he has done something towards establishing his position. Or if, instead of establishing his own, he prefer to attack ours, let him place his finger upon that link in the chain of proof presented him, which he would strike out; and if he can prove a flaw, it shall be struck out. But let him remember that if he even accomplish this, he has done but little; the chain is broken indeed, but not destroyed, and he has yet to go back from this, and prove all the rest, one by one, to be false likewise, before his task is finished. Now neither of these has ever yet been done, and until one or both are done, we hold that it is established beyond dispute, that THE GOSPEL HISTORIES WERE WRITTEN BY THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.*

*We cannot deny ourselves the privilege of adding here the con. fessions of several noted Deists. Chubb admits that the books of the New Testament are the productions of the disciples and Apostles of Christ. Hobbs acknowledges that "the writings of the New Testament are as ancient as the times of the Apostles; and that they were written by persons who lived in those times, some of whom saw the things they relate." The celerated Lord Bolingbroke says, "It is out of dispute that we have in our hands the Gospels of Matthew and John, who give themselves out as eye and ear witnesses of all that Christ did and taught." Horne i. 205. These men felt the force of historical evidence, and they knew too much to reject it. Gibbon may be added to their number.

Note to this edition.

Those who would see the question of the genuineness of the Gospels thoroughly discussed, exhausted and settled, must read Prof. Newton's work on that subject. I cannot suitably express my ad. miration of the work of this production, and of the satisfaction I have experienced in its perusal. It is a noble monument to the theological literature of our country, and one of which any country in christendom might be proud.

SECTION III.

EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY HERETICS.

1. A strong collateral argument for the genuineness of the Gospels is found in the controversies with the early heretics. In illustrating this point it will not be necessary to enter into the details of the various heresies of the second century, or to set forth particularly the divisions and subdivisions, or the several shades of opinion distinguishing one from the other. It will be sufficient for the purposes of the present argument to comprehend their followers all under the general name of Gnostics, without alluding to the minute differences in their multiplied speculations.

2. It is well known to every student of Christian history, that these heretics, so called, appeared in the church at a very early period, some of them even before the death of the Apostles. And the mixture of oriental philosophy and Christianity, and in some cases the extravagant and absurd doctrines, which they introduced into the church, excited the strongest opposition on the part of the orthodox or catholic believers. An open and uncompromising war was carried on against their speculations; and they were followed step by step in all their windings, and at many points hardly pressed; and at last virtually excluded from the church-many openly so, by direct ecclesiastical action of the ruling party.

3. It may be well to note the time of some of the more prominent of theleaders in these heresies. Basilides flourished about 112-125, and was of course in his early life contemporary with the Apostle John. Cerinthus became known about the commencement of the 2d century, and is even placed by Le Clere as early as 80, or about ten years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Carpocrates lived and taught about A. D. 125–135, and Heracleon near the same time. Marcion, one of the most distinguished of this class, flourished about 130-145; and Valentinus still earlier than this. It will be seen that these men lived close to the time of the disciples, and some of them taught probably while John was still alive. Indeed Irenæus tells an anecdote respecting St. John and Cerinthus, which, whether true or false, shows that his heresy was well known before the death of John. Of course, this being the case, they had the opportunity of knowing whether the Gospels were really written by the disciples whose names they bear, or not. In the first half of the second century it must have been a well ascertained fact whether these histories of Christ proceeded from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; or whether they were spurious productions, legends or myths, unworthy of authority, passed off upon the church under the sanction of their

names.

4. Now, as we have already noted, these heretics were oftentimes hard pressed in the argument with the orthodox party, and found it difficult, and impossible in some points, to reconcile their mystic notions respecting Christ with the simple statements of the Gospels.* They turn to every

* Sometimes however, judging from Tertullian's plea, they seem to have had the best of the argument. He thinks they ought not to be allowed to argue from the Scriptures. See Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, ii. 350-359.

side, invent all sorts of explanations, and in the alembic of their metaphysics reduce to vapor the plainest language of the Gospel histories; but in all the discussion, however much defeated and beaten down, they never deny the genuineness of those histories.* And what is very remarkable, some of them do deny the authority of the Gospels, at the same time they acknowledge their genuineness-i. e. they admit they were written by those whose names they bear, but they do not allow that their authors were infallible, and made no mistakes in their accounts of Christ's teachings and works. They maintained that Matthew, or Luke, or Paul, might have erred in their statements and opinions, but they did not pretend to deny that these men made the statements ascribed to them in the New Testament. They said the Apostles did not know every thing, and they were not bound to bow to their authority. The Marcionites, for example, contended that the evangelists were liable to errors, were influenced by their Jewish education and prejudices, and misunderstood Christ in many things; and hence their histories were not to be received without some allowance and correction. They accordingly rejected the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and selecting that of Luke, whom they considered as the most enlightened and the safest writer, they omitted what they regarded as errors, or what conflicted with their opinions; and so obtained what was looked upon by them as a correct history of the life and doctrines of Christ.

5. These facts seem to us to furnish one of the most satisfactory arguments for the genuinenesss of the evangelical narration. Is it possible to believe that these heretics, unscrupulous as they were respecting the authority of

*I think Marcion's erasure of the name of Luke from his Gospel is hardly an exception to this statement.

the Apostles, would have hesitated for a moment, when pressed in argument, to have denied that the Gospels were written by the disciples, if there had been the slightest pretext for such denial? Would they have allowed their opponents to confute them, and overwhelm them with arguments drawn from books which had been forged in the name of the disciples, if they could have proved that they were forgeries? Would they have suffered themselves to be driven to such straits in the controversy by the statements of these books, when they might have set aside the whole difficulty by denying that the disciples wrote these books; which they could easily have proved had it been true? Several of them, as we have seen, might have put the question directly to St. John, whether he was the author of the Gospel passing in his name- -whether the others were written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Had the answer been in the negative, they would not have used or argued from them at all; but would have answered all opposition from them, by simply denying that the disciples had any thing to do with them. This would have been a much less obnoxious course, than denying the authority of what they were obliged to acknowledge the actual statements and records of Christ's companions.

6. We urge, therefore, that the fact that these early heretics, bold as they were, did not deny that the Gospel history was written by the disciples, when, overpowered in the argument, they were so strongly tempted to it if there had been any apology for such denial, is conclusive proof, that they had not the least foundation for any suspicion of their genuineness. It is indubitable evidence that, at this early day, while John was yet alive, the evangelical narratives were universally allowed, by friend and foe, to be the productions of those whose names are affixed to them. For had there been the slightest ground for doubting the real origin of these books, we should surely had the Gnos