cometh as a thief in the night.”* And in his second epistle to the same people he writes with greater solicitude, "But I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye be not soon shaken in mind nor troubled." And this charge Paul has given to Timothy: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust."+ That remarkable passage of Tertullian, already referred to, in which he is supposed to speak of the autographs of Paul's epistles, may appropriately be cited in this place, to show that he did certainly write to those churches to which his epistles are now inscribed. "Well," says he, "if you be willing to exercise your curiosity profitably in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolical churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their truly authentic letters are recited, sending forth the voice and representing the countenance of each one of them. Is Achaia near you? you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; you have Thessalonica. If you can visit Asia, you have Ephesus. And if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, from whence also you may be easily satisfied."§ Origen quotes Paul's epistles as expressly and frequently as any modern writer. To transcribe all the testimonies which might be taken from this author, would fill a volume, and would require us to set down the greater part of all Paul's epistles. In one passage in his work against Celsus, he refers to several of them in the following manner. "Do you first of all explain the epistles of him who says these things, and having diligently read and attended to the sense of the words there used, particularly in that to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Romans, &c."|| Origen believed that the epistle to the Ephesians was addressed to the Church of Ephesus, for he cites it under that name. he uniformly ascribes the epistle to the Hebrews to 1 Thess. v. 1-3. 12 Thess. ii. 1, 2. And 11 Tim. vi. 20. Lard. Vol. I p. 535. § De Pracscriptione, c. xxxvi. p. 245. Paul, from which he quotes many passages. And he not only expresses his own opinion on this point, but delivers the current opinion which had come down from the fathers who preceded him. His words are," for it is not without reason that the ancients have handed it down to us as Paul's." Considering the nearness of Origen to the times of the apostles, and that he resided near the people to whom it was sent, perhaps in the very city, and that his knowledge of ecclesiastical and biblical matters was more extensive than that of any other man, his testimony that this epistle belongs to Paul ought to be decisive; especially as it is corroborated by that of all the Greek fathers. Eusebius, indeed, while he admits its canonical authority, expresses some doubt about its authorship; yet in his writings he often quotes it as Paul's. * Cyprian, Victorinus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Novatus, and Methodius, who all lived in the third century, refer frequently to Paul's epistles; but we deem it superfluous to cite further testimonies on this subject, except the full and decisive testimony of Jerome, than whom a more competent witness could not be found. This father, in speaking of the writings of Paul, says, "He wrote nine epistles to seven churches. To the Romans one; to the Corinthians two; to the Galatians one; to the Philippians one; to the Colossians one; to the Thessalonians two; to the Ephesians one; to Timothy two; to Titus one; to Philemon one. But the epistle to the Hebrews is not thought to be his, because of the difference of argument and style; but rather Barnabas's, as Tertullian thought; or Luke's, according to some others; or Clement's, who was afterwards bishop of Rome, who being much with Paul, clothed and adorned Paul's sense in his own language. Or if it be Paul's, he might decline putting his name to it in the inscription, for fear of offending the Jews." He seems to have entertained the idea that this epistle was writ* See Lardner's History of the Apostles. Epist. ad Paulinum. ten by Paul in Hebrew, and that it was translated into Greek by some one possessed of a more elegant style than Paul. He says, "he wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, it being his own language; whence it came to pass that being translated it has more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles. This they say is the reason of its differing from Paul's other writings. There is also an epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by every body."* Although Jerome sometimes doubted of the authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews, which was published without the name of the author, yet he commonly quotes it as Paul's; and in his letter to Evangelius, he writes, "That all the Greeks and some of the Latins received this epistle." He means, received it as Paul's; for we do not find that any were for rejecting it altogether from the canon. And in a letter to Dardanus, he says, "That it was not only received as Paul's by all the churches of the east, but by all the ecclesiastical writers in former times: though many ascribe it to Barnabas or Clement."+ He also testifies "that it was daily read in the churches; and if the Latins did not receive this epistle as the Greeks rejected the Revelation of John, yet he received both; not influenced so much by the present times, as the judgment of ancient writers, who quote both; and that not as they quote apocryphal books, and even heathen writings, but as canonical and ecclesiastical."§ Ambrose and Augustine received the fourteen epistles of Paul just as we do now,|| and since their time this has been the uniform opinion of all; except that some modern critics have revived the controversy respecting the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; but the claim of the apostle Paul has been vindicated by many learned men with such ability, and with arguments so conclusive, that it may be hoped that this question will not be soon stirred again. * Epist. ad Paulinum. + Ibid. § Lard. Vol. II. p. 558. The time when each of Paul's epistles was written, is a point not capable of any certain determination; and as is usual, in such cases, the learned are divided into various opinions and conjectures. It has commonly been thought that the epistles to the Thessalonians were first written, but of late a prior date has been claimed for the epistle to the Galatians. The subject is not important and may be left to be settled by the critics. CHAPTER XXII. THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES, AND OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION. WHY these epistles received the denomination of Catholic, various reasons have been assigned: but none of them are very satisfactory. Some have said that they were so called, because they contained the one Catholic doctrine which was communicated to the Churches, and delivered to the apostles by our Saviour, and which might be read by the universal Church. But surely this furnished no reason for distinctive appellation of those seven epistles, since the same may be said of all the other canonical epistles. Others allege, that they received this name because they were not addressed to particular Churches or individuals, like the epistles of Paul, but to the Catholic Church. But this statement is not correct; for several of them are addressed to particular persons. The opinion of Dr. Hammond and Dr. Macknight is, that this appellation was at first given to the first epistle of Peter and first of John, which were addressed to Christians generally, and were universally received. On which last account they suppose that they were originally called Catholic, to distinguish them from such as were not universally received; but, after awhile, the other five being universally received also, were included under the same name. The first epistle of Peter and the first of John, appear to have been circulated and known at a very early period. The apostolic fathers, Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias, cite passages from them, without, however, indicating the source whence they were derived. Justin Martyr quotes a passage which is no where else found, but in the second epistle of Peter. Diagnetus has several passages taken from the first epistle of Peter and the first of John. Irenæus cites from Peter the following: "Whom having not seen ye love," which he expressly refers to Peter. He also cites the second of Peter, and first and second of John. Several texts are also quoted by this father from the epistle of James, but without mentioning his name.* Clement of Alexandria quotes the first epistle of Peter often; the second sometimes; and also the epistle of Jude. Tertullian often cites the first epistle of John, and in one instance, that of Jude; but has no quotations from the others. Origen has given a satisfactory testimony to the epistle of James, and refers to it in the following manner: "For though it be called faith, if it be without works it is dead, as we read in the epistle ascribed to James." And in the Latin translation of his works, by Rufin, this epistle is quoted as DIVINE SCRIPTURE, and is referred to "JAMES, the apostle, and brother of our Lord." This learned father often cites passages from the first of Peter; but not from the second, except in his Latin works, the originals of which are lost. In his book against Celsus, he says, "as it is said by Peter, Ye as lively stones are built up a spiritual house." And again, "Peter in his Catholic epistle, says, 'put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit." " His testimony in favour of Jude is also strong. "Jude," says he, *Lard. Vol. III. p. 66 415. |