Christians, that there were four, and no more than four authentic memoirs or hiftories of Jefus Chrift? 6. I forbear to allege any thing from Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus, or Tertullian, for fhowing the notoriety of the books of the New Teftament in early times, because I now infift only upon writers of the highest antiquity. But I fhall take notice of fome things, which we have in the accounts of the herefies of the fecond century. However, that this argument may not be too prolix, I entirely pass by Bafilides. q г 7. Valentinus is placed by Cave as flourishing about the year 120. By Bafnage he is placed at the year 124. By Mill between 123, and 127. And by Irenæus we are affured, that the Valentinians endeavoured to fupport their opinions from texts of the evangelic and apoftolic fcrip<tures,' or of the gofpels and apoftles, that is, both parts of the New Teftament: and that they argued especially from the gospel according to John.' t And Tertullian allows, that Valentinus used the books of the New Teftament entire, without altering them, as Marcion did. u X Mr. Wetstein fays, the Valentinians rejected the Acts of the apostles. And he thinks this appears from Irenæus. But to me it appears manifeft from Irenæus, that they received the Acts. For in his confutation of them, in his third book against herefies, he argues against them largely, first from the gofpels, then from the book of the Acts, and laftly from the epiftles of apostles. And Maffuet, the learned Benedictine editor of Irenæus, allows, that according to that 124. num. vii. 265. Hift. Lit. p. 50. P Ann. Proleg. num. * Και ου μόνον εκ των Ευαγγελικών, και των αποτολικων πει ρωνται τας αποδειξεις ποιεισθαι. Iren. 1. i. c. 3. n. 6. p. 17. Hi autem qui a Valentino funt, eo quod eft fecundum Joannem pleniffime atentes, ad oftenfionem conjugationum fuarum, ex ipfo detegentur, nihil recte dicentes. Id. 1. 3. cap. xi. n. 7. p. 190. Alius manu fcripturas, alius fenfus expofitione intervertit. Neque enim fi Valentinus integro inftrumento uti videtur, non calli diore ingenio, quam Marcion manus intulit veritati. Marcion enim exerte et palam machæra, non stilo ufus eft: quoniam ad materiam fuam cædem fcripturarum confecit. Valentinus autem pepercit: quoniam non ad materiam fcripturas, fed materiam ad fcripturas, excogitavit. De Præfc. Hær. cap. 38. P. 246. u Acta Apoftolorum rejecerunt Valentiniani. Quod conftat ex Irenæo. Hær. iii. 2. Wetten. N. T. tom. II. p. 455. x Vid. Iren. contr. Hær. 1. 3. At ipfi Valencap. xi. xii. tino that ancient writer, the Valentinians did not reject any books of the New Teflament. Irenæus, as we have juft feen, fays, that the Valentinians endeavoured to fupport their opinions by the evangelic and apoftolic fcriptures. The Acts were included in this fecond volume of the New Teftament, according to the method of the ancient Chriftians. 8. Heracleon, a learned Valentinian, is fuppofed by z Grabe to have been contemporary with his mafter, Valentinus, and to have appeared about the year 123. However, he might continue a good while after that. Bafnage fpeaks of him at the year 125. And Cave placeth him at 126. They who are fo pleafed, may recollect what was faid of his age formerly. Heracleon feems to have written commentaries upon feveral parts of the New Teftament. Clement of Alexandria having quoted the words of Matt. x. 32. or Luke xii. 8. and of Luke xii. 11, 12. fays: Heracleon explaining this place has thefe very words;' which I need not tranfcribe at prefent, though it be a valuable paffage. There is in Clemente another fhort paffage of Heracleon's commentary upon St. Luke. Origen, in his commentary upon St. John's gofpel, often quotes Heracleon. The paffages of Heracleon's commentary upon that gofpel, with Origen's remarks, are collected by Grabe. And from him they have been placed by Maffuet in his appendix to Irenæus. The paffages of Heracleon, quoted by Origen, are above forty in number, and fome of them long. Heracleon's commentaries upon the gofpels of St. Luke, and St. John, are an early proof of the respect fhown to the books of the New Teftament. And it may be reasonable to think, that others befide Heracleon, both catholics and heretics, published about the fame time commentaries upon fome of the books of the New Teftament. Origen has at once given us Heracleon's obfervations upon Matt. viii. 12. and If. i. 2. Heracleon likewife received St. Paul, and his writings. For he quotes, as his, the beginning of the twelfth chapter of the epiftle to the Romans. Moreover Origen has given us Heracleon's interpretation of 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54. I might add here fome other things. But this is fufficient to fhow, that in the very early days of Chriftianity, the books of the New Teftament were well known, much ufed, and greatly refpected. 9. Marcion about the year 138, placed by fome 1 fooner, in 127, or 130, had, and probably, in imitation of other Chriftians, a gofpel, and an apoftle, or an evangelicon, and apoftolicon. m In the former, as is generally faid, was n St. Luke's gospel only, and that curtailed. But Mr. Lampe fays, that Mar Origen. Comm. in Joan. T. II. h nab' P. 256. C. Huet. ο και ο απότολος διδασκει, λέγων, λογι μην λατρείαν την τοιαυτην θεοσέβειαν. Ap. Orig. ib. p. 217. E. et Grabe Ap. Orig. ib. Spic. p. 101. P. 255. D. et Grabe. p. 110. k Vid. Pagi Ann. 144. n. iii. et Affeman. Bib. Or. T. I. p. 389. 1 Vid. Cav. H. L. note (4.) P. 54. &c. S. Bafnag. ann. 131. v. 133. iv. Mill. Prol. num. iii.. cion tull. adv. Marc. 1. 4. cap. 2. p. 503. Vid. et Epiph. Hær. 42. n. ix. • Verum hinc quoque plus elicitur, quam voluit Marcion. Non enim afferere Marcion aufus eft, Evangelia, quæ extra Lucam habe mus, effe conficta et falfo EvanNemo Patrum geliftis fuppofita. antiquiorum hujus criminis Mar cionem accufavit. Id tantum voluit, Lucæ Evangelium, ductu Pauli confcriptum, reliquis Evangeliis præferendum effe. m Adamant. 306, 307. n Et fuper hæc, id quod eft fecundum Lucam Evangelium circumcidens. Iren. 1. 1. cap. 27. 2. al. cap. 29. Nam ex iis Commentatoribus, quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion elegiffe, quem cæderet, TerVOL. VI. Clariffima hæc effe puto. Et quod prætenfionem interpolationis attinet, hujus infigne ftatim cap. 7. [lib. 4. contr. Marc.] exemplum affertur: Cæterum et loco et illuminationis opere fecundum prædicationem occurrentibus Chrifto, jam cum Prophetam incipimus agnofcere, oftendentem in primo ingreju veniffe fe, non ut Legem et Prophetas diffolveret, fed ut potens adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion, ut additum erafit. Cum enim hæc verba Matthæi v. 17. inveniantur, hinc inferimus, Marcionem Evangelium Matthæi non fimpliciter Uu " cion did not reject the other gofpels, though he preferred St. Luke's. This he infers from a paffage in Tertullian, which feems to fhow, that Marcion did not reject St. Matthew's gofpel. I fhall add another from Ifidore of Pelufium, where he fays: Take the gofpel [or the evangelicon] of Marcion, and you will prefently fee at the very beginning, a proof of their impudence. For they have left out our Lord's genealogy from David and Abraham. And if you proceed a little farther, you will fee another inftance of their wickedness, in altering our Lord's words. I came not, fays he, to destroy the law or the prophets. But they have made it thus: Think ye, that I came to fulfil the law, or the prophets? I am come to deftroy, not to fulfil. Matt. v. 17. It might be alfo argued from the dialogue against the Marcionites, that they used St. Matthew's gofpel. But I forbear to allege any places in particular. So that it may be reckoned probable, that Marcion did not reject any of the four gospels. But undoubtedly he made alterations in them, agreeable to his own particular opinion, under a pretence, that they had been corrupted by fome before his time. Perhaps Marcion filled up St. Luke's gofpel out of the reft, taking from them fuch things as fuited his purpofe. Tertullian fays, that his gofpel, or evangelicon, had no fimpliciter negaffe, fed quæcunque erroribus ejus non patrocinabantur, pro lubitu erafiffe. Atque ita proculdubio etiam cum reliquis Evangeliftis egit. Lampe Proleg. ad Joan. Evang. 1. 2. cap. 1. n. iv. p. 136, 137. P Ει προϊσχεται ο της μαρκιωνος συνήγορος βλασφημίας, το παρ' εκείνοις ονομαζόμενον ευαγγελιον λαβών αναγνωθι, και ευρήσεις ευθύς εν προοιμίω την ατοπίαν. Αυτήν γαρ την κατάγεσαν επι χρισου απο δαβιδ και αβρααμ γενεαλογιαν απεΤεμεν. Kai mompov vsepov av an οψει κακονοιαν. Αμειψαντες γαρ την τε κύριε φωνην, Ουκ ήλθον, λέγοντος, καταλυσαι, τον νόμον, η τες προφητας, εποι Δοκειτε, οτι ήλθον πληρώσαι η τες προφητας; Ήλθον ησαν TOY VOMOV, title. xaтahusai, arx' & impacal. Ind. Pel. 1. i. ep. 371. 9 Vid. Tertull. adv. Marcion. 1. 4. cap. 4. Occurrit primo loco Marcion et Marcionite, qui corruperunt libros N. T. refectis omnibus iis, quæ Judaicæ religioni favere putabant, et contracto toto N. T. in duos codices, quorum priorem vocabant Evangelium, ex Lucâ maximam partem conflatum, et fubinde ex reliquis Evangeliftis integratum. Wetft. Proleg. N. T. tom. I. p. 79. s Contra Marcion Evangelio, fcilicet fuo, nullum afcribit au&torem: quafi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere, cui nefas non fuit ipfum corpus evertere. Et poffem hic jam gradum fgere, non agnofcendum conten dens title. That may have been the reafon of it. And we can hence conclude, that in very ancient times, among the catholics, the four gofpels were entitled, and infcribed, with the names of the feveral evangelifts. Which has been denied, or doubted of by fome. t Marcion had alfo an apoftolicon. In this were ten epiftles only of St. Paul, and thofe diminished, at leaft fome of them. Their order according to him, as we are informed by Epiphanius, was this: the epiftle to the Galatians, the first and fecond to the Corinthians, to the Romans, the first and fecond to the Theffalonians, to the Ephefians, the Coloffians, Philemon, the Philippians. He received not any other epiftles of St. Paul. It is fuppofed likewife, that he rejected the catholic epiftles, and the Revelation. Whether he received the Acts of the apoftles, I cannot fay certainly: though fome learned men think, he did not receive them. But then it fhould be obferved by us, that the Marcionite apoftolicon was reckoned very defective by the catholic Chriftians. And it may be inferred from the accounts, which we have in the best writers of the moft early ages, that Marcion was the most arbitrary, and moft licentious of all the ancient heretics, in his judgment concerning the fcriptures that fhould be received, and in his manner of treating fuch as were received by him. So that his opinion can be no prejudice to the genuineness, or the notoriety of any of thofe books of the New Testament, which were received by the catholics, and indeed by molt heretics likewife. I fhall place below a remarkable paffage of Irenæus, where he fays: Marcion and his followers curtail the fcriptures with great • affurance, dens opus, quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam conftantiam præferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli, et profeflione debita auctoris. Contr. Marc. 1. 4. t Vid. Mill. Prol. num. cap. 2. Η Προενεγκε το αποτολικόν σε, ει και тaμanisa @epinεnoμμevov est. Dialog. adv. Marcion. fect. i. p. 8. Bafil. p. 806. T. I. Bened. z Unde et Marcion, et qui ab eo funt, ad intercidendas converfi funt Scripturas, quafdam quidem in totum non cognofcentes, fecundum Lucam autem Evangelium, et Epiftolas Pauli decurtantes, hæc fola legitima effe dicunt, que ipfi minoraverunt. Reliqui vero omnes falfo fcientiæ nomine inflati ScripU uz Si ex 347. u Hær. 42. num. ix. et alibi. turas |