Page images
PDF
EPUB

these bore any considerable proportion to the body of the Christian church; and amidst the disputes which such opinions necessarily occasioned, it is a great satisfaction to perceive, what, in a vast plurality of instances, we do perceive, all sides recurring to the same Scriptures.

L. Basilides lived near the age of the apostles, about the year 120, or, perhaps, sooner. He rejected the Jewish institution, not as spurious, but as proceeding from a being, inferior to the true God; and in other respects advanced a scheme of theology widely different from the general doctrine of the Christian church, and which, as it gained over some disciples, was warmly opposed by Christian writers of the second and third century. In these writings, there is positive evidence that Basilides received the Gospel of Matthew; and there is no sufficient proof that he rejected any of the other three: on the contrary, it appears that he wrote a commentary upon the Gospel, so copious as to be divided into twenty-four books.

II. The Valentinians appeared about the same time. Their heresy consisted in certain notions concerning angelic natures, which can hardly be rendered intelligible to a modern reader. They seem, however, to have acquired as much importance as any of the separatists of that early age. Of this sect, Irenæus, who wrote, A. D. 172, expressly records that they endeavoured to fetch arguments for their opinions from the evangelical and apostolic writings. Heracleon, one of the most celebrated of the sect, and who lived probably so early as the year 125, wrote commentaries upon Luke and John. Some observations also of his upon Matthew are preserved by Origen.** Nor is there any reason to doubt that he received the whole New Tes

tament.

III. The Carpocratians were also an early heresy, little, if at all, later than the two preceding.tt Some of their opinions resembled what we at this day mean by Socinianism. With respect to the Scriptures, they are specifically charged, by Irenæus and by Epiphanius, with endeavouring to pervert a passage in Matthew, which amounts to a positive proof that they received that Gospel. Negatively, they are not accused, by their adversaries, of rejecting any part of the New Testament.

IV. The Sethians, A. D. 150;§§ the Montanists, A. D. 156; the Marcosians, A. D. 160;¶¶ Hermogenes, A. D. 180:*+ Praxias, A. D. 196* Artemon, A. D. 200;* Theodotus, A. D. 200; all included under the denomination of heretics, and all engaged in controversies with Catholic Christians, received the Scriptures of the New Testa

ment.

V. Tatian, who lived in the year 172, went into many extravagant

The materials of the former part of this section are taken from Dr. Lardner's History of the Heretics of the first two Centuries, published since his death, with additions, by the Rev. Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, and inserted into the ninth volume of his works, of the edition of 1788.

+ Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 271. Ib. p. 305, 306.
§ Ib. p. 350, 351. Ib. vol. i. p. 383.
¶Ïb. 352.
p.

+ Ib. 318. §§ Ib. 455.

*+ Ib. 473.

** 16. 353.
Ib. 482.
** Ib. 433.

++ Ib. 309,

11 lb. 318.

Ib. 466.

G

opinions, was the founder of a sect called Encratites, and was deeply involved in disputes with the Christians of that age; yet Tatian so received the four Gospels, as to compose a harmony from them.

VI. From a writer, quoted by Eusebius, of about the year 300, it is apparent that they who at that time contended for the mere humanity of Christ, argued from the Scriptures; for they are accused by this writer, of making alterations in their copies, in order to favour their opinions.*

VII. Origen's sentiments excited great controversies,-the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, and many others, condemning, the bishops of the east espousing them; yet there is not the smallest question, but that both the advocates and adversaries of these opinions acknowledged the same authority of Scripture. In his time, which the reader will remember was about one hundred and fifty years after the Scriptures were published, many dissensions subsisted amongst Christians, with which they were reproached by Celsus; yet Origen, who has recorded this accusation without contradicting it, nevertheless testifies, that the four Gospels were received without dispute, by the whole church of God under heaven.†

VIII. Paul of Samosata, about thirty years after Origen, so distinguished himself in the controversy concerning the nature of Christ, as to be the subject of two councils or synods, assembled at Antioch upon his opinions. Yet he is not charged by his adversaries with rejecting any book of the New Testament. On the contrary, Epiphanius, who wrote a history of heretics a hundred years afterward, says, that Paul endeavoured to support his doctrine by texts of Scripture. And Vincentius Lirinensis, A. D. 434, speaking of Paul and other heretics of the same age, has these words: "Here, perhaps, some one may ask, whether heretics also urge the testimony of Scripture. They urge it indeed, explicitly and vehemently; for you may see them flying through every book of the sacred law.t"

IX. A controversy at the same time existed with the Noetians or Sabellians, who seem to have gone into the opposite extreme from that of Paul of Samosata and his followers. Yet, according to the express testimony of Epiphanius, Sabellius received all the Scriptures. And with both sects Catholic writers constantly allege the Scriptures, and reply to the arguments which their opponents drew from particular texts.

We have here, therefore, a proof, that parties, who were the most opposite and irreconcileable to one another, acknowledged the authority of Scripture with equal deference.

X. And as a general testimony to the same point, may be produced what was said by one of the bishops of the council of Carthage, which was holden a little before this time,-"I am of opinion that the blasphemous and wicked heretics, who pervert the sacred and adorable words of the Scriptures, should be execrated." Undoubtedly what they perverted, they received.

XI. The Millennium, Novatianism, the baptism of heretics, the

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

keeping of Easter, engaged also the attention and divided the opinions of Christians, at and before that time (and, by the way, it may De observed, that such disputes, though on some accounts to be blamed, shewed how much men were in earnest upon the subject) yet every one appealed for the grounds of his opinion to Scripture. authority. Dionysius of Alexandria, who flourished A. D. 247, deseribing a conference or public disputation with the Millennarians o Egypt, confesses of them, though their adversary," that they embrace whatever could be made out by good arguments from the Holy Scriptures."* Novatus, A. D. 251, distinguished by some rigid sentiments concerning the reception of those who had lapsed, and the. founder of a numerous sect, in his few remaining works quotes the Gospel with the same respect as other Christians did; and concerning his followers, the testimony of Socrates, who wrote about the year 440, is positive, viz. "That in the disputes between the Catholics and them, each side endeavoured to support itself by the authority of the Divine Scriptures."+

XII. The Donatists, who sprung up in the year 328, used the same Scriptures as we do, "Produce (saith Augustine) some proof from the Scriptures, whose authority is common to us both."

XIII. It is perfectly notorious, that, in the Arian controversy, which arose soon after the year 300, both sides appealed to the same Scriptures, and with equal professions of deference and regard. The Arians, in their council of Antioch, A. D. 341, pronounce, that, "if any one contrary to the sound doctrine of the Scriptures, say, that the Son is a creature, as one of the creatures, let him be an anathema." They and the Athanasians mutually accuse each other of using unscriptural phrases; which was a mutual acknowledgement of the conclusive authority of Scripture.

XIV. The Priscillianists, A. D. 378,|| the Pelagians, A. D. 405,¶ received the same Scriptures as we do.

XV. The testimony of Chrysostom, who lived near the year 400, is so positive in affirmation 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 writing of the Gospels, many heresies 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: e. g.

[ocr errors]

66

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

* Lardner, vol. iv. p. 666.

Ib. vol. vii. p. 243.

Ib. vol. ix. p. 325.

[blocks in formation]

Ib. vol. xi. p. 52.

** Ib. vol. x. p, 316 tt Ib. vol. ix. ed. 1788. p. 322

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

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 recognised 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 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 shews the ground upon which Marcion proceeded in his mutilation of the Scriptures, viz. 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, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most or all 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.§

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

+ I have transcribed this sentence from Michaelis (p. 38), who has not however rcferred 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.

§ Lardner, vol. xii, p. 12,-Dr. Lardner's future enquiries supplied him with 'many ether instances,

SECT. VIII.

The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Saint 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 shews that the authenticity of their books was a subject amongst 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 acquiescence.

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."

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.† 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 them to be genuine." Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates, and thus confesses his own doubts, and the doubts which subsisted in his time, expressly witnesses concerning the four Gospels," that they alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven."

III. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning the book of Revelation, whether it was written by Saint John; states the grounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion concerning it, in his own time, and before his time.§ Yet the same Dionysius, uses and collates the four Gospels in a manner which shews that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their authority, and in a

• Lardner, vol, iii. p. 240. + Ib. p. 246.
§ Ib. vol. iv. p. 670.

Ib.

p. 234.

« PreviousContinue »