ANTILEGOMENA (durzXE-y6ktEva, contradicted or disputed), an epithet applied by the early Christian writers to denote those books of the New Testament which, although known to all the ecclesiastical writers, and sometimes publicly read in the churches, were not for a considerable time admitted to be genuine, or received into the canon of Scripture. These books are so denominated in contradistinction to the Homologonmena, or uni versally acknowledged writings. The following is a catalogue of the Antilegcmzezza:— The Second Epistle of St. Peter.—The Epistle of St. yames.— The Epistle of St. yude.— The Second and Third Epirtles of St. /ohn.—The Apocalypse, or Revela 'alien of St. yohn.—The Epistle to the Hebrews.
The earliest notice which we have of this distinc tion is that contained in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, the learned bishop of Cwsarea, who flourished A. D. 27o-34o. He seems to have formed a triple, or, as it appears to some, a quadruple di vision of the books of the New Testament, terming them—r, the honzologoumena (received) ; 2, the antilegonzena (controverted) ; 3, the notha (spu rious) ; and, 4, those which he calls the utterly spurious, as being not only spurious in the same sense as the former, but also absurd or impious. Among the spurious he reckons the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hennas, the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Instructions of the Apostles. He speaks doubtfully as to the class to which the Apocalypse belongs, for he himself includes it among the spurious: he then observes that some reject it, while others reckon it among the acknowledged writings (homologoumena). Among
the spurious writings he also enumerates the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He adds, at the same time, that all these may be classed among the antilegontena. His account is consequently confused, not to say contradictory. Among the utterly spurious he reckons such books as the heretics brought forward under pretence of their being genuine productions of the apostles, such as the so-called Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew, yam, and the other apostles. These he distinguishes from the antilegomena, as being works which not one of the ancient ecclesiastical writers thought worthy of being cited. Their style he considers so remote from that of the apostles, and their contents so much at variance with the genuine doctrines of Scripture, as to skew them to have been the inven tions of heretics, and not worthy of a place even among the spurious writings. These latter he has consequently been supposed to have considered as the compositions of orthodox men, written with good intentions, but calculated by their titles to mislead the ignorant, who might be disposed to account them as apostolical productions, to which honour they had not even a dubious claim. (See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iii. 5, 25.) [CANON and the articles on the books above enumerated.]—W. W.