held during the fourth century, the facility with which copies were procured, and the public manner in which they were read may appear from what the emperor Constantine says in a letter to Eusebius: "The city that bears our name, (Constantinople,) through the goodness of Providence, increases daily, and there will be occasion for erecting in it more churches. Wherefore we hope you will approve of our design, and take care to procure fifty copies of the divine Scriptures, which you know to be necessary in churches, of fine parchment, legible, and easily portable, that they may be fitter for use, transcribed by such as are skillful in the art of writing.". Surely it must be conceded that the martyrs of the three first centuries, and this Christian emperor, in the fourth, (who possessed infinitely better means of ascertaining the truth upon this subject than our modern anonymous Italian, or Mr. Taylor of London, possibly could have,) must have had complete assurance of the genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures, or they never could have acted with the sincerity and zeal they manifested, nor could any of them have made the sacrifices which have been stated.

Thus have we shown that both the enemies and the friends of Christianity, during the first four centuries, give a united testimony to the genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures; therefore we may here close this branch of the argument, for to pursue it farther, in the language of Paley, "could only prove that the books of the New Testament never lost their character and authority." And if the evidence adduced is deemed unsatisfactory it must arise not from a want of strength, but from a want of candor of mind. It is true that those who are not acquainted with ecclesiastical history cannot be put in possession of that vivid conviction which must flash upon the minds of those who are well informed upon this subject. But every reader of good sense and honesty can sufficiently understand the arguments to enable him to perceive the great mass of solid and undisputed facts which have been adduced in favor of the genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures.

The number and antiquity of the manuscripts of the New Testament constitute an argument for the genuineness of its books which must not be passed over. They amount to several thousand, and are to be found in every ancient library in every part of Christendom. Many of them are as old as the eighth, the seventh, the sixth, the fifth and the fourth centuries. Beza found in the monastery of Irenæus, at Lyons in France, a manuscript copy of the New Testament, which Dr. Kipling, the editor of the fac-simile of it, pronounced to

belong to the second century. These manuscripts are so numerous, and their contents so identical with the quotations contained in the writings of the Christian fathers of different ages, as places the genuineness of the New Testament beyond a doubt. But Infidels reject this mass of testimony, overwhelming as it is, when, without scruple, they receive the classics as the genuine writings of the persons to whom they are ascribed, although many of them, after having been hid for ages, have come to us in one manuscript only, and the most authentic are known only from ten to fifteen copies.

What greatly strengthens this branch of the argument, is the unexpected confirmations to the genuineness of the New Testament, which have arisen in different ages and from the most opposite quarters. The bishop of Antioch, about the close of the sixteenth century, sent over to Europe a manuscript of the second century, in the Syriac, the language of the inhabitants of Palestine, when the Gospel was first promulgated. It contains all the books of our New Testament, except the second and third epistles of John and the book of the Revelation. A further confirmation was afforded by Dr. Claudius Buchanan, who, in A. D. 1806, brought from Syria and presented to the University of Cambridge, a manuscript, in which the sections of each book, and sometimes the words, are numbered. It contains all the books of the New Testament except the Revelation, and is supposed to have been written during the seventh century.

Mr. Wilson, treating of a most curious and important discovery, which greatly strengthens this argument, says, "Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) speaking of the writings of the ancient ecclesiastical men,' says, 'There is also come to our hands a dialogue, a disputation of Caius, held at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, (A. D. 195–214,) with Proclus, a patron of the Cataphrygian heresy, in which he reproves the rashness and audacity of his adversary in composing new writings or Scriptures, and makes mention of only thirteen epistles of the holy apostles, not reckoning that to the Hebrews."" St. Jerom, in his book of illustrious men, refers to the same work, and says it was a very celebrated disputation.

After citing this passage of Eusebius, Dr. Lardner expresses his deep regret that Eusebius had not given us the catalogue itself; our first complete one being that of Athanasius, one hundred and twenty or one hundred and thirty years later.

Now it is remarkable, that in the year 1740, more than fifteen centuries after the time of Caius, a fragment, which is most probably a part of the lost dialogue, and if not, is confessedly of the same age,

was discovered by Muratori, in a manuscript volume in the Ambrosian library in Milan, written in the eighth century. The present learned president of Magdalen College, Oxford, published a critical edition of the fragment a few years since,*

It was probably written towards the close of the second century, if not earlier. It contains not merely a distinct reference to certain books of the New Testament by name, but a formal catalogue of those sacred writings, with observations on the circumstances connected with them. It makes a marked distinction also between them and ecclesiastical and apocryphal books. His language is striking, "It is not fit that gall should be mingled with honey." In a fragment it is impossible to determine what books might be enumerated in the lost parts; but it actually contains a list of twenty-two books of our Canon. When we consider that this statement was made in a public and celebrated disputation at Rome, and in the face of heretics, for the very purpose of distinguishing authentic from pretended books of Scripture, and scarcely a century after the death of St. John; and that it was referred to by Eusebius in the beginning of the fourth,

* "Dr. Martin Routh, in his Reliquiæ Sacræ, Oxn., 1814, vol. ii. 1–32. and vol. iv. 1-37. He has completed what Muratori, Gallaudius, Stoschius, Kailius, Mosheim, and Freindaller had begun. As the fragment is exquisite, and has never, I believe, appeared in our language, I shall be excused if I attempt a translation, so far as the imperfect state of the reading will allow. It begins of course abruptly. At which, however, he was present, and thus he described things. In the third place, is the book of the gospel according to St. Luke. Luke the physician wrote it in due order, in his own name, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him, as one also studious of truth. Yet neither did he see the Lord in the flesh; but as he had a perfect knowledge of every thing, he begins to speak from the birth of John. In the fourth place, the gospel of John, one of the disciples. He upon being urged to write it by the fellow-disciples and bishops, said to those around him, 'Fast with me now for three days, and what shall be revealed to each let us communicate, that we may know whether the Gospel shall be written or not.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write every thing in his own name, all the rest giving it their authority. And, therefore, although various points are taught in the several gospels, yet the faith of those who believe does not differ; since by one guiding and over-ruling Spirit, the same things are declared in all the books concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, the conversation of the Lord with his disciples, and his twofold advent; the first when he was despised in his humiliation, as it was foretold; the second, which is yet future, when he shall be glorious in royal power. What wonder, therefore, if John so confidently declares everything in his epistles also, saying of himself, Those things which we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, have we written.' For thus he professes himself, not only a beholder and hearer, but also a writer, in due order, of all the wonderful things of the Lord.

But the Acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke comprehends them in the work addressed to the excellent Theophilus, because every thing took place in his presence; as other accounts clearly declare the sufferings of Peter and the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain.

But the epistles of Paul, what they are, from what place they were sent, or from

and again, by Jerom, in the beginning of the fifth century, as of acknowledged authority, it must be allowed to afford a striking confirmation of our argument.

A manuscript fragment of the second century, discovered in the eighteenth, is a proof as extraordinary as it is conclusive. It checks the whole account of the authenticity."*

Thus it appears that we have two more of Michaelis' marks that a book is genuine; for the immediate friends of the writers of the books of the New Testament, and who were best able to decide upon the subject, so far from denying them to be theirs, expressly asserted them to be the writers, quoted copiously from them, and, some of them, sealed their testimony with their blood. And so far from a long series of years having elapsed after the death of the writers, in which the books were unknown, from the beginning to the present time, they have been well known, and extensively circulated; and copies of them, which were written little over a century after the death of the original writers, are still in existence.

Modern Infidels, with their accustomed disregard of truth, assert that the writings of the New Testament were not considered as ca

what cause he himself declares to those who are willing to enquire; first of all, forbidding heresey and schism to the Corinthians, and circumcision to the Galatians. He wrote, however, more at length to the Romans, according to the order of the Scriptures, teaching that Christ was the chief end of them. Each of which things we must of necessity discuss, since the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his senior John, writes only to seven churches by name, in such order as this; first, to the Corinthians; secondly, to the Ephesians; thirdly, to the Philippians; fourthly, to the Colossians; fifthly, to the Galatians; sixthly, to the Thessalonians; seventhly, to the Romans. But although he wrote a second time to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for reproof, yet but one church is acknowledged, scattered over the whole world. And John also in the Apocalypse, although he writes to seven churches, yet speaks to all. Further, one epistle to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, from affection and love; yet are they sanctified and counted sacred, in the honor of the Catholic Church, and in the direction of ecclesiastical discipline. There is circulated also another to the Laodicians, and another to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul, to support the heresy of Marcion; and many more which cannot be received into the Catholic Church. For it is not fit that gall should be mixed with honey. But an epistle of Jude, and two of the above written by John, are accounted genuine in the Catholic Church. And the Book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon, in honor of him. The Apocalypses of John and Peter are the only ones we receive, which last some Christians do not allow to be read in the church. Further, the Shepherd was written by Hermas, very lately, in our time in the city of Rome, bishop Pius, his brother, filling the See of the city of Rome. And, therefore, it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be published in the church to the people to the end of time, either amongst the prophets, whose number is complete, or amongst the apostles. But we receive nothing whatever of Arsinoe's, or Valentin's, or Mitiades', who have also written a new Book of Psalms for Marcion; the supporters, together with Basilides, of the Asiatic Cataphryges."

* Wilson's Evidences of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 118-120.

nonical until the meeting of the council of Laodicia, A. D. 364. The truth is, that the canons of this council are the earliest extant, which give a formal catalogue of the books; and, from what Lardner says upon the subject, it is evident, that the bishops then present did not design to settle the canon, but to mention those books which should be publicly read. The language of the council as quoted by him is: "That private psalms ought not to be read (or said) in the churches; nor any books not canonical, but only the books of the Old and New Testament." And in the last catalogue, all the books of the New Testament are included, with the exception of the Revelation.

That the books to be received as canonical were not determined by the authority of any council is evident from the different judgments of the more early Christians concerning several books, especially the epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation, which were received by some and doubted by others. There was no catalogue of the books of Scripture in any canon of the council of Nice which met A. D. 324; and Augustine, who flourished about A. D. 390, when he gives directions to persons how to determine what books are canonical, and what are not, does not refer to the decision of any council, but shows that at all times Christian churches have been left to the liberty of judging for themselves according to the evidence. The reason why the book of Revelation was suspected by some during the third and fourth centuries, was that it was supposed to favor the views of some who in those days were deemed heretical, because they held that the second advent of the Lord Jesus Christ would be pre-millenial, and who, according to their opponents, in connection therewith, held doctrines which tended to licentiousness. But, by a close examination of the book, its genuineness was confirmed, and, from shortly after that period to the present time, it has been so received by all the churches. Some also questioned the genuineness of the epistle to the Hebrews, the second epistle of Peter, the two last of John, and the epistle of Jude.

But it is worthy of remark, that the books concerning which any doubts existed, do not in any way touch the general truth of the Gospel, and that although a few doubted, as is evident from Eusebius, the vast majority of Christians received them as the genuine writings of those to whom they are ascribed. This very deliberation greatly strengthens the weight of their testimony, for it exhibits that uprightness and discrimination which produce confidence in those who are called to examine and compare testimonies.

Concerning the manner in which the sacred Canon was settled,