of the proposition which we maintain, that it may form a proper conclusion of the argument. "The general reception of the Gospels is a proof that their history is true and consistent; for, since the writings of the Gospels, many heretics have arisen, holding opinions contrary to what is contained in them, who yet receive the Gospels either entire or in part." I am not moved by what may seem a deduction from Chrysostom's testimony, the words, "entire, or in part;" for, if all the parts, which were ever questioned in our Gospels, were given up, it would not affect the miraculous origin of the religion in the smallest degree: for example,

Cerinthus is said by Epiphanius to have received the Gospel of Matthew, but not entire. What the omissions were, does not appear. The common opinion, that he rejected the first two chapters, seems to have been a mistake. It is agreed, however, by all who have given any account of Cerinthus, that he taught that the Holy Ghost (whether he meant by that name a person or a power) descended upon Jesus at his Baptism; that Jesus from this time performed many miracles, and that He appeared after His

• Lardner, vol. x. p. 316.

1 Ibid., vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 322.

death. He must have retained therefore the essential parts of the history.

2

Of all the ancient heretics, the most extraordinary was Marcion. One of his tenets was the rejection of the Old Testament, as proceeding from an inferior and imperfect deity; and in pursuance of this hypothesis, he erased from the New, and that, as it should seem, without entering into any critical reasons, every passage which recognized the Jewish Scriptures. He spared not a text which contradicted his opinion. It is reasonable to believe, that Marcion treated books as he treated texts: yet this rash and wild controversialist published a recension, or chastised edition, of Saint Luke's Gospel, containing the leading facts, and all which is necessary to authenticate the religion. This example affords proof, that there were always some points, and those the main points, which neither wildness nor rashness, neither the fury of opposition nor the intemperance of controversy, would venture to call in question. There is no reason to believe that Marcion, though full of resentment against the Catholic Christians, ever charged them with forging their books. "The Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Epistle to the

2 Lardner, c. x. sect. ii. Also Michael., vol. i. c. i. sect. xviii.

Hebrews, with those of Saint Peter and Saint James, as well as the Old Testament in general," he said, "were writings not for Christians but for Jews." This declaration shows the ground upon which Marcion proceeded in his mutilation of the Scriptures; namely, his dislike of the passages or the books. Marcion flourished about the year 130.

Dr. Lardner, in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in the following words :--"Noëtus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans,* Priscillianists, besides Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most, or all of the same books of the New Testament which the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them, as written by Apostles, or their disciples and companions."5

I have transcribed this sentence from Michaelis (p. 38), who has not, however, referred to the authority upon which he attributes these words to Marcion.

This must be with an exception, however, of Faustus, who lived so late as the year 384.

5

Lardner, vol. xii. p. 12. Dr. Lardner's future inquiries supplied him with many other instances.

SECTION VIII.

THE FOUR GOSPELS, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THIRTEEN EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, AND THE FIRST OF PETER, WERE RECEIVED WITHOUT DOUBT BY THOSE WHO DOUBTED CONCERNING THE OTHER BOOKS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN OUR PRESENT CANON.

I STATE this proposition, because, if made out, it shows that the authenticity of their books was a subject among the early Christians of consideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause of doubt, they did doubt: a circumstance which strengthens very much their testimony to such books as were received by them with full aquiescence.

I. Jerome, in his account of Caius, who was probably a presbyter of Rome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that, reckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the fourteenth, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his: and then Jerome adds, "With the Romans to this day it is not looked upon as Paul's." This agrees in the main with the account given by Eusebius of the same ancient author and his work; except that Eusebius

delivers his own remark in more guarded terms: "And indeed, to this very time, by some of the Romans this Epistle is not thought to be the Apostle's." 6

II. Origen, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the Epistle to the Hebrews, observes that some might dispute the authority of that Epistle; and therefore proceeds to quote to the same point, as undoubted books of Scripture, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians.7 And in another place, this author speaks of the Epistle to the Hebrews thus:-"The account come down to us is various: some saying that Clement, who was Bishop of Rome, wrote this Epistle; others, that it was Luke, the same who wrote the Gospel and the Acts." Speaking also, in the same paragraph, of Peter, "Peter," says he, "has left one Epistle acknowledged; let it be granted likewise that he wrote a second, for it is doubted of." And of John, "He has also left one Epistle, of a very few lines: grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow these to be genuine." Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates, and thus confesses his own doubts, and the doubts which

Lardner, vol. iii. p. 240, &c.

7 Ibid.,

P. 246.