think he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present inscription is spurious. But that neither of these opinions is correct may be rendered very probable. In regard to the latter, we have already said as much as is necessary; and that Paul could not intend by the language used in the passage under consideration an epistle written by himself, will appear by the following arguments.

1. Paul could not with any propriety of speech have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to the Laodiceans, an epistle from Laodicea. He certainly would have said, pos Aaodixsian, or some such thing. Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an epistle from them?

2. If the epistle referred to in this passage had been one written by Paul, it would have been most natural for him to call it his epistle, and this would have rendered his meaning incapable of misconstruction.

3. All those best qualified to judge of the fact, and who were well acquainted with Paul's history and writings, never mention any such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac interpreter, knew anything of such an epistle of Paul; and no one seems to have had knowledge of any such writing, except Marcion, who probably forged it to answer his own purposes. But whether Marcion did acknowledge an epistle different from all that we have in the Canon, rests on the authority of Epiphanius, who wrote a criticism on the apostolicon of Marcion; but as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a different story. It is of little importance to decide

which of these testimonies is most credible for Marcion's authority, at best, is worthless on such a subject.

But it may be asked, To what epistle then does Paul refer? To this inquiry various answers have been given, and perhaps nothing determinate can now be said. Theophylact was of opinion, that Paul's first epistle to Timothy was here intended. But this is not probable. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures that it was the first epistle of John, which he supposes was written from Laodicea. Others have thought that it was the epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it seems safest, in such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the Laodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians, together with his own epistle, for their perusal.

That the epistle which is now extant is not the same as that which formerly existed, at least as early as the fourth century, is evident from the quotations from the ancient epistle, by Epiphanius; for no such words as he cites are in that now extant. But candour requires that it be mentioned that they are contained in the epistle to the Ephesians. Let this weigh as much as it is worth in favour of the opinion, that the apostle, in the passage under consideration, refers to the epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion, however, is perfectly consistent with our position, that no canonical book of the New Testament has been lost. This proposition, we hope, will now appear to the reader sufficiently established.

SECTION XV.

RULES FOR DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL -SOME ACCOUNT OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH HAVE BEEN LOST-ALL OF THEM CONDEMNED BY THE FOREGOING RULES-REASON OF THE ABOUNDING OF SUCH BOOKS.

Or the apocryphal books of the New Testament, the greater part have long since sunk into oblivion, but a few of them are still extant. All of them can be proved to be spurious, or at least not canonical. Their claims have so little to support them, that they might be left to that oblivion, into which they have so generally fallen, were it not that, from time to time, persons unfriendly to our present Canon bring forward these books, and pretend that some of them, at least, have as good claims to canonical authority as those which are received. It will be satisfactory to the reader, therefore, to know the names of these books, and to understand the principles on which they have been uniformly rejected by the church.

In the first place, then, I will mention the rules laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it may be determined that a book is apocryphal, and then I will give some account of the books of this class which have been lost; and finally, consider the character of those which are still extant.

1. That book is certainly apocryphal which contains manifest contradictions.

The reason of this rule is too evident to need any elucidation.

2. That book is apocryphal, which contains any doctrine or history, plainly contrary to those which are certainly known to be true.

This rule is also too clear to require anything to be said in confirmation of its propriety.

3. That book is apocryphal which contains anything ludicrous or trifling, or which abounds in silly and fabulous stories.

This rule is not only true, but of great importance, in this inquiry; as on examination it will be found, that the largest part of apocryphal books may be detected by the application of this single rule.

4. That book is apocryphal which mentions things of a date much later than the time in which the author, under whose name it goes, lived.

This rule does not apply to predictions of future events, which events occurred long after the death of the prophet; but to a reference to facts, or names of places, or persons, as existing when the book was written, which are known to have existed, only at a period long since the time when the supposed author lived. The rule will be better understood, if illustrated by particular examples. The book entitled, "The Constitutions of the Apostles," speaks of the controversy which arose in the third century, respecting the rebaptization of heretics, therefore, it is not the work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been ascribed; nor was it written in his time, but long afterwards.

Again, the book under the name of HEGESIPPUs is not genuine, for it mentions Constantine and Constantinople, which had no existence until long after the death of HEGESIPPUS.

Moreover, in "The Constitutions of the Apostles," there is mention of rites and ceremonies, relative to baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c. which it is certain had no existence in the times of the apostles, therefore this book was not written by an apostolical man, nor in the days of the apostles, but centuries afterwards.

5. That book is apocryphal, the style of which is entirely different from the known style of the author to whom it is ascribed.

It is easy to counterfeit an author's name, age, country, opinions, &c.; but it will be found almost impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is true,

may vary his style to suit different subjects, but there is commonly some peculiarity by which he may be distinguished from all others. "Jerome," says Six

tus, "writes one way in his epistles, another in his controversies, a third in his commentaries ;-one way when young, another when old, yet he always so writes that you may know him to be the same Jerome still, as a man knows his friend under all the various casts and turns of his countenance.' Thus Augustine says of Cyprian, "His style has a certain peculiar face by which it may be known."

It should be remembered, however, that this rule, although it may often furnish a certain detection of spurious writings is one which requires much caution. in the application. There is need of a long and intimate acquaintance with the style of an author, before we are competent to determine whether a book could