may be rather considered as an act of deference to the Greek Church, which then rejected the book of Revelation, than as expressive of the opinion entertained by Gregory himself.

When we ascend from the fourth to the third century, we find Origen the most learned of the Greek Fathers, who, as appears from the preceding Lecture, received all the books of the New Testament, which constitute our present canon. When we further ascend from the third to the second century, we find Irenæus in the West, and Clement of Alexandria in the East, bearing ample testimony to the books of the New Testament. The Epistle to Philemon, the second Epistle of St. Peter, with the second and third of St. John, are the only books of the New Testament, from which we do not find quotations in the works of Clement, though the works which now remain bear only a small proportion to those, which he composed. But the Epistle to Philemon, and the second and third of St. John are so short, and so little adapted to doctrinal discussion, that Clement could hardly have had occasion to quote them. Nor can we conclude that the second Epistle of St. Peter did not then exist, because the remaining works of Clement contain no quotation from it. We have the positive testimony therefore of Clement of

Alexandria to the whole of the New Testament, with the exception of four short Epistles, which all together contain little more than a hundred of our modern verses: and even of these, we have no reason to suppose that Clement rejected them. The positive testimony of Irenæus is no less important. And though he cannot be produced, with Clement of Alexandria, as evidence for the Epistle to the Hebrews, he cannot, for the reasons already assigned, be produced as evidence against it. We may rest therefore satisfied with the testimony of Clement on the Epistle to the Hebrews, though it was long rejected by the Latin Church. And on the book, which was long rejected by the Greek Church, the Revelation of St. John, we have the testimony, both of Clement and of Irenæus.

The evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament has thus been carried upwards, as high as the age, which succeeded the age of the Apostles. And if no evidence has yet been produced from the writings of those, who were contemporary with the Apostles, we have had the evidence of those, who knew their disciples, the evidence therefore of those, who could hardly be mistaken in regard to the question, whether the books of the New Testament

were written by the authors, assigned to them, or not. And if such evidence had been produced in favour of a classic author, there is no scholar, who would not be fully satisfied with the proof.

But another view may be taken of the subject, in which it will appear, that from the evidence already produced we may obtain a result, which is still more decisive. This result is obtained by reasoning from the statement of Eusebius, with respect to the books, which were universally received. These books were, the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of St. Peter, and the first Epistle of St. John. That all these books had been universally received, is a fact, attested by Eusebius, and confirmed by the writers, who preceded him. Now if the historical books of the New Testament were universally received, they must have been received as authentic in the very places, where they were composed, and by the persons, to whom they were first delivered. And whatever apostolic epistles were universally received, they must have been received as authentic by the very persons, or communities, to whom they were immediately addressed.

Let us first apply the argument to the Epistles of St. Paul, which are of two kinds, Epistles to whole communities, and Epistles addressed to individuals. Of the former kind are the Epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and the Thessalonians. These Epistles having been universally acknowledged as Epistles of St. Paul, they must have been acknowledged as such by those particular communities, to whom they were respectively addressed. Let us inquire then, whether these Epistles could have been so acknowledged, if they had not been written by St. Paul. No forgery in the name of St. Paul could have been successfully attempted during the life of the Apostle for his long and continued intercourse with the several communities, to whom those Epistles are addressed, would unquestionably have led to a detection of the fraud. If therefore these Epistles were forgeries, they must have been fabricated after the death of St. Paul. Having ascertained the point of time, after which they must have been forged, if they really were forged, let us next consider the point of time before which the forgery must have taken place, if there was forgery at all. Whether written by an Apostle, or not, their existence in the middle

of the second century, is a fact, which it is impossible to deny. For all these Epistles are repeatedly quoted by Irenæus in one part of the Roman Empire, and by Clement of Alexandria in another. And no doubt can be entertained in regard to their quotations, whatever be the doubts attending those of the Apostolic Fathers. The portion of time therefore, in which a forgery was possible, was confined to so small a compass, as to render it impracticable. If a work is fabricated by one writer in the name of another, there is no chance of succeeding with the imposition, unless a considerable period has elapsed, between the time of the fabricator, and the time of the person, to whom he ascribes his fabrication. If this person lived at so remote a time, that no external evidence can be obtained in confutation of the fraud, an ingenious impostor may excite a belief, that a work, which is really his own, is the work of a writer, who lived in a former age. But between the death of St. Paul, and the middle of the second century, when these Epistles, whether authentic or not, are known to have existed, the interval was so short, that no forgery could have escaped detection. In whatever portion of this interval such a forgery is supposed to have been committed, the supposition is equally absurd.

Ꭰ