SECT. II.

ON THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

1. THAT an extraordinary person, called Jesus Christ, flourished in Judæa in the Augustan age, is a FACT (not a myth or fictitious narrative)' better supported and authenticated than that there lived such men as Cyrus, Alexander, and Julius Cæsar; for although their histories are recorded by various ancient writers, yet the memorials of their conquests and empires have for the most part perished. Babylon, Persepolis, and Ecbatana are no more. How few vestiges of Alexander's victorious arms are at present to 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 Cæsar, 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 which 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 ascension of Jesus Christ, which they acknowledge to be divine, and to have been written by the first preachers of Christianity.2

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. For although they were at first content with the oral publication of the actions and doctrines of their Master; yet they must have been apprehensive lest the purity of that first tradition should be altered after their decease by false teachers, or by 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

That the life of Jesus Christ, recorded by the evangelists, is not a collection of myths, has been demonstrated at length, and most conclusively, by Dr. W. L. Alexander, in his "Christ and Christianity," pp. 88-122. Edinburgh, 1854.

2 Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 1-6.

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 testimony of all the Christian churches, which, in every age since their establishment, have professed to read and to venerate certain books as the productions of the apostles, and as being the foundation of their faith. Now every thing which we know concerning the belief, worship, manners, and discipline of the first Christians, corresponds exactly with the contents of the books of the New Testament, which are now extant, and which are therefore most certainly the primitive instructions which they received.

The collection of these books or writings is generally known by the appellation of 'H KAINH AIAOнKH, 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 it is justified by several passages in the Scriptures2, and is, in particular, warranted by Saint Paul, who calls the doctrines, precepts, and promises of the Gospel dispensation Kawn Aaonen, the New Covenant, in opposition to those of the Mosaic Dispensation, which he terms Пaλaià Aiabýŋ, the Old Covenant.3 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.1

II. The writings, thus collectively termed the NEW TESTAMENT,

1 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 kah diathкn actually occurs in the sense of “writings of the new covenant" is in Origen's treatise Пepl'Apxŵv, lib. iv. c. 1. (Op. tom. i. p. 156.)-Michaelis, vol. i. p. 343. See also Rosenmuller's Scholia in N. T. tom. i. p. 1.; Rumpæi Commentatio Critica in Libros Novi Testamenti, pp. 1-3.; Leusden's Philologus Hebræo-Græcus, p. 1.; and Pritii Introd. in Nov. Test. pp. 9-11.

2 Matt. xxvi. 28.; Gal. iii. 17.; Heb. viii. 8., ix. 15—20. 32 Cor. iii. 6. 14.

The learned professor Jablonski has an elegant dissertation on the word AIA®HKH; 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 AIA@HKH; 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 designates the same thing; and, 5. From the consent of antiquity. Jablonskii Opuscula, tom. ii. pp. 393-423. Lug. Bat. 1804.

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.1

Modern advocates of infidelity, with their accustomed disregardof truth, have asserted that the Scriptures of the New Testament were never accounted canonical until the meeting of the provincial synod of bishops from parts of Lydia and Phrygia, commonly termed the council of Laodicea, and held at Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, A. D. 364. The simple fact is, that the canons attributed to this synod or council are the earliest extant, which give a formal cata

Of all the various opinions which have been maintained concerning the person who first collected the canon of the New Testament, the most general 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. c. 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. Mosheim's Commentaries, translated by Mr. Vidal, vol. i. p. 151. Stosch, in his learned Commentatio Critica de Librorum Nov. Test. Canone (pp. 103. et seq. 8vo. 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.

There is, indeed, every

logue of the books of the New Testament. reason to believe that the bishops who were present at Laodicea did not mean to settle the canon, but simply to mention those books which were to be publicly read.1 Another reason why the canonical books were not mentioned before the provincial 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.

2

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 allusions 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

This is evident from the words of the fifty-ninth canon:-Où dei idiwtikovs yaλuovs λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησία, οὐδὲ ἀκανόνιστα βιβλία, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ κανονικὰ τῆς καινῆς καὶ #adaiâs diabhins.—“Private Psalms" [or Psalms composed by private men] "must not be read in the Church, but only the canonical books of the Old Testament." Beveregii Pandecta Canonum, tom. i. p. 461. The Rev. B. F. Westcott has critically examined the Laodicean canon in his History of the Canon of the New Testament, pp. 496-508. Bp. Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 270. Jones on the Canon, vol. i. p. 41. Oxford, 1798.

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 as 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, pseudepigraphal, 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 it is ascribed; -2. When the immediate friends of the pretended author, who were able to decide upon the subject, have 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 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 agument 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,