care for pofterity which Origen evinced, we should have been able to prove the authenticity of the books of the New Teftament with greater ease and more fatisfaction. Yet Eufebius has, in a certain degree, fupplied the lofs. This father of ecclefiaftical-liftory affures us that he had read the works of Chriftian antiquity with great diligence, and efpecially with the view of afcertaining what writings had been received fince the origin of Christianity as genuine works of the Evangelifts and Apoftles. He imparts the refult of this inquiry in feveral particular chapters of his Ecclefiaftical History. -In the Third book" he treats of the Epiftles of the Apoftles; refpecting which, he had found in the works of

ταυτην επιτολήν ὡς Παύλε, άυτη ευδοκιμείτο και επι τετῳ 8 γαρ εικη οι αρχαίοι άνδρες ὡς Παυλο παραδεδωκασι τις δε ὁ γράψας την επιτολήν, το μεν αληθες Θεος είδει.

118.

Cap, iii. iv. and xxiv. p. 89-92, and 115

the first and fecond centuries the fol lowing information: That the first Epiftle of St. Peter has always been univerfally received as divine: but that called his fecond Epiftle, although not received as divine, diabnxos; has nevertheless been carefully studied as an useful work; that the fourteen Epiftles, which go under the name of St. Paul, have been univerfally revered as divine fcriptures, except that fome have doubted concerning the Epiftle to the Hebrews, because the Romish church did not confider it to be the work of St. Paul". That St. Luke, a phyfician, has left us two books, divinely inspired, namely, a Gofpel, and the Acts of the Apostles; and that many of the ancients were of opinion that St. Paul means this Gofpel whenever he speaks of fome Gospel

η Τινες ηθετηκασι την προς Εβραίος, προς της Ρωμαίων εκκλησιας ὡς μη Παύλω εσαν αυτην αντίλες γεσθαι φήσαντες»

of

of his (St. Paul's) own.

That the

Gofpels were written in the following order of time; St. Matthew's first of all, for the Hebrews, and in the Hebrew language; then St. Mark's, which was compofed at the request of the Christians at Rome; afterwards that of St. Luke, who was induced to undertake it from the fpurious gofpels which were at that time in circulation; and that laft of all St. John had perufed the three preceding and confirmed them; yet, as they related only the actions of Chrift which took place after the imprisonment of John the Baptift, he therefore had thought it neceffary to write his Gofpel, and fupply in it what was wanting in the others: and that he in particular had received the matter concerning the Divinity of Chrift from the Holy Ghoft. That befides this Gofpel, the firft Epiftle, which bears the name of St. John, has been univerfally afcribed

to him both by ancients and moderns; that the fecond and third Epiftles were rejected by fome; and that the majority were perfectly in doubt concerning The Revelation"."

Eufebius has given the moft perfect account of this fubject in the twentyfifth chapter of the third book'; in which he collects and lays before the reader the refult of the information contained in detached parts of the preceding books.

In this he delivers not his own private opinion, but the opinion of the church, εκκλησιαςικη παραδωσις, the fum

• Η πρότερα των επιτολων παρα τε τοις νυν και τοις Στι αρχαίοις αναμφίλεκτος ώμολογηται αντιλέγονται δε άι λοιπαι δυο της δ' αποκαλύψεως εφ' ἑκάτερον ετι νυν παρα τοις πολλοίς περιελκεται ἡ δοξα. Loc. cit. p. 118. But concerning the Revelation, Even yet (that is, notwithstanding all preceding inquiries) the majority are in doubt, (know not, whether to hold it genuine or Spurious.)

P The commencement of the chapter is as follows: Εύλογον δ' ενται θα γενομενες ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰς δηλωθείσας της καινης διαθηκης γράφας.

of

of what he had found in the writings of the primitive Chriftians. The cited. paffage contains confequently the opinion of the whole Chriftian church during the three first centuries; and a proper infight into its meaning is of great importance to us. Eufebius unites the vola ygagas (thofe writings which were actually fpurious, or thought fuch) with the artiɛyoμɛva (the doubtful). After having spoken of the αντιλεγόμεναι, he immediately adds, εν τοις νόθοις και κατατεταχθω των Παυλε πράξεων η γραφή, ό, τε λεγόμενος Ποιμήν

66

among the fpurious are to be reckoned the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd," &c. Whence it appears to me clear, that he speaks in this paffage of the authenticity of the books, whether they are genuine or fpurious, and not of their divine infpiration. Again, he calls the ὁμολογέμεναι γραφαι (univerfally received books) alfo, aλndes nai aλa, genuine and not forged; and