a catalogue of the other books, says, "After these, if it be thought fit, may be placed the REVELATION, concerning which there are different opinions."

Athanasius gives the following testimony: "Domitian in the fourteenth year of his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero, John was banished into the isle of Patmos, when he wrote the Revelation which Irenæus and Justin Martyr explain.'

Augustine received the Revelation, and frequently quotes it. He also ascribed it to the same John who wrote the gospel and epistles. Jerome translated it into Latin with the other books of the New Testament. The evidence of the canonical authority of this prophetic vision is therefore as strong as that of any book in the New Testament; and the time is coming when the seals which have so long closed up its meaning shall be broken, and the Apocalypse will appear indeed to be a wonderful Revelation of events of the greatest importance, which are now future. The study of this portion of sacred Scripture should not be discouraged; for as the great wheel of Providence revolves, the mystic page will become more and more illuminated, and the events predicted will be so clearly developed, that all who are endued with spiritual understanding will clearly see, by the developments which will take place, that the sealed book is opened, and that the purposes of God towards his Church are in the progress of full and rapid accomplishment; even "the things that are, and the things which shall be hereafter."t

*Lardner, Vol. II. 401.

† Rev. i. 19.

CHAPTER XXIII.

RECAPITULATION OF EVIDENCE ON THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE subject of the canon of the New Testament may properly be concluded by a few general remarks.

1. The constitution of the canon of the New Testament did not require the judgment or sanction of any council, synod, or church, except as they might be witnesses that the books were written by men who were known to be inspired. Every book written by an apostle had a right to a place in the canon as soon as published. The sacred books were therefore canonical before they were collected together into a volume. One of Paul's epistles, as soon as received by the Church to which it was sent, had as much authority as it ever could have, and possessed this authority, if that Church were not at the time in possession of any other book. The canon was constituted, or compiled, when the last inspired volume was published. And as the apostle John undoubtedly survived the other apostles, and wrote last, when he produced his last writing, whichever it might be, the canon was closed. And as this must have been prior to his death, so it may be said with certainty, that the canon of the New Testament was completed before the death of John. And as all the books were in circulation while he was living, the Church could enjoy the unspeakable privilege of having his infallible opinion respecting any and all of these books. This will sufficiently account for the universal consent with which these books were received in every part of the Church. As he gave his sanction to the other three gospels, so doubtless he would do to the whole sacred canon. Accordingly, we find no controversy in the early ages of the Church, respecting the canon. Doubt was entertained by some respect

ing a few of those books now in the canon, which resulted in a general acquiescence in their claims, after the subject was impartially examined; but respecting all other books there was a unanimous consent. This leads to the remark,

2. That the writings of the apostles were from the beginning carefully distinguished from all other books. They were denominated, "SCRIPTURE," diVINE SCRIPTURE-INSPIRED WRITINGS—THE GOSPELS THE APOSTLES-ORACLES OF THE LORD-DIVINE FOUNTAINS, &c., &c. The fathers were not too credulous in regard to this matter, but used all care to search into the claims of such books as professed to be from the apostles.

3. These books, when written, did not lie in obscurity, but were publicly read in the churches; and were sought with avidity by the people, and read with veneration, not only by the learned but by common Christians; for the idea of locking up the holy Scriptures from the people seems to have occurred to no one. That these canonical books were thus read in the churches may be proved by the testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyprian, and Augustine; and no other books received the same veneration and attention-none others were spoken of as SCRIPTURE -as inspired. When any other pieces were read in public for instruction, the fathers were pointedly careful to distinguish these from the canonical books.

4. In all the controversies which arose in the Church, these books were appealed to by all parties, as decisive authority, unless we except some of the very worst heretics, who, to maintain their opinions, mutilated the Scriptures, and rejected such as plainly condemned their impious tenets. But most of the heretics endeavoured to maintain their opinions by the writings of the New Testament. This was the case in regard to the Valentinians, the Montanists, the Sabellians, the Artemonites, the Arians, the Pelagians, and the Priscillianists. None of these called in question the authority of the sacred books.

5. It is an argument of great force, that even the avowed enemies of Christianity, who wrote against the truth, refer to the books now in the canon, as those received as sacred by Christians. These enemies of the gospel refer to matters contained in these books, and some of them mention several of them by

name.

Celsus, who lived and wrote less than a hundred years after the age of the apostles, says, as his words. are quoted by Origen, who answered him, "I could say many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, too, different from what has been written by the disciples of Jesus, but I purposely omit them." In another place he says, "These things, then, we have alleged to you of your own writings."

Porphyry also, from the fragments of his writings which remain, appears to have been well acquainted with the four gospels; for the objections which he brings against Christianity are directed against things still found in these gospels,

The emperor Julian, called the Apostate, mentions by name Matthew and Luke, and cites various things out of the gospels. He also mentions John, and says, "none of Christ's disciples besides has ascribed to him the creation of the world;" "and that neither Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, had dared to call Jesus, God;" "that John wrote later than the other evangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the countries of Greece and Italy were converted." Now if these books had not been genuine, would not these learned and powerful opponents have known the fact, and would they not have exposed the fraud? But they silently acquiesce in the genuineness of the gospels, and speak of them as the writings of the disciples of Christ, with as little hesitation as Christians themselves.

6. The testimony which we have adduced is not only sufficient to demonstrate that these books were originally written by the men to whom they have always been ascribed, but also, that the books which were in the hands of early Christians contained the

same things which are now found written in them. Excepting about half a dozen texts, the genuineness of which is disputed, because the manuscripts and versions vary; as far as can be judged from numerous quotations, from all the early versions, and from the ancient manuscripts which have come down to us, no material change has taken place in these writings. It is true, the fathers in some instances appear to have quoted from memory, and in others to have interpreted the words of the sacred writers differently from what we do, but all evidence goes to show that the Scriptures of the New Testament have come down to us in their original integrity, save those errors which arose from the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers; but even in regard to these, by means of the multitude of copies of the Greek text, and of early versions, with the help of numerous quotations made in Africa, Asia, and Europe, the correct reading can usually be ascertained with very considerable certainty. It is probable that almost every sentence in some books of the New Testament has been cited or referred to by one or other of the fathers. Let any one only cast his eye over a table of texts quoted by Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, or any other extensive writer among them, and he will be convinced that a large part of the New Testament could be collected from their writings.

As the apocryphal books of the New Testament, though very numerous, are never connected with the sacred volume, and as none now plead for the canonical authority of any of these books, there is no necessity, in treating of the evidences of Christianity, to enter into any discussion respecting them. And I would beg leave to refer any who may feel a curiosity to inquire into their character, and to have some specimens of their style and spirit, to Jones' " New method of settling the canon of the New Testament;" or the volume which the present writer compiled on the subject of the canon.

Having brought this "View of the Evidences of