more doubt relative to the other points involved in our position. Let us test the truth of this by analogous applications; and as the question is exceedingly important, we must be pardoned for extending our remarks to an unusual particularity of detail. We have, for our individual satisfaction, examined the Christian writers of the first two centuries, whose works are yet extant, with reference to the quotations made by them from the New Testament, the formulas, and frequency of those quotations, &c.

We begin with the epistle of Barnabas. Pearson, Dupin, Cave, Archbishop Wake and others, think it genuine; that is, the production of the person whose name it bears. Cotelerius, Basnage, Jones, and many more recent writers and critics think otherwise. It is allowed to be of great antiquity. It has no inscription, not being directed to any particular church, but was early thought to have been directed to the Hebrews. Lardner does not find a quotation in this epistle from the New Testament, in which the book or writer is named. There are some passages apparently quoted from Matthew's gospel, and many passages closely resembling others in the epistles to the Galatians, to the Hebrews, and other epistles of Paul. But it is uncertain whether they were designed as quotations, or are only natural resemblances in the opinions and expressions of, perhaps, a cotemporary Christian writer.

Hermas, to whom the Pastor is attributed, was, according to Jerome, the same mentioned by Paul in the epistle to the Romans. But this is denied by many, doubted by more, while it is admitted also by very respectable critics. Lardner thinks the Pastor genuine, and written about the time of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, i. e. A. D. 94-100. In it are no express citations, either from the Old Testament or the New; yet there are frequent allusions and references, which indicate that the writer was acquainted with the books now collected in the New Testament. Lardner concludes his examination of Hermas thus: "The allusions, which I have here produced from Hermas, relate to these several books of the New Testament: the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, [possibly Mark, though doubtful,] the Acts, the epistles to the Romans, 1 & 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Philipp., Coloss., 1 Thess., 2 Tim., Hebrews, epistle of James, [very frequent, as Semler admits,] 1 & 2 Peter, epistles of John, Jude, and the book of Revelation." These allusions are in some cases more, and in others, less distinct. But in no instance is a book distinctly quoted, or a writer named.

We come now to Clement of Rome, whose first epistle to the Corinthians has already, in our preceding number, been particularly noticed. This is by far the best authenticated and most valuable relic of the first century of the Christian era. The most intelligent and judicious critics admit its genuineness. That it is the

same which Eusebius and Irenæus had, there can be no doubt; no more than there can be whether the orations against Cataline, or that for the poet Archias, were the productions of Cicero, and the same which existed seventeen centuries ago. We have already adduced the testimony of Eusebius relative to the epistle of Clement. It may interest our readers, while it will be found to strengthen our argument, to exhibit, in full, the opinion of Irenæus with reference to the same epistle. Speaking of the apostolical traditions, preserved in the church at Rome, Irenæus says:

"The blessed apostles, founding and building up this church, committed the episcopacy (or oversight) of it to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul in his epistle to Timothy makes mention: Anacletus succeeded Linus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopacy, who had also seen the apostles and conferred with them, and had the preaching of the apostles sounding [in his cars,] and their tradition before his eyes. Nor was he alone; for as yet there were many remaining who were taught by the apostles. During the time of Clement, a dissention of no slight kind arising among the brethren at Corinth, the church in Rome sent a most appropriate (or weighty) epistle to the Corinthians, urging them to peace and re-establishing their faith, and that tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, announcing that there was one omnipotent God, the maker of heaven and earth, the creator of man, who brought a deluge, and called Abraham, who led a people from the land of Egypt, who spake to Moses, who gave the law and sent the prophets, who prepared a fire for the devil and his angels. That He is held by the churches to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, those who are disposed can learn from this writing, (i. e. the epistle of Clement) and can thus learn the apostolic tradition of this church, since this epistle is much older than those who falsely assert and teach that there is another god above Him who is the creator of the world, and the maker of those things which exist."*

It is foreign to our purpose to comment on this passage farther than to remind the reader that, according to Irenæus, the epistle of Clement was written by a companion of the apostles, in the name and on behalf of a church, many members of which had been taught by the apostles, to another Christian church, which had been founded by Paul, and to which he had directed two epistles, and in which church there must have been many who had been converted under his preaching.

The epistle of Clement, is then an invaluable document, expressing the opinions of the Roman and Corinthian Christians at the close of the first century, at the latest. What books of the New Testament are quoted in this epistle, and in what way are these books quoted? Clement wrote this official epistle, as we have already seen, to appease dissensions. In doing this he says, "Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle," and then quotes from the first epistle to the Corinthians. This is the only quotation of any book of the New Testament by the name of its author; and yet his epistle abounds, or rather may be said to be made up with passages quoted from the Old Testament and the New. Writing to those Corinthians to whom Paul had written, it was very natural for him to name that apostle, for whom # Opera Irenæi. 1. iii. c. 3. Oxford edition, By Grabe.

both he and they cherished an affectionate remembrance. With this exception, he quotes from the Scriptures as perfectly well known and received by the Romans and Corinthians, without ever appearing to think for a moment that it was necessary he should name the writer. In this way he repeatedly quotes the gospels, except John's, the epistles to the Romans, 1 & 2 Čor. Gal., Col., Eph., Philipp., 1 & 2 Tim., Titus, Hebrews, epistle of James, and 1 Peter. Perhaps he also quotes the Acts, and first epistle to the Thessalonians, and there are passages closely resembling 2 Peter and Jude. It deserves to be repeated, that the epistle to the Hebrews is quoted in precisely the same way as the other books of the New Testament, and more frequently than any of them. It should also be stated, that Clement has nowhere, so far as we can learn, quoted any apocryphal book. His epistle was, to all appearance, designedly composed of scriptural extracts. At all events, this is a very marked characteristic of it. If the epistle to the Hebrews was not received by Clement as the production of "the blessed Paul," and if, of course, he could not have received it as canonical, it certainly is strange, that the bishop of Rome, writing in the name of his Christian flock to the companions, disciples, and immediate successors of Paul, should appeal to an apocryphal, mystical, unintelligible book, more frequently than to any other part of the New Testament; should appeal to it in exactly the same way as to the other acknowledged writings of apostolic origin. It requires rational credulity to believe, or rational ingenuity to solve, this mystery. The great importance of this witness has engrossed a larger space than it will be necessary to allow ro any other of the apostolical fathers.

Ignatius comes next in order. He was bishop of Antioch at the close of the first, and the beginning of the second century. There are fifteen epistles extant, which have been ascribed to this father. Of these, eight are unquestionably spurious, the forgeries of a later age. Of the other seven, there are two classes, the larger and the smaller, the former of which are greatly interpolated and otherwise adulterated. The smaller epistles have met with reception among many learned men, who, however, admit that they too are in some instances corrupted. On the other hand, many learned men deny their genuineness, and reject them as spurious. Among these are the Magdeburg Centuriators, a very learned corps, Calvin, Ernesti, Roesler, Semler, and many others. Their genuineness is very doubtful, and, of consequence, their authority is very small. In the seven smaller epistles, ascribed to Ignatius, we find only one book of the New Testament expressly named, which is the epistle to the Ephesians. Ignatius, writing to these same Ephesians, makes mention of an epistle by Paul, evidently referring to the epistle which he had addressed to them. This is the solitary instance in which Ignatius names the author of any book

in the New Testament. Besides this, however, there are plain allusions to the gospels of Matthew and John; and other allusions to the epistles to the Romans, 1 & 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Philipp., Col., 1 Thess., 2 Tim., Titus, perhaps to Philemon, to the Hebrews, 1 Pet., 1 & 3 John. He also uses terms, indicating a collection of the gospels, of the epistles of the apostles, and of the books of the New Testament in general.

We come now to Polycarp. He was bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John.* He lived to a very advanced age. He suffered martyrdom, but in what year is questionable; Bishop Pearson fixes it as early as A. D. 148, and Archbishop Usher, as late as 169. There is extant one epistle of Polycarp, to the Philippians, written, probably, about A. D. 108-110. This epistle has been questioned by some, (what work of antiquity, scriptural or classical, has not been?) but is admitted to be genuine by the most discriminating and judicious critics. It is the earliest production of the fathers, with which Storr commences his rigid demonstration of the genuineness of the New Testament.† Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, expressly states that Paul wrote to them. He also quotes 1 Cor. vi. 2., adding: "As Paul teaches." Polycarp thus affords distinct evidence for the genuineness of these two epistles. We have this epistle only in Wake's, and in Cave's translation, the latter of whom points out quotations from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the Acts, Romans, Eph., 1 Tim., 1 Pet., and 1 & 2 John. Lardner finds undoubted references, also, to 2 Cor., Gal., 1 & 2 Thess., 2 Tim., and a probable reference to the epistle to the Hebrews, which may be seen in Stuart, vol. i. p. 88, and which, as the Professor cautiously observes, "looks very much like a quotation." We have no doubt that a passage like this in Polycarp, which bore so peculiar and striking a resemblance to a passage in the epistle to the Romans, would be admitted on all hands as an indisputable reference. It must be kept in mind, that these quotations, with the exception of the epistle to the Philippians and the 1 Corinthians, are made without naming the book or the writer; made just as we make them now, presupposing the knowledge and reception of the books quoted both on the part of the writer and the reader. In the epistle of Polycarp, the books of the New Testament are also spoken of as "Sacred Scriptures," and "the oracles of the Lord." Polycarp has not quoted the gos

*Irenæus speaks of Polycarp thus: "Polycarp, who was not only taught by the apostles, and conversed with many of those who had seen our Lord, but was also appointed bishop, by the apostles, over the church of Smyrna in Asia; and whom we also saw in our early years, [in prima nostra aetate] (for he remained long, and to a good old age, and at last departed this life in a glorious martyrdom) taught those things, also, which he learnt from the apostles, and which he committed to the church, and which alone are true." Op. Ir. l. iii. c. 3. The natural inference from this passage is against the opinion, thought probable by Professor Stuart, that Irenæus went to Rome in company with Polycarp.

+ Storr seems to have committed an oversight in omitting the epistle of Clement, which affords distinct proof of the genuineuess of the first epistle to the Corinthians.

pels by Mark and John, nor the epistle of James, nor the epistle to Philemon, nor the book of Revelation, not to mention some other portions of the New Testament.

We ask here, with reference to the position above laid down, viz. that omission by Irenæus, to quote the epistle to the Hebrews, is no valid evidence against its canonical authority and apostolical origin, whether Polycarp allowed no other gospels to be canonical, but those of Matthew and Luke? Did he know of no others? Did the disciple of John never hear of the gospel by John? Did the bishop of Smyrna never hear of an epistle "to the angel of the church of Smyrna ? "* Did that early martyr never hear of the promise "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life?" But where is the evidence that he did, from his epistle? Papias was bishop of Hierapolis about A. D. 112. He is said to have been a companion of Polycarp, and one of John's hearers. This is asserted on the authority of Irenænus, and is highly probable. We have only a few fragments of his writings, which are preserved in Eusebius. Papias testifies that Mark, the disciple of Peter, and Matthew, recorded the actions and declarations of our Lord. Eusebius informs us that Papias also made quotations from the first epistle of Peter, and first of John. We will only ask whether Papias rejected the epistles of Paul, the gospel of Luke and John, &c. &c.?

We have now noticed all the writers, generally designated as apostolical fathers. We proceed to notice their successors, who flourished during the second century.

Justin, surnamed the Martyr, was born, according to Fabricius, about A. D. 90. His martyrdom, which occurred at Rome, is variously fixed by the learned, from A. D. 163 to 168. If we mistake not, only one book of the New Testament is specifically ascribed to its author by Justin. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he says, "A certain man by the name of John, in the Revelation, which was given him, predicted, &c." Justin frequently quotes what he calls the Memorabilia of the apostles. It has afforded matter for much discussion among the critics what is to be understood by this term. Hug supposes that it embraced the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke; and Paulus contends that it was a harmony of our four gospels. In his Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, Justin quotes from these gospels, as publicly known and read in the Christian churches. He also quotes from the Acts, epistles to the Rom., 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Philip., Col., 2 Thess., Hebrews, and 2 Peter. Of these quotations, those from the Acts, and the epistle to the Romans and the Hebrews, are most numerous, distinct and certain. We think it doubtful whether, in his two Apologies and his Dialogue, there is a quotation

*It has been thought by many, that Polycarp was himself this very "angel of the church" addressed in the Revelation.