Revelation of St. John might also perhaps be placed in this clafs, because fome think its authenticity incontrovertible, yet the majority leave the matter undetermined'.

ΙΙ. Αντιλεγόμεναι, writings on whofe authenticity the ancients were not unanimous; which fome held to be suppofititious*.

According to Eufebius, even these have the majority of voices among the ancients in their favour. He exprefsly calls them, γνώριμα όμως τοις πολλοις (writings acknowledged by most to be genuine), and παρα πλείσοις των εκκλη σιασικών γιγνωσκομενα (received by the majority). A few doubted of their authenticity; and therefore Eufebius ranks them under the contefted, T λεγόμενα, οι νόθα.

See above, p. 166.

• He names these writings also volar yeapai, fpurious writings; that is, according to the opinion of fome. Thefe vola do not, therefore, compose a diftinct class, as is the general fuppofition,

In

In this clafs he enumerates, of the writings of the New Teftament, 1. The Epiftle of St. James; 2. The Epiftle of St. Jude; 3. The fecond Epiftle of St. Peter; 4. The fecond and third Epiftles of St. John. The Revelation of St. John, he adds, is alfo by fome placed in this class'.

And, of other writings, the Acts of St. Paul; The Shepherd of Hermas; The Revelation of St. Peter; the Epiftle of Barnabas; The Doctrines of the Apoftles; and the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

III. Aтoжα naι duccɛɛn, (absurd and impious); Writings which had been univerfully rejected as evidently fpu

rious.

In this clafs he includes the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, and of Matthias;

For in early times fome believed that this work was not compofed by John the apostle, but by a prefbyter of the fame name, or by fome other perfon. See the following 5th chapter of this book.

the

the Acts of Andrew, of John, and of other Apostles. These writings, fays he, contain evident errors, are written in a ftyle entirely different from that of the Apostles, and have not been thought worthy of being mentioned by any one of the ancients.

CHAP.

CHAP. IV.

A fummary Recapitulation of the Evidences mentioned above.

I WILL now reduce into order the depofitions of the witneffes, who have been already separately examined, and enable the reader to perceive at one view what has been the opinion of men during the two first centuries and half on each individual book of the New Teftament.

I. The Gospel by St. Matthew IS pronounced to be a genuine work of the Evangelift whofe name it bears, 1. by Papias, 87*; 2. by many ancient writers of the first century, confulted

*The figures after the names of the different witnesses enumerated in this chapter, refer to the pages of this work, where their evidences may be found.

by

by Eufebius, 89; 3. by Juftin Martyr, 105; 4. Tatian, 136; 5. Irenæus, 110; 6. Athenagoras, 117; 7. Theophilus of Antioch, 123; 8. Clement of Alexandria, 125; 9. Tertullian, 132; 10. Ammonius 153; 11. Julius Africanus, 154; 11. Origen, 155; and by all the primitive writers, without exception, whom Eufebius had read, 169.

And this may be inferred alfo, yet only with a degree of probability, from the writings of Barnabas, 37; Clement of Rome, 53; Ignatius, 78; and Polycarp, 81".

Lardner has collected together the evidences of the later witneffes in his Supplement to the first book. of the second part of the Gospel History, vol. i. p. 95 -102. of the firft edition.-He has treated of them more copiously in the work which has been fo often mentioned, his Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory.In the Supplement he has generally confined himself to those witneffes who determine alfo the time when the different books of Holy Writ were compofed. The reader will therefore find more witneffes enumerated in my Catalogue than in his.

II. The