that there existed in ancient times any Gospel of John corrupted by the Gnostics, as Luke's Gospel was mutilated by Marcion. In modern times, it is true, a Gospel of John thus disfigured has come to public knowledge; but the alterations in it originated at a late period in the middle ages.

The doubts respecting the genuineness of John's Gospel which have, nevertheless, been proposed in recent times, took their rise, like those in regard to Matthew, solely from its internal character. When once doubts were thus occasioned, endeavours were made to sustain them on historical grounds likewise. These, however, are of little weight,' from the firmness of the foundation on which the Gospel rests. It was with John much as with Matthew, in regard to those characteristics which excited doubt of the genuineness of the book. It was correctly remarked, that John gives a different representation of our Lord from that presented by the first three Evangelists. In his Gospel, Christ's actions and discourses appear, as it were, transfigured and spiritualised, while in the other Evangelists they appear in a costume more or less Jewish and national. Now, as it is not conceivable, it is said, that the same person should be so differently represented, and John, the beloved disciple of our Lord, would certainly not have portrayed his Master as other than he really was, while the description of the actions of Jesus (who appeared as a Jew, among Jews, and in behalf of Jews), given in the accounts of the first three Evangelists, is much more conformable to probability, the Gospel which bears John's name must be of later origin. But here, as in regard to Matthew, it may be observed, that from a perfectly correct remark false conclusions have been deduced. It is indeed true that John exhibits the Saviour in a far more spiritual and glorified character than the first three Evangelists; but this proves nothing, except that John was the most spiritual of the Evangelists. The same individual may be regarded and described very differently by different persons. Of this truth we have a remarkable example in a great character of Grecian antiquity. Socrates is presented to our view in his actions and discourses by two of his confidential pupils, Xenophon and Plato. And how entirely

1 The most weighty opponent of the genuineness of John has given the excellent example of publicly acknowledging that he has become convinced of the genuineness of this jewel of the church, and retracts his doubts. May this example find numerous imitators!

xxxviii

INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

different is the description given of him by these two writers! In fact, these biographers may be said to sustain very much such a mutual relation as that of John and the first Evangelists. While Xenophon paid attention principally to the external acts of Socrates, Plato describes his spiritual characteristics. Now, if it was possible to represent a common human being of eminence in two very different lights, without doing violence to truth, how much rather might it be so in regard to one who was greater than Solomon, or than Socrates and his biographers. He who lived a purely heavenly life on earth, and spake words of eternal truth, could not but be very variously described, according to the characteristics of the human soul which received the rays of light proceeding from him. Each soul reflected his image according to its own profundity and compass, and yet each might be right. It was for this reason that more than one Gospel was included in the collection of the sacred writings, since only the presentation of different portraitures together could prevent a partial view of our Saviour's character. As it is only from connection of the accounts of Xenophon and Plato that we can obtain a complete picture of Socrates, so we cannot comprehend the life of our Lord, which affords so many different aspects, without uniting the peculiar traits scattered in all the four Gospels into one general portraiture. With all the difference of representation observable in the Evangelists, there are still resemblances and affinities enough to make it evident that they all had the same great personage in view. As John relates narratives of cures exactly like those in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so the Gospels of the latter contain passages which, in elevation, depth, and richness of thought, are not inferior to our Lord's discourses in John, and indeed resemble them in phraseology. Among these is the lofty and astonishingly beautiful passage, Matth. xi. 25-30:-"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever tho Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is

easy, and my burden is light." He from whose mouth such language proceeded might certainly be represented in such an aspect as John has given to Jesus, if the description were undertaken by one in some measure capable of appreciating a character of this nature; and that John was thus capable is sufficiently clear from his Epistles.

If, therefore, we look at the Gospels as a collection, or consider each separately, we cannot but say that they are more strongly accredited and sustained by external and internal proofs than any other work of antiquity. Few writings have such ancient testimonies in their favour, reaching back to the time of the authors; none have so many of them, so totally distinct, so corroborative of each other. While, then, the chief argument in behalf of the Scriptures generally, and of the Gospels in particular, is the witness of the Holy Spirit, perceived in his heart by every believer as he peruses the Scriptures (a point on which we shall enlarge at the close of our treatise); still, the possibility of proving on historical grounds the genuineness and primitive character of the Gospels is a great additional cause of gratitude, inasmuch as it removes occasions of distrust, particularly from weak and doubting minds, and affords motives for the confirmation of their faith.

CHAPTER IV.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES.

Along with the collection of the Gospels, there existed at an early period of the church, as was related above,' a collection of Paul's Epistles called the Apostle. In the lives of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, who were all acquainted with and used it, this collection contained thirteen Epistles, viz. the Epistle to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, those to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, and those to Titus and Phile

mon.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was not inserted in this col

1 Comp. Chap. i.

lection, because opinions were not united as to its origin. (See Chap. vi. below). Half a century before the time of the fathers just mentioned, we find a collection of Pauline Epistles in the hands of Marcion, that extravagant reverer of the Apostle Paul. He was born in Asia Minor, where, as is well known, the apostle Paul had long lived and laboured, and was highly reverenced. Thence Marcion went to Rome, carrying with him the collection of Pauline Epistles which he had made use of in Asia. This, however, contained but ten Epistles; there were wanting the three commonly termed pastoral letters, viz. the two to Timothy, and that to Titus; called pastoral letters, because in them Paul gives directions to spiritual pastors in regard to the suitable performance of their official duties. The small Epistle to Philemon was known to him, because it stood in close connexion with the Epistle to the Colossians; but the three pastoral letters seem to have been diffused but slowly, as independent private productions, and hence, also, not to have been inserted in the original collection. How the collection of the Pauline Epistles, in the form in which we now have it, originated, is unknown, and has not yet been satisfactorily accounted for by any conjecture. For the supposition that, like the collection of the Gospels, it originated in different places at once, merely by the gradual transmission thither of the Epistles of Paul as fast as they were composed, is forbidden by the circumstance that, as can be proved, they are not arranged in the order of their composition. The collection cannot, however, have been accidentally formed; for it is clear that a certain plan has been followed. At the beginning are placed the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, distinguished for their length and internal importance; then follows a letter to several churches in a whole province, the Epistle to the Galatians; then the smaller Epistles to churches in particular cities, to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians; lastly, come the Epistles to private persons. Moreover, had the collection of them been left to accident, sometimes one arrangement would have been adopted and sometimes another, which is not the case, the order having been the

1 We find very few traces of a different arrangement of the Epistles of Paul; a different one, however, is followed in an old catalogue of the books of the New Testament, probably pertaining to the church at Rome. It is called Muratori's Catalogue, from an Italian abbot of that name who discovered the MSS. which contained it.

same that we now observe, as far back as the second century. As, therefore, the order of the Epistles was evidently the work of design, and its general reception throughout the church indicates that it proceeded from some authoritative source, the most reasonable supposition is, that the apostle Paul himself made the collection. During the second imprisonment at Rome, to which, as we shall see hereafter, it is highly probable that the apostle was subjected, he may have collected together the ten Epistles, as being the principal ones of a doctrinal nature which he had as yet written, in order to bequeath them as a legacy to the church. It was in this original form that Marcion possessed the collection. After the collection was made up, near the close of his life, Paul wrote the three pastoral letters, which were afterwards added to the original collection, and naturally placed last. By accident Marcion had not become acquainted with these letters, and therefore retained the most ancient form of the collection of Paul's Epistles. A very weighty testimony in favour of this view is presented in the second Epistle of the Apostle Peter, who, at near the conclusion of his letter, says: "And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul, also, according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as also in all (his) Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest," &c. (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16). According to the first Epistle of Peter (i. 1, comp. 2 Pet. iii. 1), Peter wrote to the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, and other provinces of Asia Minor, to which also Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians are directed. Peter, therefore, might presume that his readers were acquainted with these. The expression all (his) Epistles, however, clearly indicates a collection of Epistles. Otherwise, there is something of indefiniteness in it. Paul, no doubt, wrote more Epistles during his life than we now possess. But most of his Epistles were not exactly adapted for general diffusion. The expression, all (his) Epistles, must therefore have reference to a collection of the

1 According to the account of Epiphanius, it is true, the order of the ten Epistles in Marcion's Canon was different from that in ours, viz. Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians. If this statement be credited, it must be allowed that Marcion's collection originated independently of ours.