SECTION VIII. tion, whether it was written by Saint John; states the grounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion concerning it, in his own time, and before his time. Yet the same Dionysius uses and collates the four Gospels The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thir-in a manner which shows that he entertained teen Epistles of Saint 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. I STATE this proposition, because, if made out, it shows that the authenticity of their books was a subject amongst the early Christians of consideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause of doubt, they did doubt; a circumstance which strengthens very much their testimony to such books as were received by them with full acquiescence. I. Jerome, in his account of Caius, who was probably a presbyter of Rome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that, reckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the fourteenth, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his: and then Jerome adds, “With the Romans to this day it is not looked upon as Paul's." This agrees in the main with the account given by Eusebius of the same ancient author and his work; except that Eusebius delivers his own remark in more guarded terms: "And indeed to this very time by some of the Romans, this epistle is not thought to be the apostle's." not the smallest suspicion of their authority, and in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, were received as authentic histories of Christ.+ IV. But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose to introduce to the reader two remarkable passages extant in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. The first passage opens with these words:"Let us observe the writings of the apostle John which are uncontradicted; and first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospel according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the Gospels, and the reasons for placing Saint John's the last, manifestly speaking of all the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The second passage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures universally acknowledged, and of those that are not such." Eusebius begins his enumeration in the following manner:-" In the first place are to be ranked the sacred four Gospels; then the book of the Acts of the Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. In the next place, that called the First Epistle of John, and the Epistle of Peter, are to be esteemed authentic. After this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known or approved by the most, are, that called the Epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the same name."§ He then proceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in another controverted, meaning as appears to me, nearly the same thing by these two words || II. Origen, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the Epistle to the Hebrews, observes that some might dispute the authority of that epistle; and therefore proceeds to quote to the same point, as undoubted books of Scripture, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians.+ And in another place, this author speaks of the Epistle to the Hebrews thus: "The account come down to us is various; some saying that Clement, who was bishop of Rome, wrote this epistle; others, that it was Luke, the same who wrote the Gospel and the Acts." Speaking also, in the same paragraph, of Peter, "Peter," says he," has left one It is manifest from this passage, that the four epistle, acknowledged; let it be granted like Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles (the parts wise that he wrote a second, for it is doubted of Scripture with which our concern principalof." And of John, "He has also left one epis-ly lies,) were acknowledged without dispute, tle, of a very few lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow them to be genuine." Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates, and thus confesses his own doubts, and the doubts which subsisted in his time, expressly witnesses concerning the four Gospels, "that they alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven."+ even by those who raised objections, or entertained doubts, about some other parts of the same collection. But the passage proves something more than this. The author was extremely conversant in the writings of Christians, which had been published from the com Lardner, vol. iv. p 670. ↑ Ib. p. 661. Ib. p. 39.. That Eusebius could not intend, by the word render ed" spurious," what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chapter, where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others, he says, "They are not so much as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are to be rejected an altogether absurd and impious." Vol. viii. p. 98. 346 SECTION IX. Our historical Scriptures were attacked by the mencement of the institution to his own time: and it was from these writings that he drew his knowledge of the character and reception of the books in question. That Eusebius recurred to this medium of information, and that| he had examined with attention this species of proof, is shown, first, by a passage in the very chapter we are quoting, in which, speaking of None,' the books which he calls spurious, he says, "of the ecclesiastical writers, in the Near the middle of the second century, Celsuccession of the apostles, have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in their writings;" sus, a heathen philosopher, wrote a professed and secondly, by another passage of the same treatise against Christianity. To this treatise, work, wherein, speaking of the First Epistle Origen, who came about fifty years after of Peter, "This," he says, "the presbyters of him, published an answer, in which he freancient times have quoted in their writings as quently recites his adversary's words and arundoubtedly genuine ;"* and then, speaking of guments. The work of Celsus is lost; but some other writings bearing the name of Pe- that of Origen remains. Origen appears to have. "that they have given us the words of Celsus, where he pro"We know," he says, ter, not been delivered down to us in the number fesses to give them, very faithfully, and, of Catholic writings, forasmuch as no ecclesi- amongst other reasons for thinking so, this is astical writer of the ancients, or of our times, one, that the objection, as stated by him from has made use of testimonies out of them." Celsus, is sometimes stronger than his own anI think it also probable, that Origen, "But in the progress of this history," the au-swer. thor proceeds, "we shall make it our business in his answer, has retailed a large portion of to show, together with the successions from the work of Celsus: "That it may not be sus"that we pass by any chapthe apostles, what ecclesiastical writers, in pected," he says, every age, have used such writings as these ters, because we have no answers at hand, I which are contradicted, and what they have have thought it best, according to my ability, said with regard to the Scriptures received in to confute every thing proposed by him, not so the New Testament, and acknowledged by all, much observing the natural order of things, as and with regard to those which are not such."+ the order which he has taken himself." After this it is reasonable to believe, that when Eusebius states the four Gospels, and the Gospels were published; and therefore the Acts of the Apostles, as uncontradicted, any notices of these books from him are exuncontested, and acknowledged by all; and tremely important for their antiquity. They when he places them in opposition, not only are, however, rendered more so by the characto those which were spurious, in our sense of ter of the author; for, the reception, credit, and that term, but to those which were contro- notoriety of these books must have been well verted, and even to those which were well established amongst Christians, to have made known and approved by many, yet doubted of them subjects of animadversion and opposition by some; he represents not only the sense of by strangers and by enemies. It evinces the his own age, but the result of the evidence truth of what Chrysostom, two centuries afterwhich the writings of prior ages, from the apos-wards, observed, that "the Gospels, when tles' time to his own, had furnished to his in-written, were not hidden in a corner or buried quiries. The opinion of Eusebius and his con- in obscurity, but they were made known to all temporaries appears to have been founded up- the world, before enemies as well as others, on the testimony of writers whom they then even as they are now."† 1. Celsus, or the Jew whom he personates, called ancient : and we may observe, that such of the works of these writers as have come uses these words :-"I could say many things down to our times, entirely confirm the judg- concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, too, ment, and support the distinction which Euse- different from those written by the disciples bius proposes. The books which he calls of Jesus; but I purposely omit them." Up"books universally acknowledged," are in fact on this passage it has been rightly observed, used and quoted in the remaining works of that it is not easy to believe, that if Celsus Christian writers, during the 250 years be- could have contradicted the disciples upon good tween the apostles' time and that of Eusebius, evidence in any material point, he would have much more frequently than, and in a different omitted to do so, and that the assertion is, what manner from, those, the authority of which, Origen calls it, a mere oratorical flourish. he tells us, was disputed. Celsus wrote about one hundred years after It is sufficient, however, to prove, that, in the time of Celsus, there were books well known, and allowed to be written by the dis ciples of Jesus, which books contained a his- pels, but that he referred to no other actory of him. By the term disciples, Celsus counts; that he founded none of his objecdoes not mean the followers of Jesus in gener- tions to Christianity upon any thing delivered al; for them he calls Christians, or believers, in spurious Gospels. We or the like; but those who had been taught II. What Celsus was in the second century, by Jesus himself, i. e. his apostles and com- Porphyry became in the third. His work, panions. which was a large and formal treatise against 2. In another passage, Celsus accuses the the Christian religion, is not extant. Christians of altering the Gospel. The ac- must be content therefore to gather his objeccusation refers to some variations in the read- tions from Christian writers, who have noings of particular passages: for Celsus goes ticed in order to answer them; and enough on to object, that when they are pressed hard, remains of this species of information, to prove and one reading has been confuted, they dis- completely, that Porphyry's animadversions own that, and fly to another. We cannot per- were directed against the contents of our preceive from Origen, that Celsus specified any sent Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles; particular instances, and without such specifi- Porphyry considering that to overthrow them cation the charge is of no value. But the true was to overthrow the religion. Thus he obconclusion to be drawn from it is, that there jects to the repetition of a generation in Saint were in the hands of the Christians, histories, Matthew's genealogy; to Matthew's call; to which were even then of some standing: for, the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is various readings and corruptions do not take found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the place in recent productions. calling of the lake of Tiberias a sea; to the The former quotation, the reader will re-expression in Saint Matthew," the abominamember, proves that these books were com- tion of desolation;" to the variation in Matposed by the disciples of Jesus, strictly so call-thew and Mark upon the text, "The voice of ed; the present quotation shows, that, though one crying in the wilderness," Matthew citing objections were taken by the adversaries of the it from Isaias, Mark from the prophets; to religion to the integrity of these books, none John's application of the term "Word;" to were made to their genuineness. Christ's change of intention about going up to 3. In a third passage, the Jew, whom Cel- the feast of tabernacles (John vii. 8.); to the sus introduces, shuts up an argument in this judgment denounced by Saint Peter upon manner :—“ These things then we have al- Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imleged to you out of your own writings, not precation of death.+ needing any other weapons."+ It is manifest The instances here alleged, serve, in some that this boast proceeds upon the supposition measure, to show the nature of Porphyry's that the books, over which the writer affects objections, and prove that Porphyry had read to triumph, possessed an authority by which the Gospels with that sort of attention which Christians confessed themselves to be bound. a writer would employ who regarded them as 4. That the books to which Celsus refers the depositaries of the religion which he atwere no other than our present Gospels, is tacked. Beside these specifications, there exmade out by his allusions to various passages ists, in the writings of ancient Christians, gestill found in these Gospels. Celsus takes no-neral evidence that the places of Scripture uptice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these on which Porphyry had remarked were very Gospels; of the precepts, Resist not him that numerous. 66 injures you, and, If a man strike thee on the In some of the above-cited examples, Porone cheek, offer to him the other also; of phyry, speaking of Saint Matthew, calls him the woes denounced by Christ; of his predic- your evangelist; he also uses the term evantions; of his saying, that it is impossible to gelists in the plural number. What was said serve two masters; § of the purple robe, the of Celsus, is true likewise of Porphyry, that crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand; it does not appear that he considered any hisof the blood that flowed from the body of Je-tory of Christ, except these, as having authosus upon the cross, || which circumstance is re-rity with Christians. corded by John alone; and (what is instar III. A third great writer against the Chrisomnium for the purpose for which we produce tian religion was the emperor Julian, whose it) of the difference in the accounts given of work was composed about a century after that the resurrection by the evangelists, some men- of Porphyry. tioning two angels at the sepulchre, others In various long extracts, transcribed from only one.¶ this work by Cyril and Jerome, it appears,‡ It is extremely material to remark, that that Julian noticed by name Matthew and Celsus not only perpetually referred to the ac-Luke, in the difference between their geneacounts of Christ contained in the four Gos-logies of Christ; that he objected to Matthew's Lardner, vol. ii. p. 275. Ib. p. 280, 231. + Ib. p. 276. The particulars, of which the above are only a few are well collected by Mr. Bryant, p. 140. +Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. iii. p. 166, et sen Ib. vol. iv. p. 77. et seq. 348 SECTION X. Formal Catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, in all which our present Sacred Histories were included. THIS species of evidence comes later than the rest; as it was not natural that catalogues of any particular class of books should be put forth until Christian writings became numerous; or until some writings shewed themselves, claiming titles which did not belong to them, and thereby rendering it necessary to separate books of authority from others. But, when it does appear, it is extremely satisfactory; the catalogues, though numerous, and made in countries at a wide distance from one another differing very little, differing in nothing which is material, and all containing the four Gospels. To this last article there is no exception. application of the prophecy, "Out of Egypt | Antiochus Epiphanes, and maintains his charge have I called my son," (ii. 15,) and to that of of forgery by some far-fetched indeed, but Concerning the writ“A virgin shall conceive" (i. 23.); that he very subtle criticisms. recited sayings of Christ, and various passages ings of the New Testament, no trace of this of his history, in the very words of the evan- suspicion is any where to be found in him. • gelists; in particular, that Jesus healed lame and blind people, and exorcised demoniacs, in the villages of Bethsaida, and Bethany; that he alleged that none of Christ's disciples ascribed to him the creation of the world, except John; that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, have dared to call Je. sus, God; that John wrote later than the other evangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were converted; that he alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and of Sergius Paulus, to Peter's vision, to the circular letter sent by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, which are all recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: by which quoting of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and by quoting no other, Julian shows that these were the historical books, and the only historical books, received by Christians as of authority, and as the authentic memoirs of Jesus Christ, of his apostles, and of the doctrines taught by them. But Julian's testimony does something more than represent the judgment of the Christian church He in his time. It discovers also his own. himself expressly states the early date of these records; he calls them by the names which they now bear. He all along supposes, he no where attempts to question, their genuineness. The argument in favour of the books of the New Testament, drawn from the notice taken of their contents by the early writers against the religion, is very considerable. It proves that the accounts, which Christians had then, were the accounts which we have now; that our present Scriptures were theirs. It proves, moreover, that neither Celsus in the second, Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the fourth century, suspected the authenticity of these books, or ever insinuated that Christians were mistaken in the authors to whom they ascribed them. Not one of them expressed an opinion upon this subject different from that which was holden by Christians. And when we consider how much it would have availed them to have cast a doubt upon this point, if they could; and how ready they showed them-velation" is omitted. § IV. And fifteen years after Cyril, the counselves to be, to take every advantage in their power; and that they were all men of learn-cil of Laodicea delivered an authoritative caing and inquiry; their concession, or rather talogue of canonical Scripture, like Cyril's, the their suffrage, upon the subject, is extremely same as ours, with the omission of the "Revelation." valuable. I. In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extracts preserved by Eusebius, from works of his own which are now lost, there are enumerations of the books of Scripture, in which the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honourably specified, and in which no books appear be side what are now received. + The reader, by this time, will easily recollect that the date of Origen's works is A. D. 230. II. Athanasius, about a century afterwards, delivered a catalogue of the books of the New Testament in form, containing our Scriptures, and no others; of which he says, " In these alone the doctrine of Religion is taught; let no man add to them, or take any thing from them." + III. About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, set forth a catalogue of the books of Scripture, publicly read at that time in the church of Jerusalem, exactly the same as ours, except that the “Re V. Catalogues now became frequent. Within thirty years after the last date, that is, from the year 363 to near the conclusion of the fourth century, we have catalogues by Epipha In the case of Porphyry, it is made still stronger, by the consideration that he did in fact support himself by this species of objection when he saw any room for it, or when * Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, his acuteness could supply any pretence for alleging it. The prophecy of Daniel he attack-vol. i. p. 43. Marsh's Translation. + Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p. 234, et seg.; vol viði ed upon this very ground of spuriousness, inP. 196. § Ib. p. 270. Ib. vol. viii. p. 223. sisting that it was written after the time of nius, by Gregory Nazianzen,+ by Philaster | I have not advanced this assertion without bishop of Brescia in Italy, by Amphilochius inquiry; and I doubt not, but that the pasbishop of Iconium, all, as they are sometimes sages cited by Mr. Jones and Dr. Lardner, called, clean catalogues, (that is, they admit no books into the number beside what we now receive,) and all, for every purpose of historic evidence, the same as ours.§ under the several titles which the Apocry phal books bear; or a reference to the places where they are mentioned as collected in a very accurate table, published in the year VI. Within the same period, Jerome, the 1773, by the Rev. J. Aitkinson, will make most learned Christian writer of his age, de-out the truth of the proposition to the satislivered a catalogue of the books of the New faction of every fair and competent judgeTestament, recognising every book now receiv- ment. If there be any book which may seem ed, with the intimation of a doubt concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, and taking not the least notice of any book which is not now received. || VII. Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in Palestine, was Saint Augustine, in Africa, who published likewise a catalogue, without joining to the Scriptures, as books of authority, any other ecclesiastical writing whatever, and without omitting one which we at this day acknowledge.¶ VIII. And with these concurs another contemporary writer, Rufen, presbyter of Aquileia, whose catalogue, like theirs, is perfect and unmixed, and concludes with these remarkable words:" These are the volumes which the fathers have included in the canon, and out of which they would have us prove the doctrine of our faith." ** SECTION XI These propositions cannot be predicated of any of those Books, which are commonly called Apocryphal Books of the New Testament. to form an exception to the observation, it is a Hebrew Gospel, which was circulated under the various titles of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, of the Ebionites, sometimes called of the Twelve, by some ascribed to Saint Matthew. This Gospel is once, and only once, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived, the reader will remember, in the latter part of the second century, and which same Clement quotes one or other of our four Gospels in almost every page of his work. It is also twice mentioned by Origen, A. D. 230; and both times with marks of diminution and discredit. And this is the ground upon which the exception stands. But what is still more material to observe, is, that this Gospel, in the main, agreed with our present Gospel of Saint Matthew. Now if, with this account of the apocryphal Gospels, we compare what we have read concerning the canonical Scriptures in the preceding sections; or even recollect that general but well founded assertion of Dr. Lardner, "That in the remaining works of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, who all lived in the first two centuries, there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New I Do not know that the objection taken Testament, than of all the works of Cicero, from Apocryphal writings is at present much by writers of all characters, for several ages;"+ relied upon by scholars. But there are many, and if to this we add that, notwithstanding the who, hearing that various Gospels existed in loss of many works of the primitive times of ancient times under the names of the apostles, Christianity, we have, within the above-menmay have taken up a notion, that the selec- tioned period, the remains of Christian writers, tion of our present Gospels from the rest, was who lived in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, rather an arbitrary or accidental choice, than Egypt, the part of Africa that used the Latin founded in any clear and certain cause of pre-tongue, in Crete, Greece, Italy, and Gaul, in ference. To these it may be very useful to know the truth of the case. I observe, therefore, all which remains, references are found to our evangelists; I apprehend, that we shall perceive a clear and broad line of division, between those writings, and all others pretending to si I. That, beside our Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, no Christian history, claim-milar authority. ing to be written by an apostle or apostolical II. But beside certain histories which assumman, is quoted within three hundred years ed the names of apostles, and which were forafter the birth of Christ, by any writer now extant, or known; or, if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and rejection. geries properly so called, there were some other Christian writings, in the whole or in part of an historical nature, which, though not forger In applying to this Gospel, what Jerome in the latter end of the fourth century has mentioned of a Hebrew Gospel, I think it probable, that we sometimes confound it with a Hebrew copy of Saint Matthew's Gospel, whether an original or version, which was then extant. + Lardner, Cred. vol. xii. p. 53. |