuscript. In the Codex\\nStephani v, after the eighth verse, it is said, The following also is\\nextant, which words precede a short conclusion undoubtedly spu-\\nrious, and then come the words, This also is extant after which\\nso called can, I think, be accounted for only by the loose manner in which\\nthe Jews were wont to accommodate together passages of the Old Testa-\\nment, and events of which they regarded those passages as descriptive,\\nprophetic, or typical. Of this it is not a remarkable example.\\nThe meaning of the words of Jesus, as reported by Luke, and also by\\nMatthew, with the omission of those under consideration, may be thus ex-\\nplained\\nJesus was surrounded by men full of bigotry, evil passions, and mortal\\nhatred towards himself, men who were resisting the strongest evidences of\\nhis divine mission, ascribing his miracles to the agency of Satan, and de-\\nmanding in mockery some sign of his divine mission, some manifestation of\\nGod s power in attestation of it, as if the most striking attestations of it had\\nnot been already given. His view turned to that destruction of their nation\\nwhich was impending over the Jews, as the punishment of their rejection of\\nhim. No sign, he says, will be given to this wicked and apostate race, no\\nmanifestation of God s power will be made to them which they will believe\\nand feel to be such, except a prophet of destruction such as Jonah was to the\\nNinevites, whose warnings to pursue the train of thought which was in\\nthe mind of our Lord will be disregarded, and whose predictions of ruin\\nwill be accomplished.\\nThus he immediately subjoins: The men of Nineveh will rise up before\\nthe judgment-seat with this race, and condemn it for they reformed upon the\\npreaching of Jonah and lo one greater than Jonah is here.\\nHowever fabulous may be the story of Jonah, there was nothing unsuit-\\nable to our Lord s character in thus using it. Speakers and writers of every\\nage and country have recurred to well-known works of fiction as readily as\\nto authentic history for analogies and exemplifications fitted to affect the\\nimaginations of their hearers or readers. It would be folly to suppose, that,\\nin doing so, they meant to vouch for the truth of the books which they\\nhave thus quoted. It is only in the reasonings of divines that these facts\\nhave been overlooked, in those reasonings in which our Ldrd and the\\nwriters of the New Testament have been considered as giving their authority\\nfor the truth and for the genuineness of all books referred to or quoted by\\nthem.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0478.jp2"}, "479": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 445\\nfollow the twelve verses in question. In more than forty other\\nmanuscripts, they are accompanied by various remarks, to the\\neffect that they were wanting in some, but found in the ancient\\ncopies that they were in many copies that they had been\\nconsidered spurious, and were wanting in most copies that they\\nwere not in the more accurate copies and, on the other hand,\\nthat they were generally in accurate copies.\\nIn the other manuscripts of the Gospels beside those mentioned,\\nthe passage in question is found without remark and likewise in\\nall the ancient versions, with the exception of the Armenian (in\\nthe manuscripts of which, as appears, it is either omitted or\\nmarked as of doubtful credit) and likewise of the copy of an Arabic\\nversion preserved in the Vatican Library.\\nThe nineteenth verse is distinctly quoted by Irenaeus as from\\nthe Gospel of Mark and the passage in question appears to\\nhave been recognized as genuine by some other fathers. f But no\\npart of it is quoted by Origen. According to Eusebius, almost all\\nthe copies of Mark s Gospel, including the most accurate, ended\\nwith what is now the eighth verse. Gregory of Xyssa states,\\nthat the passage was not found in the more accurate copies and\\nJerome says, that it was but in few, being wanting in almost all\\nthe Greek manuscripts. I pass over other authorities against it\\nof less importance.\\nThis state of the external evidence is such as to render the\\ngenuineness of the passage suspicious especially when we con-\\nsider, that it was the natural tendency of transcribers rather to\\npreserve than to reject what they found in an exemplar before\\nthem. They had the feeling, that it rendered their copy more\\ncomplete. To reject was to assume responsibility to retain was\\nyielding to authority and, in addition, there has always been\\na strong, however irrational, sentiment, that, when there is a\\ndoubt whether a passage may not be a portion of Sacred Writ, it\\nCont. Haeres., lib. iii c. 10, 6, p 188.\\nt Not, however, by Clement of Rome, nor Justin, who are cited as quot-\\ning it in the editions of the New Testament by Griesbach and Scholz, nor,\\nI think, by Clement of Alexandria, who is also adduced.\\nQuaestiones ad Marimim, pp. 61, 62.\\nOrat. ii. in Christi Resurrect.; Opp. iii. 411.\\nAd Hedibiam, de Quaestionibus Opp iv. pars i. col. 172.", "height": "4548", "width": "2732", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0479.jp2"}, "480": {"fulltext": "446 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nis profane to reject it, a sentiment of which we have had full\\nproof in our day the manifest corruptions found in the Received\\nText of the New Testament being, some of them, still inserted in\\neditions of the original, and all of them retained in the Common\\nEnglish Version, as published by authority. The dread of taking\\nfrom Scripture any thing which might be a part of it has been far\\nstronger than the apprehension, at least equally reasonable, of\\nadding to Scripture something not belonging to it. Thus, Euse-\\nbius, after mentioning that some rejected the passage under con-\\nsideration, as wanting in most copies, and among them the most\\naccurate, adds, that others, not daring to reject any thing whatever\\nthat is extant, through any circumstance, in the manuscripts of the\\nGospels, say that there is here a double reading, as in many other\\nplaces, and that both are to be received, because the faithful and\\npious will not undertake to decide in favor of one rather than the\\nOther.\\nBut, in addition to this common feeling, transcribers must have\\nbeen peculiarly reluctant to reject the passage before us for, if\\nstruck off, it leaves the Gospel of Mark, in its conclusion, strange-\\nly incomplete and unsatisfactory. This, which every one feels,\\nmust have been felt by them. It is, I conceive, the main argu-\\nment for the genuineness of the passage, and one which at first\\nview may seem almost conclusive.\\nBefore, however, considering this argument, we will attend to\\nthe internal character of the passage, to ascertain what proof this\\nmay afford respecting the point at issue.\\nThere is, then, a difference so great between the use of lan-\\nguage in this passage, and its use in the undisputed portion of\\nMark s Gospel, as to furnish strong reason for believing the pas-\\nsage not genuine. I give examples in a note below. f\\nQuaestiones ad Marinum, p. 62.\\nf There are various words and modes of expression peculiar to this pas-\\nsage, not connected with the expression of any thing peculiar to its subject;\\nbut, on the contrary, of such a character, that, if they had been familiar to\\nMark, they would probably have occurred elsewhere in his writings. Such\\nare the following\\nVer. 9. irpury aa66arov, instead of {Jllcl oaddarov, the expression used by\\nMark a little before, and by all the other evangelists, in speaking of the day.\\nUpojTTj oa66uTov occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0480.jp2"}, "481": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 447\\nTo proceed to other considerations In the ninth verse (the\\nfirst of the disputed passage), Mary Magdalene is described as if\\nunknown to the reader, Mary Magdalene, from whom he cast\\nout seven demons. Xow, as she had been mentioned by Mark\\nseveral times within a few preceding pages, it is not likely that this\\nmode of designating her, to be expected only concerning an indi-\\nvidual first introduced to notice, should have been used by him.\\nIt seems to have been the work of the author of the addition,\\nwriting with too little reference to what preceded in the Gospel.\\nThe words ascribed to our Saviour in these verses differ so\\nmuch in their character from any elsewhere recorded as his, either\\nby Mark or any other of the evangelists, that it is difficult to\\nbelieve them to have been uttered by him. And he said to his\\ndisciples, Go to all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole\\ncreation. He who believes and is baptized, shall be safe he who\\ndisbelieves, shall be condemned. And these signs shall accom-\\npany those who believe in my name they shall cast out demons\\nthey shall speak new languages they shall take up serpents if\\nthey drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them they shall lay\\ntheir hands upon the diseased, and they shall be well. In these\\nwords, represented as the last that Jesus addressed to his apostles,\\nthere appears a want of that moral dignity which is characteristic\\nof his discourses, and which we should above all expect upon this\\noccasion. The particular enumeration of miracles to be performed\\nis not in his manner. He would not, in giving his last solemn\\ncharge to his apostles, have turned away their thoughts from a\\nYer. 10. ekf/lvt], and ver. 11. kclkeIvol. This use of e/ttivog, not demon-\\nstrative nor emphatical, occurs nowhere else in Mark s Gospel.\\nYer. 10. The expression ol fier avrov yevofievoc to denote the disciples\\nof Jesus, of which use of the words there is no other example in the 2s ew\\nTestament.\\nYer. 19. 6 nvptoc, and ver. 20. rov Kvpcov. Mark in his own person no-\\nwhere else applies this title to Christ.\\nPassing over the words peculiar to this passage, the use of which may be\\naccounted for from something peculiar in its subject, the following nowhere\\nelse occur in the Gospel of Mark: 1. -opeiofiaL, the participles of which are\\nused three times; 2. ^Eao uai t used as a verb, and likewise as its participle;\\n3. u-igtecj, verb and participle; 4. fierd ravra; 5. erepog 6. varepov;\\n7. TTapano/.ovdeci) 8. 6/ui-tlj 9. fiev ovv 10. Travraxov 11. avvepyeu\\n12. 6i6ac6u 13. e-aKO/,ovd\u00c2\u00a3G).", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0481.jp2"}, "482": {"fulltext": "448 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nconsideration of their high duties to an anticipation of the various\\nmiraculous powers which they and other believers were to possess.\\nSome of the miracles enumerated are of a kind very different from\\nthose which he and his apostles were accustomed to perform.\\nThey do not, like their works of mercy, bear in their very charac-\\nter the stamp of a divine mission. They were liable to be con-\\nfounded with the tricks of pretended magicians. Some of the\\npowers promised could be of no use to others, and of none to the\\npossessor, except in case of a rare accident. But, above all, if, as\\nI think is certain, miraculous powers were not granted to be-\\nlievers generally, then this promise that they would be so granted\\nThese signs shall accompany those who believe could not\\nhave been uttered by Christ, and, we may conclude with almost\\nequal confidence, could not have been ascribed to him by the\\nevangelist.\\nThere is, throughout these verses, an extraordinary conciseness\\nof narration, very different from the common manner of Mark,\\nwho usually details facts in more words and with more circum-\\nstances than any other of the evangelists. It is the manner of one\\nadding only what he thought necessary to form some proper con-\\nclusion to the Gospel.\\nBut on the other hand, to recur to the argument before men-\\ntioned, it may be said, that it is incredible that Mark should have\\nleft his Gospel with so abrupt and unsatisfactory an ending as it\\nmust have had, if he had broken off with the eighth verse of the\\nlast chapter and that this consideration alone is sufficient to do\\naway the whole force of the preceding remarks. I allow it to be\\nincredible that Mark should thus have ended his Gospel design-\\nedly and by choice but it is not incredible that he should have\\nbeen interrupted in his labors by accident. What that accident\\nwas, must be a matter of conjecture. But there is nothing incred-\\nible or improbable in supposing, that some accident may have\\noccurred to prevent him from finishing his Gospel as he intended\\nand there are historical circumstances which afford ground for\\nconjecturing what that accident may have been.\\nAccording to ancient accounts, of which there is no reason for\\ndoubting the essential correctness, the apostle Peter, near the\\nclose of his life, went to Rome, with Mark for his companion. He", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0482.jp2"}, "483": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 449\\nthere preached the gospel, while Mark, as is related, composed, at\\nthe request of his hearers, a written gospel, of which his preaching\\nwas the basis. But the terrible persecution of the Christians\\nunder Nero broke out in the year 64 and in that or the following\\nrear, as appears probable, Peter was crucified. Here all authen-\\ntic accounts of Mark end for the story of his going from Rome\\nand preaching at Alexandria can be traced no higher than to a\\nhearsay of Eusebius, and is connected with relations of a nature\\nWholly to destroy its credit. In that persecution, Mark may have\\nperished also or, if he did not, the anguish of mind which he must\\nhave suffered, or imprisonment, or a rapid flight from the city, or\\nsome other cause connected with that period of frightful distress\\nand anxiety, may have prevented him from completing his work.\\nCopies of it, however, being taken in its imperfect state, we may\\nsuppose, that, at an early period, some individual possessing one\\nof these, who was procuring new transcripts to be made, added the\\nbrief conclusion which we now find, in order to complete the\\nwork. As the history is in fact unfinished without it, it soon came\\nto be considered by very many as a part of the original Gospel, or\\nas a proper addition to it and it has thus, we may suppose, found\\nits way into a great majority of our present copies.\\nLUKE, CHAP. IX. 55, 56.\\nTVhen our Lord and his disciples were refused hospitality by\\nthe Samaritans of a certain village, which was an act of peculiar\\ndisrespect according to the notions of that age and country, James\\nand John, in common, doubtless, with the other disciples, were\\nindignant at such treatment. They recollected what, according to\\nthe Jewish history, had been the dealings of prophets of old with\\nthose who offended them they were disposed, on this as on other\\noccasions, to take the lead among the disciples and, under the\\nexcitement of the moment, they addressed Jesus with the ques-\\ntion, Master, shall we call down fire from heaven and destroy\\nthem as Elijah did.\\nBut he turned and rebuked them; [and said, Ye know not\\nof what spirit ye are. For the Son of man came not to destroy\\n29", "height": "4560", "width": "2720", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0483.jp2"}, "484": {"fulltext": "450 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nmen s lives, but to save them.] And they went to another vil-\\nlage.\\nWe can conceive of no words more appropriate to the occasion,\\nmore suitable to the character of our Lord, or better fitted to\\nrepress and correct the wrong feelings of his disciples. They\\nconveyed a reproof full of instruction, expressed at once in the\\nmildest and the most effectual form.\\nOne who is not a critical student of the New Testament may\\ntherefore be surprised to learn, that these words were probably\\nnot in the Gospel of Luke as written by him. They are wanting\\nin a large majority of the oldest and most important manuscripts.\\nThe omission of a passage which was part of the original text\\nof a work must be the result either of accident or of design. No\\naccident can be supposed which would lead to the concurrent\\nomission of a passage in many manuscripts, which, like those in\\nthe present case, were written independently of one another; that\\nis, of which one was not copied from another. There is only one\\nclass of accidents of omission which admits of any particular ex-\\nplanation, such as may justify us in supposing the possibility, that\\nan accident of this class, affecting a particular passage, might\\noccur in a few unconnected copies. The omissions referred to are\\nthose which proceed from the circumstance, that one clause ends\\nwith the same word or the same series of syllables as another\\nfollowing it, so that the eye of a transcriber may glance from the\\nformer to the latter ending, and omit the intervening words,\\nomissions in consequence of an liomoioteleuton (that is, like\\nending as they are technically called. But this cause of omis-\\nsion does not exist in the passage before us.\\nIf, then, the words ascribed to Jesus originally made a part of\\nLuke s Gospel, they must have been omitted by design and this\\nsupposition has been resorted to. It has been suggested, that they\\nwere struck out by catholic Christians, that the Marcionites might\\nnot use them in defence of their opinions.*\\nAs I have elsewhere (ante, pp. 170, 171) more fully ex-\\nplained, the Marcionites, in common with the other Gnostics,\\nregarded Judaism as a very imperfect dispensation, with which\\nOrthodox! haec videntur delevisse, ne Marcionitse haberent quo se tue-\\nrentur. Wetstein, ad lucum.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0484.jp2"}, "485": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 451\\nChristianity in many respects stood in contrast they conceived\\nof it as proceeding, not from the true God, but from an inferior\\ngod, who had fashioned this material world: and they believed,\\nthat the apostles generally, through their Jewish prejudices, did\\nnot fully comprehend the character of Christianity. In the pas-\\nsage before us. our Lord is represented as saying to two of the\\nprincipal apostles, Ye know not of what spirit ye are that is,\\nas I doubt not that the words should be understood, Ye know\\nnot the spirit of my religion and in his own conduct he pre-\\nsents the spirit of Christianity in contrast with what was conceived\\nto be the spirit of Judaism, as exemplified in the story concerning\\nElijah.* The passage, therefore, is one which the Marcionites\\nmight naturally have thought to be very much to their purpose.\\nBut we cannot thus account for its omission. Xor can we\\nadopt any other supposition, which is designed to explain its\\nabsence from so many copies, on the ground of there being some-\\nthing obnoxious in its character.\\nThere is no evidence, and no probability, that transcribers\\namong catholic Christians were accustomed to omit passages\\nthrough the influence of any theological prejudice, or because they\\nmight seem to them to present a difficulty, of whatever kind that\\nmight be. If such had been the fact, there must have been abun-\\ndant evidence of it in the present state of the authorities for\\nsettling the text of the Xew Testament but such evidence does\\nnot exist. Catholic Christians, to say nothing of their reverence\\nfor the Scriptures, were not so deficient in honesty and in good\\nsense as to adopt or countenance such a course. In regard to the\\npassage before us, every transcriber must have shrunk from thus\\ndealing with the words of Jesus himself. Without doubt, like-\\nwise, the generality of those engaged in the transcription and sale\\nof books pursued their business as a trade, and troubled them-\\nselves little about the bearing of particular passages.\\nBut should we admit that some tew transcribers were so alarmed\\nat the use which the Mareionites might make of the passage, that,\\nthough they could not expunge it from the copies of the Mareion-\\nites, they struck it out of their own or that they were, for any\\nother reason, so scandalized at the words of our Lord, that they\\nThe story is told in 2 Kings, chap. i.", "height": "4544", "width": "2740", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0485.jp2"}, "486": {"fulltext": "4;) 2 ADDITIONAL NOTES\\nresolved not to be concerned in preserving them, yet their mis-\\nconduct could affect only the copies which they transcribed. If\\nwe suppose the omission to have been made after the controversy\\nwith the Marcionites had commenced, it could not have affected\\nmany thousands of copies already spread over the world, nor\\nthose copies which might be made by more trustworthy tran-\\nscribers nor could it have counteracted the constant tendency\\nthere would have been to fill up the gap which had been left,\\nthe tendency among transcribers, of which I have before spoken,\\nto insert, and not to omit. We cannot, therefore, account for the\\nabsence of the passage from so many copies on the ground of in-\\ntentional omission.\\nBut it is further to be observed, that the Marcionites made no use\\nof the words of our Lord, though apparently so much to their pur-\\npose. If they had done so, we should have evidence of the fact in\\nthe writings of their opponents, particularly of Tertullian. But\\nnothing to that effect appears. This is the more remarkable, as\\nTertullian, in his long work against Marcion, twice notices the use\\nwhich the Marcionites made of the narrative, by contrasting the\\nconduct of Jesus and Elijah,* but refers to no appeal made by\\nthem to the words of Jesus. Had those words been generally\\nrecognized as genuine in the time of the earlier Marcionites, they\\ncould hardly have failed to use them.\\nIn discussing the question, whether a passage omitted in cer-\\ntain manuscripts should or should not be considered as a part of\\nthe original text, it has not been uncommon to array on one side\\nthe authorities which recognize it as genuine, and on the other\\nside those which do not. The intrinsic value of one class of au-\\nthorities, considered in reference to their general character, is\\nthen weighed against that of the other class, and the passage is\\njudged to be genuine or not, according as either class preponder-\\nates, except, indeed, that a zeal for defending the Received\\nText often causes the critic to lay a heavy hand upon the scale in\\nwhich are placed the authorities for retaining it. But this mode\\nof reasoning is wholly fallacious. If a passage be genuine, we\\nAdvers. Marcion., lib. iv. c. 23, p. 438; c. 29, p. 446.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0486.jp2"}, "487": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 453\\nmay reasonably expect to find it, not in a majority of the copies\\nof the work to which it belongs, but in all the copies, except so\\nfar as in particular cases a satisfactory reason may be assigned for\\nits omission. If there be any copy in which it is not found, this is\\na fact to be accounted for. An interpolation may be extant in a\\nmajority of copies. It may have been originally inserted incon-\\nsiderately or fraudulently. It may by mistake have been taken\\nfrom the margin into the text, a mistake of so very frequent\\noccurrence, that I am obliged often to refer to it.* Having been\\nonce inserted, its spread from one copy to many is easily explained\\nby the uncritical habits of transcribers, and their disposition to\\nretain whatever they found given as a part of the text before\\nthem. The noted passage interpolated in the Jewish Antiquities of\\nJosephus, in which mention is made of Jesus, is not only quoted by a\\nseries of Christian fathers from Eusebius downward, but is extant\\nat the present day in all the manuscripts of that work. It appears,\\ntherefore, that the genuineness of a passage is not established by\\nits being found in a majority of the most important copies of the\\nwork of which it may be supposed to be a part. To satisfy the\\nconditions of proof required, it should be found in all unless (as\\nI have said) a sufficient and probable cause can be assigned for\\nits absence.\\nThese are general principles of criticism, to be kept in view in\\nregard to the passage before us, and others which we are about to\\nconsider. The present passage, indeed, is not found in a majority\\nof the most important manuscripts but it is found in a large ma-\\njority of the manuscripts of Luke s Gospel, taken indiscriminately,\\nand in many of the versions.\\nA marginal note has crept into the text, says Porson in his Letters to\\nTravis (pp. 14t), 150), not merely in hundreds or thousands, but in millions\\nof places. N ltura, says Daille, ita compai-atum est, ut auctorum probatonim\\nlibros plerique omnes amplos quam breves malint verentes scilicet, ne quid sibi\\ndesit, quod auctoris vel sit vel esse dicatur. To the same purpose Bengelius:\\nN on facile pro super fluo aliquid Iwdie habent complures docti viri (he might\\nhave added, omhesque indocti), eddemque mente plerique quondam libraru\\nfuere. From this known propensity of transcribers to turn every thing into\\ntext which they found written in the margin of their manuscripts or between\\nthe lines, so many interpolations have proceeded, that at present the surest\\ncanon of criticism is, Prceferatur kctio brecior.", "height": "4540", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0487.jp2"}, "488": {"fulltext": "454 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nIts omission in the copies in which it is not found cannot, as we\\nhave seen, be accounted for as having been caused either by acci-\\ndent or by design. We must conclude, therefore, that it did not\\nmake a part of the original text of Luke s Gospel.\\nBut, on the other hand, the words carry with them strong in-\\ntrinsic proof that they were spoken by Jesus. Nor can we\\nimagine any reason why, if not uttered by him, they should have\\nbeen invented and ascribed to him.\\nIn this state of the case, the only solution of the appearances\\nthat present themselves seems to be, that the words ascribed to\\nour Lord were spoken by him that they were preserved in the\\nmemories of those who heard him, and communicated by them to\\nothers and that, not having been recorded by Luke, they were\\nfirst written in the margin, and then introduced into the text\\nof his Gospel.\\nBut the appearances are such, that, this general explanation\\nbeing given, we must enter further into particulars. The Cam-\\nbridge manuscript and some other authorities omit only the last\\nwords ascribed to our Lord, and preserve the first; namely, Ye\\nJcnoiv not of what spirit ye are? 1 And some manuscripts, in-\\ncluding the Yatican and the Codex Stephani 77, which omit all our\\nLord s words, omit also the words, As Elijah did It may\\nseem, therefore, that the account of the words of our Lord and his\\ndisciples was not introduced in a complete form at once, but that\\nthe text owes its present state to marginal additions made at\\nthree different times; first, the words, As Elijah did being\\nwritten down, as these are wanting in the smallest number of\\nmanuscripts, then those first spoken by our Lord, and then his\\nremaining words.\\nYI.\\nLUKE, CHAP. XXTL 43, 44.\\nIn the Gospel of Luke there is but one other passage of any\\nimportance, the genuineness of which there seems good reason for\\ndoubting. It consists of the forty-third and forty-fourth verses of\\nthe twenty-second chapter.\\nAnd there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strength-\\nening him. And, being in an agony, he prayed the more ear-", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0488.jp2"}, "489": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 455\\nnestly and his sweat was as great drops of blood falling to the\\nground.\\nXot to mention some other authorities of little consequence,\\nthese verses are wanting in the Alexandrine and Vatican manu-\\nscripts. They are likewise not in the Sahidic version. In ten\\nmanuscripts, three of them in uncial letters, they are marked as\\ndoubtful.\\nThey are not quoted by Origen or by Tertullian. The fact\\nis remarkable, especially as regards the latter writer, in whose\\nearnest arguments against those heretics who denied that Christ\\nhad a body of flesh and blood, no passage in the Gospels would\\nhave seemed more to his purpose.\\nIn the fourth century, Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, says, We\\nought not to be ignorant, that in very many Greek and Latin\\nmanuscripts (in Grcecis et in Latinis codicibus comptlurimis)\\nnothing is to be found concerning the coming of the angel, or the\\nbloody sweat.\\nJerome, in writing against the Pelagians, reproaches them with\\nbelieving that men can will what is good without the grace of God,\\nwhen even the Saviour was strengthened by an angel. In some\\ncopies, he says, both Greek and Latin (in quibusdam exemplari-\\nbus tarn Grcecis quam Latinis), we find that there appeared to\\nhim an angel from heaven strengthening him c, to the end of\\nthe passage.f Jerome was not of a temper to understate facts\\nfrom which he was reasoning and, when he says that it was found\\nin some copies, we may conclude, that it was, as Hilary says, want-\\ning in very many.\\nEpiphanius likewise reasons from the passage, his purpose being\\nto prove the double nature of Christ. But he says of it, It is\\nfound in Luke s Gospel, in those copies which have not been sub-\\njected to a revision and the holy Irenaeus, in his work against\\nHeresies, uses it as an argument to confute those who denied the\\nreal body of Christ J but orthodox persons struck it out through\\nfear, not understanding its bearing and its great force.\\nDe Trinitate, lib. x. 41 Opp. col. 1062.\\nt Adversus Pelagianos, lib. ii. Opp. iv. pars ii. col. 521.\\nIt is referred to by Irenaeus, lib. iii. c. 22, 2, p. 219.\\nAncorat, xxxi. Opp. ii. 36.", "height": "4536", "width": "2776", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0489.jp2"}, "490": {"fulltext": "456 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nEpiphanius does not assert that it was found in many copies\\nof his time. It was found, he says, in those which had not\\nbeen revised, that is, inspected, after the transcriber had done\\nhis work, by some person responsible for the correctness of\\nthe text, a care which was undoubtedly taken of all copies\\npretending to accuracy. It was found in so few, that, in order\\nto prove its genuineness, he appeals to its being quoted by\\nIrenaeus and not venturing to assert, as he undoubtedly would\\nhave done if he had dared, that it had been expunged by heretics,\\nhe lays the charge upon orthodox persons, 1 a charge utterly\\nimprobable.\\nAfter the prevalence, in the fifth century, of the Monophysite\\nheresy, the heresy which ascribed but a single nature to Christ,\\nand that the divine, the passage became a favorite text with the\\northodox, as proving his double nature. It had, much earlier,\\nbeen used by Irenaeus against those who denied the real body of\\nChrist. Thus recommended to the favor of the early Christians, and\\nof the orthodox of later times, it readily made its way into a great\\nmajority of our extant authorities, assisted, doubtless, by the oper-\\nation of the principle which led those who had the care of the\\ntranscription of manuscripts rather to admit what was of doubtful\\ncredit, than to reject what might be a part of Scripture. VVe have\\nproof from writers of the ninth and tenth centuries of its use in the\\nMonophysite controversy, and, at the same time, of its continued\\nabsence from many copies for they charge its omission upon the\\nMonophysite Christians of Syria and Armenia.*\\nThe objections which present themselves to the passage, con-\\nsidered in its intrinsic character, are the following The agony\\nof Christ is represented as existing after the angel had been sent\\nto strengthen him. The bloody sweat described is such as we\\nhave no authority for believing was ever produced by mere distress\\nof mind, if it have been by any other cause. The account appears\\nat variance with the character of Christ, and especially with that\\ncalmness, self-possession, and firmness which he manifested during\\nthe evening and night previous to his apprehension, before and\\nafter separating from his disciples on Mount Olivet; and with\\nwhich his expressions of great suffering, recorded by the other\\nVide Wetsten. Nov. Test., ad locum*", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0490.jp2"}, "491": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 457\\nevangelists, present nothing inconsistent. It does not appear how\\nany one could have witnessed, or become acquainted with, the\\nevents related for Jesus had removed to a distance from his dis-\\nciples, and, when he. returned, found them asleep. There is noth-\\ning improbable in the supposition, that, even amid the horror of\\nthose moments, he told them, for their benefit, in a few brief words,\\nwhat had been the purport of his prayer; and he might, indeed,\\nhave also communicated the facts in question, supposing them to\\nhave occurred. But had they really been made known by him,\\nunder such circumstances, they were adapted to produce so deep\\nand lasting an impression upon the feelings, that an apostle, as\\nMatthew, could hardly have forborne to relate them. We should\\nexpect to find them mentioned, not by one evangelist only, but\\nby all.\\nIt may be observed further, that, if this passage be struck out,\\nthe parts of the text which it separates come together, as if the\\npassage had been interposed between them, without any appear-\\nance of a chasm.\\nWe may suppose, then, that it was a passage first written in the\\nmargin of some very early manuscript, and subsequently, through\\nthe mistake of transcribers, taken into the text of other copies.\\nThe narrative perhaps owes its present form to a misunderstand-\\ning of language. It having been said, that Jesus, in his agony,\\nreceived strength from on high, and angels being regarded by the\\nJews as the ministers of God, it was inferred, we may suppose,\\nthat he was strengthened by the mission of an angel. There is\\nlikewise ground for believing, that to weep blood was anciently\\nan expression for weeping bitterly, and that to sweat blood\\nwas used to denote a violent struggle and the account before us\\nmay have arisen from taking such figurative language in too literal\\na sense.\\nIf the passage were, as I think, originally a marginal addition,\\nit must have been made in an early age, and have soon been taken\\ninto the text of some manuscripts for it is quoted by Justin Mar-\\ntyr in the following words, which are remarkable from apparently\\ninvolving a reference to Luke, as one of the companions of the\\napostles: In those Memoirs which I affirm to have been com-\\nposed by apostles of Christ and their companions, it is said\\nthat sweat like drops of blood flowed from him while pray-", "height": "4544", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0491.jp2"}, "492": {"fulltext": "458 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\ning. A little later, as we have seen, it was quoted by Irenseus.\\nIt is said to have been alleged by Hippolytus, not long afterwards,\\nin proof of the human as well as divine nature of Christ. f But I\\nfind no reference to its appearing in the writings of any other of\\nthe fathers, before the notice of it already quoted from Hilary,\\nabout the middle of the fourth century.\\nVII.\\nJOHN, CHAP. V. 3, 4.\\nWe proceed to the Gospel of John. The first passage to be\\nnoticed is the account of the descent of an angel into the Sheep-\\npool at Jerusalem. I will give the words which are probably\\nspurious in their connection, putting them within brackets.\\nJohn v. 1-8. After this there was a festival of the Jews\\nand Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now, there is at Jerusalem, by\\nthe Sheep-gate, a pool called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five\\nporches. In these lay a number of diseased persons, blind, lame,\\nwithered, [waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel,\\nat certain times, descended into the pool, and troubled the water\\nthen whoever first entered it, after the troubling of the water,\\nwas cured of whatever disease afflicted him.] And there was a\\nman there who had been diseased for thirty-eight years. This\\nman Jesus saw lying, and, knowing that his disease had now con-\\ntinued for a long time, said to him, Wilt thou be made well?\\nThe sick man answered him, Master, I have no one to put me\\ninto the pool when the water is troubled. But, while I am going,\\nsome other descends before me. Jesus says to him, Rise, take\\nup thy bed, and walk.\\nThe whole of the doubtful passage is omitted in the Vatican\\nmanuscript, in the Ephrem as first written, in two others of less\\nnote, in manuscripts of the Coptic version, and in some one or\\nmore of the Sahidic and Nonnus, who, about the beginning of\\nthe fifth century, wrote a metrical paraphrase of the Gospel of\\nDial, cum Tryph., p. 361.\\nt Hippolytus is quoted to this effect by Theodoret in his Eranistes, Dial,\\nii. Opp. iv. p. 89.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0492.jp2"}, "493": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 459\\nJohn, says nothing of the descent of an angel, but speaks of the\\nwater as rusliing forth in spontaneous jets.\\nThe fourth verse, beginning, For an angel, c, is omitted in\\nthe Cambridge manuscript and one other, and is marked as\\ndoubtful in more than fifteen others. It is wanting in the manu-\\nscripts of the Armenian version generally, and in several of the\\nold Latin versions.\\nOn the other hand, this verse being retained, the last clause\\nof the third, waiting for the moving of the waters, is wanting\\nin the Alexandrine manuscript, as first written* the Codex Ste-\\nphani rj, and one other.\\nI find no historical remarks respecting the omission or insertion\\nof the story of the descent of an angel. It is referred to by Ter-\\ntullian,* but it is not noticed in the extant works of any other Chris-\\ntian writer before Ambrose and Chrysostom in the fourth century.\\nThe pool spoken of in the passage appears to have been fed by\\nan intermitting spring. The story of the descent of the angel was\\nfounded on the superstition of the Jews, who, in common with the\\nHeathens, were accustomed to ascribe any remarkable natural\\nphenomenon to supernatural agency. What the former accounted\\nfor by the descent of an angel, the latter might have explained\\nby some mythological fable. The circumstances of the case alto-\\ngether preclude the supposition, that, in giving this solution, there\\nwas any pretence that the descent of the angel was visible.\\nIn the simple narrative, which alone, I conceive, is to be\\nascribed to St. John, something, as is not uncommon with the\\nevangelists, is left unexplained namely, what is meant by the\\nmoving of the waters, and why it was supposed that then only they\\nhad a sanative power. This, I presume, led some early possessor\\nor transcriber of a manuscript of his Gospel to write the popular\\naccount in its margin, whence it was assumed into the text of\\nothers. But for its omission, or the marks of doubt with which it\\nis inserted, no satisfactory reason can be given, supposing it to\\nhave been originally written by St. John.f\\nDe Baptismo, c. 5, p. 226.\\n-t In the passage the following words occur, not elsewhere used by John:\\nkudexofiai, d^nore, Karex^, and voarjfia, beside nivrjoic; and Kara Kaipov,\\nthe use of which in this passage alone may be accounted for by the nature\\nof its subject.", "height": "4560", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0493.jp2"}, "494": {"fulltext": "460 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nWe have reason to believe that St. John did not adopt the\\nerror of his countrymen respecting the agency of an angel in\\nthe case in question, because he appears to have been free from\\nanother much more general. He ascribes no diseases to demonia-\\ncal possession.\\nVIII.\\nJOHN, CHAP. VH. 53 VTH. 11.\\nThe narrative of the woman taken in adultery is omitted in so\\nmany copies, and marked as doubtful or spurious in so many\\nothers, that, reasoning on the principles which have been laid\\ndown, we may conclude with confidence that it was not written by\\nSt. John. But I perceive no ground for questioning the truth of\\nthe account it is related in a striking and natural manner, and\\nbears an intrinsic character of probability.\\nThere are, in different copies of this narrative, great variations\\nof language, expressive -of the same essential meaning. This may\\nbe accounted for in several ways. We may supppose that the\\nstory was first written in some other language than the Greek, and\\ntranslated into this by two different hands or that, being first\\nwritten in Greek, and then translated into Latin, it is found in\\nsome copies, as the Cambridge manuscript for example, retrans-\\nlated from the Latin into the Greek or, what is perhaps as\\nprobable a solution as any, that it was written down in Greek by\\ntwo different individuals, from the oral narration of St. John, and\\nafterwards appended to his Gospel, in which it had not been\\ninserted by himself. The passage may be thus rendered, according\\nto what are perhaps the most probable readings\\nAnd every one went to his house and Jesus went to the\\nMount of Olives. But in the morning he was again in the temple,\\n^md all the people came to him and, having sat down, he was in-\\nstructing them, when the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees\\nbrought a woman taken in adultery, and, placing her in the midst,\\nsaid to him, Teacher, this woman was taken in the very act of\\nadultery and, in the Law, Moses commands us that such should\\nbe stoned to death what now dost thou say This they asked\\nwith a design lo ensnare him, that they might have an accusation\\nagainst him. Then Jesus, bending down, wrote with his finger", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0494.jp2"}, "495": {"fulltext": "TEXT OF THE GOSPELS. 461\\nupon the ground. But, as they persisted in questioning hiin, he\\nraised his head, and said to them, Let hhn among you who is with-\\nout sin cast the first stone at her. And, bending down again, he\\nwrote upon the ground. And, hearing this, they went out one by\\none, beginning with the oldest and Jesus was left alone with the\\nwoman standing in the midst. Then Jesus, raising his head, said\\nto her, Woman, where are they? Did no one sentence thee?\\nShe said, No one, Master. Then Jesus said to her, Neither do\\nI sentence thee go and sin no more.\\nIX.\\nJOHN, CHAP. XXI. 24, 25.\\nIt may seem that the words with which John s Gospel now\\nconcludes could hardly have been written by the apostle. He, I\\nconceive, ended his Gospel thus\\nThis is the disciple who testifies concerning these things, and\\nhas written them.\\nThe addition follows\\nAnd we know that his testimony is true. And there are\\nmany other things that Jesus did, wniehj if they were severally\\nwritten, I do not think that the world itself would contain the\\nbooks written.\\nIt is hardly to be supposed, that the apostle would say of him-\\nself, We know that his testimony is true, subjoining immedi-\\nately after, J do not think. This is not the style of any writer\\nin speaking of himself. The extravagant hyperbole in the second\\nsentence, also, is foreign from the style of St. John. The passage\\nappears to be an editorial note, which, written probably at first\\na little separate from the text, became incorporated with it at a\\nvery early period.\\nAccording to ancient accounts, St. John wrote his Gospel at\\nEphesus, over the church in which city he presided during the\\nlatter part of his long life. It is not improbable, that, before his\\ndeath, its circulation had been confined to the members of that\\nchurch. Thence copies of it would be afterwards obtained and\\nthe copy for transcription was, we may suppose, accompanied by\\nthe strong attestation which we now find, given by the church, or", "height": "4560", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0495.jp2"}, "496": {"fulltext": "462 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nthe elders of the church, to their full faith in the accounts which it\\ncontained, and by the concluding remark made by the writer\\nof this attestation in his own person.\\nThere is no external authority, properly speaking, for rejecting\\nthis passage. In one manuscript, the last verse is omitted and,\\nin several others, it is said to have been thought by some to be an\\naddition. The character of the language, however, is different\\nfrom that of John.*\\nI have thus gone through with all the passages of length or\\nimportance, in the Received Text of the Gospels, the genuineness\\nof which appears to me improbable. It is obvious, that, should\\nwe adopt all the conclusions proposed, nothing would be detracted\\nfrom the value of the Gospels. On the contrary, we should, I\\nthink, only remove from their text some blemishes and discord-\\nances by which it has been corrupted.\\nThe use of baa {whatever), as equivalent simply to the relative a\\n{which, that), is not common, and does not occur elsewhere in John. It was\\naccordingly changed to a by Origen, Chrysostom, and Cyril and a is sub-\\nstituted for it in the Vatican and other manuscripts. It is such a use of oaoc\\nas a native Greek might fall into from meeting with its frequent occurrence\\nin the New Testament, without appreciating its exact force. Ka# ev is no-\\nwhere else found in what was probably written by the apostle. (It occurs\\nonce in the Apocalypse; and elg naW elc is a various reading in the inter-\\npolated passage in the eighth chapter of his Gospel.) It is here used illogi-\\ncally, its proper meaning being one by one, severally whereas the meaning\\nintended is all. Olfiai (in this form) occurs nowhere else in the New Testa-\\nment or Septuagint; nor is any form of olofiai elsewhere used by John.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0496.jp2"}, "497": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 463\\nNote B.\\n(See pp. 61, 94, 100.)\\nON THE ORIGIN OF THE CORRESPONDENCES AMONG THE\\nFIRST THREE GOSPELS.\\nSection I.\\nPreliminary Statement,\\nThe remarkable agreement among the first three Gospels has\\ngiven occasion to many attempts to explain its origin. But gen-\\nerally, in the hypotheses that have been framed, it has not been\\nsufficiently kept in mind, that its occurrence with so much that is\\ndissimilar is one of the principal phenomena to be accounted for\\nand that, though our ultimate purpose be to solve the problem\\nof the correspondences among those Gospels, it must embrace\\nlikewise a solution of their differences. Together with this, the\\nappearances to be explained are as follows\\nMany portions of the history of Jesus are found in common in\\nthe first three Gospels others are common to two of their num-\\nber, but not found in the third. In the passages referred to, there\\nis generally a similarity, sometimes a very great similarity, in the\\nselection of particular circumstances, in the aspect under which the\\nevent is viewed, and the style in which it is related. Sometimes,\\nthe language found in different Gospels, though not identical, is\\nequivalent, or nearly equivalent and, not unfrequently, the same\\nseries of words, with or without slight variations, occurs through-\\nout the whole or a great part of a sentence, and even in larger\\nportions.\\nThe occurrence of passages verbally the same, or strikingly\\ncoincident in the use of many of the same words, \u00e2\u0080\u0094which appear-\\nances I shall denote by the term verbal coincidence, or verbal\\nagreement, particularly demands attention. In maintaining the", "height": "4532", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0497.jp2"}, "498": {"fulltext": "464 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nhypothesis that the evangelists copied from common documents,\\nmuch stress has been laid upon it but its importance, as a\\nground of argument for that hypothesis, disappears, when the\\nsubject is more thoroughly examined, and viewed in a proper\\nlight. By far the larger portion of this verbal agreement is found\\nin the recital of the words of others, and particularly of the words\\nof Jesus. Thus, in Matthew s Gospel, the passages verbally coin-\\ncident with one or both of the other two Gospels amount to less\\nthan a sixth part of its contents and, of this, about seven-eighths\\noccur in the recital of the words of others, and only about one-\\neighth in what, by way of distinction, I may call mere narrative,\\nin which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, was unre-\\nstrained in the choice of his expressions. In Mark, the propor-\\ntion of coincident passages to the whole contents of the Gospel\\nis about one-sixth, of which not one-fifth occurs in the narrative.\\nLuke has still less agreement of expression with the other evan-\\ngelists. The passages in which it is found amount only to about\\na tenth part of his Gospel and but an inconsiderable portion of\\nit appears in the narrative, in which there are very few instances\\nof its existence for more than half a dozen words together.* In\\nthe narrative, it may be computed as less than a twentieth part.\\nThese definite proportions are important, as showing distinctly\\nin how small a part of each Gospel there is any verbal coincidence\\nwith either of the other two and to how great a degree such\\ncoincidence is confined to passages in which the evangelists pro-\\nfessedly give the words of others, particularly of Jesus,\\nThe proportions should, however, be further compared with\\nthose which the narrative part of each Gospel bears to that in\\nwhich the words of others are professedly repeated. Matthew s\\nnarrative occupies about one-fourth of his Gospel, Mark s about\\none-half, and Luke s about one-third. It may easily be com-\\nputed, therefore, that the proportion of verbal coincidence found\\nin the narrative part of each Gospel, compared with what exists in\\nthe other part, is about in the following ratios in Matthew as\\none to somewhat more than two, in Mark as one to four, and in\\nLuke as one to ten.\\nThe most remarkable example is Luke ix. 16, where Luke coincides\\nwith both Matthew and Mark, through more than half a verse.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0498.jp2"}, "499": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 465\\nAs a preliminary, then, toward accounting for the agreement\\nof language in the first three Gospels, we must divide each of\\nthem into two portions the one consisting of that part in which\\nthe evangelist speaks in his own person, and the other of words\\nprofessedly not his own. Having done this, it appears from the\\nstatements before made, that the same cause could not have\\noperated alone, in both these different portions, to produce coin-\\ncidence of language. We cannot explain this phenomenon by the\\nsupposition, that the Gospels were transcribed either one from\\nanother, or, all from common documents; for, if such transcrip-\\ntion had been the cause, it would not have produced results so\\nunequal in the different portions into which the Gospels naturally\\ndivide themselves.\\nBut, in regard to the words of Jesus, other causes were in\\noperation, that may account for the verbal coincidences among\\nthe evangelists, in their reports of what he said. There was, in\\nthis case, an invariable archetype, to which each writer would\\nendeavor to conform himself. Events may be correctly related\\nin many forms of language different from each other. Words\\ncan be repeated with accuracy only in one form. But each of the\\nfirst three evangelists intended to give the words of his Master\\nas they were uttered by him. \u00c2\u00a3Tor is it to be supposed, that the\\nevangelist, while writing, merely recollected those words as having\\nbeen formerly uttered by Jesus, and repeated them for the first\\ntime. He had often, without doubt, quoted them in his oral\\ndiscourses, and heard them quoted by his fellow-preachers of\\nChristianity. From the nature of the case, they must, many\\nof them, have become formularies in which the doctrines and\\nprecepts of our religion were expressed. The agreement of the\\nfirst three evangelists, in their reports of the words of Christ, is\\nno greater than these considerations would lead us to anticipate.\\nThere is no ground for any other hypothesis concerning it.\\nSome of the same considerations will explain also the agree-\\nment of the evangelists, so far as it exists, in their reports of\\nthe words spoken by others beside their Master, particularly such\\nas were connected with his own, as leading to some reply or re-\\nmark from him.\\nThere is another case in which the first three evangelists repeat\\nthe words of others. It is in their quotations from the Old Testa-\\n30", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0499.jp2"}, "500": {"fulltext": "466 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nnient. These are commonly derived from the Septuagint version,\\nwithout direct reference to the Hebrew text. Those which they\\nhave in common all appear to have been taken from that version\\nwhether they are found in our Greek translation of St. Matthew s\\nGospel, or in the Greek originals of Mark and Luke. Now, as\\nfar as the evangelists verbally agree at once with the Septuagint\\nand each other, or as far as they verbally differ from each other\\nin their quotations, no explanation is required as regards our\\npresent purpose. Neither circumstance can prove a connection\\namong them of any kind. But there are several, instances in\\nwhich either two or all three of the evangelists agree with each\\nother, and at the same time differ from our present copies of the\\nSeptuagint. In regard to this fact, it is to be observed, that\\nthe text of the Septuagint has, from various causes, undergone\\nvery considerable changes and we cannot conclude, that, because\\na reading is not found in any of our present copies, it was not\\nextant in copies in the time of the evangelists.* If there be\\ncases, as I believe there are, in which two or all of the evange-\\nlists agree in a reading, not only varying from the text of our\\npresent copies, but from that of the copies commonly used by\\nthem, these cases may be explained by the supposition, that the\\npassage, having been frequently used in the oral discourses of\\nthe apostles and their companions, had undergone a change\\nof its original form. This change may have been accidental, as\\nverbal accuracy was often neglected in such quotations or it\\nThis remark may be illustrated by the different readings of two of\\nour present copies in a passage (Zech. xiii. 7), which Matthew (xxvi. 31)\\nand Mark (xiv. 27) agree verbally in quoting, except that two words are\\nadded by Matthew. As given by them, it is as follows: Uara^u rbv\\nKOi^ieva, Kal diaoKopiucdTjoETaL ra Trpopara (Matthew adds, Tijg nolfivrjg).\\nThe reading of this passage in the Vatican text of the Septuagint is,\\nHara^are rovg noifievag, Kal eKGiraaare tu 7rpoj3ara. Here seems a gTeat\\nvariation in the evangelists; but the Alexandrine text of the Septuagint has\\nthese words Uara^ov rbv Troifieva, Kal diaGKOpTricdqaovTai, ra Tzpofiara rijc\\n7TOL/iv7]g. Such differences of reading existing in our present copies of the\\nSeptuagint, it is not improbable that the copies extant in the age of the\\nevangelists had still different readings, to which the quotations in the Gos-\\npels may have been conformed in some of the examples of verbal coincidence\\nwith each other in which they differ from all existing manuscripts of the\\nSeptuagint.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0500.jp2"}, "501": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 467\\nmay have been made intentionally, as there sometimes appear\\nto be reasons for it. In either case, it would be the form of\\nwords with which the evangelists were most familiar.\\nThe preceding remarks respecting the recital of the language\\nof others by the first three evangelists will hereafter receive\\nfarther illustration. I make them in this place, that they may\\nbe kept in view during our examination of those hypotheses,\\naccording to which the verbal coincidences and other corre-\\nspondences among the first three, evangelists are the result of\\ntheir having copied either one from another, or all from common\\ndocuments. Xo argument for either supposition can, I think, be\\nfounded upon their agreement in their reports or citations of the\\nwords of others. In this portion of their Gospels, the amount\\nof verbal coincidence is not greater than what the causes sug-\\ngested might lead us to expect.\\nThere is another consideration to be attended to, respecting\\nthe verbal correspondence of the first three Gospels. Whether\\nwe take the term in a stricter or looser sense, as denoting either\\nsameness, or great resemblance, or equivalence of language, this\\ncorrespondence does not lie together in masses. With rare ex-\\nceptions, it does not extend unbroken through passages of any\\nconsiderable length. It is in fragments, scattered here and there,\\nand interrupted by a dissimilitude of ideas and language, running\\nthrough far the greater part of each Gospel. As an example of\\nthis intermixture in a particular passage, we may take the account\\nof the cure of the paralytic at Capernaum. As the verbal corre-\\nspondence of the evangelists may be made as apparent in our\\nown language as in the original, I shall in this, and in other\\nsimilar cases, give the passages quoted in a translation. The\\ndiversity of expression cannot always be equally well represented;\\nbut this is unimportant as regards our purpose.\\nMatt. ix. 1-8. Mark ii. 1-12. Luke y. 17-26.\\nAnd, going on board And again, after And it happened one\\nthe boat, he passed over some days, he entered day, that he was teach-\\nand came to his own Capernaum; and the ing; and there were\\ncity. news spread that he was sitting by Pharisees and\\nin his house there. And teachers of the Law,\\nimmediately many were who had come from", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0501.jp2"}, "502": {"fulltext": "468\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nMatt. ix. 1-8.\\nAnd lo they brought\\nto him a paralytic, laid\\non a bed.\\nAnd Jesus, perceiv-\\ning their faith, said to\\nthe paralytic, Take\\ncourage, son: thy sins\\nare forgiven thee.\\nAnd, behold! some\\nof the teachers of the\\nLaw said within them-\\nselves, This man blas-\\nphemes.\\nAnd Jesus, perceiv-\\ning their thoughts, said,\\nWhy are ye thinking\\nevil in your hearts For\\nwhich is easier, to say,\\nThy sins are forgiven,\\nor to say, Rise, and\\nwalk But tliat ye may\\nknow that the Son of\\nman has authority on\\nMark ii. 1-12.\\ncollected, so that there\\nwas no room for them\\neven before the door;\\nand he taught them his\\ndoctrine.\\nAnd they came to\\nhim bringing a paralyt-\\nic, borne by four men.\\nAnd, not being able to\\nget near him on account\\nof the crowd, they re-\\nmoved a part of the\\nawning over where he\\nwas, and, breaking\\nthrough, let down the\\nbed on which the para-\\nlytic was lying.\\nAnd Jesus, perceiv-\\ning their faith, said to\\nthe paralytic, Son, thy\\nsins are forgiven.\\nBut there were some\\nof the teachers of the\\nLaw sitting there, who\\nsaid in their hearts,\\nHow is it that this man\\nspeaks such blasphe-\\nmies? Who can for-\\ngive sins, except one,\\nGod?\\nBut Jesus, immedi-\\nately knowing in his\\nmind that they thus\\nthought within them,\\nsaid to them, Why\\nthink ye thus in your\\nhearts Which is\\neasier, to say to the\\nparalytic, Thy sins are\\nforgiven, or to say,\\nLuke v. 17-26.\\nevery town of Galilee\\nand Judaea, and from\\nJerusalem and the\\npower of the Lord was\\ndisplayed in the healing\\nof the sick.\\nAnd lo! some per-\\nsons brought on a bed\\na man who was a para-\\nlytic, and were desirous\\nto carry him in and lay\\nhim before Jesus. And\\nnot finding any way to\\ncarry him in, on account\\nof the crow r d, they got\\non the house-top, and\\nlowered him down from\\nthe roof, with his bed,\\ninto the midst before\\nJesus.\\nAnd perceiving their\\nfaith, he said, Man, thy\\nsins are forgiven thee.\\nAnd the teachers of\\nthe Law, and the Phari-\\nsees, began to say in\\ntheir hearts, Who is\\nthis man who speaks\\nblasphemies Who can\\nforgive sins except God\\nalone\\nBut Jesus, knowing\\ntheir thoughts, said to\\nthem, What are ye\\nthinking in your hearts\\nWhich is easier, to say,\\nThy sins are forgiven,\\nor to say, Rise and walk\\nBut that ye may know\\nthat the Son of man\\nhas authority on earth", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0502.jp2"}, "503": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.\\n469\\nMatt. ix. 1-8.\\nearth to forgive sins,\\nthen he says to the par-\\nalytic, Rise, take up thy\\nbed,* and go to thy\\nhouse.\\nAnd he rose up,\\nand went to his house.\\nAnd the multitude\\nwho were looking on\\nwere struck with aston-\\nishment, and glorified\\nGod, who had given\\nsuch power to men.\\nMark ii. 1-12.\\nRise, take up thy bed,\\nand walk? But that\\nye may know that the\\nSon of man has author-\\nity on earth to forgive\\nsins, he says to the\\nparalytic, I say to thee,\\nRise, take up thy bed,*\\nand go to thy house.\\nAnd he rose up im-\\nmediately, and, taking\\nup his bed, he went out\\nbefore them all\\nso that they were all\\nfull of amazement, and\\nglorified God t saying,\\nWe never saw the like.\\nLuke v. 17-26.\\nto forgive sins, he said\\nto the paralytic, I say\\nto thee, Rise, and, tak-\\ning up thy bed,* go to\\nthy house.\\nAnd directly rising\\nup before them, and\\ntaking up what he was\\nlying upon, he went to\\nhis house glorifying\\nGod.\\nAnd amazement\\nseized upon all; and\\nthey glorified God, and\\nwere filled with awe,\\nsaying, We have seen\\nwonderful things to-\\nday.\\nThus, in other passages, in which there is a verbal correspond-\\nence among the evangelists, it sometimes amounts to identity of\\nlanguage, though very rarely through a whole sentence, where\\nthey narrate in their own persons sometimes it presents various\\nshades of resemblance, but, in either case, is almost always broken\\ninto short portions, and separated by matter in which the evange-\\nlists diverge from each other sometimes into real or apparent\\ndiscrepancies. It is evident, therefore, that no theory to account\\nfor the agreement of the first three Gospels, one with another, can\\nbe satisfactory, unless it afford, likewise, an explanation of their\\nwant of agreement, or, in other words, of the peculiar circumstances\\nunder which their correspondences present themselves.\\nWe will now turn to another fact which requires our attention,\\nin reference to the agreement and disagreement of the first three\\nThe three evangelists use three different terms for bed,\\nkXlvtj Mark, Kpa66arog and Luke, kXlvISiov.\\nMatthew,", "height": "4544", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0503.jp2"}, "504": {"fulltext": "470 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nGospels. It is, that, in the order of events related in common by\\nthe three evangelists, Mark and Luke differ from Matthew, and coin-\\ncide with each other, particularly in three remarkable instances.\\nIn the first of them, Matthew (viii. 1-4) represents the cure of\\na leper as having been performed by Christ previously to his being\\nin Capernaum on the sabbath, as related in the eighth chapter of\\nhis Gospel while Mark and Luke represent what is obviously the\\nsame cure as having been performed by Christ after leaving the city.*\\nAnother discrepance, which is more extraordinary, is as fol-\\nlows. According to Matthew, Jesus, in the evening (as appears)\\nof the sabbath (Saturday) just mentioned, which he spent at\\nCapernaum, left the city, crossed the Lake of Galilee in a boat\\nwith his disciples, miraculously stilled a tempest which befell\\nthem on their course, arrived in the country of the Gadarenes, and\\nthere restored sanity to two demoniacs, returned immediately\\nafter to Capernaum, and on Monday (as appears) cured a per-\\nson afflicted with palsy, called Matthew to be a disciple, was\\npresent at an entertainment (in Matthew s house, as we learn\\nfrom Luke), justified his disciples for not fasting, healed a\\nwoman with an issue of blood, and restored the daughter of\\nJairus to life.f On the other hand, Mark and Luke represent\\nthe voyage across the Lake of Galilee, and the events of the\\ntwo days following, excepting the cure of the paralytic, the\\ncall of Matthew, and the entertainment at his house, with the con-\\nversation about fasting connected with it, J as having taken place\\nat a later period of Christ s ministry, after the discourse in which\\nhe delivered a number of parables near the shore by Capernaum.\\nNTo reason can be assigned why Matthew should not have related\\nall the events mentioned in their proper order. As an apostle, he\\nhad the best means of becoming acquainted with the time and\\nplace of different transactions. Mark and Luke, on the other\\nhand, were not apostles and in Luke s Gospel there are, beside\\nthe present, many clear indications that he had but an imperfect\\nMark i. 40-45. Luke v. 12-15. f Matt. viii. 16\u00e2\u0080\u0094 ix. 26.\\nTo these events they may be considered as assigning the same period\\nwith St. Matthew, though with less definiteness. See Mark ii. 1-22; Luke\\nv. 17-39.\\nMark iv. 35\u00e2\u0080\u0094 v. 43. Luke viii. 22-56.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0504.jp2"}, "505": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 471\\nknowledge of the succession of events, and was often uninformed\\nof the particular place where they occurred.*\\nThere is, further, what seems a decisive reason for believing\\nThus, the cure of the leper, mentioned above, is represented by Matthew\\n(viii. 1-5) as having been performed just before our Saviour entered Caper-\\nnaum; but the indefiniteness of Luke s information respecting the place of\\nits performance appears in the manner in which he introduces the account\\n(v. 12), And when he was in a certain city, behold! a man full of lepro-\\nsy. The cure of the paralytic, likewise mentioned above, we learn both\\nfrom Matthew (ix. 1) and Mark (ii. 1) was wrought at Capernaum; while\\nLuke (v. 16, 17), after saying, that Jesus withdrew to solitary places to pray,\\nimmediately proceeds, without note of time or place, to introduce the narra-\\ntive thus: And it happened one day. So the voyage across the Lake of\\nGalilee to the country of the Gadarenes is related by Matthew (viii. 16, 18)\\nas having commenced on the evening of the sabbath when Jesus first pub-\\nlicly appeared at Capernaum, and by Mark (iv. 35) is referred (I suppose\\nerroneously) to the evening of the day when Jesus preached in parables;\\nbut Luke (viii. 22) again commences this narrative in the same manner as\\nthe last mentioned, And it happened one day.\\nThe want of chronological order in Luke s Gospel is a point of some\\nimportance. It is evident, I think, in the case remarked upon in the text;\\nbut it may be worth while to add a few more instances.\\nI. Matthew (iv. 18-20) and Mark (i. 16-18) relate, that Peter was called\\nto be a disciple before the public appearance of Jesus at Capernaum^ and\\nthat Jesus, when at Capernaum, proceeded from the synagogue to Peter s\\nhouse, where he cured his wife s mother of a fever. Luke, who mentions\\nthe last events, represents the call of Peter as taking place subsequently,\\nwhen Jesus had left Capernaum and describes Peter as struck with con-\\nsternation at a miracle then performed by our Saviour (v. 1-11).\\nII. It is, I think, likewise evident, that Luke confounded the discourse\\ncalled the Sermon on the Mount, which Jesus, as related by Matthew, deliv-\\nered before his public appearance in Capernaum, with that wmich he ad-\\ndressed to his apostles immediately after their appointment (Matt. chap. x.).\\nLuke (vi. 12-49) represents our Saviour upon this occasion, not as giving to\\nhis newly appointed apostles the appropriate directions referring to their\\npeculiar duties, which according to Matthew, himself an apostle, he actually\\ndid, but as delivering the Sermon on the Mount; at the close of which he\\nrelates, that Jesus entered Capernaum, and cured the servant of a centurion.\\nTo the last events, Matthew assigns the same relative order in reference to\\nthe Sermon on the Mount. By Luke, the whole appears to have been intro-\\nduced out of its proper place.\\nIII. Passing over other examples, of less importance, or which cannot\\nbe explained in so few words, I will adduce but one more.", "height": "4560", "width": "2740", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0505.jp2"}, "506": {"fulltext": "472 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nthat Matthew has not misplaced the particular events in question.\\nAccording to his narrative, it appears that they all took place\\nduring three days, on the last of which he was called to be a\\nIn the ninth chapter of his Gospel (ver. 51, 52), Luke says, But, when\\nthe time was near for his being received into heaven, he set his face steadily\\nto go to Jerusalem; and sent messengers before him, who went into a village\\nof Samaritans to prepare for him. The journey, the commencement of\\nwhich is here mentioned, probably occurred some months beforcour Saviour s\\ncrucifixion. It was, as I suppose, when he was going up to the Feast of\\nTabernacles, mentioned in the seventh chapter of John s Gospel. But the\\nlanguage of Luke implies that it was his last journey to Jerusalem, and is\\ntherefore inconsistent with the supposition of any subsequent return to\\nGalilee. In the tenth chapter (ver. 38), we find Jesus arrived at Bethany {a\\ncertain town, Luke says, without giving the name), the residence of Martha\\nand Mary, a short distance only from Jerusalem. But, in the eleventh\\nchapter (ver. 14-23), Luke relates the cure of a demoniac, and the reply of\\nJesus to the charge that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub,\\nwhich, according to both Matthew and Mark, occurred in Galilee. In the\\nthirteenth chapter (ver. 22), we are told, that Jesus went through the cities\\nand villages, teaching, on his way to Jerusalem; but, in the same chapter\\n(ver. 31, 32), we find him still in the dominions of Herod, probably in\\nPeraea; for the Pharisees are represented as telling him, for the purpose of\\ninducing him to leave the country, that Herod, its ruler, was desirous\\nof destroying him; while again, in the seventeenth chapter (ver. 11), Luke\\nspeaks of him as on his way to Jerusalem, passing along the confines of\\nSamaria and Galilee, which implies that he was journeying from Galilee.\\nThroughout far the greater part of Luke s Gospel, and in regard to all\\nbut a few leading events in Christ s history, there seems to me a want of\\nchronological order.\\nI may here add, that it is far from being the fact, as might be supposed\\nfrom some of the statements on the subject, that, where Mark or Luke differ\\nfrom the arrangement of Matthew in the matter common to all three, they\\nuniformly agree with each other. Two examples to the contrary have been\\ngiven in this note: one, in the call of Peter; and the other, in the reply of\\nJesus to the charge, that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub\\n(Matt. xii. 22-37; Mark iii. 11, 23-30; Luke xL 14-23). In the account,\\nlikewise, of the preaching of Jesus at Nazareth (Matt. xiiL 54-58; Mark\\nvi. 1-6; Luke iv. 16-30), and in the account of the attempt of his mother\\nand relations to obtain access to him while he was teaching the people\\n(Matt. xii. 46-50; Mark iii. 31-35; Luke viii. 19-21), Luke differs from the\\narrangement of Matthew, while Mark coincides with it. The only important\\ninstances of the agreement of Mark and Luke, in deviating from the order\\nof Matthew, are mentioned in the text.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0506.jp2"}, "507": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 473\\ndisciple. The miraculous cure of Jairus s daughter he relates as\\nimmediately following the entertainment at his own house. But it\\nis impossible that his memory should haye deceived him respecting\\nthe time when such events occurred and that he should have\\nimagined them to have been in so close connection with the most\\nimportant incident in his own life, if they had not taken place till\\na later period of Christ s ministry. The agreement, therefore,\\nbetween Mark and Luke cannot be explained by the supposi-\\ntion, that they observed the order of time, and that Matthew did\\nnot nor can it well be regarded as a mere accident, consequent\\nsolely upon their both being ignorant of the real succession of\\nevents.\\nBeside the two already mentioned, there is another instance in\\nwhich Mark and Luke differ in common from the order of Mat-\\nthew. They place the accounts of his disciples passing through a\\nfield of grain on the sabbath, and of his curing on the sabbath, in\\na synagogue, a man with a withered hand, before the appointment\\nof the apostles while Matthew refers both events to a subsequent\\nperiod.\\nAmong the phenomena of agreement and disagreement in the\\nGospels, the consent of Mark and Luke in differing from the\\narrangement of Matthew is, perhaps, most difficult of explanation\\nbut it may serve as a test of the probability of some of the\\nhypotheses which have been formed to account for those phe-\\nnomena.\\nAs regards any hypothesis intended for this purpose, beside\\naccounting for those phenomena, there are other conditions which\\nit must fulfil. It must be consistent with the historical facts\\nrelating to the early history of the Gospels, and with the intrinsic\\nprobabilities respecting their composition. It must correspond to\\nthe habits of the age, and particularly to those of the Jews of\\nPalestine. If we regard the Gospels as genuine, it must accord\\nwith the character and circumstances of the first three evangelists,\\nand, in any case, with the general character of the works them-\\nselves. It must explain the phenomena, which constitute the\\nproblem to be solved, consistently with all the other phenomena\\nwhich the Gospels present. These works, for instance, show that\\ntheir authors, whoever they were, had no habits of literary compo-", "height": "4460", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0507.jp2"}, "508": {"fulltext": "474 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nsltion, that they were unaccustomed to commit events to writing;\\nand whatever supposition we may make should be consistent with\\nthis obvious fact. And, lastly, any hypothesis, to be admissible,\\nmust assign a reasonable motive for what it represents the authors\\nof the Gospels to have done or, to express the same thing in\\nother words, must not represent them as acting in a manner un-\\nreasonable and unaccountable.\\nIn treating of the hypotheses to be examined, I shall use lan-\\nguage conformed to the belief of the genuineness of the Gospels.\\nI have already endeavored to show, that no hypothesis for ex-\\nplaining their correspondences is tenable upon a contrary supposi-\\ntion nor has it been common to maintain any such hypothesis\\nin connection with an explicit denial of their genuineness. I,\\nhowever, adopt the language in question, principally for the sake\\nof convenience and perspicuity, to avoid that embarrassment\\nand diffuseness of expression which would arise from an attempt\\nto present the problem to be solved, in its most general and indefi-\\nnite form. Many, though not all, of the arguments, I shall adduce\\nrespecting the first two hypotheses examined are equally applica-\\nble, whoever may be considered as the authors of the Gospels\\nso that they would lose none of their force, if the names of those\\nauthors were denoted by algebraic symbols, carrying no associa-\\ntions with them. The hypothesis I shall defend supposes that the\\nGospels have been ascribed to their true authors and, if it afford\\nthe only satisfactory solution of their correspondences, must af-\\nford, at the time, additional proof of that fact. But I do not, it\\nis to be observed, found the present inquiry upon the conclusion\\nwhich I have before endeavored to establish, that no hypothesis\\ncan explain the correspondence of the Gospels, except upon the\\nsupposition that they were written in the apostolic age, or, what is\\nequivalent, the supposition of their genuineness on the contrary,\\nI trust that this conclusion will receive new confirmation from\\nwhat follows.\\nWith these views of the nature of the facts to be explained, of\\nthe conditions required in their explanation, and of the form in\\nSee before, p. 93, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0508.jp2"}, "509": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 475\\nwhich the inquiry may most conveniently be pursued, we will now\\nproceed to consider the different theories that have been proposed\\nto account for the agreement of the first three Gospels.\\nSection II.\\nOn the Supposition that Two of the Evangelists copied, One from\\nliis Predecessor, and the Other from Both his Predecessors.\\nThe most obvious solution of the phenomenon in question,\\nwhich has formerly been very generally adopted, is that the evan-\\ngelists copied one from another. In maintaining this hypothesis,\\nwe must suppose that the latest copied from the two preceding,\\nand the second in order of time from his predecessor since there\\nare agreements between any two of the three Gospels for which it\\nwill not otherwise account. To determine whether this hypothesis\\nbe tenable, we will consider a particular form of it, which is as\\nplausible as any other. It is the supposition, that Luke copied\\nfrom Matthew, and Mark from both Matthew and Luke.\\nI. Xow the first consideration is, that, when we ascribe to an\\nindividual an action of which we have no direct proof, we must\\nassign some probable motive for the action and there appears no\\nreasonable inducement for Mark to have formed such a Gospel as\\nhis own from those of Matthew and Luke. He could not have so\\ndeceived himself as to suppose, that he was writing what, to any\\nclass of men, would be a more valuable history of Christ than\\neither of theirs. He could not suppose, that it would supply the\\nplace, or supersede the use, of either. He could not have written\\nhis Gospel for the sake of the small additions which he has made\\nof original matter for they are so small in amount as to render\\nthe supposition incredible. Had it been his object to give supple-\\nmentary matter, he might, without doubt, have collected much\\nmore and, with this purpose, he would not, as he has done, have\\nrepeated passages which, if he copied, he has only abridged.\\nIt may perhaps be suggested, that he intended to make a\\nGospel which, being more brief than the other two, might be\\ntranscribed at less expense, and read in a shorter time and which\\nwould therefore circulate more widely. But this notion, derived", "height": "4552", "width": "2740", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0509.jp2"}, "510": {"fulltext": "476 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nfrom the booksellers trade of modern days, is not to be transferred\\nto the times of the ancient Christians. Among their other sacri-\\nfices, they would not have reckoned that of a few denarii, if given\\nas the extra cost of a mere complete Gospel nor would they have\\nbeen unwilling to spare the additional half-hour required for its\\nreading.\\nII. If we suppose Mark and Luke to have copied from Mat-\\nthew, there are discrepances between them and Matthew for which\\nwe cannot account. The simple fact, indeed, that there are dis-\\ncrepances between two evangelists, does not prove that one may\\nnot have copied the other for the later writer may have intended\\nto correct the mistakes of his predecessor. But the discrepances\\nmay be of such a kind as to render this supposition improbable or\\nincredible. Thus, Matthew relates, that two demoniacs among the\\nGadarenes were restored to sanity by Jesus, and that he gave\\nsight to two blind men near Jericho while Mark and Luke, in\\neach case, mention only one. The difference is of no importance,\\nconsidering them all as independent historians but it is highly\\nimprobable, that Matthew would have spoken of two, if there had\\nbeen only one, or that Mark and Luke would have varied from his\\naccount in this particular, had they been acquainted with it. In\\nthe narrative of another fact, the withering of the barren fig-tree,\\nMatthew represents it as the immediate consequence of the words\\nof Jesus, as taking place as soon as they were uttered and the\\nastonishment and awe felt by the disciples appear in his account\\nas expressed at the moment: And the disciples, seeing it, were\\nstruck with awe, and said, How suddenly this fig-tree has with-\\nered It may seem, at first view, difficult to account for the\\nemotion of the disciples, after all the other astonishing miracles\\nwhich they had witnessed. But we may understand it, when we\\nconsider the striking visible phenomenon presented, so different\\nfrom any which Jesus had before effected, its startling suddenness,\\nand the peculiar character of the miracle, unlike his former works\\nof mercy, a symbolical act, a visible parable, as it were, intended\\nto indicate the punishment about to fall upon the great body of\\nthe Jews, to whom Jesus had come seeking fruit, and had found\\nSee Matt. xxi. 18, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0510.jp2"}, "511": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 477\\nnone. The account of Matthew is consistent and probable.\\nBut Mark f represents the words of our Saviour as having been\\nuttered on one morning, and the effect of them upon the fig-tree\\nas having been first observed by his disciples the following morn-\\ning when Peter remembered, and said to him, Master, behold!\\nthis fig-tree which thou didst curse has withered. That the dis-\\nciples remarked upon the event, not only when it occurred, but\\nalso as they were passing the tree the following morning, is not\\nimprobable and it may have been on the following morning, like-\\nwise, and not immediately after the occurrence of the event, that\\nour Saviour announced to them those miraculous powers, which,\\nif they had faith, would be granted to them, as recorded both by\\nMatthew and Mark. We may thus account for the manner in\\nwhich Mark has represented the transaction. But there can be\\nlittle doubt, that the astonishment of the disciples was expressed\\ndirectly after the occurrence of the miracle nor can we suppose,\\nthat Mark, with the account of Matthew before him, would have\\ngiven such a one as appears in his Gospel.\\nThe differences of narration, of which these are specimens,\\nafford proof, that neither Mark nor Luke copied from Matthew.\\nBut the most striking discrepances between the evangelists regard\\nthe chronological order of events. The voyage, before mentioned,\\nacross the Lake of Galilee to the country of the Gadarenes, with\\ncertain facts connected with and following it, is, as we have seen,\\nclearly referred by Matthew to a particular period of Chrises min-\\nistry nor can there, I think, be a reasonable doubt, that he has\\nassigned to those events their true place. On the contrary,\\nMark explicitly and circumstantially states them as having oc-\\ncurred at a different time. After relating that Jesus taught by\\nthe sea-side in parables, he proceeds And the same day, in the\\nevening, he said to his disciples, Let us cross to the other side\\nand then follows an account of the voyage. Now, if Matthew s\\norder be correct, as we believe, Mark could have no good reason\\nfor differing from it nor would he have differed from it, had he,\\nSee the parable of the ban-en fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9), which is to be\\nconsidered as explanatory of this miracle,\\nf Chap. xi. 12-14, 20, seqq.\\nSee before, p. 471, seqq. Mark iv. 35.", "height": "4528", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0511.jp2"}, "512": {"fulltext": "478 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nas has been supposed, taken Matthew s Gospel as his main guide\\nin the composition of his own.\\nSimilar reasoning is equally conclusive against the supposition,\\nthat Luke transcribed from Matthew s Gospel. Being evidently\\nunacquainted with the chronological order of many events, ^and\\nthe place of their occurrence, if he had borrowed any assistance\\nfrom Matthew, he would have taken him for a guide in those\\nrespects.\\nIII. Mark s Gospel, though but about three-fifths of the size of\\neither of the other two Gospels, has in no other respect the char-\\nacter of an abridgment or a selection from them. On the suppo-\\nsition, that he formed his Gospel out of the other two, there is no\\nprinciple of selection which can reasonably be ascribed to him.\\nA characteristic distinction between Mark and the other two evan-\\ngelists is, that he gives comparatively but few of the declarations\\nand precepts of Jesus, and his Gospel is more a simple narrative\\nof actions and events. Now, this may be explained, if we suppose\\nMark to have written his Gospel with a limited view, for the use\\nof individuals already instructed in Christianity, on whose minds\\nthe words of Christ had. been deeply impressed by oral teaching,\\nand to whom, therefore, only the framework of his history was\\nnecessary in order to enable them to define and arrange their\\nrecollections but, if we believe Mark to have been familiar with\\nthe other two Gospels, we cannot imagine him to have believed\\nanother history necessary for such a purpose. He must have\\nwritten his own with a view more prospective and, this being\\nsupposed, it is not credible that he should have thought it advi-\\nsable to omit a large portion of the words of our Saviour, and\\nmany striking incidents in his life, which, being in the books\\nbefore him, it would have cost him only the labor of transcription\\nto preserve in his own. As I have said, no rational principle\\nof selection can be assigned to account for what he has taken,\\nand what he has omitted. Should it be said, that he thought\\nthe other Gospels would go down to posterity together with his\\nown, the question recurs, What was his purpose in writing?\\nWhy did he undertake this labor, evidently foreign from his habits\\nof mind", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0512.jp2"}, "513": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.\\n479\\nTV. Let us view tbe subject under another aspect. To the\\naccounts which Mark gives in common with the other evangelists,\\nhe often adds particular circumstances not narrated by them.\\nBut he who is acquainted with the minor particulars of an event\\nis, of course, well acquainted with its principal features. Xow,\\nthe knowledge of those particulars which he has added not being\\nderived by him from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it follows\\nthat he was not dependent upon those Gospels for a knowledge of\\nthe main fact itself. Sometimes Mark varies in his accounts from\\none or both of the other evangelists. There is a discrepance\\nbetween them. If he used their Gospels, he would thus have\\nvaried from them only for the purpose of giving what he believed\\na more accurate account than they had done. In all such cases as\\nhave been mentioned, it is clear that Mark, believing himself to be\\nfully and correctly possessed of the facts, might have written as he\\nhas done without any knowledge of the other two evangelists.\\nWhen, with the differences that have been mentioned, there is a\\nstriking difference of language likewise, it becomes apparent, that\\nMark, in such passages, made no use of his supposed predecessors.\\nOf passages of this kind, I will give one as an example, placing in\\nparallel columns an English version of the text of the three evan-\\ngelists, as their difference of language may be sufficiently repre-\\nsented in a translation. The passage is an account of the curing\\nof the demoniac boy, immediately after our Saviours transfigura-\\ntion.\\nMatt. xvii. 14-21.\\nAnd, when they came\\nto the multitude,\\nMark ix. 14-29.\\nAnd, when he came\\nto his disciple?, he saw\\na great multitude about\\nthem, and the teachers\\nof the Law disputing\\nwith them. And im-\\nmediately the whole\\nmultitude, upon seeing\\nhim, was struck with\\nawe, and, running to-\\nwards him, saluted\\nhim. And he asked\\nthem, What are ye dis-\\nputing about together\\nLuke ix. 37-43.\\nAnd, on the follow-\\ning day, as they were\\ndescending the moun-\\ntain, a great multitude\\nmet him.", "height": "4540", "width": "2780", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0513.jp2"}, "514": {"fulltext": "480\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nMatt. xvii. 14-21.\\na man met him; and,\\nfalling on his knees be-\\nfore him, said, Master,\\nhave pity on my son,\\nfor he is a lunatic, and\\nsuffers grievously; for\\nhe often falls into the\\nfire, and often into the\\nwater\\nand I brought him to\\nthy disciples, and they\\ncould not heal him.\\nThen Jesus said, Un-\\nbelieving and perverse\\nrace how long shall I\\nbe with you how long\\nmust I bear with you V\\nBring him hither to me.\\nMark ix. 14-29.\\nAnd one of the\\nmultitude answered,\\nTeacher, I brought my\\nson to thee, who has a\\ndumb spirit and, when\\nit seizes him, it throws\\nhim down, and he foams\\nat his mouth, and\\ngnashes his teeth, and\\nbecomes insensible;\\nand I spoke to thy dis-\\nciples to cast it out,\\nand they were not\\nable. Then Jesus said\\nto them, Unbelieving\\nrace how long shall I\\nbe with you how long\\nmust I bear with you\\nBring him to me.\\nAnd they brought\\nhim to him; and, as\\nsoon as he saw Jesus,\\nthe spirit convulsed\\nhim and, falling down,\\nhe rolled upon the\\nground, foaming at his\\nmouth. And Jesus\\nquestioned his father,\\nHow long has it been\\nthus with him? And\\nhe answered, From a\\nchild. And often it\\ncasts him into the fire\\nand into water, to de-\\nstroy him. But, if thou\\ncanst do any thing,\\nhave pity upon us, and\\nLuke ix. 37-43.\\nAnd, behold a man\\nfrom the multitude cried\\nout, saying, Teacher, I\\nbeseech thee to look\\nupon my son for he is\\nmy only child and,\\nbehold! a spirit seizes\\nhim, and utters a sud-\\nden cry, and convulses\\nhim so that he foams at\\nhis mouth, and hardly\\ndeparts from him, leav-\\ning him utterly ex-\\nhausted and I besought\\nthy disciples to cast it\\nout, and they could not.\\nThen Jesus said, Un-\\nbelieving and perverse\\nrace! how long shall 1\\nbe with you, and bear\\nwith you? Lead thy\\nson hither.\\nAnd, while he was\\ncoming, the demon\\nthrew him down, and\\nconvulsed him.\\nKal ZrjpaivETaL. It is impossible to determine in what sense Mark\\nuses this term. Perhaps it should be rendered, and is wasting away.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0514.jp2"}, "515": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.\\n481\\nMatt. xvii. 14-21.\\nAnd Jesus rebuked\\nthe demon, so that it\\ncame out of him and\\nthe boy was well from\\nthat hour.\\nThen the disciples\\ncame to Jesus apart,\\nand said, Why could\\nwe not cast it out And\\nJesus said to them,\\nThrough your want of\\nfaith; for I tell you in\\ntruth, had ye faith as a\\ngrain of mustard-seed,\\nshould you say to this\\nmountain, Remove from\\nthis place to that, it\\nwould remove and\\nMark ix. 14-29.\\nhelp us. Then Jesus\\nsaid to him, What\\nmeans this, If thou\\ncanst All things\\nmay be done for him\\nwho has faith. And\\nimmediately the father\\nof the child, crying\\nout with tears, said, I\\nhave faith: help thou\\nmy want of faith. Then\\nJesus, seeing that the\\nmultitude was running\\ntogether to the spot, re-\\nbuked the unclean spir-\\nit, saying to it, Thou\\ndumb and deaf spirit,\\nI command thee, come\\nout of him, and enter\\nhim no more. And\\nuttering a cry, and con-\\nvulsing him much, it\\ncame out of him. And\\nhe was as if dead, so\\nthat many said, He is\\ndead but Jesus, taking\\nhim by the hand, raised\\nhim, and he stood up.\\nAnd, after he had\\nentered a house, his\\ndisciples asked him,\\nprivately, Why could\\nw^ not cast it out?\\nAnd he said to them,\\nLuke ix. 37-43.\\nBut Jesus rebuked\\nthe unclean spirit, and\\nhealed the child, and\\ndelivered him to his\\nfather.\\nAnd all were aston-\\nished at this display of\\nthe power of God.\\n31", "height": "4560", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0515.jp2"}, "516": {"fulltext": "482\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nMatt. xvii. 14-21.\\nnothing would be im-\\npossible to you. But it\\nis only through prayer\\nand fasting that this\\nrace may be expelled.\\nMark ix. 14-29.\\nBy nothing but prayer\\nand fasting can this\\nrace be cast out.\\nLuke ix. 37-43.\\nIn this passage, as in others, it is clear, not merely that Mark\\ndid not copy Matthew or Luke, but that no one of the evangelists\\ncopied either of the other two. This is not a matter of argument\\nit is only the statement of a fact apparent on inspection.\\nV. But it may be said, that no one supposes that Mark derived\\nhis knowledge of the events in Christ s ministry solely from the\\nGospels of Matthew and Luke on the contrary, as a preacher of\\nChristianity, he must have been well acquainted with them from\\nother sources. Nor is it maintained, that he transcribed from one\\nor the other in every case where he relates the same events. But\\nwhat is contended for is, that he made use of their Gospels, partic-\\nularly that of Matthew, in composing his own and that this\\nsupposition is proved by the remarkable correspondences between\\nhis Gospel and each of the other two, in various passages. These\\nresemblances, it may be urged, are so great as to render it\\nhighly probable that one evangelist copied from another.\\nIn this reasoning, it is supposed that one evangelist copied from\\nanother, because the resemblance between them is so great. I\\nanswer, that very few instances can be pointed out, in which this\\nsupposition does not require a much greater resemblance than\\nexists and that most of the passages in which it is found, instead\\nof rendering it probable that one evangelist transcribed from\\nanother, afford strong reasons for an opposite conclusion. I will\\nquote, for example, the account of the call of Matthew, the enter-\\ntainment in his house, and the conversation occasioned by it, as\\ngiven by the three evangelists.\\nMatt. ix. 9-17.\\n(Yer. 9.) And Jesus,\\nas he was passing\\nthence, saw a man,\\ncalled Matthew, sitting\\nMark ii. 14-22.\\n(Ver. 14.) And, as\\nhe was passing along,\\nhe saw Levi, the son of\\nAlpheus, sitting to re-\\nLuke v. 27-39.\\n(Yer. 27.) And, after\\nthis, Jesus -went out,\\nand saw a tax-gatherer,\\nby the name of Levi,", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0516.jp2"}, "517": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.\\n483\\nMatt. ix. 9-17.\\nto receive the customs\\nand said to him, Come\\nwith me. And he arose,\\nand went with him.\\n.(Ver.10.) And while\\nJesus was at table in\\nhis house, lo! many\\ntax-gatherers and sin-\\nners, who had come,\\nwere at table with Je-\\nsus and his disciples.\\n(Ver. 11.) And the\\nPharisees, seeing this,\\nsaid to his disciples,\\nWhy does your teacher\\neat with these tax-\\ngatherers and sinners?\\n(Yer. 12.) But Je-\\nsus, hearing this, said\\nto them, The well need\\nnot a physician, but the\\nsick.\\n(Yer. 13.) But go\\nye, and learn what this\\nmeans, I desire goodness\\nand not sacrifices. For I\\ndid not come to give an\\ninvitation to righteous\\nmen, but to sinners.\\n(Yer. 14.) Then the\\ndisciples of John came\\nto him, and said, Why,\\nwhen we and the Phari-\\nsees fast often,\\nMark ii. 14-22.\\nceive the customs and\\nsaid to him, Come with\\nme. And he arose, and\\nwent w 7 ith him.\\n(Yer. 15.) And while\\nJesus was at table in\\nhis house, many tax-\\ngatherers and sinners\\nalso were at table w r ith\\nJesus and his disciples\\nfor there were many\\nwho had followed him.\\n(Yer. 16.) And the\\nteachers of the Laiv, and\\nthe Pharisees, seeing\\nhim eating with the\\ntax-gatherers and sin-\\nners, said to his disci-\\nples, How is it that he\\nis eating and drinking\\nwith these tax-gather-\\ners and sinners?\\n(Yer. 17.) And Je-\\nsus, hearing this, said\\nto them, The well need\\nnot a physician, but the\\nsick.\\nI did not come to give\\nan invitation to right-\\neous men, but to sin-\\nners.\\n(Yer. 18.) And the\\ndisciples of John and\\nthe Pharisees were\\nkeeping a fast; and\\nthey came and said to\\nhim, Why, when the\\ndisciples of John and\\nthose of the Pharisees\\nLuke v. 27-39.\\nsitting tfi receive the\\ncustoms and said to\\nhim, Come with me.\\n(Yer. 28.) And, leav-\\ning every thing, he arose\\nand went with him.\\n(Yer. 29.) And Levi\\nmade a great entertain-\\nment for him in his\\nhouse; and there was a\\ngreat number of tax-\\ngatherers and others,\\nwho were at table with\\nthem.\\n(Yer. 30.) But their\\nteachers of the Law,\\nand the Pharisees, mur-\\nmured at this, saying to\\nhis disciples, Why are\\nye eating and drinking\\nwith these tax-gather-\\ners and sinners?\\n(Yer. 31.) And Je-\\nsus, answering, said to\\nthem, They w r ho are\\nin health need not a\\nphysician, but the sick.\\n(Yer. 32.) I have\\nnot come to call right-\\neous men, but sinners,\\nto reformation.\\n(Yer. 33.) But they\\nsaid to him, Why. when\\nthe disciples of John are\\ncontinually tasting and\\nmaking supplications,", "height": "4560", "width": "2668", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0517.jp2"}, "518": {"fulltext": "484\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nMatt. ix. 9-17.\\ndo not thy ^disciples\\nfast?\\n(Ver. 15.) And Je-\\nsus said to them, Can\\nthe companions of the\\nbridegroom mourn, so\\nlong as the bridegroom\\nis with them\\nBut the days are com-\\ning when the bride-\\ngroom will be taken\\nfrom them; and then\\nwill they fast.\\n(Yer. 16.) No one\\nputs a patch of un-\\ndressed cloth upon an\\nold garment; for the\\npiece would tear away\\nfrom the garment, and\\na worse rent be made.\\n(Yer. 17.) Nor do\\nmen put new wine into\\nold skins for the skins\\nwould burst, and the\\nwine run to waste, and\\nthe skins would be\\nspoilt But they put\\nnew wine into new\\nskins, so that both may\\nbe preserved.\\nMark ii. 14-22.\\nare fasting, do not thy\\ndisciples fafet\\n(Yer. 19.) And Je-\\nsus said to them, Can\\nthe companions of the\\nbridegroom fast, while\\nthe bridegroom is with\\nthem V As long as they\\nhave the bridegroom\\nwith them, they cannot\\nfast.\\n(Yer. 20.) But the\\ndays are coming when\\nthe bridegroom will be\\ntaken from them; and\\nthen will they fast in\\nthat day.\\n(Yer. 21.) No one\\nsews a patch of un-\\ndressed cloth upon an\\nold garment otherwise\\nthe new piece would\\ntear away from the old\\ngarment, and a worse\\nrent be made.\\n(Yer. 22.) And no\\none puts new wine into\\nold skins for the new\\nwine would burst the\\nskins, and the wine\\nwould run to waste,\\nand the skins would be\\nspoilt. But new wine\\nmust be put into new\\nskins.\\nLuke v. 27-39.\\nand likewise those of\\nthe Pharisees, are thine\\neating and drinking?\\n(Yer. 34.) But he\\nsaid to them, Can ye\\nmake the companions\\nof the bridegroom fast,\\nwhile the bridegroom is\\nwith them\\n(Yer. 35.) But the\\ndays are coining when\\nthe bridegroom will be\\ntaken from them: then\\nwill they fast in those\\n(Yer. 36.) Then he\\nke a parable to\\nthem: No one takes a\\npatch from a new gar-\\nment to put upon an\\nold garment otherwise\\nthe new garment would\\nbe cut, and the patch\\nfrom the new would not\\nmatch with the old.\\n(Yer. 37.) And no\\none puts new wine into\\nold skins; for the new\\nwine would burst the\\nskins, and it would run\\nto waste, and the skins\\nwould be spoilt.\\n(Yer. 38.) But new\\nwine must be put into\\nnew skins, so that both\\nmay be preserved.\\n(Yer. 39.) And no\\none, after drinking old\\nwine, immediately wish-\\nes for new; for he says,\\nThe old is better.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0518.jp2"}, "519": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 485\\nThe preceding is a specimen of the accordance of meaning and\\nlanguage which is found among the first three Gospels. It is else-\\nwhere mixed with similar diversities. But a comparison of such\\nparallel passages from the different evangelists shows, I think,\\nthat no one of them copied from either of the others.\\nAs in the example given, so generally in other cases of parallel-\\nism among the first three Gospels, variations of expression, omis-\\nsions, and additions occur, which are not to be accounted for on\\nthe theory, that the evangelists copied one from another because\\nthey are such as cannot be ascribed to accident, and, at the same\\ntime, such as would not have been made by design. Thus, in the\\nspecimen given, if either Mark or Luke had been copying from\\nMatthew, it is unlikely that he would have substituted the name\\nof Levi, by which that evangelist appears to have been known\\nbefore his becoming a disciple, for the name of Matthew, by which\\nhe was commonly called afterwards, and which he himself had\\nused in this place or that Luke, if he had Mark before him,\\nand had preferred the name of Levi, would have omitted the\\nfurther designation, the son of Alpheus. Mark, if he had been\\nfollowing Luke, would have retained the explicit statement of the\\nlatter, that the entertainment, at which our Lord was present, was\\nmade by Matthew; and, with Matthew for his guide, he would not\\nhave changed the clear and simple expressions used by him in\\nthe tenth and eleventh verses for Ins own more diffuse, and, in the\\noriginal, more obscure language. Luke, it is evident, was, in\\nthe corresponding verses, neither the original nor the copyist of\\neither. The question of the Pharisees respecting Christ s eating\\nwith tax-gatherers and sinners is given in different terms by each\\nof the evangelists yet, if any one of them copied from either of\\nthe others, it does not appear what motive could haA^e induced him\\nto change its form. Similar remarks maj be made respecting the\\nother variations of language among the evangelists, which occur in\\nthis passage. But there are differences of another kind. The\\nfirst clause of the thirteenth verse of Matthew seems to me essen-\\ntial to a full understanding of the meaning of Jesus.* But,\\nThe words of Matthew are these: But Jesus, hearing this, said to\\nthem, The well need not a physician, but the sick. But go ye, and learn what\\nthis means, I desire goodness, and not sacrifices. 1 For I did not come to give", "height": "4560", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0519.jp2"}, "520": {"fulltext": "486 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nwhether it be so or not, neither Mark nor Luke, had they been\\nborrowing from Matthew, would have omitted it as they have\\ndone, copying, at the same time, the words which precede and\\nfollow. In the next verse (the eighteenth) of Mark, he states\\nexplicitly, that the disciples of John and the Pharisees were keep-\\ning a fast, which is not done by the other evangelists.* It is a\\ncircumstance which throws a strong light upon their state of feel-\\ning when seeing Jesus at the same time present at an entertain-\\nment with tax-gatherers and sinners. The fact does not appear in\\nthe account of the other evangelists. But it is not probable, that,\\nif either Matthew or Luke had been transcribing from Mark s\\nGospel, he would have omitted this circumstance by design, or\\npassed over it by accident. At the end of the fifteenth verse of\\nMatthew, neither Mark nor Luke, if copying his text, would have\\nthought it necessary to add the superfluous words, in that day,\\nor in those days. Luke, in the thirty-sixth verse, borrowed\\nfrom neither Matthew nor Mark, and neither borrowed from him.\\nAnd, with Luke s Gospel before them, there is no likelihood that\\neither Matthew or Mark would have omitted the concluding words\\nan invitation to righteous men, but to sinners. The words in italics are\\nomitted by the other evangelists. But our Saviour s answer, as given by\\nMatthew, is, I conceive, to be thus understood You reproach me for being\\nwith tax-gatherers and sinners: it is fitting I should be; the well need not\\na physician, but the sick. But do not think that you are less morally dis-\\neased than those whom you despise. You, no more than they, perform what\\nGod requires: while you insist on ceremonies and superstitious observances,\\nyou neglect what is essential in religion and morality. Go ye, and learn\\nwhat this means, I desire goodness, and not sacrifices. I came to give an\\ninvitation to all to accept God s mercy; and as regards you, as well as\\nthem, I did not come to give an invitation to righteous men, but to sinners.\\nIt appears from the Talmud, that the more religious Jews fasted on\\nMondays and Thursdays. Thus the Pharisee mentioned in Luke xviii. 12\\nis represented by our Saviour as saying, I fast twice a week. Now we\\nhave before inferred, from the account of Matthew (see p. 470), that the\\nentertainment at Matthew s house took place on Monday. This accords\\nwith Mark s account, that the disciples of John and the Pharisees were keep-\\ning a fast (rjaav vnarevovTec). This coincidence between the Gospels, to be\\nascertained only by what we learn from the Talmud, deserves remark, as\\none among many facts of a similar kind which serve to establish their\\nauthenticity.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0520.jp2"}, "521": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 487\\nof Jesus, as given by Luke (ver. 39), which accord so well with\\nthe context.\\nIn order fully to estimate the force of the preceding remarks,\\nwe must recollect, that no copyist, writing in the same style with\\nhis original, would designedly change the ideas or expressions of\\nthe latter, except for the sake of some real or fancied improve-\\nment unless, indeed, his purpose were to conceal plagiarism, a\\npurpose which no one will ascribe to the evangelists. But noth-\\ning, that can be supposed a real or fancied improvement, appears\\nin the differences that have been mentioned, or in many others\\nthat might be specified in the parallel passages of the first three\\nGospels. It is particularly improbable, that such changes should\\nhave been made by any one of the three evangelists, since the\\nstyle and vocabulary of all are essentially the same and, except\\nso far as Luke may form a partial exception, they obviously had\\nlittle command of language. But for some strong reason, there-\\nfore, any one of them would have copied literally the already\\nwell-known narrative, which he found before him, except, perhaps,\\nthat St. Luke, if he wrote last, might sometimes have retouched\\nthe style of his predecessors. Certainly, no one of them would\\nhave made an unimportant addition in one place, and omitted an\\nimportant passage in another nor so varied his own account as to\\nrender it obscure and imperfect, requiring, in order to be fully\\nunderstood, that the Gospel from which he copied should be con-\\nsulted as a commentary on his own. Yet, however we may\\narrange the order of transcription, all this must be supposed in\\nreference to the two evangelists who are represented as tran-\\nscribers, especially if the two be Mark and Luke.\\nThese observations are applicable to a large portion of the\\nGospels, but are particularly striking as regards the narrative of\\nthe closing scenes of our Saviour s life, his death, his resurrection,\\nand the events subsequent. Such are the omissions and differ-\\nences from one another in the accounts of the three evangelists,\\nthat, considering these alone, I cannot believe that any one of\\nthem had seen the work of either of the others. This is a portion\\nof the Gospels which has been too little attended to, either by\\nthose who suppose that the evangelists transcribed one from\\nanother, or by those who suppose that they transcribed from\\ncommon documents.", "height": "4556", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0521.jp2"}, "522": {"fulltext": "488 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nIt may appear, then, that, beside the particular objections to\\nany particular form that may be given to the supposition that the\\nevangelists copied one from another, the general objections to it\\nare these There is no reasonable principle of selection on which\\nthey can be supposed to have proceeded. They were, all of them,\\nas preachers of Christianity, well acquainted with the transactions\\nwhich it was their purpose to record their independent knowl-\\nedge of them appears in the Gospel of each they had, therefore,\\nno occasion to copy one from another, and it is a fact, obvious\\nsimply upon inspection, that far the greater part of each Gospel\\nwas not thus copied. And, lastly, their Gospels generally, and\\neven those very passages on which this theory of transcription has\\nbeen founded, present numerous diversities of such a character as\\nthe evangelist, whichever may be supposed the copyist, would not\\nhave made, with the text of his predecessor, or predecessors,\\nbefore him as an archetype.\\nSection III.\\nOn the Supposition that the First Three Evangelists made Use of\\nCommon Written Documents,\\nThe supposition that the first three evangelists copied one\\nfrom another has found, comparatively, but few defenders in later\\ntimes, and has been superseded, in a great degree, by the suppo-\\nsition that they all transcribed from common written documents.\\nThis hypothesis we have had occasion to notice in the text of\\nthe present work.* I will state it generally, as explained by\\nBishop Marsh, who may be considered as having improved upon\\nEichhorn, from whom he borrowed it. The differences between\\nthem are not such as to affect its credibility.\\nIt is supposed, then, that there was an original narrative of the\\nlife of Christ, an original Gospel,] which contained, in some form\\nor other, all those relations that are common to our first three\\nGospels. This, it is thought, was receiving continual additions\\nSee before, pp. 60. 61.\\nt I use this term, borrowed from Eichhorn, for the sake of convenience\\nand distinctness of expression. It is not employed by Bishop Marsh.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0522.jp2"}, "523": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 489\\nfrom its various transcribers, different in different copies. The\\nfirst three evangelists are supposed each to have used a different\\ncopy as the basis of his Gospel. Matthew s copy, beside the\\noriginal text, contained likewise the additional matter which he\\nhas in common with Mark alone, or with Luke alone. Mark s\\ncopy differed from this, both in wanting the matter which is com-\\nmon to Matthew and Luke only, and in having additional matter\\nnot found in Matthew s copy namely, that which is common to\\nMark and Luke only. Luke s copy, in like manner, had certain\\nadditions, which are common to him either with Matthew or\\nwith Mark, and wanted those passages which are found only in\\nthe two last-mentioned evangelists.*\\nThe Original Gospel, and the three modifications of it just\\nmentioned, were all written in the Syro-Chaldee, or, as it is more\\npopularly termed, the Hebrew language. Matthew s Gospel was\\noriginally written in the same language. But Mark and Luke\\nwrote in Greek, and each translated into that language the docu-\\nment which he used as the basis of his Gospel. But the verbal\\nharmony between them in that portion of matter which consti-\\ntuted the Original Gospel, before it had received any additions, is\\nbelieved to be greater than would result from two independent\\ntranslations of the same work. In order to account for it, there-\\nfore, it is supposed, that the Original Gospel, before any additions\\nhad been made to it, was translated into Greek and that Mark\\nand Luke each had a copy of this Greek translation, from which\\nhe occasionally derived assistance in rendering his Hebrew docu-\\nment. Each sometimes adopted its words in the same passage\\nand in these passages they agree verbally with each other.\\nBut besides the enlarged copy of the Original Gospel, which\\nwas in the hands of each of the evangelists, and the Greek trans-\\nlation of this Gospel, used by Mark and Luke, it is further\\nsupposed that there was another document, written in Hebrew,\\nwhich was used only by Matthew and Luke the former incorpo-\\nrating it into his Gospel in the original language, and the latter\\nm\\nBishop Marsh distinguishes between those additions, common to two\\nof the Gospels, which were made to narratives already extant in the Original\\nGospel, and those additions which were made of new narratives common to\\ntwo of the Gospels; but this is a distinction not important to be attended\\nto in reference to our present purpose.", "height": "4560", "width": "2748", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0523.jp2"}, "524": {"fulltext": "490 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\ntranslating it into Greek. This was a collection of precepts,\\nparables, and discourses, which had been delivered by Christ at\\ndifferent times and on different occasions. The name of Gno-\\nmologia has been given it, with reference to its supposed character.\\nThe copies of this document used by Matthew and Luke, though\\ngenerally agreeing, differed in some respects from each other.\\nIt was not arranged with any regard to chronological order.\\nMatthew, being an apostle, is thought to have inserted the dif-\\nferent portions of it in different parts of his Gospel; having\\nregard, probably, to the times and occasions when the sayings\\nof our Saviour were delivered. But Luke, who was not pres-\\nent at their delivery, did not undertake to do this. With the\\nexception of only two portions, both of which have internal\\nnotes of time, he inserted in his Gospel the whole collection, as\\nhe found it; and it constitutes that portion of matter which\\nextends from chap. ix. ver. 51 to chap, xviii. ver. 14. But by a\\nlicense which must, I think, be regarded as extraordinary and\\nunjustifiable, he gave, it is said, to the whole the form of a\\nnarrative, in order to make it correspond with the rest of his\\nGospel, which was not a collection of unconnected facts, but a\\ncontinued history. f\\nIn order to explain the verbal harmony between our present\\nGreek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospels of Mark and Luke, it\\nis supposed that the translator of the former derived assistance\\nfrom the two latter Gospels, and borrowed their language in cases\\nwhere there is a correspondence of matter between them and\\nthat of Matthew.\\nI will briefly recapitulate the steps in this hypothesis. The\\nfirst supposition is of an Original Gospel, written in Hebrew, and\\nreceiving continual additions from various hands. This is sup-\\nposed to have been used in three different forms by the first three\\nevangelists, being in one of its forms the basis of the work of\\neach. Besides this document, it is supposed that there was\\nanother, a miscellaneous collection of discourses and sayings of\\nMarsh s Dissertation, in the second part of the third volume of his\\nTranslation of Michaelis s Introduction to the New Testament, p. 401.\\nf Ibid., p. 402.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0524.jp2"}, "525": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 491\\nJesus, likewise written in Hebrew, which was used only by Mat-\\nthew and Luke. Thus, the general correspondence of matter and\\nlanguage among all three evangelists, and between any two of\\nthe evangelists in portions peculiar to them, is thought to be\\naccounted for. The verbal coincidences between Mark and Luke\\nare explained by the supposition, that they both used a Greek\\ntranslation of the Original Gospel, made before that work had\\nreceived any additions and the verbal coincidences between our\\npresent Greek Gospel of Matthew and the other two Gospels,\\nby the supposition, that his translator used their Gospels in ren-\\ndering into Greek the Hebrew original of Matthew.\\nIn maintaining this hypothesis, the genuineness of the Gospels\\nis asserted by Bishop Marsh and its other defenders have not\\nattempted to free it from the peculiar objections, formerly stated,*\\nto which it is liable, if their genuineness be denied. I shall\\ntherefore offer some arguments in which their genuineness is sup-\\nposed. But I think it will be perceived, that, distinct from these,\\nthere are intrinsic and insuperable objections to the hypothesis,\\nboth from the positions it involves, and from its being founded on\\nan erroneous and imperfect view of the phenomena of the Gos-\\npels, so that it neither explains nor is consistent with those\\nphenomena. What the objections are, we will now consider.\\nI. The imagined Original Gospel must have been a work of\\nthe highest authority. This is implied in its having been made\\nthe basis of our first three Gospels, and, as is supposed by\\nEichhorn and Marsh, of other Gospels of a similar character.\\nBishop Marsh likewise supposes, that it was drawn up from\\ncommunications made by the apostles and, therefore, that it was\\nnot only a work of good authority, but a work which was worthy\\nof furnishing materials to any one of the apostles who had\\nformed a resolution of writing a more complete history. n f Eich-\\nhorn regards it as having been a work sanctioned by the apostles,\\nand communicated by them to the first Christian missionaries, to\\nguide the latter in their preaching. J\\nSee before, p. 96, seqq.\\nt Marsh s Dissertation, p. 363: comp. Illustration of his Hypothesis,\\np. 15, seqq. Einleit. in d. N.T vol i. p. 1, seqq., p. 162, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0525.jp2"}, "526": {"fulltext": "492 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nBut the language of Bishop Marsh, in calling it a work of\\ngood authority, and worthy of furnishing materials for an\\napostle, 1 is inadequate to express its character, if its origin, and\\nthe use which was made of it, were such as have been supposed.\\nIt must have been a work of the highest authority. Coming forth\\nunder the sanction of the apostles, and founded on their commu-\\nnications, it must have commanded universal credence among\\nbelievers. It cannot be, nor is it, supposed, that it was a private,\\nunpublished writing. It would not have been kept back from any\\nwho wished to possess it. It was translated (as is part of the\\nhypothesis) into the Greek language and copies of it, therefore,\\nmust have been widely circulating, wherever Christianity was\\nspread. No satisfactory account, then, can be given, I do not\\nsay merely of the fact, that there are no historical notices of the\\nexistence of such a work but of the fact, that it has not been\\nactually preserved, at least in its Greek translation.\\nIt may indeed be said that it was so altered, and so blended\\nwith various additions, in the different copies and refashionings\\nwhich were made of it, as, in this manner, to become lost as a\\nseparate work. But those additions and alterations, according to\\nthe hypothesis, were made by anonymous copyists. They were\\nsupported, therefore, by no authority publicly known and ac-\\nknowledged. No one could be certain, except through private\\ninformation, by whom they were made, or on what grounds. But\\nthe Original Gospel, in its primary, uncorrupted state, was a\\nwork of a very different character, carrying with it the authority\\nof the apostles. If we should admit, that some copies of this\\ndocument, containing certain additions, had been made by par-\\nticular individuals for their own use, yet there can be no reasona-\\nble question, that the copies in common circulation would be\\nconformed to the original text.\\nTo account for its loss, therefore, as a separate work, the\\nopposite ground has been taken. It has been said, that each of\\nthe first three Gospels contained the whole of this document, and\\nthat, consequently, whoever possessed any one of the former\\npossessed the whole of the latter in its primitive state, and could\\ntherefore have had no motive for procuring a separate copy of it.*\\nMarsh s Illustration of his Hypothesis, p. 54.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0526.jp2"}, "527": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 493\\nThis is a proposition which will hereafter be examined at length\\nbut I may here answer briefly, that the fact is not as stated. The\\nOriginal Gospel does not lie imbedded, in its primitive form, in\\nany one of the first three Gospels. We cannot strike off por-\\ntions from either of them, so as to leave a work which, when\\nfairly exhibited, any one will pretend is the ancient document in\\nquestion, or any thing very like it. After the publication of\\nthese Gospels, therefore, the Original Gospel still remained a\\ndistinct work, and a work of the highest authority, value, and\\ncuriosity. It was at least as much worth preserving, and as\\nlikely to be preserved, together with those three Gospels, as any\\none of the three, together with the other two. But no such work\\nhas been preserved no memory of such a work can be discov-\\nered and therefore there is a strong improbability that such a\\nwork ever existed. If, for any reason, we were to imagine, that\\nthe disciples of Socrates sanctioned and circulated some history\\nof their master, which has disappeared, and of which no mention\\nis extant, the supposition would be less incredible. It would be\\ndifficult to conceive of any ancient work so unlikely to be lost\\nand utterly forgotten, as an account of Christ, composed from the\\ncommunications of his apostles, and published under their sanc-\\ntion, which had once been in common use among Christians.\\nII. Respecting the supposed additions to the Original Gospel,\\nBishop Marsh says, that in process of time, as new communica-\\ntions from the apostles and other eye-witnesses brought to light\\nadditional circumstances or transactions, which had been unno-\\nticed in the Original Gospel, those who possessed copies of it\\nadded in their manuscripts such additional circumstances and\\ntransactions and these additions, in subsequent copies, were\\ninserted in the text.* In order to form the documents imagined\\nto have been used by the evangelists, five such transcriptions of\\nthe Original Gospel are the fewest that can be supposed; and\\nthese must have been made by transcribers who did not commu-\\nnicate their respective additions to each other. f Eichhorn says,\\nthat it had passed through many hands before being used by the\\nauthors of our present Gospels and that its possessors, copyists,\\nDissertation, p. 366. t Ibid., p. 367.", "height": "4544", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0527.jp2"}, "528": {"fulltext": "494 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nand translators had made additions in their respective copies,\\neither from their personal knowledge or from the information of\\ncredible men, of circumstances or transactions which had been\\nomitted in those copies.* It is supposed in these representations,\\nthat many different enlarged copies of the Original Gospel were\\nin common circulation, superseding the copies of it in its primi-\\ntive state.\\nBut to this supposition are opposed considerations which have\\nbeen already stated. Accounts claiming the highest credit, as\\nsanctioned by the apostles, would not have been confounded with\\naccounts collected by anonymous transcribers, as if the latter\\nwere of equal authority with the former. A work of such char-\\nacter and claims as the Original Gospel would not have been\\ntampered with in the manner supposed. The original life of the\\nFounder of our religion, proceeding from those whom he had\\nselected to be eye-witnesses of the truth, and circulating among\\ntheir disciples, was not a work to be subjected to a series of\\ninterpolations so extraordinary as to be without parallel in liter-\\nary history, f\\nIII. We may next observe, that the supposition that the\\nOriginal Gospel was subjected to this continual process of fan-\\ncied improvement, and that so much care was taken by so many\\ntranscribers to retouch and complete it, is altogether inconsist-\\nent with the genius and habits of the Jews of Palestine, among\\nwhom those transcribers must have been found. The Original\\nGospel is said to have been written in Hebrew, and the additions,\\nin its different copies, to have been made in the same language.\\nEinleit. in d. N.T., i. 172, 173.\\nf Considerations of this sort, perhaps, induced Bishop Marsh to change\\nsomewhat the representation which he had given, respecting the supposed\\nadditions to the Original Gospel, in his Dissertation on the Origin of the\\nfirst three Gospels and to propose another in one of his defences of that work.\\nIn his Dissertation, he speaks, in common with Eichhorn, of those additions\\nas having been inserted in the text of the copies used by the evangelists: in\\nhis Illustration of his Hypothesis (p. 79), he supposes that they may have\\nbeen only written in the margin of their copies, each of which, accordingly,\\nwould contain the same text of the original Hebrew document, surrounded\\nwith different sets of these marginal additions.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0528.jp2"}, "529": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 495\\nBut the Jews of Palestine were not writers. They had no pro-\\nfane literature. They had scarcely any acquaintance with other\\nbooks than the books of the Old Testament. With the excep-\\ntion of these writings, they were not in the habit of relying upon\\nbooks to preserve the memory of facts or doctrines. Their liter-\\nature, such as it was, connected almost solely with their religion\\nand laws, was, in great part, traditionary and oral. Now, under\\na strong impulse, and the action of very powerful motives, writ-\\ners may appear among such a people, as did the evangelists and\\napostles, writers discovering all that want of skill and facility\\nin composition which characterizes the Gospels but, such being\\nthe state of letters among the Jews of Palestine, it would have\\nbeen very foreign from their habits to commit to writing, in the\\nmargin of their manuscripts of the Original Gospel, accounts of\\nparticular transactions and sayings, not mentioned in it. Being\\nunaccustomed to the use of books except those of the Old Testa-\\nment, and having but an imperfect sense of the utility of books,\\nit is not to be believed, that the possessors of that work should at\\nonce have become so busy about correcting and completing it in\\ntheir particular copies. They never would have thought of mak-\\ning a record of any new fact which might have come to their\\nknowledge, through fear that it would be forgotten by themselves,\\nor that its memory would perish, unless put down in writing.\\nEven among readers of the present day, different as our intellect-\\nual habits are from those of the Jews, and accustomed as we are\\nto rely upon books and writings as the depositories of our knowl-\\nedge, it is rare to make manuscript additions to a work of new\\nfacts connected with its subject. Especially, one is not likely to\\nrecord in this manner facts of common notoriety. But those\\nnarratives respecting Christ, which we find in the first three Gos-\\npels, were, without doubt, such as the apostles readily communi-\\ncated, and such, therefore, as were familiarly known to their\\nconverts.\\nIV. Let us suppose, however, that the imagined Original Gos-\\npel, with its various enlarged copies, may have existed. Still,\\nwe cannot believe that the evangelists would each have made\\nuse of such an enlarged copy of it, in the manner supposed,\\nas the basis of his work. According to the hypothesis, the", "height": "4560", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0529.jp2"}, "530": {"fulltext": "496 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nadditional matter in the respective documents used by them had\\nbeen collected by a succession of transcribers. But the Apostle\\nMatthew would not have had recourse to such indirect and un-\\ncertain authority, for accounts of acts and discourses of our\\nSaviour, which either he himself, or the other apostles, had seen\\nand heard. He would not have gone among the Christian con-\\nverts to learn from them what had been communicated to them\\nby himself and the other apostles, concerning the life of his Mas-\\nter, so that he might collect materials for his history. To admit\\nthe hypothesis is to admit, that he, though an eye-witness and the\\ncompanion of eye-witnesses, chose to adopt the narratives of\\nindividuals who had received their knowledge more or less re-\\nmotely from himself, and from others like himself. It is to sup-\\npose, that the information which had been derived from apostles\\nand eye-witnesses, after passing through various channels, flowed\\nupward to supply its source. The difficulty is essentially the\\nsame in regard to Mark and Luke, the constant companions of\\nthe apostles. They would not have adopted the writings supposed,\\nas their main authority. They would not have had recourse to\\nso indirect and unsatisfactory a mode of obtaining those materials\\nfor their history, which they might have received, and which,\\nindeed, they could not but be continually receiving, at first hand,\\nfrom those with whom they were intimately conversant. It serves,\\nlikewise, to aggravate the improbability of the supposition in\\nquestion, that each of the first three evangelists is represented\\nas having been content with one of the enlarged copies of the\\nOriginal Gospel, when there were, at least, two other different\\nforms of it in existence, and one does not know how many more.\\nWe must believe them to have taken but little pains to procure\\nand compare documents.\\nV. The supposition, that the first three evangelists thus formed\\ntheir histories, is, besides, opposed to Luke s own testimony, and\\nto all the historical evidence which bears upon the subject. The\\nlatter evidence is confirmed by its correspondence with what we\\nmay reasonably suppose to have been the case. St. Luke thus\\nspeaks in the commencement of his Gospel: Since many have\\nundertaken to arrange a narrative of the events accomplished\\namong us, conformably to the accounts given us by those who", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0530.jp2"}, "531": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 497\\nwere eye-witnesses from the beginning, and have become ministers\\nof the religion, I have determined also, having accurately in-\\nformed myself of all things from the beginning, to write to you,\\nmost excellent Theophilus, a connected account, that you may\\nknow the truth concerning the relations which you have heard.\\nIn these words, Luke recognizes distinctly the accounts of the\\napostles as the primary authority for the history of Jesus. To\\nthose accounts it was the purpose of all written narratives to con-\\nform. Having constant and direct access to this primary source\\nof information, it was on this, therefore, that he relied. The\\ncomposition of his own Gospel shows, that he was not satisfied\\nwith any of the narratives extant with which he was acquainted.\\nThey probably contained more or less error, the accounts of the\\napostles having been misunderstood by the narrator. Luke,\\ntherefore, would not adopt any one of these as his main authority.\\nWhen he speaks of the apostles, with whom he was conversant,\\nas the sources of information respecting the history of Christ,\\nand of his own diligence in collecting information, we cannot\\nbelieve, that all he meant was, that he had obtained two of the\\nprevious documents referred to by him, which had passed through\\nthe hands of several transcribers, who had enlarged them with\\nnew matter and that he contented himself with translating these\\ndocuments, and making a few additions and perhaps corrections.\\nWe learn from Luke, that the written accounts of the ministry\\nof Christ, which were in the possession of some Christians at the\\ntime when he wrote, were founded, directly or indirectly, upon\\nthe oral accounts of the apostles. Without such express infor-\\nmation, we might have concluded, beforehand, that this must have\\nbeen the fact. The apostles must have been continually called\\nupon to relate the actions and discourses of Christ and their\\nconversation and preaching must have afforded, to one conver-\\nsant with them, authentic materials for such a history as we find\\nin any of our first three Gospels. That such were the materials\\nprincipally used by Luke, we may conclude from what has been\\nsaid. That Mark thus derived his information is stated by Papias,\\nwho wrote, probably, not more than about sixty years a iter the\\nevangelist. According to him, Mark accompanied Peter, who,\\nit would appear, was not able to use the Greek language with\\nfreedom, as his interpreter and wrote down from memory those", "height": "4560", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0531.jp2"}, "532": {"fulltext": "498 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nactions and discourses of Christ which the apostle had narrated\\nin his preaching.* The account of Irenseus is the same Mark,\\nhe says, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us\\nin writing what Peter had preached and Luke, the companion of\\nPaul, recorded the Gospel preached by him. f Clement of Alex-\\nandria and Tertullian, with other later fathers, make similar\\nstatements respecting the Gospels of Mark and Luke. But it is\\nunnecessary to multiply quotations since the fact cannot be dis-\\nputed, that it is the uniform testimony of ancient writers, that\\nthe narratives contained in the first three Gospels were such as\\nhad been orally related by the apostles, and that Matthew wrote\\ndown what he had preached, and Mark and Luke what they had\\nheard.\\nVI. There are two aspects under which the character of the\\nsupposed Original Gospel has been presented, both equally re-\\nquired by the hypothesis, but irreconcilable with each other.\\nOn the one hand, it appears as a work drawn up from com-\\nmunications made by the apostles, sanctioned by them, circulating\\nwidely among Christians, so as very early to be translated into\\nGreek, and forming the basis of three out of four of those histo-\\nries of Christ which alone obtained general reception among\\nChristians as the foundation of their faith. It seems impossible\\nthat such a work should have perished, and all memory of it have\\nbeen lost.\\nBut the hypothesis equally demands, that a different view\\nshould be given of it, according to which the writing in question\\nwas only a brief abstract of some of the principal events in\\nChrist s ministry. It contained what the three evangelists have\\nin common that is, those passages in which they all coincide with\\none another in presenting the same sense, though, perhaps, in\\ndifferent words. There have been very vague notions of what\\nmay be called common in the contents of the first three Gospels\\nbut in the sense just explained, which is required by the hypothe-\\nsis, the matter common to those Gospels would not form a work\\nof half the size of Mark s Gospel. Accordingly, Bishop Marsh\\nSee before, p. 139. f See before, p. 72. See before, p. 78.\\nAd vers. Marc., lib. iv. c. 5, p. 416.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0532.jp2"}, "533": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 499\\ncalls the supposed document the first sketch of a narrative of\\nChrist s ministry, and says, It must not be considered as a\\nfinished history, but as a document containing only materials for\\na history and, as those materials were probably not all commu-\\nnicated at the same time, we must suppose that they were not\\nall placed in exact chronological order. f They are supposed\\nto have been in the order in which Mark and Luke coincide, in\\nopposition to Matthew. According to Eichhorn, it was a rough\\nsketch, defective, imperfect, unfinished; to the text of\\nwhich the briefest narratives that can be selected by comparing\\ntogether the parallel passages of the first three Gospels, and\\nthose of which the clauses are least connected, approximate most\\nnearly. J\\nNow, as the former account of the book seemed, to make it\\nincredible that such a work should have perished, so this last\\naccount appears to render it equally incredible that such a work\\nshould have existed. According to this view of it, it must have\\nbeen more like a collection of memoranda for a history, than a\\nhistory itself. Xo reasonable purpose of a work of this kind can\\nbe imagined. It could not have been to aid the memory of the\\napostles and the first preachers of Christianity, and their imme-\\ndiate converts. The facts minuted down in it were not likely to\\nslip from their recollection. It could not have been to convey\\ninstruction to those who had no other or no adequate means of\\nobtaining a knowledge of the history of Jesus. It was much too\\nmeagre for this purpose. It was in no respect adapted to such\\nan end. It must have required a perpetual commentary to render\\nit intelligible. Such a work must have been equally worthless\\nto any class of readers for whom one may fancy it to have been\\nintended.\\nIt may be worth while to add the remark, that, if the apostles\\ncollectively had been concerned in the preparation of any history\\nof Jesus, there is no part of it to which we may reasonably sup-\\npose they would have given more attention than to the narrative\\nof the death and resurrection of their Master. In regard to\\nthese events, there was a special reason for comparing together\\nDissertation, p. 196. t Ibid., p. 362.\\nt Einleit in d X.T., i. 169, seqq., 188.", "height": "4536", "width": "2728", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0533.jp2"}, "534": {"fulltext": "500 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\ntheir separate knowledge, as different circumstances had been\\nwitnessed by different individuals. But, throughout that portion\\nof the history which follows the apprehension of Jesus, there is\\nscarcely a ground for a pretence, that traces of a common docu-\\nment may be discovered.\\nVII. But, in the last place, the hypothesis in question does\\nnot correspond to, and explain, the phenomena presented by\\nthe first three Gospels. That it does correspond to them is re-\\ngarded by its defenders as the main proof of its truth. If this\\nproof fail, therefore, the hypothesis must fall at once, without the\\npressure of those objections which have been urged against it.\\nWe may observe, then, that in order to render probable the\\nexistence of the supposed Original Gospel, used as a document\\nby the first three evangelists, we should be able, in each of\\ntheir Gospels, to discover certain portions which would easily\\nseparate from the rest of the work, and which, when arranged\\nin order, would compose such a document as is imagined to have\\nexisted. This document, as disengaged from each of the Gos-\\npels, should agree with itself in ideas and in expression, without\\nany other differences than might fairly be accounted for as in-\\ntentional improvements. The case should be similar in regard\\nto those additions to this document which were used in common\\nby any two of the evangelists. These results are what we might\\nexpect from the use supposed of common written documents.\\nAccording to the hypothesis, their language was, in great part,\\nfaithfully copied or translated they resembled the Gospels in\\ntheir modes of conception and narration, and generally in their\\nuse of words and therefore no deviations from them would be\\nmade, except for what was esteemed at least a good reason.\\nThe coincidence among the first three evangelists is thought to\\nbe such as can be accounted for only by the supposition of their\\nhaving copied common written documents. But, upon this sup-\\nposition, it would be unreasonable to believe, that they did\\nnot uniformly copy those documents, except where they found\\nsufficient cause for alteration. The same may be said of the tran-\\nscribers, who are imagined to have intervened between the com-\\nposition of the Original Gospel and that of our first three Gospels\\nand to have gradually enlarged the former by their additions, till", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0534.jp2"}, "535": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 501\\nit assumed the three different forms in which it was used by the\\nevangelists. They would not have struck off from the text of\\ntheir fundamental document, a work of the highest authority,\\ninto mere wanton or unimportant variations. If such a docu-\\nment, therefore, had ever existed, and had been used as the basis\\nof our first three Gospels, each of them would have contained\\nit in something very like its original form. We should still be\\nable to separate it from the additional matter which had gathered\\nround it. But, as has been before said, no such restoration of\\nthe Original Gospel can be effected. Xo such common docu-\\nment, serving as a basis of each of the first three Gospels, can\\nbe discovered by a comparison of them with each other. Yet\\nthe defenders of the hypothesis, having recognized that the resto-\\nration of the Original Gospel is essential to the proof of its ever\\nhaving existed, have spoken as if this restoration might be, and\\nhad been, effected.\\nEichhorn affirms, that, by comparing the first three Gospels\\ntogether, we are able, even now, to separate the earlier Life\\nof Jesus (the Original Gospel) from all subsequent additions,\\nand, collecting it out of those Gospels, to restore it again free\\nfrom all the traditions of later times and he himself under-\\ntakes its restoration, f Bishop Marsh says respecting Eichhorn s\\nattempt, that he has investigated the contents of the assumed\\noriginal document as it existed in its primitive state. The\\nprinciple which he adopts in this investigation is the following:\\nthat all those portions which are common to all three evangelists\\nwere originally contained in the common document. 1 Hence,\\naccording to Eichhorn, the original document contained the fol-\\nlowing sections, which are common to all the three evangelists.\\nHe then gives a table of the contents of forty-two sections (after-\\nwards enlarged by Eichhorn to forty-four), in which the evan-\\ngelists relate, in common, the same transactions and adds\\nThese were the contents, according to Eichhonfs hypothesis,\\nof the original document supposed to have been used by St.\\nMatthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. They contain a short but\\nwell-connected representation of the principal transactions of\\nChrist, from his baptism to his death they are such as might be\\nEinleit. in d. X.T., i. 145. f Ibid., i. pp. 186-304.", "height": "4536", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0535.jp2"}, "536": {"fulltext": "502 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nexpected in the first sketch of a narrative of Christ s ministry.\\nThis language is exceedingly vague since, in the forty-two or\\nforty-four sections of Eichhorn, the parallel passages of the three\\nevangelists vary much from each other, and it cannot be deter-\\nmined, therefore, what Bishop Marsh meant by portions com-\\nmon to all three evangelists, or what he asserts to have been\\nthe contents of the original document. Elsewhere he affirms,\\nthat the whole of the document in its primitive state was [is]\\ncontained in each of the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and\\nSt. Luke.* f Eichhorn s general notion is, that, through a com-\\nparison of the parallel passages of the first three Gospels, we may\\ndisengage a brief original narrative, the common basis of all, by\\ntaking only those parts of such passages as are common to all,\\nand combining them together. But his attempt to accomplish\\nthis, if the design were not avowed, might be considered as an\\nargument to prove its impracticability. Of this, however, no\\nother proof is necessary than what any concordance of the Gos-\\npels may furnish. The passages of the three evangelists, which\\nare coincident or equivalent, in that strict sense of the terms\\nwhich reasoning on this subject requires, are too few, and too\\nmuch broken into fragments, to serve for the construction of\\nan Original Gospel. The fact may be considered as acknowl-\\nedged by Eichhorn himself in the very commencement of his\\nundertaking; for he says, We are seldom able to determine, as\\nto the words, how much originally belonged to the primitive text,\\nsince we are acquainted with it only through translations (the\\nOriginal Gospel having been written in Hebrew, while our present\\nGospels are in Greek). We must almost always be content\\nwith determining which of the evangelists retains it in the purest\\nstate. The mention of translations in this passage is one of\\nthose insertions of an irrelevant thought by which a writer con-\\nfuses his conceptions, and disguises them from himself and others.\\nWhat is required for the proposed restoration of the Original\\nGospel is, that certain passages should be selected from each\\nDissertation, pp. 192-196.\\nf Defence of the Illustration, p. 38. See also a passage to the same\\neffect, quoted from him before, on p. 492.\\nEinleit. in d. NT., i. 188.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0536.jp2"}, "537": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 503\\nof the three Gospels, equivalent in their direct meaning to passages\\nthat may be selected from the other two, and capable of being\\nput together into a regular narrative of the ministry of Jesus.\\nIf in each of the Gospels were incorporated a correct transla-\\ntion of such a narrative, this might easily be done.\\nBut all that has been actually performed is little more than\\nthe simple operation of distinguishing the parallel passages of the\\nfirst three Gospels, and then arranging in a table the titles of\\ntheir subjects, in the order of Mark and Luke. The Original\\nGospel, it is concluded, consisted of accounts of facts and dis-\\ncourses, related in those passages, arranged in this order. But\\nno one will pretend, when the statement is brought distinctly to\\nthis point, that there may be found in each Gospel a series of\\nwords coincident in meaning with a similar series to be found in\\neach of the other two, which may therefore be considered as\\nrepresenting the text of the Original Gospel. The error has\\nbeen in considering as common to the three Gospels narratives\\ndifferent from each other, because they relate in common to the\\nsame events. Identity of subject has been confounded with\\nidentity of form and circumstance.\\nThe accounts in the first three Gospels, which relate to the\\nsame events, are in no case strictly the same. They are corre-\\nsponding accounts, resembling each other more or less closely,\\nsometimes presenting very striking coincidences, and, at other\\ntimes, diverging into real or apparent discrepances. Throughout\\nthose writings, the narratives of the same events present such\\nvariations from each other as show, that the authors of the\\nGospels did not .respectively copy them from the same written\\narchetype, but were independent narrators. To this fact we will\\nnow attend.\\nTo the supposition, that any one of the first three evangelists\\ncopied from either of the others, it has been considered as a\\nstrong objection, that in this case, when we find differences in\\nthe relation of the same events, we must view them as intentional\\nalterations, that often no purpose of such alterations can be\\ndiscovered, and, consequently, it is improbable that they would\\nintentionally be made- But it does not seem to have en\\nobserved, that the hypolhesij of a common document is exposed", "height": "4540", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0537.jp2"}, "538": {"fulltext": "504\\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nequally to this objection. We can no more account for the\\nvariations of the evangelists from the text of the Original Gospel,\\nthan, upon the other supposition, we can account for their varia-\\ntions one from another. If it be said, that the alterations in\\nquestion were not made by the evangelists, but by that series of\\ntranscribers who are imagined to have intervened between the\\ncomposition of the Original Gospel and that of our first three\\nGospels, this is merely throwing back the difficulty, without\\nremoving it. The objection is, not that these alterations were\\nmade by any particular individuals, but that they were made at\\nall. At the same time, if it be supposed that those previous\\ntranscribers made wanton or unreasonable changes in the text\\nwhich they were copying, the authority of their copies is still\\nfurther diminished and it becomes still more improbable, that\\nthese copies should have been used by the evangelists in the\\nmanner supposed.\\nIt is to be observed, that it is not the importance of the changes\\nfrom the text of the original document, that one or more of the\\nevangelists must have made or adopted, which is the point to be\\nconsidered because, for important changes, a reason might exist\\nbut that it is the trifling nature of many of these variations which\\nrenders it improbable that they would have been made. With\\nthese views, let us compare together the different accounts of\\nthe cure of Peter s wife s mother, and of many others at Caper-\\nnaum, as related by the three evangelists.\\nMatt. viii. 14-16.\\nAnd Jesus, going to\\nthe house of Peter,\\nsaw his wife s mother\\nlying sick with a fe-\\nver.\\nAnd he touched her\\nhand, and the fever\\nleft her; and she rose\\nMark i. 29-34,\\nAnd immediately,\\nupon their going out\\nof the synagogue, they\\nwent to the house of\\nSimon and Andrew,\\nwith James and John.\\nAnd Simon s wife s\\nmother lay sick with a\\nfever; and they imme-\\ndiately spoke to him\\nabout her. And he\\nwent to her, and raised\\nher up, taking hold of\\nLuke iv. 38-41.\\nAnd, leaving the\\nsynagogue, he entered\\nthe house of Simon.\\nAnd Simon s wife s\\nmother was laboring\\nunder a great fever.\\nAnd they entreated him\\nfor her sake. And,\\nstanding over her, he\\nrebuked the fever, and", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0538.jp2"}, "539": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.\\n305\\nMatt. viii. 14-16.\\nup, and attended upon\\nthem.\\nAnd, when it was\\nevening, they brought\\nto him many demoni-\\nacs; and he cast out\\nthe spirits with a word,\\nand healed all those\\nwho were diseased.\\nMark i. 29-34.\\nher hand and the fever\\nimmediately left her,\\nand she attended upon\\nthem.\\nAnd when it was\\nevening, the sun hav-\\ning set, they brought\\nto him all who were\\ndiseased, and the de-\\nmoniacs. And the\\nwhole city was col-\\nlected about the door.\\nAnd he healed many\\nwho were sick with va-\\nrious diseases, and cast\\nout many demons. And\\nhe did not suffer the de-\\nmons to speak, because\\nthey knew him.\\nLuke iv. 38-41.\\nit left her; and, rising\\nup directly, she attend-\\ned upon them.\\nAnd, when the sun\\nhad set, all who had\\nwith them persons ill\\nwith various diseases\\nbrought them to him;\\nand he laid his hands\\nupon every one of them,\\nand healed them. And\\ndemons departed from\\nmany, crying out, and\\nsaying, Thou art the\\nSon of God. And he\\nrebuked them, and did\\nnot allowthemto speak,\\nbecause they knew him\\nto be the Messiah.\\nIf we imagine an original narrative as the basis of these three\\naccounts, it is evident, that two at least of the evangelists, or\\ntheir predecessors, must have varied from it in a manner for\\nwhich no satisfactory reason can be given. It will simplify our\\nlanguage on the subject, and the result of the argument will be\\nthe same, to speak of these variations as made by the evangelists\\nthemselves.\\nIt is not probable, then, that Matthew, if he had found the\\nname of Simon in a document sanctioned by the other apostles,\\nwould have altered it to Peter or that Mark or Luke would\\nhave changed Peter to Simon. If the written account, which\\nLuke was following, had simply said, that Peter s wife s mother\\nwas lying sick with a fever, there is no likelihood that he would\\nhave changed the expression, so as to say, that she was labor-\\ning under a great fever or, if this had been the original\\nstatement, no reason can be given why Matthew and Mark should\\nhave substituted words less strong. With a written account for\\ntheir guide, neither Mark nor Luke would have thought it neces-\\nsary to insert the circumstance, that her friends requested the\\nmiraculous aid of Jesus. Xor, if this had stood in the original", "height": "4560", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0539.jp2"}, "540": {"fulltext": "508 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nnarrative, could there have been any cause for the omission of\\nit by Matthew. And he touched her hand, 1 says Matthew;\\nAnd he went to her, and raised her up, taking hold of her\\nhand, says Mark; And, standing over her, he rebuked the\\nfever, says Luke whichever of these may be fancied the ori-\\nginal expression, it would be difficult to suggest a cause, why\\ntwo of the evangelists changed it for another. Luke says,\\nAnd he rebuked the fever, which words are neither in\\nMatthew nor in Mark yet they are not likely to have been\\ninserted by Luke, or to have been omitted by the other two\\nevangelists in transcribing from the supposed document. Nor\\nwould Mark, I think, if he had been copying a previous account,\\nhave interposed his favorite word immediately three times, in\\nso short a narrative.*\\nIn the account of the cures performed in the evening, Mark\\nand Luke add circumstances not mentioned by Matthew, re-\\nspecting the crowd about the door, the exclamations of the\\ndemoniacs, and the silence imposed on them by Jesus but,\\nin regard to these circumstances, there is no appearance, that\\nthe two evangelists used any common written authority. Nor\\nis any solution to be given of their other variations in this\\naccount, from Matthew and from each other, upon the suppo-\\nsition, that a narrative of the supposed Original Gospel was\\ntaken by each as the basis of his own.\\nI have selected this example merely for its brevity. It may\\nserve as a specimen of those appearances which run through all\\nthe parallel passages of the three evangelists, and which show\\nthat they did not transcribe or translate from any common written\\ndocument, because, upon this supposition, the passages must be\\nregarded as presenting evident variations from the text of that\\ndocument, which it is not to be believed that any copyist, and\\nespecially copyists like the evangelists, would have made. I\\nwill give a single other specimen, without any critical remarks\\nupon it, which, like the former, I select for its shortness.\\nThe word evdetdg, immediately, occurs, according to Schmidt s Con-\\ncordance, forty times in Mark s Gospel; that is, as many times as in all\\nthe other books of the New Testament.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0540.jp2"}, "541": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS.\\n507\\nMatt. xii. 46-50.\\nAnd while he was\\nyet addressing the mul-\\ntitude, lo his mother\\nand kinsmen stood with-\\nout, wishing to speak\\nwith him.\\nAnd some one said to\\nhim, Lo! thy mother\\nand kinsmen stand\\nwithout, wishing to\\nspeak with thee. But\\nhe answered him who\\ntold him, Who is my\\nmother? and who are\\nm y kins m e n And,\\nstretching forth his\\nhand toward his dis-\\nciples, he said, Lo my\\nmother and my kins-\\nmen For whoever\\nmay do the will of my\\nFather in heaven is\\nmy kinsman, and kins-\\nwoman, and mother.\\nMark iii. 31-35.\\nThen his mother\\nand his kinsmen came,\\nand, standing without,\\nsent to him to call him.\\nAnd the multitude were\\nsitting round him and\\nsome said to him, Lo\\nthy mother and kins-\\nmen and kinswomen\\nare without, wishing\\nfor thee. And he an-\\nswered them, Who is\\nmy mother? or my\\nkinsmen? And, looking\\nround upon those who\\nwere sitting about him,\\nhe said, Behold my\\nmother and my kins-\\nmen For whoever\\nmay do the will of\\nGod is my kinsman,\\nand kinswoman, and\\nmother.\\nLuke viii. 19-21.\\nThen his mother and\\nkinsmen came to where\\nhe was, and were not\\nable to get to him for the\\ncrowd. And this was\\ntold him by some who\\nsaid, Thy mother and\\nkinsmen stand without,\\ndesirous to see thee.\\nBut he answered them,\\nMy mother and my\\nkinsmen are those who\\nhear the teaching of\\nGod, and obey it.\\nThe difference of expression, says Eichhorn, and the\\nidentity of the train of thought, assure us that we here read\\nthree different Greek translations of the same Hebrew text.\\nIt is evident, that, in this remark, resemblance and general\\nequivalence of ideas are confounded with identity. The passages\\npresent no appearances, which do not accord with the suppo-\\nsition, that each of the evangelists, independently of any written\\ndocument, was recording, conformably to his own conception\\nof it, a well-known transaction, that had been often orally re-\\nlated but it is impossible, that their three varying accounts\\nshould have been founded upon one original written narrative,\\nfrom which its transcribers and translators did not depart with-\\nout some reasonable motive.\\nWe proceed to another consideration. The verbal coincidences\\nEinleit. in d. X.T., i. 248.", "height": "4560", "width": "2720", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0541.jp2"}, "542": {"fulltext": "508 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nbetween Mark and Luke are supposed to have been produced by\\nthe circumstance, that, in translating the same Hebrew docu-\\nment, both evangelists derived assistance from a Greek transla-\\ntion of it, which had been made before the composition of their\\nworks. But the verbal coincidence between Mark and Luke\\nis not great. It consists, for the most part, of single clauses or\\nsentences, rarely extending unbroken through two whole sen-\\ntences together. It amounts in all to less than the twelfth part\\nof Mark s Gospel. A similar objection, therefore, to that which\\nwe have just been considering, presents itself to this supposition.\\nIt requires, to render it probable, much more identity of language\\nthan exists between the evangelists, unless we imagine them to\\nhave departed, without reason,, from their common help, the\\nformer Greek translation. It represents both the evangelists as\\ngoing through this Greek translation, picking out a few sentences\\nand clauses of sentences here and there, and these, as far as we\\ncan judge, the renderings of passages that offered no peculiar\\ndifficulty, and, after copying perhaps a dozen words, resuming\\ntheir own language. The evangelists would not have had re-\\ncourse to a translation so defective as to afford them such scanty\\nassistance.\\nI will mention one other characteristic of the Gospels, which\\nseems wholly irreconcilable with the hypothesis we are consider-\\ning. It is the uniform and distinguishing style of conception,\\nnarration, and language apparent in each. The Gospel of Luke,\\naccording to the hypothesis, must be a compound of materials\\nfurnished by at least five different writers, the author of the\\nOriginal Gospel, the compiler who made the additions to it which\\nLuke has in common with Matthew alone, the compiler who made\\nthe additions which he has in common with Mark alone, the\\nauthor of the imagined Gnomologia, and himself. I mention\\nLuke s Gospel as the more striking case, because we have .this\\nin the original whereas Matthew s Gospel, being extant only in\\na translation, there is one particular, its uniformity in the use\\nof language, from which we cannot argue with the same con-\\nfidence. But Matthew s Gospel is distinguished by other well-\\ndefined features, though, according to the hypothesis, it was\\ncomposed of as various materials as those of Luke s Gospel. So", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0542.jp2"}, "543": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 509\\nalso was that of Mark, except that he is not thought to have\\nused the Gnomologia. But throughout each of the Gospels,\\nexcept in the account of the miraculous conception by Luke, of\\nwhich I have already spoken, and in some few passages, before\\nnoticed, which lie under the suspicion of being spurious, there\\nis no diversity of character betraying the work of different hands.\\nThe uniform texture of each Gospel shows it not to be a piece\\nof patchwork. Each proves itself to be the production of a\\nsingle writer, by discovering throughout the workings of an in-\\ndividual mind.\\nNotwithstanding, therefore, the ingenuity and labor with which\\nthe hypothesis in question has been defended, I believe the objec-\\ntions to which it is exposed occur, in a more or less definite form,\\nto almost every one who has examined it. It supposes an Origi-\\nnal Gospel, sanctioned by the apostles yet, had such a work\\nexisted, we cannot believe, that, even if the Hebrew original had\\nperished, its Greek translation would have been lost, and no\\nmemory of the book remain. It supposes this book to have\\nbeen treated in a manner without a parallel in literary history,\\nand wholly inconsistent with the authority which must have been\\nascribed to it. It implies a solicitude about the finishing and\\nrefashioning of writings, altogether inconsistent with the char-\\nacter and habits of the Jews of Palestine. It requires us to\\nbelieve, that the evangelists copied into their histories the col-\\nlections of anonymous individuals when one of them was an\\neye-witness of the events which he related, and the other two were\\nin habits of continual intercourse with those who, like him,\\nwere the primary sources of information respecting the history\\nof Jesus, and the business of whose lives was to afford this\\ninformation to others. It is inconsistent with the account which\\nLuke gives of the manner in which he procured the materials\\nfor his Gospel, and with the historical notices which we have of\\nthe composition of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, notices\\nwhich, so far as they represent these Gospels as containing what\\nthe apostles had before delivered orally, are confirmed by their\\nintrinsic probability. And it fails of its proposed object. It\\ndoes not explain the phenomena of the agreement and disagree-\\nment of the first three Gospels but, on the other hand, it is", "height": "4536", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0543.jp2"}, "544": {"fulltext": "510 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nwholly irreconcilable with the appearances those Gospels present.\\nFor it supposes, that an original document was so used as the\\nbasis of the first three Gospels, that it is still preserved in each\\nwhile, in fact, no such document can be discovered. On the\\ncontrary, in the unsuccessful attempts made to restore this docu-\\nment, it becomes necessary to represent it as so brief, defec-\\ntive, and unsatisfactory, that we cannot believe such a work\\nexisted, because we can discern no purpose for which it could\\nhave been intended. The hypothesis implies, that the corre-\\nspondences of the three Gospels may be separated from their\\ndifferences by a sort of mechanical process, so that the former\\nmay afterward be brought together and form a connected whole\\nwhile, in fact, the one and the other are blended so intimately\\nas continually to appear together in the same narrative. In\\nattempting to account for the correspondences of these books\\nwith each other, it presents a solution which requires much more\\ncorrespondence than exists. And, in the last place, the number\\nof writers whom it represents as contributing materials for the\\nGospels is irreconcilable with the individuality of character evi-\\ndent in each of them.\\nSection IV.\\nProposed Explanation of tlie Correspondences among tlie First\\nThree Gospels.\\nWhat account, then, is to be given of the striking corre-\\nspondences, in matter and language, which exist among the first\\nthree Gospels? I answer, that the phenomenon may, I think,\\nbe explained by the following considerations\\nThe discourses of the apostles and first preachers of Christianity\\nmust have consisted, in great part, of narratives concerning the\\nlife of Jesus. In calling men to receive his religion, they must\\nhave made known to them who he was, what he had done, and\\nwhat he had taught and commanded. All the information which\\nwe now derive from the first three Gospels must have been orally\\ncommunicated by them over and over again. They must have\\nrelated his miracles, to show on what grounds he claimed divine", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0544.jp2"}, "545": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 511\\nauthority; and the other events of his life, to illustrate his charac-\\nter. In teaching their disciples, they would quote his own words,\\nas the most authoritative expression of the truths which he made\\nknown, and as affording the most satisfactory information respect-\\ning his doctrines and commands. In these words of Jesus his\\nreligion was embodied they dwelt in the minds and hearts of his\\napostles they would be continually on their lips and, in quoting\\nthem for the instruction of their converts, they would often be led\\nto relate the occasion on which they were uttered.\\nBy far the greater part of our Lord s ministry had been passed\\nat a distance from Jerusalem, either in Galilee or elsewhere;\\naccounts of it had been brought to that city only by report, and\\nhad, doubtless, been mixed with many errors, through the mis-\\ntakes and overheated imaginations of one class of relaters, and\\nthe bitter prejudices of another. At Jerusalem the twelve apos-\\ntles generally resided for some years after Christ s ascension and\\nit must have been one main part of their duty to present to those\\nwho were willing to listen a true account of their Master s actions,\\nin contradiction to such false reports as had prevailed.\\nAnother cause, which must have led the apostles to narrate\\nevents in the life of their Master, was their applying to him pas-\\nsages in the Old Testament which they regarded as prophetical.\\nIn doing so, they must have given an account of the facts to which\\nthey believed such passages to relate. The applications of sup-\\nposed prophecies, that we find in the Gospel of Matthew, would\\nbe unintelligible without the narratives with which they are con-\\nnected and the same would equally be the case with an oral as\\nwith a written discourse.\\nBut, in speaking of the occasions which must have continually\\nled the apostles and first preachers of Christianity to give accounts\\nof the ministry of Jesus, we must not forget the intense curiosity\\nthat would be felt, by all but his determined enemies, respecting\\nthe wonderful transactions of his life and the deep interest which\\nevery true convert to his religion must have had to learn what\\nmight be known concerning him, and to be able, upon the highest\\nauthority, to separate the truth from falsehood. The apostles,\\nand other eye-witnesses of the ministry of Jesus, possessed knowl-\\nedge of the greatest curiosity and interest they were most ready\\nto communicate it and there can be no doubt, that they were", "height": "4528", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0545.jp2"}, "546": {"fulltext": "512 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\noften called upon to make such communication, or, in other\\nwords, that they often had occasion to repeat narratives of the\\nsame events which we now find recorded in the first three Gos-\\npels..\\nIt was required in an apostle, that he should have been a com-\\npanion of Jesus during his ministry, from the baptism of John\\nto that day on which he was taken up V and the ground of this\\nrequisition evidently was, that an apostle must be one who was\\nable to state upon his own knowledge the events in the public life\\nof his Master. Thus St. John says to those whom he addressed\\nin his Epistle: What took place from the beginning, what we\\nhave heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have be-\\nheld, and our hands have handled, concerning the life-giving\\ndoctrine, for Life has been revealed, and we saw and bear tes-\\ntimony, and announce to you that Eternal Life which was with\\nthe Father, and has been revealed to us, what we have seen\\nand heard, we announce to you, so that you may share with us.\\nAnd St. Luke, whose words may again be quoted, in commencing\\nhis Gospel, refers directly to the sources, and the only sources,\\nfrom which an authentic written narrative of the life of Jesus\\ncould be derived: Since many, he says, have undertaken to\\narrange a narrative of the events accomplished among us, con-\\nformably to the accounts given us by those who were eye-witnesses\\nfrom the beginning, and have become ministers of the religion, I\\nhave determined also, having accurately informed myself of all\\nthings from the beginning, to write to you, most excellent\\nTheophilus, a connected account, that you may know the truth\\nconcerning the relations which you have heard. Luke s own\\nDifferent interpreters have understood some of the expressions in this\\npassage in different ways, but with variations that do not affect the main\\npurpose for which I have quoted it. I have adopted that sense of the words\\nwhich seems to me most probable. In the last clause, my rendering is dif-\\nferent from any that I recollect to have seen that you may know the\\ntruth concerning the relations you have heard Most modern expositors\\nagree in effect with the Common Version, in understanding St. Luke as\\nmeaning, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein\\nthou hast been instructed; that is, that thou mightest know that they are\\ncertain. But the words of Luke are, Iva eniyvuc irepl 6)v Karrjx^drjg Xoyuv\\nTqv ao(paXeiav and I conceive Xoycov in the genitive to depend upon nepl,", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0546.jp2"}, "547": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 513\\nGospel, and all the other compilations which he mentions, were,\\naccording to him, founded upon information derived from the\\napostles, and perhaps other preachers of the religion, who had\\nbeen eye-witnesses of the ministry of Christ that is, upon their oral\\nnarratives. This source was always open and, from the nature\\nof the case, any account of Christ s ministry by a Christian,\\nwritten in the apostolic age, must have been intended to embody\\nsuch narratives, the narratives of those who alone could bear\\npersonal testimony to the facts related narratives which, we\\ncannot doubt, had been orally communicated many times before\\nthey were committed to writing by any one of the evangelists.\\nIn confirmation of the supposition, that those narratives con-\\ncerning Jesus, which we now find in the three Gospels, were first\\norally communicated by the apostles, and preserved in the mem-\\nory of their disciples, it is superfluous to appeal to the custom of\\nthe Jewish Rabbis, who communicated their traditions orally to\\ntheir disciples, and required that they should be committed to\\nmemory. These traditions formed an amount of matter which,\\nin the age of the apostles, probably exceeded, very many times,\\nand not upon aatyaAecav. The obvious meaning of St. Luke, if his words\\nare to be thus constructed, is, that he wrote in order that Theophilus might\\nknow ttjv aocpulecav, what was to be relied upon, that is, the truth, in\\nrelation to the accounts he had heard. This meaning seems best to suit the\\ncontext. A proper cause is assigned for the composition of an accurate his-\\ntory by one who had diligently inquired into the facts; while, if the\\nobject of Luke had only been to assure Theophilus of the certainty of what\\nhe had already heard, it may seem that his simple affirmation would have\\nbeen most to the purpose. To an unbeliever or a sceptic of those times, the\\nmere history of Luke would have afforded no new evidence. A believer, as\\nthere is no reasonable doubt that Theophilus was, had been already con-\\nvinced of the truth of Christianity and if the term Tjbyoi is, as I conceive,\\nto be understood in the sense of narratives respecting the life of Christ,\\nSt. Luke surely did not mean to vouch for the truth of all that Theophilus\\nmight have heard. Many incorrect and false accounts respecting Christ\\nmust have been in circulation in the times of the apostles, accounts\\nwhich first w T ere contradicted by their oral narratives, and afterwards by the\\nwritten narratives of the evangelists and it is, I think, a want of attention\\nto this fact which has prevented the words of Luke from being correctly\\nunderstood.\\n33", "height": "4560", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0547.jp2"}, "548": {"fulltext": "514 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nthe contents of any one of the Gospels. Other historical parallels,\\nas they are called, have been suggested. But it implies a very\\nimperfect comprehension of the state of mind which must have\\nexisted in the apostles and their disciples, to suppose, that their\\nremembrance of the events in the life of Jesus depended upon an\\neffort of recollection. Their strongest and holiest feelings were\\nassociated with those events the vivid memory of them was for\\never present to their minds, their spring of action by day, and\\ntheir meditation by night. We must not suppose, that the narra-\\ntive of events the most wonderful that man ever witnessed, and of\\nwords the most weighty that man ever heard, was taught and\\nlearnt like a schoolboy s task or the traditions of the Rabbis.\\nFrom the manner in which the Rabbis taught, we learn only that\\nthe Jews were accustomed to oral instruction, and hence may\\nmore readily familiarize ourselves with the conception, that long\\n.portions of the history of Christ, or perhaps a general account\\nof his ministry, were sometimes orally communicated by the apos-\\ntles at once.\\nThe business of the apostles and first teachers of Christianity\\nwas to preach Christ, to make him known. To him they constantly\\ndirected the view of their disciples. What he taught was the\\nreligion of which they were the ministers his miracles were proofs\\nof its divinity his virtues were held forth by them as the example\\nafter which his followers were to form themselves. As religious\\ninstructors, they taught nothing upon their own authority. The\\nGospels are not now more essential to our knowledge of Chris-\\ntianity, than must have been their oral accounts of Jesus to the\\nfirst converts.\\nWe conclude, then, that portions of the history of Jesus, longer\\nor shorter, were often related by the apostles and it is evident,\\nthat the narrative, at each repetition by the same individual, would\\nbecome more fixed in its form, so as soon to be repeated by him\\nwith the same circumstances and the same turns of expression.\\nEspecially would no one vary from himself in reporting the words\\nof his Master.\\nWe have next to consider, that the apostles, generally, would\\nadopt a uniform mode of relating the same events. The twelve", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0548.jp2"}, "549": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 515\\napostles, who were companions of our Saviour, resided together at\\nJerusalem, we know not for how long a period, certainly for\\nseveral years, acting and preaching in concert. This being the\\ncase, they would confer together continually: they would he\\npresent at each others discourses, in which the events of their\\nMaster s life were related they would, in common, give instruc-\\ntion respecting his history and doctrine to new converts, especially\\nto those who were to go forth as missionaries. From all these\\ncircumstances, their modes of narrating the same events would\\nbecome assimilated to each other. Particularly would their lan-\\nguage be the same, or nearly the same, in quoting and applying\\npassages of the Old Testament as prophetical, and in reciting the\\nwords of Jesus, whose very expressions they must have been de-\\nsirous of retaining. But the verbal agreement among the first\\nthree Gospels is found, as we have seen, principally where the\\nevangelists record words spoken by Christ or by others, or allege\\npassages from the Old Testament. Elsewhere there is often much\\nresemblance of conception and expression, but, comparatively,\\nmuch less verbal coincidence.\\nPreviously, then, to the composition of the first three Gospels,\\nwe may believe that the narratives which they contain had as-\\nsumed, in the manner explained, a form more or less definite.\\nMatthew, an apostle, would commit to writing those narratives\\nwhich he and the other apostles had been accustomed to communi-\\ncate orally. Mark and Luke, who derived their knowledge from\\nthe apostles, would record those narratives which they had heard\\nfrom them. But, if the accounts of the apostles had been com-\\nmitted to writing by ever so many different historians, still, the\\nwritten agreeing with the oral accounts, and the oral accounts\\nagreeing with each other, all those accounts must have had a\\nstriking correspondence. But, however definite might be the\\nform which any oral narrative had assumed, still there would be\\nvariations of language, and minor circumstances would be omitted\\nor inserted, as it was orally related by different individuals, or by\\nthe same individual at different times, or recorded by different\\nwriters. We should expect, therefore, to find in histories in\\nwhich these narratives were collected, such intermingled agree-\\nments and variations as appear in the first three Gospels. Thus,", "height": "4528", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0549.jp2"}, "550": {"fulltext": "516 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nthen, generally, may the resemblance between the first three Gos-\\npels be explained. In the oral narratives of the apostles, we find\\ntheir common archetype, an archetype, from its very nature,\\npartly fixed and partly fluctuating, and such, therefore, as is\\nrequired to account at once for their coincidence and their diver-\\nsity.*\\nThere are several remarks, which, to avoid breaking the connection of\\nthe text, I have here thrown into a note.\\n1. It deserves observation, that, with the exception of the history of the\\nlast days of our Saviour s life, the accounts of his ministry in the first three\\nevangelists relate to events which took place either in Galilee, or elsewhere,\\nat a distance from Jerusalem. With this part of his ministry the inhabitants\\nof Jerusalem, and the strangers who resorted there, being least acquainted,\\nthe apostles would be most frequently called upon to give information\\nrespecting it. How little was correctly knowm among the great body of the\\ninhabitants of Jerusalem concerning the ministry of Jesus, appears incident-\\nally from two passages in different evangelists. Upon his entry into that\\ncity, The multitude that was with him, says John (xii. 17, 18), bore tes-\\ntimony, that he had called Lazarus from the tomb, and raised him from the\\ndead. On this account, also, the multitude came out to meet him, because\\nthe} r heard that he had performed this miracle. His many preceding mira-\\ncles, it appears, would not have drawm upon him such attention. Matthew\\nsays (xxi. 10, 11): As he was entering Jerusalem, the whole city was in\\ncommotion; saying, Who is he? And the multitudes (among whom there\\nwere many, without doubt, who had followed him from Galilee) a said, This\\nis Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee. Thus, in the accounts of\\nChrist s ministry in Galilee, and of some very striking discourses which he\\ndelivered during his last days in Jerusalem, we find remarkable correspond-\\nences among the first three evangelists, because these accounts were of a\\ncharacter to be often repeated by the apostles while, in the relation of the\\nminor circumstances attending his crucifixion and resurrection, there is much\\ndiversity, because, however important were the main events, his crucifixion\\nwas universally known, and it was universally known that the apostles\\naffirmed his resurrection, and the minor circumstances attending those\\nevents were not adapted to convey any general instruction, and were there-\\nfore, as we may suppose, little dwelt upon by the apostles. In general\\nwe may remark, that according as what is related was adapted to take a\\nstrong hold upon the mind, and was likely to be often brought forward in\\nthe oral discourses of the apostles, the greater is the correspondence among\\nthe evangelists.\\n2. In accounting for the resemblance among the first three Gospels, we\\nare led to consider the difference between them and the Gospel of John. To\\nexplain it, we may observe, that this Gospel is not properly a history of the", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0550.jp2"}, "551": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 517\\nBut, in order fully to explain the verbal coincidences among\\nthe three Gospels, we must take into view some other considera-\\ntions. How is it, that there is an agreement in the use of the xery\\nsame Greek words throughout many passages We will first\\nministry of Jesus. It supposes that history, as recorded in the first three\\nGospels, to be already known it is founded upon it, and supplementary to\\nit. It relates principally to what took place at Jerusalem, where our Saviour\\nspent but a small portion of his ministry. It consists, in gTeat part, of con-\\nnected discourses of Jesus with the unbelieving Jews, and with his apostles,\\nof which much has special and immediate reference only to the character\\nand circumstances of those immediately addressed. It did not, like the\\nnarrative contained in the first three Gospels, constitute that elementary\\ninstruction in the history of Jesus, which was the first want of the converts\\nto the new religion. Like the Epistles of the apostles, it implies that this\\nhad been already received.\\n3. But, it may be asked, if it was a principal business of an apostle to\\ngive information concerning the public life, the actions, and the discourses\\nof Jesus, how was St. Paul qualified for his office I answer, that, during\\nthe first part of his ministry, St. Paul, for some years, had Barnabas for a\\ncompanion, whom we find very early associated with the apostles,* and\\na very earnest preacher of Christ. Three years after his conversion, before\\nhe had properly assumed the office of an apostle, he was with Peter fifteen\\ndays at Jerusalem.! He travelled first with Mark, and afterwards with\\nLuke, both historians of Christ, and had at command means of informa-\\ntion similar to what they possessed. Though, before his conversion, an\\nenemy of Christ, jet, being an enemy full of intelligence and zeal, it is\\nprobable that he was then as well acquainted with his history as any one\\nnot an immediate disciple. Jesus was watched, during his ministry, by\\nPharisees and teachers of the Law, some of whom came for that purpose\\nfrom Jerusalem to Galilee, t St. Paul, therefore, was not likely to be igno-\\nrant concerning his deeds and sayings at the time of his own conversion,\\nthough the whole aspect under which he regarded them was changed by\\nthat event. Full as he then was of sorrow and veneration, and entire\\ndevotedness to the cause of Christ, and surrounded as he was by abundant\\nmeans of informing himself concerning his character and history, and of\\ncorrecting all his former misapprehensions respecting what he had said and\\ndone, there is nothing strange in supposing that he availed himself of those\\nmeans; nay, it would be an incredible supposition, that he did not. In his\\nEpistles, we find repeated references to the history of Jesus a- it is related\\nin the first three Go-pels. The account of the last supper of our Lord is\\ngiven by him in words, the greater part of which are identical with those of\\nLuke.\\nActs iv. 36. f Gal. i. 18. J Luke v. 17.", "height": "4540", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0551.jp2"}, "552": {"fulltext": "518 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nattend to this agreement between Mark and Luke, both of whom\\noriginally wrote in the Greek language. This is to be explained\\nby the fact, that, though the native language of the apostles was\\nHebrew, yet a great part of their conversation and discourses\\n-must have been in Greek. In Greek they must have addressed\\nall who were not Jews and to a large proportion even of Jews,\\nthe Hellenists, born and educated in foreign countries, the Gre^k\\nwas more familiar than the language of their nation. Many for-\\neigners and Hellenists dwelt in Jerusalem, or resorted thither\\noccasionally. The great national feasts, in particular, drew to\\nthat city Jews who usually resided in foreign countries. A con-\\nsiderable portion of the early Christians in Jerusalem was com-\\nposed of Hellenists and with Hellenists St. Paul there disputed\\nafter his conversion. f We find mention of various synagogues, in\\nthat city, of foreign Jews, who associated together according to\\nthe countries from which they came J and many of the natives of\\nPalestine were sufficiently acquainted with the Greek language to\\nuse it for the purposes of communication. With the exception of\\nSt. Luke and St. Paul, the apostles and evangelists were unedu-\\ncated men yet all the writings which they have left us, except the\\nGospel of Matthew, were composed in Greek. There would even\\nhave been no strangeness, it appears, in addressing a promiscuous\\nmultitude at Jerusalem in the Greek language for, upon the\\noccasion of the tumult at the apprehension of St. Paul in that city,\\nwe are told only that he was heard with the more attention\\nbecause he spoke in Hebrew. As, therefore, the apostles wrote\\nin Greek, so we may reasonably believe, that, while residing\\ntogether in Jerusalem, they often taught in Greek, in the presence\\nof each other; and that thus their expressions in this language, as\\nwell as in the Hebrew, became assimilated. We may in this\\nmanner explain whatever verbal agreement exists between St.\\nMark and St. Luke especially as it is principally found in pas-\\nsages in which it was particularly to be expected, in reports of the\\nwords of our Saviour and others, and in quotations from the Old\\nTestament. Their whole verbal coincidence in narrative does\\nnot, I believe, exceed the amount of more than six or eight verses\\nof average length.\\nActs vi. 1, seqq. t Acts ix. 29. J Acts vi. 9. Acts xxii. 2.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0552.jp2"}, "553": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 519\\nThe Gospel of Matthew, having been originally written in\\nHebrew, was probably translated into Greek some time about the\\nclose of the first century. The verbal coincidences of its transla-\\ntion with the Gospels of Mark and Luke admit of one, and I\\nthink only one, satisfactory solution. The original of Matthew\\nagreed with them essentially in many narratives and many sayings\\nand discourses of Christ. These, or portions of these, were the\\nsame, except their expression in different languages and the\\nmanner of their expression in the Greek language had been fixed\\nby the Greek Gospels of Mark and Luke. But these Gospels\\nbeing known to the translator of Matthew, when his original\\ncorresponded with them sufficiently, he was led to adopt their\\nexpressions.*\\nOne phenomenon in the Gospels still remains to be noticed. It\\nis the agreement of Mark and Luke in their chronological misar-\\nrangement of some of the events which the first three evangelists\\nrelate in common. On the hypothesis of an Original Gospel, it is\\nsupposed that this misarrangement existed in that Gospel, and\\nwas copied from it by Mark and Luke, who were themselves igno-\\nrant of the true order of events, but was corrected by Matthew,\\nwho, as an apostle, was better informed. This, however, is only\\nremoving one difficulty by creating another for it would be\\nstrange, that a misarrangement, which any apostle might have\\ncorrected, should exist in a work prepared under the direction of\\nthe apostles, and sanctioned by them, especially in a work so brief\\nas to seem intended rather for a memorandum of the chronological\\nseries of events in Christ s ministry than for any other purpose.\\nThe explanation that has been proposed of the agreement among\\nthe Gospels, in the character of their narratives and their use of\\nlanguage, involves no solution of this difficulty. Admitting the\\ntruth of that explanation, the misarrangement in question becomes\\na separate and independent, though not very important, problem,\\nrequiring a solution of its own. But, in our ignorance respecting\\nI remarked in the first edition, that the credit of this explanation\\nbelongs to Bishop Marsh. I have since observed that Grotius (lntroduc.\\nad Comment, in Matthaeum) says: Marci libro Gra?co nsus mihi vidctur\\nquisquis is fuit Matthaei Graacus mterpres. Note to Stcond Edition.", "height": "4500", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0553.jp2"}, "554": {"fulltext": "520 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nall but the leading events of the apostolic age, whatever cause for\\nit we may assign must be only conjectural.\\nOne solution that has occurred to me is immediately connected\\nwith the account which has been given of the origin of the agree-\\nment among the Gospels it is, that the correspondence in the\\narrangement of Mark and Luke had its source in the oral preach-\\ning and discourses of the apostles. It is not probable, that the\\napostles often, if ever, undertook to recite in one discourse, or\\nin a connected series of discourses, all the transactions of the\\nministry of Jesus related by any one of the first three evangelists.\\nAccording to the particular occasion presented, or the special\\nobject which they had in view, they would group together events,\\nsayings, and discourses particularly adapted to their purpose.\\nThey would class their accounts of their Master, not narrate them\\nchronologically. To this mode of teaching we may perhaps\\nlook as the occasion of the agreement between Mark and Luke\\nin the displacing of some events, and as the occasion, likewise, of\\nthe general want of chronological arrangement in Luke, and of the\\nexistence of something of a systematical, founded upon a chrono-\\nlogical, arrangement in Matthew.\\nThis general solution may be accepted as probable, whether we\\ncan or cannot discover any special cause which might have affected\\nthe arrangement of those particular events to which Mark and\\nLuke agree in giving a place different from that assigned to them\\nby Matthew. It may therefore be scarcely worth while to enter\\ninto the inquiry, whether such causes can be conjectured. Yet it\\nseems to me that they may be and, as the subject will occupy but\\nlittle space, I will venture to suggest them.\\nThe most important instance of misarrangement, in which\\nMark and Luke both differ from Matthew, is in the place which\\nthey assign to the voyage to Gennesaret, with the miracles ac-\\ncompanying and following it.* According to them, these events\\ntook place immediately after the delivery of the parable of the\\nsower, and some other striking parables and sayings of Jesus.\\nThese parables and sayings are of a general character, relating to\\nSee before, p. 470, seqq.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0554.jp2"}, "555": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 521\\nthe reception of the new religion, to the importance of listening\\nto its truths, to its future rapid growth, and to the blessedness of\\nits disciples. They are of the kind that might be repeated, by\\nthe apostles and first preachers of Christianity, to an audience\\nwho had collected to listen and to inquire, but many of whom had\\nnot yet professed themselves Christians. After having, in the\\nwords of their Master, warned such an audience, that the seed\\nmight fall on good ground or on bad that they should give heed\\nto what they heard that the religion, which was but in its begin-\\nning, was, through the power of God, to extend itself widely\\nthat to every one who had, more should be given and that the\\ndisciples of Jesus were to him as his dearest relatives,* it would\\nbe natural to mention some of those displays of divine power upon\\nwhich this new teacher founded his claims to divine authority\\nand perhaps no more striking series of miracles could have been\\nselected, than his commanding the winds and waves to be still\\nhis giving sanity to a raging demoniac, under circumstances so\\nextraordinary the cure of a woman, long diseased, by her merely\\ntouching his garment and his restoring life to the daughter of\\nJairus. It is thus, perhaps, that we may explain how the relation\\nof some of the most remarkable miracles of Jesus came to be\\nconnected with the recital of some of his parables and sayings,\\nin which he set before men the importance of listening to the truths\\nwmich he taught. They were, in consequence, thus connected by\\nMark and Luke and the mistake into which Mark has particu-\\nlarly fallen, of supposing that the voyage to Gennesaret imme-\\ndiately followed the delivery of those parables, f was facilitated by\\nthe circumstance, that they were actually delivered from a vessel\\non the lake near the shore at Capernaum, and that Jesus imme-\\ndiately after left that city 4\\nWe pass to another of the chronological discrepances among the\\nevangelists. Matthew relates, that Jesus, previously to his entering\\nCapernaum on a certain sabbath, cured a leper while Mark and\\nLuke relate this cure as having been performed when Jesus had left\\nCapernaum, after the sabbath just mentioned, upon which day\\nMark iv. 1-32. Luke viii. 4-21. t See before, p. 477.\\nX Watt. xiii. 1, 53. See before, p 470.", "height": "4496", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0555.jp2"}, "556": {"fulltext": "522 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nhe appears, from all the evangelists, first to have publicly preached\\nin that city. Perhaps this disagreement may be thus explained.\\nAs Jesus, during his ministry in Galilee, fixed on Capernaum as\\nhis chief place of residence, setting out on his journeys from it\\nand returning to it, we may suppose the apostles to have been\\naccustomed to begin some short narrative of his ministry with the\\nmention of this fact, and an account of his first appearance in\\nCapernaum as a public teacher. No particular miracle, except\\nthis cure of a leper, is related by either of the first three evange-\\nlists as having been performed by Jesus before that event and\\nthis miracle is related by Matthew as taking place on the morning\\nof the same day. As, then, a brief oral account of Christ s\\npreaching in Galilee would naturally commence with the mention\\nof Capernaum as his chief place of residence, and as this would\\nlead to an account of the first day of his public ministry spent in\\nthat city, the miracle of the cure of the leper, which preceded his\\nentrance into it, must either have been passed over in silence, or\\nintroduced subsequently into the narrative. I suppose the latter\\ncourse to have been adopted, on account of its being a miracle\\nwhich excited particular attention, and to which particular impor-\\ntance had been attached as appears from its being related circum-\\nstantially by all three of the evangelists, and from the fact that\\nMark and Luke represent it as a special cause why great multi-\\ntudes flocked to Jesus. The particular impression which this\\nmiracle produced may be ascribed to its probably being the first,\\nor one of the first, that Jesus performed in Capernaum or its im-\\nmediate neighborhood, and therefore the first that most of the\\nspectators of it had witnessed to the horror with which leprosy\\nwas regarded among the Jews to the confidence manifested by\\nJesus in putting his hand upon the infectious sufferer; to the\\nincurable state of the disease by natural means, for he was full\\nof leprosy and to the circumstance of our Saviour s sending\\nthe man to the priests, who were already his enemies, that they\\nmight certify, in effect, that a miracle had been performed.\\nIn the only remaining case of any importance, in which Mark\\nand Luke agree together in differing from the arrangement of\\nLuke v. 12.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0556.jp2"}, "557": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 523\\nMatthew, the application of the general solution that has been\\nproposed is obvious. According to this, narratives bearing upon\\nthe same point would be brought together in the oral discourses\\nof the apostles. Now, there are two narratives, one relating to\\nthe disciples of Jesus plucking ears of grain on the sabbath, and\\nthe other to the miraculous cure of a man with a withered hand,\\nlikewise on the sabbath, which stand in immediate connection in\\nall three evangelists. But, by Mark and Luke, an earlier period\\nis assigned to these events than by Matthew.* They record\\nthem immediately after their account of the conversation with the\\ndisciples of John and the Pharisees concerning fasting, which\\noccurred at Capernaum. The two narratives were, I believe,\\nbrought into connection with this account of our Saviour s dis-\\ncourse concerning fasting, from the circumstance, that all three\\nrelations bear directly on the same subject, the worthless charac-\\nter of the ceremonial and superstitious observances of the Jews.\\nIn the one case, Jesus gave them to understand his estimate of\\ntheir stated weekly fasts and, in the other, of their bigotry about\\nthe keeping of the sabbath.\\nThus the phenomenon of the misarrangement of events by Mark\\nand Luke, in opposition to Matthew, may be accounted for. But\\nanother solution of it may likewise be given. Among the narra-\\ntives relating to Jesus, mentioned by Luke in the beginning of his\\nGospel, there may have been one which had obtained more credit\\nand a wider circulation than any other. Xow, without supposing\\nMark or Luke to have drawn their narratives from it, or to have\\nrelied upon it as an authority for individual facts, or to have used\\nits language, except so far as it coincided with forms of expres-\\nsion already familiar to them, they still may both have used it as\\na guide in respect to the succession of those events, with the true\\norder of which it appears that they both were acquainted. It\\nis to be observed, that it is only their coincidence with each other\\nthat presents any difficulty. The misarrangement in any one\\nnarrative which they may be supposed to have used in common\\nrequires no particular explanation.\\nSee before, p. 473.", "height": "4496", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0557.jp2"}, "558": {"fulltext": "524 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nTo return, then, to our general position, we suppose that the\\ncorrespondences among the first three Gospels are to be explained\\nby the fact, that the oral narratives of the apostles were their\\ncommon archetype. Upon the supposition that those Gospels are\\ngenuine, it may be worth while to observe how little is assumed in\\ncoming to this conclusion, of which there can be any reasonable\\ndoubt. A great part of the oral discourses of the apostles must\\nhave been historical for the acts and words of Jesus were the\\nfoundation of all that they taught, and the first object of the\\nfaith of their converts. And, when one of their number and two\\nof their constant companions committed to writing accounts of\\ntheir common Master, it could not be otherwise than that these\\nwritten accounts should strikingly correspond with those which\\nhad been orally delivered, and consequently with each other.\\nSection V.\\nInferences from the Explanation which has been given of the Cor-\\nrespondences among the First Three Gospels.\\nThe appearances which the first three Gospels present, when\\ncompared together, are adapted to excite our curiosity and inter-\\nest, because they are of so remarkable a character as to imply, that\\nsome extraordinary cause must have operated to produce them,\\nand that the discovery of this cause will throw light on the early\\nhistory of Christianity. Let us see, then, what, if we have rea-\\nsoned correctly, may be inferred from the preceding investigation.\\nThe conclusion, that no one of the first three evangelists copied\\nfrom either of the other two, is important, as showing that their\\nGospels afford three distinct sources of information concerning the\\nlife of Jesus. The evangelists, therefore, in their striking corre-\\nspondence in the representations of his character, miracles, and\\ndoctrines, must be considered as strongly confirming each other s\\ntestimony. Nothing but reality, nothing but the fact that Jesus\\nhad acted and taught as they represent, would have stamped his\\ncharacter and story so definitely and vividly on the minds of indi-\\nviduals ignorant of each other s writings, and enabled them to\\ngive narratives, each so consistent with itself, and all so accordant", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0558.jp2"}, "559": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 525\\nwith one another. A false story concerning an imaginary charac-\\nter would have preserved no uniform type. It would have varied\\nin its aspect according to the different temperament and talents,\\nthe conceptions and purposes, of its various narrators.\\nWe may next observe, that, if the notion that one evangelist\\ncopied from another be given up, then the accordance among the\\nfirst three Gospels proves them all to have been written at an\\nearly period, when the sources of authentic information were yet\\nfully accessible, and before any interval had elapsed, during which\\nthe thousand exaggerations, perversions, and fables, to which the\\nwonderful history of Jesus was particularly exposed, had had time\\nto flow in, and to change its character as it might appear in differ-\\nent narratives.\\nIf the evangelists did not copy one from another, it follows\\nthat the first three Gospels must all have been written about the\\nsame period since, if one had preceded another by any consider-\\nable length of time, it cannot be supposed that the author of the\\nlater Gospel would have been unacquainted with the works of his\\npredecessor, or would have neglected to make use of it especially\\nwhen we take into view, that its reputation must have been well\\nestablished among Christians. Whatever antiquity, therefore, we\\ncan show to belong to any one of the first three Gospels, the same,\\nor nearly the same, we may ascribe to the other two. Xow, Luke,\\nin the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of his Gospel\\nin terms which imply that this work had been completed but a\\nlittle while before and, in the Acts, he brings down the history\\nto the end of the second year of Paufs residence at Rome, which\\nwas some time after the sixtieth year of our era. According, like-\\nwise, to the remarks formerly made respecting the Gospel of\\nMark,* it must have been written about the year 65, when St.\\nPeter is supposed to have suffered martyrdom at Rome. We may\\nconclude, therefore, that no one of the first three Gospels was\\nwritten long before or long after the year 60.\\nAgain, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew and the\\nSee p. 449.", "height": "4516", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0559.jp2"}, "560": {"fulltext": "526 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\npresent Greek translation of it was extant very early in the second\\ncentury. But, before this time, the Gospels of Mark and Luke\\nwere in existence, and probably in extensive circulation for we\\ncannot account for the remarkable coincidence of language be-\\ntween our Greek translation of Matthew and those Gospels, ex-\\ncept by the supposition, that the translator, through his familiarity\\nwith them, was led to adopt their expressions when suitable to his\\npurpose.\\nWe have seen, that the evangelists copied neither one from\\nanother, nor from common written documents, such as have been\\nimagined. But if the supposition of an Original Gospel, receiving\\nconstant additions and alterations from successive transcribers, be\\nunfounded, the notion connected with it, of the corruption of our\\npresent Gospels by similar additions and alterations, loses all\\nappearance of probability. The former supposition has served to\\nintroduce the latter, has been blended with it, and has been re-\\ngarded as affording the chief evidence of its truth. But, the whole\\ntheory concerning an Original Gospel falling to the ground, the\\nnotion of any such corruption of our present Gospels as has been\\nsupposed is left, unsupported by a plausible argument, to its in-\\ntrinsic incredibility.\\nWith that theory is likewise connected the supposition, that\\nother more ancient gospels were in common use among Christians\\nafter the apostolic age, and before the late period, when, as it has\\nbeen pretended, our present Gospels first came into general use.\\nThese more ancient gospels, it may be recollected, are imagined\\nto have been, in common with our first three Gospels, derived from\\nthe Original Gospel and all the books of this class are supposed\\nto have agreed with, and differed from, one another in much the\\nsame manner as do now the three Gospels which alone remain.\\nAs there was nothing, according to the theory, to stop this process\\nof refashioning the Original Gospel, and the consequent multipli-\\ncation of new gospels more or less varying from one another, till\\nabout the close of the second century, when it is admitted that our\\npresent Gospels had assumed nearly the form they now possess,\\nand had obtained general reception, it follows that many different\\ncompilations must have been in common use before. The infer-", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0560.jp2"}, "561": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 527\\nence, considered m its various other bearings, is incredible but,\\nif the theory of an Original Gospel be false, no compilations of the\\nsort described could have existed.\\nA different ground, it is true, may be taken the notion, that\\nthose earlier gospels descended, in common with our own, from an\\nOriginal Gospel, may be abandoned and it may still be maintained,\\nthat there were histories of Christ, such, for instance, as those\\nmentioned in the introduction to Luke s Gospel, not only prior to\\nour present Gospels, but in common use among Christians after the\\napostolic age, and during a great part of the second century. The\\nsupposition of gospels in common use before those which we now\\npossess is thus presented in its simplest form, unembarrassed with\\nany hypothesis respecting the mode of their formation. I shall\\nhere view it in reference only to the investigation in which we\\nhave been engaged.\\nThe proposition, that our present Gospels, about the end of\\nthe second century, took the place of other gospels, which had\\nbefore been regarded as of authority, cannot be made plausible,\\nexcept on the theory of an Original Gospel, from which our pres-\\nent Gospels and those other gospels were equally derived. It is\\nonly by representing the supposed earlier gospels as works of the\\nsame character with those now extant, derived in a similar manner\\nfrom the same source, so that all were but refashionings of the\\nsame original document or documents, that any plausibility can\\nbe given to the supposition, that our present Gospels, on the\\nground of their being more complete works of the same class,\\nsuperseded those earlier narratives, which are imagined to have\\nbeen comparatively imperfect. But when it is agreed, that those\\nmore ancient gospels, upon the supposition that any such were in\\ncommon use during the second century, were not branches, grow-\\ning with our present Gospels from a common stock, an Original\\nGospel, but were distinct works, permanent in their form, having\\neach a proper individuality, then we perceive at once, that books\\nwhich, since the apostolic age, had been in common use among\\nChristians as authentic histories of their Master, could not have\\nbeen displaced and annihilated by a new set of books, introduced\\nabout the end of the second century. It would be as easy to be-\\nlieve, that a new growth might spring up under a forest in lull", "height": "4476", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0561.jp2"}, "562": {"fulltext": "528 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nvigor, and overshade and choke the trees which, for more than a\\ncentury, had been taking root in the soil.\\nSection VI.\\nIllustration of the First Three Gospels to be derived from the Cir-\\ncumstances connected with their Composition.\\nThe view we have taken of the origin of the correspondences\\namong the first three Gospels is important as regards the explana-\\ntion of those Gospels, particularly that of Luke. It opens a new\\nsource of illustration.\\nThe apostles, familiar as they were with the words of their\\nMaster, and continually using them in their discourses, would\\noften quote them disjoined from their original connection. They\\nwould blend together those uttered at different times in relation\\nto the same subject and they would likewise naturally apply to\\nnew occasions his striking expressions and figurative language, so\\nas sometimes to divert his words, more or less, from their primi-\\ntive meaning, or at least from their primary reference. But\\nthese characteristics of their preaching would be likely to produce\\nan effect on works bearing such a relation to it as we suppose the\\nthree Gospels to have done.\\nThis effect is less obvious in the Gospel of Matthew than in\\nthat of Luke. But in Matthew s Gospel we find, I believe, what\\nmay be called a systematic, though quite natural arrangement,\\nconnected with his general regard to chronological order. When\\nsome striking occasion presented itself, he seems, in a few\\ninstances, to have brought together sayings of our Lord which\\nhe viewed as related to each other, but which were uttered at dif-\\nferent times.\\nThus, in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew appears to have\\nintended to give a general view of our Lord s teaching, and, taking\\nfor his basis what was spoken on that occasion, to have connected\\nwith it other precepts and declarations, which, if I may so speak,\\nhad been attracted to and associated with that discourse, through\\ntheir bearing on its main purpose or on particular subjects intro-", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0562.jp2"}, "563": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 529\\nduced into it. In consequence, some of our Lord s words, as there\\ngiven, belong, as may seem, to a later period of his ministry some\\nappear to have been called forth by particular occasions which\\nafterwards -occurred and precepts which were accommodated to,\\nand limited by, the peculiar and temporary circumstances of those\\nwho had devoted themselves to him as his disciples, and which\\nperhaps were not addressed to them till their number was in-\\ncreased, and their conceptions of their new duties were more\\nenlarged, are blended with precepts of universal obligation.\\nBut perhaps the most important example of this characteristic\\nof his Gospel is to be found in the prophecy, as given by him, of\\nthe destruction of Jerusalem, and of the coming of the Son of\\nman. This appears, from a comparison with Luke, to be a\\ncompilation of several discourses,* the bearing and purport of\\nall of which are not to be correctly comprehended without re-\\ngarding them in connection with the occasions on which Luke\\nreports them to have been delivered. It is to be recollected, that,\\naccording to the Gospel of Mark,f Matthew was not present at\\nthis discourse.\\nThe effect resulting from the manner in which the apostles,\\nin their teaching, may be supposed to have used the words of\\ntheir Master, is little, if at all, to be discerned in the Gospel\\nof Mark. His account of the sayings of our Lord is much\\nmore limited than that of either Matthew or Luke and gen-\\nerally, of those which he reports, the relation to the circum-\\nstances which called them forth, and the relation to each other,\\nappear to have been well settled. The influence of the oral\\nteaching of the apostles on the construction of his Gospel seems to\\nhave extended little further, than to affect directly or mediately its\\nchronological arrangement, as formerly suggested. J\\nBut the operation of those characteristics, which have been ex-\\nplained, of the oral teaching of the apostles on the Gospel of Luke,\\nCompare Luke xvii. 22-37 and xxi. 5-36 with Matt. xxiv. 1-42;\\nLuke xii. 35-48 with Matt. xxiv. 42-51; and Luke xix. 11-27 with Matt.\\nxxv. 14-30.\\n1 Chap. xiii. 3. See before, p 520, seqq.", "height": "4496", "width": "2644", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0563.jp2"}, "564": {"fulltext": "5S0 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nwas, I conceive, so great, that this Gospel, in consequence, pre-\\nsents throughout remarkable appearances, to which we will now\\nattend. The proof of the correctness of the views of it which we\\nare about to take must be drawn principally from a comparison of\\nit with the Gospel of Matthew, though Mark may afford occa-\\nsional assistance.\\nI. In the first place, Luke has sometimes, I think, given the\\nwords of Jesus in such a connection, that they have a meaning\\nwhich he did not express, though it be one which he might have\\nexpressed. The following is an example\\nAccording to Matthew, Jesus, in forewarning his apostles of\\nthe persecution which they would endure from the enemies of his\\nreligion, tells them that in this they would be like him, that their\\ntreatment would be similar to his own, and charges them not to be\\ndeterred by it from proclaiming the truths which he had taught\\nthem. He says (x. 26-28)\\nFear them not, then. For there is nothing covered which is\\nnot to be unveiled, nor any thing secret which is not to be made\\nknown. What I tell you in darkness, speak in the light and\\nwhat is whispered in your ear, proclaim on the house-tops. And\\nfear not those who may kill the body, but cannot kill the soul\\nrather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.\\nThe passage goes on with the words, Are not two sparrows\\nsold for a penny and those which follow.\\nHere, when it is said, For there is nothing covered which\\nis not to be unveiled, the meaning is, that there were no secrets\\nin his religion. It was to be fully proclaimed. Nothing was\\nto be kept concealed through fear of men. Thus, Mark, after\\nrelating the parable of the sower, and its explanation to the dis-\\nciples, represents our Lord as saying,* Is the lamp brought\\nto be put under the measure or the bench, and not to be set on\\nits stand? Nothing is hidden but that it may be made known,\\nnor was any thing concealed but that it might be brought to\\nlight which words are, I think, to be understood thus I\\nhave not come to keep back the truths of religion, but to reveal\\nMark iv. 21, 22.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0564.jp2"}, "565": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 531\\nthem. There is nothing in my discourses intended to hide them\\nthere was nothing intended to conceal them in the parable you\\nhave just heard on the contrary, my modes of speaking are\\nadopted, because they are most likely effectually to impress these\\ntruths upon the minds of such hearers as I address.\\nLuke has one passage similar to the last. But, in another\\nplace, he ascribes these words to Jesus (xii. 1-5)\\nHe said to his disciples, Above all things, beware of the\\nleaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For every thing\\ncovered shall be laid open, and every thing concealed made\\nknown. What ye have spoken in darkness will be heard in light,\\nand what ye have whispered in closets proclaimed upon house-tops.\\nBut I say to you, my friends, be not afraid of those who kill\\nthe body, and after this can do nothing more but I will instruct\\nyou whom to fear fear Him who, after having killed, hath power\\nto cast into hell.\\nThis passage continues, like that in Matthew, Are not five\\nsparrows sold for two pennies c.\\nThe first part of this passage, it is evident from the turns\\nof expression and from its connection with what follows, was\\nintended to be a report of the same words of Jesus which are\\ngiven by Matthew. There seems no ground for doubt, that\\ntheir true sense and proper bearing appear in Matthew but, if\\nthis be so, their meaning was misapprehended by Luke. This\\nmay have arisen from the circumstance, that these striking words\\nhad, previously to the composition of his Gospel, been sometimes\\nseparated from their original connection, and applied to the\\nsubject of hypocrisy, to which they so well admit of being accom-\\nmodated.\\nThe following is another example of the same kind\\nIn Matthew, we find these words in the Sermon on the\\nMount f\\nTherefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there re-\\nmember that thy brother has a charge against thee, leave there\\nthy gift before the altar, and go away first reconcile thy brother\\nto thee, and then come and offer thy gift. Show thy good-will\\nLuke viii. 16-18. f Matt. v. 23-26.", "height": "4544", "width": "2764", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0565.jp2"}, "566": {"fulltext": "532 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\ntowards him who has this charge against thee,* quickly, whilst\\nthou art in the way with him f lest he bring thee before the\\njudge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be\\ncast into prison. Truly, I say to thee, thou wilt not come out\\nthence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.\\nThis is the conclusion of a passage in which our Saviour warns\\nhis followers, in the most solemn manner, against being angry\\nwithout cause, and expressing ill-will to others even by injurious\\nlanguage. The words which immediately precede are these\\nWhoever shall call his brother a reprobate shall be punishable\\nby the fire of hell. It was common among the Jews to repre-\\nsent a sin or an injury under the figure of a debt and the\\nwhole passage, therefore, is closely connected. He who has in-\\njured his brother is directed not even to worship God till he\\nhas effected a reconciliation. He is to show his good-will toward\\nhim quickly, lest he should be called to suffer the full punish-\\nment of his offence.\\nIn Luke, the last part of the passage under consideration ap-\\npears in quite another connection, and with a different meaning. J\\nHypocrites! Ye can judge correctly of the appearances of\\nthe earth and sky how is it that ye do not judge correctly of the\\npresent time Why, even from yourselves, do you not decide\\non what is right? For, as thou art going with thy adversary\\nto the magistrate, strive on the way that he may let thee go free,\\nlest he drag thee before the judge, and the judge deliver thee\\nover to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I tell\\nthee, that thou wilt not come out thence till thou hast paid the\\nuttermost farthing.\\nHere our Saviour is represented as reproaching the bigoted\\nJews for their blindness to the character of the times, by which\\nThe word translated adversary, in the Common Version, properly\\nmeans adversary in a suit at law; and the person here intended by the\\nterm is the same as thy brother who has a charge against thee\\nf The conception appears to be of the person who has injured his brother,\\nmeeting him in the public way, as he himself, having left the altar, is seek-\\ning him. The words, however, may be understood as they are by Luke,\\nWhilst thou art on the way with him, that is, to the judge; the literal\\nmeaning being, before thou art called to account for thy sin against him.\\nt Luke xii. 56-59.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0566.jp2"}, "567": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 533\\nis meant, to those proofs of a divine interposition which his minis-\\ntry was continually affording. Even if these proofs were less\\nstriking, they might judge from themselves what it was right for\\nthem to do which was to secure the favor of God, and to obtain\\nfrom him pardon of their sins by reformation. Otherwise, they\\nwould be acting as one who should make no effort to propitiate\\nhis creditor (as he might do), and who, in consequence, should\\nbe condemned to imprisonment till the full amount of his debt\\nwas paid that is, they would remain exposed to the full punish-\\nment of their sins. The figurative language here used is illus-\\ntrated by that of the parable concerning the servant, to whom\\nhis master first forgave a debt, and afterward enforced its pay-\\nment, on account of the cruelty of that servant toward one of\\nhis fellows. And his master, being angry with him, delivered\\nhim to the executioners of the law, till he should pay all that\\nhe owed.\\nIt is true, that Jesus may have used the same or similar words\\nand figures in different senses on different occasions. But, as\\nregards this passage in Luke, there is not merely the fact, that\\nthe words are found in Matthew with another connection and\\nmeaning but the obscurity of the passage itself, the want of\\nobvious adaptation of one part to another, and the difficulty in\\ndiscovering the relations of the ideas, serve to show, that ex-\\npressions have been brought together which were not originally\\nconnected.\\nII. Luke s Gospel presents cases of another kind, in which,\\nthough the meaning of the words of our Saviour is not changed\\nessentially, or perhaps not at all, yet, through some leading asso-\\nciation in the mind of the evangelist, they are brought together\\nin a new connection, and applied to a subject to which they did\\nnot primarily relate. Thus, after the appointment of the apostles,\\nMatthew represents their Master as giving them directions appro-\\npriate to their peculiar duties. For these, Luke has substituted\\na series of more general declarations and precepts, taken prin-\\ncipally from the Sermon on the Mount. Yet it will be perceived\\nby one who reads his collection attentively, that he had, through-\\nMatt, xviii. 23-35.", "height": "4548", "width": "2740", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0567.jp2"}, "568": {"fulltext": "534 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nout, the peculiar case of the apostles in his mind, and regarded\\nthe. words which he has given as specifically referring to them.\\nIn this respect, the discourse has the character which is shown in\\nthe first words of it, as compared with those in Matthew. Instead\\nof Blessed are the poor in spirit, Luke gives, as a direct\\naddress to the apostles, Blessed are ye poor.\\nFrom inattention to this circumstance, there has been sup-\\nposed to be a want of connection in the discourse, which does\\nnot appear when it is viewed under its proper aspect. This\\nmay be illustrated in that portion of it which has been regarded\\nas least coherent.\\nAfter inculcating virtues which were peculiarly required in the\\napostles, love of enemies, irresistance to injury, disregard of\\ntheir private rights, universal benevolence and kindness, free-\\ndom from hasty judgment, and the doing good to others in full\\nmeasure, the discourse thus proceeds to enforce the necessity\\nof their rightly apprehending and fully performing their own\\nduty in order to qualify them to be teachers of others.*\\nThen he spoke to them in a figure Can the blind lead the\\nblind Will they not both fall into a ditch f A disciple is not\\nabove his teacher, but every one properly prepared will be as\\nhis teacher. J Why dost thou look at the straw in thy brother^\\neye, and not consider the beam in thine own eye Or how canst\\nthou say to thy brother, Brother, let me take out the straw which\\nis in thine eye, whilst thou perceivest not the beam which is in\\nthine own eye? Hypocrite! first put the beam out of thine own\\neye, and then thou wilt see clearly to take the straw out of thy\\nbrother s eye. No good tree produces bad fruit, nor does a\\nbad tree produce good fruit for every tree is known by its\\nfruit. Men do not gather figs from thorns, nor grapes from a\\nbramble. The good man, out of the good storehouse of his\\nLuke vi. 39-45.\\nf See Matt. xv. 14, whence it appears that this language was used\\nby Jesus concerning the false teaching of the Pharisees.\\nX Comp. Matt. x. 24; John xiii. 16 and xv. 20.\\nComp. Matt. vii. 3-5.\\nSee Matt. vii. 16-18, where this figurative language is connected\\nwith the direction to u bew;tre of false teachers; and Matt xii. 33, where\\nJesus demands that the test here given should be applied to his own teach-\\ning and character.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0568.jp2"}, "569": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 535\\nmind, produces what is good and the bad man, out of the bad\\nstorehouse of his mind, produces what is bad for the mouth\\nspeaks from the fulness of the mind.\\nThese savings are all connected together, and connected with\\nthe rest of the discourse, as all relating to the character required\\nin a moral and religious teacher. That the tone which runs\\nthrough them is not altogether what we might expect in an\\naddress of Jesus to his apostles, is to be accounted for by the\\nfact, that their original reference was different from what is here\\nassigned them. Their application, likewise, is to be conceived\\nof as hypothetical, not direct as pointed against faults of char-\\nacter which the apostles were to avoid, not which they were\\nsupposed to have.\\nWith one exception, these sayings, though their reference is\\nchanged, retain their original meaning. The exception to which\\nI refer is in the words, A disciple is not above his teacher;\\nbut every one properly prepared will be as his teacher the\\nmeaning of which, in their present connection, is, that he will\\nbe as his teacher in ability to communicate instruction but this\\nis not the sense of the corresponding passages of Matthew and\\nJohn, which have been noted in the margin. There the meaning\\nis, that the apostles must not expect to be better treated than\\ntheir Master, and must be as ready to humble themselves as\\nhe was.\\nIII. Occasionally, St. Luke, after giving the words of our\\nSaviour on some particular occasion, seems to have subjoined\\nother words, uttered by him at a different time, as a sort of\\ncommentary on what he then said, or on the incident related,\\nwithout intending that the latter words should be conjoined with\\nthe preceding as forming one discourse, but also without suffi-\\nciently discriminating them; so that a degree of confusion a,nd\\nobscurity is produced.\\nThus, the parable of the dishonest steward f is concluded with\\nexhortations to the proper use of riches, ending with the declara-\\ntion, Ye cannot be servants of God and of Mammon. After\\nwhich, the narrative of Luke thus proceeds f\\nComp. Matt. xii. 34, 35. f Luke xvi. 1-13. J Luke xvi. 14-18.", "height": "4540", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0569.jp2"}, "570": {"fulltext": "536 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nAnd the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this,\\nand scoffed at him. And he said to them, Ye make yourselves\\nappear righteous in the sight of men, but God knows your\\nhearts. For what is highly exalted among men is an abomina-\\ntion before God.\\nThe Law and the Prophets were till John. Since then the\\nkingdom of God has been announced, and every one is forcing\\ninto it. But heaven and earth may pass away more easily than\\none tittle fall from the Law.\\nWhoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits\\nadultery and he who marries her who was put away commits\\nadultery.\\nAfter this follows the parable of Dives and Lazarus.\\nHere, at first view, no connection appears but the train\\nof thought admits of an explanation upon the principle just\\nstated.\\nSt. Luke having recorded the declaration of Jesus, that the\\nPharisees, who were highly exalted among men, were an abomina-\\ntion before God, his thoughts turned to that part of their char-\\nacter on which they particularly prided themselves, their strict\\nobservance of the Law, that is, the ceremonies and rites of\\nthe Law and this led him to insert those words of his Master\\nwhich announced that these ceremonies and rites were abolished\\nby Christianity, that they were virtually abrogated when John\\nproclaimed the kingdom of heaven. But with these words, as\\nuttered by Jesus, was connected an incidental or parenthetical\\nremark, which is thus given by Matthew:* From the days\\nof John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven is forcing\\nits way, and the violent are seizing upon it. I refer to the la^t\\nwords, which are thus expressed by Luke: and every one is\\nforcing into it. In these words I suppose Jesus to have referred\\nto those many Jews, who, possessed with false notions of the\\ncharacter of the Messiah, as a deliverer from the tyranny of\\nthe Romans, and ready for deeds of violence, were eager to\\nenlist as his followers, striving to force themselves upon him\\nwithout any of the dispositions which he required in his disciples.\\nThe words in question, as given by Luke, are out of place, and\\nMatt. xi. 12.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0570.jp2"}, "571": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 537\\nappear only in consequence of their original connection with\\nthose which precede.\\nBut, having introduced this mention of the abolition of the\\nritual Law, Luke proceeds to limit the language in which it is\\nexpressed, by another declaration of our Lord: Heaven and\\nearth may pass away more easily than one tittle fall from the\\nLaw. The Law is a term used in the Xew Testament in\\nvarious senses, and with a very different force and bearing in\\ndifferent connections. In the mouth of a Jew, it denoted, in one\\nof its meanings, the whole of religion as understood by him. The\\nLaw, or the Law of God, for the terms were equivalent, was\\nhis religion. In this sense the expression might be the Law\\nsimply, or the Law and the Prophets. By our Saviour, either\\nterm was used in an analogous sense, to denote those essential\\ntruths of religion and morality, which alone constitute the Old\\nTestament, or any part of it, a book of religious instruction, and\\nentitle it to be called by the name of the Law. These, the\\ntrue Law of God, could never be abrogated. Heaven and earth\\nmight pass away, but they would remain unchangeable. Using\\nthe term in this meaning, he declares, that to do to others as we\\nwould that they should do to us is the Law and the Prophets,\\nthat is, a summary of all the social duties taught by them and,\\nelsewhere, that the whole Law and the Prophets depend on love\\nto God and love to man. This was the Law from which not the\\nsmallest letter nor tittle could pass away and this Law the Phari-\\nsees, instead of observing, were continually violating, and were\\nthus an abomination before God.\\nThe passage respecting divorce is introduced with reference to\\nthe sanction which the Pharisees gave to the greatest license, in\\nthis respect, on the part of the husband. Xo instance, perhaps,\\ncould have been chosen which would have presented in stronger\\ncontrast their avowed morality with the morality taught by\\nChrist.\\nThe parable of Dives and Lazarus has no relation to the Phari-\\nsees for, considering their austerity of manners, Jesus could not\\nhave typified them by one who feasted sumptuously every day.\\nIt was suggested to the recollection of the evangelist by the dis-\\ncourse of our Saviour respecting the use and misuse of wealth,\\nwhich gave occasion to all on which we have been remarking.", "height": "4540", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0571.jp2"}, "572": {"fulltext": "588 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nIV. In other instances, St. Luke has given fragments of what\\nwas said by our Saviour at a particular time, omitting the con-\\nnecting and explanatory passages so that, though the sense of\\nevery part might be clear to his own mind, or to the minds of those\\npossessed of the information current among the first Christians,\\nyet it is not, at the present day, discernible from his Gospel alone\\nand we learn it only by a comparison of his accounts with those\\nof Matthew.\\nMatthew has preserved the striking and appropriate discourse\\ndelivered by Jesus, when, after his curing a demoniac, the Phari-\\nsees said, This man casts out demons only through Beelzebub,\\nthe prince of demons. In immediate connection, the evangel-\\nist proceeds thus f Then some of the teachers of the Law and\\nthe Pharisees spoke, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from\\nthee. But he answered them, A wicked and apostate race would\\nhave a sign but no sign will be given it, except the sign of\\nJonah the prophet. Jesus then speaks in strong figurative\\nlanguage of the depravity and in docility of the race with whom\\nhe had to do, concluding thus J\\nWhen an unclean spirit has gone out of a man, it passes\\nthrough desert places in search of rest, and finds it not. Then it\\nsays, I will return to my house whence I came out and, upon\\nreturning, it finds the house unoccupied, swept, and put in order.\\nThen it goes and brings with it seven other spirits worse than\\nitself, and they enter in and dwell there and the last state of\\nthat man is worse than the first. So will it be with this evil\\nrace.\\nThe evil race spoken of was the great body of the Jews. The\\nnation is compared to an incurable madman, who, after an interval\\nof quiet, relapses into more violent insanity. The figure was\\nsuggested by the cure of the demoniac, which gave occasion to\\nthe discourse. To understand its application, we must consider,\\nthat the Jews, since their return from the Babylonish captivity,\\nhad not fallen into idolatry, and did not regard themselves as\\nexposed to punishment from God. They thought themselves\\nmuch better than their countrymen of former times. They said,\\nIf we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have\\nSee Matt. xii. 22-37. f Matt. xii. 38, seqq. Matt. xii. 43-45.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0572.jp2"}, "573": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 539\\nbeen partners with them in slaying the prophets/ But they\\nhated, and were about to cause the death of, Jesus, the greatest\\nof God s messengers to their nation, and to display their enmity\\ntoward his disciples, as their fathers had persecuted and put to\\ndeath their religious teachers. They were about to manifest, in\\na manner still more outrageous, the same disobedience which\\ntheir predecessors had shown. The interval of seeming amend-\\nment in the nation was no real change for the better. The evil\\nspirit had returned, and found his house prepared for his recep-\\ntion, and entered in with seven other spirits worse than himself.\\nIn Luke, the passage remarked upon appears almost in the\\nsame words. f But, after giving a portion of our Saviours first\\nreply to the Pharisees, he immediately subjoins this passage,\\nseparated from its proper connection, and without any thing to\\nexplain it for even the last sentence, So will it be with this\\nevil race, is omitted. It would be impossible, from Luke s Gos-\\npel alone, to determine its reference and ultimate meaning.\\nV. In one instance, a portion of the Sermon on the Mount,\\nwe have found a discourse of Jesus referred by Luke to an occa-\\nsion on which it was not delivered. Another striking example\\nof the same kind occurs, I believe, in the discourse consisting of\\na series of denunciations against the Pharisees. This has the\\nappearance of having been one of the last and most solemn acts\\nof the ministry of Jesus. It is represented by Matthew as hav-\\ning been delivered by him at Jerusalem, only two days before\\nhis death, in the temple, which he had then entered for the last\\ntime, amid a concourse of people, among whom many of the\\nPharisees were standing as listeners. According to Matthew, he\\nconcluded it thus f\\nw Jerusalem! Jerusalem! who killest the teachers and stonest\\nthose who are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered thy\\nchildren together as a bird gathers her young under her wings\\nand ye would not Behold your house is left you deserted.\\nFor I declare to you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall\\nsay, Blessed is he who comet h in the name of the Lord.\\nAnd Jesus went out, and left the temple.\\nMatt, xxiii. 30. f Luke xi. 24-26. See Matt, xxiii. 13-39.", "height": "4532", "width": "2688", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0573.jp2"}, "574": {"fulltext": "540 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nThe words of Jesus, just quoted, are misplaced by Luke, and\\ntheir meaning obscured in consequence.* It is obvious what a\\nmost striking conclusion they form to the discourse, if we regard\\nit as it appears in Matthew.\\nTill his business on earth drew towards its accomplishment, it\\nwould not have been the part of wisdom in Jesus to exasperate\\nto the uttermost the passions of the Pharisees, especially under\\ncircumstances which put his life in their power. Nor till his\\napostles and other followers had been formed to their duties, as\\nfar as might be, by his personal influence, would it have been\\nprudent to place them in such open and irreconcilable opposition\\nto those whose sanctity, and whose authority as religious teachers,\\nhad been so reverenced by their countrymen. But the deadly\\nhatred of the Pharisees was no longer to be avoided it was to\\nbe encountered and his followers had received, and were just\\nabout to receive in his resurrection from the dead, evidence\\nwhich could leave no doubt in their minds of. his divine mission.\\nAccordingly, though in Matthew s account of the preaching of\\nJesus we find previously strong expressions of censure upon the\\nPharisees or upon some of their number, yet there is nothing at\\nonce so plain and unreserved in its meaning, so direct and gen-\\neral in its application, so terrible in its reproaches and denuncia-\\ntions, and pronounced so formally and solemnly to a public\\nassembly representing the whole Jewish nation. Every thing\\nnow conspired to give weight to his words. The utterance of\\nthem appears not as an incidental act of his ministry, but as\\npurposed beforehand, as a main object of it; as a testimony\\ndelivered in the name of God, not against the character of the\\nPharisees alone, but against hypocrisy and bigotry, whatever\\nforms they might assume.\\nAll, therefore, according to the narrative of Matthew, is con-\\nsistent. But Luke represents a considerable part of this discourse\\nagainst the Pharisees as having been uttered somewhere at a\\ndistance from Jerusalem, at a private house, the house of\\na Pharisee, who had, at least with a show of hospitality, invited\\nJesus as a guest. f The occasion, likewise, assigned by Luke,\\ndoes not seem such as the discourse required. The evangelist\\nSee Luke xiii. 34, 35. f Luke xi. 37-52.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0574.jp2"}, "575": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 541\\nsays: Xow, while he was teaching, a Pharisee asked him to\\ndine with him. And he entered, and placed himself at table.\\nBut the Pharisee wondered, when he saw that he did not wash\\nhis hands before dinner [conformably to a ceremony of the\\nJews, to which they attached great importance] But the Lord\\nsaid to him, Now, you Pharisees make clean the outside of the\\ncup and dish, but ye are full within of rapacity and wicked-\\nness. And then follows, with some variation in the report,\\na great part of the discourse which is given by Matthew as de-\\nlivered in the temple at Jerusalem. The misplacing of this\\ndiscourse by Luke may be accounted for by the supposition, that\\nJesus did, on the occasion to which this evangelist has referred\\nit, make some comments on the superstitious observances of the\\nPharisees, and speak of their worthlessness, contrasting it with\\nthe importance of justice, mercy, and truth.\\nVI. One other characteristic of Luke s Gospel remains to be\\nmentioned. He gives different discourses of Jesus, with so\\nslight a form of transition from one to another, or perhaps with-\\nout any, that they all appear, at first view, either to form but one\\ndiscourse, or to have been delivered consecutively. Some dis-\\ncourses of our Lord, we may suppose, had been blended together\\nin the oral teaching of the apostles, as relating to the same\\nsubject, or as illustrating each other and some may have been\\nnarrated without mention of the occasion on which they were\\ndelivered, this occasion not being of particular interest. As Luke\\nwas unacquainted with the chronological order and original rela-\\ntion of these discourses, he has collected and placed them miscel-\\nlaneously, without carefully separating one from another. An\\nexample of this is furnished by that portion of his Gospel which\\nbegins with the fourteenth verse of the eleventh chapter, and\\nends with the ninth verse of the thirteenth chapter.\\nThis view of the formation and character of Luke s Gospel\\nmay assist us in understanding it, and solve some difficulties with\\nwhich we might otherwise be embarrassed. But the considera-\\ntion of the phenomena that have been pointed out leads to a\\nfurther conclusion. It is difficult to state them without implying\\nthe circumstances in which they had their origin. They are", "height": "4540", "width": "2696", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0575.jp2"}, "576": {"fulltext": "542 ADDITIONAL NOTES,\\naccounted for at once, if we suppose that the apostles, regarding\\nthe words of their Master as embodying the truths of his religion,\\nwere accustomed to bring them together in different forms, to\\napply them on various occasions, and sometimes to change their\\noriginal sense, and adapt striking expressions to a new subject\\nand that, such being the case, they were collected and arranged\\nby one who, like St. Luke, was not personally conversant with\\nJesus, but derived his information from the preaching and con-\\nversation of his immediate followers. This solution explains all\\nthe appearances presented, and I know of no other which will\\nexplain them. But this solution rests on the belief, that the\\nwords recorded in the first three Gospels were uttered by Jesus.\\nSection VII.\\nConcluding Remarks.\\nIt has been my purpose to show, that, when we consider the\\nagreements and differences among the first three Gospels, we\\nfind their character to be such as cannot be accounted for by the\\nsupposition, that the evangelists copied either one from another,\\nor all from common written documents. Some common arche-\\ntype, however, they must have had: the corresponding passages\\nwhich we find in them, if they did not previously exist in a\\ndeterminate written form, must have existed orally in forms\\nnearly resembling those which they now present and this suppo-\\nsition of a model, partly fixed by a regard to truth and by\\nfrequent repetition, and partly fluctuating through the changes\\nof oral narration, is the only one that accounts satisfactorily for\\nthe phenomena presented.\\nBut the narratives which the evangelists have thus transmitted\\nto us were the original accounts of the apostles and first preachers\\nof Christianity. This appears from the accordance of the Gospels\\nwith each other in the view which they present of the marvellous\\ncharacter and ministry of Christ. Accounts so wonderful, es-\\npecially if one fancy them unfounded in truth, would have been\\ndistorted in many different ways, with or without some dishonest\\npurpose, if abandoned to oral tradition, floating through different\\ncountries, and received and transmitted by thousands of new", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0576.jp2"}, "577": {"fulltext": "CORRESPONDENCES OF THE GOSPELS. 543\\nconverts. We cannot suppose, that, after the apostolic age,\\nthree unconnected writers, founding their narratives upon oral\\naccounts alone, would have harmonized together as do the three\\nevangelists.* The agreement and difference among these Gos-\\npels present a very extraordinary, or rather a unique, phenome-\\nnon, which requires a peculiar cause for its solution and this\\ncause is, I think, to be found only in the fact, that they were all\\nbased upon unwritten narratives, which had, as yet, lost nothing\\nof their original character and which, therefore, were the narra-\\ntives, true or false, of the first preachers of the religion.\\nIn reading those Gospels, therefore, we are, in effect, listening\\nto the very words of the apostles we are, if I may so speak, intro-\\nduced into their presence, to receive their testimony concerning\\ndeeds and words which they affirm that they saw and heard, and\\nmiracles of such a character, that it would be idle to suppose them\\ndeceived or mistaken in their reports. The question, then, con-\\ncerning the truth of Christianity, under this aspect of its evidences,\\nlies within a narrow compass. Realize, as far as you can, the\\ncharacters and circumstances of the apostles place yourselves, in\\nimagination, in their presence attend to their testimony and\\nsearch for every motive and feeling that might lead them, all\\nin common, at the hazard of every worldly good, to persist in\\nasserting the truth of stories which they knew, and thousands\\nof their hearers knew, and all might know, to be false. Just\\nso far as any probable motive may be assigned for such conduct,\\njust so far, and no farther, may the truth of Christianity be\\nrendered doubtful.\\nThus, if we have reasoned rightly, an inquiry which might, at\\nfirst view, seem to many a matter of curiosity rather than of great\\ninterest, has led us to some important conclusions among which the\\nmost remarkable is, that the very structure of the first three\\nGospels affords, when they are compared together, proof of the\\nhistory they contain, and, consequently, of the miraculous origin\\nof our religion. Such a result from a proper examination, and a\\ncorrect view, of the very peculiar phenomena of those Gospels,\\nwas perhaps to be expected.\\nSee before, p. 98, seqq.", "height": "4548", "width": "2744", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0577.jp2"}, "578": {"fulltext": "544 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nWhether we regard the history of Christ as true or false, there\\ncan be no question, that the establishment of Christianity is the\\nmost memorable event in the history of our race, that which has\\nproduced the greatest and most permanent effects upon the char-\\nacter and condition of men. To produce such results, some most\\nextraordinary cause or causes must have been in operation. But\\nif the account of those causes which we, as Christians, receive, be\\nnot true, the whole early history of Christianity will assume a new\\naspect. Imagine fraud, enthusiasm, mistake, singular combina-\\ntions of circumstances, all or any thing that can be moulded into\\na plausible scheme to account for the origin and rapid progress of\\nour religion still, if it was not, as represented, a religion from\\nGod, established by miraculous proof, all its original bearings\\nupon every individual, and every subject with which it had rela-\\ntion, must have been essentially different from what we conceive\\nthem to have been. As we suppose the religion true or false, we\\nare obliged to suppose causes in action of the most opposite char-\\nacter, the power of God in one case, and fraud and delusion, or\\nerror, of whatever kind it may be fancied, in the other. But those\\ncauses by which Christianity was established, let us suppose them\\nwhat we will, must have stamped their own character ineffaceably\\nupon whatever was subjected to their operation. If Christianity\\nwere false, we should find clear marks of falsehood in the history\\nof Jesus in the conduct, preaching, and writings of those teachers\\nwho immediately succeeded him in the accounts of its propaga-\\ntion in the direct and indirect notices of its early converts in its\\nreal or pretended bearings upon the history of the times and\\nespecially in its doctrines and morals. We should distinguish, at\\nfirst sight, such an attempt to counterfeit the power and wisdom\\nof God. But truth is always consistent, and discovers itself in all\\nits aspects and connections and hence it is, that we can investi-\\ngate scarcely any subject relating to the early history of our re-\\nligion, without some new confirmation of our faith. Though many\\nparts of this history are lost, yet many remain, spread over\\na wide field, so that we may pursue our inquiries through various\\nand very different paths, all terminating in the same conclusion,\\nthe divine origin of Christianity.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0578.jp2"}, "579": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. \u00c2\u00a3io\\nNote C.\\n(Seep. 142.)\\nON THE WRITINGS ASCRIBED TO APOSTOLICAL FATHERS.\\nSection I.\\nPurpose of this Note.\\nThe purpose of this note is to give some account of the Writings\\nof the Apostolical Fathers, so called, and, on the one hand, to\\nexplain why I have not referred to them as affording proof of the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels, and, on the other hand, to show that\\nthey do not, as has been pretended,* furnish any evidence that\\nother gospels were in common use before those which we now\\npossess.\\nThey are called Writings of Apostolical Fathers because they\\nare, or have been supposed to be, writings of individuals who\\nwere conversant with some one or more of the apostles. I limit\\nthe term in the following remarks to those about the genuineness,\\nor very early date, of which any controversy may be supposed to\\nremain and, in treating this subject, I am compelled, as will be\\nperceived, to differ from Lardner, a writer never to be spoken of\\nwithout respect, and consequently from Paley, who follows him, in\\nmy views of the works themselves, and of their importance as\\nregards our general subject.\\nThough these writings have been considered as among the ear-\\nliest memorials of Christianity, yet it is remarkable how unsettled\\nare the questions concerning their genuineness, antiquity, and\\nvalue, and how little they have been attended to by many of those\\nwho seemed particularly called upon to investigate the subject.\\nThe few remarks that Lardner has made concerning the authority\\nEichhorn s Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 113-140. See before, pp. 61, 62.\\n35", "height": "4532", "width": "2692", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0579.jp2"}, "580": {"fulltext": "546 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nof those which he quotes in proof of the credibility of the Gospels\\nare far from being satisfactory and the same may be said, on the\\nother hand, of the observations of Priestley in his History of\\nEarly Opinions, by which he would invalidate their authority.\\nThe German theologian Semler, dogmatizing, as usual, without\\nassigning reasons for his opinion, pronounces them all spurious,\\nor of doubtful credit.* Little is to be learnt from the late eccle-\\nsiastical histories of Neander and Gieseler. Olshausen, a modern\\nGerman writer of reputation, in his work on the genuineness of\\nthe Gospels, declines discussing the genuineness of the writings in\\nquestion, as having no bearing on his main inquiry but affirms\\nthem all, except The Second Epistle of Clement, so called, to\\nbe among the oldest Christian writings extant. f And some other\\nmodern German theologians quote them almost indiscriminately,\\nas if they were works of established authority.\\nBut, notwithstanding the apparently unsettled state of opinion\\nrespecting these writings, I think we may arrive at some definite\\nand satisfactory conclusions concerning them. J\\nSection II.\\nThe Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Another\\nEpistle ascribed to Clement.\\nThe first work we shall notice is the Epistle of Clement of\\nRome, written in the name of the church at Rome, where he was\\nbishop or presiding officer, or perhaps only a distinguished pres-\\nbyter, to the church at Corinth, upon occasion of some dissensions\\nwhich there prevailed. Only a single manuscript copy of the work\\nis extant, at the end of the Alexandrine manuscript of the Scrip-\\nComment. Historici de Antiquo Christianorum Statu, torn. i. pp. 39, 40.\\nf Die Echtheit der vier canonischen Evangelien erwiesen, p. 411.\\nJ A translation of the writings in question was published by Archbishop\\nWake, in 1693, under the title of The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical\\nFathers, c, with a preliminary discourse. It has since been several times\\nrepnnted; one edition having appeared at New York in 1810. But the\\nwork is poorly executed. The preliminary discourse is deficient in good\\nsense, and the translations in correctness and in appropriateness of language.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0580.jp2"}, "581": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 547\\ntures. This copy is considerably mutilated in some passages the\\ntext is manifestly corrupt, and other passages have been suspected\\nof being interpolations.\\nThe evidence for the genuineness of this Epistle that is, for\\nthe fact, that the Epistle, as now extant, was in the main written\\nby Clement seems to be full and satisfactory.\\nIrenaeus, appealing to the doctrines of Clement, as opposed to\\nthose of the Gnostics, says that Clement had seen the apostles, and\\nhad been connected with them, and that, when he became bishop,\\ntheir preaching was still sounding in men s ears, and many were\\nliving who had been taught by them and then proceeds to allege\\nthe Epistle in question, describing it as written by the church\\nof Rome to that of Corinth, and giving a general account of its\\ncharacter.*\\nDionysius, Bishop of Corinth about the year 170, wrote seven\\nEpistles, now lost, to different churches. One of these was ad-\\ndressed to the church at Rome, in which he said to them, as he is\\nquoted by Eusebius, To-day is the Lord s day, in which we\\nhave publicly read your Epistle the reading of which, as well as\\nof that formerly written from you by Clement, will be to us a con-\\nstant source of instruction. f\\nThe Epistle is abundantly quoted, as the work of Clement of\\nRome, by Clement of Alexandria. It is mentioned several times,\\nwith high praise, by Eusebius, who says that its genuineness was\\nunquestioned and that it had been formerly, and was even in his\\nday, publicly read in many churches .J Photius, in the ninth\\ncentury, gives a particular criticism upon it and, before his time,\\nthere is no doubt that our present manuscript copy was written.\\nThough the sentiments of this Epistle are commendable, it\\nappears to be the work of an author of very moderate ability.\\nThere are no expressions of personal feeling to give it life and\\ninterest. It has the air of a homily addressed to the Corinthians\\non general topics, such as humility, order, peace, freedom from\\nContra Haeres., lib. iii. c. 3, 3, p. 176.\\nt Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. c. 23.\\nHist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 16 et c. 38.\\nFor a full account of the authorities in proof of the genuineness of this\\nEpistle, see the Veterum Testimonia, in the edition of the Patres Apostolici\\nby Cotelier and Le Clerc, torn. i. pp. 128-132.", "height": "4536", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0581.jp2"}, "582": {"fulltext": "548 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nenvy and angry passions, repentance, and Christian charity, which\\nwere adapted to the state of things existing among them. Its anti-\\nquity, and the circumstances attending its composition, were prob-\\nably the principal causes of the notoriety and favor it obtained.\\nThere seems no reason for questioning, that it was written by\\na person named Clement, who held a place in the church at Rome,\\nwhich afterwards caused him to be entitled bishop, and who had\\nbeen conversant with apostles. He was supposed by some of the\\nancients to be the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to\\nthe Philippians (iv. 3) as a fellow-laborer with him but this is\\ndoubtful. Of the bearing of this work on the evidence for the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels, I shall speak hereafter.\\nThere was another work, of which a fragment only is extant,\\nthat in the fourth century was by some ascribed to Clement, and\\ncalled his Second Epistle to the Corinthians. At the present\\nday, it is generally agreed that it was not written by him. It is\\nfirst mentioned by Eusebius, who does not regard it as Clement s\\nwork, and says that it was quoted by no ancient writer.* It was\\nevidently a work of very little note or credit and there is no\\nground for supposing it to have been in existence much before the\\ntime when Eusebius mentions it. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth\\nabout the year 170, speaks of the Epistle of Clement to the Chris-\\ntians of that city in such a manner as distinctly proves that he\\nknew nothing of any second epistle.\\nEichhorn, in endeavoring to prove that the apostolical fathers\\nhad gospels different from the four Gospels, makes much use\\nof this fragment; though he does not maintain, that the work, of\\nwhich it was a part, was written by Clement, nor adduce any\\nargument to show that it was written before the end of the second\\ncentury. f It contains various quotations of words of Christ, most\\nof which there is no difficulty in supposing to be cited, strictly or\\nloosely, from our present Gospels. But, in one place, Peter is\\nrepresented as interposing a question not mentioned in the Gos-\\npels and, in another, a passage is quoted from an apocryphal\\nbook, called the Gospel of the Egyptians, of which I have else-\\nwhere given an account.\\nHist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 38. t Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 122-131.\\nIn part iii. chap. viii. of this work.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0582.jp2"}, "583": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 549\\nThe quotation of an apocryphal book by an early Christian\\nwriter, or his introducing a relation of something concerning the\\nhistory of Christ not found in the Gospels, has no bearing to prove\\nthat the Gospels were not regarded by bis contemporaries and by\\nhimself with the highest respect as the authentic histories of Jesus,\\nWe find such passages after the period when there is no question\\nthat the Gospels were so esteemed. But, in respect to the partic-\\nular case before us, it is an obvious oversight to attempt to prove\\nthat the apostolical fathers used, not our present Gospels, but\\napocryphal gospels, from a work which it is not pretended was\\nwritten by an apostolical father, and for the existence of which\\nwe have no proof before the fourth century.\\nSection III.\\nTJie Epistle of Poly carp to the PhUippians.\\nWhat may next be mentioned is an Epistle by Polycarp, Bishop\\nof Smyrna, to the church at Philippi. A portion of it only is\\nextant in Greek the remainder is furnished by an old Latin trans-\\nlation. Polycarp died a martyr in the second century. Respect-\\ning the precise time of his death, the data are, I think, too\\nuncertain to afford ground for any of the different computations\\nwhich have been made. Irenams twice mentions having known\\nhim when he himself was a young man. He speaks of his dis-\\ntinct recollection of his person, his manners, his way of life, and\\nof his public discourses, in which Polycarp. he says, reported the\\nwords of John and of other hearers of the Lord with whom he had\\nbeen conversant, and their accounts respecting the miracles and\\ndoctrine of the Lord, all corresponding to the Scriptures. Ire-\\nnaeus relates that he suffered martyrdom when a very old man.\\nTo his Epistle to the Philippians he refers, in connection with\\nhis reference to that of Clement of Rome, as giving proof of\\nthe oppo^tion between the doctrine of Polycarp and that of the\\nheretics.*\\nThis Epistle is mentioned by other ancient writers, nor is there\\nContra Hares., lib. iii. c. 3, 4. Epist. ad Floriuum, ap. Euseb. Hist.\\nEccles., lib. v. c. 20.", "height": "4552", "width": "2664", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0583.jp2"}, "584": {"fulltext": "550 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nany reason to doubt its genuineness except that a passage appears\\nto have been interpolated near its conclusion, inconsistent with\\nwhat is found in the preceding part of the Epistle, and fraudulently\\nintended to give countenance to certain Epistles forged in the\\nname of Ignatius, to be mentioned hereafter.*\\nThe Epistle of Polycarp is a general exhortation to Christian\\nduties. It does not appear to have had any specific purpose, but\\nto have been occasioned by a request of the Philippians that he\\nwould write to them, a request which not improbably had its\\norigin merely in their respect for his age and eminence. It is\\nfounded on the writings of the New Testament, and pervaded with\\nconceptions, turns of expression, and quotations, borrowed from\\nthem. I shall speak of it again in connection with the Epistle of\\nClement.\\nSection IV.\\nThe Shepherd of Hermas.\\nThere is a work called The Shepherd of Hermas, which has\\nbeen regarded by some as the production of a fanatic, who ima-\\ngined that he saw visions, or of an impostor, pretending to have\\nThe passage referred to is what is now numbered as the thirteenth\\nsection. In this, epistles of Ignatius are mentioned as sent by Polycarp to\\nthe Philippians, annexed to his own.\\nIn the body of the Epistle 9), Polycarp says to the Philippians, I\\nexhort you all to obey the doctrine of righteousness, and to exercise all\\npatience, such as ye saw before your eyes, not only in those blessed men,\\nIgnatius and Zosimus and Rufus, but also in others who were of your num-\\nber, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles; being persuaded that\\nthey all ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are\\nwith the Lord, with whom they were fellow-sufferers, in the place that was\\ndue to them.\\nWhen this passage was written, it is evident that Ignatius was dead nor\\nis his death spoken of as if it were a recent event. But the author of the\\ninterpolation, overlooking this passage, and referring to the story, that Igna-\\ntius, after leaving Smyrna, passed through Philippi on his way to suffer\\nmartyrdom at Rome, makes Polycarp request the Philippians to communi-\\ncate to him any certain information they might have concerning Ignatius\\nhimself, and those who were with him: u Et de ipso Ignatio, et de his qui\\ncum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis significate.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0584.jp2"}, "585": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 551\\nseen them. But I discern in tlie book no marks of fanaticism or\\nimposture. It seems to me to belong to the same class of writings\\nas The Tablet of Cebes, The Vision concerning Piers Plough-\\nman, or, to take a more familiar example, Bunyan s Pilgrim s\\nProgress, or, more generally, to the class of works of fiction,\\nespecially those written in the first person. The author, like\\nBunyan, describes himself as having witnessed a succession of\\nvisions, and also as having received various communications, which\\nhe was commanded to publish. His representing an angel as\\nhaving appeared to him under the likeness of a shepherd gives its\\ntitle to the work. Its allegories are not suited to the taste of\\nmodern times, but were adapted to engage the attention, and affect\\nthe minds, of readers in the age when it was composed.\\nBy some, both in ancient and modern times, the writer has\\nbeen supposed to be the Hernias mentioned by St. Paul in his\\nEpistle to the Pomans, chap. xvi. 14.\\nThis book, for a considerable period, obtained great favor and\\nauthority with many in ancient times. It was especially acceptable\\nto the fathers of the Alexandrine school. It is once quoted by\\nIrenaeus. Clement of Alexandria often quotes it as a book of\\nhigh authority. Origen, in one place, says that he thinks it was\\nthe work of the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul, that it seems to\\nhim a very useful writing, and that he thinks it divinely inspired.\\nElsewhere he quotes it often, but sometimes with such qualifying\\nexpressions as if that writing is to be received. Once he men-\\ntions it as despised by some and once, in citing it, he speaks of\\nventuring to use a certain book, which circulates in the churches,\\nbut is not acknowledged as divine by all.\\nTertullian once notices the book slightingly before he became a\\nMontanist afterwards he speaks of it with reprobation, because it\\ncontradicted the severe doctrine, which he then held, that there\\nwas no repentance for Christians guilty of unchastity. Yet, even\\nin expressing his own ill opinion of it, he implies that it had been\\nregarded by some as having a claim to canonical authority. I\\nwould give up the point, he says, M if that writing, the Shepherd,\\ndeserved to be inserted in the divine Document (that is, among\\nthe books of Scripture) if it had not been judged by every\\ncouncil, even of your churches (those of the catholic Christians,\\nin contradistinction to the Montanists), as apocryphal and false.", "height": "4560", "width": "2656", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0585.jp2"}, "586": {"fulltext": "552 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0Eusebius speaks of it as reported to be the work of the\\nHernias mentioned by St. Paul. He reckons it among those\\nwritings which were not genuine Scripture (h rolg vo^ol^ but\\nsays, that it was judged by some a very necessary book, espe-\\ncially for those who are in want of elementary instruction, so that\\nat the present day, as we know, it is even publicly read in\\nchurches, and I have observed that some very ancient writers\\nmake use of it.\\nThere is perhaps nothing in the contents of the book incon-\\nsistent with the belief of its having been written in the first cen-\\ntury but there is evidence to the contrary which can hardly be set\\naside. It is mentioned in the fragment of an account of canonical\\nand uncanonical books, or Canon, as it may be called, found\\nby Muratori in a manuscript of the Ambrosian Library at Milan,\\nand published by him in 1740, in his Antiquitates Italicae Medii\\nJEvi. f The author of this Canon says of it, that it was written\\nvery lately, in our own times, by Hermas, while his brother Pius\\npresided over the church at Rome as bishop and so it ought to\\nbe read, but not publicly in the church to the people adding,\\nthat it could not be ranked among the writings either of the\\nprophets or of the apostles. The date that has been assigned for\\nthe death of Pius is the year 142. The same account of the\\nauthorship of the book is given in a Latin poem, Against Mar-\\ncion, of uncertain age and by an unknown writer, published in\\neditions of the works of Tertullian. In this, Hermas, the brother\\nof Pius, is called the Angelical Shepherd, who spoke the words\\ncommitted to him. This opinion respecting the author of the\\nShepherd seems to have prevailed, after the fifth century, among\\nthe writers of the Latin Church. The book gradually fell into\\nneglect the original was lost and only a few manuscripts of a\\nLatin translation of it are now remaining.\\nFor the references to the passages above quoted, see the Veterum Tes-\\ntimonia in the Patres Apostolici, or in Fabricii Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test.,\\npars iii. pp. 738-763.\\nf Vol. iii. pp. 853, 854.\\nI It should be observed, that the volume of Lardner s Credibility\\nwhich contains the article on Hermas appeared before Muratori published\\nthis Canon.\\nLib. iii. adjinem; Tertulliani Opp., p. 635, ed. Priorii.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0586.jp2"}, "587": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 553\\nThe writer of the Canon published by Muratori speaks of\\nhimself as having lived in the time of Pius and his brother, Hermas,\\nand affirms that the Shepherd had been composed by the latter\\nnot long before he himself wrote. There is here no ground for\\nthe suspicion of falsehood and there seems to be but little prob-\\nability of mistake. The writer could hardly have committed so\\ngross an error concerning a work which, according to his own\\naccount, was famous and highly esteemed by many, as to represent\\nit to have been written by a well-known individual of his own\\ntime, when in fact it had been in existence from the first century.\\nWe may therefore conclude, that it was not written till towards the\\nmiddle of the second century and we must ascribe the acceptance\\nwhich it so early found, partly to its stories and allegorical repre-\\nsentations, for even rude attempts in a new form of art are likely\\nto be favorably received partly to an opinion, suggested by the\\ngeneral aspect of the book, that it was divinely inspired, for, in\\nthe first ages of Christianity, men s notions of inspiration were very\\nvague and comprehensive and partly to the mistake of supposing\\nthat it was written by one who lived in the times of the apostles.\\nThe work is of some interest, from its illustrating, in a certain\\ndegree, the opinions, feelings, and taste of the early Christians.\\nBut, as regards the direct historical evidence for the genuineness\\nof the Gospels, it is of no importance. ~No book is cited in it by\\nname. There are no evident quotations from the Gospels, and\\nnothing that one can suppose to be borrowed from any apocryphal\\nhistory of Christ.\\nSection V.\\nThe Epistle of Barnabas, so called.\\nThere is an Epistle extant which has been ascribed to Barnabas,\\nthe companion of St. Paul. It is several times expressly quoted\\nas his work by Clement of Alexandria, who entitles the author\\nBarnabas the Apostle. It is once mentioned by Origen, in his\\nwork against Celsus, under the title of the Catholic [that is,\\nGeneral] Epistle of Barnabas, as containing a passage on which\\nCelsus might have founded a charge made by him, that the apostles\\nwere infamous men, the vilest tax-gatherers and sailors which\\ncharge is, as we shall see, abundantly countenanced by the pas-", "height": "4560", "width": "2644", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0587.jp2"}, "588": {"fulltext": "554 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nsage referred to. Origen uses no expression of respect in quoting\\nit and his calling it the Epistle of Barnabas only shows that it\\npassed under that title, and does not prove that he himself believed\\nBarnabas to be its author. According to the Latin translations\\nof two of his works by Rufinus, Origen has quoted this Epistle\\nonce elsewhere, and perhaps alluded to it in another passage, but\\nstill, I think, without any particular expression of respect. The\\nEpistle is afterwards mentioned by Eusebius, who classes it\\namong books not canonical, or not genuine Scripture (kv rolg votioic).\\nAfter him, Jerome ascribes it to Barnabas, reckoning it among the\\nApocryphal Scriptures that is, as is here meant by him, among\\nwritings entitled to respect, though not canonical. The book\\nappears to be mentioned by no other writer during the first four\\ncenturies but in the Apostolical Constitutions there is a passage\\nevidently taken from it.f Though so early recommended to notice\\nby the quotations of Clement of Alexandria as the work of Bar-\\nnabas the apostle, it seems never to have obtained much favor\\namong the great body of Christians. Clement himself, in one\\nplace, rejects a fiction found in the work, J and, in another, appears\\nunsatisfied with one of its expositions. He has adduced it,\\ntherefore, not as a work of conclusive authority, nor has he\\nquoted it for historical facts, but only for expressions of senti-\\nment and opinion. Among the great multitude of volumes which\\nthat very learned father has cited in his writings, there must have\\nbeen many in regard to the authorship of which he trusted to their\\ntitles, or to very slight information nor is it doubted, that, in\\ndoing so, he has been led into many mistakes. In assigning the\\npresent work to Barnabas, he may have been deceived by a title\\nprefixed to some copy of it through the misjudgment of a former\\nproprietor, or to several copies, fraudulently, to promote their\\nsale or it may have been written by some individual of the name\\nof Barnabas, and Clement may have hastily concluded that the\\nauthor thus named was the companion of St. Paul. In ancient\\ntimes, the genuineness of books as a matter of literary interest was\\nSee the Veterum Testimonia, in the Patres Apostolici.\\nf See Dallaeus, De Pseudepigraphis Apostolicis, lib. ii. c. 4, pp. 265, 266.\\nPaedagog., ii. 10, p. 188: comp. Epist. Barnab., c. 10.\\nStromat, ii. 15, p. 389.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0588.jp2"}, "589": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 555\\nmuch less carefully investigated than at the present day and\\nClement was not distinguished from other ancient writers by par-\\nticular attention to the subject. His authority, probably, was the\\nprincipal means of procuring for the so-called Epistle of Bar-\\nnabas the notice it afterwards obtained.\\nBut the author of this work does not write in the name of\\nBarnabas, nor in any way identify himself with him and there are\\ndecisive reasons for believing Barnabas not to have been its\\nauthor.* Its most distinguishing characteristic is its being thor-\\noughly imbued with the allegorizing spirit of the Alexandrine\\nschool, which may in some degree have recommended it to Clem-\\nent. Though of a very far inferior character, it has in this\\nrespect, and in its general design, some resemblance to the Epistle\\nto the Hebrews. The style of reasoning and interpretation is so\\nforeign from all our present intellectual habits, that it may have\\nbeen spoken of too contemptuously but it is unquestionably the\\nwork of a writer deficient in good sense. The allegorical inter-\\npretations of the Old Testament are very forced and mean yet\\nafter one of the poorest, in which he teaches that the number of\\nthe persons circumcised by Abraham, which he falsely supposes to\\nhave been three hundred and eighteen, was typical of the cross\\nand of the first two Greek letters of the name of Jesus, he sub-\\njoins: He who has implanted in us the gift of teaching knows\\nthat no one has learnt from me a more genuine doctrine. But I\\nknow that ye are worthy of it. 1 f We can hardly suppose this to\\nhave been written by Barnabas, one high in honor among the first\\npreachers of Christianity, the associate of St. Paul in his labors.\\nChristianity was not established in the Gentile world by the\\npreaching of such genuine doctrines. The allegories in the\\nEpistle, founded upon the Mosaic laws respecting clean and\\nunclean food, are mixed up with strange fables respecting animals.\\nThe whole tone of it is low and trivial, expressing no warmth\\nof feeling, and not adapted to excite any. And to mention one\\nother particular passage, that referred to by Origen in his work\\nI should have considered the point so well settled, that Barnabas was\\nnot its author, as to render it unnecessary to enter into any argument on the\\nsubject, had I not observed that several of the modem German scholars are\\ndisposed to attribute it to him.\\nf Cap. 9.", "height": "4560", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0589.jp2"}, "590": {"fulltext": "556 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nagainst Celsus, the writer, laboring after emphatic language,\\nsays that Jesus chose for his apostles men who were sinners\\nbeyond all sin a declaration too foolishly extravagant for us\\nto believe that it proceeded from a contemporary and friend of the\\naj30stles.\\nBut it may be said, that we know too little of Barnabas person-\\nally to determine, from the inferior character of the Epistle, that\\nit might not have been written by him. I answer, that we know\\nmuch concerning him. From the few notices of him that St. Luke\\nhas given, we learn that he was greatly trusted by the apostles,\\nand had great influence with them that he was one of the earliest\\nof those preachers by whom Christianity was spread through the\\nworld that, with the exception of St. Paul, he apparently did\\nmore than any other in the accomplishment of this work that, in\\nthe commencement of St. Paufs ministry, he was, as it were, his\\npatron that he was open, manly, and strong-minded, taking St.\\nPaul and bringing him to the apostles, when the other disciples\\nwere all afraid of him, and with him maintaining the claims of the\\nGentiles against the prejudices of his countrymen and that he\\nwas full of zeal and disinterestedness in the cause in which he was\\nengaged, giving up his property to supply those who were in need,\\nand devoting all his powers to its promotion. Considering what\\nhe was and what he effected, there can be no doubt that he com-\\nprehended and felt the essential truths of our religion, and\\nwas well able to impress them on the hearts and minds of others.\\nWhen, with such a conception of him distinctly before us, we\\ncome to the reading of his pretended Epistle, it requires but little\\nknowledge of human nature to enable us to determine that it is\\nnot his work. It may seem only to imply the ability to distinguish\\nbetween the miserable composition of some Alexandrine sophist,\\nand the words of one full of the spirit and power of Christianity.\\nNo incongruity would be more gross than to ascribe such an\\nEpistle to St. Paul and it seems scarcely less incongruous to\\nascribe it to Barnabas.\\nTo proceed to another argument Barnabas was a Jew by\\nbirth but the author of the Epistle uniformly blends himself with\\nthe Gentile Christians as one of their number. It may be possible\\nto evade the force of particular passages to this effect, one after\\nanother but the whole impression from the manner in which he", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0590.jp2"}, "591": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 557\\nspeaks is, that he was a Gentile by birth, and, I think, a Gentile\\nconvert. In addition to this, he does not write in the Hebraistic\\nstyle of the Xew Testament. He discovers no Jewish sentiments\\nor affections, no interest in or sympathy with the Jewish nation.\\nHe writes of them with the harsh feelings of a Gentile. Xo Jew\\ncould or ought so to have alienated himself from his countrymen.\\nBetween the state of mind expressed by the writer, and the strong\\nemotion with which St. Paul speaks of his great grief and con-\\ntinual pain of heart for his brethren, his natural kinsmen, the\\ncontrast is much too striking to allow of our attributing the Epistle\\nto Barnabas, especially when we remember that this work is\\nimagined to have been written by him immediately after those\\noverwhelming calamities which the Jews brought upon themselves\\nthrough their unbelief.\\nAs appears from the work itself (c. 16), it was written after\\nthe destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70). It cannot be proved,\\nthat, in the common course of nature, Barnabas might not have\\nsurvived that event; but there is no doubt, that,- if he did so, he\\nmust have been far advanced in life. That one who had com-\\nposed nothing before should then set about the composition of a\\nwriting at all resembling that ascribed to Barnabas is very im-\\nprobable and still more improbable is it, that in a work addressed\\nby Barnabas, under such circumstances, to his fellow-Christians,\\nthere should be no recurrence to his past history, no expression\\nof those deeply affecting recollections that must have pressed upon\\nhis mind, no reference to his old age, nor any trace of emotion in\\ncontemplating the ruin which God had inflicted upon his nation,\\nthe hard but successful struggles of the true faith, and his own\\nsolitary state, as one of the few survivors of that noble company\\nof apostles and martyrs, who had been bound together by such\\nstrong sympathies in suffering and joy. Nothing of all this\\nappears in the Epistle. It might have been written as a task by a\\ndull pupil in a rhetorician s school.\\nBarnabas, as I have said, may have survived the destruction\\nof Jerusalem, though it is for various reasons unlikely that he did\\nso but, were it the fact, it would not prove that he might have\\nbeen the author of the Epistle for the Epistle was not written, as\\nhas been affirmed, shortly after that event. This appears from\\nthe passage in which the event is referred to from which it also", "height": "4548", "width": "2624", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0591.jp2"}, "592": {"fulltext": "558 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nappears, that the writer was neither Barnabas nor any other Jew.\\nThe Jewish temple having been destroyed, the author represents\\nthe Gentiles as building up in its stead a spiritual temple to God.\\nIts destruction, he says, was predicted in the Old Testament, and\\nit has taken place. For, they [the Jews] going to war, it was\\ndestroyed by their enemies and now will the very ministers of\\ntheir enemies rebuild it. The Jews going to war, it was destroyed\\nby tlieir enemies, the writer would not thus have spoken of the\\ndestruction of Jerusalem, had it been a recent event, fresh in the\\nminds of men; nor would he, if a Jew, have classed himself, as he\\nimmediately does, with the very ministers of the enemies of his\\nnation, converted Gentiles, who were to form the new temple,\\nwe, he says, whose hearts, before we believed in God, were\\nfull of idolatry, a habitation of demons, but in whom God now\\ndwells.\\nWe conclude, then, that the Epistle was not written by Bar-\\nnabas and, this being the case, we have no ground for assigning\\nto it an earlier date than is required by the circumstance of its\\nbeing quoted by Clement of Alexandria that is, we may suppose\\nit to have been written about the middle of the second century.\\nWe may derive an argument for its not being in existence before\\nthis period, from the fact, that it is not noticed by Irenseus or\\nTertullian, the latter of whom speaks of the Epistle to the He-\\nbrews as written by Barnabas, calling it the Epistle of Bar-\\nnabas, without intimating a knowledge of any other ascribed\\nto him.* A considerable part of the Epistle is controversial,\\ndirected against the unbelieving Jews, and having, therefore, the\\nsame character as Justin Martyr s Dialogue with Trypho, which\\nwas written about the period just mentioned. But, from the\\ndestruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) till the reign of Antoninus Pius\\n(a.d. 138-161), the state of the Jews, including the Jewish Chris-\\ntians, was such, that there is little likelihood that religious contro-\\nversies existed between them and the Gentile Christians, or that\\nthe notice of the latter was at all directed to their pretensions.\\nThe wrath of the Roman empire had fallen upon and blasted the\\nnation, and continued to pursue it, as if to exterminate the race.\\nThey became objects of general aversion and hatred. As an odious\\nDe Pudicitia, c. 20.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0592.jp2"}, "593": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 559\\nand degraded class, they were everywhere exposed to insult and\\ncruelty. The capitation-tax, the didrachm, which they had been\\naccustomed to pay for the service of the temple, was required by\\nTitus, in bitter mockery, for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.\\nUnder Domitian, the impositions upon them were made more\\nsevere by the brutality with which they were enforced, Prceter\\ncceteros Judaicus fiscus acerbissime actus est, says Suetonius\\nand it became a common source of revenue to charge them\\nwith crimes for the sake of seizing upon their property.* They\\nwere forbidden by the edicts of the Roman emperors to circumcise\\ntheir children. They existed throughout the empire only as\\nsuppressed rebels, often breaking out into open war, and perpe-\\ntrating and suffering terrible massacres till at last the vengeance\\nof Adrian was directed upon Judaea, and renewed, as far as there\\nwere objects for it, the desolation of Titus. Under such circum-\\nstances, we can hardly suppose the Jews to have been so interested\\nin the religious controversy with the Gentile Christians, as to give\\noccasion for such works as the Dialogue with Trypho, or the\\nEpistle of Barnabas. But under the first Antoninus, the successor\\nof Adrian, the prohibition to circumcise their children was re-\\nvoked, the wiser policy of conciliation was adopted toward them,\\nthey enjoyed a respite from their sufferings and, as during his\\nreign the Dialogue with Trypho was written, so also, we may\\nsuppose, was the Epistle of Barnabas.\\nTo those who believe that the doctrine of the pre-existence\\nof Christ did not begin to prevail among the Orthodox Christians\\ntill toward the middle of the second century, its introduction into\\nthis Epistle may afford another argument for the date assigned\\nto it.\\nBut, whatever weight there may be in these considerations, it\\nis to be remembered, that, if the Epistles be not the work of\\nBarnabas, we have no ground whatever for supposing it written\\nearlier than the period mentioned and there is no ground, there-\\nfore, for classing it with writings of apostolical fathers. Its\\ninternal character is an objection, not merely to its having been\\nTo such an extent was this practice carried, that, when it was abol-\\nished by Xerva, a coin was struck, bearing the inscription, Fisci Judaici\\nCalumnia sublata S.C.", "height": "4528", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0593.jp2"}, "594": {"fulltext": "560 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nwritten by Barnabas, but by any one who had been conversant\\nwith apostles.\\nThe Epistle is now extant, partly in the Greek original, and\\npartly in an old Latin translation the beginning of the former\\nand the end of the latter being lost. The texts of both, in the\\nfew manuscripts in which they are extant, are very corrupt and,\\nin the forms in which they have been printed, both lie under the\\nsuspicion of having been interpolated and altered by transcribers.\\nThe Epistle contains three passages corresponding to passages\\nin the Gospels.* There is one which Eichhorn thinks was taken\\nfrom an apocryphal history of Christ, f It is as follows: So\\nthey, he says, who would see me, and attain my kingdom, must\\nreceive me through affliction and suffering. But there seems\\nno difficulty in regarding this as intended to express the sense of\\nvarious passages in the Gospels. There is another professed quo-\\ntation, that would seem to have been more to Eichhorn s purpose,\\nwhich, however, may admit of a similar explanation. As the\\nSon of God says, Let us resist all iniquity, and hate it. But,\\nas regards both these passages, it is further to be observed, that\\nthe writer of the Epistle is extremely inaccurate in his professed\\nquotations, so as often to cite the Old Testament for words and\\nfacts not to be found in it. But, as these citations do not prove\\nthat he had any other copy of the Old Testament than that in\\ncommon use, so neither do the two passages in question prove\\nthat he had any other copy of the New Testament. We cannot\\ninfer from them that he quoted any apocryphal writing; and,\\ncould this be shown, it would be a fact of no moment.\\nSection YI.\\nEpistles ascribed to Ignatius.\\nWe come now to seven Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, said to\\nbe a bishop of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom soon after the\\nSee Lardner s article on Barnabas; Credibility, part ii. chap. i.\\nf Einleit. in d. N.T., i. 117, 118. J Cap. 7. Cap. 4.\\nSee the examples adduced by Jones in his New and Full Method of\\nsettling the Canonical Authority of the N.T., vol. ii. chap. xli.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0594.jp2"}, "595": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 561\\nclose of the first century. These Epistles exist in two forms, in\\none of which they are shorter than in the other. The shorter\\nEpistles have either been abridged from the longer, with some\\nchanges of expression, or the longer have been interpolated, and\\naltered in other respects from the shorter. It is the genuineness\\nof the shorter Epistles that is generally contended for by those\\nwho suppose one or the other set to have been written by Igna-\\ntius. The story connected with them is, that he was sent by the\\npersonal order of the Emperor Trajan from Antioch, by a land\\njourney, to Rome, there to be exposed to wild beasts and that\\non his way he wrote six of these Epistles to different churches,\\nand one to Poly carp.\\nBut the seven shorter Epistles, the genuineness of which is\\ncontended for, come to us in bad company not only that of their\\nseven larger brethren, but that of eight other Epistles ascribed\\nto Ignatius, which the learned have almost unanimously pro-\\nnounced to be spurious. In ancient times, supposititious works,\\nand those of little credit, were not uncommonly refashioned, or\\ngave occasion to others of a similar character while the un-\\ndoubted genuineness of a work prevented such changes and\\nimitations. The name of Ignatius, it is apparent, was a favorite\\namong the fabricators of spurious writings, probably because\\nhardly any thing was known of him with certainty.\\nThere is, as it seems to me, no reasonable doubt, that the seven\\nshorter Epistles ascribed to Ignatius are, equally with all the rest,\\nfabrications of a date long subsequent to his time. Some, who\\nhave felt the strong objections to which their genuineness is ex-\\nposed, have adopted the notion of their being interpolated, or\\nhave suggested that this might be the case. But I believe, that,\\nif there be any thing in them which Ignatius said or wrote, it is\\nthis which may be considered as interpolated, having been intro-\\nduced by the author of the Epistles to give credit to his forgery.\\nThe design of this forgery appears to have been to strengthen\\nthe domination of priests, and especially of bishops to confirm the\\ndoctrine of the deity of Christ, according to the writer s concep-\\ntions of it; and to bear down the Gnostics and other heretics,\\nby the pretended authority of an ancient martyr.\\nThe genuineness of these Epistles has been so ably discussed,\\nand they have, in my opinion, been so satisfactorily proved to\\n36", "height": "4548", "width": "2652", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0595.jp2"}, "596": {"fulltext": "562 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nbe spurious, that I shall make only a few general remarks upon\\nthe subject.*\\nThe state of the external testimony is such as to create a\\nstrong presumption of their being fabricated. The passage near\\nthe conclusion of the Epistle of Polycarp in its Latin translation,\\nin which epistles of Ignatius are mentioned, is of such a character\\nas at once to raise a suspicion of its having been interpolated\\nto countenance the fraud, f No epistles of Ignatius are men-\\ntioned by Irenaeus, Clement, or Tertullian and the absence of\\nsuch mention, under the circumstances of the case, is all but\\ndecisive proof, that the seven Epistles did not exist in their day.\\nEspecially the fact, that Irenaeus does insist at length upon the\\nevidence against the doctrines of the Gnostics to be derived from\\nthe Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, without mentioning those\\nof Ignatius, which the occasion must have forced upon his notice,\\nand which might have seemed written expressly for his purpose,\\nshows, either that these Epistles were not then extant, or that he\\ndid not recognize them as genuine and of these inferences there\\nis abundant reason to adopt the first. J Origen is adduced as\\nThe subject is to be studied in the work of Daill\u00c2\u00a3, De Scriptis quae\\nsub Dionysii Areopagitge et Ignatii Antiocheni Nominibus circumferuntur\\nin which, however, it is to be observed, that he blends together objections\\nboth to the shorter and longer Epistles, it not being settled in his time which\\nset was to be defended; in Bishop Pearson s reply to Daill\u00c2\u00a3, entitled Vin-\\ndicise Ignatianae; and in Larroque s answer to Pearson (which I have not\\nbeen able to procure), k Observationes in Ignatianas Pearsonii Yindicias,\\nnecnon in Beverigii Annotationes. 1 Most readers, however, will find enough\\nto satisfy them in Chauncy s Complete View of Episcopacy, as exhibited\\nfrom the Fathers of the Christian Church until the Close of the Second\\nCentury, the work of an able and learned theologian of this country,\\nwhich, though the controversy that produced it is obsolete, still retains\\nvalue, from the information it affords concerning Christian antiquity. It\\nis striking, and, to a scholar, almost affecting, that such a work should\\nhave been produced among us at a time (but little more than fifty years\\nsince) when, as the author mentions, there was a want of types and skill to\\nprint the Greek citations in Greek letters.\\nt See before, p. 550.\\nThere is a passage in Irenaeus (lib. v. c. 28, 4), which Eusebius\\n(H.E., iii. 36) adduces in proof of his having quoted these Epistles, and\\nwhich has been insisted upon by their defenders in modern times. It is as\\nfollows As one among us said, when condemned to the wild beasts on", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0596.jp2"}, "597": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 563\\ntwice quoting them but one of the quotations appealed to is in\\na work* of which we have only a translation by Rufinus, who so\\naltered and interpolated the writings of Origen which he rendered,\\nthat his translations, where a reasonable doubt may arise of the\\ngenuineness of a particular passage, are not considered as of\\nauthority to prove what Origen wrote and the other is found\\nin a work of which the genuineness is doubtful, a homily, f\\nwhich those who contend for its genuineness suppose to have\\nbeen written down by some hearer clandestinely, without Origen s\\nconsent and in the copies of which, thus particularly exposed\\nto interpolation from not having any claim to be regarded as the\\nprecise words of the author, it may have been subsequently in-\\ntroduced.\\nBut there is, after all, nothing improbable in the supposition,\\nthat some spurious epistle or epistles ascribed to Ignatius existed\\nin the time of Origen. This may, indeed, seem more likely than\\nthat the seven contested Epistles should have been produced in\\na body at a later period, without any thing previously existing\\nto suggest or to countenance their fabrication. They, as we have\\nseen, gave occasion to fifteen spurious epistles, which followed\\nthem and we may reasonably conjecture, that they would not,\\nsome centuries after the death of Ignatius, have been put forward\\nas written by him, if no one had before heard of an epistle as-\\ncribed to Ignatius.\\nThe first writer by whom the seven Epistles are expressly\\naccount of his testimony for God, I am the grain of Christ [or God], and am\\nground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread of God.\\nThese words are found in the Epistle to the Romans ascribed to Ignatius\\n4). By Jerome they are said to have been spoken at the time of his\\nmartyrdom. Supposing that Irenaeus referred to Ignatius, which has been\\nassumed on the one hand, and admitted on the other, without, I think, any\\nsufficient proof, there is no good reason for believing that he quoted the\\nwords of the Epistle. The turn of expression, on the contrary, would lead\\nus to suppose that he referred to spoken words: and the forger of these\\nEpistles, for the purpose of giving them credit, would naturally have recourse\\nto the artifice of introducing into them words that had been ascribed to\\nIgnatius, or which might be fancied to be his.\\nProlog, in Cantic. Canticorum; Opp. iii. 30.\\nt Homil. in Lucam vi. Opp. iii. 938.\\nX See Delarue s Preface to the third volume of Origen s Works, pp. iv., v.", "height": "4544", "width": "2632", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0597.jp2"}, "598": {"fulltext": "564 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nmentioned is Eusebius and by him in such a way as, I think,\\nto leave it doubtful whether he believed their genuineness. He\\nbegins his account of the martyrdom of Ignatius with the words,\\nIt is reported f and speaks of him as still very famous with\\nmany while, except the honorable mention of him as an ex-\\nample of patience in the genuine portion of the Epistle of Poly-\\ncarp, his name does not occur in the extant writings of any\\npreceding father, unless the passages ascribed to Origen are\\ngenuine. Eusebius was not of a character to expose himself\\nto odium by directly expressing his disbelief of a fabrication\\nintended to strengthen the power of the priesthood.\\nThe story connected with the pretended composition of these\\nEpistles is very improbable but on this it is unnecessary to\\ndwell. Their internal character affords, in my opinion, the clearest\\nevidence of forgery. A series of anachronisms runs through them.\\nThey suppose a priesthood with distinctions and powers which\\ndid not exist till long after the time of Ignatius. The implicit\\nsubmission of the laity to the clergy in all spiritual matters is\\na constant topic, and is inculcated in language foolish and ex-\\ntravagant even to profaneness. A single example may suffice\\nDo ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ did the Father,\\nand the presbytery, as the apostles and reverence the deacons\\nas the command of God. To give such an exhortation to\\nChristians at the present day would not be more absurd than it\\nwould have been to address it to those of the primitive age,\\nwhen Ignatius is supposed to have lived. There is a similar\\nanachronism in the language concerning the theological doctrine\\nof the deity of Christ. And the repeated references to the\\nopinions of the Docetse imply, that those opinions had acquired\\na notoriety and importance about the end of the first century,\\nwhich is inconsistent with the statements of the early fathers by\\nwhom they were controverted, who refer their rise to the times\\nof Adrian and Antoninus Pius.\\nI doubt whether any book, in its general tone of sentiment\\nand language, ever betrayed itself as a forgery more clearly\\nthan do these pretended Epistles of Ignatius. The style, which\\nHist. Eccles., lib. iii. c. 36. f Aoyog d 1\\nX Epist. ad Smyrnaeos, 8.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0598.jp2"}, "599": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 565\\nis barbarous and obscure, is, at the same time, ridiculously in-\\nflated and artificial.* There is no natural expression of feeling.\\nThe sentiments ascribed to Ignatius present a rude caricature\\nof a very weak, half-crazy, vain-glorious bigot. Take the concep-\\ntion on which the Epistles are founded, that of an aged Chris-\\ntian bishop, who had been a companion of apostles, torn from\\nhis people by an order of the emperor in person, sent a long\\njourney under a guard of brutal soldiers, to suffer, at its termina-\\ntion, a barbarous death, continually receiving, on his way, all the\\nconsolations and supports which the sympathy of his fellow-\\nChristians could afford him, and addressing to them, under such\\ncircumstances, his last exhortations, take this conception, and\\none can hardly imagine that the outline could be filled up, as it is\\nby the forger of these Epistles, so that not a feeling of interest\\nor respect should be excited for the supposed sufferer. Xo writer\\nof a fustian tragedy ever more grossly misrepresented human\\nnature, or put more extravagant rant into the mouth of his\\nprincipal personage. f\\nI conceive these Epistles in their shorter form to have been\\nfabricated about the beginning of the fourth century, the date\\nThe following account of the star said to have appeared to the Magi\\nmay serve as an illustration of the character of the forger of these Epistles,\\nand of his style of writing, though of this it is not the most remarkable\\nspecimen that might be given:\\nM A star shone forth in the heavens, brighter than all the stars, and its\\nlight was unspeakable; and its novelty produced perturbation. And the\\nother stars, together with the sun and moon, became a choir to that star;\\nand that surpassed them all in its light, and there was trouble among men\\nwhence came this strange novelty. Hence all magic was dissolved, and\\nevery bond of wickedness done away, ignorance was overthrown, the old\\nkingdom was destroyed, God being manifested in a human form for the\\nnewness of eternal life, and that which was perfected by God received\\ndominion. Hence all things were in commotion, because the destruction of\\ndeath was preparing. Epist. ad Ejriiesios, 19.\\nMirum kcec potuisse videri temere scripta, absurda, indicia, It is\\nwonderful that this account can have appeared unfounded, absurd, unheard\\nof. So says Cotelier, in his note on the passage, referring to expressions of\\nDaille. Bishop Pearson (Vindic. Ignat., pars ii. c. 10) defends it as credible;\\nsaying, that there were two phases of the star, one in the East, and the\\nother at Jerusalem, and that the account refers to the former.\\nt See particularly the whole of the Epistle to the Romans.", "height": "4556", "width": "2620", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0599.jp2"}, "600": {"fulltext": "566 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nassigned to them by Daille but it is doubtful, whether, in this\\nform, their text remains the same as it originally appeared. They\\nare of no value as regards the direct historical evidence for the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels. But Eichhorn, though he admits that\\nthey were not the work of Ignatius, says that they are an\\nancient though much-interpolated book, and insists on one\\npassage, as proving that the apostolical fathers quoted apocry-\\nphal gospels, f\\nSection VII.\\nConcluding Remarks respecting the Evidence for or against the\\nGenuineness of the Gospels to be derived from the Writings\\nbefore mentioned.\\nFrom the writings ascribed to apostolical fathers, if our pre-\\nceding conclusions be correct, we have to except the Second\\nEpistle of Clement, so called, of the existence of which we have\\nno proof before the fourth century the Shepherd of Hermas,\\nwhich was written not long before the middle of the second cen-\\ntury what is named the Epistle of Barnabas, which was not the\\nwork of Barnabas the apostle, and the composition of which may\\nlikewise be referred to about the middle of the second century\\nand the spurious Epistles of Ignatius, the fabrication of a much\\nlater age.\\nWe have, then, remaining only the Epistle of Clement of Home,\\nand that of Poly carp, of which I shall speak hereafter.\\nThe writings first mentioned are unimportant as affording di-\\nrect historical evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels. Sup-\\nposing the Gospels to have been in common use among Christians\\nat the time of their composition, there can indeed be little doubt\\nthat they contain quotations from and references to them. But\\nthe Gospels are not spoken of nor described there is nothing\\nin the writings themselves clearly to designate the source or\\nsources of those quotations and references nor are the words\\nalleged introduced under such circumstances, and so strikingly\\ncorrespondent with the words of the evangelists, as to satisfy us,\\nEinleit. in d. N.T., i. 131. f Ibid., p. 132.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0600.jp2"}, "601": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 5oT\\nfrom these considerations alone, that they must have been taken\\nfrom the Gospels.\\nBut it has been maintained, that these writings not only afford\\nno proof of this fact, but that they, together with the Epistles of\\nClement and Polycarp, show that gospels different from those we\\nnow have were in common use among the companions and imme-\\ndiate successors of the apostles. Eichhorn contends, that the\\napostolical fathers, from Barnabas, and Clement of Rome, down\\nto Polycarp, used in their writings, genuine and spurious [that is,\\nin those which they did and in those which they did not write]\\ntexts of the Life of Jesus in many respects different from those\\nof our Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 1 This extraordinary propo-\\nsition is maintained by arguments corresponding to its character\\nfor these arguments are founded principally on passages in works\\nwhich Eichhorn does not suppose to be genuine, and which, from\\nthe very circumstance of their being spurious, we may infer\\ncould not even have been in existence during the lifetime of those\\nto whom they are ascribed. As regards the Epistles of Clement\\nand Polycarp, his great argument for maintaining that their\\nauthors quoted histories of Christ different from the canonical\\nGospels is, that words of Jesus are brought together which do\\nnot in those Gospels stand in immediate connection, and that\\nthere is sometimes a want of verbal correspondence. The force\\nof this mode of reasoning has already been sufficiently examined.\\nEnough, likewise, has been said respecting the theory of an\\nOriginal Gospel, and of such modifications of it as the apostolical\\nfathers are imagined to have quoted and this theory may now be\\ndismissed from consideration.\\nThe Epistles of Clement and Polycarp both contain words of\\nJesus quoted in such a manner, and so correspondent to words\\nreported by Matthew and Luke,f that, if taken from any book,\\nwe may, in this stage of the argument, conclude, without hesita-\\ntion, that they were taken from the Gospels. But a doubt arises,\\nwhether those words might not have been received immediately\\nby oral communication from apostles and other immediate disci-\\nples of Jesus especially when we recollect, that Irenaeus says\\nEinleit. in d. N.T., i. 114. f See Lardner.", "height": "4512", "width": "2648", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0601.jp2"}, "602": {"fulltext": "568 ADDITIONAL NOTES.\\nthat he had heard Polycarp repeating the oral relations of John,\\nand of other hearers of the Lord, concerning the doctrine and\\nmiracles of Jesus, all conformably to the Scriptures, that is, to\\nthe Gospels. f The knowledge which Polycarp derived from the\\nhearers of our Lord, Clement may have received in the same\\nmanner and therefore, though we may appeal to their writings\\nas proving the authenticity of the Gospels, we cannot appeal to\\nthem as affording direct proof of the genuineness of the Gospels.\\nThe manner in which the writings ascribed to apostolical fa-\\nthers have been adduced in proof of the genuineness of the Gospels\\nis the result, as it seems to me, of an imperfect view of the\\nnature of that proof. The mode of reasoning by which we may\\nestablish the genuineness of the Gospels has been regarded as\\nmuch more analogous than it is to that by which we prove histori-\\ncally the genuineness of other ancient books that is to say,\\nthrough the mention of their titles and authors, and quotations\\nfrom and notices of them, in individual, unconnected writers.\\nThis mode of reasoning is, in its nature, satisfactory and would\\nbe so in its application to the Gospels, if the question of their\\ngenuineness did not involve the most momentous of all questions\\nin the history of our race, whether Christianity be a special\\nmanifestation of God s love toward man, or only the most re-\\nmarkable development of those tendencies to fanaticism which\\nexist in human nature. Reasoning in the manner supposed, we\\nfind their genuineness unequivocally asserted by Irenseus we\\nmay satisfy ourselves that they were received as genuine by Jus-\\ntin Martyr we find the Gospels of Matthew and Mark mentioned\\nin the beginning of the second century by Papias and to the\\ngenuineness of St. Luke s Gospel we have his own attestation in\\nthe Acts of the Apostles. Confining ourselves to this narrow\\nmode of proof, we arrive at what in a common case would be a\\nsatisfactory conclusion. But, when we endeavor to strengthen\\nthis evidence by appealing to the writings ascribed to apostolical\\nfathers, we in fact weaken its force. At the very extremity of\\nthe chain of evidence, where it ought to be strongest, we are\\nattaching defective links which will bear no weight.\\nSee before, p. 549.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0602.jp2"}, "603": {"fulltext": "APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 569\\nBut the dlxect historical evidence for the genuineness of the\\nGospels, as it has been the purpose of this volume to show, is of\\na very different kind from what we have just been considering.\\nIt consists in the indisputable fact, that, throughout a community\\nof millions of individuals, scattered over Europe, Asia, and\\nAfrica, the Gospels were regarded with the highest reverence as\\nthe works of those to whom they are ascribed, at so early a\\nperiod that there could be no difficulty in determining whether\\nthey were genuine or not, and when every intelligent Christian\\nmust have been deeply interested to ascertain the truth. And\\nthis fact does not merely involve the testimony of the great body\\nof Christians to the genuineness of the Gospels it is in itself a\\nphenomenon admitting of no explanation, except that the four\\nGospels had all been handed down as genuine from the apostolic\\nage, and had everywhere accompanied our religion as it spread\\nthrough the world.", "height": "4532", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0603.jp2"}, "604": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0604.jp2"}, "605": {"fulltext": "INDEX I.\\n[The dates following fl. are in general taken from Cave.]\\nAbbadie, J., quoted, 2.\\nAbstinence practised by the Gnostics,\\n221, 224 ff.\\nAchamoth, 334, 356.\\nActs of the Apostles, Paley s com-\\nparison of the, with the Epistles\\nof Paul, 90. Their authenticity,\\n90 n.\\nAcylinus, 215, 218.\\nAdamantius, his Dialogue concern-\\ning the Right Faith in God, 212,\\n213.\\nAdelphius, 215, 218.\\n^Eons, 174, 202, 207, 208, 216, 220,\\n326, 334.\\nAgrippa Castor (fl. 135), 352.\\nAlexander the Paphlagonian [ft.\\n110), 192.\\nAlexandrine text of the New Testa-\\nment, 45.\\nAliptes, Hadrian s use of the word,\\n282 n.\\nAllegorical interpretation, 294, 305-\\n316, 326.\\nAlogi, The, 388.\\nAmbrose, Bp. of Milan {ft. 374), 352,\\n362, 459.\\nAnanias, translator of The Gospel\\nof Xicodemus, 379 n.\\nATrapp?, Meaning of, 82.\\nApocalypse, Authorship of the, 118.\\nIts date, 252.\\nApocryphal gospels, The, 54, 338-\\n391. (For details see Contents,\\npp. xix, xx.)\\nApollonius of Tyana (b. cir. 4 B.C.),\\n192.\\nApostles, The, charged by the Gnos-\\ntics with Jewish errors, 333-335.\\nTheir discourses chieflv narratives\\nof Christ s life, 510-514. Taught\\nin Greek, 518. Christ s instruc-\\ntions to, 530, 531, 533-535.\\nApostles Creed, The, 185.\\nApostles, Memoirs by the, 61,\\n114-117.\\nApostolical Constitutions cited, 554.\\nApostolical Fathers, On the writings\\nascribed to the, 545-569 whether\\nthey afford any evidence of the\\ngenuineness of the Gospels, 1-3,\\n142 n., 566-569.\\nAristobulus 180), 311.\\nAristotle, 270.\\nArnobius (fl. 303) does not cite any\\nbook of Scripture. 125.\\nArtemon (ft. 210). Heresy of, 41.\\nAsceticism, 354-356. Of some of the\\nGnostics, 221, 224 ff. See also Li-\\ncentiousness.\\nAthenagoras (fl. 177), 124.\\nAugustin (fl. 396) quoted, 128. His\\nCatalogue of Heresies, 212.\\nAuthoritv as a foundation of belief,\\n239, 240.\\nBardesaxes (ft. 172), 214 n.\\nBarnabas (fl. 34), What is known\\nconcerning, 157, 517 n., 556. The\\nEpistle ascribed to, 3, 553-560.\\nThe Gospel ascribed to, 369.\\nBartholomew, The Gospel of, 390.\\nBasil of Csesarea [fl. 370), the first\\nto propound the Catholic doctrine\\nof tradition, 331 n.\\nBasilides fl. 112), 405. A disciple\\nof Glaucias, 204, 32S. Wrote a\\ncommentary on the Gospels, 352,\\n394.", "height": "4520", "width": "2640", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0605.jp2"}, "606": {"fulltext": "572\\nINDEX.\\nBasilidians, 174, 220. Mentioned by-\\nJustin, 205, 206. Few in number,\\n221. Their morals, 228. The\\nGospel said to be used by the,\\n351-353.\\nBaur, F. C, his Christian Gnosis\\ncriticised, 180-182 n.\\nBeausobre, I. de, on Simon Magus,\\n193 n. Quoted, 278.\\nBelief and credit distinguished, 384.\\nBengel, J. A.,, quoted, 453 n.\\nBentley, R., Extract, on various\\nreadings, from his Remarks on\\nFree-thinking, 418 n.\\nBoanerges, the name, mentioned by\\nJustin. 118.\\nBolingbroke, Lord, on the Apostolic\\nFathers, 2.\\nBury, A., his Naked Gospel, 344.\\nCainites, 277, 284, 348-350.\\nCaius, the Roman presbyter (Jl.\\n210), on Cerinthus, 197, 198.\\nCalvin, J., quoted, 321 n. On re-\\nnouncing human reason, 335, 33G.\\nCalvinism, 321.\\nCapernaum, Different accounts of\\nthe cure of the leper at, 521, 522.\\nCarpocratians, 220. Account of the,\\n2(57-276. Improperly classed with\\nthe Gnostics, 268, 277. Their\\nmorals, 229, 271-276.\\nCassianus, Julius (fl. 174), on celib-\\nacy, 355.\\nCatholic Church, Errors of the, 321.\\nIts theory of tradition, 331 n. Its\\nclaim to infallibility, 335.\\nCelsus (fl. 150?), 314. Quoted, 9,\\n215. Misquoted by Eichhorn, 63.\\nAccount of his work against Chris-\\ntianity, 78-81. Calls the Simonians\\na Christian sect, 194, 195. Also\\nthe Ophians, 287, 288. Opposes\\nallegorical interpretation, 311.\\nCerdo, 220..\\nCerinthus (fl. 80), The gospel used\\nby, 6, 61, 62, 198, 387-389. His\\ndoctrines, 196-200. Not conspic-\\nuous, 198-200.\\nCerinthians, 220.\\nChauncy, C., his Complete View\\nof Episcopacy, 582 n.\\nChrist, Consistenc} 7 in the Gospel\\nrepresentation of, 53, 54. Called\\na magician, 126. Born in a cave,\\n127. Justin s account of his bap-\\ntism, 128, 129. A maker of\\nploughs and r okes, 127. Sayings\\nattributed to him not recorded in\\nGospels, 130, 131, 354-356. Dis-\\ntinguished from the man Jesus, by\\nCerinthus, 196, 199, 21)0; and bv\\nother Gnostics, 290, 291; St. John\\ndoes not allude to this doctrine,\\n202. The Carpocratian doctrine\\nconcerning, 270, 271. His differ-\\nent knowledge as God and as man,\\n334. His brothers, 365, 371, 432.\\nGospels of the Infancy of, 374-\\n384. His descent into Hell, 380 n.\\nDate of his death, 382 n. Geneal-\\nogies of, 432, 433. His wonder-\\nful character, 406, 407, 409. The\\nfirst three Gospels relate chiefly\\nto his ministry in Galilee, 516 n.\\nChristianity, Present state of belief\\nin, 149/ Contrasted with Pagan\\nphilosophy, 1*64 ff. Not derived\\nfrom any previous system, 168.\\nDivinity of, 248.\\nChristians, The earlv, their number\\nin the lid century, 28-31. (The\\nearly heretics not included under\\nthis term, 35 n.) Their reverence\\nfor the Scriptures, 35-41, 58. Di-\\nvided into Jewish and Gentile,\\n51, 107, 108. Are all witnesses to\\nthe genuineness of the Gospels,\\n83-85; their means and motives\\nfor determining it, 85-87. their\\nintellectual and moral character,\\n88, 89, 102. Their faith in Christi-\\nanity identical with their belief in\\nthe Gospel, 91-93. Their condi-\\ntion between the death of St. John\\nand the time of Justin, 138. Their\\nbelief influenced by their circum-\\nstances, 167, 168. The earliest\\nconverts had few opportunities f r\\ngetting correct notions of Christi-\\nanity, 243. False teachers among,\\n244-252. Not continuously per-\\nsecuted, 256. See also Fathers,\\nGnostics, Heretics, Jewish Chris-\\ntians.\\nChrysostom (fl. 398), 459. A hom-\\nily ascribed to, quoted, 382 n.\\nRejects the miracles of the Infancy,\\n378.\\nChurch, NTo universal, before the\\nHid century, 24, 25.\\nCicero s Epistles to Atticus, 146.\\nClement of Alexandria (fl. 192),\\n210, 213. His account of the\\nwords spoken at Christ s baptism,", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0606.jp2"}, "607": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n573\\n6,128. Date of his death, 7. Gives\\nvarious readings of Matt. v. 10;\\n9, 65. His reverence for the Scrip-\\ntures, 39. On certain paraphrases\\nof the Gospels, 65, 66. Evidences\\nof the genuineness of the Gospels\\nafforded by him, 77, 78. On the\\nsource of the Gospels of Mark and\\nLuke, 78, 498. His inaccuracy in\\nquotation, 120. Savings ascribed\\nto Christ by, 130, 131. Quoted,\\n185. Does not mention Dositheus,\\n196 n nor Cerinthus. 198; nor\\nthe Clementine Homilies, 298;\\nnor the Epistles ascribed to Igna-\\ntius, 562 nor any gospel of Basi-\\nlides, 351; but quotes his com-\\nmentary, 352. On Valentinus and\\nMarcion, 204, 227; the followers\\nof Prodicus, 216; the Basilidians,\\n228; the morals of the heretics,\\n224, 231, 232, 275; the Nicolaitans,\\n253 martyrdom, 258 the Carpo-\\ncratians, 268-273; the Ophians,\\n284, 286, 288. His use of a/lr}-\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0yopsG), 306. States that the Gnos-\\ntics claimed Matthias as a leader,\\n328, On secret tradition, 329.\\nOn the pretensions of the Gnostics,\\n333, 335. On the Gospel accord-\\ning to the Egyptians, 353-357.\\nAn interpolation in, 359 n. His\\nHypotyposes quoted, 360, 361.\\nOn The Preaching of Peter,\\n367. Countenances the doctrine\\nof the virginity of Alary after child-\\nbirth, 372. Wrongly supposed to\\nrecognize Mark xvi. 19 as gen-\\nuine, 445 n. Quotes the Shep-\\nherd of Hermas, 551. On the\\nEpistle ascribed to Barnabas, 553,\\n554.\\nClement of Rome {fl. 98 First Epis-\\ntle of, 3, 546-548. Second Epis-\\ntle falsely ascribed to, 355, 548.\\nWrongly said to quote Mark xvi.\\n19, 44o n.\\nClementine Homilies, 367. On the\\nJewish Law, 186. On Simon Ma-\\ngus, 195. Account of the, 298, 299.\\nCneph, 2S4.\\nCollins, Anthony, 417, 418 n.\\nCommunity of goods and women,\\n26b, 272, 273.\\nConfucius, 268.\\nControversy. Theological, 325.\\nCorrespondences of the first three\\nGospels, 463-544.\\nCotelier, J. B., quoted, 565 n.\\nCredit and belief distinguished, 384.\\nCredulity of mankind, 3fc3, 3 4.\\nCudworth, R., criticised, 2bl n.\\nCyprian, Bp of Carthage {fl. 248),\\nhis quotations from the Gospels,\\n125.\\nDaille, J., quoted, 453 n. On the\\nEpistles of Ignatius, 562 n., 565 n.,\\n566.\\nDemiurgus, The, 170.\\nDiatessaron. See Tatian.\\nDion Cassius, quoted, 107 n.\\nDibnysius of Alexandria {fl. 247) on\\nCerinthus, 197, 198.\\nDionysius, Bp. of Corinth {fl. 170),\\nquoted, 8. Denounces the cor-\\nrupters of the Scriptures, 38, 62.\\nQuotes the First Epistle of Clem-\\nent of Rome, 547, 548.\\nDionysius of Halicarnassus, inaccu-\\nrate in quotation, 121.\\nDivorce sanctioned by the Pharisees,\\n537.\\nDocetae, 202, 214 n., 363. The name\\ndefined, 171.\\nDoctrina Orientalis, 208 n., 221,\\n394. Quoted, 356.\\nDoctrines, Origin of false, 162, 165,\\n167.\\nDositheus, a pretended Messiah, 196.\\nEbiox, 197 n.\\nEbionites, or Jewish Christians, 108,\\n184, 213, 388. The Gospel of the,\\n6, 9, 155-159, 427-430, 436. See\\nalso Jewish Christians.\\nEgypt, Pseudo-Christians in, 282.\\nAllegorical meaning of, 313.\\nEgyptian worship impure, 276.\\nEgyptian pantheism, 279. Egyp-\\ntian mythology confused, 281.\\nEgyptians, The Gospel according\\nto the, 77, 354-358, 548\\nEichhorn, J. G 115 n. Denies that\\nthe Apostolic Fathers and Justin\\nMartyr used our Gospels, 2, 5 6\\nHis theory of the origin of rhe Gos-\\npels, 5-9, 488-491 refuted, 24-27,\\n60-67, 491-510. His inconsisten-\\ncy, 52, 53, 66. On Tatian s Diates-\\nsaron, 386. An oversight of, 3- 8\\nn. On the Apostolical Fathers,\\n545, 567. His use of Clement s\\nSecond Epistle to the Corinthians,", "height": "4532", "width": "2712", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0607.jp2"}, "608": {"fulltext": "574\\nINDEX.\\n548. On the Epistle of Barnabas,\\n560. On the Ignatian Epistles,\\n566.\\nEncratites, 224, 225, 386, 387 n.\\nEphesus, Books of magic burnt in, 33.\\nEpiphanes ft. 137), his work Con-\\ncerning Justice, 268, 269. His\\ndoctrines, 272. Taught promis-\\ncuous intercourse of the sexes, 272,\\n273, 275.\\nEpiphanius, Bp. of Salamis (fl. 368),\\n212, 213. Quote* the Gospel of\\nthe Ebionites, 6, 436. His account\\nof the Ebionites inaccurate, 156.\\nHis story about St. John and\\nEbion, 197 n. His blunders about\\nCerinthus, 199, 200. His extracts\\nfrom writings of certain Valentin-\\nians, 207, 210. His character as\\nan author, 211, 278. His use of\\nthe term Gnostics as a specific\\nname, 276-279. On The Gospel\\nof Eve, 279-283; of Perfec-\\ntion, 345; of Judas, 349; of\\nCerinthus, 387-389. The Egyp-\\ntian Gospel, 356. His errors\\nabout the Ophians, 283, 288. Does\\nnot mention a gospel of Basilides,\\n351. On the miracles of the In-\\nfancy, 378. On the Acts of Pi-\\nlate, 381 n., 382 n. On the use\\nof the Gospel of Matthew by the\\nEbionites and Nazarenes, 427, 428.\\nOn the genuineness of Luke xxii.\\n43, 44; 455, 456.\\nEternal Gospel, The, 344.\\nEusebius of Csesarea (fl. 315), 213,\\n425. The first to mention Tatian s\\nGospel, 32. His mention of Jus-\\ntin, 135. Quotes Papias, 139. His\\nignorance about the Gnostics, 277.\\nOn Agrippa Castor, 352. His ac-\\ncount of Serapion s tract on The\\nGospel according to Peter, 362.\\nHis mention of that Gospel, 365 of\\nother apocryphal gospels, 351, 366.\\nOn the Acts of Pilate, 381 n.\\nOn the use of the Gospel of Mat-\\nthew by Symmachus. 427 n. On\\nthe genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20\\n445, 446. On Mark s preaching at\\nAlexandria, 449. On the Epistles\\nof Clement, 547, 548. On the\\nShepherd of Hernias, 552. On\\nBarnabas, 554. On the Ignatian\\nEpistles, 562 n., 564.\\nEusebius of Emesa (fl. 341), 213.\\nEutychians, 214 n.\\nEve, The Gospel of, 279-283, 345.\\nEvil, Gnosticism an attempt to ex-\\nplain the existence of, 187.\\nFabricius, J. A., Account of his\\nCodex Apocryphus Novi Testa-\\nment!, 341 n.\\nFathers of the Church, The, inaccu-\\nrate in quotation, 119-121. The\\nearlier and later Fathers should be\\ndistinguished, 210.\\nFaustus, the Manichssan, 8.\\nFelix, Minutius, (fl. 220) affords no\\nevidence for the Gospels, 125.\\nFolly, The history of, might be more\\ninstructive than our Histories of\\nPhilosophy, 337.\\nGennesaret, Different dates as-\\nsigned in the Gospels to the voyage\\nto, 520, 521.\\nGentile Christians, Feelings of, to-\\nwards the Jewish Christians, 108.\\nGenuineness of books, Ancient want\\nof curiosity as to the, 554.\\nGerman philosophy, 182 n.\\nGibbon, E., on the population of the\\nRoman Empire, 28. On the Gnos-\\ntics, 161, 180. Follows Jerome in\\na misstatement, 203 n.\\nGibson, Bp., Third letter of, 2.\\nGieseler, J. C. L., 546.\\nGlaucias. 204, 328.\\nGnomologia, 490, 508, 509.\\nGnostics, 160-413. For details see\\nthe Contents, pp. xii.-xviii.\\nGospel, to svayyeXcov, Use of the\\nword, 64, 82 n., 116, 136, 279, 343,\\n344.\\nGospel according to the Twelve\\nApostles, The, 369 n.\\nGospel of Perfection. The, 345.\\nGospel of the Infancy, The, 22.\\nGospels, The number of copies of the,\\nused in the lid century, 31-33;\\ntheir cost, 31. The order in which\\nthey were written, 78, 82. Their\\nliterary style, 109. Read in the\\nchurches on the Lord s dav, 116,\\n133, 136.\\nFor further details see the Con-\\ntents, pp vii.-xxi. See also Kich-\\nhorn, and Original Gospel.\\nGregor} r of Nazianzus (fl. 370) on\\nthe decline of the Gnostics, 220.\\nGregory of Nyssa (fl. 370), 445.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0608.jp2"}, "609": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n575\\nGregorv of Tours (fl. 573), 380 n.,\\n381 n.\\nGriesbach, J. J., 202 n. An extrava-\\ngant assertion of, 45 n. His edition\\nof the New Testament, 421. List\\nof various readings in Matt i.-viii.,\\n422-425. On Mark xvi. 9-20; 444.\\nGrotius, H., quoted, 519 n.\\nHahx, August, 341 n.\\nHarpocras, a mistake for Carpocrates,\\n390 n.\\nHebrews, The Gospel of the, 6.\\nAccording to Eickhorn derived\\nfrom the Original Gospel, 61:\\nbut really the Hebrew original of\\nMatthew* 61, 156, 340, 427-430,\\n436. Xot Tatian s Diatessaron,\\n387.\\nHegelianism, 180, 181 n.\\nHelena and Simon Magus, 190-195.\\nHell, The Harrowing of, 380 n.\\nHellenistic Greek the language of the\\nGospels, 50-52, 109.\\nHellenists, 518.\\nHeracleon. Commentary of, on John,\\n208, 209, 394. Quoted, 227. On\\nmartyrdom, 258.\\nHeretics, How the Gospels were re-\\nceived by the, 155 ff. The term\\ndefined by Origen, 173 equivalent\\nto Gnostics, 185.\\nHermas (fl. dr. 150), The Shep-\\nherd of, 3, 550-553.\\nHermogenes fl. 170) on Evil, 186.\\nHierocles (fl. 302), 192.\\nHilary, Bp. of Poictiers (fl. 354), 128.\\nQuoted, 455.\\nHippolvtus, Bp. of Ostia (fl. 220),\\n458.\\nHomer, 110.\\nHypostatize, Use of the term, 174 n.\\nIdolatry, 233-235.\\nIgnatius (fl. 101), The Epistles as-\\ncribed to, 3, 203 n., 550, 560-566.\\nIllumination, Spiritual. See Reason.\\nInterpolations, how detected. 52. In\\nthe Gospels, 16-19, 35, 36, 48, 49,\\n431-462; their origin, 18. What\\nevidence is necessary to prove the\\ngenuineness of a passage. 452-454.\\nInterpretation of the Scriptures. Ra-\\ntional principles of neglected. 324.\\n325. See also Allegorical interpre-\\ntation.\\nIntuition. See Reason.\\nIrenseus (fl. 180 a.d., 1, 34). 213.\\nThe first to speak of the four Gos-\\npels, 7. On the general reception\\nof the Gospels, 34 his testimony\\nto their genuineness, 39. 71-74 his\\naccount of their publication, 72,\\n498; of their characteristics, 73.\\nQuotes Papias, 130. On the Gnos-\\ntics, 172-395, passim. On the Mar-\\ncosians. 175, 376 the Valentinians,\\n185, 204, 206, 207, 226 their Gos-\\npel, 346-348, -350, 351. Derives\\nthe Gnostics from Simon Magus,\\n189, 193-195. Does not mention\\nDo-itheus, 196 n. On Cerinthus,\\n196-200 the Marcionites, 209, 393\\nthe Basilidians, 221, 228 the unity\\nof the church, 222: the Enerartes,\\n225 the fees accepted by the Gnos-\\ntics for teaching their doctrines,\\n247 the Gnostic avoidance of mar-\\ntyrdom, 257; the Carpocr tians,\\n268-277; the Gnostic aversion to\\nthe Law of Moses, 294. Does not\\nnotice the Clementine Homilies,\\n298. On the Ophians, 283-289.\\nHis allegorical interpretations. 306\\nn. On the types in the Old Tes-\\ntament, 310: secret oral tradition,\\n328-334; the Gospel of Judas. 348-\\n350; the Gnostic perversions of\\nScripture, 395; the Hebrew origi-\\nnal of Matthew, 425, 427. Quotes\\nLuke xxii. 43, 44; 456. On the\\nEpistle of Clement to the Corin-\\nthians, 547. On Polycarp. 549.\\nQuotes The Shepherd of Her-\\nmas, 551. Does not mention the\\nEpistle of Barnabas. 55*: nor the\\nIgnatian Epistles, 562.\\nIsidore, the Gnostic (fl. 135), 228.\\nIsis, What is symbolized by, 280.\\nIn inscriptions. 280, 281 n.\\nIsocrates, quoted inaccurately by\\nDionvsius of Halicarnassus, 121.\\nJames the Less. The Protevangelion\\nascribed to, 370-374.\\nJerome, St. (fl. 378), on books as-\\ncribed to Simon, 193 n. A mis-\\nstatement of. 203 n. His opinion\\nof Origen. 312. The translation of\\nthe Gospel of the Nativity of Mary\\nascribed to. 374. On the Hebrew\\noriginal of Matthew, 425, 428. On", "height": "4532", "width": "2708", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0609.jp2"}, "610": {"fulltext": "576\\nINDEX.\\nSymmachus. 427. On the genu-\\nineness of Mark xvi. 9-20; 445:\\nof Luke xxii 43, 44; 455. On the\\nEpistle of Barnabas, 554. Gives\\nthe words of Ignatius at his mar-\\ntvrdom, 563 n. Other citations,\\n352, 356, 362, 365, 369.\\nJesus, The man, distinguished from\\nthe v\u00c2\u00a3on Christ bv Cerinthus, 196,\\n199, 200. St. John does not ad-\\nvert to this doctrine, 202. See also\\nChrist.\\nJews, Proselytes of the, 107 n. Their\\nlaw and history a stumbling-block\\nto Gentile Christians, 188. Gnos-\\nticism as a separation of Christi-\\nanity from Judaism, 294. Their\\nnational blindness, 532, 538. Their\\nfalse notions of the Messiah, 536.\\nThe Law, 537. Their condition,\\n70-138 A.P., 558, 559.\\nJewish Christians. Their early sepa-\\nration from the Gentile Christians,\\n51, 108, 157, 234-236. Called\\nEbionites, 108. Used the Hebrew\\noriginal of Matthew, 108, 425-430.\\nCerinthus said by Epiphanius to\\nbe their leader, 199. Did not recog-\\nnize St. Paul as an Apostle, 369 n.\\nTheir doctrines, 426. See also\\nEbionites.\\nJohn the Baptist, 134.\\nJohn the Evangelist, supposed by\\nJustin to be the author of the Apoc-\\nalypse, 118. Spent his last days\\namong the Gentiles, 157. Sur-\\nvived the other Apostles, 158.\\nAnd Cerinthus, 197. A Gospel of\\nthe Infancy ascribed to, 376.\\nJohn, the Gospel of, Interpolations\\nin, 17, 458-462. Its style, 50.\\nMentioned and characterized by\\nIrenseus, 72, 73. Composed last,\\n78, 82. Origen on a disagree-\\nment between it and the other Gos-\\npels, 103. Used by Justin, 134.\\nDoes not allude to the Gnostics,\\n202. Its genuineness, 408. Its\\ncharacter, 516 n.\\nJohn the Presbyter, quoted, 139.\\nJones, Jeremiah, The Canonical\\nAuthority of the New Testament,\\nby, criticised, 341 n.\\nJosephus perhaps mentions Simon\\nMagus, 191. The interpolated men-\\ntion of Jesus in, 453.\\nJudaism. See Jews.\\nJudas, The Gospel of, 345, 349-350.\\nJude, The Epistle of, not genuine,\\n201, 250.\\nJustin Martyr {fl. dr. 150 A d 1, 5),\\n213. His mention of the Gospels,\\n3-5, 37. The -Memoirs by the\\nApostles, 4, 6, 9, 457; said by\\nEichhorn to be derived from the\\nOriginal Gospel, 61; were the\\nGospels of Irenseus, 137. Evi-\\ndence of the genuineness of the\\nGospels derived from his writings,\\n112-137. Sketch of, 113. The\\norder of his Apologies inverted,\\n115 n. His inaccuracy in quota-\\ntion, 121-123. Gives accounts con-\\ncerning Christ not to be found in\\nthe Gospels, 125-130. His account\\nof Simon Magus, 190, 193. On\\nCerinthus, 199. On the Gnostics,\\n205, 206. On eating idol-sacri-\\nfices, 232. Calls the God of the\\nOld Testament the Logos, 300, 301.\\nHis allegorical interpretations of\\nthe Old Testament, 306 n., 309.\\nDoes not mention a secret tradition,\\n329. Refers to the Acts of Pilate,\\n381 n. Does not recognize Mark\\nxvi. 9-20 as genuine, 445 n.\\nJustinian, Code of, 220.\\nJuvencus {fl. 330), 128.\\nKaye, J., Bishop, on Clement s view\\nof Gnosis and tradition, 331 n.\\nLactantius {fl. 303), on the style\\nof the Scriptures, 109. On Cy-\\nprian, 125. Does not speak of the\\nGospels, 125. The words spoken\\nat Christ s baptism, 128. On the\\nobstinate belief of the Pagans, 240\\nn. On The Preaching of Peter,\\n367.\\nLardner, N., quoted, 3. On the\\nApostolical Fathers, 545, 546. On\\nHermas, 552 n.\\nLarroque, M., 562 n.\\nLatimer, H. Though I cannot ar-\\ngue for my religion, I can die for\\nit, 259.\\nLaw, Christ s use of the word, 537.\\nLe Clerc, J., on allegorical interpre-\\ntation, 306 n., 307 n.\\nLeper at Capernaum, Different ac-\\ncounts of the cure of the, 521, 522.\\nLess, G on the testimony of the\\nApostolic Eathers to the books of\\nthe New Testament, 3.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0610.jp2"}, "611": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n77\\nLetter and spirit, 314 n.. 335, 336.\\nLiberty, Christian, what it is. 236,\\n237/ How to be attained. 237, 238.\\nThe doctrine perverted, 23S. 239.\\nLicentiousness of the Gnostics, 208\\nn 225-229, 233, 234. 272. Ac-\\ncounted a religious duty. 273-276.\\nLocke, J., misrepresented, by Weg-\\nscheider and others, 176.\\nLogos, 134. Represented as the God\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2of the Old Testament. 300-303.\\nJustin Martyr s reference to the,\\n300. Tertullian s account of the,\\n301-303. The eternal Logos dis-\\ntinguished from the incarnate by\\nClement. 361.\\nLonginus. Various readings in the\\nTreatise on the Sublime of,\\n419 n.\\nLucan. The followers of, charged\\nwith altering the Gospel-historv,\\n64.\\nLucian of Samosata, 192.\\nLucretius, Various readings in. 419 n.\\nLuke, the Evangelist. 517. The au-\\nthor of the Acts, 90 n. Xot a Gen-\\ntile, 107 n. On Barnabas, 556.\\nLuke, the Gospel of, Interpolations\\nin. 17, 48, 49, 449-458. Marcion\\nused a mutilated copy of, 62, 337,\\n345. Tertullian on the genuine-\\nness of, 40, 76. Eecords the gospel\\npreached by Paul, 72, 102. Char-\\nacterized by Irenams, 73. Praised\\nby St. Paul, 82. Discrepancies\\nbetween it and Matthew, 104.\\nLake s testimony to its genuine-\\nness, 139. Its account of the Xa-\\ntivity compared with Matthew s,\\n432-436. The proportion of pas-\\nsages coincident with the other\\nGospels. 464. Differs from Mat-\\nthew and agrees with Mark in the\\norder of events. 470-473. Xot\\ncopied from Matthew, 475-488;\\nnor from an Original Gospel,\\n488-510. Explanation of its cor-\\nrespondences with the other Gos-\\npels. 510-524. Date of its compo-\\nsition. 525. Illustration of, from\\nthe circumstances of its composi-\\ntion. 528-542.\\nMagi. The story of the. criticised,\\n435. Description of the star, quo-\\nted from an Ignatiau epistle, 565 n.\\nManes, 214 n.\\nManichreans. The. 219. The Gospel\\nused by. 344.\\nManilius. Various readings in, 419 n.\\nManuscripts, Alterations in, 8, 23,\\n24, 62. How many MSS. of the\\nGospel have been examined, 19.\\nMarcion rl. 130), 363. 398. 405. Ac-\\ncounts of, 204, 205, 209, 210. 294.\\nHis objections to the Old Testa-\\nment answered by Tertullian, 303,\\n304. Rejected allegorical inter-\\npretatiom 310, 316. His Anti-\\ntheses, 325. On the Jewish\\nerrors of the Apostles, 332, 333.\\nA poem against, quoted, 552.\\nMarcion. The Gospel of. 6. AVas a\\nmutilated copv of Luke. 40, 42,\\n62, 64, 209, 210. 332. 340. 345, 392,\\n393, 401. 405. Derived by Eich-\\nhorn from the Original Gospel,\\n61. Contained in ThiTo s Codex\\nApocryphus. 341 n.\\nMarcionites, The, 184. Their doc-\\ntrines. 170-174. MenToned by\\nJustin, 205, 206. Their number,\\n214 n., 219-222. Their asceticism,\\n221, 224, 225. Courted martyrdom,\\n258. Used Luke and ten Epistles\\nof Paul. 337 and no apocryphal\\nGospels, 343. Their contempt for\\nJudaism, 401. 450. Do not quote\\nthe interpolation in Luke ix. 55,\\n56; 452.\\nMarcosians, The, 376, 378. Irenaeus\\non, 175 n.\\nMarginal readings often introduced\\ninto the text by copyi-ts. 18. 453 n.\\nMark, the Evangelist, 157. 517 n.\\nMark, The Gospel of, said to be cited\\nh\\\\ the Apostolic Fathers, 2. In-\\nterpolation in, 17, 443-449. Found-\\ned on the narrative of Peter, 37,\\n72, 78, 82, 102. 118, 139, 448, 449.\\nIts character, 48. 73, 134. 479. _ The\\nproportion of passages coincident\\nwith the other Gospels, 464. Dif-\\nfers from Matthew and agrees with\\nLuke in the order of events, 470-\\n473. Xot copied from Matthew\\nand Luke, 475-4S8; nor from an\\nOriginal Gospel, 488-510. Ex-\\nplanation of its correspondences\\nwith the other Gospels. 510-524.\\nDate of its composition, 525. Its\\narrangement, 529.\\nMarsh, H., Bishop, 115 n., 519 n.\\nQuoted, 3, 4. His theory of the\\norigin of the Gospels, 60, 4SS ff.\\n37", "height": "4532", "width": "2628", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0611.jp2"}, "612": {"fulltext": "578\\nINDEX.\\nMartyrdom avoided by the Gnostics,\\n256-259; but not bv the Marcion-\\nites, 258. Tertullian on, 259-261,\\n263. Origen on, 261, 262.\\nMary, Gospels of the Nativity of,\\n370-374. A virgin after child-\\nbirth, 372.\\nMassuet, R., quoted, 199 n.\\nMatter, J., on the Gnostics, 180.\\nMatthew, the Evangelist, The Gos-\\npel of the Nativity of Mary as-\\ncribed to, 374; also a Gospel of\\nthe Infancy, 376.\\nMatthew, The Gospel of, said to be\\ncited by the Apostolic Fathers, 2.\\nOriginally written in Hebrew, 15,\\n56, 72, 82, 108, 139, 156, 425-430,\\n519, 525. Interpolations in, 16,\\n17, 48, 56, 431-442. Testimony of\\nPapias to, 37. Characterized by\\nIrenseus, 73. Written before the\\nother Gospels, 78. Discrepances\\nbetween it and Luke, 104. The\\nHebrew original used by the\\nJewish Christians, 108, 425-430.\\nJustin s agreement with, in cita-\\ntions from the Old Testament, 132\\nn. Resembles Luke, 140. U\u00c2\u00abed\\nin part by the Cerinthians, 87-\\n389. List of various readings in\\nch. i.-viii. of, 422-425. The pro-\\nportion of passages coincident with\\nthe other Gospels, 464. In the\\norder of events Mark and Luke\\ndiffer from, more than from each\\nother, 470-473, 520, 528, 529. The\\nsupposition that they copied from\\nhim, 475-488 that all copied from\\nan Original Gospel, 488-510. Ex-\\nplanation of the correspondences,\\n510-524.\\nMatthias, the Apostle, claimed as a\\nleader by the Gnostics, 328. The\\nGospel according to, 360-362.\\nMemoirs by the Apostles, The.\\nSee Justin.\\nMenander the successor of Simon\\nMagus, The doctrines of, 196.\\nMerinthus, 388, 389.\\nMethodius (fl. 290), 128.\\nMichaelis, J. D., 60.\\nMill, J., his edition of the New Tes-\\ntament, 417.\\nMillennium, The, 197, 198. Quotation\\nfrom Papias about, 130.\\nMinutius Felix. See Felix.\\nMiracles, 147-151, 322\\nMoney dangers, Be good, 130.\\nMonophvsite heresv, 456.\\nMontanists, 260.\\nMosheim, J. L. von, his notes to Cud-\\nworth, 281 n.\\nMuratori, L. A., Quotation from a\\nCanon discovered by, 552, 553.\\nNazaeenes, 427, 428.\\nNeander, J. A. W., 546.\\nNew Testament, Genuineness of the\\nbooks of the, 89-91. Allegorically\\ninterpreted by the theosophic Gnos-\\ntics, 326. See also Gospels, Vari-\\nous readings.\\nNicodemus, The Gospel of, 379\\n383 n.*\\nNicolaitans, 277 n., 349. Means fol-\\nlowers of Balaam in the Apoca-\\nlypse, 252 afterwards supposed to\\nbe a Gnostic sect, 253.\\nNonnus, 458.\\nOld Testament, The, reverenced\\nby the early Christians, 37, 38 who\\nadopted Jewish notions concerning\\nit, 317-319. Aversion of the Gen-\\ntiles to, 188. Views of the Gnos-\\ntics on, 294-298, 316, 317; of the\\nFathers, 298-306, 309-315 of Phi-\\nlo, 307.\\nOlshausen, H., on the Apostolical\\nFathers, 516.\\nOnesimus, A Gospel of the Infancy\\nascribed to, 376.\\nOphians, The, 277. Their doctrines,\\n283-287. Origen s account of, 283,\\n287, 288; its disagreement from\\nthat of Irenseus, 289-293.\\nOral tradition, 98, 99, 328-334.\\nOrigen (fl. 230), 210, 213, 215. On\\nthe general use of the Gospels, 32.\\nHis reverence for the Scriptures,\\n41. On the various readings in\\nthe Gospels, 43-47. Sketch of,\\n81. On the discrepances between\\nthe Gospels, 103. On the style of\\nthe Scriptures, 109. His accuracy\\nin quotation, 120. On the cave of\\nthe Nativity, 127. Savings as-\\ncribed to Christ by, 130, 131. Un-\\nlike Tertullian, 186. His definition\\nof a heretic; 173. On the Simo-\\nnians, 194, 195, 208. On Dosi-\\ntheus, 196. Does not name Cerin-\\nthus, 198. On Heracleon, 208. Not\\nthe author of A Dialogue on the", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0612.jp2"}, "613": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n579\\nRight Faith in God, 212. On the\\nmorals of the Gnostics, 225. On\\nmartyrdom, 261, 262. On the\\nOphians, 283, 286-291. On allegor-\\nical interpretation, 294, 311-315 a\\nspecimen of his interpretation, 305\\nn. On the Gnostics rejection of\\nJudaism, 295. The Homilies on\\nLuke ascribed to, 365, 374; quoted\\non the Gospel of the Basilidians,\\n351-353. On The Gospel ac-\\ncording to Peter, 365; the Pro-\\ntevangelion of James, 370, 371;\\nthe Hebrew original of Matthew,\\n425. Does not quote Mark xvi.\\n9-20; 445: nor Luke xxii. 43, 44;\\n455. On the Shepherd of Her-\\nnias, 551 and the Epistle of Bar-\\nnabas, 553. Quotes Ignatius, 562.\\nOriginal Gospel, The, according to\\nEichhorn s theory, 5-9, 60-63, 488-\\n510.\\nOrobio, I., quoted, 389.\\nOsiris, What is symbolized by, 280.\\nPaganism, how believed, 240 n.\\nImpurities of, 276.\\nPalev, W.j on Justin Martvr, 3.\\nHis Horse Paulinas, 90. On the\\nApostolical Fathers, 545.\\nPallavicini, The New Gospel of\\nCardinal, 344.\\nPantheism, 279, 280.\\nPapias {fl. 110?), mentions the Gos-\\npels of Matthew and Mark, 36,\\n37, 139, 497 the Hebrew original\\nof Matthew, 57, 425. Quoted by\\nIrenaeus, 130.\\nParaphrases of the Gospels, 66.\\nPatriarch, 282 n.\\nPaul the Apostle, 157, 204, 550 n.,\\n556. Testimony of the Apostolic\\nFathers to the genuineness of his\\nEpistles, 3. Paley s comparison\\nof his Epistles with the Acts of the\\nApostles, 90. The genuineness of\\nthree Epistles disputed, 90. Does\\nnot allude to the Gnostics, 201.\\nHis opponents, 245-250. Called\\nthe Apostle of the Heretics, 332;\\nyet charged by the Gnostics with\\nJewish errors, 333. Ten Epistles\\nused by the Marcionites, 337.\\nNot recognized as an Apostle by\\nthe Hebrew Christians, 369 n.\\nHow qualified to be an Apostle,\\n517 n.\\nPearson, J., Bishop, 562 n., 565 n.\\nPersecutions of the early Christians\\nnot continuous, 256. See also Mar-\\ntyrdom.\\nPeter, the Apostle, 157, 204, 517 n.\\nThe Gospel of Mark founded on\\nhis oral narrative. See Mark.\\nHis rebuke of Simon Magus, 193.\\nThe Second Epistle of. spurious,\\n201, 250. In the Clementine Hom-\\nilies, 299; in the Second Epistle\\nof Clement, 548. The Preach-\\ning of Peter, 367. Serapion s ac-\\ncount of the Gospel according to,\\n362-366.\\nPharisees, The, sanction divorce, 537.\\nChrist s denunciations against,\\n539-541.\\nPhilaster, Bishop of Brescia {fl. 380),\\non heresies, 212.\\nPhilo (fl. 40), his allegorical inter-\\npretations, 306-309, 311, 313.\\nPhilosophy, Pagan, contrasted with\\nChristianity, 164 ff. Modern, 166.\\nPhoenicians, 284.\\nPhotius {fl. 858), 135, 361, 547.\\nPilate, The Acts of, 380-383 n.\\nPius, Bishop of Eome {d. 142),\\n55\\nPlato, 169, 177, 182, 216, 268, 275,\\n360, 367. Quoted by Justin, 122.\\nHis doctrine of pre-existence, 270.\\nImpurity in, 273. Various read-\\nings in, 419 n.\\nPlatonists, The later, 160, 166, 184,\\n192, 268, 269, 271, 273. Their re-\\nsemblance to some German meta-\\nphysicians, 182 n.\\nPlautus, Number of the various read-\\nings in, 419 n.\\nPleroma, 170, 174, 196, 290, 297, 327,\\n334.\\nPlinv on the number of the Chris-\\ntians, 28.\\nPlotinus fl. 260), a theurgist, 192.\\nOn the Gnostics, 215-218.\\nPlutarch quoted, 280.\\nPolycarp {fl. 108 his Epistle to the\\nPhilippians, 3 to the Corinthians,\\n549. A disciple of St. John, 87.\\nThe story about St. John and Ce-\\nrinthus, 197. His supposed men-\\ntion of the Epistles of Ignatius,\\n562.\\nPorphyry {fl. 270) on the Gnostics,\\n215, 216. On licentiousness and\\nabstinence, 230.\\nPorson, R., quoted, 453 n.", "height": "4560", "width": "2608", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0613.jp2"}, "614": {"fulltext": "580\\nINDEX.\\nPostel, G., An apocryphal gospel\\ndiscovered bv, 370-374.\\nPre-existence, 270, 273.\\nPrices of books in the lid century,\\n31 n.\\nPriestley, J., classed by Hahn among\\nAtheists, 178. On the Apostolical\\nFathers, 546.\\nProclus (d. 485), 280 n. Atheurgist,\\n192.\\nProdicus (fl. 190), Licentious doc-\\ntrines of, 208 n., 216, 228.\\nProselytes, Jewish, 107 n.\\nTipcoToyevvrjfia, Meaning of, 82 n.\\nPtolemy the Valentinian (fl. 140),\\nhis letter to Flora, 207. His opin-\\nion of the Jewish law, 221, 296-\\n298. His teaching, 227, 394. His\\ninconsistency, 297 n.\\nPythagoras, 270.\\nQuotation, Ancient writers inac-\\ncurate in, 119-121.\\nRabbis, 130, 514.\\nRandolph, J., Bishop, 60 n.\\nRapin, R., his Gospel of the Jansen-\\nists, 344.\\nReason and intuition, or spiritual\\nillumination, as sources of religious\\nknowledge, 241, 290, 323, 335, 336.\\nReceived Text of the New Testa-\\nment, The, characterized, 421.\\nRevelation, The Book of, ascribed by\\nJustin to St. John, 118; by Caius\\nto Cerinthus, 197.\\nRevolutions in religion usually ac-\\ncompanied by excesses, 242.\\nRufinus {fl. 390), 427.\\nSabbath, 134.\\nSais, 280 n.\\nSame, Divine honors paid to Epi-\\nphanes in, 269.\\nSaturnilians, 206.\\nScioppius, -C, quoted, 344.\\nScythianus, 344 n.\\nSeinler, J. S., on the Apostolical\\nFathers, 546.\\nSeptuagint, The, quoted by the\\nEvangelists, 466.\\nSerapion, Bishop of Antioch {fl. 190),\\non the Gospel according to Pe-\\nter, 362-366.\\nSerpent, The, how regarded by the\\nOphians, 283-286. A symbol of\\nthe beneficent power in nature,\\n284.\\nSeth regarded as the progenitor of\\nthe spiritual among men, 174 n.,\\n288.\\nSethians, The, not a sect, 174 n.,\\nSike, H., 374.\\nSimon Magus (Acts viii. 9-24), 189-\\n195, 299.\\nSimonians, 220.\\nSophia the mother of the Creator,\\n285.\\nSpirit, The, and the letter. See\\nLetter.\\nSpiritual illumination. See Reason.\\nStoics, 165.\\nStrauss, D. F., on the miracles, 149.\\nQuotes the apocryphal gospels,\\n379 n.\\nStroth, F. A., on The Memoirs by\\nthe Apostles, 4. Dissertation by,\\n115.\\nSuetonius, quoted, 559.\\nSwedenborgianism, 322.\\nSymmachus the Ebionite (fl. 201),\\n427.\\nTalmud, The, cited, 486 n.\\nTatian (fl. 172), The Diatessaron of,\\n6, 32, 61, 62, 124, 386, 394; two\\nhundred copies found in use by\\nTheodoret, 32 said not to be de-\\nrived from the Gospels now extant,\\n61. Does not mention the Gospels\\nby name, 124. Of the school of\\nYalentinus, 227.\\nTennemann, W. G-, quoted, 182 n.\\nTerence, Twenty thousand various\\nreadings in, 418.\\nTertullian (fl. 200), 337, 343. On the\\nnumber of the Christians, 29. His\\ntestimony to the genuineness of the\\nGospels, 40. On the Gnostics, 172,\\n175, 183-185, 294. Wrote against\\nHermogenes, 186; and Praxeas,\\n187. Unlike Origen, 186. Be-\\ncomes a Montanist, 187. On the\\nSimonians, 195. On heresies, 196\\nn., 210. Does not name Cerinthus,\\n198. On the Valentinians, 207.\\nOn the Marcionites, 209, 210; and\\ntheir morals, 225. His Antidote\\nagainst Scorpions, 257, 259. His\\ntreatise Concerning Flight in Per-\\nsecution, 259. On the immoral-", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0614.jp2"}, "615": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n581\\nity of the Carpocratians, 274, 275.\\nDoes not notice the Ophians, 288;\\nnor the Clementine Homilies, 298.\\nOn the Gnostic distinction of Jesus\\nand Christ, 290. Regards the Logos\\nas the God of the Old Testament,\\n301-303. On the foolish things\\nof the world, 304. His allegorical\\ninterpretations of the Old Testa-\\nment, 306 n., 310, 311. On tradition,\\n329. On St. Paul, 332. On the\\nGnostic disregard of the Apostles,\\n333. Mentions no apocryphal gos-\\npel, 345, 350. Denies the virginity\\nof Mary after childbirth, 372. Re-\\nfers to the Acts of Pilate,, 381 n.\\nOn the Marcionites, 393, 396, 452.\\nOn the use of the Gospels by here-\\ntics, 404. Analysis of his De\\nPrasscriptione Hasreticorum, 397-\\n400. Does not quote Luke xxii.\\n43, 44; 455. Refers to the descent\\nof the angel at the pool of Bethes-\\nda, 459. On the sources of the\\nGospels of Mark and Luke, 498.\\nOn the Shepherd of Hernias, 551.\\nDoes not mention the Epistle of\\nBarnabas, 558; nor of Ignatius,\\n562.\\nTertullian, The Addition to, on the\\nOphians, 283, 286. On the Gospel\\nof Yalentinus, 346-348.\\nTethians a misreading for Sethians,\\n174.\\nThebes, 110.\\nTheodas, 204, 328.\\nTheodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 220 n.,\\n458 n. Destroys two hundred\\ncopies of Tatian s Diatessaron, 32,\\n33, 386. On the Gnostics, 174,\\n213, 214. On the Ophians, 283,\\n286. On the Gospel of Judas, 349.\\nMentions no gospel of the Basi-\\nlidians, 351.\\nTheodotus {fl. 192), 208 n., 221.\\nTheophilus, Bishop of Antioch {fl.\\n168), quotes the Gospels, 74, 124.\\nTheophylact (fl. 1077), 356.\\nTherapeutae, their allegorical inter-\\npretations, 308.\\nTheurgy, 192.\\nThilo, J. C, his Codex Apocryphus\\nNovi Testamenti, 341 n.\\nThomas, The Gospel according to,\\n374, 379.\\nThucydides, 146.\\nTibullus. Various readings in, 419 n.\\nTitus Bostrensis, 356.\\nTradition, A secret, its need asserted\\nby the Gnostics, 327, 328. De-\\nfended by Clement, 329-331. Ori-\\ngin of the theory of, 330.\\nTraditions, The? 360-362.\\nTranscription of MSS., Errors arising\\nin, 44, 429, 450-452, 456.\\nTrent, The Catechism of the Council\\nof, quoted, 372 n.\\nTyphon, What is symbolized by, 280.\\nYalentixiaxs, The, 220, 228, 257.\\nCharged with altering the Gospel\\nhistory, 64. Their doctrines, 170-\\n175, 204-209, 226, 227. Their at-\\ntempts to make converts, 185. Ac-\\ncount of, 206-209. Divided man-\\nkind into three classes, 221. Their\\nview of the Old Testament, 316.\\nUsed no apocryphal gospels, 343.\\nThe gospel ascribed to, by Irenseus,\\n346-348, 350.\\nYalentinus (fl. 120), 202, 209 n., 214\\nn., 328, 398, 402-405. Quoted, 227.\\nVarious readings of the Xew Testa-\\nment, their character and impor-\\ntance, 417-425.\\nVopiscus quoted, 282.\\nWake, W.,Archbp.,his Apostolical\\nFathers criticised, 546 n.\\nWetstein, J. J., quoted, 450 n.\\nWhitby, D., 417.\\nXavier, J., his history of Christ, 391\\nn.\\nXenophon, quoted by Justin, 122.\\nZokoaster, Works ascribed to, 215", "height": "4532", "width": "2612", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0615.jp2"}, "616": {"fulltext": "INDEX II.\\nPASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED OR CITED.\\nPage\\nGen.ix. 4 235\\nxvii. 12, 14 312\\nExod. xv. 23-27 305\\nLev. vi. 24-30 312\\nxi. 14 312\\nxvii. 10-13 235\\nxxiii. 10-20 82\\nNum. xviii. 12, 13 82\\nDent, xiv. 13 312\\nxviii. 4 82\\n1 Sam. xv. 11 295\\nxvi. 14 295\\n2 Kings i. 10-14 451\\nPs. ci. 8 315\\ncxxxvii. 8, 9 315\\nProv. iv. 25, 26 75\\nIsa. xxiv. 16 359\\nxxvii. 1 309\\nxlv. 7 295\\nJer. xv. 14 295\\nEzek. xx. 11, 25 314\\nAmos iii. 6 295\\nMic. i. 12 295\\nZech. xi. 12, 13 440\\nxiii. 7 466\\nMatt, i.-viii 422-425\\ni., ii. 16, 79, 431-437\\ni. 1-17 80\\ni. 1 73\\niii. 15 129\\niv. 18-20 471\\nv. 8 227\\n10 9, 65\\n17,18 242\\n19, 20 243\\n23-26 531\\n25 274\\n28, 32 75\\nvi. 13 48\\nvii. 3-5, 16-18 534\\nPage\\nMatt. viii. 1-5 471\\n1-4 470\\n14-16 504, 505\\n16-ix. 26 470\\n16, 18 471\\nix. 1-8 467-469\\n1 471\\n9-17 482-484\\nx 471\\n24 534\\n26-28 530\\nxi. 12 536\\n27 136\\nxii. 22-37 472, 538\\n33 534\\n34, 35 535\\n38 538\\n40 17, 442, 443\\n43-45 538\\n46-50 472, 507\\nxiii. 1, 53 521\\n54-58 472\\nxv. 14 534\\nxvii. 14-21 479-482\\nxviii. 23-35 533\\nxix. 4-8 296\\n19 41, 44\\nxxi. 18 ff. 476\\nxxiii. 13-39 539\\nxxiv. 1-51 529\\n10-12 249\\nxxv. 14-30 529\\nxxvi. 31 466\\nxxvii. 3-10 17, 437-441\\n52-53 17, 441, 442\\nxxviii. 2 80\\nMark i. 1-3 73\\n11 6\\n16-18 471\\n29-34 504, 505", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0616.jp2"}, "617": {"fulltext": "INDEX.\\n583\\nPage\\nMark i. 40-45 470\\nii. 1-22 470\\n1 471\\n1-12 467-469\\n14-22 482-484\\niii. 11, 23-30 472\\n16, 17 118\\n31-35 472, 507\\niv. 1-32 521\\n21, 22 530\\n35-v. 43 470\\n35 471, 477\\nvi. 1-6 472\\n3 .79, 127\\nvii. 3-9 296\\nix. 14-29 479-482\\nx. 50 41\\nxi. 12-14, 20 ff. 477\\nxiii. 3 529\\nxiv. 27 466\\nxvi. 5 80\\n9-20 17, 443-449\\nLuke i. 1-4 497, 512\\n1 351, 388\\n5-ii. 52 49\\n9 73\\n31, 32 115,\\nii. 7 127\\n39 434\\niii. 22 128\\n23-38 80, 432 ff.\\niv. 16-30 472\\n38-41 504, 505\\nv. 1-11 471\\n12-15 470\\n12 471,522\\n16, 17 471\\n17-39 470\\n17-26 467-469\\n17 517\\n27-39 482-484\\nvi. 12-49 471\\n39-45 534\\nviii. 4-21 521\\n16-18 531\\n19-21 472, 507\\n22-56 470\\n22 471\\nix. 16 464\\n37-43 479-482\\n51, 52 472\\n55, 56 18, 449-454\\nx. 22 303\\n38 472\\nxi. 14-23 472\\n24-26 539\\n29, 30 443\\n37-52 540\\nPage\\nLuke xii. 1-5 531\\n24, 27 79\\nxii. 35-48 529\\n56, 59 532\\nxiii. 6-9 477\\n22 472\\n31, 32 472\\n34, 35 540\\nxvi. 1-18 535\\nxvii. 11 472\\n22-37 529\\nxviii. 12 486\\nxix. 11-27 529\\nxxi. 5-36 529\\nend 48\\nxxii. 43, 44 17, 454-458\\n44 118\\nxxiv. 4 80\\nJohn i. 1-3 73, 75\\n14, 20 134\\niii. 3, 4 135\\n28 134\\nv. 3, 4 17, 458-460\\n17 135\\nvii. 53-viii. 11 460,461\\nxii 17, 18 516\\nxiii. 16 534\\nxv. 20 534\\nxx. 12,27 80\\nxxi. 10, 11 516\\n24, 25 17, 461, 462\\nActs i. 18, 19 439\\n26 328\\niv. 36 517\\nvi. 1 ff., 9 518\\n5 253\\nviii. 9-24 190\\nix.29 518\\nxiii. 33 128\\nxv. 1 199\\n7 234\\n10 236\\n28, 29 230, 234\\nxix. 19 33\\nxxi. 20, 21 156, 426\\nxxii. 2 518\\nRom. iv. 5 238\\nvi. 1 239\\nviii. 14, 15 237\\n21 236\\nxvi. 14 55 i\\n1 Cor. i. 27, 28 304\\nii. 6 328\\n14 323\\nviii. 1 235\\n4, 10 234\\n7 233\\nx. 7, 8 233", "height": "4560", "width": "2600", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0617.jp2"}, "618": {"fulltext": "584\\nINDEX.\\nPage\\nxv. 12\\nr.\\n244\\nCr\\n244\\nii. 17\\niii. 6\\n17\\nxi. 7,\\n13\\ni. 18\\niii. 3\\niv. 3-9\\nv. 1\\n4, 13,\\n19\\ni. 23\\niii. 19\\niv. 3\\ni. 19\\nii. 9\\niv. 11\\n14\\n12,\\n15\\n245\\n314\\n236\\n20-22\\n246\\n245\\nGal.\\n517\\n237\\n19-\\n-21\\n237\\n236\\n238\\nEph\\n174\\n174\\nPhil\\nCol.\\n548\\n174\\n174\\n107\\n90\\nPage\\n1 Tim. vi. 3-10\\n247\\n2 Tim. ii. 14-23\\n250\\niii. 1-9\\n249\\niv. 11\\n90\\nTitus i. 10, 11\\n-246\\nPhilem. 24\\n90\\nHeb. i. 5\\n128\\nv. 5\\n128\\nJames ii. 14 ff.\\n239\\n1 Pet. ii. 16\\n239\\nv. 13\\n82\\n2 Pet. ii. 1, 12, 13, 19\\n251\\n3, 15\\n252\\n1 John i. 1-3\\n512\\n1\\n360\\nii. 19. 22\\n203\\niv. 2, 3\\n202\\n7 23, 421\\nJude 4, 10, 12, 19 251\\n11 252, 349\\nKev. ii. 6, 14, 15 252\\nTHE END.\\nRD 18\\nCambridge Press of John Wilson Son.", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0618.jp2"}, "619": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4536", "width": "2596", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0619.jp2"}, "620": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0620.jp2"}, "621": {"fulltext": "", "height": "4504", "width": "2500", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0621.jp2"}, "622": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0096\u00a0\u00e2\u0080\u00a2Jx!* o, \u00e2\u0080\u00a2.IV o* l **b 4\\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process.\\nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide\\nTreatment Date: June 2005\\nPreservationTechnologies\\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION\\nby* 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive\\nCranberry Township, PA 16086\\n(724)779-2111", "height": "4560", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0622.jp2"}, "623": {"fulltext": "W\\nof\\no\\n^\u00c2\u00a9e,\\n.i \\\\b\\n,4\u00c2\u00b0*\\n^-k\\nD08BSBR0S. 4\\nLIBBAAV BINDING O\\n82\\nST 5 AUGUSTINE\\nIk FLA.\\n32084\\nN\\n*0\u00c2\u00ab\\n4 o", "height": "4448", "width": "2572", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0623.jp2"}, "624": {"fulltext": "LIBRARY OF CONGRESS\\n014 384 517 5", "height": "4907", "width": "2956", "jp2-path": "evidencesofgen00nort_0624.jp2"}}