The writer thus concludes what he has to say of New Testament books," the Apocalypse, also, of John and Peter alone we receive, which [latter] indeed some amongst us do not choose to be read in the Church."-(Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. i.

p. 394.) Thus, this ancient canon recognises the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, and, in short, all the New Testament books, except the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, those of Peter, and perhaps the second or third of John:-it speaks of no book, as belonging to the New Testament, which we reject, except the Apocalypse of Peter, and even that is mentioned doubtfully.

The author of this list of books speaks also of some which ought not to be received as of divine authority. He mentions "the Shepherd, written very recently in our own time, in the city of Rome, by Hermas, while Pius, his brother, was bishop of the see of Rome." This incidental remark supplies us with the date of the writer. Pius the first, bishop of Rome, died about the middle of the second century; he appears to have succeeded to the episcopate about the year 140. Thus, the list of New Testament books, which we have under consideration, cannot have been written at a much later period. And not only so, but as the writer speaks of the episcopate of Pius the first as being in his own days, his testimony reaches back as far, and probably farther. These were books known, and re

ceived, and used as divine Scripture in the former half of the second century.

It is often remarkable, when pursuing an historical inquiry of a kind wholly different, how we meet with the strongest possible evidence against the claims of the Papacy. This writer, in speaking of authentic Scripture, rests on known historic facts, instead of cutting short the investigation by appealing at once to the infallible authority of Pope Pius the first. And further, he mentions the book which the brother of this same Pius had put forth during his episcopate : now, this book is still in being; and though many have treated it with most undeserved respect, imagining the author to be the Hermas whom St. Paul salutes in Rom. xvi., yet the absurdities, to use no stronger expression, with which it is replete, evince that it is no exposition of Christian truth. If, then, Hermas put it forth with the sanction of his brother, the bishop, it would show that the then Pope could authorise a work both unedifying and unorthodox; if, however, Hermas put forth his idle fancies without the authorisation of his brother, the bishop, what possibility is there that any Roman censorship then existed? How different were the claims of Rome in the days of Pius the first from what we see in the days of Pius the ninth!

The existence of this Pius the first is a simple historical fact; the time, too, is known approximately; but in some of the lists of Popes he is numbered the

ninth, in some the tenth, and in others the eleventh! Some make him the predecessor, some the successor, of Anicetus. Had the certainty of papal succession and transmission been the basis of all continued Christianity, how uncomfortable would all these doubts and uncertainties make us! It is well that the facts of the transmission of the Scripture rest on a firm and certain basis, independent of all questions of papal suc

cession.

We are thus able to trace back lists of New Testament books almost to the apostolic age: the author of the Canon in Muratori, from which I have been quoting, lived in the days of some who had been in part contemporaries of the Apostle John. We know from the natural course of events that this must have been the case. And we need not rely on deductions, however certain, for we know as a fact, that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who had himself personally known St. John, laid down his life at a very advanced age as a martyr for Christ, about the year 168. Polycarp visited Rome, the place at which the author of this fragmentary list seems to have lived and written, after the middle of the second century—a visit memorable for the amicable contention between him and Anicetus, the Roman bishop, about the proper time for the celebration of Easter: each remained unconvinced by the other, and each left the other to the exercise of his

individual Christian liberty:-what a proof that the claims of infallibility and universal jurisdiction were as yet unknown!

We have thus proof that the New Testament books, in general, were in use as authoritative Scripture in the days of those who had lived in the apostolic age→→ that they were ascribed to the same writers to whom we attribute them, and that several of them were classed together as being, though not as yet one collected volume, yet at least in some measure a collection.

For ancient writings in general we ask no more distinct proof of genuineness: it is commonly regarded as quite sufficient, if a work is mentioned by one or more writers of the succeeding age, in such a way as to show that it was then known and used as the work of the author whose name it bears.

With regard to the New Testament books, however, we can go much farther with our proofs, when we consider, not the volume as a collection, but the distinct parts of which the volume is composed.

In the second century two collected portions of the New Testament were known and used by Christians, as read in their public assemblies; the one of these contained the Epistles of St. Paul, to which his name is prefixed, the other comprised the four Gospels as a collected volume. Besides these there were other writings used separately.

I will, therefore, first consider the evidence which relates to St. Paul's Epistles,-then that which bears on the authenticity of the Gospels, then the other books must be considered separately in this part of the subject a distinction must be made between those books of which Eusebius speaks as universally received, and those which he says were opposed by some.

ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES.

In the latter part of the second century we find testimony to the knowledge and use of thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, as certain and indubitable as we have that they are now known and used. The fact is alike admitted by friends and foes of Revelation, that the Church then had these Epistles, even as we now have them, and that they attributed them to that Apostle. Proofs of this will be given presently.

Now, the evidence by which letters are authenticated to future ages is often of a peculiar kind: a letter has not only a writer but also a party to whom it is addressed. If I wish to bring forward a letter as an evidence, it is often sufficient if I can show that such letter has been preserved in proper custody;-if the party to whom it professes to be addressed preserves it as genuine, this is a presumption of the strongest kind that it is so the business of proving that it is not so rests with the opposite party.

Thus, those Epistles which are addressed to Churches