trinal or preceptive writing, as of authority, unless it were known to be the work of an apostle. Consequently, the epistle to the Hebrews, if written by an apostolical man only, should not be esteemed canonical.

Grotius likewise supposed the second epistle ascribed to Peter, not to have been written by the apostle Simon Peter, but by Simeon, chosen bishop of Jerusalem after the death of James the Just, whose epistle we have. Which Simeon lived to the time of Trajan, when he was crucified for the name of Christ. Upon which I only observe at present, that if this Simeon be the writer of this epistle, it should not be a part of canonical scripture.

The same learned man supposeth the second and third epistles, called St. John's, not to have been written by John the apostle, but by another John, an elder or presbyter, who lived about the same time, and after him at Ephesus.

And the epistle called St. Jude's, he thought to have been written by one of that name, who was bishop of Jerusalem in the time of the emperor Adrian, and not till after there had been several other bishops of that church, since the death of the forementioned Simeon. If so, I believe all men may be of opinion, that this epistle ought not to be placed in the canon of the New Testament.

It may not be thought right, if I should here entirely omit Mr. Whiston,* whose canon consisted of the Apos

*The same Mr. Whiston who is referred to in a note, on page 193, of these Lectures.

tolical Constitutions, and divers other books, as sacred, beside those generally received: and the Constitutions, in particular, as the most sacred of all the canonical books of the New Testament. *

*

*

I have been sometimes apt to think, that the best canon of the New Testament would be that which may be collected from Eusebius of Caesarea, and seems to have been the canon of some in his time.

The canon should consist of two classes. In the first should be those books which he assures us were then universally acknowledged, and had been all along received by all Catholic Christians. These are the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, one epistle of St. Peter, and one epistle of St. John. These only should be of the highest authority, from which doctrines of religion may be proved.

In the other class should be placed those books of which Eusebius speaks, as contradicted in his time, though well known: concerning which there were doubts, whether they were written by persons whose names they bear, or whether the writers were apostles of Christ. These are the epistle to the HEBREws, the epistle of JAMES, the second of PETER, the second and third of JOHN, the epistle of JUDE, and the REVELATION. These should be reckoned doubtful, and contradicted: though many might be of opinion, that there is a good deal of reason to believe them genuine. And they should be allowed to be publicly read in Christian assemblies, for the edification of the people: but not tɔ

be alleged, as affording, alone, sufficient proof of any doctrine."*

Professor Norton.

"There is no historical evidence which justifies us in believing, that what assumes to be a second Epistle of Peter, and that which has been ascribed to the Apostle Jude, were the works of those authors; and the character and contents of the writings are unfavorable to the supposition. The ancient Christians are not responsible for any error concerning their authorship; for it does not appear that they were generally considered as genuine during the first three centuries. It seems to me most probable, that they were composed in the first half of the second century, under the names of these Apostles; and that the writer of each assumed a character not his own, rather by way of rhetorical artifice, than with intentional fraud."t

It is in the second epistle of Peter, let it be observed, that we find an incidental allusion to the Transfiguration. With the exception of this slight reference, that occurrence is nowhere mentioned in any of the writings which bear the names of those three persons who are said to have been in the mount when it took place. If, therefore, the "second epistle of Peter," so termed, were not

*Lardner's "Supplement to the Credibility of the Gospel History:" chapter ii. Quarto edition of Lardner's Works, published in London, pp. 142, 143, 144.

Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels," vol. ii. pp. 162, 163.

written by him, we have no account of the Transfiguration, from any one who is alleged to have witnessed it.

The following persons, though they allude to the Gogpels (some to all and others to one or two of them) and to the majority of the Epistles, make no mention whatever, in any of their writings, of the book of Revelation. Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom about A. D. 166, and who was at one time Bishop of Smyrna, one of the Churches to which the Apocalypse was directed; Marcion, Tatian, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Athenagoras of Alexandria, all of whom lived during the second century.

We are informed by Rev. Jeremiah Jones, that the Apocalypse was omitted from the canonical catalogue of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D. 340; from that of the Bishops assembled in the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364; also from the one written by Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 375; and from that of Philastrius, Bishop of Brixia, in Venice, as late as the year 380.

Dyonisius of Alexandria, who flourished about the middle of the third century, critically analyzed the Revelation, and argued from its style and some of its sentiments, that it could not be the work of the apostle John.

The style of the Gospel and Epistles attributed to John is remarkably plain and simple; while most of the Apocalypse is very gorgeously embellished. From this fact alone some have found it difficult to believe that all

these writings proceeded from the pen of one and the same individual.

The book of Revelation is addressed to the Churches of Pergamos, (1) Thyatira, (2) Sardis, (3) Philadel phia, (4) Smyrna, (5) Ephesus, (6) and Laodicea, (7.) Now it is admitted by some men of great research, among whom may be named Epiphanius and Grotius, that in the time of the apostle John there was no church in existence in Thyatira. This being the case, it would seem that the Revelation could not have been written by John,—at least, not the whole of it, as it now stands.

Nevertheless, it is said to have been received as a canonical book, by the following persons among the Fathers, as they are termed, viz. Origen, Cyprian, Novatus, Commodian, Victorinus and Methodius, in the third century; Arnobius, Lactantius, Athanasius, Basil, Amphilocus, Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory Nyssen, Jerome, Augustine, Rufinus, and the Council of Carthage, in the fourth century; and Sulpicius Severus and Pope Innocent I. in the beginning of the fifth century.

Although the book is characterized by much sublimity, and is therefore attractive to the reader who has a love for intellectual grandeur, it must be acknowledged that some parts of it breathe a spirit of vindictiveness hardly compatible, to say the least, with the character of Jesus Christ, from whom it pretends to be a Revelatlon.