Eusebius,' as a piece acknowledged by him, though not without considerable doubt whether the whole passage be not an interpolation, as it is most certain, that after the publication of Eusebius's work this epistle was universally rejected.*

V. If the ascription of the gospels to their respective authors had been arbitrary or conjectural, they would have been ascribed to more eminent men. This observation holds concerning the three first gospels, the reputed authors of which were enabled, by their situation, to obtain true intelligence, and were likely to deliver an honest account of what they knew, but were persons not distinguished in the history by extraordinary marks of notice or commendation. Of the apostles, I

hardly know any one of whom less is said than of Matthew ; or of whom the little that is said, is less calculated to magnify his character. Of Mark nothing is said in the Gospels; and what is said of any person of that name in the Acts, and in the Epistles, in no part bestows praise or eminence upon him. The name of Luke is mentioned only in St. Paul's Epistles,3 and that very transiently. The judgment, therefore, which assigned these writings to these authors proceeded, it may be presumed, upon proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice of names.

VI. Christian writers and christian churches appear to have soon arrived at a very general agreement upon the subject, and that without the interposition of any public authority. When the diversity of opinion, which prevailed, and prevails among Christians in other points, is considered, their concurrence in the canon of Scripture is remarkable, and of great weight, especially as it seems to have been the result of private and free inquiry. We have no knowledge of any interference of authority in the question before the council of Laodicea in the year 363. Probably the decree of this council rather declared than

1 Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 15.

2 Augustin, A.D. 395, (De Consens. Evang. c. 34,) had heard that the Pagans pretended to be possessed of an epistle from Christ to Peter and Paul; but he had never seen it, and appears to doubt of the cxistence of any such piece, either genuine or spurious. No other ancient writer mentions it. He also, and he alone, notices, and that in order to condemn it, an epistle ascribed to Christ by the Manichees, A.D. 270, and a short hymn attributed to him by the Priscillianists, A.D. 378, (cont. Faust. Man. lib. xxviii. c. 4). The lateness of the writer who notices these things, the manner in which he notices them, and, above all, the silence of every preceding writer, render them unworthy of consideration.

3 Col. iv. 14.

2 Tim. iv. II. Philem. 24.

regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment of some neighbouring churches; the council itself consisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries. Nor does its authority seem to have extended farther; for we find numerous christian writers, after this time, discussing the question,' what books were entitled to be received as scripture,' with great freedom, upon proper grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the decision at Laodicea.

THESE Considerations are not to be neglected: but of an argument concerning the genuineness of ancient writings, the substance undoubtedly and strength is ancient testimony.

This testimony it is necessary to exhibit somewhat in detail; for when christian advocates merely tell us, that we have the same reason for believing the Gospels to be written by the evangelists whose names they bear, as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Cæsar's, the Eneid Virgil's, or the Orations Cicero's, they content themselves with an imperfect representation. They state nothing more than what is true, but they do not state the truth correctly. In the number, variety, and early date of our testimonies, we far exceed all other ancient books. For one, which the most celebrated work of the most celebrated Greek or Roman writer can allege, we produce many. But then it is more requisite in our books, than in theirs, to separate and distinguish them from spurious competitors. The result, I am convinced, will be satisfactory to every fair inquirer; but this circumstance renders an inquiry necessary.

In a work, however, like the present, there is a difficulty in finding a place for evidence of this kind. To pursue the detail of proofs throughout, would be to transcribe a great part of Dr. Lardner's eleven octavo volumes: to leave the argument without proofs, is to leave it without effect; for the persuasion produced by this species of evidence depends upon a view and induction of the particulars which compose it.

The method which I propose to myself is, first to place before the reader, in one view, the propositions which comprise the several heads of our testimony, and afterwards, to repeat

1 Lardner's Cred. vol. viii. p. 291 et seq.

the same propositions in so many distinct sections, with the necessary authorities subjoined to each.'

The following, then, are the allegations upon the subject, which are capable of being established by proof:

I. That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present.

II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alluded to with peculiar respect, as books sui generis; as possessing an authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions and controversies amongst Christians. III. That they were, in very early times, collected into a distinct volume.

IV. That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of respect.

V. That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious assemblies of the early Christians.

VI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of them, different copies carefully collated, and versions of them made into different languages.

VII. That they were received by Christians of different sects, by many heretics as well as catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose in those days.

VIII. That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the first of Peter, were received, without doubt, by those who doubted concerning the other books which are included in our present canon. IX. That the Gospels were attacked by the early adversaries of Christianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded.

X. That formal catalogues of authentic scriptures were published; in all which our present sacred histories were included.

XI. That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books claiming to be books of scripture; by which are meant those books which are commonly called apocryphal books of the New Testament.

1 The reader, when he has the propositions before him, will observe that the argument, if he should omit the sections, proceeds connectedly from this point.

SECTION I.

The historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present.

THE medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, the most unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and is not diminished by the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own Times, inserts various extracts from Lord Clarendon's History. One such insertion is a proof, that Lord Clarendon's History was extant at the time when Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had been read by Bishop Burnet, that it was received by Bishop Burnet as a work of Lord Clarendon's, and also regarded by him as an authentic account of the transactions which it relates; and it will be a proof of these points a thousand years hence, or as long as the books exist. Quintilian having quoted as Cicero's,'

that well-known trait of dissembled vanity,

'Si quid est in me ingenii, Judices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum’—

the quotation would be strong evidence, were there any doubt, that the oration, which opens with this address, actually came from Cicero's pen. These instances, however simple, may serve to point out to a reader, who is little accustomed to such researches, the nature and value of the argument.

The testimonies which we have to bring forward under this proposition are the following:

2

I. There is extant an epistle ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. It is quoted as the epistle of Barnabas by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 191; by Origen, A.D. 230. It is mentioned by Eusebius, A.D. 315, and by Jerome, A.D. 392, as

1 Quint. lib. xi. c. i.

2 Lardner's Cred. ed. 1755, vol. i. p. 23 et seq. The reader will observe from the references, that the materials of these sections are almost entirely extracted from Dr. Lardner's work-my office consisted in arrangement and selection.

the words of Christ as recorded by the evangelists: 'Remember the words of the Lord Jesus-by this command and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his holy words.' We perceive also in Clement a total unconsciousness of doubt, whether these were the real words of Christ, which are read as such in the gospels. This observation indeed belongs to the whole series of testimony, and especially to the most ancient part of it. Whenever anything now read in the gospels, is met with in an early Christian writing, it is always observed to stand there as acknowledged truth, i.e. to be introduced without hesitation, doubt, or apology. It is to be observed also, that as this epistle was written in the name of the church of Rome, and addressed to the church of Corinth, it ought to be taken as exhibiting the judgment not cnly of Clement, who drew up the letter, but of these churches themselves, at least as to the authority of the books referred to.

It may be said, that, as Clement hath not used words of quotation, it is not certain that he refers to any book whatever. The words of Christ, which he has put down, he might himself have heard from the apostles, or might have received through the ordinary medium of oral tradition. This hath been said; but that no such inference can be drawn from the absence of words of quotation is proved by the three following considerations :-First, that Clement, in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of references, uses a passage now found in the epistle to the Romans; which passage, from the peculiarity of the words which compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that he must have taken from the book. The same remark may be repeated of some very singular sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, that there are many sentences of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians standing in Clement's epistle without any sign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had St. Paul's epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place he mentions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul.' Thirdly, that this method of adopting words of Scripture, without reference or acknowledgment, was, as

1 Rom. i. 29.