be not an interpolation, as it is most certain, that after the publication of Eufebius's work, this epiftle was univerfally rejected*. V. If the afcription of the gospels to their respective authors had been arbitrary or conjectural, they would have been ascribed to more eminent men. This obfervation holds concerning the three first gospels, the reputed authors of which were enabled, by their fituation, to obtain true intelligence, and were likely to deliver an honest account of * Augustin, A. D. 395, (De Confenf. Evang. c. 34-) had heard that the Pagans pretended to be poffeffed of an epiftle from Chrift to Peter and Paul, but he had never seen it, and appears to doubt of the existence of any fuch piece, either genuine or fpurious: No other ancient writer mentions it. He alfo, and he alone, notices, and that in order to condemn it, an epiftle afcribed to Chrift by the Manichees, A. D. 270, and a short hymn attributed to him by the Prifcillianifts, A. D. 378, (cont. Fauft. Man. lib. xxviii. c. 4.) The latenefs of the writer who notices these things, the manner in which he notices them, and above all, the filence of every preceding writer, render them unworthy of confideration. what what they knew, but were perfons not dif tinguished in the hiftory by extraordinary marks of notice or commendation. Of the apoftles, I hardly know any one of whom lefs is faid than of Matthew; or of whom the little that is faid, is lefs calculated to magnify his character. Of Mark nothing is faid in the Gospels; and what is faid of any perfon of that name in the Acts, and in the Epiftles, in no part beftows praise or eminence upon him. The name of Luke is mentioned only in St. Paul's Epiftles*, and that very transiently. The judgment, therefore, which affigned these writings to these authors, proceeded, it may be presumed, upon proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice of names. VI. Chriftian writers and Chriftian churches appear to have foon arrived at a very general agreement upon the fubject, and that without the interpofition of any public authority. When the diversity of opinion, which prevailed and prevails among Chrif * Col. iv. 14. 2 Tim. iv. II. Philem. 24. tians in other points, is confidered, their concurrence in the canon of fcripture is remarkable, and of great weight, efpecially as it seems to have been the refult of private and free enquiry. We have no knowledge of any interference of authority in the queftion before the council of Laodicea in the year 363. Probably the decree of this council rather declared than regulated the public judgement, or, more properly speaking, the judgement of fome neighbouring churches; the council itself confifting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries*. Nor does its authority feem to have extended farther; for we find numerous Christian writers, after this time, difcuffing the question," what books were entitled to be received as fcripture," with great freedom, upon proper grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the de-' cifion at Laodicea. Lardner's Cred. vol. viii. p. 291 et feq. VOL. I. N THESE THESE confiderations are not to be neglected: but of an argument concerning the genuineness of ancient writings, the substance undoubtedly and ftrength is ancient teftimony. This teftimony it is neceffary to exhibit fomewhat in detail; for when Christian advocates merely tell us, that we have the same reafon for believing the Gospels to be written by the evangelifts, whofe names they bear, as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Cefar's, the Æneid Virgil's, or the Orations Cicero's, they content themselves with an imperfect reprefentation. They state nothing more than what is true, but they do not ftate the truth correctly. In the number, variety, and early date of our teftimonies, teftimonies, we far exceed all other ancient books. For one, which the most celebrated work of the most celebrated Greek or Roman writer can alledge, we produce many. But then it is more requifite in our books, than in theirs, to feparate and distinguish them from fpurious competitors. The refult, I am convinced, will be fatisfactory to every fair enquirer; but this circumstance renders an enquiry neceffary. 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 perfuafion produced by this fpecies of evidence depends upon a view and induction of the particulars which compofe it. The method which I propose to myself is, first, to place before the reader, in one view, the propofitions which comprise the |