Scripture. venant.

84

Importance

the authenticity of the books.

We, on the contrary, are accustomed to give this facred collection the name of Teftament; and fince it would be not only improper, but even abfurd, to speak of the Teftament of God, we commonly understand the Teftament of Chrift; an explanation which removes but half the difficulty, fince the new only, and not the old, had Chrift for its teftator.

In ftating the evidence for the truth of Christianity, of the argu- there is nothing more worthy of confideration than the ment from authenticity of the books of the New Teftament. This is the foundation on which all other arguments reft; and if it is folid, the Chriftian religion is fully establish ed. The proofs for the authenticity of the New Teftament have this peculiar advantage, that they are plain and fimple, and involve no metaphyfical fubtilties. Every man who can diftinguish truth from falfehood muft fee their force; and if there are any fo blinded by prejudice, or corrupted by licentioufnefs, as to attempt by fophiftry to elude them, their fophiftry will be eafily detected by every man of common understanding, who has read the historical evidence with candour and attention. Instead, therefore, of declaiming against the infidel, we folicit his attention to this fubject, convinced, that where truth refides, it will shine with fo conftant and clear a light, that the combined ingenuity of all the deifts fince the beginning of the world will never be able to extinguish or to obfcure it. If the books of the New Teftament are really genuine, oppofition will incite the Chriftian to bring forward the evidence; and thus by the united efforts of the deift and the Chriftian, the arguments will be flated with all the clearnefs and accuracy of which they are fufceptible in fo remarkable a degree.

-ment.

It is furprising that the adverfaries of Christianity have not always made their first attacks in this quarter; for if they admit that the writings of the New Teftament are as ancient as we affirm, and compofed by the perfons to whom they are afcribed, they muft al. low, if they reafon fairly, that the Chriftian religion is

true.

The apoftles frequently allude in their epiftles to the gift of miracles, which they had communicated to the Chriftian converts by the impofition of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine delivered in their speeches and writings, and fometimes to miracles which they them Michaelis's felves had performed. Now if thefe epiftles are really Introduc- genuine, it is hardly poffible to deny thofe miracles to tion to the be true. The cafe is here entirely different from that New Tefta- of an hiftorian, who relates extraordinary events in the courfe of his narrative, fince either credulity or an actual intention to deceive may induce him to defcribe as true a series of falsehoods refpecting a foreign land or diftant period. Even to the Evangelifts might an adverfary of the Chriftian religion make this objection: but to write to perfons with whom we ftand in the nearest connection, "I have not only performed miracles in your prefence, but have likewife communicated to you the fame extraordinary endowments," to write in this manner, if nothing of the kind had ever happened, would require fuch an incredible degree of effrontery, that he who poffeffed it would not cily expefe himself to the utmoft ridicule, but by giving his adverfaries the faire ft opportunity to detect his impofture, would ruin the caufe which he attempted to fupFort.

3

St Paul's First Epistle to the Theffalonians is addref- Scripture. fed to a community to which he had preached the gofpel only three Sabbath days, when he was forced to quit it by the perfecution of the populace. In this epifle he appeals to the miracles which he had performed, and to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which he had communicated. Now, is it poffible, without forfeiting all pretenfions to common fenfe, that, in writing to a community which he had lately established, he could fpeak of miracles performed, and gifts of the Holy Ghoft communicated, if no member of the fociety had feen the one, or received the other?

To fuppofe that an impoftor could write to the converts or adverfaries of the new religion fuch epiftles as thefe, with a degree of triumph over his opponents, and yet maintain his authority, implies ignorance and ftupidity hardly to be believed. Credulous as the Chriftians have been in later ages, and even fo early as the third century, no less fevere were they in their inqui ries, and guarded against deception, at the introduction of Chriftianity. This character is given them even by Lucian, a writer of the fecond century, who vented his fatire not only against certain Chriftians *, who * De morte had fupplied Peregrinus with the means of fubfift- Peregrini, ence, but also against heathen oracles and pretended § 12, 13, 16. wonders. He relates of his impoftor (Pfeudomantis), that he attempted nothing fupernatural in the prefence p. 334of the Chriftians and Epicureans. This Pfeudomantis 338. 34L. exclaims before the whole affembly, "Away with the Chriftians, away with the Epicureans, and let thofe only remain who believe in the Deity !" (ISEVENTES TO

Ed. Reitz.

tom. iii.

tom. ii,

) on which the populace took up ftones to drive away the fufpicious; while the other philofophers, Pythagoreans, Platonifts, and Stoics, as credulous friends and protectors of the cause, were permitted to remain . t † Alexan It is readily acknowledged, that the arguments der feu drawn from the authenticity of the New Teftament Pseudoonly establish the truth of the miracles performed by mantis, the apostles, and are not applicable to the miracles of 25. 32. our Saviour; yet, if we admit the first three gofpels to p. 232, 233. be genuine, the truth of the Chriftian religion will be 244, 245. proved from the prophecies of Jefus. For if these gofpels were compofed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at the time in which all the primitive Christians affirm, that is, previous to the deftruction of Jerufalem, they must be inspired; for they contain a circumftantial prophecy of the deftruction of Jerufalem, and determine the period at which it was accomplished. Now it was impoffible that human fagacity could forefee that event; for when it was predicted nothing was more improbable. The Jews were refolved to avoid an open rebellion, well knowing the greatnefs of their danger, and fubmitted to the oppreffions of their governors in the hope of obtaining redress from the court of Rome.The circumftance which gave birth to thefe misfortunes is fo trifling in itself, that independent of its confequences, it would not deferve to be recorded. In the narrow entrance to a fynagogue in Caefarea, fome perfon had made an offering of birds merely with a view to iritate the Jews. The infult excited their indignatier, and cccafioned the fhedding of bloed. Without this trifling accident, which no human wisdom could forefee even the day before it happened, it is pofElle that the prophecy of Jefus would never have been fulfilled.

Scripture, fulfilled. But Florus, who was then procurator of Judea, converted this private quarrel into public hoftilities, and compelled the Jewish nation to rebel contrary to its with and resolution, in order to avoid what the Jews had threatened, an impeachment before the Roman emperor for his exceffive cruelties. But even after this rebellion had broken out, the deftruction of the temple was a very improbable event. It was not the practice of the Romans to deftroy the magnificent edifices of the nations which they fubdued; and of all the Roman generals, none was more unlikely to demolish fo ancient and august a building as Titus Vefpafian.

So important then is the question, Whether the books of the New Teftament be genuine? that the arguments which prove their authenticity, prove alfo the truth of the Chriftian religion. Let us now confider the evidence which proves the authenticity of the New Teftament.

85 Their au- We receive the books of the New Testament as the thenticity genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and proved. Paul, for the fame reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of Plutarch, of Cæfar, and of Livy. We have the uninterrupted teftimony of all ages, and we have no reason to fufpect impofition. This argument is much stronger when applied to the books of the New Teftament than when applied to any other writings; for they were addreffed to large focieties, were often read in their presence, and acknowledged by them to be the writings of the apoftles. Whereas, the most eminent profane writings which still remain were addreffed only to individuals, or to no perfons 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 fcarce, and the knowledge of them was confined to a few individuals in every nation.

The New Teftament was read over three quarters of the world, while profane writers were limited to one nation or to one country. An uninterrupted fucceffion of writers from the apoftolic ages to the present time quote the facred writings, or make allufions to them: and these quotations and allufions are made not only by friends but by enemies. This cannot be afferted of even the beft claffic authors. And it is highly probable, that the tranflations of the New Teftament were made fo early as the second century; and in a century or two after, they became very numerous. After this period, it was impoffible to forge new writings, or to corrupt the facred text, unless we can fuppofe that men of different nations, of different fentiments and different languages, and often exceedingly hoftile to one another, fhould all agree in one forgery. This argument is fo frong, that if we deny the authenticity of the New Teftament, we may with a thousand times more propriety reject all the other writings in the world: we may even throw afide human teftimony itself. But as this fubject is of great importance, we shall confider it at more length; and to enable our readers to judge with the greater accuracy, we fhall ftate, from the valuable work of Michaelis, as tranflated by the judicious and learned Mr Marth, the reasons which may induce a critic to fufpect a work to be fpurious. Negatively. 1. When doubts have been made from its first appearance in the world, whether it proceeded from the auVOL. XIX. Part I.

86

thor to whom it is afcribed. 2. When the immediate Scripture. friends of the pretended author, who were able to de- 87 cide upon the subject, have denied it to be his produc- The reafons tion. 3. When a long feries of years has elapfed af that would ter his death, in which the book was unknown, and in prove a which it must unavoidably have been mentioned and book to be quoted, had it really exifted. 4. When the ftyle is dif-spurious. ferent from that of his other writings, or, in cafe no other remain, different from that which might reafonably be expected. 5. When events are recorded which happened later 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 pofitive conclufion, fince every man is liable to change his opinion, or through forgetfulness to vary in the circumftances of the fame relation, of which Jofephus, in his Antiquities and War of the Jews, affords a ftriking example.

88

1. But it cannot be shown that any one doubted of Do not ap its authenticity in the period in which it firft appeared. Ply to the 2. No ancient accounts are on record whence we may ment. conclude it to be fpurious. 3. No confiderable period elapfed after the death of the apoftles, 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. 4. No argument can be brought in its disfavour from the nature of the style, it being exactly fuch as might be expected from the apoftles, not Attic but Jewish Greek. 5. No facts are recorded which happened after their death. 6. No doctrines are maintained which contradict the known tenets of the authors, fince, befide the New Teftament, no writings of the apostles exift. But, to the honour of the New Teftament be it spoken, it contains numerous contradictions to the tenets and doctrines of the fathers in the fecond and third century, whofe morality was different from that of the gospel, which recommends fortitude and fubmiffion to unavoidable evils, but not that enthusiastic ardour for martyrdom for which those centuries are diftinguished; it alludes to ceremonies which in the following ages were either in difufe or totally unknown : all which circumftances infallibly demonftrate that the New Testament is not a production of either of those centuries.

89

We shall now confider the pofitive evidence for the Pofitively authenticity of the New Testament. These may be arranged under the three following heads:

1. The impoffibility of a forgery, arifing from the nature of the thing itself. 2. The ancient Chriftian, Jewish, and Heathen teftimony in its favour. 3. Its own internal evidence.

90

1. The impoffibility of a forgery arifing from the na- Impoffibiliture of the thing itself is evident. It is impoffible to ty of a forestablish forged writings as authentic in any place where from the gery arifing there are perfons ftrongly inclined and well qualified to nature of detect the fraud. Now the Jews were the most violent the thing enemies of Christianity. They put the founder of it to death; they perfecuted his difciples with implacable fury; and they were anxious to fifle the new religion in its birth. If the writings of the New Teftament had been forged, would not the Jews have detected the impoilure? Is there a fingle inftance on record where a few individuals have impofed a history upon the world B against

Scripture, against the teftimony of a whole nation? Would the inhabitants of Palestine have received the gofpels, if they had not had fufficient evidence that Jefus Chrift really appeared among them, and performed the miracles afcribed to him? Or would the churches of Rome or of Corinth have acknowledged the epiftles addreffed to them as the genuine works of Paul, if Paul had never preached among them? We might as well think to prove, that the hiftory of the Reformation is the invention of hiftorians; and that no revolution happened in Great Britain during the last century.

91

From teftimony.

2. The fecond kind of evidence which we produce to prove the authenticity of the New Teftament, is the teftimony of ancient writers, Chriftians, Jews, and Heathens.

In reviewing the evidence of teftimony, it will not be expected that we should begin at the prefent age, and trace backwards the authors who have written on this fubject to the first ages of Christianity. This indeed, though a laborious task, could be performed in the most complete manner; the whole feries of authors, numerous in every age, who have quoted from the books of the New Teftament, written commentaries upon them, tranflated them into different languages, or who have drawn up a list of them, could be exhibited fo as to form fuch a perfect body of evidence, that we imagine even a jury of deifts would find it impoffible, upon a deliberate and candid examination, to reject or disbelieve it. We do not, however, fuppofe that fcepticifm has yet arrived at fo great a height as to render fuch a tedious and circumftantial evidence neceffary. Paffing over the intermediate space, therefore, we shall afcend at once to the fourth century, when the evidence for the authenticity of the New Teftament was fully established, and trace it back from that period to the age of the apoftles. We hope that this method of ftating the evidence will

Times in which they lived.

appear more natural, and will afford more fatisfaction, Scripture. than that which has been ufually adopted.

It is furely more natural, when we inveftigate the truth of any fact which depends on a series of teftimony, to begin with those witneffes who lived nearest the prefent age, and whofe characters are best established. In this way we shall learn from themselves the foundation of their belief, and the characters of those from whom they derived it; and thus we afcend till we ar rive at its origin. This mode of investigation will give more fatisfaction to the deift than the ufual way; and we believe no Chriftian, who is confident of the goodness of his caufe, will be unwilling to grant any proper conceffions. The deift will thus have an opportunity of examining, feparately, what he will confider as the weakest parts of the evidence, those which are exhibited by the earlieft Chriftian writers, confifting of expreffions, and not quotations, taken from the New Teftament. The Chriftian, on the other hand, ought to wish, that thefe apparently weak parts of the evidence were diftinctly examined, for they will afford an irrefragable proof that the New Testament was not forged: and fhould the deift reject the evidence of those early writers, it will be incumbent on him to account for the origin of the Chriftian religion, which he will find more difficult than to admit the common hypothefis.

1

In the fourth century we could produce the teftimonies of numerous witneffes to prove that the books of the New Teftament existed at that time; but it will be fufficient to mention their names, the time in which they wrote, and the fubftance of their evidence. This we fhall present in a concile form in the following table, which is taken from Jones's New and Full Me thod of cftablishing the canon of the New Teftament.

The Names of the Writers:

I.

A. C.

in the council of Laodicea.

Canon LIX.

N. B. The Canons of this council were not long afterwards received into the body of the canons of the univerfal church.

92 Teftimo

ancient Chriftians.

nity.

93

We now go back to Eufebius, who wrote about the nies of the year 315, and whofe catalogue of the books of the New Teftament we shall mention at more length. "Let us obferve (fays he) the writings of the apoftle John, which are uncontradicted; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gofpel, according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The author then proceeds to relate the occafions of writing the gofpels, and the reasons for placing St John's Paley's Edences of the laff, manifeftly fpeaking of all the four as equal in Coriia their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The fecond paffage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is," Of the Scriptures univerfally acknowledged, Of Enie. and of those that are not fuch." Eufebius begins his enumeration in the following manner: "In the first place, are to be ranked the facred four Gofpels, then the book of the Acts of the Apoftles; after that are to be reckoned the epiftles of Paul: in the next place, that called the first Epistle of John and the Epiftle 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 obferve the different opinions at proper feafons. Of the controverted, but yet well known or approved by the most, are that called the Epistle of James and that of Jude, the fecond of Peter, and the fecond and third of John, whether they were written by the evangelift or by another of the fame name." He then pro

Ep. ad Paulin. Tract. 6. p. 2. Alfo commonly prefixed to the Latin vulgar.

Expof. in Symb. Apoftol. § 36. int. Ep. Hieron. Par. 1. Tract. 3. p. 110. et inter Op. Cypr. p, 575. De Doctrin. Chrift. lib. ii. c. 8. Tom. Op. 3. p. 25.

Vid. Canon XLVII. et cap. ult.

ceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place Spurious, in another controverted; evidently meaning the fame thing by these two words (s).

Scripture.

94

A. D. 290, Victorin bishop of Pettaw in Germany, Of Victoin a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, rin. "The first was like a lion, the fecond was like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle," makes out, that by the four creatures are intended the four gofpels; and to fhow the propriety of the symbols, he recites the fubject with which each evangelift opens his hiftory. The explication is fanciful, but the teftimony pofitive. He also exprefsly cites the Acts of the Apostles.

95

A. D. 230, Cyprian bishop of Carthage gives the of Cyprifollowing teftimony: "The church (fays this father) an. is watered like Paradife by four rivers, that is, by four gofpels." The Acts of the Apofties are alfo frequently quoted by Cyprian under that name, and under the name of the Divine Scriptures." In his various writings are fuch frequent and copious citations of Scripture, as to place this part of the teftimony beyond controverfy. Nor is there, in the works of this eminent African bishop, one quotation of a spurious or apocryphal Christian writing."

96

A. D. 210, Origen is a most important evidence. Of Origen. Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subject now B 2 under

Scripture. under confideration, and, from a writer of his learning and information, nothing more fatisfactory, than the declaration of Origen, preferved in an extract of his works by Eufebius: "That the four gofpels alone are received without difpute by the whole church of God under heaven" to which declaration is immediately fubjoined a brief history of the refpective authors, to whom they were then, as they are now, afcribed. The fentiments expreffed concerning the gofpels in all the works of Origen which remain, entirely correfpond with the teftimony here cited. His atteftation to the Acts of the Apoftles is no lefs pofitive: "And Luke also once more founds the trumpet relating the Acts of the Apostles." That the Scriptures were then univerfally read, is plainly affirmed by this writer in a paffage in which he is repelling the objections of Celfus, "That it is not in private books, or fuch as are read by few only, and thofe ftudious perfons, but in books read by every body, that it is written, The invifible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly feen, being understood by things that are made." It is to no purpose to fingle out quotations of Scripture from fuch a writer as this. We might as well make a felection of the quotations of Scripture in Dr Clarke's fermons. They are fo thickly fown in the works of Origen, that Dr Mill fays, "If we had all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the whole text of the Bible."

97 Of Tertul lian.

98

Of Irenæus.

A. D. 194, Tertullian exhibits the number of the gofpels then received, the names of the evangelifts, and their proper defignations, in one fhort fentence.-

66

Among the apoftles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; among apoftolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it." The next paffage to be taken from Tertullian affords as complete an atteftation to the authenticity of the gofpels as can be well imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded by Paul at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Theffalonica, and Ephefus, the church of Rome established by Peter and Paul, and other churches derived from John, he proceeds thus: "I fay then, that with them, but not with them only which are apoftolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the fame faith, is that gofpel of Luke received from its first publication, which we fo zealously maintain ;" and presently afterwards adds, " The fame authority of the apoftolical churches will fupport the other gofpels, which we have from them, and according to them, I mean John's and Matthew's, although that likewife which Mark publifhed may be faid to be Peter's, whofe interpreter Mark was." In another place Tertullian affirms, that the three other gofpels, as well as St Luke's, were in the hands of the churches from the beginning. This noble teftimony proves incontestably the antiquity of the gospels, and that they were univerfally received; that they were in the hands of all, and had been fo from the firft. And this evidence appears not more than 150 years after the publication of the books. Dr Lardner obferves, " that there are more and larger quotations of the fmall volume of the New Teftament in this one Christian author, than there are of all the works of Cicero, in writers of all characters, for several ages." A. D. 178, Irenæus was bishop of Lyons, and is mentioned by Tertullian, Eufebius, Jerome, and Photius. In his youth he had been a difciple of Polycarp,

For

who was a difciple of John. He afferts of himself and Scripture. his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up in all the principal churches the fucceffion of bifhops to their firit inftitution. His teftimony to the four gospels and Acts of the Apostles is exprefs and pofitive. "We have not received," fays Irenæus, "the knowledge of the way of our falvation by any others than thofe by whom the gospel has been brought to us. Which gofpel they firit preached, and afterwards by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith. after that our Lord rofe from the dead, and they (the apoftles) were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghoft coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the bleffing of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one alike, the gofpel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a gofpel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit, Mark alfo, the difciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter. And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gofpel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the difciple of the Lord, who alfo leaned upon his breaft, likewife publifhed a gofpel while he dwelt at Ephefus in Afia." Irenæus then relates how Matthew begins his gofpel, how Mark begins and ends his, and gives the fuppofed reafons for doing fo. He enumerates at length all the paffages of Christ's history in Luke, which are not found in any of the other evangelifts. He ftates the particular defign with which St John compofed his gofpel, and accounts for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative. If any modern divine fhould write a book upon the genuineness of the gofpels, he could not affert it more exprefsly, or ftate their original more diftinctly, than Irenæus hath done within little more than 100 years after they were published.

Respecting the book of the Acts of the Apoftles, and its author, the teftimony of Irenæus is no lefs explicit. Referring to the account of St Paul's converfion and vocation, in the ninth chapter of that book, "Nor can they (fays he, meaning the parties with whom he argues) fhow that he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the greatest exactness." In another place, he has actually collected the feveral texts, in which the writer of the hiftory is reprefented as accompanying St Paul, which led him to exhibit a fummary of almost the whole of the last twelve chapters of the book.

According to Lardner, Irenæus quotes twelve of Paul's epiftles, naming their author; alfo the first epistle of Peter, the two first epiftles of John, and the Revelation. The epiftles of Paul which he omits are thofe addreffed to Philemon and the Hebrews. Eufebius fays, that he quotes the epiftle to the Hebrews, though he does not afcribe it to Paul. The work, however, is loft.

09

A. D. 172, Tatian, who is fpoken of by Clemens Of Tatian.. Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, and Jerome, compofed a harmony of the four gofpels, which he called Diatellaron of the four. This title, as well as the work, is re

markable,