1. Jerome, in his account of Caius, who was probably a prefbyter of Rome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that, reckoning up only thirteen epiftles of Paul, he says the fourteenth, which is infcribed 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 Eufebius of the fame ancient author and his work; except that Eufebius delivers his own remark in more guarded terms, "and indeed to this very time, by fome of the Romans, this epiftle is not thought to be the apostle's.”

b

II. Origen, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the epiftle to the Hebrews, obferves that fome might difpute the authority of that epiftle, and therefore proceeds to quote to the fame point, as undoubted books of scripture, the gospel of St. Matthew, the Acts of the apoftles, and Paul's firft epiftle to the Theffalonians. And in another place this author fpeaks of the epistle to the Hebrews thus: "The account come down to us is various, fome faying that Clement, who was bishop of Rome, wrote this epiftle; others, that it was Luke, the fame who writ the gofpel and the Acts." Speaking alfo in the fame paragraph of Peter, "Peter (fays he) has left one epiftle acknowledged; let it be granted likewife that he wrote a fecond, for it is doubted of." And of John, "He has also left one epiftle, of a very few lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow thefe to be genuine." Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus difcriminates, and thus confeffes his own doubts, and the doubts which fubfifted in his time, exprefsly witneffes concerning the four gofpels, "that they alone are received without difpute by the whole church of God under heaven."

III. Dionyfius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning the book of Revelation, whether it was written by St. John; ftates the grounds of his doubt; reprefents the diverfity of opinion concerning it, in his own time, and before his time. Yet the fame Dionyfius ufes and collates the four gospels, in a manner which shows that he entertained not the smallest fufpicion of their authority, and in a manner alfo which fhows that they, and they alone, were received as authentic hiftories of Chrift.

IV. But this fection may be faid to have been framed on purpose to introduce to the reader two remarkable passages, ex

a lb. vol. III. p. 240.
d Ib. vol. IV. p. 670.

b lb. p. 246.
e Ib. p. 661.

c Ib. p. 234.

1

a

tant in Eufebius's ecclefiaftical hiftory. The first paffage opens with these words-" Let us obferve the writings of the apostle John, which are uncontradicted; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gofpel according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The author then proceeds to relate the occafions of writing the gospels, and the reafons for placing St. John's the laft, manifeftly speaking throughout of all the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The fecond paffage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures univerfally acknowledged, and of thofe that are not fuch." Eufebius begins his enumeration in the following manner :-" In the first place, are to be ranked the facred four gofpels; then the book of the Acts of the apostles; after that are to be reckoned the epiftles 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 fhall observe the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known, or approved by the moft, are that called the epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the fecond and third of John, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the fame 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 fame thing by these two words.

It is manifest from this paffage, that the four gofpels, and the Acts of the apostles, (the parts of scripture with which our concern principally lies) were acknowledged without difpute even by those who raised objections, or entertained doubts, about fome other parts of the fame collection. But the paffage proves fomething more than this. The author was extremely converfant in the writings of Chriftians, which had been published from the commencement of the inftitution to his own

That Eufebius could not intend, by the word rendered " fpurious," 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 fome others, he fays, "They are not fo much as to be reckoned among the fpurious, but are to be rejected, as altogether abfurd and impious." Vol. VIII. p. 98.

time; and it was from thefe writings that he drew his knowledge of the character and reception of the books in question. That Eufebius recurred to this medium of information, and that he had examined with attention this fpecies of proof, is shewn, first, by a paffage in the very chapter we are quoting, in which, fpeaking of the books which he calls fpurious, "None (he fays) of the ecclefiaftical writers, in the fucceffion of the apoftles, have vouchfafed to make any mention of them in their writings ;" and fecondly, by another paffage of the fame work, wherein, fpeaking of the first epiftle of Peter, "This (he fays) the pref byters of ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine;" and then, fpeaking of fome other writings bearing the name of Peter, "We know (he fays) that they have not been delivered down to us in the number of Catholic writings, forafmuch as no ecclefiaftical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made ufe of testimonies out of them.” But in the progrefs of this hiftory," the author proceeds, "we shall make it our bufinefs to show, together with the fucceffions from the apostles, what ecclefiaftical writers, in every age, have used fuch writings as thefe which are contradicted, and what they have faid, with regard to the fcriptures received in the New Teftament, and acknowledged by all, and with regard to thofe which are not fuch." b

મંદ

After this it is reafonable to believe, that, when Eufebius ftates the four gofpels, and the Acts of the apoftles, as uncontradicted, uncontefted, and acknowledged by all; and when he places them in oppofition, not only to thofe which were spurious in our fenfe of that term, but to those which were controverted, and even to those which were well known and approved by many, yet doubted of by fome; he reprefents, not only the fenfe of his own age, but the result of the evidence, which the writings of prior ages, from the apostle's time to his own, had furnished to his inquiries. The opinion of Eufebius and his contemporaries, appears to have been founded upon the teftimony of writers, whom they then called ancient; and we may obferve, that fuch of the works of thefe writers, as have come down to our times, entirely confirm the judgment, and fupport the diftinction which Eufebius propofes. The books which he calls "books univerfally acknowledged," are in fact used and quoted, in the remaining works of Chriftian writers, during the 250 years between the apoftle's time and that of Eufebius, b lb. p. II.

à lb. p. 99.
L

much more frequently than, and in a different manner from thofe, the authority of which, he tells us, was disputed.

SECT. IX.

Our hiftorical fcriptures were attacked by the early adverfaries of Chriflianity, as containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded.

I. NEAR the middle of the fecond century, Celfus, a heathen philofopher, wrote a profeffed treatise against Christianity. To this treatife, Origen, who came about fifty years after him, published an answer, in which he frequently recites his adverfary's words and arguments. The work of Celfus is loft; but that of Origen remains. Origen appears to have given us the words of Celfus, where he profeffes to give them, very faithfully; and, amongst other reafons for thinking fo, this is one, that the objection, as stated by him from Celfus, is fometimes ftronger than his own anfwer. I think it also probable that Origen, in his anfwer, has retailed a large portion of the work of Celfus: "That it may not be fufpected (he fays) that we pafs by any chapters, because we have no anfwers at hand, I have thought it beft, according to my ability, to confute every thing propofed by him, not fo much observing the natural order of things, as the order which he has taken himfelf."a

Celfus wrote about 100 years after the gofpels were published; and therefore any notice of thefe books from him are extremely important from their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more fo by the character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety of these books must have been well established amongst Christians, to have made them fubjects of animadverfion and oppofition by ftrangers and by enemies. It evinces the truth of what Chryfoftom, two centuries afterwards, observed, that "the gofpels, when written, were not hid in a corner, or buried in obfcurity, but they were made known to all the world, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now."

1. Celfus, or the Jew whom he perfonates, ufes these words:

2 Or. cont. Celf. I. i. fect. 41.

"I could fay many things concerning the affairs of Jefus, and thofe, too, different from those written by the difciples of Jefus, but I purpofely omit them."a Upon this paffage it has been rightly obferved, that it is not easy to believe, that if Celfus could have contradicted the difciples upon good evidence in any material point, he would have omitted to do fo; and that the affertion is, what Origen calls it, a mere oratorical flourish.

It is fufficient however to prove, that in the time of Celfus, there were books well known, and allowed to be written by the difciples of Jefus, which books contained a hiftory of him. By the term difciples, Celfus does not mean the followers of Jefus in general, for them he calls Chriftians, or believers, or the like, but those who had been taught by Jefus himself, i. e. his apoftles and companions.

2. In another paffage, Celfus accufes the Chriftians of altering the gofpel. The accufation refers to fome varieties in the readings of particular paffages; for Celfus goes on to object, that when they are preffed hard, and one reading has been confuted they difown that, and fly to another. We cannot perceive from Origen that Celfus fpecified any particular inftances, and without fuch fpecification the charge is of no value. But the true conclufion to be drawn from it is, that there were in the hands of the Chriftians, hiftories, which were even then of fome standing; for various readings and corruptions do not take place in recent productions.

The former quotation, the reader will remember, proved that thefe books were compofed by the difciples of Jefus, ftrictly fo called; the prefent quotation fhews, that though objections were taken by the adverfaries of the religion to the integrity of thefe books, there was none to their genuineness.

3. In a third paffage, the Jew, whom Celfus introduces, fhuts up an argument in this manner :-" These things then we have alleged to you out of your own writings, not needing any other weapons. c It is manifeft that this boast proceeds upon the fuppofition that the books, over which the writer affects to triumph, poffeffed an authority, by which Chriftians confeffed themselves to be bound.

4. That the books to which Celfus refers were no other than our prefent gofpels, is made out by his allufions to various

a Lardner's Jewish and Heathen Tellim. vol. II. p. 274.