pious man. It contains alfo many paffages diftinguished both for matter and compofition; it has always been, and will always continue to be read by many with real advantage, as an excitement to virtue, and as affording means of confolation. But as we neither underftand its contents, nor can depend with certainty on the prefent text as genuine, the use of it is only fo far fafe, as its contents agree with the other writings of the New Teftament. Whether, laftly, the book was written by the Apoftle St. John, or even by any Apoftle, cannot be pofitively either afferted or denied.

CHAP.

CHAP. VI.

Conclufions drawn from the above-mentioned Teftimonies.

AFTER having heard fo many clear and weighty teftimonies of antiquity, how is it poffible for any intelligent and impartial man to affert, that the prefent Scriptures of the New Teftament were not declared to be genuine and divine before the Council of Laodicea, which was held about the year 364?' The enemies of Chriftianity,for thefe only make the affertion,would confequently wish to infinuate to the world, that before the fourth century Chriftians were entirely divided in their opinions concerning the genuine Scriptures of the Apoftles and Evangelifts, and that at one time more, at another, fewer books were received under this title, until at length the de

cifive fentence of the Council of Laodicea established the prefent Canon. The author of the Dictionnaire philofophique portatif' has lately brought this ftory again into notice. But if our adverfaries would caft only a flight glance over the writings of the abovementioned teachers of the firft two centuries and a half, they would undoubtedly blush at their own ignorance and boldnefs.-Juftin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, prove their tenets by authorities taken from thefe fcriptures; and indeed from thefe only, rejecting all others as either forged, or merely human compofitions. Many teachers of the firft and fecond centuries mention a collection of the evangelical and apoftolical writings as already exifting. All the ancient writers whom Eufebius has cited, pronounce either unanimoufly or with a great majority of voices, thefe writings and only thefe,

to

to have been genuine works of the Evangelifts and Apostles. Notwithstanding these circumftances, it is pretended that the firft centuries were quite undecided and uncertain on this fubject! Notwithstanding thefe circumcumftances, it is afferted, that the Council of Laodicea firft established our prefent Canon!

All the Scriptures of our New Teftament, it is confeffed, have not been received with univerfal confent as genuine works of the Evangelifts and Apoftles". But that man must have predetermined to oppofe the most palpable truths, and muft reject all hiftory, who will not confefs, that the greater part of the New Testament has been univerfally received as authentic, and that the remaining books have been acknowledged as fuch by

This Canon of the Council is moreover fpurious. See Prof. Spittler on this fubject.

See above, p. 179.

the majority of the ancients; and, therefore, that all our prefent books of the New Teftament (the Apocalypfe perhaps excepted) have stronger proofs for their authenticity, than can be produced for any of the other writings. of antiquity, for thofe of Xenophon, Polybius, Tacitus, or Cicero, which nevertheless are received as genuine with fuch confidence, that the whole world pronounced Hardouin infane, when he attempted to call their authenticity in queftion. For, in the present cafe, we have not merely a fingle folitary witness or two, but a great variety. They name thefe fcriptures not fimply in a cafual way, but relate their hiftory, and make long extracts from them. These witneffes are men, who were intimately acquainted either with the Evangelifts and Apoftles themselves, or their immediate difciples; and lived at fartheft not later than about two generations after their times. They

were