st way by all the facts of the case" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., pp.
45, 46). Both with this ancient heretic, as with Valentinus, it is
impossible to distinguish what is ascribed to him from what is ascribed
to his followers, and thus evidence drawn from either of them is weaker
even than usual.

Marcion, the greatest heretic of the second century, ought to prove a
useful witness to the Christians if the present Gospels had been
accepted in his time as canonical. He was the son of the Christian
Bishop of Sinope, in Pontus, and taught in Rome for some twenty years,
dating from about A.D. 140. Only one Gospel was acknowledged by him, and
fierce has been the controversy as to what this Gospel was. It is only
known to us through his antagonists, who generally assert that the
Gospel used by him was the third Synoptic, changed and adapted to suit
his heretical views. Paley says, "This rash and wild controversialist
published a recension or chastised edition of St. Luke's Gospel"
("Evidences," p. 167), but does not condescend to give us the smallest
reason for so broad an assertion. This question has, however, been
thoroughly debated among German critics, the one side maintaining that
Marcion mutilated Luke's Gospel, the other that Marcion's Gospel was
earlier than Luke's, and that Luke's was made from it; while some,
again, maintained that both were versions of an older original. From
this controversy we may conclude that there was a strong likeness
between Marcion's Gospel and the third Synoptic, and that it is
impossible to know which is the earlier of the two. The resolution of
the question is made hopeless by the fact that "the principal sources of
our information regarding Marcion's Gospel are the works of his most
bitter denouncers Tertullian and Epiphanius" ("Sup. Rel.," vol. ii., p.
88). "At the very best, even if the hypothesis that Marcion's Gospel was
a mutilated Luke were established, Marcion affords no evidence in favour
of the authenticity or trustworthy character of our third Synoptic. His
Gospel was nameless, and his followers repudiated the idea of its having
been written by Luke; and regarded even as the earliest testimony for
the existence of Luke's Gospel, that testimony is not in confirmation of
its genuineness and reliability, but, on the contrary, condemns it as
garbled and interpolated" (Ibid, pp. 146, 147).

It is scarcely worth while to refer to the supposed evidence of the
"Canon of Muratori," since th