thew, Mark, Luke and John, and takes notice of the reason for writing of Mark's Gospel. He quotes the Acts of the apostles, as written by Luke. He frequently and expressly quotes the fourteen epistles of St. Paul-also the first of Peter and the first of John. He received the epistle of Jude and the Revelation.

Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in the year two hundred, in an epistle to some who had too much respect for a work, entitled, the Gospel of Peter, says, " We brethren receive Peter and the other apostles as Christians: but as skilful men, we reject those writings which are falsely ascribed to them, well knowing that we have received none such.

There will be no need of an apology for inserting the strong testimony of Origen, about the year 250 or 260, whose learning, piety, and strict attention to sacred things, no one will dispute, however they may object to particular doctrines held by him. His testimony is recorded by Eusebius. He says, "I have understood by tradition, there are four Gospels, which, and only which, are to be allowed without contradiction by the church of God, under Heaven. As to the first, it was written by one Matthew, formerly a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ; he published it written in Hebrew, for the sake of those Jews who believed. The second is Mark's Gospel, who wrote it as Peter expounded to him; whom also he confesses to be his son, in his catholic epistle, and in these words-the church which is at Babylon, (meaning Rome) elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. And the third is the Gospel according to St. Luke, which is

commended by St. Paul. He wrote it for the sake of the heathens. Lastly, St. John's Gospel."

Let me here add the observations of the excellent Lardner, before mentioned, on this subject. "Though many works of the primitive times of Christianity have not come down to us, we have seen and examined a large number of works, of learned Christian writers, in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and that part of Africa that used the Latin tongue; and in Crete, Greece, Italy and Gaul: all in the space of one hundred and fifty years after writing the first book of the New-Testament. In the remaining works of Irenæus, Clement, of Alexandria and Tertullian, though some works of each have been lost, there are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New-Testament, than from all the works of Cicero, (though of so uncommon excellence for thought and style) in the writers of all characters for several ages, -insomuch, that we have reason to think, a late learned and judicious divine,* did not exaggerate beyond the truth, when he said, that the facts upon which the Christian religion is founded, have a stronger proof, than any facts at such a distance of time; and that the books which convey them down to us, may be proved to be uncorrupted and authentic, with greater strength than any other writings of equal antiquity.

Even Julian the apostate, acknowledges the Gospels, as written by those whose names they bear. He mentions the evangelists by name, and quotes many passages. He particularly treats of the first chapter

Dr. Jeremiah Hunt.

of John's Gospel-of Christ being the Word of God, and the Word being made flesh, and of the acceptation in which it was at that time received.*

He plainly confesses, "that those were Peter's, Paul's, Matthew's, Mark's and Luke's works, read by Christians under their names;"+ and one might reasonably suppose, that Julian, in that early day, knew, at least, as much of this dispute as our author; and he is at least, one person who tells us who wrote them.

It is not forgotten, that it has been said, that the canon of Scripture was first settled in the council of Laodicea-but this, as most of our author's assertions, will not appear to be the case to any one, who will read their canon for himself. It is therein declared, “That private psalms ought not to be read in the churches, nor any books not canonical, but only the canonical books of the Old and New-Testament." Then follows a list of those books that are canonical. The same may be observed on the acts of the third council of Carthage, in these words; "Moreover it is ordained, that nothing beside the canonical Scriptures be read in the churches, under the name of the divine Scriptures."

Surely there is nothing in either of these that will any way justify our author's assertion, "That the canon of Scripture was settled in these or any other councils."

I will take the liberty of adding an extract from the famous Mr. Le Clerc, as immediately applicable to this subject. He says, "We no where read of the

* Jul. part ii. 327. lib. x. 333.

† Cyril, book x.

council of the apostles, nor any assembly of the governors of Christian churches, convened to determine by their authority, that such a number of Gospels, neither more or fewer, should be received. Nor was

there any need of it, since it is well known to all, from the concurring testimony of cotemporaries, that the four Gospels are the genuine writings of those whose names they bear: and since it is also manifest there is not any thing in them unworthy of those, to whom they are ascribed, nor any thing at all contrary to the Revelation of the Old-Testament, nor to right reason. There was no need of a fynod of grammarians to declare magisterially, what are the works of Cicero or Virgil. In like manner the authority of the Gospels has been established by general and perpetual consent, without any decree of the governors of the church. We may say the same of the apostolical epistles, which owe all their authority, not to the decisions of any ecclesiastical assembly, but to the concurring testimony of all Christians, and the things themselves which are contained in them." And another from St. Augustine-" We know the writings of the apostles," says he, " as we know the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and others; and as we know the writings of divers ecclesiastical authors, for as much as they have the testimony of contemporaries, and of those who have lived in succeeding ages."

This part of the argument shall now be concluded by another quotation, equally applicable, from the famous Dr. Hartley on Man. "The manner in which the books of the Old and New-Testament have been

handed down from age to age, proves both their genu

на

ineness, and the truth of the principal facts contained in them. 1st. It resembles the manner in which all other genuine books and true histories have been conveyed down to posterity-as the writings of the Greek and Roman poets, orators, philosophers and historians, were esteemed by these nations to be transmitted to them by their forefathers, in a continued succession, from the times in which the respective authors lived; so have the books of the Old-Testament by the Jewish nation, and those of the New by the Christians; and it is an additional evidence in the last case, that the primitive Christians were not a distinct nation, but a great multitude of people, dispersed through all the nations of the Roman empire, and even extending themselves beyond the bounds of that empire. As the Greeks and Romans always believed the principal facts of their historical books, so the Jews and Christians did more, and never seem to have doubted of the truth of any part of them. Now I suppose that all sober minded men admit the books usually ascribed to the Greek and Roman historians, philosophers, &c. to be genuine, and the principal facts related or alluded to in them, to be true; and that one chief evidence for this is, the general traditionary one here recited. They ought therefore to pay the same regard to the books of the Old and New-Testament, (independent of their divinity) since they have the same, or greater reason for it. It is not to be conceived that whole nations, should either be deceived themselves, or concur to impose on others, by forgeries of books or facts. These books and facts must therefore be genuine and true; and it is a strong additional evidence of this, that all nations must be