one arises from observing, that it appears by the gospels themselves, that the story was public at the time; that the christian community was already in possession of the substance and principal parts of the narrative. The gospels were not the original cause of the christian history being believed, but were themselves among the consequences of that belief. This is expressly affirmed by St. Luke in his brief, but, as I think, very important and instructive preface. Forasmuch [says the evangelist] as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they were delivered unto us, which, from the beginning, were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.'-This short introduction testifies that the substance of the history, which the evangelist was about to write, was already believed by Christians; that it was believed upon the declarations of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; that it formed the account of their religion, in which Christians were instructed; that the office which the historian proposed to himself, was to trace each particular to its origin, and to fix the certainty of many things which the reader had before heard of. In St. John's Gospel, the same point appears from hence, that there are some principal facts, to which the historian refers, but which he does not relate. A remarkable instance of this kind is the ascension, which is not mentioned by St. John in its place, at the conclusion of his history, but which is plainly referred to in the following words of the sixth chapter :1 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?' And still more positively in the words which Christ, according to our evangelist, spoke to Mary after his resurrection, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go unto my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God.' This can only be accounted for by the supposition, that St. John wrote under a sense of the notoriety of Christ's ascension, amongst those by whom his book was likely to be

6

1 Also John iii. 13, and xvi. 28.

2 Ibid. xx. 17.

read.

The same account must also be given of St. Matthew's omission of the same important fact. The thing was very well known, and it did not occur to the historian that it was necessary to add any particulars concerning it. It agrees also with this solution, and with no other, that neither Matthew nor John disposes of the person of our Lord in any manner whatever. Other intimations in St. John's Gospel of the then general notoriety of the story are the following: His manner of introducing his narrative, [ch. i. ver. 15,] 'John bare witness of him, and cried, saying,' evidently presupposes that his readers knew who John was. His rapid parenthetical reference to John's imprisonment, for John was not yet cast into prison,"1 could only come from a writer whose mind was in the habit of considering John's imprisonment as perfectly notorious. The description of Andrew by the addition 'Simon Peter's brother," takes it for granted that Simon Peter was well known. His name had not been mentioned before. The evangelist's noticing the prevailing misconstruction of a discourse, which Christ held with the beloved disciple, proves that the characters and the discourse were already public. And the observation which these instances afford, is of equal validity for the purpose of the present argument, whoever were the authors of the histories.

THESE four circumstances, first, the recognition of the account in its principal parts by a series of succeeding writers ; secondly, the total absence of any account of the origin of the religion substantially different from ours; thirdly, the early and extensive prevalence of rites and institutions, which result from our account; fourthly, our account bearing, in its construction, proof that it is an account of facts, which were known and believed at the time, are sufficient, I conceive, to support an assurance, that the story which we have now, is, in general, the story which Christians had at the beginning. I say in general; by which term I mean, that it is the same in its texture, and in its principal facts. For instance, I make no doubt, for the reasons above stated, but that the resurrection of the founder of the religion was always a part of the Christian story. Nor can a doubt of this remain upon the mind of

1 John iii. 24.

2 Ibid. i. 40.

3 Ibid. xxi. 24.

any one, who reflects that the resurrection is, in some form or other, asserted, referred to, or assumed, in every christian writing, of every description, which hath come down to us.

And if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case to offer for we should have to allege, that, in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, a certain number of persons set about an attempt of establishing a new religion in the world; in the prosecution of which purpose, they voluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labours, sustained great sufferings, all for a miraculous story which they published wherever they came; and that the resurrection of a dead man, whom, during his life, they had followed and accompanied, was a constant part of this story. I know nothing in the above statement which can, with any appearance of reason, be disputed: and I know nothing in the history of the human species similar to it.

ANNOTATION.

'There is no room for insinuating that our books were fabricated with a studious accommodation to the usages which obtained at the time when they were written?'

Not only is this true, but the OMISSION in the New Testament of many things which-humanly speaking—we should have expected to find there, is a strong (though often overlooked) internal evidence of divine agency. We find in the New Testament nothing of the character of the Catechisms, such as we are sure must have been employed for instructing learners in the first rudiments of Christianity; nor again do we find anything of the nature of a Creed; nor a Liturgy; nor anything answering to a Rubric (or set of Canons), prescribing the mode of administering the Sacraments, and of conducting all parts of the Church-Service; nor any precise description of the manner of ordaining Ministers, and of carrying on Church-government.

Yet all these things, we are sure, must have existed. We even find frequent mention of prayers offered up by Apostles;

1 See Essay on the Omissions, &c.

and of their breaking bread' [celebrating the Lord's Supper] in the congregations. But the prayers which they used, on these and on other occasions, are not recorded. And it is very remarkable that the only two prayers of the Apostles that we do find recorded in words, had reference to such peculiar occasions (the election of an Apostle in Acts i., and their first persecution, Acts iv.) as made them quite unsuitable for ordinary public worship. The same is the case, in a less degree, with the three Hymns, that of Zacharias, that of the Virgin Mary, and that of Symeon, which are introduced from the New Testament into our Service. They had, each, reference to a peculiar occasion, but not to such a degree as to unfit them altogether for ordinary Worship; for which they have been adopted accordingly. The same may be said of the prayers of the first martyr, Stephen; and also of those prayers of Jesus Himself which are recorded in John's Gospel. One short form of prayer which our Lord taught to his disciples-and that, before the chief part of the Gospel had been revealed-is all that we find recorded.

Now that no Liturgies, Creeds, or other Formularies, such as we have been speaking of, should have been committed to writing by any of the Apostles or Evangelists, is a fact which will appear the more unaccountable,―humanly speaking,the more we reflect on the subject. Supposing Paul to have been too much occupied with other writings to find leisure for recording such things, why was it not done, by his direction or permission, by one or other of his companions and assistants? -by Luke, or Timothy, or Titus, or some of the others whom we find mentioned? If not by any of these, why not by Barnabas, or Peter, or some other Apostle? or by some of their numerous fellow-labourers?

There must have been hundreds quite competent to the task; which would have been merely to write down what they saw and heard; and this would have been eagerly read by thousands, and carefully copied and preserved. Yet what it would have been, seemingly, so natural and so easy to do, by each of a great number of men, was done by no one.

And as the drawing up of such records is what would naturally have occurred to men of any nation, situated as the Apostles and their companions were, so, it seems doubly strange

E.C.

H

that this should not have occurred to Jews; to men brought up under that Law which prescribed with such minute exactness all the ceremonials of their worship,-all the Articles of their belief,—and all the rules they were to observe.

The omission, therefore, which we have been speaking of is, on all natural principles, quite unaccountable, and, indeed, incredible. And there seems no way of explaining it, except by concluding that the Apostles and their attendants were super-naturally restrained from drawing up any such written records as we have been speaking of. We must conclude that divine Providence had decreed that no Canons, Liturgies, or Creeds, &c., should form any part of Holy Scripture; and that, accordingly, the inspired Writers were withheld from committing any to paper.

And in confirmation-if any confirmation could be neededof what we have now been saying, we find that soon after the Age of inspiration, and when men were left to act on their own judgment, they did draw up Creeds (several of which have come down to us), Liturgies, and directions for the celebration of divine Worship, called the Apostolical Constitutions.' Pliny records the custom of the Christians in his day (in the early part of the second century), of singing a hymn to Christ as God.' This is supposed by some to have been that which we call the Te Deum,' or some portion of it. But at any rate it must have been' something written down and learnt by the congregation. Whatever may be urged in behalf of extemporary prayers, a hymn at least could not be so. And these compositions, though professing to be records of what had come down by tradition from the times of the Apostles (which is, probably, in part true), were never received by any Church as Holy Scripture. Even the Church of Rome, which pronounces all traditions sanctioned by itself, of equal authority with Scripture, still maintains the distinction. It has never inserted in the New Testament any of those compositions we have been speaking of. And here we have, by the way, a testimony which would, alone, completely refute the wild theory of some (socalled) Theologians, that the New Testament was a compilation drawn up in the third or fourth Century from floating Traditions. It would be a sufficient answer (though many other disproofs might be given), to remark, that in that case it would not have failed to contain the Liturgies, Apostolic Constitutions,