St. Luke. He quotes all St. Paul's Epistles, except Philemon and the Hebrews, also 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and the Apocalypse, which he expressly assigns to St. John the Apostle1, and probably the Epistle of St. James. 'His quotations from the Gospels are so numerous, that they occupy more than twelve folio columns in the index of Scripture passages annexed to the Benedictine edition"." Theophilus of Antioch (circ. a. D. 170) quotes St. Matthew, St. Luke, several of St. Paul's Epistles, and we are assured by Eusebius that, in his work against Hermogenes, he quoted the Apocalypse3. Clement of Alexandria, who lived at the end of the second century, about 100 years after the completion of the Canon of Scripture, quotes all the four Gospels, and especially tells us the origin of St. Mark's1. He ascribes the Acts to St. Luke; quotes all St. Paul's Epistles, except the short Epistle to Philemon, and ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul, though he thinks it was written in Hebrew by St. Paul, and translated into Greek by St. Luke'. He quotes three of the Catholic Epistles, viz. 1 John, 1 Peter, Jude; for it is doubtful whether he refers expressly to St. James, or the second Epistle of St. Peter, and the second and third of St. John, The Apocalypse he expressly ascribes to St. John5. Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage, of the same date with Clement, quotes all the books of the new Testament, except perhaps St. James' Epistle, the second of St. Peter, and the third of St. John. The Epistle to the Hebrews he assigns to 1 Adv. Hæres. IV. 20; v. 26. The time of seeing the Apocalypse is mentioned v. 30; viz. towards the end of the reign of Domitian, if the word éwpán is used of the seeing of the Apocalypse, not, as some think, of the duration of St. John's own life. 2 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, Pt. v. Lect. XXIV.; Lardner, Vol. II. ch. xvi. 5 Lardner, Vol. п. ch. xxi.; Bp. Kaye's Clement of Alex. ch. vIII. Barnabas'. Dr. Lardner has observed, that 'There are perhaps more and larger quotations of the new Testament from this one Christian author than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncommon excellence for thought and style, in the writers of all characters for several ages2.' We are now arrived at Origen, who, as we have seen, gives a complete catalogue of the new Testament as we have it now 3 Dionysius of Alexandria, A.D. 247, quotes the Gospels, Acts, St. Paul's Epistles, especially ascribing the Hebrews to St. Paul, the three Epistles of St. John. On the Apocalypse he has a long dissertation, from which it appears that it was very generally received by Christians as written by St. John, though he himself inclines to attribute it to another John, whom he considered a holy and divinely inspired man1. Cyprian, A.D. 250, quotes all the new Testament, except the Epistles to Philemon and the Hebrews, the third of St. John, the second of St. Peter, and St. James. The Apocalypse he often quotes as St. John's". Methodius, Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, circ. A. D. 260, constantly quotes or refers to the Gospels and Acts, most of St. Paul's Epistles, especially the Hebrews, also 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse". Eusebius has already been adduced as a witness, having given a catalogue of the new Testament Scriptures, as we have them now. It is unnecessary to continue the list farther. We have already seen that from this time we may find in the works of the fathers full catalogues of the books of the new Testament, 1 De Pudicitia, c. 20. 2 Lardner, Vol. II. ch. XXVIII. See also Bp. Kaye's Tertullian, ch. v. p. 307. 3 Lardner, ch. xxxvIII. 5 Ibid. Vol. III. ch. XLIV, 4 Ibid. Vol. III. ch. XLIII. and the number of quotations from them in their writings grows fuller and more abundant. We must add, that heretics quoted and admitted the same Scriptures, with the exception of those outrageous heretics, such as the Gnostics and the Manichees, who were rather heathen philosophers with a tinge of Christianity, than Christians with a defilement of philosophy. Thus the Montanists, the Donatists1, Arius, Photinus, Lucifer, and other schismatics and heretics of the first four centuries, received the same sacred books with the Catholic Christians. Not only heretics, moreover, but heathens and persecutors knew the sacred books and sought to destroy them. Thus in the persecution of Diocletian, there was an edict in 303, that the Christian churches should be destroyed, and their Scriptures burned. Accordingly great search was made for the books of the new Testament, and those Christians, who, to save themselves, gave up their books to the persecutors, acquired the opprobrious name of Traditores 5. When Constantine the Great embraced Christianity, finding that the persecution under Diocletian had diminished the number of copies of the new Testament, he authorised Eusebius bishop of Cæsarea, to get fifty copies of the new Testament written out for him, desiring that they should be skilfully and carefully written on fine parchment". We have seen then that numerous MSS., the most ancient Versions, the catalogues given us by the fathers, quotations and references from the time of the earliest Apostolical father gradually increasing in number, yet numerous from the beginning, the consent of heretics, the enmity of persecutors, all witness to the existence, from the earliest times, of the new Testament Scrip 1 Lardner, ch. LXVII. 3 Ibid. ch. LXXXIX. 5 Ibid. ch. LXVI. 2 Ibid. ch. LXIX. 4 Ibid. ch. xCI. 6 Euseb. Lib. IV. c. 36; Lardner, ch. LXX. tures, and all this testimony is uniform in favour of the very books which we now possess. It may be added, that although it is quite clear that there were certain early writers, such as Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas, highly esteemed and whose writings were read in some Churches; and though there were some Apocryphal books professing to be the works of the Apostles and Evangelists, yet there is good reason to assert that these books are not quoted by the fathers as authority, and were not received by the Church as Canonical Scripture1. To the external evidence, the internal proofs of genuineness might be added, if time and space would allow. Books which are forgeries, generally shew, when carefully scrutinized, plain proofs that they are not his, whose name they bear. The language, the ideas, the statements of facts, some little circumstance of date or place, some circumstance connected with the character, knowledge, or condition of the author, are found inconsistent and incapable of being explained. Or if this is not the case, there is a markedly studied effort to avoid all this, and to make the forgery appear a genuine work. But the different books of the new Testament, though written by eight different hands, under vastly different conditions, have yet defied the efforts of critics, to disprove their genuineness. They only come out the brighter from every fiery trial. Their style and language is just what we should expect from the writers to whom they are ascribed. They abound in minute particulars, most naturally and simply introduced, which correspond accurately with the state of things existing at the time, and in the place in which the authors wrote. Coincidences have been pointed out, which the cleverest forger could never have designed, and which only patient searching could have detected: 1 See Jones, On the Canon, Part п. ch. 1, Observ. III.; Lardner, ch. x. XIV. XVII. XXII. XXXVIII. LVII., &c. whereas, if such coincidences had been designed, they would have been put prominently forward to meet the view'. In this, and in similar manners, we may confirm by internal examination, the results deduced from external testimony. But before we conclude this sketch, we must observe, that in the accounts of the catalogues and quotations given by the different early fathers, we could not but remark that some books were less universally quoted, and classed in the catalogues than others. We learn, as early as Origen, and, more clearly afterwards, from Eusebius, that though the Church generally received the Canon of the new Testament, as we receive it now, yet some few books were by some persons considered as doubtful. Eusebius makes three distinct classes of books2, viz.: ouoλoyouμevoi, those universally received; avriλeyóμevoi, those generally received, but doubted of by some; volo, i. e. Apocryphal books, rejected by all but heretics. In like manner, Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes between those, παρὰ πᾶσιν ὁμολογούμενα, owned by all, and αμφιβαλXóueva, doubted of by some3. Now the undoubted books, according to Eusebius, which all received, were the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, one of St. Peter, one of St. John. He adds that Christians generally received the Hebrews, James, 2 Pet., 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation. These he esteemed canonical, but tells us that some doubted concerning their genuineness. He also mentions the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, and the Pastor of Hermas, as esteemed useful by many, but not to be considered a part of Canonical Scripture. Now the principal 1 See Paley's Hora Paulinæ, passim; Marsh's Lect. Pt. v. Lect. XXVI, |