If this argument is sound, the origin of the later import of the term must be sought in another quarter. That quarter is not remote. The Church possessed from early days four narratives of our Lord's life, and to these first the term ' Gospel ' and subsequently its plural ' Gospels ' was applied. It was necessary to refer to these writings indi- vidually, hence there arose the practice of speak- ing of the Gospel according to Matthew and the like : Matthew being regarded as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Very soon it became necessary to find a term to serve as a common designation of the \\Titers of the Gospels. No more suitable word for this purpose could be found than 'evangelist.' It was already in use in the Church ; it stood in the closest affinity to tlie word ' evangel' or 'gospel,' which had acquired by this time its new sense of a written work, and the term once applied proved so useful that it imme- diately became popular. Just as the term 'gospel,' which denoted a spoken message, an announce- ment of good news, the Christian good news, was current long before the written books called Gospels existed, and nevertheless gave its name to them, so also was it with the term 'evangelist.' By a similar transition it became the designation of the writers of the Gospels. After the word ' Gospel ' was used to denote a ivritten narrative of the life of Jesus, the extension of the meaning of the word ' evangelist ' to designate the author of such a work was only a question of time.
Is it possible to ascertain the date at which tlie term was first used in this specific sense? The evidence at present available shows that it was thus employed by Hippolytus and by Tertullian. The first occurrence of the word is in the de Antkhr. of Hippolytus (56), where St. Luke is spoken of as 'the Evangelist.' The generally accepted date of this treatise is about the year 201 (Harnack, Chronol. ii. 214 ; Bardenhewer, Altkirch. Lit. ii. 521). Tertullian in his adv. Pmx., which has been a-ssigned to the years 213-218 (Barden- hewer, ii. 368 ; Harnack, li. 286), speaks of ' the preface of John the Evangelist' (21, ef. 23). This evidence shows tliat towards the beginning of the 3rd cent, the term was used to denote the authors of the Gospels. The inrirlpnt.il iiinnner in which both \vi-iters employ tlie wnnl ~ui;lj. -ts tliat its use was not' new. But this iiifiTcmi' is precarious, and it is possible that HippDlytus was the first to employ it, and that Tertullian imitated his ex- ample and gave it a Latin form. The absence of the word from the opening chapters of the third Book of Irenfeus will appear to some to confirm the opinion that the use of the term is later than his time, but the proper conclusion is that a decisive verdict is impossible. All that can be affirmed with confidence is that, as the term ' Gos- pels' was admittedly used in the plural in the time of Justin Martyr {Ap. i. 66), the employment of the term ' evangelist ' to describe the aut^ior of a Gospel could have liegun in Iiis ago, but that the first occurrence of tlie word is half a century later.
In dealing with the topic ' Evangelist,' it is desir- able to add a brief notice of the aniiiiiil symbols by which the Gospels :ni' ili'sir^natiil. This sym holism makes no aiipciil lo ii< ic..i;iy. lull ii .ni'i-
so largely into early ('111 i-ii;in .'n ! .nhi | ;i\ tlmi
some acquaintance Willi ii i n. ■'.■,, ;ii\ . ri,, ,yiii holism is foumlpil un Ih' c!r-rn|,i iun ,,i tiic iuiu living creature- in lli- \ ii'ir:i|\ p-,- ( I'l. The first
creature is stMlid i.. :i,(\.- I n lik.' a lion, the
second like a ealf. Hie iliinl li.el the luce of a man, the fourth was like a llyin;-; eagle. It occurred to
Irenaius to compare, if not identify, these with the four Gospels, and it was therefore necessarj' for him to ascribe a particular symbol to each of the Evangelists. To him John is the lion, Luke the calf, Matthew the man, and Mark the eagle (Hmr. III. xi. 11). The mode of illustration pursued by Irenfeus strikes us to-day as forced and profitless, but the example he set was followed by Hippolytus (Himi. I. ii. 183, Berlin ed. ; cf. Bardenhewer, Alt- kirch. Lit. ii. 532). In a Syriac fragment he repeats the comparison, but advances an interpretation of his own. Now the lion is Matthew, the calf Luke, the man Mark, and the eagle John. The symbol- ism spread throughout the Church, but there was no agreement as to the connexion between the ditt'erent living creatures and the separate Evan- gelists. However, the authority of Jerome (Pre- face to Mattheib'), despite the divergent opinion of Augustine (Cons. Ev. i. 6), prevailed throughout the West, and furnished the interpretation which is best known, as most largely represented in Christian art, and as embodied in the noble hymn of Adam of St. Victor, ' Psallat chorus corde mundo' (Trench, Sacred Latin Poetry, 67). According to this view, St. Matthew is the man, St. Mark the lion, St. Luke the calf, and St. John the eagle.