the apostles, and by the churches in fellowship with them, he asserts, the Gospel of Luke had been received since its first publication. "The same authority of the apostolic churches," he adds, "will also support the other Gospels," of which Matthew, Mark, and John were the authors. The Muratorian canon, of Roman origin, the date of which is not far from A.D. 170, is a fragment which begins in the middle of a sentence. That sentence, from its resemblance to a statement made by an earlier writer, Papias, respecting Mark, as well as from what immediately follows in the document itself, evidently relates to this evangelist. This broken. sentence is succeeded by an account of the composition of Luke, which is designated as the third Gospel, and then of John. In Syria, the Peshito, the Bible of the ancient Syrian churches, having its origin at about the same time as the Muratorian canon, begins with the four Gospels. The canon of Scripture was then in process of formation; and the absence from the Peshito of the second and third Epistles of John, second Peter, Jude, and Revelation, - books which were disputed in the ancient church, is a proof at once of the antiquity of that version and of the value of the testimony given by it to the universal reception of the Gospels.

It must be borne in mind, that the Fathers who have been named above are here referred to, not for the value of their opinion as individuals in regard to the authorship of the Gospels, but as witnesses for the footing which they had in the churches. These Christian societies now encircled the Mediterranean. They were scattered over the Roman Empire from Syria to Spain.1

1 There were Christians in Spain (Irenæus, Adv. Hær., i. 10, 2; Tertullian, Adv. Judæos, c. 7). If, as is probable, Spain is designated by the Tò Tépμа Ts dúσews of Clement of Rome (Ep. v.), St. Paul visited

No doubt the exultation of the Fathers of the second century over the rapid spread and the prospects of Christianity led to hyperbole in describing the progress it had made.1 But, making all due allowance for rhetorical warmth, it is to be remembered, that, in writing for contemporaries, it would have been folly for them intentionally to indulge in misstatement in a matter of statistics with which their readers were as well acquainted as they were themselves. Christians had become numerous enough to excite anxiety more and more in the rulers of the empire. The question to be answered is, how this numerous, widely dispersed body had been led unanimously to pitch upon these four narratives as the sole authorities for the history of Jesus. For what reasons had they adopted, nemine contradicente, these four Gospels exclusively, one of which was ascribed to Matthew, a comparatively obscure apostle, and two others to Luke and Mark, neither of whom belonged among the Twelve?

But the situation of these Fathers personally, as it helps us to determine the value of their judgment on the main question, is worth considering. Irenæus has occasion, in connection with the passage already cited from him, to dwell on the tradition respecting the teaching of the apostles which is preserved in the various churches founded by them. Of these churches he says, that it is easy to give the list of their bishops back. that country. See Bishop Lightfoot's note (The Epp. of Clement of Rome, p. 49).

1 Tertullian (Adv. Judæos, c. 7; Apol., c. 37), Irenæus (Adv. Hær., i. 10, 1, 2; iii. 4, 1), cf. Justin (Dial., c. 117). For Gibbon's comments on these statements, see Decline and Fall, etc., chap. xv. (Smith's ed., ii. 213, n. 177). Gibbon refers to Origen's remark (Contra Cels., viii. 69), that the Christians are "very few" comparatively; but he omits another passage (c. ix.) of the same work, in which Origen refers to them as a "multitude," of all ranks.

to foundation. By way of example, he states the succession of the Roman bishops. In these lists, as given by the ancient writers, there will be some discrepancies as to the earliest names, owing chiefly to the fact, that, in the time before episcopacy was fully developed, leading presbyters, and not always the same persons, would be set down in the catalogues.1 But a person who is familiar now with any particular church in whose history he has felt much interest will have little difficulty in recounting the succession of its pastors extending back for a century, and will not be ignorant of any very remarkable events which have occurred in its affairs during that period. Moreover, Irenæus was acquainted. with individuals who had been taught by John and by other apostles. He had known in his childhood Polycarp, whose recollections of the Apostle John were fresh.2 He had conferred with "elders"- that is, venerated leaders in the church, of an earlier day- who had been pupils of men whom the apostles had instructed, and some of whom had sat at the feet of the apostles themselves. Of one of these "elders" in particular he makes repeated mention, whose name is not given, but whom in one place he styles "apostolorum discipulus."4 Pothinus, whom Irenæus succeeded at Lyons, was thrown into prison in the persecution under Marcus Aurelius, A.D. 177, and died two days after, being past ninety years old. Pothinus was probably from Asia Minor, whence the church at Lyons was planted. His memory ran back beyond the beginning of the century. He is one of many who had numbered among their acquaintances younger

1 Gieseler's Church History, I. i. 3, § 34, n. 10.

2 Adv. Hær., iii. 3, 4; Epist. ad Flor.

8 Adv. Hær., ii. 22, 5; Euseb., H. E., iii. 23, iv.

4 Adv. Hær., iv. 32, 1.

iii. 1, 1; iii. 3, 4; v. 30, 1; v. 33, 3; v. 33, 4; cf. 14, v. 8.

contemporaries of apostles. Clement of Alexandria was a pupil of Pantænus, who had founded the catechetical school there shortly after the middle of the second century. In all of the oldest churches there were persons who were separated by only one link from apostles. The attempt has often been made to discredit the testimony of Irenæus by reference to a passage which really strengthens it. After asserting that there are four Gospels and no more, he fancifully refers to the analogy of the four winds, four divisions of the earth, four faces of the cherubim, four covenants, etc.1 Says Mr. Froude, "That there were four true evangelists, and that there could be neither more nor less than four, Irenæus had persuaded himself, because there were four winds or spirits," etc.2 It is plain to every reader of Irenæus, that his belief in the four Gospels is founded on the witness given by the churches and by well-informed individuals, to their authenticity; and that these analogies merely indicate how firmly established the authority of the Gospels was in his own mind and in the minds of all Christian people. It was something as well settled as the cosmical system. If some enthusiast for the Hanoverian house were to throw out the suggestion that there must be four, and only four, Georges, because there are four quarters of the globe, four winds, etc., Mr. Froude would hardly announce that the man's conviction of the historic fact that those four kings have ruled in England is founded on these fanciful parallels. Mr. Froude himself shrinks from his own assertion as quoted above; for he adds, "It is not to be supposed that the intellects of those great men who converted the world to Christianity were satisfied with arguments so imaginative as these: they must

have had other closer and more accurate grounds for the decision," etc. But then he continues, "The mere employment of such figures as evidence in any sense shows the enormous difference between their modes of reasoning and ours, and illustrates the difficulty of deciding, at our present distance from them, how far their conclusions were satisfactory." If they had "other closer and more accurate" grounds of belief, why should such instances of weakness in reasoning, even if it be intended as strict reasoning, operate to destroy the value of their testimony? A man who is not a strict logician may be a perfectly credible witness to facts within his cognizance. But the inference suggested by Mr. Froude's remark as to the intellectual character of Irenæus is unjust. A single instance of weak reasoning is a slender basis for so broad a conclusion. Jonathan Edwards is rightly considered a man of penetrating intellect and of some skill in logic. Yet in his diary he makes this absurd remark: "January, 1728. I think Christ has recommended rising early in the morning, by his rising from the grave so early." 1 Certainly no one would feel himself justified, on account of Edwards's remark, in disputing his word on a matter of fact within his personal cognizance. We do not mean that Irenæus had the same measure of intellectual vigor as Edwards: nevertheless, he was not a weak man, and he furnishes in his writings a great many examples of sound reasoning. The inference unfavorable to the value of his testimony, which Froude in common with many others has drawn from a single instance of fanciful argument or illustration, is itself an example of very flimsy logic.

In quoting the statements of the Christian writers of

1 Dwight's Life of Edwards, p. 106.