to the sacred books with ardent affection. Councils acknowledge and bow to their authority.

During these two centuries, so long as doubts were entertained about the authenticity of any particular book, (arising from the brevity of the writing, as the Second and Third Epistle of St. John and the Epistle of Jude, or from the sacred author having concealed his name, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, or from the particular abuse made of any particular book, as the Revelation of St. John,) such doubts were openly avowed. We have the grounds of evidence laid before us in Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) and can form a judgment upon the question for ourselves.

The books, concerning which any hesitation prevailed, are seven, and those the precise ones which, from circumstances, might be expected to be thus doubted of—and which do not, in fact, touch the general truth of the gospel doctrine.* The rest were universally received as genuine; or, as Eusebius says, were the Opoλoyouμέvas ygapai, "The confessed and openly recognized Scriptures." And the remaining seven were received by the vast majority of Christians, though a few doubted of their authenticity. Eusebius expressly speaks of them as γνώριμων ὅμως τοις πολλοις—" writings acknowledged by most to be genuine." And he distinguishes them from the spurious writings which form his third class. All hesitation was, however, gradually dissipated; so that, by the time of Jerome and Augustine, (A. D. 342-420,) many catalogues are given with all our present books, but including none other. This deliberation in the ancient Christians strengthens exceedingly the weight of the attestation which they give, because it marks simplicity of intention, care, uprightness, that discrimination which is productive of confidence of mind in those who are called to examine and compare testimonies. I proceed to another argument.

III. Wherever you take A SPECIMEN out of this mass of evidence, whether from the first or any following century,

THERE ARE ALL THE MARKS OF INTEGRITY AND TRUTH.

What can be more simple and yet more satisfactory, than the language of Clement, bishop of Rome, from A. D. 91 to

*

They are the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third of John, and the Book of the Revelation.

110, in his letter addressed to the Corinthians, in which he refers to the Epistle of the apostle Paul to that church, with the perfect familiarity and confidence of one who knew that every Corinthian Christian was acquainted with that sacred writing? "Take into your hands the Epistle of the blessed apostle Paul; what has he written to you in the beginning of Christianity? Truly by divine inspiration he gave you directions concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos."

To the age of this Epistle of Clement, we have the testimony of Irenæus, (A. D. 97-202,) who says, "It was written by Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them." Again, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, (A. D. 170,) states that this Epistle of Clement was accustomed to be read in that church. Eusebius, the faithful ecclesiastical historian, (A. D. 315,) also bears witness to it. Thus the truth and importance of Clement's testimony are clear-and what is his testimony? He has fifty or sixty quotations from the New Testament, or allusions to the language of it, from nineteen of the sacred books. irresistible is our argument from the beginning.

So

Shall I then stop to refer to Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, in the year 70 ? Shall I remind you that he is spoken of by Irenæus, Origen (A. D. 230) and Eusebius and Jerome? (A. D. 315 and 420.) Shall I tell you that he speaks of the gospels and epistles as already collected into volumes? How complete the volumes were, we know not; but the familiarity with which he speaks of them, supposes the acknowledged authenticity of most of our books. He says, in substance, that "in order to understand the will of God, he fled to the gospels, which he believed no less than if Christ in the flesh had been speaking to him; and to the writings of the apostles, whom he esteemed as the presbytery of the whole Christian church." His words are, "Fleeing to the gospels as the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the church."

If I refer to Polycarp, it is only to quote the words at the close of the account of his martyrdom, (A. D. 168,) to show the care with which the copyists proceeded. "These things Caius hath extracted from the writings of Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, who also lived with Irenæus. And I, Socrates of Corinth, have transcribed from the copy of Caius ; grace be with you all. And I, Pionius, have transcribed from the fore-mentioned, having made search for it and received

VOL. I.

8

the knowledge of it from a revelation made to me by Polycarp, when now almost obsolete." This Pionius was afterwards himself a martyr.

If I proceed to the second century, what choice shall I make from the almost innumerable citations of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and others, who lived in the very next age to the apostle John?

Shall I tell you that Justin Martyr calls the gospels, "The Memoirs," ," "Memoirs of the Apostles," "Christ's Memoirs ?" and testifies, "that on the day called Sunday, an assembly takes place of all the inhabitants of the towns, or villages, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are publicly read as long as the time permits; and when the reader has ended, the president, by a discourse, exhorts and persuades them to imitate those excellent things." This is not merely a dry testimony to authenticity, but a testimony clothed with facts, religious solemnities and public reading and exposition, and which places beyond all question the undisputed authority of the sacred books.

I cannot stop to quote Irenæus, though he gives a critical account of the manner in which the four gospels were written, with the care almost of a modern divine.

I pass by Clemens also and others, in order to show from Tertullian the precision with which the divine books were traced up to the apostles. "Although Marcion rejects the Revelation of St. John, yet the order of bishops reckoned up from the beginning, shows John to be the author. Thus the genuineness of the rest is acknowledged. I say, therefore, that in the churches, not only apostolical, but in all united with them in the communion of the sacrament, that gospel of St. Luke which we especially defend, is supported ever since its publication." This, you will observe, was written about the year of Christ 200-not in the year 1830, as from the clearness of the reasoning we might have almost supposed. Could we have stronger proof, if we had been contemporaries?

But I must hasten through the third and fourth centuries, though witnesses call to me on all hands, in order to appeal to St. Jerome, (A. D. 342—420,) esteemed the most learned of the fathers, who resided long in Palestine, and who gives us three formal catalogues of the books of the New Testament, each of them exactly as we have them now, except that in the first he expresses a doubt about the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jerome collated many ancient Greek copies of the New Tes

as

tament. He informs Damasus, bishop of Rome, that " copies were dispersed over the world, he sat as an arbiter, and distinguished the copies which agreed with the truth of the Greek, from others." It is not a little curious that father Simon, about a hundred years since, gives us the following words, transcribed from the end of an excellent Latin manuscript, nearly nine hundred years old: "The library of St. Jerome, presbyter of Bethlehem, according to the Greek, collated by the most correct copies." We have here, therefore, a critical edition of the New Testament, published one thousand four hundred years since, formed on the collation of ancient manuscripts, (ancient, that is, in the fourth century,) and containing the same books as our present canon. Can evidence be more decisive?

I ought to pass on to other topics; but first let me give you a specimen of testimonies which include some mark of the love which the primitive Christians bore to the holy books; for I am most anxious to leave a sacred impression of the value of Christianity on the minds of the young. Pamphilus the Martyr (A. D. 294) "was remarkable," we are told, “above all men for a most sincere zeal for the divine books; he not only lent copies of the scriptures to be read, but most cheerfully made a gift of them to men and women who were eager to read them."

Valens, a deacon, who suffered with Pamphilus, "was so well skilled in the divine scriptures, that there was no discernible difference between his reading of them and his reciting them by heart, though it were whole pages together."

"It was one of the affecting scenes of the persecution, (A. D. 303,) to see the sacred and divine books burned in market places. The martyrs were interrogated if they had any divine books or parchments. They replied, We have; but we do not give them up; it is better for us to be burned with fire, than to give up the divine scriptures."

Once more, the Emperor Constantine "from the time of his conversion (A. D. 312) resolved to give himself up to the reading of the scriptures. He had a kind of church in his palace, where, taking the sacred books in his own hands, he attentively read and meditated upon the divine oracles before the whole assembly of his courtiers." On one occasion he wrote thus 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 the fitter for use; transcribed by such as are skilful in the art of fair writing." The orders were obeyed, and the copies sent in magnificently bound. Need I say that such love to the authentic writings of the apostles carries with it something more than cold assent to their authority? The martyrs at the close

of the third century, the Christian emperor at the beginning of the fourth, must have had the most complete assurance of their genuineness, to act with the sincerity and zeal, and make the sacrifices, which we have been stating.

IV. A very important proof of the authenticity of our sacred books is derived from THE ADMISSIONS OF HEATHEN AND JEWISH ADVERSARIES, and the conduct of the numerous SECTS AND PARTIES in the church from the earliest age. To this we have more than once referred; but a specimen of the sort of proof thus obtained belongs to this place.

The heathen philosopher Celsus (about the year A. D. 175) advances all kinds of objections against Christianity with much acuteness, resentment and scorn. But he never calls in question the genuineness of the New Testament. He argues from the facts and doctrines they contain, as the authentic writings of their respective authors. Nothing can prove more clearly, not only that such books did really exist in the second century, but that they were universally received by Christians, and that nothing could be alleged against them in that respect.

Porphyry was in the third century what Celsus had been in the second-an embittered, powerful heathen opponent. Yet he admits our books. His testimony is the more pertinent and conclusive, because he showed that he would have denied their authenticity, if it had been possible; for he did actually venture to deny (without reason, indeed, but still he did deny) the genuineness of the prophet Daniel, and asserted that it was written after the times of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Julian, in the fourth century, comes in with a testimony, unwilling, indeed, as a heathen emperor, but the more decisive, because he had once professed the Christian faith. What course does he take? Does he call into question the truth