tians who denied its Canonical authority, admitted it to be the work of an Apostle. Such indeed was the opinion of Severus himself, and his opinion has obtained the sanction of the Church; but the Christians whom he taxes with folly or impiety for rejecting this sacred book, must have supported their error by attributing the Apocalypse to some uninspired writer; to John the Presbyter, or to Cerinthus the Heretic, If the rules of grammar and of logic authorise, or at least allow me to translate plerique by the greater number, the Ecclesiastical History of the fourth century illustrates and justifies this obvious interpretation. From a fair comparison of the populousness and learning of the Greek and Latin Churches, may I not conclude that the former contained the greater number of Christians qualified to pass sentence on a mysterious prophecy composed in the Greek language? May I not affirm, on the authority of St. Jerom, that the Apocalypse was generally rejected by the Greek Churches? Quod si eam (the Epistle to the Hebrews) Latinorum consuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas; nec Græcorum Ecclesiæ Apocalypsim Johannis eadem libertate suscipiunt. Et tamen nos utramque suscipimus, nequaquam hujus femporis consuetudinem, sed veterum auctoritatem sequentes." Epistol. ad Dardanum, tom. iii. p. 68. It is not my design to enter any farther into the controverted history of that famous book; but I am called upon* to defend my Remark that the Apocalypse was tacitly excluded from the sacred canon by the council of Laodicea. (Canon LX.) To defend my Remark, I need only state the fact in a simple but more particular manner. The assembled Bishops of Asia, after enumerating all the books of the Old and New Testament which should be read in churches, omit the Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse alone; at a time when it was rejected or questioned by many pious and learned Christians, who might deduce a very plausible argument from the silence of the Synod. 2. When the Council of Trent resolved to pronounce sentence on the Canon of Scripture, the opinion which prevailed, after some debate, was to declare the Latin Vulgate authentic and almost infallible; and this sentence, which was guarded by formidable anathemas, secured all the books of the Old and New Testament which composed that ancient version, " che si dichiarassero tutti in tutte le parte come si trovano nella Biblia Latina, esser di Divina è ugual autorità." (Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, L. ii. p. 147. Helmstadt (Vicenza) 1761.) When the merit of that version was discussed, the majority of the theologians urged, with confidence and success, that it was absolutely necessary to receive the Vulgate as authentic and inspired, unless they wished to abandon the victory to the Lutherans, and the honours of the By Mr. Davis, p. 41. and by Dr. Chelsum, Remarks, p. 57. church "In contrario della church to the Grammarians. maggior parte de' teologi era detto... che questi nuovi Grammatici confonderanno ogni cosa, e sarà fargli giudici e arbitri della fede; e in luogo de' teologi e canonisti, converrà tener il pri moconto nell'assumere a Vescovati e Cardinalati de' pedanti." (Istoria del Concilio Tridentino, L. ii. p. 149.) The sagacious historian, who had studied the Council, and the judicious Le Courayer, who had studied his author (Histoire du Concile de Trente, tom. i. p. 245. Londres 1736), consider this ridiculous · reason as the most powerful argument which influenced the debates of the Council: but Mr. Davis, jealous of the honour of a synod which placed tradition on a level with the Bible, affirms that FraPaolo has given another more substantial reason on which these Popish bishops built their determination, That after dividing the books under their consideration into three classes; of those which had been always held for divine; of those whose authenticity had formerly been doubted, but which by use and custom had acquired canonical authority; and of those which had never been properly certified; the Apocalypse was judiciously placed by the Fathers of the Council in the second of these classes. The Italian passage, which, for that purpose, Mr. Davis has alleged at the bottom of his page, is indeed taken from the text of Fra-Paolo; but the reader, who will give himself the trouble, or rather the pleasure, of perusing that incomparable historian, will discover that Mr. Davis has only CLEMENS, mistaken a motion of the opposition, for a measure of the administration. He will find, that this critical division, which is so erroneously ascribed to the public reason of the council, was no more than the ineffectual proposal of a temperate minority, which was soon over-ruled by a majority of artful statesmen, bigotted monks, and dependent bishops. "We have here an evident proof that Mr. Gibbon is equally expert in misrepresenting a modern as an ancient writer, or that he wilfully conceals the most material reason, with a design, no doubt, to instil into his reader a notion, that the authenticity of the Apocalypse is built on the slightest foundation."* VII. I had cautiously observed (for I was apprized of the obscurity of the subject) that the Epistle of Clemens does not lead us to discover any traces of Episcopacy either at Corinthor Rome.† In this observation I particularly alluded to the republican form of salutation, "The church of God inhabiting Rome, to the church of God inhabiting Corinth;" without the least mention of a bishop or president in either of those ecclesiastical assemblies. Yet the piercing eye of Mr. Davis can discover not only traces, but evident proofs, of Episcopacy, in this Epistle of Clemens; and he actually quotes two passages, in which he distinguishes by capital *Davis, p. 44. + Gibbon, p. 592. N. 110. Davis, p. 44, 45. letters letters the word BISHOPS, whose institution Clemens refers to the Apostles themselves. But can Mr. Davis hope to gain credit by such egregious trifling? While we are searching for the origin of bishops, not merely as an ecclesiastical title, but as the peculiar name of an order distinct from that of presbyters, he idly produces a passage, which, by declaring that the apostles established in every place bishops and deacons, evidently confounds the presbyters with one or other of those two ranks. I have neither inclination nor interest to engage in a controversy which I had considered only in an historical light; but I have already said enough to shew, that there are more traces of a disingenuous mind in Mr. Davis, than of an episcopal order in the Epistle of Clemens. VIII. Perhaps, on some future occasion, I may EUSEBIUS examine the historical character of Eusebius; perhaps I may inquire, how far it appears from his words and actions, that the learned bishop of Casarea was averse to the use of fraud, when it was employed in the service of religion. At present, I am only concerned to defend my own truth and honour, from the reproach of misrepresenting the sense of the ecclesiastical historian. Some of the charges of Mr. Davis on this head are so strong, so pointed, so vehemently urged, that he seems to have staked, on the event of the trial, the merits of our respective characters. If his assertions are true, I deserve the contempt of learned, and the abhorrence of good men. If they are false, * * * 1. I had |