among themselves, from the very firft, to impofe forged books upon others. They would watch one another too narrowly for this. That all the Christian world, credulous as many of them may be fuppofed to have been, fhould agree to receive books as genuine, which they knew not to be fo, is not to be admitted on fuch a pretence as this.

This blame is thrown by Mr. Evanfon on those whom he terms the orthodox in the Christian church, p. 112, by whom he means the Platonizing Chriftians, for with them the doctrine of the trinity, at which he juftly takes fo much offence, originated. But the very first of these was Juftin Martyr, as has been fully proved by Mr. Lindsey, and the canon of the New Teftament with respect to the Four Gospels, and all the most important books, was fixed long before his time. In early times the Chriftian world, as Mr. Evanfon will acknowledge, was, and must have been, Unitarian, with the exception of fome Gnostics, and these entertained fo great an averfion to each other, at least the former to the latter, that it could not have been in the power of either of them to impofe upon the others, with refpect to the authenticity of books equally received by them all. Befides, had the books been forged for any particular purpose, they would have been made more favourable to that purpose than they appear to be.

Notwithstanding this well known ftate of things, Mr. Evanfon fays, p. 112, "From what St. Luke

" and other writers inform us, there is no doubt but "the orthodox church, if fhe had chofen to pre"ferve them, might, at this hour, have had forty "instead of four different Gofpels; and many of "them much more deserving her regard than three "of those she hath thought fit to felect and fave from "the general wreck, in which the writings of the "primitive Chriftians have been involved."

This is advanced by Mr. Evanfon from mere imagination, without even the appearance of any authority, fo that it requires no refutation at all. Let Mr. Evanson enumerate these forty gofpels, and show that any of them was deferving of so much credit as any of the four that are now received. Origen must have been a better judge in this refpect than Mr. Evanson, and, according to Eufebius, he fays, that "he knew four Gospels only, and that he "learned by tradition, that they only were received "without dispute by the whole church of God un"der heaven." Lardner's Works, vol. vi. p. 28. Accordingly, in whatever estimation the few fpurious gospels that we read of were held by some for a time, they funk into univerfal difcredit, and are loft, while the four are retained to this day, and will, I doubt not, continue to be respected as they now are, notwithstanding any attempt to difcredit them. In fact, it is evident from the writings of Mr. Jones and Dr. Lardner, to which Mr. Evanson ought to have paid fome attention, that there never were more than two or three of those spurious gospels,

and

and that the credit they had was only with a few, and that of fhort duration.

It is not probable that any spurious gofpels would be written, whatever were the views of the writers, till fome genuine ones had got established credit. As to those that Luke refers to, he does not cenfure them as fpurious, but only as imperfect; and there can be no doubt but that, of transactions of such importance, there would, from the earliest times, be many accounts, more or lefs accurate, in circulation among Christians.

But

Mr. Evanfon may say, that the learned orthodox Christians were more affiduous in impofing upon the world with refpect to the fabrication of books favourable to their purpose, than the Unitarians were in guarding against their impofitions. the Chriftian world was never without learned Unitarians, from the earliest times to thofe of Photinus; and in the age in which Mr. Evanfon fays that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John were written, the majority of Christian bishops were, no doubt, Unitarian; fo that any attempt to impose upon them books unfavourable to their fentiments would have been in vain.

Mr. Evanson cannot say that the Unitarians might have made remonftrances on the fubject, but that, their writings being loft, we have no means of knowing what they were. For though writings may be loft, yet, if they occafion any difcuffion, argu

ments, or at least traces of the opinions fupported by them, will not be loft. Thus we can easily collect the arguments of the Gnoftics, the Unitarians, and the Arians, of antient times, from the writings of their antagonists, though all their own are perished. If, therefore, the Unitarians, or any other deno ́mination of Chriftians, had ever complained that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or John, were spurious, we could not but have heard that they did fo, and should also have known, though indirectly, the objections they made to them. Let Mr. Evanfon account, if he can, for the abfolute, and almost *inftant rejection of the Gospel of Peter, and the univerfal reception of those of Matthew, Mark, and John, without fuppofing the latter to be genuine, and the other not.

Mr. Evanson feems to think there is no evidence for the authenticity of the books that he rejects from the canon of the New Teftament befides that of the orthodox Chriftians, by whom he means thofe who corrupted the gospel, and who wifhed to tranfmit their peculiar opinions and practices to posterity. But befides overlooking the confideration that, fince the gofpel was first preached by the Apostles, they who corrupted it muft, of course, at firft, have been few, and therefore that the great majority, who held it as it had been delivered to them, would have effectually prevented any fuch impofition; and alfo the farther confideration, that they who can be fup

pofed

pofed to have forged books for the purpose abovementioned were by no means agreed among themfelves, and therefore would never have favoured one another's impofitions; I fay, befides overlooking thefe obvious confiderations, he feems to have forgotten, that we have, in an indirect way, but by no means liable to any just fufpicion, the testimony of those who were called heretics, and also that of the Heathens, to the authenticity of these books. It is true that their own writings are perished, but by means of their adverfaries, we know what they did write, and what they thought, on every important fubject. And there is reafon to conclude that they admitted the authenticity of all the four Gospels, well as that of fome, and probably that of all, the epiftles of Paul that are objected to by Mr. Evanfon.

cul the gospel according

The Cerinthians, who were probably fome of the earliest Gnoftics, cotemporary with John, and the other Apoftles, must have known, according to Epiphanius, the Gospel of Matthew, because he says they adopted part of it. Michaelis' Introd. vol. i. p. 36. ut he also t And I would obferve that the rejection of the whole, or part, of a book, by the Gnoftics, did not imply that they thought it spurious, but only that they did not approve of it, and especially that they did not choose to make use of it in their churches. Marcion, who lived in the beginning of the fecond century, mentioned the Gofpel of Matthew, as well as that of Luke, the Epiftle to the Hebrews, with thofe of Peter and James, and ten epiftles of Paul:

for