“of the highest significance” for the history of the Canon; but it has little or no significance for the criticism of the Gospel, because the rejection of the Gospel proceeded wholly on dogmatic grounds. Its ascription to Cerinthus, an impossible author, betrays the reck- lessness of the judgment pronounced; while the naming of a contemporary and fellow-townsman of the Apostle may be accepted as an indication of the true date of the Gospel. Some of the scholars who are best informed regarding the second century, such as Hilgenfeld and Salmon, are inclined to believe that no such sect. as the Alogi ever existed, although one or two individuals may have held the opinions identified with that nickname. If they existed, their rejection of the writings of John demonstrates that previous to their time these writings had been accepted as Apostolic and authoritative.! Marcion’s neglect of the Johannine books is equally unimportant for the criticism of the Gospel.
In the writings of Irenaeus, who was born, according to Lipsius, about Α.Ρ. 130, and whose great work against Gnosticism may be dated between 180-185, the Fourth Gospel is referred to the Apostle John and is regarded as canonical. In a well-known passage (Contra Haer., \11., xi., 8) this representative writer even argues that in the nature of things there can be neither more nor fewer than four Gospels, as there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds. In accordance with this natural fourfold- ness the Word who designs all things has given us the Gospel under four aspects but united and unified by one Spirit. Additional importance has been given to this statement by the suggestion of Dr. Taylor of Cambridge that Irenaeus borrowed this idea from Hermas. This writer, who belongs to a much earlier period than Irenaeus, in speaking of the Church says: ‘“‘ Whereas thou sawest her seated on a couch, the position is a firm one; for the couch has four feet and standeth firmly, for the world too is upheld by means
Watkins’ Β. L., p. 123; Salmon’s Introd., p. 229; Sanday’s B. L., p. 64 ; and cf. Irenaeus, Haer., III., xi., 9.
1 Dr. Plummer, after discussing the rejection of the Gospel by Marcion and the Alogi, proceeds: ‘ All this tends to show that if the Fourth Gospel was rejected in certain quarters for a time, this tells little or nothing against its genuineness. Indeed it may fairly be said to tell the other way; for it shows that the universal recognition of the Gospel, which we find existing from a.D. 170 onwards, was no mere blind enthusiasm, but a victory of truth over baseless, though not unnatural, suspicion. Moreover, the fact that these overwary Christians assigned the Gospel to Cerinthus is evidence that the Gospel was in their opinion written by a contem- porary of St. John. Toconcede this is to concede the whole question” (Cambridge Greek Test. ; Gospel acc. to St. Fohn, nw. 24).