Jerufalem. Concerning the perfons to whom thefe epiftles were fent, there have been different opinions among both antients and moderns. The doctor mentions feveral, with the reafons alleged, and concludes with his own, which is, that they were sent to all christians in general living in the countries mentioned in the beginning of the first epiftle, though he thinks they were for the most part of* Gentile ftock and original. Concerning the place where they were written, there are four different opinions embraced by the learned: fome fuppofe † the Babylon, mentioned by Peter to mean a town or city of that name in Egypt. Some, Babylon in Affyria; some, Babylon in Mefopotamia; and laftly, fome imagine, that by Babylon St. Peter figuratively means Rome. To the latter of these opinions the doctor himself fubfcribes. He adds, that they were most probably writ not long before this apoftle's death. About the year 64 or 65. The doctor then proceeds to the epiftles (the hiftory being already written by him) of the apoftle

St. JOHN.

All the three epiftles of St. John are now generally received as his. The first epiftle is likewife acknowledged by the antients. But the other two are contradicted, or doubted of, by fome. The Syrian churches in particular admit but of one as genuine. Concerning the time when the first epistle was written, there are various opinions which are here produced. The doctor thinks it was not writ till after the Jewish war about the year 80; and his reason for it is, that the arguments alledged for proving it to have been writ fooner, are not fatisfactory. In regard to the perfons to whom this epiftle was fent, it is obfervable, that the writer doth not in any part of it defcribe or characterize those to whom he writes, by the name of their city, country, or any fuch thing. This has given scope for the learned to form various conjectures concerning it. The doctor is of opinion, it was defigned for all chriftians in general, especially for the churches in Afia under the apostle's in

spection,

⚫cond chapter there is a defcription of the falfe prophets and teachers, who infested the church, and perverted the doctrines of the gofpel. Some antient Jewish writer had left behind him a description of the falfe prophets of his own, or perhaps earlier times. Which defcription is applied both by St. Peter and St. Jude, to the falfe teachers of their own times.'

As obedient children, not fashioning yourfelves, according to the • former lufts in your ignorance.' 1 Peter i. 14. This might be very pertinently faid to men converted from Gentilifm to Christianity. But no fuch thing is ever faid by the apostles, concerning the Jewish people, who had been favored with divine revelation, and had the knowedge of the true God.

+ At the end of the firft epiftle, St. Peter fays, the_church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, faluteth you.'

fpection, without excepting the believers in Judea, or any other Country whatever.

St. John's fecond epiftle is thus infcribed, To the elect lady, and her children, which has been differently understood by antients and moderns. Some will have it to mean the church in general; fome a particular church; fome a particular lady, the lady Electa, the lady Kuria, the elect Kyria. Dr. Lardner himself fubfcribes to the generally received interpretation; and feems to think the others (what they most certainly are) rather whimsical. The circumftance is not perhaps of confequence enough, to deferve the many pages which have been wrote upon it. The doctor therefore haftens to the third epistle, wihch is addreffed to Gaius, or Caius, an eminent christian, who moft probably lived in fome city of Afia, not far from Ephefus where St. John chiefly refided after leaving Judea. This, together with the second epistle, Dr. Lardner imagines was writ between the years 80 and 90. Our author proceeds to

Concerning St. Jude, very little is known with any degree of certainty. All that can be collected is, that he was one of those called the * Lord's brethren, and an apostle, and brother of James the apostle. He preached the gospel in feveral parts of the land of Ifrael, and wrought miracles in the name of Chrift. It may be questioned whether he was a martyr. + The epiftle afcribed to St. Jude was received by many in the time of Eufebius, though not by all. In Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about the year 194, we meet with notes on this epiftle. It is likewife quoted by him in two of his works now extant. Origen has alfo quotations from it. Our author is of opinion, that this epiftle was defigned for the ufe of all in general who had embraced the chriftian religion; and that it was written, as appears by the agreement between the two épíftles, about the fame time as the epiftle of St. Peter, in the year 65, or 66.

66

Our Lord's brethren, as enumerated, are, રૅર્ડ James, and Jofes, and Simon, and Judas." Matt. xiii. 55. James, and Jofes, and Judas, and Simon." Mark vi. 3. And in the catalogues of the • apostles are these.' "James the fon of Alpheus, and Lebbeus, "whose furname was Thaddeus. Simon the Canaanite." Mat. x. 3. James the fon of Alpheus, and Thaddeus; and Simon the Ca→ "naanite." Mark iii. 18. 66 James the fon of Alpheus, and Simon "Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James." Luke vi. 15. 16. James the fon of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James." Acts i. 13.

66

This epiftle is never exprefly cited by Irenæus, who wrote about year of Chrift 178, a circumftance which may probably be advanced by fome as a negative proof against the genuineness of it.

the

VoL. V. March 1758.

P

The

The doctor now comes to the last book of the New Teftament,

Dr. Lardner's chapter on the Revelation of St. John is short, for which indeed he gives us a very good reason; namely, that it is a book which he never understood.' Very different have been the fentiments of chriftians concerning it. Many receiving it as the writing of John the Apostle and Evangelift; others afcribing it to John a Prefbyter, others to Cerinthus, and fome rejecting it without knowing to whom it should be afcribed. The doctor fums up the* teftimony of antient chriftians concerning it; and obferves, that, upon the whole, it has been generally acknowledged in all ages, though rejected by fome, particularly the Syrians, and fome other chriftians in the Eaft. He likewife confiders the marks of its genuineness from internal characters, and remarks the conformity both of fentiment and expreffion, between the revelation, and the uncontested writings of St. John. It seems to the doctor to have been written near the end of the reign of Domitian, about the year 96.

After what has been here extracted from Dr. Lardner's third volume, it may not be amifs to fubjoin his table of the seven catholic epiftles, and the revelation, with the places where, and the times when, they were writ.

At the conclufion of this volume, we find a chapter on the order of the books of the New Teftament, where the reader will fee at one view, in what manner the several parts were ranged by antient authors, with many pertinent and fenfible obfervations on it.

The doctor has likewise another chapter to prove, that the books of the New Teftament, confifting of a collection of facred writings in two parts, one called gofpel or gofpels, or evangelicon; the other

It appears by this account, that Juftin Martyr, fo early as the year 140, was acquainted with it, and received it as written by St. John. It is quoted alfo by Irenæus and Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria, all living in the fecond century.

other epiftles, or apoftle, or apoftles, or apoftolicon, were early known, read, and made use of, by christians.

This truth, which is an effential one, our author endeavours to establish by confidering, First, the internal marks and characters; and, zdly, the † teftimony of antient writers concerning it. It moft evidently appears from the authorities here collected, that, in the very early days of Christianity, the books of the New Testament were well known, much used, and greatly respected.

In the doctor's last chapter, he confiders whether ‡, according to fome latter writers, any facred books of the New Testament have been loft.

A man, who thinks (fays our author) of our Lord's great character, and the unparalleled excellence of his difcourfes, and the great number of his miraculous works, and that he had twelve apostles, and seventy other disciples, employed by him, • all zealous for the honour of their master, and the good of his people, might be difpofed to fay: Certainly, there were many gofpels, or authentic hiftories of his life, writ before the deftruction of Jerufalem. And yet, if there is any credit to be • given to ecclefiaftical history, when John was defired to write his gospel, about the time of that event, or after it, there were brought to him no more than three gospels, to be confirmed by • him, or to have some additions made to them. One of which • only had been writ by an apostle, even Matthew's. And it is the concurrent teftimony of all chriftian antiquity, that there were but four gofpels writ by apoftles, and apoftolical men. And yet we have no reason to say, that the true intereft of mankind has not been duly confulted.'

There are, in the doctor's opinion, many confiderations tending to fatisfy us, that no facred writings of the apoftles of Christ are

+ That the first three gofpels were well known in the world, before St. John wrote, is fuppofed by Eufebius of Cefarea, who was well acquainted with the writings of chriftians before his time. These are the words of that eminent man. Having spoken of St. Matthew's gofpel, he goes on: "And when Mark and Luke had pub"lifhed the gofpels according to them, it is faid, that John, who all this while had preached by word of mouth, was induced to write for this reafon. The three firft written gofpels being now delivered "to all men, and to John himself, it is faid that he approved them." Before this laft evangelift wrote, the other three gofpels had been ⚫ delivered unto all men, and to John. He therefore had feen them ⚫ before, and they were in the hands of many people.

• What has been now faid of the gofpels, is applicable, in a great measure, to the acts, and the epiftles of the New Testament: as may be perceived by all, without enlarging any farther.'

Mr. John Ens, and Mr. C. M. Pfaff in a work published by him. in the early part of his life. Herman Witfius likewife has argued on the fame fide in feveral of his works.'

loft these our author enumerates, together with the difficutties that have been started on this fubject, which he endeavours to remove; and concludes with obferving, that, if the primitive christians (as it plainly appears) knew not of any apoftolical wris tings, befides thofe which have been transmitted to us, it is very probable there were none.

Thus have we extracted, with as little injustice to the learned author as the nature of our Review would permit, the most material parts of this excellent performance. We think ourfelves obliged to recommend Dr. Lardner's Supplement to his credibility of the gofpel history, in three volumes, as one of the most useful works that has for fome time made its appearance in the world of literature. The reader who expects to find in it the flights of inventive fancy, the bold conjectures, or animated ftile of fruitful genius, will be difappointed; but he who has fenfe enough to content himself with extenfive learning, and an useful instruction in religious matters, unfeigned piety, and regard for Chriftianity, will be thoroughly fatisfied. It is a book which fhould be put into the hands of every young divine, as it will be highly serviceable to him in his most important business, the study of the Holy Scriptures.

Among thefe difficulties we meet with the following: I wrote unto you in an epiftle, not to accompany with fornicators.' 1 Cor. v. 9.

Hence it is argued, that St. Paul had writ an epistle to the Co rinthians, before he wrote the firft of those two, which we have: confequently, here is proof of the lofs of a facred writing, which ⚫ would have been canonical, if extant.

And it must be acknowleged, that feveral learned men have con⚫cluded as much from this text. Others however fee not here any fuch proof. And on this fide have argued Whitby, and others. And I think, it is of no fmall weight, that several antient writers underftood the apoftle to fay: I have writ to you in this epiftle. So The• odoret, Theophylact, and Photius in Oecumenius. They fuppofe, that the apostle here refers to fomewhat before said by him in this fame epiftle, and in this very chapter, ver. 2. or 6. 7. For the whole anfwer to this objection, fee the work p. 444, &c.

ART. III. The Call of Ariftippus. Epiftle IV. To Mark Akenfide, M. D. By the author of the three former epiftles of Ariftippus. 4to. Pr. Is. Dodfley.

T

HE author of this fhort, but agreeable performance, need not perhaps have informed us in his title page, that it was written by the fame hand, to which we are indebted for the three former epiftles of Aristippus. There is an ease and gaiety, together with what the French term a naïveté, running through it, which fufficiently diftinguishes it from most of the compofitions which we have lately met with. The old lady, whofe decaying fa

culties