their genuineness; but because he denied their authors to possess any authority, they being apostles of the circumcision, whom Paul himself had rebuked. See Illustration 8th, note. In like manner, it must be supposed that the reason why Marcion rejected the Acts of the apostles, was not that he denied Luke to be its author; but because the Acts of the apostles was not ascribed to Paul, as the Gospel of Luke was; (see Illust. 8th); and because the book of Acts speaks favourably of the apostles of the circumcision, to whom Marcion was opposed. And this will remove the objection, which has been urged against the opinion that Marcion's Gospel was an adulterated copy of Luke's Gospel, viz. that if it were so, then Marcion would doubtless have received the other production of the same Luke, the Acts of the apostles.1

66

In order to account for Marcion's rejecting the epistles to Timothy and Titus from his collection of Paul's epistles, it is not necessary to suppose, that he doubted their genuineness. Perhaps the reason for their omission 2 was, that they seem to have been intended rather for ministers than for churches at large, and Marcion intended in his canon to specify only those books which were to be read publicly." Löffler and others suppose, that these epistles had not yet come to his knowledge. Compare what is said in Arneth's work, p. 44, in favour of the supposition, that Marcion was acquainted with more of the New Testament writings than are contained in his canon.

The nature of the objections of later heretics, proves the genuineness of the homologoumena.

[And when in the course of time, those heretics began to dispute even the genuineness of these writings, they did not

1 Schmidt's Handbuch der christlichen Kirchengesch. part I. p. 264. 2 The 'Object of John," p. 257.

urge the want of ancient testimony in their favour, or attempt to impugn their genuineness with any historical objections; but they were contented to adduce some trifling, pretended, doctrinal objections, extorted from the books themselves.]

Such were the objections of the Alogians,1 against the Gospel of John. They denied the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the spirit in the church, in opposition to the Montanists; but they could not defend themselves against their opponents, without absolutely rejecting the Gospel of John, which contained the promise of the Paraclete. Their solicitude to disprove the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, preponderated over every historical argument which could be adduced. Irenaeus remarks: "But others do not admit the representation given in the Gospel of John, in which the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete (Comforter); but reject both this prophetic spirit and the Gospel itself; in order that they may oppose the gift of the spirit, which according to the decree of the Father, was poured out upon the human family in these late days."3 It was only the later Alogians, who without hesitation ascribed the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus.*

1 It was the opinion of Dr Lardner, that no heretics ever existed, who rejected the Gospel and first epistle of John, and yet received the other Gospels and the other books of the New Testament, as these Alogians are supposed to have done. They were so called probably, because they 66 rejected God the Logos," as Epiphanius informs us, (p. 396, 397); the name a-loyo being expressive of their sentiments. Dr Lardner therefore maintained, that "as no notice is taken of them in Irenaeus, Eusebius or any other ancient writer before Philaster and Epiphanius," this heresy was probably invented upon the occasion of the controversy with the Millenarians. See also Dr Semler's Historische Einleitung &c. 2 Abschn. 1 Abth. 3. Hauptst. § 38. Anmerk 204. S.

2 "The Object of John," § 24-27.

3 Alii vero, ut donum spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt, quae est secundum Joannis Evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit, sed simul et Evangelium et propheticum repellunt spiritum." Irenaeus adv. Hæres. III. 11. 9.

4 Sup. cit. p. 69, 70. Compare Tübing. Mag. No. 6. p. 116-118, and No. 11. p. 91. and Wegscheider's Introd. to the Gospel of John, p. 101– 103. Eichhorn's Introd. part. II. p. 243.

1

Such also were the doubts of some unknown persons mentioned by Origin, as to the genuineness of the second epistle to Timothy. The remark of Origen 1 is this: "Some have ventured to reject the second epistle to Timothy, on account of the passage 2 Tim. 3: 3. (Ιαννης και Ιαμβρης αντεστησαν Μωϋ σɛɛ,) quasi habentem in se textum alicujus secreti; but they were not able to substantiate their opinion."

Similar were the objections of Faustus, to the genuineness of the Gospels and the writings of Paul. The principal arguments of this Manichaean against the writings of the New Testament, were their inconsistency with many parts of his system, and other trifling internal considerations.3

On the collective evidence of the orthodox and heretics for the books of the New Testament, see Hänlein's Introduction to the New Test. (pt. I. p. 72-108.) Kleuker on the genuineness and credibility of the manuscript records of Christianity, (pt. III. Vol. I. p. 349-468.) Hug has collected, from the fragments of the heretics of the 2d century, testimonies in favour of all the homologoumena of the New Testament, except the epis tle to Titus. (See his Introd. pt. I. p. 41—83.)

1 Opera T. XII. edit. Würtzb. p. 249.

2 i. e. some have rejected 2 Tim. 3: 8, (Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses,) as if this passage contained something mysterious. S.

3 See Michaelis Introd. N.T. § 2. and "On the Object of John,” p. 222.

§3. Genuineness of the antilegomena, or disputed books.

Origen (1) and Eusebius (2) both acknowledge, that the Apocalypse was unanimously received as genuine, by the earliest writers; yet the former was a strenuous opposer of the Chiliasts, and the latter not an unprejudiced witness. (3) With this acknowledgment, the testimony of the earliest writings which have reached us, perfectly accords. (4) And even the open assailants of the Apocalypse, do not venture to deny, that in the first ages of christianity, it was acknowledged to be a production of the apostle John.(5) The Apocalypse might therefore have been received into the number of the homologoumena.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was unanimously ascribed to the apostle Paul, by the writers of the Greek church; it was only the Latin church, led by an error that can be accounted for, which receded from the original and more correct opinion relative to the author of this epistle. (6)

Finally, we have also conclusive evidence in favour of the genuineness of the other disputed books, namely, the second and third epistles of John, the second epistle of Peter, the epistle of James and that of Jude. (7)

ILLUSTRATION 1.

Testimony of Origen for the genuineness of the Apocalypse.

The following evidence, derived from Origen, is discussed in the "New Apology for the Revelation," § 6, and in the work "On the Object of John," § 32.

According to Eusebius, 1 Origen has these remarks, in the fifth section of his Explanation of the Gospel of John: "But 1 Eccles. Hist. VI. 25.

what shall be said of John, who reclined upon the breast of Jesus? He left a single Gospel; acknowledging at the same time, that he could have written so many that the world could not contain them. He also wrote the Apocalypse; in which he was commanded to be silent and not to record the voices of the seven thunders. He has also left an epistle of but few lines; perhaps also a second and a third, but these are not universally acknowledged to be genuine."

Semler and Merkel, (see the work, "Proof that the Apocalypse is a spurious book,") have attempted to invalidate the force of this very distinct testimony of Origen, in the following manner:

First, by the supposition, that Origen here may, perhaps, not have spoken from personal conviction; but have permitted himself to use a mendacium theologicum (theological falsehood,) for good reasons, accommodating himself to the opinion of the churches in Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and other places. But in reply to this, it may be observed, that there is no historical proof that Origen was under any necessity of accommodating himself to the opinion of certain oriental churches; or that he would have suffered himself to do so. Origen himself often makes use of the Apocalypse, and without any urgent reason: and the testimony above mentioned, is not found in a homily addressed to the populace; but in an exegetical work on the Gospel of John. If Origen's private opinion, as to the origin of the Apocalypse, had differed from this; his disciple Dionysius, who did not acknowledge John to be its author, would have

1

τι δεν περι του αναπεσοντος λεγειν επι το στηθος του Ιησου, Ιωαννου; ὃς ευαγγελιον ἐν καταλελοιπεν, ὁμολογων, δυνασθαί τοσαυτα ποιησειν, & ουδε ὁ κοσμος χωρησαι εδυνατο εγραψε δε και την Αποκαλυψιν, κελευσθεις σιωπησαι και μη γράψαι τας των ἑπτα βροντών φωνας. Καταλελοιπε δε και επιστολην πανυ ολιγων στίχων εστω δε και δευτεραν και τριτην επει ου παντες φασι γνησιους είναι ταυτας.