as canonical, which are now so esteemed by Christians generally. Why these epistles have received the appellation of Catholic, various reasons have been assigned. Some have supposed that they were so called, because they contain the one catholic doctrine which was delivered to the churches by the apostles of our Saviour, and which might be read by the universal church. Others are of opinion that they received this appellation, because they were not addressed to one person, or church, like the epistles of Paul, but to the Catholic church. This opinion seems not to be correct, for some of them were written to the Christians of particular countries, and others to individuals.

A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, and adopted by Dr. Macknight, and which has some probability, is, that the first of Peter, and first of John, being received by all Christians, obtained the name of Catholic, to distinguish them from those which at first were not universally received; but, in process of time, these last, coming to be universally received, were put into the same class with the first, and the whole thenceforward had the appellation of Catholic.

This denomination is as old as the time of Eusebius, and probably older, for Origen repeatedly called John's first epistle Catholic; and the same is done by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. The same appellation was given to the whole seven by Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. Of these, it is probable, that the epistle of James was first written, but at what precise time, cannot be determined.

As there were two disciples of the name of James, it has been much disputed to which of them this epistle should be attributed. Lardner and Macknight

have rendered it exceedingly probable that this epistle was written by James the Less, who is supposed to have been related to our Lord, and who seems for a long time to have had the chief authority in the church at Jerusalem; but Michaelis is of a different opinion, and says, that he sees no reason for the assertion, that James, the son of Zebedee, was not the author of this epistle." But the reasons which he assigns for his opinion have very little weight.

66

The date of this epistle may, with considerable probability, be referred to the year 62; for it is supposed that James was put to death in the following year. Its canonical authority and divine inspiration, although called in question by some, in ancient as well as modern times, ought to be considered as undoubted. One strong evidence that it was thus received by early Christians, may be derived from the old Syriac version of the New Testament; which, while it leaves out several other books, contains this.

It seems not to have been as well known in the western churches as most other books of Scripture ; but learned men have observed, that Clement of Rome has quoted it no less than four times; and it is also quoted by Ignatius, in his genuine epistle to the Ephesians; and we have already shown that it was received as the writing of the apostle James, by Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome.

The first epistle of Peter has ever been considered authentic, and has been cited by Clement of Rome, Polycarp, the Martyrs of Lyons, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, Papias, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. The only matter of doubt respecting it is, what place we are to understand by Babylon,

where Peter was when he wrote. On this subject there are three opinions: the first, that by this name a place in Egypt is signified; the second, that Babylon in Assyria, properly so called, is meant; and the third, which is generally maintained by the Romanists, and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here called Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood that this epistle was written from Rome. The time of its being written was probably about the year of our Lord 65 or 66.

The date of the epistle of Jude may as well be placed about the same period, as at any other time, for we have no documents which can guide us to any certain decision. The objection to the canonical authority of this epistle, derived from the author's having quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, is of no validity; for the fact is, that Jude makes no mention of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there is no evidence that the apocryphal book of Enoch was then in existence; but if he did quote a truth from such a book, it argues no more against his inspiration than Paul's quoting Epimenides does against his being an inspired man.

The three epistles of John were probably written about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly been supposed that the Apocalypse was the last written book of the New Testament, but Townsend insists that the three epistles of John were last written.-See Townsend's New Testament, vol. ii.

SECTION XII.

CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

HERMAS gives many indications of having read the Revelation, for he often imitates John's description of the New Jerusalem, and sometimes borrows his very words. He speaks of the Book of Life and of those whose names are written in it. He speaks also of the saints whom he saw, being clothed in garments white as snow. PAPIAS also, doubtless, had seen the book of Revelation; for some of his opinions were founded on a too literal interpretation of certain prophecies of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas expressly cites the Revelation.

JUSTIN MARTYR is the first who gives explicit testimony to the Apocalypse. His words are, "And a man from among us by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that, shall be the general and indeed eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together." In the epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne, in France, which was written about the year of our Lord one hundred and eighty, there is one passage cited from the book of Revelation: "For he was indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.''

IRENEUS expressly quotes the Revelation, and ascribes it to John the apostle. And in one place, he says, "It (the Revelation,) was seen no long time ago in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." And in the passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks of the exact and ancient copies of this book; which he says, 66 was confirmed, likewise, by the concurring testimony of those who had seen John."

THEOPHILUS of Antioch, also, as we are assured by Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, in his book against Hermogenes. And in his works which are extant, there is one passage which shows that he was acquainted with the Revelation. "This Eve," says he, "because she was deceived by the serpent-the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who then spoke to her by the serpent-does not cease to accuse: this demon is also called the Dragon."

The Revelation of John is often quoted by CLEMENT of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, "Such an one, though here on earth he be not honoured with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation." That Clement believed it to be the work of the apostle John is manifest, because in another place he expressly cites a passage, as the words of an apostle; and we have just seen that he ascribes the work to John.

TERTULLIAN cites many things from the Revelation of John; and he seems to have entertained no doubt of its being the writing of the apostle John, as will appear by a few quotations; "John in his Apocalypse, is commanded to correct those who ate things sacri