12

Correspondence with Josephus, &c. [Ess. I.

and Herod Antipas, who severally ruled over distinct provinces, viz. Judea, Galilee, and Trachonitis-of Herod Agrippa the elder, (grandson of Herod the great) under whose dominion these provinces were again combined, and who, on a public occasion, was smitten with a fatal disease at Cæsarea-and, lastly, of Herod Agrippa the younger, and of his sisters Mariamne, Bernice, and Drusilla, the last of whom was the wife of the Roman Governor, Felix, Now, in the New Testament most of the principal members of this family are mentioned, and a variety of allusions are made to their history, character, and circumstances: and, although some of these details are of a subordinate nature, yet all of them, on examination, turn out to be correct; they are the faithful, natural, references of cotemporary writers to facts which are known to have taken place in their day. Precisely the same may be said of the account, given in the New Testament, of the various Roman governors in Judea and elsewhere; of the titles and dignities which they bore; of the authority which they assumed; and of the practices to which they and their people were accustomed. All is natural-all is evinced, by other wellauthorized evidences, to be correct and real. With regard to the Jews themselves, the argument now stated is much enhanced in value by the consideration that, after the taking and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, (A. D. 72) the customs and general condition of that extraordinary people underwent, in various respects, a total change. When we find the evangelists, who profess to relate the events of their own time, describing, incidentally indeed, but truly and accurately, the very peculiar circumstances of the Jewish polity under the government of Rome-the course of the priesthood-the councils-the synagogue worship-the sects, and their opinions-and the general habits and

Harmony of its Several Parts.

13

Ess. 1.] character which, at that remarkable period, are known to have attached to the Jews, we may rest fully assured that the Gospels are no forgeries-that they are the genuine production of the apostolic age, and of the authors whose names they bear. For the particulars appertaining to this part of the subject, see Lardner's Cred,, book 1, part i.

VI. Lastly, One part of the New Testament will often be found to afford a powerful confirmation of the genuineness of another. For example, the Gospel of John bears strong marks of having been written in order to complete the account of the life and discourses of Jesus, as delivered by Matthew, Mark, and Luke; and thus, the positive evidences adduced in favour of his Gospel are reflected on those of his predecessors. Again, the numerous undesigned and almost latent accordances which subsist between the statements made by Luke in "the Acts," and by Paul in his Epistles, afford an ample moral demonstration that the Book of Acts was really composed, as it professes to be, by one of Paul's companions, and that the Epistles attributed to Paul were actually the work of that highly-gifted person, whose labours and ministry are so graphically represented in the Book of Acts. So also a striking uniformity of style may, in general, be observed between those different works in the New Testament, which are attributed to the same author. On this ground, if we prove the genuine origin of the Gospel of John, (as we may do by a reference to innumerable quotations), that of his first Epistle is, on critical grounds, easily established. If, from historical evidences, we are satisfied that the Acts of the apostles were written by Luke, we cannot reasonably dispute the genuineness of his Gospel. If the testimonies of many early fathers compel us to admit that the Epistle to the Romans was really the work of Paul, we

14

Recapitulation.

[Ess. I. may be sure that he was the author also of the other twelve Epistles inscribed with his name; since they are all written in the same inimitable manner; all display the same extraordinary mind; and, with respect to the mode of thought, of argument, and of practical application, are generally cast in the same peculiar mould.

On a reference to the principal points adverted to in the present Essay, it will be observed: first, that, from a fair view of the attributes of God and of the condition of man, there arises a strong antecedent probability of such an especial revelation of divine truth as Christianity professes to be. Secondly, that the introduction of the Christian revelation into the world is a matter of undisputed history, and that the substance of it is contained in the New Testament. Thirdly, that this volume, deserving as it is of the regard and attention of all men, from its intrinsic excellence, professes to have been written by six of the apostles of Jesus Christ, and two of their companions. Fourthly, that, in the early part of the fourth century, at a time when the New Testament was very largely disseminated in the church of Christ, the bulk of it was "confessed by all to be genuine," and that the same character was soon afterwards, with equal unanimity, attributed to its remaining parts. Fifthly, that its genuineness is amply evinced by a variety of both external and internal evidences, viz:-innumerable quotations in the writings of the early fathers; catalogues, harmonies, and commentaries; early versions into foreign dialects; the testimony of heretics and of heathen enemies; the peculiarity of the language in which it is written; the correct allusions contained in it to the customs which prevailed, and to the events which occurred, during the age of Christ and his apostles; and, lastly, the reciprocal accordances of its several parts.

Ess. I.]

Spurious Gospels, &c.

15

Now, I conceive that, the more we examine these evidences, and make them the subject of our reflection, the more ready shall we be to adopt the opinion of Paley and other authors, that, in point of number, extent, variety, and harmony, they are far superior to those which can be brought to bear on any ancient classical book whatsoever. If, then, we entertain no doubt that the Cyropædia is the work of Xenophon; the Æneid, of Virgil; the Tusculan Disputations, of Cicero; and the Gallic Commentaries, of Cæsar; much less have we any reason to hesitate in receiving the New Testament, as the production of the evangelists and apostles.

Here, perhaps, the inquiry may be suggested, what appearance of evidence is it probable could have been produced in favor of the books of the New Testament, had they been really spurious? This inquiry may be answered by an appeal to facts. We are actually in possession of spurious Gospels, spurious acts of Paul, and spurious Epistles, purporting to be written by Christ or his followers. It is probable that these wretched forgeries were produced during the second, third, and fourth, centuries of the Christian era; and the first production of some of them is matter of history. Now, they are not once alluded to by the fathers of the first century. By those of the three next centuries they are seldom cited: when cited, they are never adduced as Scripture, and are sometimes expressly declared to be destitute of all authority. They were the subjects of no commentaries. They were uniformly excluded from the canons of sacred books. They were written in a style totally differing from that of the New Testament, though unskilfully copied from it in parts: and lastly, they abound in absurdities, contradictions, anachronisms, trifling ridiculous details, and narrations even of an immoral ten

16

Text of New Testament.

[Ess. I. dency. While, therefore, these spurious productions afford a proof of the antecedent existence of those books which they so irreverently mimic, the inherent and extrinsic circumstances appertaining to their character and history may serve to show us how matters would have stood with the New Testament, had it also been spurious; and the absolute genuineness of that pure and unsophisticated volume is rendered more than ever manifest by the contrast: see Horne's Intr., vol. i, p. 717. Jones on the Canon.5

Finally, while it is thus abundantly evident that the New Testament is the genuine work of the evangelists and apostles, we have every reason to believe that its text, as we have long been accustomed to read it, is substantially correct and uncorrupted. The early multiplication of copies among persons of so many different characters and situations, and, in process of time, of such various religious persuasions, while it would naturally give rise to a vast number of unimportant various readings, afforded a sure check against the corruption or wilful alteration of the sacred text. The copies thus early made and disseminated may be

5 The aprocryphal Gospels and Epistles, now extant, form but a small proportion of that mass of absurd and irreligious forgery which was poured forth by the wilder sects of heretics during the second, third, and fourth, centuries. The very fact, that almost the whole of these productions have long since been lost and forgotten, while the canonical books have, in all ages of the Christian church, been received and carefully preserved, affords, in itself, a sufficient evidence of the spuriousness of the former, and of the genuineness of the latter. The ancient fathers were accustomed to cite these spurious works, for the purpose of showing that, in point of learning, they were on a par with their opponents. When speaking of the forged Gospels, Origen, after distinguishing them from the four genuine ones, writes as follows:-" Legimus ne quid ignorare videremur, propter eos qui se putant aliquid scire, si ista cognoverint:" Hom. in Luc. i, 1. So also Ambrose, "Legimus ne legantur (ab aliis ;) legimus ne ignoremus; legimus non ut teneamus, sed ut repudiemus, et ut sciamus qualia sint in quibus magnifici isti cor exultant suum;" Com. in Luc. i, 1. Jones on the Canon, vol. i, 129.