which they quoted, not only bore the same titles, but were the same in substance, as the Gospels, which we have at present. And if their quotations prove, in the first instance, nothing more than the existence of our four Gospels in the middle of the second century, and a belief in their authenticity on the part of those early writers, (in which however they could hardly have been mistaken) yet as this belief was common to all Christians, to the Christians therefore who dwelt in the places where those Gospels were written, the supposition of a forgery must be attended with the same absurdities, which have been shewn to attend a similar supposition respecting the Epistles of St. Paul.

If our four Gospels were forgeries, the fabrication could have taken place at no other period, than during the first half of the second century. It is well known that St. John lived nearly to the end of the first century and no one, till after his death, could have had any chance of imposing on the world a fictitious Gospel, written in his name, or even in the name of the other Evangelists. Since then the supposition of a forgery after the middle of the second century is precluded by the proof of previous existence, we must unavoidably come to one of these two con

clusions; either that our four Gospels are authentic, or that they were forged in the former half of the second century. But during all this period many persons must have been still living, who had been acquainted with St. John, if not with the other Evangelists. Many persons therefore must have been still living, both at Ephesus and elsewhere, who certainly knew, whether St. John had written a Gospel, or not. And if he did not write the Gospel ascribed to him, as the supposition of a forgery implies, is it credible that the Christian community at Ephesus, or the Christian communities in other places where St. John had intercourse, would have acknowledged a Gospel, first brought to light in the second century and pretended to have been written by St. John in the first, when neither they, nor their fathers, had ever heared that St. John had written a Gospel? Whatever credulity our adversaries may have ascribed to the primitive Christians, it is impossible they should have been ensnared by an imposition like this. But the primitive Christians were not so credulous, as our adversaries have represented them. If they had been thus credulous, we should never have heared of doubts entertained about any book of the New Testament. Indeed we cannot have a stronger proof of the care and caution, with which the claims to

authenticity were examined in the early ages of the Church, than the doubts, which we know were entertained in regard to some books of the New Testament.

The mode of reasoning, which has been applied to the Gospel of St. John, may be applied to the three other Gospels, and to the Acts of the Apostles. If those books were forgeries, they must also have been forged in the former half of the second century; at a time therefore, when it was known, whether Matthew, Mark, and Luke had written such books or not: and consequently at a time, when books falsely ascribed to them would not have been universally received as their works,

We have such a confirmation therefore of authenticity, in regard to the books, which constitute the first class of Eusebius, as we should vainly attempt to give of any profane author. And the external evidence for the authenticity of those books may now be considered as complete.

Let us proceed then to the books, which belong to the second class, and see what additional proof, from external evidence, may be obtained in their behalf. These books are the Epistle to

the Hebrews, the Epistle of St. James, the second Epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, the Epistle of St. Jude, and the book of Revelation. The authenticity of these books cannot be confirmed in the same manner with the authenticity of the books, which were universally received; because the arguments, which have been applied to the latter, are not applicable to the former. But other arguments may be applied, which if they produce not the same effect, are still sufficient to command our assent.

The first of them, the Epistle to the Hebrews, though rejected during the four first centuries by the Latin Church, was in that very period received by the Greek Church and it was acknowledged as an Epistle of St. Paul by Clement of Alexandria, whose testimony has been already quoted. The testimony of Clement is confirmed by that of Pantænus, who was the preceptor of Clement, and who likewise declares that the Epistle was written by St. Paul*. It receives additional confirmation from the Canon of the Syrian Church, as exhibited in the old Syriac version. Though some of the books which constitute the second class, were not admitted into

Clement himself appeals to Pantænus, under the title μaxápios ρEOBUTEрos. Eusebii Hist. Eccles. Lib. VI. c. 14.

the Syrian canon, it received the Epistle to the Hebrews; this Epistle is placed in the old Syriac version with the rest of St. Paul's Epistles; and it is so placed, not merely in our modern editions, but in manuscripts of that version. Now when the question relates to the authenticity of an Epistle, originally composed in an oriental dialect, and addressed to Jews residing in the East, as the language of the Epistle implies, the decísion of the Syrian Church is of the highest possible moment. The Syrian Church decided in its favour, and by that decision our own Church may, in the present instance, very safely abide. And we may abide by it with so much the greater safety, as the reason alleged for its rejection was removed both by Jerom and by Clement of Alexandria. The cause of its rejection, as assigned by Jerom in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical writers *, was the difference of its Greek style from that of other Epistles, ascribed to St. Paul. But if St. Paul wrote it in Hebrew, and the Greek is a translation, the objection to its authenticity is at once removed.

The next book of the New Testament on which doubts have been entertained, is the Epistle

* Under the Article Paulus. Tom. II. col. 826. ed. Vallarsi.