many in their catalogues. Still, however, a majority of them have it; and some, who omitted it, are known to have received it as Canonical.

This also will account for the fact, that many of the manuscripts of the New Testament are without the Revelation, so that there are extant comparatively few copies of this book.

But the authenticity and authority of the Apocalypse, stand on ground which can never be shaken; and the internal evidence is strong in favour of a divine origin. There is a sublimity, purity, and consistency in it, which could not have proceeded from an impostor. In addition to all which, we observe, that the fulfilment of many of the predictions of this book is so remarkable, that to many learned men who have attended to this subject, the evidence from this source alone is demonstrative of its divine origin. And there is every reason to believe, that in the revolution of events, this book which is now, to many, sealed with seven seals, will be opened, and will be so explained, that all men will see and acknowledge, that it is indeed "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass-and sent and signified it by his angel, to his servant John; who bare record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ."*

After having given a particular account of the several books of the New Testament, it may be useful to subjoin a few general remarks on the testimony exhibited.

1. The writings of the apostles, from the time of their first publication, were distinguished by all Christians from all other books. They were spoken of by the Fathers as Scripture; as Divine Scripture; as inspired of the Lord; as, given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The only question ever agitated respecting any of these books, was, whether they were indeed the productions of the apostles? When this was clear, no man disputed their divine authority; or considered it lawful to dissent from their dictates. They were considered as occupying the same place, in regard to inspiration and authority, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and in imitation of this denomination, they were called the New Testament. The other names by which they were distinguished, were such as these: The Gospel; the Apostles; the Divine Gospels; the Evangelical Instrument; the Scriptures of the Lord; Holy Scriptures; Evangelic Voice; Divine Scriptures; Oracles of the Lord; Divine Fountains; Fountains of the Divine Fulness.

2. These books were not in obscurity, but were read with veneration and avidity by multitudes. They were read not only by the learned, but by the people; not only in private, but constantly in the

public assemblies of Christians, as appears by the explicit testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyprian, and Augustine. And no other books were thus venerated and read. If some other pieces were publicly read, yet the Fathers always made a wide distinction between them and the Sacred Scriptures.

3. In all the controversies which arose in the church, these books were acknowledged by all to be decisive authority, unless by some few of the very worst heretics, who mutilated the Scriptures, and forged others for themselves, under the names of the apostles. But most of the heretics endeavoured to support their opinions by an appeal to the writings of the New Testament. The Valentinians, the Montanists, the Sabelleians, the Artemonists, the Arians, received the Scriptures of the New Testament. The same was the case with the Priscillianists, and the Pelagians. In the Arian controversy, which occupied the church so long and so earnestly, the Scriptures were appealed to by both parties; and no controversy arose respecting the authenticity of the books of the New Testament.

4. The avowed enemies of Christianity, who wrote against the truth, recognized the books which are now in the Canon, as those acknowledged by Christians in their times, for they refer to the matters contained in them, and some of them mention several books by name; so that it appears from the

accounts which we have of these writings, that they were acquainted with the volume of the New Testament. CELSUs, who lived and wrote less than a hundred years after the apostles, says, as is testified by Origen, who answered him-"I could say many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those too, different from what is written by the disciples of Jesus, but I purposely omit them." That Celsus here refers to the gospels, there can be no doubt. In another place, he says, "These things, then, we have alleged to you, out of your own writings." And that the gospels to which he referred, were the same as those which we now possess, is evident from his references to matters contained in them.

PORPHYRY, in the third century, wrote largely and professedly against the Christian religion; and although his work has shared the same fate as that of Celsus, yet, from some fragments which have been preserved, we can ascertain, that he was well acquainted with the four gospels; for the things to which he objects are still contained in them.

But the emperor JULIAN expressly mentions Matthew and Luke, and cites various things out of the Gospels. He speaks also of John, and alleges, that none of Christ's disciples beside ascribed to him the creation of the world: and, also, "That neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, have dared to call Jesus, God."-"That John wrote

later than the other Evangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were converted." He alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and Sergius Paulus; to Peter's vision; and to the circular letter sent by the apostles, at Jerusalem, to the churches; which things are recorded in the Acts of the apostles.*

Now, if the genuineness of these books could have been impugned on any plausible grounds, or if any doubt had existed respecting this matter, surely such men as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, could not have been ignorant of the matter, and would not have failed to bring forward every thing of this kind which they knew; for their hostility to Christianity was unbounded. And it is certain, that Porphyry did avail himself of an objection of this kind, in regard to the book of Daniel. Since, then, not one of the early enemies of Christianity ever suggested a doubt of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, we may rest assured, that no ground of doubt existed in their day; and that the fact of these being the genuine writings of the men whose names they bear, was too clearly established to admit any doubt. The genuineness of the books of the New Testament having been admitted by friends and enemies,-by the orthodox

*See Lardner and Paley.