say any thing of God, besides what is divinely taught and ' revealed to us by the divine oracles of the Old and New • Testament.' A. Ď. 730.

Ch. CLXI. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, received the same scriptures of the Old and New Testament which are now generally received by us. Beside other works he wrote Commentaries upon the Psalms, the prophets, and St. Paul's epistles. This great critic, and fine writer, was a great admirer of the apostle Paul, and has celebrated his manly and unaffected eloquence.

Ch. CLXII. Ecumenius, bishop of Tricca in Thessaly, received the same books of the New Testament that we do. He wrote Commentaries upon the Acts, St. Paul's fourteen epistles, and the seven catholic epistles. Upon Acts xiii. 13, he says, this John, who is also called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the gospel according to him, and was also disciple of Peter, of whom he says in his epistle, "Mark, my son, saluteth you." And upon Acts xv. 13, he says, this James, appointed bishop of Jerusalem by the 'Lord, was son of Joseph, [meaning by a former wife,] and 'brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh.' For other things the reader is referred to the chapter itself. A. D. 950.

6

999

He

Ch. CLXIII. Theophylact, archbishop of the chief city in Bulgaria, received all the books of the New Testament that we do, excepting the book of the Revelation; concerning which his judgment does not now appear to us. wrote Commentaries upon the four gospels, the Acts, and St. Paul's fourteen epistles. He says, There are four 'evangelists, two of whom, Matthew and John, were apos'tles of Christ; the other two, Mark and Luke, were of the ' number of Christ's seventy disciples: Mark was a com'panion and disciple of Peter, Luke of Paul. Matthew 'first wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language, for the use of the Hebrew believers, eight years after Christ's ascension; Mark wrote ten years after our Lord's ascension, having been instructed by Peter; Luke fifteen, and John two and thirty years after our Saviour's ascension.' Afterwards, Mark wrote at Rome, ten years after Christ's 'ascension, at the request of the believers there, being the disciple of Peter, whom he calls his son spiritually: bis name was John; he was nephew to Barnabas, and for a while was also companion of Paul.' He likewise says, that Mark's gospel was said to be Peter's: he says, that Luke, who wrote the gospel and the Acts, was a native of Antioch, and by profession a physician. In his preface to

6

6

6

St. Matthew's gospel he writes to this purpose: And was not one evangelist sufficient? Yes. Nevertheless, for 'making the truth more manifest, four were permitted to 'write for when you see these four, not conferring toge'ther, nor meeting in the same place, but separate from each other, writing the same things as with one mouth, are you 'not led to admire the truth of the gospel, and to say, that they spake by the Holy Ghost? Do not say to me, that they do not agree in every thing. For they agree in the 'necessary and principal things; and if they agree in such things, why should you wonder that they vary in lesser matters? They are the more credible for not agreeing in all things; for then it would have been thought, that they had met and consulted together: but now one has written 'what another has omitted; and therefore they seem to dif'fer in some things.' A. D. 1070.

Ch. CLXIV. Euthymius, a monk at Constantinople, besides other works, wrote Commentaries upon the Psalms, and the four gospels; collected chiefly out of Chrysostom, and other ancient writers. According to him Matthew wrote eight, Mark ten, Luke fifteen years after Christ's ascension; but the evangelist John did not write his gospel till many years after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Here ends this part of my design; for my intention was to write at large the history of all, or almost all, the christian writers of the first four centuries, with their testimony to the books of the New Testament: forasmuch as it is universally allowed, that witnesses near the time of any events are the most credible and material: that has filled ten volumes. Afterward I intended to write briefly, the history of the principal writers, from the end of the fourth century, as low as Theophylact and Euthymius, to the end of the eleventh, or the beginning of the twelfth century, with their testimony likewise to the scriptures of the New Testament; which has been performed in the eleventh volume alone of the former edition.

Ch. CLXV. The chapter of Nicephorus Callisti, who lived not before the fourteenth century, inore than two hundred years after the writers last mentioned, (without taking notice of any of the authors in that space) was added only by way of conclusion, as containing the sum of our argument, and of what was to be proved by us. For that learned monk, in his Ecclesiastical History, referring to what had been said by Eusebius concerning the books of the New Testament, and having mentioned those which had been all along universally acknowledged, and then the epistle to the

Hebrews, and those of the catholic epistles, which had been doubted of by some, and the Revelation, adds, ' But though 'there were for a while doubts about these, we know that at length they have been received by all the churches ' under heaven with a firm assent.' And he says, that all others were rejected from being part of sacred scripture. By which we are assured, that all the books of the New Testament which are now received by us were generally received in those times; and that there were not then, nor ever had been, any books of authority among christians beside them.

And now I hope that there needs not any long harangue to show the force of our argument. In the first part of this work it was shown, that there is not any thing in the books of the New Testament, however strictly canvassed, inconsistent with their supposed time and authors; which alone (as was formerly shown at large) affords good reason to believe, that they were written by persons who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the seventieth year of our Lord's nativity, according to the common computation.

In this second part we have had express and positive evidence, that these books were written by those whose names they bear, even the apostles of Jesus Christ, who was crucified at Jerusalem in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, when Pontius Pilate was governor in Judea, and their well known companions and fellow-labourers. It is the concurring testimony of early and later ages, and of writers of all countries in the several parts of the known world, Europe, Asia, and Africa, and of men of different sentiments in divers respects; for we have had before us the testimony of those called heretics, especially in the third and fourth centuries, as well as catholics. These books were received from the beginning with the greatest respect, and have been publicly and solemnly read in the assemblies of christians throughout the world in every age from that time to this. They were early translated into the languages of divers countries and people; they were quoted by way of proof in all arguments of a religious nature, and were appealed to on both sides in all points of controversy that arose among christians themselves; they were likewise recommended to the perusal of others as containing the authentic account of the christian doctrine; and many commentaries have been written upon them, to explain and illustrate them; all which affords full assurance of their genuineness and integrity. If these books had not been written by those to whom they

are ascribed, and if the things related in them had not been true, they could not have been received from the beginning: if they contain a true account of things, the christian religion is from God, and cannot but be embraced by serious and attentive men, who impartially examine, and are willing to be determined by evidence.

Much has been said by some in late times about spurious and apocryphal books, composed in the carly days of christianity. I hope, that all objections of that sort have been answered or obviated in the preceding volumes; nevertheless, I shall put together some observations, concerning them, in this conclusion.

1. Those books were not so much used by the primitive christians.

There are no quotations of any of them in the apostolical fathers; by whom I mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; whose writings reach from about the year of our Lord 70, to the year 108. I say this confidently, because I think it has been proved.

e

Irenæus quotes not any of these books: he mentions some of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian: he has mentioned a book, called 'Acts of Paul and Thecla,' but it is only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned and quoted several such books; but never as of authority, and sometimes with express marks of dislike, as may be seen at large in their chapters. Eusebius quotes no such books in any of his works. He has mentioned them indeed; but how? Not by way of approbation; but to show, that they were of little or no value, and that they never were received by the sounder part of christians. Athanasius mentions not any of them by name; he only passeth a severe censure upon them in general: nor do these books ever come in the way of Jerom but he shows signs of his displeasure. I may not allow myself to go any lower; nor can it be expected.

I only farther add here, that these books were always obscure, and little known. Thath the gospel according to the Egyptians was very obscure, appears from Clement's manner of quoting it; and we saw manifest proof of the

a

See particularly, beside other places, the history of the Manichees, vol. iii. p. 430–436. and the chapter of Eusebius of Cæsarea, vol. iv. p. 128—132. See here, p. 188. and vol. ii. p. 53, 54, 56, 91, 92.

c Vid. Iren. lib. i. cap. 31. [al. 35.] lib. iii. сар. 11. p. 192.

a See vol. ii. p. 305.

Ch. xxxviii. num. xxiv.

h Vol. ii. p. 250.

e Ibid. p. 250-258.

See here, p. 219. and vol. iv. p. 155.

6

obscurity of the gospel of Peter in Serapion's censure of it. Eusebius, having given an account of the two epistles of St. Peter, proceeds, But the book entitled his Acts, ' and that called the Gospel according to him, and that styled 'his Preaching, and the Revelation under his name, we 'know that they have not been delivered down to us in the ' number of catholic writings, forasmuch as no ecclesiasti'cal writer of the ancients, or of our time, has made use of ' testimonies out of them.' In another place he says, 'He' 'had given a catalogue of such books of scripture as, ac'cording to the ecclesiastical tradition, are true, genuine, ' and universally acknowledged, and of others that are controverted, and yet appear to have been known to many; 'that by this means we may know these from such as have 'been published by heretics under the names of apostles, 'as containing the gospels of Peter, and Thomas, and Mat'thias, and some others; and the Acts of Andrew and John, and other apostles: which books none of the ecclesiastical 'writers in the succession of the apostles have vouchsafed 'to mention.' Our author's expressions are very strong: but we may hence conclude, that little notice had been taken of these books by ancient writers.

2. These books do not overthrow the evangelical history, but confirm it.

:

m

As formerly said, 'These apocryphal books confirm the history of the genuine and authentic scriptures of the 'New Testament. They are written in the names of such, as our authentic scriptures say were apostles, or com'panions of apostles. They all suppose the dignity of our 'Lord's person, and a power of working miracles, together 'with a high degree of authority, to have been conveyed by him to his apostles.'

Every one who observes that these books are called Gospels, or Preachings of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Matthias, Bartholomew, or Acts of Paul, Andrew, John, and other apostles, must suppose that the composers did not intend to disparage them, whatever they might do in the event. No, they had great respect for them, and knew that other christians had the like: therefore by recording traditions, which they pretended to have received, concerning the discourses and miracles of Christ and his apostles, they endeavoured to recommend some particular opinions, which they had

i Ib. p. 264, 265.

cap.

3. p. 72. A.

k Cited vol. iv. p. 98, from H. E. 1. iii.

Cited vol. iv. p. 97, from Euseb. H. E. l. iii. cap. 25. p. 97.

m See vol. iii. p. 435.