what they were to read, appears by the reason which he gives for his choice:-'Nothing [says Cyprian] can be more fit, than that he, who has made a glorious confession of the Lord, should read publicly in the church; that he who has shown himself willing to die a martyr, should read the gospel of Christ, by which martyrs are made.'1

V. Intimations of the same custom may be traced in a great number of writers in the beginning and throughout the whole of the fourth century. Of these testimonies I will only use one, as being, of itself, express and full. Augustine, who appeared near the conclusion of the century, displays the benefit of the christian religion on this very account, the public reading of the scriptures in the churches, 'where [says he] is a confluence of all sorts of people of both sexes; and where they hear how they ought to live well in this world, that they may deserve to live happily and eternally in another.' And this custom he declares to be universal: 'The canonical books of scripture being read everywhere, the miracles therein recorded are well known to all people.'"

It does not appear that any books, other than our present scriptures, were thus publicly read, except that the epistle of · Clement was read in the church of Corinth, to which it had been addressed, and in some others; and that the Shepherd of Hermas was read in many churches. Nor does it subtract much from the value of the argument, that these two writings. partly come within it, because we allow them to be the genuine writings of apostolical men. There is not the least evidence, that any other gospel, than the four which we receive, was ever admitted to this distinction.

1 Lard. Cred. vol. iv. p. 482.

Ibid. vol. x. p. 276 et seq.

SECTION VI.

Commentaries were anciently written upon the scriptures; harmonies formed out of them; different copies carefully collated; and versions made of them into different languages.

No greater proof can be given of the esteem in which these books were holden by the ancient Christians, or of the sense then entertained of their value and importance, than the industry bestowed upon them. And it ought to be observed, that the value and importance of these books consisted entirely in their genuineness and truth. There was nothing in them as works of taste, or as compositions, which could have induced any one to have written a note upon them. Moreover it shows that they were even then considered as ancient books. Men do not write comments upon publications of their own times: therefore the testimonies cited under this head afford an evidence which carries up the evangelical writings much beyond the age of the testimonies themselves, and to that of their reputed authors.

I. Tatian, a follower of Justin Martyr, and who flourished about the year 170, composed a harmony, or collation, of the gospels, which he called Diatessaron, Of the four. The title, as well as the work, is remarkable; because it shows that then, as now, there were four, and only four, gospels in general use with Christians. And this was little more than a hundred years after the publication of some of them.

II. Pantænus, of the Alexandrian school, a man of great reputation and learning, who came twenty years after Tatian, wrote many commentaries upon the holy scriptures, which, as Jerome testifies, were extant in his time."

III. Clement of Alexandria wrote short explications of many books of the Old and New Testament.3

IV. Tertullian appeals from the authority of a later version, then in use, to the authentic Greek.'

V. An anonymous author quoted by Eusebius, and who appears to have written about the year 212, appeals to the Ibid. vol. ii. p. 462.

1 Lard. Cred. vol. i. p. 307.

2 Ibid. p. 455. • Ibid. p. 638.

ancient copies of the scriptures, in refutation of some corrupt readings alleged by the followers of Artemon.1

VI. The same Eusebius, mentioning by name several writers of the church who lived at this time, and concerning whom he says, 'There still remain divers monuments of the laudable industry of those ancient and ecclesiastical men,' [i. e., of christian writers who were considered as ancient in the year 300], adds, "There are besides treatises of many others, whose names we have not been able to learn, orthodox and ecclesiastical men, as the interpretations of the divine. scriptures given by each of them show."

VII. The five last testimonies may be referred to the year 200; immediately after which, a period of thirty years gives us

Julius Africanus, who wrote an epistle upon the apparent difference in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, which he endeavors to reconcile by the distinction of natural and legal descent, and conducts his hypothesis with great industry through the whole series of generations.3

Ammonius, a learned Alexandrian, who composed, as Tatian had done, a harmony of the four gospels; which proves, as Tatian's work did, that there were four gospels, and no more, at this time in use in the church. It affords also an instance of the zeal of Christians for those writings, and of their solicitude about them.1

And, above both these, Origen, who wrote commentaries, or homilies, upon most of the books included in the New Testament, and upon no other books but these. In particular, he wrote upon St. John's gospel, very largely upon St. Matthew's, and commentaries, or homilies, upon the Acts of the Apostles."

VIII. In addition to these, the third century likewise contains

Dionysius of Alexandria, a very learned man, who compared, with great accuracy, the accounts in the four gospels of the time of Christ's resurrection, adding a reflection which showed his opinion of their authority: Let us not think that

'Lard. Cred. vol. iii. p. 46. ♦ Ibid. p. 122.

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 551.

Ibid. vol. iii. p. 170. Ibid. pp. 352, 192, 202, 245.

the evangelists disagree, or contradict each other, although there be some small difference; but let us honestly and faithfully endeavor to reconcile what we read.1

Victorin, bishop of Pettaw in Germany, who wrote comments upon St. Matthew's gospel.2

Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch; and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, who put forth editions of the New Testament.

IX. The fourth century supplies a catalogue3 of fourteen writers, who expended their labors upon the books of the New Testament, and whose works or names are come down to our times; amongst which number it may be sufficient, for the purpose of showing the sentiments and studies of learned Christians of that age, to notice the following:

Eusebius, in the very beginning of the century, wrote expressly upon the discrepancies observable in the gospels, and likewise a treatise, in which he pointed out what things are related by four, what by three, what by two, and what by one evangelist. This author also testifies, what is certainly a material piece of evidence, 'that the writings of the apostles had obtained such an esteem, as to be translated into every language both of Greeks and barbarians, and to be diligently studied by all nations.' This testimony was given about the year 300; how long before that date these translations were made does not appear.

Damasus, bishop of Rome, corresponded with St. Jerome upon the exposition of difficult texts of scripture; and, in a letter still remaining, desires Jerome to give him a clear explanation of the word Hosanna, found in the New Testament; 'he [Damasus] having met with very different interpretations of it in the Greek and Latin commentaries of catholic writers which he had read.' This last clause shows the number and variety of commentaries then extant.

Gregory of Nyssen, at one time appeals to the most exact copies of St. Mark's gospel; at another time compares together, and proposes to reconcile, the several accounts of the resurrection given by the four evangelists; which limitation proves, that there were no other histories of Christ deemed authentic beside these, or included in the same character with these. This writer observes, acutely enough, that the disposition of the clothes in the sepulchre, the napkin that was about our Saviour's head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself, did not bespeak the terror and hurry of thieves, and therefore refutes the story of the body being stolen.'

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, remarked various readings in the Latin copies of the New Testament, and appeals to the original Greek;

And Jerome, towards the conclusion of this century, put forth an edition of the New Testament in Latin, corrected, at least as to the gospels, by Greek copies, and those [he says] ancient.'

Lastly, Chrysostom, it is well known, delivered and published a great many homilies, or sermons, upon the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

It is needless to bring down this article lower; but it is of importance to add, that there is no example of christian writers of the three first centuries composing comments upon any other books than those which are found in the New Testament, except the single one of Clement of Alexandria, commenting upon a book called the Revelation of Peter.

Of the ancient versions of the New Testament, one of the most valuable is the Syriac. Syriac was the language of Palestine when Christianity was there first established. And although the books of scripture were written in Greek, for the purpose of a more extended circulation than within the precincts of Judea, yet it is probable that they would soon be translated into the vulgar language of the country where the religion first prevailed. Accordingly a Syriac translation is now extant, all along, so far as it appears, used by the inhabitants of Syria,

Lard. Cred. vol. ix. p. 163.