We again, however, come to the question: Who really made the quotations which Hippolytus introduces so indefinitely? We have already, in speaking of Basilides,

{68}

pointed out the loose manner in which Hippolytus and other early writers, in dealing with different schools of heretics, indifferently quote the founder or his followers without indicating the precise person quoted. This practice is particularly apparent in the work of Hippolytus when the followers of Valentinus are in question. Tischendorf himself is obliged to admit this. He asks: "Even though it be also incontestable that the author (Hippolytus) does not always sharply distinguish between the sect and the founder of the sect, does this apply to the present case"?(1) He denies that it does in the instance to which he refers, but he admits the general fact. In the same way another apologist of the fourth Gospel (and as the use of that Gospel is maintained in consequence of a quotation in the very same chapter as we are now considering, only a few lines higher up, both the third and fourth are in the same position) is forced to admit: "The use of the Gospel of John by Valentinus cannot so certainly be proved from our refutation-writing (the work of Hippolytus). Certainly in the statement of these doctrines it gives abstracts, which contain an expression of John (x. 8), and there cannot be any doubt that this is taken from some writing of the sect. But the apologist, in his expressions regarding the Valentinian doctrines, does not seem to confine himself to one and the same work, but to have alternately made use of different writings of the school, for which reason we cannot say anything as to the age of this quotation, and from this testimony, therefore, we merely have further confirmation that the Gospel was early(2) (?) used in the

2 Why "early"? since Hippolytus writes about a.d. 225.

{69}

School of the Valentinians,"(1) &c. Of all this not a word from Canon Westcott, who adheres to his system of bare a.s.sertion.

Now we have already quoted(2) the opening sentence of Book vi. 35, of the work ascribed to Hippolytus, in which the quotation from John x.

8, referred to above occurs, and ten line3 further on, with another intermediate and equally indefinite "he says" [------], occurs the supposed quotation from Luke i. 35, which, equally with that from the fourth Gospel, must, according to Weizsacker, be abandoned as a quotation which can fairly be ascribed to Valentinus himself, whose name is not once mentioned in the whole chapter. A few lines below the quotation, however, a pa.s.sage occurs which throws much light upou the question. After explaining the views of the Valentinians regarding the verse: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," &c., the writer thus proceeds: "Regarding this there is among them [------] a great question, a cause both of schism and dissension. And hence their [------] teaching has become divided, and the one teaching according to them [------] is called Eastern ["------] and the other Italian. They from Italy, of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, say [------] that the body of Jesus was animal, and on account of this, on the occasion of the baptism, the Holy Spirit like a dove came down--that is, the Logos from the Mother above, Sophia--and became joined to the animal, and raised him from the dead.

This, _he says_ [------] is the declaration [------],"--and here be it observed we come to another of the "clear

{70}

references" which Canon Westcott ventures, deliberately and without a word of doubt, to attribute to Valentinus himself,(1)--"This, he says, is the declaration: "He who raised Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies,"(3) that is animal. For the earth has come under a curse: "For dust, he says [------] thou art and unto dust shalt thou return."(3) On the other hand, those from the East [------], of whom is Axionicus and Bardesanes, say [------] that the body of the Saviour was spiritual, for the Holy Spirit came upon Mary, that is the Sophia and the power of the Highest."(4) &c.

In this pa.s.sage we have a good ill.u.s.tration of the mode in which the writer introduces his quotations with the subjectless "he says." Here he is conveying the divergent opinions of the two parties of Valentinians, and explaining the peculiar doctrines of the Italian school "of whom is Heracleon and Ptolemaeus," and he suddenly departs from the plural "they"

to quote the pa.s.sage from Romans viii. 11, in support of their views with the singular "he says." Nothing can be more obvious than that "he"

cannot possibly be Valentinus himself, for the schism is represented as taking place

{71}

amongst his followers, and the quotation is evidently made by one of them to support the views of his party in the schism, but whether Hippolytus is quoting from Heraclcon or Ptolemaeus or some other of the Italian(1) school, there is no means of knowing. Of all this, again, nothing is said by Canon Westcott, who quietly a.s.serts without hesitation or argument, that Valentinus himself is the person who here makes the quotation.

We have already said that the name of Valentinus does not occur once in the whole chapter (vi. 35) which we have been examining, and if we turn back we find that the preceding context confirms the result at which we have arrived, that the [------] has no reference to the Founder himself, but is applicable only to some later member of his school, most probably contemporary with Hippolytus. In vi. 21, Hippolytus discusses the heresy of Valentinus, which he traces to Pythagoras and Plato, but in Ch. 29 he pa.s.ses from direct reference to the Founder to deal entirely with his school. This is so manifest, that the learned editors of the work of Hippolytus, Professors Duncker and Schneidewin, alter the preceding heading at that part from "Valentinus" to "Valentiniani." At the beginning of Ch. 29 Hippolytus writes: "Valentinus, therefore, and Heracleon and Ptolemaeus and the whole school of these (heretics)...

have laid down as the fundamental principle of their teaching the arithmetical system. For according to these," &c. And a few lines lower down: "There is discernible amongst them, however, considerable difference of opinion. For many of them, in order that

1 The quotation from an Epistle to the Romans by the Italian school is appropriate.

{72}

the Pythagorean doctrine of Valentinus may be wholly pure, suppose, &c., but others," &c. He shortly after says that he will proceed to state their doctrines as they themselves teach them [------]. He then continues: "There is, he says [------]" &c. &c., quoting evidently one of these followers who want to keep the doctrine of Valentinus pure, or of the "others," although without naming him, and three lines further on again, without any preparation, returning to the plural "they say"

[------] and so on through the following chapters, "he says" alternating with the plural, as the author apparently has in view something said by individuals or merely expresses general views. In the Chapter (34) preceding that which we have princ.i.p.ally been examining, Hippolytus begins by referring to "the Quaternion according to Valentinus,"

but after five lines on it, he continues: "This is what they say: [------]"(1) and then goes on to speak of "their whole teaching"

[------], and lower down he distinctly sets himself to discuss the opinions of the school in the plural: "Thus these (Valentinians) subdivide the contents of the Pleroma," &c. [------], and continues with an occasional "according to them "[------] until, without any name being mentioned, he makes use of the indefinite "he says" to introduce the quotation referred to by Canon Westcott as a citation by Valentinus himself of "the Epistle to the Ephesians as Scripture."(2) "This is, he says, what is written in Scripture," and there follows a quotation which, it may merely be mentioned as Canon Westcott says nothing of it, differs considerably from the pa.s.sage in the Epistle

{73}

iii. 14--18. Immediately after, another of Canon West-cott"s quotations from 1 Cor. ii. 14, is given, with the same indefinite "he says," and in the same way, without further mention of names, the quotations in Ch. 35 compared with John x. 8, and Luke i. 35. There is, therefore, absolutely no ground whatever for referring these [------] to Valentinus himself; but, on the contrary, Hippolytus shows in the clearest way that he is discussing the views of the later writers of the sect, and it is one of these, and not the Founder himself, whom in his usual indefinite way he thus quotes.

We have been forced by these bald and unsupported a.s.sertions of apologists to go at such length into these questions at the risk of being very wearisome to our readers, but it has been our aim as much as possible to make no statements without placing before those who are interested the materials for forming an intelligent opinion. Any other course would be to meet mere a.s.sertion by simple denial, and it is only by bold and unsubstantiated statements which have been simply and in good faith accepted by ordinary readers who have not the opportunity, if they have even the will, to test their veracity, that apologists have so long held their ground. Our results regarding Valentinus so far may be stated as follows: the quotations which without any explanation are so positively imputed to Valentinus are not made by him, but by later writers of his school;(1) and, moreover, the pa.s.sages which are indicated by the English apologist as references to our two Synoptic Gospels not only do

(74)

not emanate from Valentinus, but do not agree with our Gospels, and are apparently derived from other sources.(1)

The remarks of Canon Westcott with regard, to the connection of Valentinus with our New Testament are on a par with the rest of his a.s.sertions. He says: "There is no reason to suppose that Valentinus differed from Catholic writers on the Canon of the New Testament."(2) We might ironically adopt this sentence, for as no writer whatever of the time of Valentinus, as we have seen, recognized any New Testament Canon at all, he certainly did not in this respect differ from the other writers of that period. Canon Westcott relies upon the statement of Tertullian, but even here, although he quotes the Latin pa.s.sage in a note, he does not fully give its real sense in his text. He writes in immediate continuation of the quotation given above: "Tertullian says that in this he differed from Marcion, that he at least professed to accept "the whole instrument," perverting the interpretation, where Marcion mutilated the text." Now the a.s.sertion of Tertullian has a very important modification, which, to any one acquainted with the very unscrupulous boldness of the "Great African" in dealing with religious controversy, is extremely significant. He does not make the a.s.sertion positively and of his own knowledge, but modifies it by saying: "Nor, indeed, if Valentinus seems to use the

2 On the Canon, p. 259. [Dr. Westcott omits these words from his 4th ed., but he uses others here and elsewhere which imply very nearly the same a.s.sertion.]

{75}

whole instrument, (neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur),"(1) &c. Tertullian evidently knew very little of Valentinus himself, and had probably not read his writings at all.(2) His treatise against the Valentinians is avowedly not original, but, as he himself admits, is compiled from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and Proclus.(3) Tertullian would not have hesitated to affirm anything of this kind positively, had there been any ground for it, but his a.s.sertion is at once too uncertain, and the value of his statements of this nature much too small, for such a remark to have any weight as evidence.(4) Besides, by his own showing Valentinus altered Scripture (sine dubio emen-dans),(5) which he could not have done had he recognized it as of canonical authority.(6) We cannot, however, place any reliance upon criticism emanating from Tertullian.

All that Origen seems to know on this subject is that the followers of Valentinus [------] have altered the form of the Gospel [------].(7) Clement of Alexandria, however, informs us that Valentinus, like Basilides, professed to have direct traditions from the Apostles, his teacher being Theodas, a disciple of the Apostle Paul.(8) If he had known any Gospels which he believed to have apostolic authority, there would clearly not have been any need of such tradition. Hippolytus distinctly affirms that Valentinus derived his system from Pythagoras and Plato,

{76}

and "not from the Gospels" [-----], and that consequently he might more properly be considered a Pythagorean and Platonist than a Christian.(1) Irenaeus, in like manner, a.s.serts that the Valentinians derive their views from unwritten sources [------],(2) and he accuses them of rejecting the Gospels, for after enumerating them,(3) he continues: "When, indeed, they are refuted out of the Scriptures, they turn round in accusation of these same Scriptures, as though they were not correct, nor of authority....

For (they say) that it (the truth) was not conveyed by written records but by the living voice."(4) In the same chapter he goes on to show that the Valen-tinians not only reject the authority of Scripture, but also reject ecclesiastical tradition. He says: "But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which is from the Apostles, which has been preserved through a succession of Presbyters in the Churches, they are opposed to tradition, affirming themselves wiser not only than Presbyters, but even than the Apostles, in that they have discovered the uncorrupted truth. For (they say) the Apostles mixed up matters which are of the law with the words of the Saviour, &c.... It comes to this, they neither consent to Scripture nor to tradition. (Evenit itaque, neque Scripturis jam, neque Traditioni consentire eos.)"(6) We find, therefore, that even in the time of Irenaeus the Valentinians rejected the writings

{77}

of the New Testament as authoritative doc.u.ments, which they certainly would not have done had the Founder of their sect himself acknowledged them. So far from this being the case, there was absolutely no New Testament Canon for Valentinus himself to deal with,(1) and his perfectly orthodox contemporaries recognized no other Holy Scriptures than those of the Old Testament.

Irenaeus, however, goes still further, and states that the Valentinians of his time not only had many Gospels, but that they possessed one peculiar to themselves. "Those indeed who are followers of Valentinus,"

he says, "again pa.s.sing beyond all fear, and putting forth their own compositions, boast that they have more Gospels than there actually are.

Indeed they have proceeded so far in audacity that they ent.i.tle their not long written work, agreeing in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, the Gospel of Truth, so that there cannot be any Gospel among them without blasphemy."(2) It follows clearly, from the very name of the Valentinian Gospel, that they did not consider that others contained the truth,(3) and indeed Irenaeus himself perceived this, for he continues: "For if what is published by them be the Gospel of Truth, yet is dissimilar from those which have been delivered to us by the Apostles, any may perceive who please, as is demonstrated by these very Scriptures, that that which has been handed down from the Apostles is not the Gospel of Truth."(4) These pa.s.sages speak for

{78}

themselves. It has been suggested that the "Gospel of Truth" was a harmony of the four Gospels.(1) This, however, cannot by any possibility have been the case, inasmuch as Irenaeus distinctly says that it did not agree in anything with the Gospels of the Apostles. We have been compelled to devote too much s.p.a.ce to Valentinus, and we now leave him with the certainty that in nothing does he afford any evidence even of the existence of our Synoptic Gospels.

{79}

CHAPTER VII. MARCION

We must now turn to the great Heresiarch of the second century, Marcion, and consider the evidence regarding our Gospels which may be derived from what we know of him. The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of arriving at a just conclusion from the materials within our reach have rendered Marcion"s Gospel the object of very elaborate criticism, and the discussion of its actual character has continued with fluctuating results for nearly a century.

Marcion was born at Sinope, in Pontus, of which place his father was Bishop,(1) and although it is said that he aspired to the first place in the Church of Rome,(2) the Presbyters refused him communion on account of his peculiar views of Christianity. We shall presently more fully refer to his opinions, but here it will be sufficient to say that he objected to what he considered the debas.e.m.e.nt of true Christianity by Jewish elements, and he upheld the teaching of Paul alone, in opposition to that of all the other Apostles, whom he accused of mixing

{80}

up matters of the law with the Gospel of Christ, and falsifying Christianity,(1) as Paul himself had protested.(9) He came to Rome about a.d. 139--142,(3) and continued teaching for some twenty years.(4) His high personal character and elevated views produced a powerful effect upon his time,(5) and, although during his own lifetime and long afterwards vehemently and with every opprobrious epithet denounced by ecclesiastical writers, his opinions were so widely adopted that in the time of Epiphanius his followers were to be found throughout the whole world.(6)

Marcion is said to have recognized as his sources of Christian doctrine, besides tradition, a single Gospel and ten Epistles of Paul, which in his collection stood in the following order;--Epistle to Galatians, Corinthians (2), Romans, Thessalonians (2), Ephesians (which he had with

{81}

the superscription "to the Laodiceans"),(1) Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon.(2) None of the other books which now form part of the canonical New Testament were either mentioned or recognized by Marcion.(3) This is the oldest collection of Apostolic writings of which there is any trace,(4) but there was at that time no other "Holy Scripture" than the Old Testament, and no New Testament Canon had yet been imagined. Marcion neither claimed canonical authority for these writings,(5) nor did he a.s.sociate with them any idea of divine inspiration.(6) We have already seen the animosity expressed by contemporaries of Marcion against the Apostle Paul.

The princ.i.p.al interest in connection with the collection of Marcion, however, centres in his single Gospel, the nature, origin, and ident.i.ty of which have long been actively and minutely discussed by learned men of all shades of opinion with very varying results. The work itself is unfortunately no longer extant, and our only knowledge of it is derived from the bitter and very inaccurate opponents of Marcion. It seems to have borne much the same a.n.a.logy to our third Canonical Gospel which existed between the Gospel according to