are traced up to the age of their reputed author, or to ages near to his. A modern who fits down to compose the history of fome ancient period, has no ftronger evidence to appeal to for the most confident affertion, or the most undifputed fact, that he delivers, than writings, whofe genuinenefs is proved by the fame medium through which we evince the authenticity of ours. Nor, whilft he can have recourfe to fuch authorities as thefe, does he apprehend any uncertainty in his accounts, from the fufpicion of fpurioufnefs or impofture in his

materials.

V. It cannot be shown that any forgeries, properly fo called*, that is, writings published under the name of the person who did not compofe them, made their appearance in the first century of the Christian æra, in which century these epiftles undoubtedly exifted. I fhall fet down under this propofition the guarded words of Lardner him

* I believe that there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner's obfervations, that comparatively few of those books, which we call apocryphal, were strictly and originally forgeries. See Lardner, vol. xii. p. 167.

felf;

felf: "There are no quotations of any books of "them (fpurious and apocryphal books) in

66

66

the apoftolical fathers, by whom I mean. Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings "reach from the year of our Lord 70 to 7༠ "the year 108. I fay this confidently, because "I think it has been proved." Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.

Nor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive Chriftians. "Irenæus quotes not any of these books. "He mentions fome of them, but he never

quotes them. The fame may be faid of "Tertullian: he has mentioned a book "called 'Acts of Paul and Thecla;' but it is

66

only to condemn it. Clement of Alexan"dria and Origen have mentioned and quot"ed feveral fuch books, but never as autho

66

rity, and fometimes with express marks "of diflike. Eufebius quotes no fuch books "in any of his works. He has mentioned "them indeed, but how? Not by way of

66

approbation, but to fhow that they were ❝of little or no value; and that they never were received by the founder part of

66

"Chrif

"Chriftians." Now, if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent examination, we compare what the fame cautious writer had before faid of our received fcriptures, "that in the works of "three only of the above-mentioned fa"thers, there are more and larger quota❝tions of the fmall volume of the New "Teftament, than of all the works of Ci66 cero in the writers of all characters for "feveral ages;" and if, with the marks of obfcurity or condemnation, which accompanied the mention of the feveral apocryphal Christian writings, when they happened to be mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner's work completely and in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and what, having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclufion to affert, that these books were not only received from the beginning, but received with the greatest respect; have been publickly and folemnly read in the asfemblies of Chriftians throughout the world, in every age from that time to this; early tranflated into the languages of divers coun

tries and people; commentaries writ to explain and illustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all arguments of a religious nature; recommended to the perufal of unbelievers, as containing the authentic account of the Christian doctrine; when we attend, I fay, to this reprefentation, we perceive in it, not only full proof of the early notoriety of these books, but a clear and fenfible line of discrimination, which separates these from the pretenfions of any others.

The epiftles of St. Paul ftand particularly free of any doubt or confufion that might arife from this fource. Until the conclufion of the fourth century, no intimation appears of any attempt whatever being made to counterfeit these writings; and then it appears only of a single and obfcure inftance. Jerome, who flourished in the year 392, has this expreffion: "Legunt quidam et ❝ad Laodicenses; fed ad omnibus explo"ditur;" there is also an epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by every body*. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423, speaks of this epiftle in the same

*Lardner, vol. x. p. 103.

Dd

terms

terms*. Befide thefe, I know not whether any ancient writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed during the three first centuries of the church; and when it came afterwards to be mentioned, it was mentioned only to fhów, that, though such a writing did exift, it obtained no credit. It is probable that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is the epiftle which we now have under that title. If fo, as hath been already obferved, it is nothing more than a collection of fentences from the genuine epiftles; and was perhaps, at firft, rather the exercise of fome idle pen, than any ferious attempt to impofe a forgery upon the public. Of an epiftle to the Corinthians under St. Paul's name, which was brought into Europe in the prefent century, antiquity is entirely filent. It was unheard of for fixteen centuries; and at this day, though it be extant, and was firft found in the Armenian language, it is not, by the Chriftians of that country, received into their scripturés. I hope, after this, that there is no reader who will think there is any competition of cre*Lardner, vol. xi. p. 88.