III.  Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning the Book of Revelation, whether it was written by Saint John; states the grounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion concerning it, in his own time, and before his time. (Lardner, vol. iv. p. 670.) Yet the same Dionysius uses and collates the four Gospels in a manner which shows that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their authority, and in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, were received as authentic histories of Christ. (Lardner, vol. iv. p. 661.)

IV.  But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose to introduce to the reader two remarkable passages extant in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.  The first passage opens with these words:—­“Let us observe the writings of the apostle John which are uncontradicted:  and first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospel according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven.”  The author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the Gospels, and the reasons for placing Saint John’s the last, manifestly speaking of all the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 90.) The second passage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, “Of the Scriptures universally acknowledged, and of those that are not such.”  Eusebius begins his enumeration in the following manner:—­“In the first place are to be ranked the sacred four Gospels; then the book of the Acts of the Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul.  In the next place, that called the First Epistle of John, and the Epistle of Peter, are to be esteemed authentic.  After this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe the different opinions at proper seasons.  Of the controverted, but yet well known or approved by the most, are, that called the Epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the same name.” (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 39.) He then proceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in another controverted, meaning, as appears to me, nearly the same thing by these two words.*

_________

* That Eusebius could not intend, by the word rendered ‘spurious’ what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chapter where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter, and Thomas and Matthias, and some others, he says, “They the are not so much as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are altogether absurd and impious.” (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 99.) _________