four Gospels alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature of things there could not be more nor less than four. There are four regions of the world, and four principal winds; and the Church therefore, as destined to be conterminous with the world, must be supported by four Gospels, as four pillars. The Word again is represented as seated on the Cherubim, who are described by Ezekiel as four living creatures, each different from the other. These symbolize the four Evangelists, with their several characteristics. The predominance of the number four again appears in another way. There are four general covenants, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of Christ. It is therefore an act of audacious folly to increase or diminish the number of the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all the other works of God, so also we may expect to find it in the case of the Gospel.

What is the historical significance of this phenomenon? Can we imagine that the documents which Irenæus regards in this light had been produced during his own lifetime? that they had sprung up suddenly full-armed from the earth, no one could say how? and that they had taken their position at once by the side of the Law and the Psalmist and the Prophets, as the very voice of God?

The author of "Supernatural Religion" seems to think that no explanation is needed. "The reasons," he writes, "which he [Irenæus] gives for the existence of precisely that number [four Gospels] in the Canon of the Church illustrate the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, and the slight dependence which can be placed upon their judgments."* Accordingly he does not even discuss the testimony of Irenæus, but treats it as if it were not. He does not see that there is all the difference in the world between the value of the same man's evidence as to matters of fact, and his opinions as to the causes and bearings of his facts. He does not observe that these fanciful arguments and shadowy analogies are pro tanto an evidence of the firm hold which this quadruple Gospel, as a fact, had already obtained when he wrote. Above all, I must suppose from his silence that he regards this testimony of Irenæus as the isolated opinion of an individual writer, and is unconscious of the historical background which it implies. It is this last consideration which led me to speak of Irenæus as the most important witness to the early date and authorship of the Gospels, and to which I wish to direct attention.

The birth of Irenæus has been placed as early as A.D. 97 by Dodwell, and as late as A.D. 140 by our author and some others, while other writers again have adopted intermediate positions. I

*S. R. II. p. 474.

must frankly say that the very early date seems to me quite untenable. On the other hand, those who have placed it as late as 140 have chosen this date on the ground of the relation of Irenæus to Polycarp in his old age,* and on the supposition that Polycarp was martyred about A.D. 167. Since however it has recently been shown that Polycarp suffered A.D. 155 or 156,† it may be presumed that these critics would now throw the date of his pupil's birth some ten or twelve years farther back, i.e. to about A.D. 128 or 130. But there is no reason why it should not have been some few years earlier. If the suggestion which I have thrown out in a previous paper deserves attention, he was probably born about A.D. 120. But the exact date of his birth is a matter of comparatively little moment. The really important fact is, that he was connected directly with the Apostles and the Apostolic age by two distinct personal links, if not more.

Of his connection with POLYCARP I have already spoken.§ Polycarp was the disciple of St. John; and, as he was at least eightysix years old when he suffered martyrdom (A.D. 155), he must have been close upon thirty when the Apostle died. Irenæus was young when he received instruction from Polycarp. He speaks of himself in one passage as "still a boy," in another as "in early life." If we reckon his age as from fifteen to eighteen, we shall probably not be far wrong, though the expressions themselves would admit some latitude on either side. At all events, he says that he had a vivid recollection of his master's conversations; he recalled not only the substance of his discourses, but his very expressions and manner; more especially he states that he remembers distinctly his descriptions of his intercourse with John and other personal disciples of Christ together with their account of the Lord's life and teaching; and he adds that these were "entirely in accordance with the Scriptures."

But Irenæus was linked with the Apostolic age by another companionship also. He was the leading presbyter in the Church of Lyons, of which POTHINUS was bishop, and succeeded to this see on the martyrdom of the latter in 177 or 178. With Pothinus

Iren. iii. 3. 4, "Whom we also saw in early life (èv τŷ πрúτη nμŵv λkíą); for he survived long (miñoλù yàp tapéμeive), and departed this life at a very great age (mávu mpaléos) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom." This passage suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life, Irenæus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenæus saw him, since the words wávu ynpaλéos refer, not to the period of their intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a parallel expression relating to St. John, in ii. 22. 5, Tapéμeive yàp avτoîs μÉXPL K.T.A., will show that the inference, even when thus limited, is precarious, and that the yàp does not necessarily imply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage are taken on the one hand by Ziegler, Irenæus der Bischof von Lyon, p. 15 seq., and on the other by Leimbach, Wann ist Irenäus geboren, p. 622 seq. (in Stud. u. Krit. 1873), in answer to Ziegler.

† See CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, May, 1875, p. 838.

Ibid p. 833, note ‡.
§ Ibid p. 832 seq.
See the last reference, where the passage is given in full.

therefore he must have had almost daily intercourse. But Pothinus lived to be more than ninety years old, and must have been a boy of ten at least, when the Apostle St. John died. Moreover there is every reason to believe, as we have already seen,* that like Irenæus himself, Pothinus came originally from Asia Minor. Under any circumstances, his long life and influential position would give a special value to his testimony respecting the past history of the Church; and, whether he was uncritical or not (of which we are ignorant), he must have known whether certain writings attributed to the Evangelists and Apostles had been in a circulation as long as he could remember, or whether they came to his knowledge only the other day, when he was already advanced in life.

In one passage in his extant work, Irenæus gives an account of elaborate discourses which he had heard from an elder who had himself "listened to those who had seen the Apostles and to those who had been disciples," i.e. personal followers of Christ.† It seems most natural to identify this anonymous elder with Pothinus. In this case the "disciples" whom he had heard would be such persons as Aristion and John the presbyter, who are mentioned in this same way by Papias; while under the designation of "those who had seen the Apostles" Polycarp more especially might be intended. But, if he were not Pothinus, then he forms a third direct link of connection between Irenæus and the Apostolic age. Whoever he was, it is clear that the intercourse of Irenæus with him was frequent and intimate. "The elder," writes Irenæus, "used to say," "The elder used to refresh us with such accounts of the ancient worthies," "The elder used to discuss." Indeed the elaborate character of these discourses suggests, as I have stated in a former paper, that Irenæus is here reproducing notes of lectures which he had heard from this person. With the references direct or indirect to the Canonical writings in this anonymous teacher I am not concerned here; nor indeed is it necessary to add anything to what has been said in a previous paper.§ I wish now merely to call attention to these discourses as showing, that through his intercourse with this elder Irenæus could not fail to have ascertained the mind of the earlier Church with regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic writings.

Nor were these the only exceptional advantages which Irenæus enjoyed. When he speaks of the recognition of the Canonical writings his testimony must be regarded as directly representing three Churches at least. In youth he was brought up, as we saw, in Asia Minor. In middle life he stayed for some time in Rome, Iren. iv. 27. 1 seq.

See above, p. 406.

CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, October, 1875, p. 841, note. § CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, February, 1876, p. 494.

having gone there on an important public mission.* Before and after this epoch he for many years held a prominent position in the Church of Gaul. He was moreover actively engaged from the beginning to the end of his public career in all the most important controversies of the day. He gave lectures as we happen to know; for Hippolytus attended a course on "All the Heresies," delivered perhaps during one of his sojourns at Rome. He was a diligent letter-writer, interesting himself in the difficulties and dissensions of distant Churches, and more than one notice of such letters is preserved. He composed several treatises more or less elaborate, whose general character may be estimated from his extant work. The subjects moreover, with which he had to deal, must have forced him to an examination of the points with which we are immediately concerned. He took a chief part in the Montanist controversy; and the Montanist doctrine of the Paraclete, as I have before had occasion to remark, directly suggested an investigation of the promise in the Fourth Gospel. He was equally prominent in the Paschal dispute, and here again the relation between the narratives of St. John and the Synoptists must have entered largely into the discussion. He was contending all his life with Gnostics, or reactionists against Gnosticism, and how large a part the authority and contents of the Gospels and Epistles must have played in these controversies generally we see plainly from his surviving work against the Valentinians.

Thus Irenæus does not present himself before us as an isolated witness, but is backed by a whole phalanx of past and contemporaneous authority. All this our author ignores. He forecloses all investigation by denouncing, as usual, the uncritical character of the fathers; and Irenæus is not even allowed to enter the

witness-box.

The truth is that, speaking generally, the fathers are neither more nor less uncritical on questions which involve the historical sense, than other writers of their age. Now and then we meet with an exceptional blunderer; but for the most part Christian writers will compare not unfavourably with their heathen contemporaries. If Clement of Rome believes in the story of the phoenix,

writes:

See above, p. 407. The author of "Supernatural Religion" himself (II. p. 211) bability that he must have made a protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics," &c. There is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Romo.

"It is not known how long Irenæus remained in Rome, but there is every pro

end of

The notice at the

Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol. 1875, p. 362 seq.), states that Irenæus, "being in Rome at the
time of the martyrdom of Polycarp, taught many," and that it was recorded in his
writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice announcing
the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some foundation in fact.
stated where these lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only
tPhotius Bibl. 121; see CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, October, 1875, p. 841. It is not
as the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood, the metropolis

the Moscow MS.
of the Martyrium Polycarpi, recently collated by Gebhardt (see

is the most likely place, in the absence of direct evidence.

so do several classical writers of repute. If Justin Martyr affirms that Simon Magus received divine honours at Rome, heathen historians and controversialists make statements equally false and quite as ridiculous with reference to the religion and history of the Jews.* Even the credulity of a Papias may be more than matched by the credulity of an Apion or an Ælian. The work of the sceptical Pliny himself abounds in impossible stories. On the other hand individual writers may be singled out among the Christian fathers, whom it would be difficult to match in their several excellences from their own or contiguous generations. No heathen contemporary shows such a power of memory or so wide an acquaintance with the classical literature of Greece in all its branches as Clement of Alexandria. No heathen contemporary deserves to be named in the same day with Origen for patience and accuracy in textual criticism, to say nothing of other intellectual capacities, which, notwithstanding all his faults, distinguish him as the foremost writer of his age. And again, the investigations of Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of Irenæus, in comparative chronology are far in advance of anything which emanates from heathen writers of his time, however inadequate they may appear in this nineteenth century, which has discovered so many monuments of primeval history. There are in fact as many gradations among the Christian fathers as in any other order of men; and here, as elsewhere, each writer must be considered on his own merits. It is a gross injustice to class the authors whom I have named with such hopeless blunderers as Epiphanius and John Malalas, for whom nothing can be said, but in whom nevertheless our author places the most implicit confidence, when their statements serve his purpose.

Now Irenæus is not one whose testimony can be lightly set aside. He possessed, as we have seen, exceptional opportunities of forming an opinion on the point at issue. His honesty is, I think, beyond the reach of suspicion. He is a man of culture and intelligence. He possesses a considerable knowledge of classical literature, though he makes no parade of it. He argues against his opponents with much patience. His work is systematic, and

It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an intelligent author like Tacitus (Hist. v. 1 seq.). It is related, he says, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time when Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence called Iudæi, i.e. Idæi. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being over-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their chieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He states it, moreover, as an account in which "plurimi auctores consentiunt," that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their temple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious springs of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days continuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where they built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this he writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of thousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively venial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deity Semo Sancus for Simo Sanctus, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts.