rum', he speaks with great confidence of the authenticity of the apoftolical writings which were adopted as fuch by orthodox Chriftians. He appeals to the evidence of communities which the Apoftles had perfonally established, at Corinth, at Philippi, at Theffalonica, at Ephesus, and at Rome; whofe members, on account of their intimate intercourfe with the Apostles, could affert with the greateft degree of certainty what writings actually emanated from them. "Age jam, qui voles curiofitatem melius exercere in negotio falutis tuæ, percurre ecclefias apoftolicas, apud quas ipfæ adhuc cathedræ apoftolorum fuis locis præfident; apud quas ipfæ authenticæ literæ eorum (their genuine works) recitantur.--Proxima eft tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia; habes Philippos, habes • Cap. xxxvi. p. 245. Lardner has very well cleared up this obfcure paffage: Credibility, vol. ii. P. 266-269. Theffalonicenses. Si potes in Afiam tendere; habes Ephefum. Si autem Italiæ adjaces; habes Romam; unde nobis quoque auctoritas præfto eft." SECT. III. Evidences from Works of the Second Century, which are now loft. THE enemies of our religion complain often and loudly of the lofs of thofe writings againft Chriftianity, which were compofed by its ancient opponents; and fome of them accuse the Christians, in language by no means doubtful, of having been the cause of the deftruction of these works. But they do not take into confideration, that of the writings also of the ancient friends and defenders of Christianity many more have been loft than have been preferved. And that, together with thefe writings, many important evidences for the Authenticity of the New New Teftament have alfo perished. We have already" regretted this lofs when we treated above of the history of the first century. In the fecond this deficiency is ftill greater and more to be lamented. 1. Concerning Dionyfius, Bishop of Corinth, Eufebius gives us the follow ing information":-He wrote seven epiftles to different Christian communities, and another to a Chriftian matron: in the epiftle to the community at Athens he exhorted men to believe and to act according to the Gospel in the epiftle to the Nicomedians he defended the true canon (or, as others tranflate it, the rule of truth, τῳ της αληθείας παρίςαται κανονι), in oppofition to the herefy of Marcion: in the epiftle to the church at Amaftris he had inferted expofitions of the Di u Book ii. chap. I. w Eufebii. Hift. Eccl. Lib. IV. cap. xxiii. p. 184 —187. edit. Reading. vine Scriptures.All thefe epiftles are now loft; and with them much important information, and many weighty evidences for the Authenticity of the New Teftament. 2. In the work of Tatian, which ftill remains*, we find (on account of the particular purpose for which it was compofed), few allufions to the apoftolical writings.-But of thefe he had treated fo much the more amply in his Harmony, or Δια Τεσσάρων, a Gofpel compofed from the four Gofpels taken together. This work was well known to Eufebius; and although the author might have inserted his heretical principles even here, yet the lofs of this work is greatly to be lamented as well for many other caufes as on account of its great antiquity.-Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria, allude to x See above, p. 108. y Hift. Ecclef. Lib. IV. cap. xxix. p. 193, 194. See Valefius in Eufebium, 1. cit. a Lib. III. cap. xxiii. §. viii. p. 222. ed. Massueti. b Stromat, Lib. III. p. 547. Potteri. other other writings of this author, in which he attempted to prove fome of his heterodox tenets by quotations from the firft Epiftle of St. Paul to the Corin thians. 3. Hegefippus, a convert from Judaifm, compofed five books of Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, in which he gave an account of the apoftolical preaching*. But of this work we have nothing remaining except a few fragments preferved by Eufebius and Photius. Although the hiftorian might not have entirely laid afide that credulity and inclination for the fabulous, which was peculiar to the Jews of his time (and that this was the cafe is plain from the extracts in the above-mentioned authors), nevertheless, the lofs of his work is much to be lamented; because there undoubtedly exifted in it much material information for a history of the fcriptural writings, which he muft é Eufebius Hift. Ecclef. Lib. IV. cap. viii. p. 150. have |