ment only establish the truth of the miracles performed by the apoftles, and are not applicable to the miracles of our Saviour; yet, if we admit the three firft gofpels to be genuine, the truth of the Chriftian religion will be proved from the prophecies of Jefus. For if thefe gofpels were compofed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at the time in which all the primitive Chriftians affirm, that is, previous to the deftruction of Jerufalem, they mult be infpired; for they contain a circumftan. tial prophecy of the deftruction of Jerufalem, and determine the period at which it was accomplish ed. Now it was impoffible that human fagacity could forefee that event; for when it was predicted nothing was more improbable. The Jews were refolved to avoid an open rebellion, well knowing the greatnefs of their danger, and fubmitted to the oppreflions of their governors in the hope of obtaining redrefs from the court of Rome. The circumftance which gave birth to thefe misfortunes is fo trifling in itfelf, that, independent of its confequences, it would not deferve to be recorded. In the narrow entrance to a fynagogue in Cæfarea, fome perfon had made an offering of birds merely with a view to irritate the Jews. The infult excited their indignation, and occafioned the fhedding of blood. This feemingly trifling circumftance, ordained by HIM without whofe permiffion a fparrow cannot fall to the ground, gave rife to a bloody war, which ended in the fulfilment of our Saviour's prophecy, by the total deftruction of Jerufalem, and the dreadful maffacre of its inhabitants. See Jews, § 1133. Florus, who was then procurator of Judea, converted this private quarrel into public hoftilities, and compelled the Jewish nation to rebel, contrary to its wish and refolution, to avoid what the Jews had threatened, an impeachment before the Roman emperor, for his exceffive cruelties. But even after this rebellion had broken out, the deftruction of the temple was a very improbable event. It was not the practice of the Romans to deftroy the magnificent edifices of the nations which they fubdued; and of all the Roman gene-. rals, none was more unlikely to demolish fo ancient and auguft à building as Titus Vefpafian. So important then is the queftion, Whether the books of the New Teftament be genuine? that the arguments which prove their authenticity, prove alfo the truth of the Chriftian religion. Let us now confider the evidence which proves the authenticity of the New Teftament. public; on the contrary, we know that a liberal education was uncommon; books were fcarce, and the knowledge of them was confined to a few individuals in every nation. quar quo. The New Testament was read over three ters of the world, while profane writers were li mited to one ration or to one country. An un interrupted fucceffion of writers from the apofto. lic ages to the prefent time quote the facred wri. tings, or make allufions to them; and thefe tations and allufions are made not only by friends but by enemies. This cannot be afferted of even the beft claffic authors. And it is highly proba. ble, that the translations of the New Teftament were made fo early as the 2d century; and in a century or two after, they became very numerous, After this period, it was impoflible to forge new writings, or to corrupt the facred text, unless we ferent fentiments and different languages, and of can fuppofe that men of different nations, of dif ten exceedingly hoftile to one another, fhould all agree in one forgery. This argument is fo strong, that if we deny the authenticity of the New Teltament, we may with a thousand times more propriety reject all the other writings in the world; But as this fubject is of great importance, we we may even throw afide human teftimony itself. fhall confider it at more length; and to enable our readers to judge with the greater accuracy, (See MICHAELIS,) as tranflated by the judicious we shall state, from the valuable work of Michaelis, and learned Mr MARSH, the reafons which may induce a critic to fufpect a work to be fpurious. appearance in the world, whether it proceeded 1. When doubts have been made from its firft from the author to whom it is afcribed. 2. When the immediate friends of the pretended author, who were able to decide upon the subject, have denied it to be his production. 3. When a long series of years has elapfed after his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which it muft unavoidably have been mentioned and quo ted, had it really exifted. different from that of his other writings, or, in 4. When the ftyle is cafe no other remain, different from that which might reafonably be expected. s. When events are recorded which happen later than the time of the pretended author. 6. When opinions are ad vanced which contradict thofe he is known to maintain in his other writings: Though this lat ter argument alone leads to no pofitive conclu nion, or through forgetfulness to vary in the cir fion, fince every man is liable to change his opi cumftances of the fame relation, of which Jofe phus, in his Antiquities and Wars of the Jews, affords a ftriking example. We receive the books of the New Teftament as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the fame reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, Polybius, Plutarch, Cæfar, and Livy. We have the uninterrupted teftimony of all ages, and we have no rea- ed of the authenticity of the New Teftament, in 1. But it cannot be fhown that any one doubtfon to fufpect impofition. This argument is the period in which it firft appeared. 2. No an much ftronger when applied to the books of the cient accounts are on record whence we may con New Teftament, than when applied to any other clude it to be fpurious. 3. No confiderable pe swritings; for they were addreffed to large focie- riod elapfed after the death of the apoflet, ties, were often read in their prefence, and acknowledged by them to be the writings of the on the contrary, it is mentioned by their ad which the New Teftament was unknown; but, apofles. Whereas, the moft eminent profane trie on the contries, and the accounts of it in the ad tings which ftill remain, were addreffed only to in- century are ftill more numerous. 4. No argument dividuals, or to no perfons at all: and we have can be brought in its disfavour from the nature no authority to affirm that they were read in of the ftyle, it being exactly fuch as might be ex pected pected from the apoftles, not Attic but Jewish Greek. 5. No facts are recorded which happened after their death. 6. No doctrines are maintained which contradict the known tenets of the authors, fince, befide the New Teftament, no writings of the apostles exist. But, to the honour of the New Testament be it spoken, it contains numerous contradictions to the tenets and doctrines of the fathers in the 2d and 3d century, whofe morality was different from that of the golpel, which recommends fortitude and fubmiffion to unavoidable evils, but not that enthufiaftic ardour for martyrdom, for which these centuries are diftinguished; it alludes to ceremonies which in the following ages were either in disuse or totally unknown; all which circumstances infallibly demonftrate that the New Testament is not a production of either of those centuries. We fhall now confider the pofitive evidences for the authenticity of the New Teftament. These may be arranged under the three following heads: 1. The impoffis bility of a forgery, arifing from the nature of the thing itself. 2. The ancient Chriftian, Jewish, and Heathen teftimony in its favour. 3. Its own internal evidence. 1. The impoffibility of a forgery, arising from the nature of the thing itself, is evident. It is impoffible to eftablish forged writings as authentic in any place where there are perfons ftrongly inclined and well qualified to detect the fraud. Now the Jews were the moft violent enemies of Christianity. They put the founder of it to death; they perfecuted his difciples with implacable fury; and they were anxious to ftifle the new religion in its birth. If the writings of the New Tefta ment had been forged, would not the Jews have detected the imposture? Is there a fingle inftance oa record where a few individuals have impofed a hiftory upon the world against the teftimony of a whole nation? Would the inhabitants of Paleftine have received the gospels, if they had not had fufficient evidence that Jefus Chrift really appeared among them, and performed the miracles afcribed to him? Or would the churches of Rome or of Corinth have acknowledged the epiftles addrelled to them as the genuine works of Paul, if Paul had never preached among them? We might as well think to prove, that the hiftory of the Reformation is the invention of hiftorians; and that no revolution happened in Great Britain during the 17th century. 2. The fecond kind of evidence which we produce, to prove the authenticity of the New Tefta ment, is the teftimony of ancient writers, Chrif tians, Jews, and Heathens. In reviewing the evidence of teftimony, it will not be expected that we thould begin at the prefent age, and trace backwards the authors who have written on this fubject to the first ages of Christianity. This indeed, though a laborious talk, could be performed in the most complete manner; the whole feries of authors, numerous in every age, who have quoted from the books of the New Teftament, written commentaries upon them, tranflated them into different languages, or who have drawn up a lift of them, could be exhibited fo as to form fuch a perfect body of evi dence, that we imagine even a jury of deifts would find it impoffible, upon a deliberate and candid examination, to reject or disbelieve it.. We do not, however, fuppose that scepticism bas yet arrived at to great a height as to render fuch a tedious and circumftantial evidence neceffary. Paffing over the intermediate space, therefore, we fhall afcend at once to the fourth century, when the evidence for the authenticity of the New Teftament was fully established, and trace it back from that period to the age of the apoftles. This method of ftating the evidence will appear more natural, and will afford more fatisfaction, than that which has been usually adopted. It is furely more natural, when we inveftigate the truth of any fact which depends on a series of teftimony, to begin with thofe witneffes who lived neareft the prefent age, and whofe characters are beft eftablished. In this way we shall learn from themfelves the foundation of their belief, and the characters of thofe from whom they derived it; and thus we afcend till we arrive at its origin. This mode of investigation will give more fatisfac tion to the deift than the ufual way; and we believe no Chriftian, who is confident of the goodnefs of his caufe, will be unwilling to grant any proper conceffions. The deift will thus have an opportunity of examining, feparately, what he will confider as the weakest parts of the evidence, thofe which are exhibited by the earlieft Chriftian writers, confifting of expreffions, and not quotations, taken from the New Teftament. The Chriftian, on the other hand, ought to wish, that these apparently weak parts of the evidence were diftinctly examined, for they will afford an irrefragable proof that the New Teftament was not forged; and fhould the deift reject the evidence of thofe early writers, it will be incumbent on him to account for the origin of the Chriftian religion, which he will find more difficult than to admit the common hypothefis. In the 4th century we could produce the teftimonies of numerous witneffes to prove that the books of the New Teftament existed at that time; but it will be fufficient to mention their names, the time in which they wrote, and the fubftance of their evidence. This we shall prefent in a concife form in the following table, which is taken from Jones's New and Full Method of establishing the canon of the New Testament; but condenfed to fave room. It exhibits. I. The Names of the Writers. 2. The times in which they lived. The variation or agreement of their catalogues with ours now received; and 4. The books in which these catalogues are 3. I. Athanafius, Bp. of Alexandria. A. D. 315. The fame perfectly with ours now received. Fragment. Epift. Teftal. tom. 2. & in Synopf. tom. I. II. Cyril bishop of Jerusalem. A. D. 340. The fame with ours, only the Revelation is omitted. Catech. IV. ult. p. 101. III. The bishops affembled in the council of Laodicea. A. D. 364. The Revelation is omitted. Canon. LIX. N. B. The Canons of this council were not long afterwards received into the body of the cauons of the universal church. Mm 2 IV. IV. Epiphanius bifhop of Salamis in Cyprus. VI. Philaftrius bishop of Brixia in Venice A. D. 380. The fame with ours now received; except that he mentions only 13 of St Paul's epiftles (omitting very probably the Epiftle to the Hebrews), and leaves out the Revelations. Lib. de-Hæref. Numb. 87.' many, in a commentary upon this text of the Re- A. D. 230, CYPRIAN bishop of Carthage gives father) is watered like Paradife by four rivers, that the following teftimony: "The church (fays this is, by four gofpels." The Acts of the Apoftles are allo frequently quoted by Cyprian under that name, and under the name of "the Divine Scrip tures." In his various writings are fuch frequent this part of the teftimony beyond controversy. and copious citations of Scripture, as to place Nor is there, in the works of this eminent Afri can bishop, one quotation of a fpurious or apo cryphal Chriftian writing. A. D. 210, ORIGEN is a moft important evi dence. Nothing can be more peremptory upon writer of his learning and information, nothing the fubject now under confideration, and, from a more fatisfactory, than the declaration of Origen, preferved in an extract of his works by Eufebius: "That the four gofpels alone are received with heaven:" to which declaration is immediately out difpute by the whole church of God under fubjoined a brief history of the refpective authors, to whom they were then, as they are now, af cribed. The fentiments expreffed concerning the gofpels in all the works of Origen which remain, entirely correfpond with the teftimony here cited. His atteftation to the Acts of the Apostles is no lefs pofitive; "And Luke alfo once more founds the trumpet relating the Acts of the Apoftles." That the Scriptures were then univerfally read, is plainly affirmed by this writer in a pallage in which he is repelling the objections of Celfus, read by few only, and thofe ftudious perfons, but "That it is not in private books, or fuch as are the invifible things of God from the creation of in books read by every body, that it is written, the world are clearly feen, being understood by things that are made." It is to no purpose to fingle out quotations of Scripture from fuch a writer as this. We might as well make a felection of the quotations of Scripure in Dr Clarke's fer mons. They are fo thickly fown in the works of Origen, that Dr Mill fays, ". If we had all his works remaining, we should have before us al molt the whole text of the Bible." VII. Jerome. A. D. 382. The fame with ours, except that he speaks dubiously of the Epiftle to the Hebrews; though in other parts of his writings he receives it as canonical. Ep. ad Paulin. 83. Tract. 6. p. 2. Also commonly prefixed to the Latin vulgar. VIII. Ruffin prefbyter of Aquilegium. A. D. 390. It perfectly agrees with ours. Apoftol. § 36. int. Ep. Hieron. Par. 1. Trac. 3. Expofin Symb. p. 110. & inter Op. Cypr. p. 575. IX. Auftin-bishop of Hippo in Africa. A. D. 394. It perfectly agrees with ours. Chrift. 1. 2. c. 8. Tom. Op. 3. p. 25. De Doctrin. X. The XLIV. bishops affembled in the third council of Carthage. St Auftin was prefent at it. It perfectly agrees with ours. XLVII. & cap. ult. Vid. Canon. We now go back to Eufebius, who wrote about the year 315, and whofe catalogue of the books of the New Teftament we fhall mention at more length. "Let us obferve (fays he) the wri tings of the apoftle John, which are uncontradicted; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gofpel according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The author then proceeds to relate the occafions of writing the gospels, and the reafons for placing St John's the laft, manifeftly speaking of all the four as equal in their authority, and in the cer tainty of their original. The ad paffage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, " Of the Scriptures univerfally acknowledged, and of these that are not fuch." Eufebius begins his enumeration in the following manner: "In the firft place, are to be ranked the facred four Gofpels, then the book of the Acts of the Apoftles; after that are to be reckoned the Epiftles of St Paul; in the next place, that called the firft Epiftle of John and the Epiftle of Peter are to be efteemed authentic: after this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of St John; about which we shall obferve the different: opinions at proper feasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known or ap proved by the moft, are that called the Epiftle of James and that of Jude, the fecond of Peter, and of the gospels then received, the names of the A. D. 194, TERTULLIAN exhibits the number the 2d and 3d of John, whether they were writ- evangelifts, and their proper defignations, in and ten by the evangelift, or by another of the fame fhort fentence." Among the apoftles, John and He then proceeds to reckon up five Matthew teach us the faith; among apoftolical place spurious, in another controverted; evidently fage to be taken from Tertullian affords as com meaning the fame thing by thele two words. He plete an atteffation to the authenticity of the gor ufes fill ftronger terms with refpect to the pre- pels as can be well imagined. After enumerat tended golpels of Peter, and Thomas, and Mat- the churches which had been founded by Paul at thias, and fome others, which he fays are altoge- Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Theffalonica, Bame." others, not in our canon, which he calls in one ther abfurd and impious." men, Luke and Mark refreth it." The next pa and Ephefus, the church of Rome eftablished by John 4. D. 290, VICTORIN bishop of Pettaw in Ger. Peter and Paul, and other churches derived from John, he proceeds thus: "I fay then, that with them, but not with them only which are apofto lical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the fame faith, is that gofpel of Luke received from its first publication, which we fo zealously maintain," and prefently afterwards adds, "The fame authority of the apoftolical churches will fupport the other gofpels, which we have from them, and according to them, I mean John's and Matthew's, although that likewife which Mark publihed may be faid to be Peter's, whole interpreter Mark was." In another place Tertullian affirms, that the three other gofpels, as well as St Luke's, were in the hands of the churches from the beginning. This noble testimony proves incontestably the antiquity of the golpels, and that they were univerfally received that they were in the hands of all, and had been fo from the firft. And this evidence appears not more than 150 years after the publication of the books. Dr Lardner obferves, "that there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Teftament in this one Christian author, than there are of all the works of Cicero, in writers of all characters, for feveral ages. AD. 178, IRENEUS was bishop of Lyons, and is mentioned by Tertullian, Eufebius, Jerome, and Photius. In his youth he had been a difciple of Polycarp, who was a difciple of John. He af ferts of himself and his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up in all the principal churches the fucceffion of bishops to their firft inftitution. His teftimony to the four gofpels and Acts of the Apoftles is exprefs and pofitive. "We have not received," fays Irenæus, "the knowledge of the way of our falvation by any others than thofe by whom the gospel has been brought to us. Which gofpel they firft preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith. For after that our Lord rofe from the dead, and they (the apoftles) were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghoft coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the bleffings of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one alike, the gofpel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a gofpel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit, Mark alfo, the difciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the difciple of the Lord, who alfo leaned upon his breaft, like wife published a gospel while he dwelt at Ephefus in Alia." Irenæus then relates how Matthew begins his gofpel, how Mark begins and ends his; and gives the fuppofed reafons for doing fo. He umerates at length all the paffages of Chrift's tory. in Luke, which are not found in any of e other evangelifts. He ftates the particular dewith which St John compofed his gofpel, and ounts for the doctrinal declarations which prede the narrative. If any modern divine fhould write a book upon the genuineness of the gospels, he could not affert it more exprefsly, or ftate their original more diftinctly, than Irenæus hath done within little more than 100 years after they were published. Refpecting the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and its author, the teftimony of IRENEUS is no lefs explicit. Referring to the account of St Paul's converfion and vocation, in the 9th chapter of that book," Nor can they (fays he, meaning the parties with whom he argues) fhow, that he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the greatest exactness. In another place, he has actually collected the feveral texts, in which the writer of the history is reprefented as accompanying St Paul, which led him to exhibit a fummary of almoft the whole of the laft twelve chapters of the book. According to LARDNER, Irenæus quotes twelve of Paul's epiftles,, naming their author; alfo the first epiftle of Peter, the two firft epifties of John," and the Revelation. The epiftles of Paul which he omits are thofe addreffed to Philemon and the Hebrews. Eufebius fays, that he quotes the epiftle to the Hebrews, though he does not afcribe it to Paul. The work, however, is loft. A. D. 177, TATIAN, who is spoken of by Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome, compofed a harmony of the four gofpels, which he called Dioteffaron, of the four. This title, as well as the work, is remarkable, because it shows that then as well as now there were four, and only four, gofpels in general' ufe among Chrif tians. A. D 170, the churches of Lyons and Vienne in France fent an account of the lufferings of their martyrs to the churches of Alia and Phrygia, which has been preferved entire by Eufebius. And what carries in fome measure the teftimony of these churches to a higher age is, that they had now for their bishop Pothinus, who was ninety years old, and whofe early life confequently muft have immediately followed the times of the apoftles. In this epistle are exact references to the gofples of Luke and John, and to the acts of the Apoftles. The form of references is the fame as in all the preceding articles. That from St John is in thefe words: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, that whofoever killeth you, will think that he doth God fervice." Diftinct references are alfo made to other books, viz. Acts, Romans, Ephefians, Philippians, 1. Timo. thy, Peter, 1 John, Revelation. A. D. 140, Juftin Martyr compofed feveral books, which are mentioned by his difciple Tatian, by Tertullian, Methodius, Eufebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Phocius. In his writings between 20 and 30 quotations from the gofpels and Acts of the Apoftles are reckoned up, which are clear, diftinct, and copious; if each verfe be counted feparately, a much greater number; if each expreffion, ftill more. Jones, in his book on the Canon of the New Testament, ventures to affirm that he cites the books of which it confifts, particularly the four gofpels, above 200 times. We meet with quotations of three of the gofpels within the compass of half a page, viz. from Matthew xxv. 41. Luke x. 19. and Mark viii. 31. But all the 278 SCRIPTURE. the references in Juftin are made without mentioning the author; which proves that these books were perfectly well known, and that there were no others accounts of Chrift then extant, or, at leaft, no others fo received and credited as to make it necessary to add any marks of diftinction. But although Juftin mentions not the authors names, he calls the books Memoirs compofed by the Apofles; Memoirs compofed by the Apoftles and their Companions; which defcriptions, the lat ter especially, exactly fuit the titles which the Gofples and Acts, of the Apoftles now bear. He informs us, in his first apology, that the memoirs of the Apofiles, or the writings of the prophets, are read according as the time allows; and, when the reader has ended, the prefident makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of fuch excellent things. A few fhort obfervations will fhow the value of this teftimony. 1. The Memoirs of the Apoftles, Juftin in another place exprefsly tells us, are what are called gofpels. And that they were the gofpels which we now ufe is made certain by Juftin's numerous quotations of them, and his filence about any others. 2. He de fcribes the general ufage of the Chriftian church. 3. He does not fpeak of it as recent or newly inftituted, but in the terms in which men fpeak of eftablished cuftoms. Juftin alfo makes fuch allufions to the following books as fhows that he had read them: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephefians, Philippians, Coloffians 2 Theffaloni ans, Hebrews, 2 Peter; and he afcribes the Revelation to John, the Apoftle of Chrift. A. D. 116, PAPIAS, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Irenæus attefts, and of the apoftolical age, as all agree, in a paffage quoted by Eufebius, from a work now loft, exprefsly afcribes the two first gofpels to Matthew and Mark; and in a manner which proves that thefe gofpels must have publicly borne the names of thefe authors at that time, and probably long before; for Papias does not fay, that one gofpel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark; but, affuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from what materials Mark collected his account, viz. from Peter's preaching, and in what language Matthew wrote, viz. in Hebrew. Whether Papias was well informed in this statement or not, to the point for which this teftimony is produced, namely, that thefe books bore thefe names at this time, his authority is complete. Papias himself declares that he received his accounts of Chriftianity from those who were acquainted with the apostles, and that thofe accounts which he thus received from the older Chriftians, and had committed to memory, he inferted in his books. He farther adds, that he was very folicitous to obtain every poffible information, especially to learn what the apostles faid and preached, valuing fuch information more than what was written in SECT. V. and the difcourfes he made to the people, and how he related his converfation with John and others who had feen the Lord, and how he re lated their fayings, and what he had heard concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrines, as he had received them from the eye-witneffes of the word of life; all which Polycarp related agreeable to the fcriptures. country and perfons of the apoftles is thus attek. Of Polycarp, whofe proximity to the age and ed, we have one undoubted epiftle remaining; ly 40 clear allufions to the books of the New Tefwhich, though a fhort performance, contains near. tament. (See POLYCARP.) This is ftrong evidence of the refpect which was paid to them by Chrif tians of that age. Among thefe, although the writings of St Paul are more frequently used by Polycarp than other parts of fcripture, there are copious allufions to the gofpel of St Matthew, fome to paffages in the gofpels both of Matthew and Luke, and fome which more nearly refemble the words in Luke. He thus fixes the authority of the Lord's prayer, and the ufe of it, among Chriftians. If, therefore, we pray the Lord to forgive us, we ought alfo to forgive. And again, With fupplication beseeching the all-feeing God, not to lead us into temptation. Lord: In another place he quotes the words of our teaching, Judge not, that ye be not judged. For "But remember what the Lord faid, give, and ye fhall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what meafure ye pofing Polycarp to have had thefe words from the mete, it shall be measured to you again." Sup.# books in which we now find them, it is manifeft that these books were confidered by him, and by his readers, as he thought, as authentic accounts of Chrift's difcourfes: and that this point was in conteftable. He quotes alfo the following books, the firft of which he afcribes to St Paul: 1 Co. rinthians, Ephefians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thef falonians; and makes evident references to othere, particularly to Acts, Romans. 2 Corinthi ans, Galatians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John. writers, became bishop of Antioch about 37 years IGNATIUS, as it is teftified by ancient Christian after Chrift's afcenfion: and therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probable that he had known, and converfed with many of the a poftles. (See IGNATIUS, No. 2.) Epiftles of Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp his contempora ry. Paffages found in the epiftles now extant under his name, are quoted by Irenæus, A. D. 178, by Origen, A. D. 230; and the occafion of writing them is fully explained by Eufebius and Jerome. What are called the fmaller epiftles of Ignatius are generally reckoned the fame which were read by Irenæus, Origen, and Eufebius. They are admitted as genuine by Vossius, and A. D. 108, POLYCARP was bishop of Smyrna, with a force of argument which feems to admit have been proved to be fo by bishop PEARSON! and difciple of John the Apoftle. This teftimony of no reply. In thefe epiftles are undoubted al concerning Polycarp is given by Irenæus, who in lufions to Matt. iii. 15. xi. 16. to John iii. 8. his youth had feen him. "I can tell the place," and their venerable author, who often fpeaks faith Irenæus," in which the bleffed Polycarp fat St Paul in terms of the higheft. refpect, once and taught, and his going out and coming in, and quotes his epiftle to the Ephefians by nam the manner of his life, and the form of his perfon, Near the conclufion of the epiftle to the Ro books..... mans |