OBJ. 4.-In Exod. xvi. 35, 36. we read thus:-And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came into a land inhabited: they did eat manna, until they came into the borders of the land of Canaan. Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah. This could not have been written by Moses, as the Jews did not reach the borders of Canaan, or cease to eat manna, until after his death: nor would Moses speak thus of an omer, the measure by which all the people gathered the manna, an omer for every man. It is the language of one speaking when this measure was out of use, and an ephah more generally known. ANSWER.-The objection was first made by Spinoza, and from | Jerusalem, he would have made Isı el spread his tent beyond a him it has been copied without acknowledgment by the modern tower that probably did not exist till many hundred years after opposers of the Scriptures: but it is founded on a mistranslation, his death. The tower of Edar signifies, literally, the tower of and does not apply to our authorized English version. Ac- the flocks; and as this name was undoubtedly given to many cording to these objectors, the verse runs thus :-These be the towers, or places of retreat for shepherds, in the open country of words which Moses spake unto all Israel BEYOND Jordan in Palestine, which in the days of the patriarchs was covered with the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red Sea, be- flocks, it is unnecessary to suppose that it meant in particular a tween Paran and Tophel and Laban and Hazeroth and Di- tower of Jerusalem. zahab. And as Moses never went over Jordan, they say it is evident that the writer of the book of Deuteronomy lived on the west side of that river, and consequently could not be Moses. The Hebrew word "ya (BеEBER), however, is completely ambiguous, signifying sometimes beyond, and sometimes on this side, or, more properly, at or on the passage of Jordan. Thus in Joshua xii. 1. the words translated, on the other side Jordan, towards the rising of the sun, and ver. 7. on this side Jordan on the west, are both expressed by the same Hebrew word. In our authorized English version, the first verse of Deuteronomy runs thus:-These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel ON THIS SIDE JORDAN, in the wilderness, &c. This version is agrecable to the construction which the original requires, and which is sanctioned by the Syriac translation, executed at the close of the first, or in the beginning of the second century of the Christian æra: the objection above stated, therefore, does not apply to our authorized English translation. The Septuagint and Vulgate Latin versions, as well as that of Dr. Geddes, and several of the versions in the continental languages, are all erroneous. [ii.] With regard to the alleged marks of posterior interpolation, it must be acknowledged, that there are some such passages, but a few insertions can never prove the whole to be spurious. We have indeed abundant reason still to receive the rest as genuine: for no one ever denied the Iliad or Odyssey to be the works of Homer, because some ancient erities and grammarians have asserted that a few verses are interpolations. The interpolations in the Pentateuch, however, are much fewer and less considerable than they are generally imagined to be; and all the objections which have been founded upon them (it is observed by the learned prelate to whom this section is so deeply indebted) may be comprised under one general head-namely, "expressions and passages found in the Pentateuch which could not have been written by Moses." A brief notice of some of these passages objected to, will show how little reason there is for such objections. ANSWER.-Deut. xxxiii. has evident marks of being the close of the book, as finished by Moses; and the thirty-fourth chapter was added, either by Joshua or some other sacred writer, as a supplement to the whole. Or, it may formerly have been the commencement of the book of Joshua, and in process of time removed thence, and joined to Deuteronomy by way of supple ment. ANSWER. This passage, as Dr. Graves has forcibly observed, is evidently inserted by a later hand. It forms a complete pa renthesis, entirely unconnected with the narrative, which, having given a full account of the miraculous provision of manna, closes it with the order to Aaron to lay up an omer full of manna in the ark, as a memorial to be kept for their generations. This was evidently the last circumstance relating to this matter which it was necessary for Moses to mention; and he accordingly then resumes the regular account of the journeyings of the people. Some later writer was very naturally led to insert the additional circumstance of the time during which this miraculous provision was continued, and probably added an explanatory note, to ascertain the capacity of an omer, which was the quantity of food provided for each individual by God. To ascertain it, therefore, must have been a matter of curiosity. In like manner, Num. xxi. 3. was evidently added after the days of Joshua: it is parenthetical, and is not necessary to complete the narrative of Moses. OBJ. 5.-The third verse of the twelfth chapter of the book of Numbers-(Now the man Moses was very meek above all the men which were upon the face of the earth-bears sufficient proof that Moses could not be the author of it, and that no man, however great his egotism, could have written such an assertion of himself. ANSWER.-If the assertor of this objection had been acquainted OBJECTION 1.—In Deut. xxxiv. the death of Moses is de- with the original of this passage, instead of adopting it at secondscribed; and therefore that chapter could not have been writ-hand from some of those who copied it from Spinoza (for it was first broached by him), he would have known that the passage ten by him. was mistranslated, not only in our own English version, but also in all modern translations. The word y (ANav), which is translated meek, is derived from ny (ANан) to act upon, to humble, depress, afflict, and so it is rendered in many places in the Old Testament, and in this sense it ought to be understood in the passage now under consideration, which ought to be thus translated. Now the man Moses was depressed or afflicted more than any man (HADамaн) of that land. And why was he so? Because of the great burden he had to sustain in the care and government of the Israelites, and also on account of their ingratitude and rebellion, both against God and himself. Of this affliction and depression, there is the fullest evidence in the eleventh chapter of the book of Numbers. The very power which the Israelites envied was oppressive to its possessor, and was more than either of their shoulders could sustain.2 But let the passage be interpreted in the sense in which it is rendered in our authorized English version, and what does it prove? Nothing at all. The character given of Moses as the meekest of men might be afterwards inserted by some one who revered his memory: or, if he wrote it himself, he was justified by the occasion, which required him to repel a foul and envious aspersion of his character. OBJ. 2.-There are names of cities mentioned in the Pentateuch, which names were not given to those cities till after the death of Moses. For instance, a city which was originally called Laish, but changed its name to that of Dan, after the Israelites had conquered Palestine (Judg. xviii. 22.), is yet denominated Dan in the book of Genesis. (xiv. 14.) The book itself, therefore, it is said, must have been written after the Israelites had taken possession of the Holy Land. ANSWER.-But is it not possible that Moses originally wrote Laish, and that, after the name of the city had been changed, transcribers, for the sake of perspicuity, substituted the new for the old name? This might so easily have happened that the solution is hardly to be disputed, in a case where the positive arguments in favour of the word in question are so very decisive.1 OBJ. 6. The most formidable objection, however, that OBJ. 3.-The tower of Edar, mentioned in Gen. XXXV. from the two following passages, the one in the book of Genehas been urged against the Pentateuch, is that which is drawn 21., was the name of a tower over one of the gates of Jeru-sis (xxxvi. 31.), the other in the book of Deuteronomy (iii. salem; and therefore the author of the book of Genesis must at least have been contemporary with Saul and David. ANSWER.-This objection involves a manifest absurdity, for if the writer of this passage had meant the tower of Edar in An example of the same kind is "Hebron" (Gen. xiii. 18.), which before the conquest of Palestine was called Kirjath-Arba, as appears from Josh. xiv. 15. * This example may be explained in the same manner as the preceding. 1 14.): These are the kings, that reigned over the land of Edom, BEFORE THERE REIGNED ANY KING OVER THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. And again, Jair, the son of Manasseh, took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri, and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, Bashon-havoth-jair UNTO THIS DAY. Now it is certain that the last clause in each of Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary, in loc. 1.344. these examples could not have been written by Moses: for the one implies a writer who lived after the establishment of monarchy in Israel, the other a writer who lived at least some ages after the settlement of the Jews in Palestine,1 ANSWER.-If these clauses were not written by the author of the Pentateuch, but inserted by some transcriber, in a later age, they affect not the authenticity of the work itself. And whoever impartially examines the contents of these two passages, will find that the clauses in question are not only unnecessary, but even a burden to the sense. The clause of the second example in particular could not possibly have proceeded from the author of the rest of the verse, who, whether Moses or any other person, would hardly have written, "He called them after his own name unto this day." The author of the Pentateuch wrote, "He called them after his own name :" some centuries after the death of the author, the clause "unto this day" was probably added in the margin, to denote that the district still retained the name which was given it by Jair, and this marginal reading was in subsequent transcripts obtruded on the text. Whoever doubts the truth of this assertion, needs only to have recourse to the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, and he will find that the spurious additions in the texts of some manuscripts are actually written in the margin of others."2 So far, however, is the insertion of such notes from impeaching the antiquity and genuineness of the original narrative, that, on the contrary, it rather confirms them. For, if this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records, such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original: since the entire history would have been composed with the same ideas and views as these additions were; and such explanatory insertions would not have been made, if length of time had not rendered them necessary.3 We have therefore every possible evidence, that "the genuine text of the Pentateuch proceeded from the hands of Moses; and the various charges that have been brought against it amount to nothing more than this, that it has not descended to the present age without some few alterations; a circumstance at which we ought not to be surprised, when we reflect on the many thousands of transcripts that have been made from it in the course of three thousand years." The authority of the Pentateuch being thus established, that of the other books of the Old Testament follows of course : for so great is their mutual and immediate dependence upon each other, that if one be taken away, the authority of the other must necessarily fall. SECTION 1. ON THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 994 tive, together with the coincidence of the accounts there delivered, with the history of those times. I. THAT an extraordinary person, called Jesus Christ, flourished in Judæa in the Augustan age, is a fact better supported and authenticated, than that there lived such men as Cyrus, Alexander, and Julius Caesar; for although their histories are recorded by various ancient writers, yet the memorials of their conquests and empires have for the most part and travellers have long disputed, but have not been able to perished. Babylon, Persepolis, and Ecbatana are no more; ascertain, the precise site of ancient Nineveh, that "exceeding great city of three days' journey.' few vestiges of Alexander's victorious arms are at present to (Jonah iii. 3.) How be seen in Asia Minor and India! And equally few are the standing memorials in France and Britain, to evince that there was such a person as Julius Caesar, who subdued the one, and invaded the other. Not so defective are the evidences concerning the existence of Jesus Christ. That he lived in the reign of Tiberius emperor of Rome, and that he suffered death under Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judæa, are facts that are not only acknowledged by the Jews of every subsequent age, and by the testimonies of several heathen writers, but also by Christians of every age and country, who have commemorated, and still commemorate, the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and his spiritual kingdom, by their constant and universal profession of certain principles of religion, and by their equally constant and universal celebration of divine worship on the Lord's day, or first day of the week, and likewise of the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. These religious doctrines and ordinances they profess to derive from a collection of writings, composed after the ascen-` sion of Jesus Christ, which they acknowledge to be divine, and to have been written by the first preachers of Christianity, For As all who have claimed to be the founders of any particular sect or religion have left some written records of their institutes, it is a natural supposition that the first preachers of the Christian faith should have left some writings containing the principles which it requires to be believed, and the moral precepts which it enjoins to be performed. of the actions and doctrines of their master; yet they must although they were at first content with the oral publication should be altered after their decease by false teachers, or by have been apprehensive lest the purity of that first tradition those changes which are ordinarily effected in the course of time in whatever is transmitted orally. Besides, they would have to answer those who consulted them; they would have to furnish Christians, who lived at a distance, with lessons and instructions. Thus it became necessary that they should leave something in writing; and, if the apostles did leave any writings, they must be the same which have been preserved to our time: for it is incredible that all their writings should have been lost, and succeeded by supposititious pieces, and that the whole of the Christian faith should have for its foundation only forged or spurious writings. Further, that the first Christians did receive some written, as well as some oral instruction, is a fact supported by the unanimous testisince their establishment, have professed to read and to vene. rate certain books as the productions of the apostles, and as being the foundation of their faith. Now every thing which pline of the first Christians, corresponds exactly with the we know concerning the belief, worship, manners, and discicontents of the books of the New Testament, which are now extant, and which are therefore most certainly the primitive instructions which they received. I. General title of the NEW TESTAMENT. II. Account of its CANON.-III. GENUINENESS of the books of the New Testament. IV. Their AUTHENTICITY proved, 1. From the IMPOSSIBILITY OF FORGERY; 2. From EXTERNAL, or HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, afforded by ancient Jewish, Heathen, and Chris-mony of all the Christian churches, which, in every age tian testimonies in their favour, and also by ancient versions of them in different languages:—and 3. From INTERNAL EVIDENCE, furnished by, (1.) The character of the writers. (2.) The language and style of the New Testament, and, (3.) The minute circumstantiality of the narraWitsius, in his Miscellaneous Sacra, p. 125., says the clause "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel," might have been writ ten by Moses; but he cuts the knot, instead of untying it. 2 To mention only two examples. The common reading of 1 Cor. xvi. 2. is μ 56Tv, but the Codex Petavianus 3. has Tv xupax in the mar gin; and in one of the manuscripts used by Beza, this marginal addition has been obtruded on the text. See his note to this passage. Another instance is 1 John ii. 27, where the genuine reading is xx, but Wetstein quotes nal reading has found its way not only into the Codex Covelli 2. but into the two manuscripts in which #vivu is written in the margin, and this margi Coptic and Ethiopic versions. Dr. Graves's Lectures, vol. i. p. 346. Bishop Marsh's Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses vindicated, pp. 15. 18. The texts above considered, which were excepted against by Spinoza, Le Clerc (who subsequently wrote a Dissertation to refute his former objections), the late Dr. Geddes, and some opposers of revelation since his decease, are considered, discussed, and satisfactorily explained at great length by Huet, Dem. Evang. prop. iv. cap. 14. (tom. i. pp. 254264.), and by Dr. Graves in the appendix to his Lectures on the four last Books of the Pentateuch, vol. i. pp. 332-361. See also Carpzov. Introd. ad Libros Biblicos, Vet. Test. pp. 38-11. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Libros Canonicos Vet. et Nov. Test. pp. 16, 17. Religionis Naturalis et Revelatæ Principia, tom. ii. pp. 3-51. The collection of these books or writings is generally known by the appellation of 'H KAINH ALAOHKH, the NEW COVENANT, or NEW TESTAMENT; a title, which, though neither given by divine command, nor applied to these writings by the apostles, was adopted in a very early age. Although the precise time of its introduction is not known, yet Dr. Howard's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 1-6. Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 1. Bishop Marsh, in a note, thinks it probable that this title was used so early as the second century, because the word testamentum was used in that sense by the Latin Christians before the expiration of that period, as appears from Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem, lib. iv. c. 1. But the first instance in which the term x Si actually occurs in the sense of “writings of the new covenant," is in Origen's treatise Ilips Apxwv, lib. iv. c. 1. (Op. lom. i. p. 156.)-Michaelis, vol. i. p. 343. See also Rosenmüller's Scholia in N. T. tom. i. p. i.; Rumprei Commentatio Critica in Libros Novi Testamenti, pp. 1-3; Leusden's Philologus Hebræo-Græcus, p. i. ; and Pritii Introd. in Nov. Test. pp. 9-11. it is justified by several passages in the Scriptures, and is, | There is, indeed, every reason to believe that the bishops in particular, warranted by Saint Paul, who calls the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the Gospel dispensation Kama, the New Covenant, in opposition to those of the Mosaic Dispensation, which he terms a bun, the Old Covenant. This appellation, in process of time, was by a metonymy transferred to the collection of apostolical and evangelical writings. The title, "New Covenant," then, signifies the book which contains the terms of the New Covenant, upon which God is pleased to offer salvation to mankind, through the mediation of Jesus Christ. But according to the meaning of the primitive church, which bestowed this title, it is not altogether improperly rendered New Testament; as being that in which the Christian's inheritance is sealed to him as a son and heir of God, and in which the death of Christ as a testator is related at large, and applied to our benefit. As this title implies that in the Gospel unspeakable gifts are given or bequeathed to us, antecedent to all conditions required of us, the title of TESTAMENT may be retained, although that of COVENANT would be more correct and proper.3 II. The writings, thus collectively termed the NEW TESTAMENT, consist of twenty-seven books, composed on various occasions, and at different times and places, by eight different authors, all of whom were contemporary with Jesus Christ, viz. the four Gospels, which bear the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Epistles which bear the name of Paul, and which are addressed to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews, the seven Catholic Epistles (as they are called) of James, Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, and Jude, and the Book of the Revelation, which likewise bears the name of John. These writings contain the history of Jesus Christ, the first propagation of his religion, together with the principles of Christianity, and various precepts or rules of life. The Gospels were written at various periods, and published for very different classes of believers; while the Epistles were addressed, as occasion required, to those various Christian communities, which, by the successful labours of the apostles, had been spread over the greatest part of the then known world, and also to a few private individuals. Different churches received different books according to their situation and circumstances. Their canons were gradually enlarged; and at no very great distance of time from the age of the apostles, with a view to secure to future ages a divine and perpetual standard of faith and practice, these writings were collected together into one volume under the title of the "New Testament," or the "Canon of the New Testament." Neither the names of the persons that were concerned in making this collection, nor the exact time when it was undertaken, can at present be ascertained with any degree of certainty: nor is it at all necessary that we should be precisely informed concerning either of these particulars. It is sufficient for us to know that the principal parts of the New Testament were collected before the death of the Apostle John, or at least not long after that event.4 Modern advocates of infidelity, with their accustomed disregard of truth, have asserted that the Scriptures of the New Testament were never accounted canonical until the meeting of the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364. The simple fact is, that the canons of this council are the earliest extant, which give a formal catalogue of the books of the New Testament. 1 Matt. xxvi. 28. Gal. iii. 17. Heb. vifi. 8. ix. 15-20. 22 Cor. iii. 6. 14. • The learned professor Jablonski has an elegant dissertation on the word AIASHKH, which, he contends, ought to be translated Testament, 1. From the usage of the Greek language; 2. From the nature of the design and will of God, which is called AIAHKH; 3. From various passages of the New Testament, which evidently admit of no other signification; 4. From the notion of inheritance or heirship, under which the Scripture frequently desig nates the same thing; and, 5. From the consent of antiquity. Jablonskii Opuscula, tom. ii. pp. 393-423. Lug. Bat. 1804. Of all the various opinions that have been maintained concerning the person who first collected the canon of the New Testament, the most gene. ral seems to be, that the several books were originally collected by St. John-an opinion for which the testimony of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. 24.is very confidently quoted as an indisputable authority. But it is to be observed, says Mosheim, that, allowing even the highest degree of weight to Eusebius's authority, nothing further can be collected from his words, than that St. John approved of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and added his own to them by way of supplement. Concerning any of the other books of the New Testament, Eusebius is totally silent. Mosheum's Commentaries, translated by Mr. Vidal, vol. i. p. 151. Stosch, in his learned Commentatio Critica de Librorum Nov. Test. Canone. (pp. 103. et g. So. Frankfort, 1755), has given the opinions of Ens, Lampe, Frickius, Dodwell, Vitringa, and Dupin. He adopts the last, which in substance corresponds with that above given, and defends it at considerable length. Ibid. pp. 113. et seq. who were present at Laodicea did not mean to settle the canon, but simply to mention those books which were to be publicly read. Another reason why the canonical books were not mentioned before the council of Laodicea, is presented in the persecutions to which the professors of Christianity were constantly exposed, and in the want of a national establishment of Christianity for several centuries, which prevented any general councils of Christians for the purpose of settling their canon of Scripture. But, though the number of the books thus received as sacred and canonical was not in the first instance determined by the authority of councils, we are not left in uncertainty concerning their genuineness and authenticity, for which we have infinitely more decisive and satisfactory evidence than we have for the productions of any ancient classic authors, concerning whose genuineness and authenticity no doubt was ever entertained. III. We receive the books of the New Testament, as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, for the same reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of Cæsar, Tacitus, and Quintus Curtius; namely, because we have the uninterrupted testimony of ages to their genuineness, and we have no reason to suspect imposition. This argument, Michaelis remarks, is much stronger when applied to the books of the New Testament than when applied to any other writings; for they were addressed to large societies in widely distant parts of the world, in whose presence they were often read, and were acknowledged by them to be the writings of the apostles. Whereas the most eminent profane writings, that are still extant, were addressed only to individuals, or to no persons at all: and we have no authority to affirm that they were read in public; on the contrary, we know that a liberal education was uncommon, books were scarce, and the knowledge of them was confined to a few individuals in every nation. The New Testament was read over three quarters of the world, while profane writers were limited to one nation or to one country. An uninterrupted succession of writers, from the apostolic ages to the present time (many of whom were men of distinguished learning and acuteness), either quote the Sacred Writings, or make allusion to them: and these quotations and allusions, as will be shown in a subsequent page, are made not only by friends, but also by enemies. This cannot be asserted of the best classic authors: and as translations of the New Testament were made in the second century, which in the course of one or two centuries more were greatly multiplied, it became absolutely impossible to forge new writings, or to corrupt the sacred text, unless we suppose that men of different nations, sentiments, and languages, and often exceedingly hostile to each other, should all agree in one forgery. This argument is so strong, that, if we deny the authenticity of the New Testament, we may with a thousand times greater propriety reject all the other writings in the world; we may even throw aside human testimony. But this subject is of the greatest importance (for the arguments that prove the authenticity of the New Testament also prove the truth of the Christian religion), we shall consider it more at length; and having first shown that the books which compose the canon of the New Testament are not spurious, we shall briefly consider the positive evidence for their authenticity. A genuine book, as already remarked, is one written by the person whose name it bears as its author: the opposite to genuine is spurious, supposititious, or, as some critics term it, pseudepigraphial, that which is clandestinely put in the place of another. The reasons which may induce a critic to suspect a work to be spurious are stated by Michaelis to be the following: 1. When doubts have been entertained from its appearance in the world, whether it proceeded from the author to whom tended author, who were able to decide upon the subject, it is ascribed;-2. When the immediate friends of the prehave denied it to be his production;-3. When a long series of years has elapsed after his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which it must unavoidably have been mentioned and quoted, had it really existed;-4. When the style is different from that of his other writings, or, in case no other remain, different from that which might reasonably be expected ;-5. When events are recorded which happened later • Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 448. 4to. edit. • Bp. Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 270. Jones on the Canon, vol. i. p. 41. Oxford, 1798. Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xvii. p. 135. 3d edit. than the time of the pretended author;-6. When opinions are advanced which contradict those he is known to maintain in his other writings. Though this latter argument alone leads to no positive conclusion, since every man is liable to change his opinion, or, through forgetfulness, to vary in the circumstances of the same relation, of which Josephus, in his Antiquities and War of the Jews, affords a striking example. Now, of all these various grounds for denying a work to be genuine, not one can be applied with justice to the New Testament. For, in the first place, it cannot be shown that any one doubted of its authenticity in the period in which it first appeared;-Secondly, no ancient accounts are on record, whence we may conclude it to be spurious;-Thirdly, no considerable period of time elapsed after the death of the apostles, in which the New Testament was unknown; but, on the contrary, it is mentioned by their very contemporaries, and the accounts of it in the second century are still more numerous;-Fourthly, no argument can be brought in its disfavour from the nature of the style, it being exactly such as might be expected from the apostles, not Attic, but Jewish Greek-Fifthly, no facts are recorded, which happened after their death;-Lastly, no doctrines are maintained, which contradict the known tenets of the authors, since, besides the New Testament, no writings of the apostles are in existence. But, to the honour of the New Testament be it spoken, it contains numerous contradictions to the tenets and doctrines of the fathers of the second and third centuries; whose morality is different from that of the Gospel, which recommends fortitude and submission to unavoidable evils, but not that enthusiastic ardour for martyrdom, for which those centuries are distinguished: the New Testament also alludes to ceremonies which in the following ages were disused or unknown all which circumstances infallibly demonstrate that it is not a production of either of those centuries.1 IV. From the preceding considerations it is evident, that there is not the smallest reason to doubt that these books are as certainly genuine as the most indisputable works of the Greeks and Romans. But that the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament do not rest on merely negative proof, we have evidence the most direct and positive which can be desired, and this evidence may be arranged under the following heads, namely: 1. The Impossibility of a Forgery, arising from the nature of the thing itself;-2. External or Historical Evidence, arising from the ancient Christian, Jewish, and Heathen testimonies in its favour, and also from the ancient versions of the New Testament, which were made into various languages in the very first ages of the church, and which versions are still extant; and, 3. Internal Evidence, arising from the character of the writers of the New Testament, from its language and style, from the circumstantiality of the narrative, and from the undesigned coincidences of the accounts delivered in the New Testament with the history of those times. I. The IMPOSSIBILITY OF A FORGERY, arising from the nature of the thing itself, is evident. It is impossible to establish forged writings as authentic in any place where there are persons strongly inclined and well qualified to detect the fraud. Now the Jews were the most violent enemies of Christianity: they put its founder to death; they persecuted his disciples with implacable fury; and they were anxious to stifle the new religion in its birth. If the writings of the New Testament had been forged, would not the Jews have detected the imposture? Is there a single instance on record where a few individuals have imposed a history upon the world against the testimony of a whole nation? Would the inhabitants of Palestine have received the gospels, if they had not had sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ really appeared among them, and performed the miracles ascribed to him? Or would the churches at Rome or at Corinth have acknowledged the epistles addressed to them as the genuine works of St. Paul, if he had never preached among them? Or, supposing any impostor to have attempted the invention and distribution of writings under his name, or the names of the other apostles, is it possible that they could have been received without contradiction in all the Christian communities 1 Michaelis's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 25-30. of the three several quarters of the globe! We might as well attempt to prove that the history of the reformation is the invention of historians, and that no revolution happened in Great Britain during the seventeenth century, or in France during the eighteenth century, and the first fifteen years of the nineteenth century. Indeed, from the marks of integrity, simplicity, and fidelity, which every where pervade the writings of the apostles, we may be certain that they would not have attempted a forgery; and if they had made the attempt in the apostolic age, when the things are said to have happened, every person must have been sensible of the forgery. As the volume called the New Testament consists of several pieces, which are ascribed to eight persons, we cannot suppose it to have been an imposture; for if they had written in concert, they would not differ (as in a subsequent page we shall see that they do) in slight matters; and if one man wrote the whole, there would not be such a diversity as we see in the style of the different pieces. If the apostles were all honest, they were incapable of a forgery; and if they were all knaves, they were unlikely to labour to render men virtuous. If some of them were honest, and the rest cheats, the latter could not have deceived the former in respect to matters of fact; nor is it probable that impostors would have attempted a Had parts of the Scripture been fabricated in the second or third forgery which would have exposed them to many inconveniences. century by obscure persons, their forgeries would have been rejected by the intelligent and respectable; and if pious and learned men had forged certain passages, their frauds, however well intended, would have been discovered by the captious and insignificant, who are ever prone to criticise their superiors in virtue or abilities. If the teachers of Christianity in one kingdom forged certain passages of Scripture, the copies in the hands of laymen would discover such forgery; nor would it have been possible to obtain credit for such a forgery in other nations. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, having understood Greek and Hebrew, their gospels, which were written in the former language, contain many Hebrew idioms and words. Hence we may be certain that the gospels were not forged by those early Christian writers, or fathers (as they are called), who were strangers to Hebrew, since in such case they would not abound with Hebrew words; nor by Justin Martyr, Origen, or Epiphanius, since the style of the Greek writings of these fathers differs from that of the gospels. Lastly, as the New Testament is not calculated to advance the private interest of priests or rulers, it could not be forged by the clergy or by princes; and as its teachers suffered in propagating it, and as it was not the established religion of any nation for three hundred years, it is perfectly absurd to suppose it the offspring of priestcraft, or mere political contrivance. For three hundred years after Christ, no man had any thing to dread from exposing a forgery in the books of the New Testament; because, during that time, the Christians had not the power of punishing informers. It was therefore morally impossible, from the very nature of the thing, that those books could be forged. Satisfactory as the preceding argument for the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament, arising from the impossibility of a forgery, unquestionably is, 2. The direct and positive testimony arising from the ExTERNAL OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is by no means inferior in decisiveness or importance. This evidence is furnished by the testimony of ancient writers, who have quoted or alluded to the books of the New Testament, and also by ancient versions of the New Testament, in various languages, which are still extant. The books of the New Testament are quoted or alluded to by a series of Christian writers, as well as by adversaries of the Christian faith, who may be traced back in regular succession from the present time to the apostolic ages This sort of evidence, Dr. Paley has remarked, "is of all others the most unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and is not diminished by the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the History of his own Times, inserts various extracts from Lord Clarendon's History. One such insertion is a proof that Lord Clarendon's History was ex 3 Michaelis, vol. i. p. 31. Ency. Brit. vol. xvii. p. 135. Dr. Ryan's Evidences of the Mosaic and Christian Codes, pp. 150, 151. with much force and accuracy by Abbadie, in his Traite de la Verité 8vo. Dublin, 1795. The argument above briefly stated is urged at length de la Religion Chrétienne, tom. ii. pp. 39-45. Amsterdam, 1719. In the first edition of this work, the historical evidence for the genuine Witness (to mention no other instances) the attempt unsuccessfullyness and authenticity of the New Testament was exhibited chronologically made a few years since by Mr. Ireland, junior, in his celebrated Shak spearian Manuscripts, the fabrication of which was detected by Mr. Malone, in his masterly "Inquiry into the Authenticity of the miscellaneous Papers and legal Instruments published December 24, 1795, and attributed to Shakspeare, Queen Elizabeth, and Henry Earl of Southampton." 8vo. London, 1796. from the apostolic age down to the fourth century; but as the chronological series of that evidence has been cavilled at by the opponents of Christianity, it is now traced backwards from the fourth century to the apostolic age, for the weighty and satisfactory reasons (which do not admit of abridgment) assigned by Bishop Marsh, in his "Course of Lectures on Divinity," part v. pp. 11-19. tant at the time when Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had been | (A. D. 392), Rufinus (A. D. 390.),7 Augustine, Bishop of read by Bishop Burnet, that it was received by Bishop Burnet as the work of Lord Clarendon, and also regarded by him as an authentic account of the transactions which it relates; and it will be a proof of these points a thousand years hence, or as long as the books exist." This simple instance may serve to point out to a reader, who is little accustomed to such researches, the nature and value of the argument. In examining the quotations from the New Testament, which are to be found in the writings of the first ecclesiastical writers, the learned Professor Hug2 has laid down the following principles, the consideration of which will be sufficient to solve nearly all the objections which have been made against their citations: 1. The ancient Christian writers cite the Old Testament with greater exactness than the New Testament; because the former, being less generally known, required positive quotations, rather than vague allusions, and perhaps also evinced more erudition in the person who appealed to its testimony. 2. In passages taken from the Historical Writers of the Old or New Testament we seldom meet with the identical words of the author cited: but this does not prevent allusions to circumstances, or to the sense, in very many instances, from rendering evident both the origin of the passage and the design of the author. Hippo in Africa (A. D. 394), and of the forty-four bishops assembled in the third council of Carthage (at which Augustine was present, A. D. 397). Of the other four catafogues, those of Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A. D. 340),10 of the bishops at the council of Laodicea (A. D. 364)," and of Gregory of Nazianzum, Bishop of Constantinople (A. D. 375),12 are the same with our canon, excepting that the Revelation is omitted; and Philaster or Philastrius,13 Bishop of Brixia or Brescia (A. D. 380), in his list, omits the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation, though he acknowledges both these books in other parts of his works. remarkable. He was born about the middle of the fourth century, and was ordained presbyter by Paulinus, at Antioch, in the year 378, about which time he is placed by Bp. Marsh, Dr. Cave, and others, though Dr. Lardner (whose date we have followed) places him about the year 392, when he wrote his celebrated book of illustrious men. "It is well known that Jerome was the most learned of the Latin fathers; and he was peculiarly qualified, not only by his profound erudition, but by his extensive researches, his various travels, and his long residence in Palestine, to investigate the authenticity of the several books which compose the New Testament. Of these books he has given a cata Of these various catalogues, that of JEROME is the most 3. Quotations from the didactic writings of the Old Testa-logue in his epistle to Paulinus, on the study of the Holy ment are generally very exact, and accompanied with the name of the author quoted. In this case his name is, indeed, generally necessary. 4. In like manner, when quotations are made from the epistles of the New Testament, the name of the author cited is generally given, especially when the passage is not literally stated. 5. The fathers of amplify sentences of Scripture to which they allude: in which case they disregard the words, in order to develope the ideas of the sacred writers. Scriptures.14 He begins his catalogue (which is nearly at the close of the epistle) with the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The Acts of the Apostles he mentions as another work of St. Luke, whose praise is in the Gospel. He says that St. Paul wrote epistles to seven churches: the seven churches are such as we find in the titles of the Epistles of St. Paul contained in our present copies of the New Testament. Of the Epistle to the Hebrews he observes, that most persons (namely, in the Latin church) did not consider it as an epistle of St. Paul: but we shall presently 6. When Irenæus, and the fathers who followed him, re- see that his own opinion was different. He further states, late the actions or discourses of Jesus Christ, they almost that St. Paul wrote to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The always appeal to Him, and not to the evangelists whom they seven catholic epistles he ascribes to James, Peter, John, copy. The Lord says The Lord hath done it—are their ex- and Jude, and expressly says that they were apostles. And pressions, even in those instances, where the conformity of he concludes his catalogue with the remark, that the Revetheir writings with our copies of the original authors is not lation of John has as many mysteries as words. This catasufficiently striking to exclude all uncertainty respecting the logue accords with the books which we receive at present, source whence they drew the facts or sayings related by with the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The rethem. (This remark is particularly worthy of attention, jection of this epistle is a fact which Jerome has not atbecause, of all the ancient fathers, Irenæus is he who has tempted to conceal; and therefore, as he confidently speaks rendered the strongest and most express testimony to the of all the other books of the New Testament, his testimony authenticity of our four gospels, and who has consequently is so much the more in their favour. As we are now condrawn from them the facts and discourses which he has re-cerned with a statement of facts, it would be foreign to our lated in his writings.) 7. Lastly, it must on no account be forgotten, that the quotations of the fathers are not to be compared with our printed editions, or our textus receptus, but with the text of their church, and of the age in which they lived; which text was sometimes purer, though most frequently less correct than ours, and always exhibits diversities, in themselves indeed of little importance, but which nevertheless would be sufficient sometimes to conceal the phrase cited from readers who should not remember that circumstance. For the reason above stated, we commence the series of testimonies to the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament, which are furnished by the quotations of ancient Christian writers, with the fathers of the fourth century; because from that century downwards, the works of CHRISTIAN WRITERS are so full of references to the New Testament, that it becomes unnecessary to adduce their testimonies, especially as they would only prove that the books of Scripture never lost their character or authority with the Christian church. The witnesses to the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, in this century, are very numerous; but, as it would extend this chapter to too great a length, were we to detail them all, it may suffice to remark, that we have not fewer than TEN distinct catalogues of these books. Six agree exactly with our present canon; namely, the lists of Athanasius (A. D. 315), Epiphanius (A. D. 370), Jerome present purpose to inquire into the causes which induced the 1775. 11 Canon 59. The canons of this council were, not long afterwards, received into the body of the canons of the universal church. Lardner, Svo. vol. iv. pp. 308-311.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 414-416. 19 Lardner, 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 406-411.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 469-472. 13 Ibid. 8vo. vol. iv. pp. 499-501.; 4to. vol. ii. pp. 522, 523. • The testimony of Athanasius will be found at full length in Dr. Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, part ii. Works, vol. iv. pp. 280–294. of the Bro. edition of 1793, or vol. ii. pp. 338-406. of the 4to. edition. The tes ponies adduced in Lardner, may likewise be seen on a smaller scale in Professor Leas's valuable work on "The Authenticity, uncorrupted Pre-part v. pp. 20-22. F 14 Tom. iv. part 2. col. 568. ed. Martianay. 15 Tom. ii. col. 608. 10 Bp. Marsh's Course of Lectures on the several Branches of Divinity, |