be the more careful not to pass too hastily to it. To whose writings, or to what kind of writings, was the canon of the church confined?

Mr. B. It appears to have been limited to the writings of certain persons peculiarly chosen by the Founder of this religion to disseminate it, or to writings which received their sanction, or, in the language of the fathers, "the writings of the apostles and of apostolical men.”

Edward. But is it certain that no other writings by these persons existed, except those which are contained in this volume?

Mr. B. On this subject there is a difference of opinion among the learned; some maintaining, for example, that St. Paul wrote more epistles than what are preserved in the New Testament; whilst others think that none of the writings of any of the apostles are lost.

Maria. Upon what grounds is this last opinion founded?

Mr. B. Partly upon the uncertainty that any more ever was written by them; but principally from the idea that, their writings being inspired, no part would be permitted to be lost.

Edward. Such a reason as this, however, could never be given to an unbeliever, who is supposed, in the first instance, to have no regard to arguments of this nature; and might it not be supposed that some documents actually have been suppressed, from the Christians of the succeeding age perceiving that they would injure rather than benefit their cause, or that they were opposed to their own wishes and views?

Mr. B. You have no evidence to support such an idea.

Edward. But may it not be allowed, for argument's sake, for a moment? and if it may, is it not also conceivable, that from the suppressed documents, Christian

32 What is the answer to it of Mr. B.?-33 What is the second asked by Edward?-34 Maria asks, on what the opinion is founded, that none of the writings of any of the apostles are lost-what is the answer to this question?-36 What is the third question of Edward—and what is the answer to it?-37 Edward makes a supposition, in order to carry on the argument-what is it?

ity could actually have been proved to be founded in imposture?

Mr. B. That a religion originally false could, by the addition of some documents, or suppression of others, be made apparently true, is, in itself, one of the most unlikely things to happen that could possibly be conceived; for by whom would the change be made, and for what purpose? Suppose, now, that Clement of Alexandria, in the course of his travels through Greece, had found some manuscripts by St. Paul; or that Origen, in passing through Palestine, had found some additional gospels, by which it was evident that the whole of the received canonical books were cunningly devised fables, founded upon some obscure transactions in Judea, and owing all their success to the abilities of the writers, and a number of favourable contingent circumstances. Do you think that such men as Clement and Origen would have suppressed these important facts? that the former, who had been bred a Grecian philosopher, would have been disposed to acquiesce in the fraud which had deceived him, to embrace which he had renounced so much, and which he would be aware could offer nothing in return? or would Origen forget the martyrdom of his father, and pursue a course likely to lead himself to the same fate? Certainly no learned Jew or Gentile would ever, after such a discovery, have concealed it, and continued among the followers of the crucified Jesus, whom he knew could not be a Saviour, nor found hopes upon the narrative of a resurrection which he knew to be false.

Edward. But might not a document of this kind have existed which would not so immediately lay Christianity open to exposure, but only by implication?

Mr. B. In that case, who would suppress that of which he did not perceive the tendency? The eagerness of the Christians to preserve memorials of the first planting of the Gospel and of the life of their Founder, would inev

38 In reply to this supposition, what does Mr. B. say is very unlikely? -39 What supposition does Mr. B. then offer respecting Clement and Origen?-40 And what questions does he predicate upon the hypothesis, to convince Edward of the absurdity of his question?-41 But might not ⚫uch a document have existed, impeaching Christianity only by implication?

itably have induced any one, who did not see of what use the document might be made against his faith, to publish it. The reverence paid by the Christians to the apostolic writings could hardly fail to produce its publication, and we know that the first Christians were by no means men of that character who would be likely to calculate before hand what objections might, in after ages, be drawn from the documents they handed down to posterity. When you are acquainted with the writings of the fathers, you will by no means suspect any of them of the ability to turn a false religion into one which should deceive the world for a succession of ages; and you can hardly imagine such a train of chances, as that a religion, the falsity of which might originally be proved from its own documents, should yet have the singular good fortune to lose every particle by which its false pretensions could be exposed, and retain all best calculated to further its success. To all these chances you must also add the total silence of history, the silence of enemies, the silence of contending heresies, cach eager to grasp at the shadow of apostolical authority for their errors, or at any thing by which they could discredit the received doctrines of the church.

Edward. But is it so certain that the heretics were wrong, and the Catholic church right, as to the true doctrine of Christ?

Mr. B. The probabilities are nearly equivalent to certainty; the great difference between the two, as far as we can ascertain, seemed to be, in that the church at large adhered steadily to the New Testament, where the others were making all sorts of experiments with the religion, uniting it to oriental fables, or to Jewish prejudices, or to Grecian philosophy, according to their several tastes, and straining the sacred books as far as they

42 What is said of the estimation in which the first Christians held the apostolic writings, and also of the character of these men?-43 On a thorough acquaintance with the writings of the fathers, how will our feelings towards these men be affected?-44 What is to be added to the foregoing chances?-45 What reply is made by Mr. B. to the question, whether it is certain that the heretics were wrong, and the church right, as to the doctrine of Christ?

could to suit their purpose; and some, more daring than the rest, claiming new revelations, or cutting out those already made.

Maria. Then some of the heretics did not receive the books we receive?

Mr. B. Jones mentions some who rejected particular books, but it was on the supposition of their not being genuine; an objection which belongs to a future part of the subject. It is, however, well known, that they were very few in number; that they did so from evidently interested motives, and supported their assertions by most absurd reasons; so that their authority is of no weight.

Maria. The great reason for their being accounted canonical, appears to have been their being esteemed genuine; and where the latter was doubtful, the former was uncertain.

Mr. B. Such undoubtedly was the case. The Epistle to the Hebrews had no name attached to it, as in the other Epistles of St. Paul, which occasioned the doubt respecting it. In the book of Revelation, the author does not call himself an apostle. In the Second and Third Epistles, he simply calls himself "the elder." Now these circumstances, though apparently trifling, might occasion some to doubt who did not live sufficiently near the places where these books were first published, and the doubt might be transmitted when the reason was forgotton, and thus an importance given to it which it originally had not. The conduct of the church at large, in this matter, clearly shows that the true ground of their being received as of authority, was their being believed to be written by persons possessed of authority, viz. the apostles; for wherever the latter was established, there was no longer any question as to their being canonical.

Edward. But is it certain that the Greek text is altogether the original text, so that upon it Christianity may rest?

46 What reply is made to the question-if some of the heretics did not receive the books we receive?-47 What peculiarity is there in the epistle to the Hebrews, and in the book of Revelation?-48 What, is it supposed, that these peculiarities might occasion?-49 What does the church in this matter clearly show?

Mr. B. If it be not altogether the original text, it is unquestionably the only authorised text. It is, indeed, asserted, by all those best able to know, that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, i. e. in the mixed dialect at that time made use of in Judea; and it is not improbable that St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew; but there is no question that, in both cases, the Greek text we now have was extant from the earliest time; and there can be hardly any doubt, that if not, in both cases, from the apostles' own hands, they were written under their direction. The original Gospel of St. Matthew, at an early period, must have become useless, on account of the state of Judea and the neighbouring countries; and it is not at all surprising, that it should be forgotten in the superior usefulness of the Greek for eral purposes, even if it be not the case (as is supposed by many learned men), that having various additions made to it, by those who possessed copies, it became afterwards known under various names, as, "the Gospel according to the Twelve Apostles," "the Gospel according to the Hebrews;" till at length it lost its original character, and ceased to have authority as the original record.

gen

Edward. Has there not been some difference of opinion as to the genuineness of the two first chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel?

Mr. B. Objections have been made to them, but on very insufficient grounds, and I believe the question is now set at rest; none denying their genuineness, but from an unwillingness to acknowledge their contents, than which a more absurd mode of proceeding cannot be easily conceived: for if any part of the New Testament be such that it cannot be believed, the natural inference is against the whole, of which it forms an integral part; but if the principle once be admitted, that such parts are to be cut out, because they are contrary to our wishes,

50 In what language did Matthew write?-51 Which epistle was written in Hebrew?-52 What is said of their having been early translated into Greek, as now possessed by us?-53 Under what names has Matthew's Gospel been known?-54 What is said of the objections that have been made to the two first chapters of this gospel?