iracundiam veftram. Now fince the paffage, as here quoted, does not exift in any part of the Old Testament, but is found exclufively in the Epiftle of St. Paul to the Ephefians, iv. 26, this fentence may therefore be confidered as an evidence, that the Epistle to the Ephefians was already efteemed at that time as a divine Scripture.

This epiftle of Polycarp is throughout moral, and contains a variety of ethical maxims, delivered almoft in the fame words which we find in the Scriptures of our New Teftament.-" Remember" fays he', "what the Lord taught, Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and ye fhall be forgiven; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with the fame measure that ye mete, it fhall be measured to you again." Further, "Bleffed are the poor, and they that are perfecuted for righteoufnefs fake, for theirs is the

* §. ii. p. 145, 146.

kingdom

W

kingdom of God." Paffages of fimilar import are found in St. Matthew, v. 3. 7. 10. vii. 1, 2. St. Luke, vi. 20. 37, 38.-"We must all stand before the judgment feat of Chrift, in order that every one may give an account of himfelf"." This alfo is found in the fame words, Rom. xiv. 10. 12.-He warns them against covetousness with the very fame arguments and expreffions as are found in 1 Tim. vi. 7. 10. "The love of money is the root of all evil. Let us therefore well confider, that as we brought nothing into the world, fo can we carry with us nothing out." In this work of Polycarp we meet befides with many fentiments in exactly the fame dress in which they exift in the firft Epiftle of St. Peter; which has also been remarked by Eufebius That I may not be too prolix,

* §. vi. p. 150.

w §. iv. p. 147.

Hift. Eccl. Lib. XV. cap. xiv. p. 162. Hoλu

Харпов

prolix, I will mention only the paffages below. From these paffages alone, we cannot indeed conclude, that he has taken them from the undermentioned books of the New Teftament2; but when joined with the numerous and clear evidences which will be produced in the following pages, they greatly corroborate the proof of the Authenticity of the New Teftament.

SECT. III.

Teftimonies from Works of the first Century, which are now loft.

TO these evidences of the apoftolical fathers, we are enabled to add

καρπος εν τη δηλωθείση προς Φιλιππησίους αυτου γραφή Φερόμενη εις δεύρο, κεχρηται τισι μαρτυρίοις άπο της Πετρου προπερας επιτολής.

y Compare §. i. p. 144. with 1 Pet. i. 8.-§. ii. P. 145. with 1 Pet. i. 21.§. ii. latter part, with 1 Pet. iii. 9.-And, §. v. p. 149. with 1. Pet. ii, 11.

See above, p. 38.

G 2

yet

yet fome others from the first century. The writings themfelves are indeed, to the great lofs of Chriftianity, no longer extant; but the following evidences from them have been preferved in part by Eufebius.

Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, was, according to Eufebius, a man of very moderate understanding, but who employed fo much the greater care in examining into the doctrines and hiftory of Jefus and of his Apoftles, from their immediate acquaintance and difciples. He had collected confiderable information, particularly from Aristion, and John the Prefbyter, [whom fome

a Hift. Ecclef. III. cap. xxxix. p. 135. 38. In this place, Eufebius treats amply of the hiftory and writings of Papias. The decifion which he makes in P. 137, σφοδρα. σμίκρος ων τον νουν, ὡς ἂν ἐκ τῶν αυτου λόγων τεκμηράμενον ειπειν φαίνεται, muft not be confidered as a contradiction of the paffage in Lib. III. cap. xxxvi. p. 130. For the opinion which is found there, Hamas, ανης τα πάντα ὅτι μάλιςα λογιώτατος και της γραφης ειδήμων, is the interpolation of a Scholiaft. See Valefius in loc.

conceived

conceived to be the author of the Apocalypse] which information he delivered to pofterity, under the title, λόγων κυριακων εξηγησις, An Explication of the words of the Lord. But of this work nothing now remains, except the extracts which are preserved in Eufebius.

The information, properly belonging to the New Teftament, which was contained in that book, is given us by Eufebius, in the following words:"Mark, the interpreter of Peter, faithfully wrote what the latter had taught. 'He has not indeed placed the dif 'courfes and actions of Chrift in their

(

proper chronological order; for he ' was neither a hearer of the Lord him'felf, nor one of his immediate fol'lowers; but, as I have already mentioned, became afterwards acquainted 'with Peter, who taught according to 'the wants of his hearers, but without

1