held to be the fit depositaries of those mystical legends, which in the hands of the common people, were so liable to be "wrested to their own destruction." Not to insist on the deplorable ignorance of lay-people all over Christendom for so many ages, during which, scarce any but the clergy were able to read at all. It would be hard to authenticate a single instance of the existence of a translation of the gospels into the vulgar tongue, of any country in which Christianity was established, at any time within the first four centuries. The clergy, or those engaged and interested in the business of dealing out spiritual edification, whose testimony alone we have on the subject, mutually criminate and recriminate each other, according as they grasp or lose their hold on the ascendancy, (and so are held to be orthodox or heretical) with corrupting the scriptures. The epistolary parts of the New Testament, entirely independent and wholly irrelevant of the gospels as they manifestly are, may be considered as the fairest and most liberal specimen of the manner, in which the stewards of the mysteries of God, "brought forth things new and old,"* according to the spiritual necessities of the congregations which they addressed, while they steadily kept the key of the sacred treasure, the right of expounding it, and even of determining what it was, exclusively in their own hands. Hence, though the gospel is spoken of in innumerable passages of these epistles, (written, as we have seen they were, before any gospels which have come down to us, except those which are deemed apocryphal,) there occurs not in them, a single quotation or text seeming to be taken from the gospel so spoken of, or sufficient to show what the contents of that gospel, were. Hence the authenticity and genuineness of the writings of St. Paul, and of all those parts of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, which Paley in his Hora Paulina has shown, present such striking coincidences with his writings, is a wholly distinct and irrelevant question, to that of the genuineness and authenticity of the writings on which the Christian faith is founded: for, as all persons must see and admit at once, that if the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have come down to us, could be shown to be the compositions of such * Every Scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure, things new and old.Matt. xiii 52.—i. e. he practices the art of deceiving the people. persons, as those to whom, under those names, they are ascribed, and so to be fairly and honourably genuine and authentic-this, their high and independent sanction, would lose nothing, nor even so much as to be brought into suspicion, by a detection of the most manifest forgery and imposture of those subordinate, or, at most, only supplementary writings: so the genuineness of these supplementary writings, involves no presumption of the genuineness or authenticity of those; but rather, as being admitted to have been written earlier than our gospels, and referring continually to gospels still earlier than themselves, which had previously been the rule of faith to so many previously existing churches; these epistles supply one of the most formidable arrays of proof that can possibly be imagined against the claims of our gospels; and having served this effect, like expended ammunition that has carried the volley to its aim, they dissipate and break off into the void and incollectible inane. The gos- pels once convicted of being merely supposititious and furtive compositions, it is not the genuineness and demonstrable authenticity of any other parts of the New Testament, that its advocates will care to defend, or its enemies to impugn. They fall as a matter of course, like the provincial towns and fortresses of a conquered empire, to the masters of the capital. In this DIEGESIS, we shall therefore more especially confine our investigation to the claims of the Evangelical histories; and as our arguments must mainly be derived from the admissions which their best learned and ablest advocates have made with respect to them, we shall throughout, speak of them and of their contents, in the tone and language which courtesy and respect to the feelings of those for whose instruction we write, may reasonably claim from us; and which being understood as adopted for the convenience of argument only, can involve no compromise of sincerity. CANONS OF CHAPTER XIV. CRITICISM.-DATA OF CRITICISM.- -COROLLA- CANONS OF CRITICISM. To be applied in judging the comparative claims of the 1. The canonical and apocryphal gospels are competitive, i. e. they are reciprocally destructive of each other's pretensions. 2. If the canonical gospels are authentic, the apocryphal gospels are forgeries. 3. If the apocryphal gospels are authentic, the canonical gospels are forgeries. 4. No consideration of the comparative merits or characters of the competitive works, can have place in the consideration of their claims to authenticity. 5. Those writings, which ever they be, or whether they be the better or the worse, which can be shown to have been written first, have the superior claim to authenticity. 6. It is impossible that those writings which were the first, could have been written to disparage or supersede those which were written after. 7. Those writings which have the less appearance of art and contrivance, are the first. 8. Those writings which exhibit a more rhetorical construction of language, in the detail of the same events, with explications, suppressions, and variations, whose evident scope is, to render the story more probable, are the later writings. 9. Those writings whose existence is acknowledged by the others, but which themselves acknowledge not those others, are unquestionably the first. 10. There could be no conceivable object or purpose in putting forth writings which were much worse, after the world were in possession of such as were much better. 11. If the story were not true, in the first way of telling it, no improvement in the way of telling it, could render it true. 12. If those, who were only improvers upon the original history, have concealed that fact, and have suffered mankind to understand that the improvements were the originals; they are guilty and wicked forgers, and never could have had any other or better intention, than to mislead and deceive mankind. DATA OF CRITICISM. To be applied in judging the comparative claims of the 1. It is manifest and admitted on all hands, that the apocryphal gospels are very silly and artless compositions, "full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders.”—Mosheim, in loco. 2. It is manifest, and admitted on all hands, that the canonical gospels exhibit a more rhetorical construction of language than the apocryphal, and have a highly-wrought sublimity and grandeur, the like of which is no where to be found in any of the apocryphal gospels. 3. The canonical gospels, but more especially the canonical epistles, which are admitted to have been written before the gospels, do in very many places acknowledge the existence and prevalence of those writings which are now called apocryphal. 4. The apocryphal gospels, as far as we have any traces of them left, do no where recognise or acknowledge the writings which are now called canonical. 5. The apocryphal gospels, are quoted by the very earliest Fathers, orthodox, as well as heretical, as reverentially as those which we now call canonical. 6. The apocryphal gospels, are admitted in the New Testament itself, to have been universally received, and to have been the guide and rule of faith to the whole Christian world, before any one of our present canonical gospels, was in existence. COROLLARIES. 1. Indications of time, discovered in those gospels which were written first, will indicate time relatively, to those which were written afterwards-exempli gratiá. It being proved that the legend A. was written before the legend C, there will be proof, that events which were contemporary or antecedent to the writing of A., were antecedent, a fortiori, to the writing of C. 2. Indications of the prevalence of a state of things, existing when the earlier gospels were written, will indicate relatively the state of things, when the latter gospels were written-exempli gratiá. It being proved that the earlier gospels were written under an universal prevalence of the notions and doctrines of monkery, there will be proof of the monkish character necessarily derived to the gospels, derived from those gospels. DR. LARDNER'S TABLE. Dr. Lardner's Plan of the Times and Places of writing the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. A Table of St. Paul's Epistles in the Order of Time; with the Places where, and the Times when, they were written. (From Lardner's Supplement to The Credibility, &c. vol. ii. p. iv.) A Table of the Seven Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation, with the Places where, and the Times when, they were written. (From Lardner's Supplement to The Credibility, &c. vol. iii. p. iv.) Epistles, &c. The Epistles of St. James. The two Epistles of St. Peter. His second and third Epistles. Places. A D. Judea. 61, or the beginning of 62 |