names of Paul and Peter to their writings! Here is useful knowledge, my Lord; more useful than all the sermons you ever preached. A pretty motive this to induce one man to usurp another's name," for the love he bare unto him." If any body were to usurp my name, "for the love they bare unto " me, and prefix it to a quantity of raving nonsense, I should soon return their "love," and expose the cheat that they were about to practice. And even, says he, as the faithful writers have done with the names of Paul and Peter. What then, have the faithful writers written books, and prefixed to those books the names of Paul and Peter? If any man doubts after this the origin of divine revelation, he must be dull indeed in comprehension.

Having then seen the testimony of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, who lived in the third century, respecting the book of Revelation, I shall now give you a passage or two from the work of Du Pin relative to that same book. In his History of the Canon &c. vol. II. ch. 1. sec. IX. p. 19, Du Pin says:

"There remains nothing more to be spoken of, but the Revelation which some of the ancients, according to the testimony of Eusebius, have put amongst those that were not doubted of; and others have placed them amongst the number of those that were doubtful or supposititious. It was rejected by Caius, an ancient priest of Rome, who ascribed it to the heretic Cerinthus, as Eusebius testifies in the third book of his History. On the contrary, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Cyphrian, St. Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian quote it in divers places, and ascribe it to St. John the evangelist. St. Denys of Alexandria observes, that divers before him had rejected and refuted the Apocalypse (Revelation), as a book full of fictions and falsehoods, but that divers others approved it; as for himself, he dared not reject it, that he believed it had a mysterious sense, but that he was persuaded it was not wrote by St. John, as he endeavours to prove by several reasons. St. Jerome says in his 129th Epistle,

that in his time most of the churches in Greece did not receive this book, no more than the Latins did the Epistle to the Hebrews, but that he received both, as making no account of the custom of his time, but of the authority of the ancients. Amphilochius also observes, that in his time some received it, but that there were many more who rejected it."

In these remarks Du Pin says that St. Justin and others quoted the book of Revelation, and ascribed it to St. John; and that St. Jerome, although most of the churches in Greece in his time, rejected this book, yet he received it, as making no account of the custom of his time, but of the authority of the ancients. From this it would appear, that some of the ancients believed that the book of Revelation was written by St. John. It is pos sible that some of the ancients might believe this. All writers however agree, that a great majority of the ancients, and a great majority of churches, rejected the book as spurious; and Du Pin says, in the work above named, vol. II. ch. I. sec. IX. that it was this "consent of the churches, which served as a rule in the first ages, to distinguish the canonical from the doubtful and supposititious books." And in the eighth Section he tells us that St. Augustine, in speaking of the means of distinguishing the one sort of books from the other, writes as follows

"Upon this subject we are to follow the authority of the greatest number of Catholic churches, and particularly the apostolical churches; and that an equitable person should prefer the Scriptures which are received by all the churches, to those which some of them reject; and that amongst those which are not received by all the churches, we must prefer those that are received by the greatest number, and most considerable of the churches."

According to this rule then the book of Revelation was not the word of God in the first ages, for it was rejected by nearly the whole of the churches. Du

Pin tells us when it became the word of God, but before I quote the passage, I will give you a small citation from Cave's Lives of the Apostles, relative to this same book, sec. X. page 73, as follows:

"Sozomen [an Ecclesiastical writer of the fifth century] tells us that the Revelation of St. John was rejected by the ancients as spurious, but yet it was read in some churches in Palestine, in his time."

Here then we are told expressly, that the book of Revelation was rejected by the ancients as spurious. And now for the time that this book became a genuine revelation from heaven. Du Pin, in his work before mentioned, vol. II. ch. 1. sec. IX. speaking of Revelation says :——

"In effect it is not, as we have observed, in the catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, nor in that of St. Cyril. But it hath since been received by the Greek and Latin churches, and quoted by St. Epiphany, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Hillary, St. Jerome, St. Austin, and by all those that have wrote since. In fine, it was put amongst the canonical books by the Council of Carthage, by the Council of Rome under Gelasius, and by Pope Innocent. The fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633, decided in their 17th canon, that it was wrote by St. John, and ought to be placed amongst the sacred books. And the Council of Trent hath decreed, that it should be accounted canonical."

This then is the way in which the book of revelation became the word of God. The fourth Council of Toledo, held in the year 633, decided by vote that it was written by St. John. They might as well have decided the number of years that the earth would revolve round the sun, or rather the sun round the earth, for that was their idea at that age of the world. How did they know who wrote the book of Revelation? They knew nothing at all about it, excepting what their prede

cessors had told them, and that was, that it was written by Cerinthus the heretic, who prefixed St. John's name to it to give it weight and authority. Did they then presume to know better than their predecessors who wrote the book? Did these men who lived in the seventh century, know better than the men who lived in the first, second and third centuries, who wrote the book of Revelation? Common sense tells us who should know best, and hence the fourth Council of Toledo, who declared this book to be the word of God, were a parcel of fraudulent and dishonest men, who must have known that their decision was unwarranted by evidence.

I have now shown that there is no evidence whatever for believing that the book of Revelation is the word of God, but on the contrary, the Church itself furnishes us with evidence that it is the word of an Heretic; and hence, so far as this book is a portion of that book which the Attorney-General says, is the "foundation of our holy religion," so far is that foundation diminished, and the fabric shaken. I shall now, with the aid of Eusebius, proceed to diminish that foundation more. "Our holy religion," it appears, rests upon a certain number of stones, and having removed one stone, I shall now send my pickaxe into the next. Observe, my Lord, that I say nothing on my own authority. Every thing that I say, is merely a repetition of what your own Church writers have said, and therefore if there be any blasphemy in my language, the blasphemy is your own, and not mine. Eusebius, as Du Pin tells us, was one of the most learned men of all antiquity, and without his History we should scarcely have any knowledge of the first ages of the Christian Church; I therefore take Eusebius as my authority. In book III. ch. III. of his History, speaking of the two Epistles ascribed to Peter, Eusebius says :

"The Epistle of Peter which is called the first, hath been received without controvercy. The elders of old without any doubting, have alleged this in their works:

but the latter Epistle we have learned not to be allowed. And yet because it seemed profitable, it was read of many amongst the rest of the Scriptures."

Here then, my Lord, is another stone drawn out from under your "holy religion." The second Epistle of Peter, Eusebius had learned not to be allowed; that is to say, not to be the word of God; but because it seemed profitable to some, they read it amongst the rest of the Scriptures. In a former Letter I gave the testimony of St. Jerome, that the Epistle of St. Jude was not the word of God at first, but that it became the word of God by its antiquity and the use that was made of it; so that all together, I have now drawn away three stones from the foundation of your "holy religion;" and not from any reasoning or argument of my own, but from the direct testimony of the greatest men that your Church can boast of. I shall now proceed to another stone. Speaking of the three Epistles ascribed to St. John, Eusebius says, book 3, ch. XXI. :—

Among the rest of John's writings, his first Epistle hath been generally of old and late writers received without any doubt. The two latter have been gainsaid."

That is to say, the second and third Epistles of John have been disputed. Are these other two stones, my Lord? Eusebius again refers to these Epistles in ch. XXII. of the same book, as follows:

"It shall also be convenient if in this place we collect briefly the books of the New Testament. In the first place must be set the fourfold writings of the evangelists next the Acts of the Apostles; then the Epistles of Paul are to be added: after these the first of John: and that of Peter which is authentic. Lastly, if ye please, the Revelation of John, of the which what is to be thought shall follow hereafter. All these are received for undoubted. The books which are gainsaid. though well known to many, are these: The Epistle of