even this is doubtful. The Gospel of the Hebrews, or the Hebrew St. Matthew, in its various redactions, had a wide acceptance among the different Jewish sects. But, this Gospel and Marcion's mutilated Luke excepte‹, there were no uncanonical gospel narratives which we have reason to think had any extensive circulation anong professed Christians. There were no rivals of the Memoirs to which Justin referred. Numerous books were fabricated among heretical parties; but, though they might bear the name of "Gospels," they were generally of a didactic nature. This is the case with The Gospel of the Truth, which Irenæus and Tertullian inform us had been composed by the Valentinians. It is a powerful argument for the genuineness of the canonical Gospels, that the Gnostics are constantly charged with bolstering up their doctrines by perverse interpretation of the Gospels, but are not accused of bringing forward narratives of their own at variance with them. On this subject Professor Norton remarks: refers to it by name (in Matt, tom. x. 17, ed. Migne, vol. iii. p. 875). but it could not be the existing book that he used, as is shown by Professor Lipsius, Dict. of Christ. Biogr., ii. 702. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., vii.) is thought to have referred to it. There is no proof that Justin (in Dial., c. 78) borrowed from it. Says Professor Lipsius," There is, indeed, no clear warrant for the existence of our present text of the Protevangelium prior to the time of Peter of Alexandria (311)." Gnostic and Ebionitic features are mingled in it.

The Acta Pilati forms the first part of the Gospel of Nicodemus. Justin (Apol., i. 28, 36) refers to the Acts of Pilate, as does Tertullian (Apol., 21; cf. 5). Both have in mind, probably, not any book, but an official report, which they assume to exist in the public archives at Rome. Eusebius (H. E., ii. 2) refers to a blasphemous Pagan forgery under this same title, which was of recent origin. The first trace of the present Acts of Pilate is in Epiphanius (A.D. 376), Hær., 50, 1.

A Gospel of St. Thomas is referred to by Origen (Hom. in Luc., i ). It was used by the Gnostic sects of Marcosians and Naassenes (Hippol., Ref. Omn. Hær., v. 2; cf. Irenæus, Adv. Hær., i. 20, 1). Portions of this book may exist in the extant Gospel of the same name. It relates to the boyhood of Christ.

"Irenæus and Tertullian were the two principal writers against the Gnostics; and from their works it does not appear that the Valentinians, the Marcionites, or any other Gnostic sect, adduced, in support of their opinions, a single narrative relating to the public ministry of Christ, besides what is found in the Gospels. It does not appear that they ascribed to him a single sentence of any imaginable importance which the evangelists have not transmitted. It does not appear that any sect appealed to the authority of any history of his public ministry besides the Gospels, except so far as the Marcionites, in their use of an imperfect copy of St. Luke's Gospel, may be regarded as forming a verbal exception to this remark." 1

With the exception of the Valentinian Gospel of Truth, the reference to which is contained in a disputed passage of Tertullian, it is true, as Professor Norton states, that this Father "nowhere speaks of any apocryphal Gospel, or intimates a knowledge of the existence of such a book."2 In all the writers of the first three centuries, there are not more quotations professedly derived from apocryphal books called by them Gospels than can be counted on the fingers of one hand.3

1 Genuineness of the Gospels, iii. 222.

2 Toid., iii. 227. Tertullian expressly states that Valentinus used all the four Gospels (De Præscript. Hær., c. 38). On the sense of videtur in the passages, see Professor E. Abbot, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 81, note.

8 The following is a list of them. Origen once quotes a statement from the Gospel of Peter (Comment. in Matt., tom. x. 462, 463). Clement of Alexandria twice relers to statements in the Gospel of the Egyptians (Strom., iii. 9, 13). In the so-called II. Ep. of Clement of Rome are several pasages thought to be from this Gospel, but the source is not named. See Lightfoot's Clement, pp. 192, 193, 297 seq., 311. Clement o Alexandria thrice (Strom., ii. 9, iii. 4, vii. 13) cites passages from The Traditions, which was not improbably another name of the Gospel of Matthias.

Of these authors Pseudo-Clement is the only one who seems to at

These citations in the Fathers, however, involve no sanction of the books from which they are taken. Clement of Alexandria quotes the Gospel of the Egyptians but he quotes it to condemn it. If in the second cen tury, as well as later, the Gospels of the canon were. not the authorities from which the Church derived it:1 knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus, there is no known source whence that knowledge could have been obtained.

Celsus, the most distinguished literary opponent of Christianity in the second century, may be joined with the Guostics as an indirect witness for the Gospels of the canon. He wrote, perhaps, as early as Marcus Antoninus (A.D. 138-161); but if, as Keim thinks, he composed his book under Marcus Aurelius, in A.D. 178, he was a contemporary of Irenæus. He had the Christian literature before him. He showed no lack of industry in searching out whatever could be made to tell against the Christian cause. As in the case of Justin, the gospel history can be constructed out of the passages cited from Celsus by Origen.2 But there is not an incident or a saying which professes to be taken from Christian authorities that is not found in the canonical Gospels.3

tribute authority to the book to which he refers. The Gospel of the Egyptians was used by an ascetic sect, the Encratites (Clem. Alex., iii. 9). The Encratite tendencies of the Homily of Pseudo-Clement are noticed by Bishop Lightfoot, Clement of Rome: Appendix, p. 311. 1 Keim, Celsus' Wahres Wort, p. 273.

2 See the summaries of the work of Celsus, by Doddridge and Leland, Lardner's Credibility, etc., ii. 27 seq., and the work of Keim, as

above.

3 Origen (Adv. Cel., ii. 74) says, "Now we have proved that many foolish assertions, opposed to the narratives of our Gospels, occur in the statements of the Jew" [in Celsus], etc. But these "foolish assertions," as an inspection of the previous portion of Origen's work demonstrates, are comments on the gospel history, not pretending to come from any Gospels.

With all of these, as Keim, allows,1 he shows himself acquainted. Had there been apocryphal Gospels which had attained to any considerable circulation in the Church, even at a date thirty or forty years previous to the time when he wrote, this astute controversialist would have found copies of them, and would have availed himself of the welcome aid to be derived from their inventions.

Passing by other proofs, we proceed to consider one testimony to the Gospels which carries us back into the company of the immediate followers of Christ. It is that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis. He is spoken of by Irenæus as "a man of the old time." 2 He was a contemporary of Polycarp,3 who was born A.D. 69, and died A.D. 155. He had also known the daughters of Philip,—either the apostle, or (less probably) the evangelist. He is said by Irenæus to have been a disciple of John the Apostle; but a doubt is cast on the correctness of this statement by Eusebius.5 This is certain, that he knew Aristion, and John the Presbyter, - two immediate disciples of Jesus, who probably formed a part of a company of apostles and their followers who left Palestine for Asia Minor about A.D. 67, on the outbreak of the Jewish war. In the passages which Eusebius has preserved from Papias, he speaks only of Mark and Matthew. The silence of Eusebius, however, as to any mention of Luke and John by Papias, has been demonstrated not to imply, in the least, that these Gospels were not referred to and used by him. The avowed purpose of Eusebius in these notices, and his practice in other similar cases, would not lead us to ex

8 Irenæus, 1. c.
6 Ibid

4 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.
5 Eusebius, 1. c.
See Lightfoot, Contemporary Review, January, 1875.

pect any allusion to what Papias might say of the other Gospels, unless it were something new, or of special interest. Now, Papias was informed by John the Presbyter, a contemporary of the apostle of the same name at Ephesus, that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, and wrote down accurately what he heard Peter relate of the sayings and doings of Jesus. The same statement respecting the relation of Mark to Peter, and the origin of the second Gospel, is made by Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus,2 and Tertullian.3 It was the undisputed belief of the ancient church. It is borne out by the internal traits of Mark's Gospel. It would seem as if there could be no doubt in regard to the book of which Papias is speaking. Yet it has been maintained by some, that a primitive Mark, of which the Gospel of the canon is an expansion, is the work referred to. Most of these critics, to be sure, including Professor Holtzmann, have made the primitive Gospel embrace the main parts of our Mark. On what is this theory founded? First, on the statement in Papias, that Mark, though he omitted nothing that he heard, but reported it accurately, was precluded from recording "in order" (v ráce) the matter thus derived from the oral addresses of Peter. But this remark is, no doubt, founded on a comparison of Mark with Matthew, where the sayings of Christ are often differently disposed; or with Luke, who specially aimed at an orderly arrangement; or, as Bishop Lightfoot thinks, with John, where the sequence of events is more carefully preserved. It may be nothing more than a subjective

1 Eusebius, H. E., ii. 15.

2 Irenæus, Adv. Hær., iii. 10, 6

3 Adv. Marc., iv. 5. 4 See Weiss, Marcusevangelium, Einl, p. 2 5 Contemporary Review, October, 1875. "Per ordinem profitetur," says the Muratorian canon, after referring to Mark in terms like those used by Papias.