tion; both living in habits of society and correspondence with those who had been present at the transactions which they relate. The latter of them accordingly tells us, (and with apparent sincerity, because he tells it without pretending to personal knowledge, and without claiming for his work greater authority than belonged to it,) that the things which were believed amongst Christians, came from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; that he had traced accounts up to their source; and that he was prepared to instruct his reader in the certainty of the things which he related. Very few histories lie so close to their facts; very few historians are so nearly connected with the subject of their narrative, or possess such means of authentic information, as these.

Now, in treating of this part of our argument, the first and most material observation upon the subject is, that such was the situation of the authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed, that, if any one of the four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose. The received author of the first, was an original apostle and emissary of the religion. The received author of the second, was The situation of the writers applies to the truth an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the time, to whose of the facts which they record. But at present we house the apostles were wont to resort, and him- use their testimony to a point somewhat short of self an attendant upon one of the most eminent this, namely, that the facts recorded in the Gosof that number. The received author of the third, pels, whether true or false, are the facts, and the was a stated companion and fellow-traveller of the sort of facts, which the original preachers of the most active of all the teachers of the religion, and religion alleged. Strictly speaking, I am conin the course of his travels frequently in the cerned only to show, that what the Gospels consociety of the original apostles. The received au- tain is the same as what the apostles preached. thor of the fourth, as well as of the first, was one of Now, how stands the proof of this point? A set these apostles. No stronger evidence of the truth of men went about the world, publishing a story of a history can arise from the situation of the composed of miraculous accounts, (for miraculous historian, than what is here offered. The authors from the very nature and exigency of the case of all the histories lived at the time and upon the they must have been,) and, upon the strength of spot. The authors of two of the histories were these accounts, called upon mankind to quit the present at many of the scenes which they de- religions in which they had been educated, and to scribe; eye-witnesses of the facts, ear-witnesses take up, thenceforth, a new system of opinions, of the discourses; writing from personal know- and new rules of action. What is more in attes ledge and recollection; and, what strengthens tation of these accounts, that is, in support of an their testimony, writing upon a subject in which institution of which these accounts were the fountheir minds were deeply engaged, and in which, dation, is that the same men voluntarily exposed as they must have been very frequently repeating themselves to harassing and perpetual labours, the accounts to others, the passages of the history dangers, and sufferings. We want to know what would be kept continually alive in their memory. these accounts were. We have the particulars, Whoever reads the Gospels (and they ought to be i. e. many particulars, from two of their own num read for this particular purpose,) will find in them ber. We have them from an attendant of one of not merely a general affirmation of miraculous the number, and who, there is reason to believe, powers, but detailed circumstantial accounts of was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the time. We miracles, with specifications of time, place, and have them from a fourth writer, who accompanied persons; and these accounts many and various. the most laborious missionary of the institution in In the Gospels, therefore, which bear the names his travels; who, in the course of these travels, of Matthew and John, these narratives, if they was frequently brought into the society of the really proceeded from these men, must either be rest; and who, let it be observed, begins his nartrue, as far as the fidelity of human recollection is rative by telling us that he is about to relate the usually to be depended upon, that is, must be true things which had been delivered by those who in substance, and in their principal parts (which were ministers of the word, and eye-witnesses of is sufficient for the purpose of proving a super- the facts. I do not know what information can natural agency,) or they must be wilful and medi-be more satisfactory than this. We may, perhaps, tated falsehoods. Yet the writers who fabricated and uttered these falsehoods, if they be such, are of the number of those who, unless the whole contexture of the Christian story be a dream, sacrificed their ease and safety in the cause, and for a purpose the most inconsistent that is possible with dishonest intentions. They were villains for no end but to teach honesty, and martyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage.

The Gospels which bear the name of Mark and Luke, although not the narratives of eye-witnesses, are, if genuine, removed from that only by one degree. They are the narratives of contemporary writers; or writers themselves mixing with the business; one of the two probably living in the place which was the principal scene of ac

perceive the force and value of it more sensibly, if we reflect how requiring we should have been if we had wanted it. Supposing it to be sufficiently proved, that the religion now professed among us, owed its original to the preaching and ministry of a number of men, who, about eighteen centuries ago, set forth in the world a new system of religious opinions, founded upon certain extraordinary things which they related of a wonderful person who had appeared in Judea; suppose it to

*Why should not the candid and modest preface of this historian be believed, as well as that which Dion Cassius prefixes to his Life of Commodus? These things and the following I write not from the report of I see no reason to doubt but that both passages describe truly enough the situation of the authors.

others, but from my own knowledge and observation."

be also sufficiently proved, that, in the course and prosecution of their ministry, these men had subjected themselves to extreme hardships, fatigue, and peril; but suppose the accounts which they published had not been committed to writing till Some ages after their times, or at least that no histories, but what had been composed some ages afterwards, had reached our hands; we should have said, and with reason, that we were willing to believe these men under the circumstances in which they delivered their testimony, but that we did not, at this day, know with sufficient evidence what their testimony was. Had we received the particulars of it from any of their own number, from any of those who lived and conversed with them, from any of their hearers, or even from any of their contemporaries, we should have had some thing to rely upon. Now, if our books be genuine, we have all these. We have the very species of information which, as it appears to me, our imagination would have carved out for us, if it had been wanting.

Luke; and let it also for a moment be supposed that these histories were not, in fact, written by Matthew and Luke; yet, if it be true that Mark, a contemporary of the apostles, living in habits of society with the apostles, a fellow-traveller and fellow-labourer with some of them; if, I say, it be true that this person made the compilation, it follows, that the writings from which he made it existed in the time of the apostles, and not only so, but that they were then in such esteem and credit, that a companion of the apostles formed a history out of them. Let the Gospel of Mark be called an epitome of that of Matthew; if a person in the situation in which Mark is described to have been, actually made the epitome, it affords the strongest possible attestation to the character of the original.

Again, parallelisms in sentences, in words, and in the order of words, have been traced out between the Gospel of Matthew and that of Luke; which concurrence cannot easily be explained otherwise than by supposing, either that Luke had consulted But I have said, that if any one of the four Matthew's history, or, what appears to me in noGospels be genuine, we have not only direct his wise incredible, that minutes of some of Christ's torical testimony to the point we contend for, but discourses, as well as brief memoirs of some pastestimony which, so far as that point is concerned, sages of his life, had been committed to writing at cannot reasonably be rejected. If the first Gospel the time; and that such written accounts had by was really written by Matthew, we have the narra- both authors been occasionally admitted into their tive of one of the number, from which to judge what histories. Either supposition is perfectly consistwere the miracles, and the kind of miracles, which ent with the acknowledged formation of St. Luke's the apostles attributed to Jesus. Although, for narrative, who professes not to write as an eyeargument's sake, and only for argument's sake, witness, but to have investigated the original of we should allow that this Gospel had been erro- every account which he delivers: in other words, neously ascribed to Matthew; yet, if the Gospel to have collected them from such documents and of Saint John be genuine, the observation holds testimonies, as he, who had the best opportunities with no less strength. Again, although the Gos- of making inquiries, judged to be authentic. pels both of Matthew and John could be supposed Therefore, allowing that this writer also, in some to be spurious, yet, if the Gospel of Saint Luke instances, borrowed from the Gospel which we were truly the composition of that person, or of call Matthew's, and once more allowing, for the any person, be his name what it might, who was sake of stating the argument, that that Gospel was actually in the situation in which the author of not the production of the author to whom we that Gospel professes himself to have been, or if ascribe it; yet still we have, in Saint Luke's Gosthe Gospel which bears the name of Mark really pel, a history given by a writer immediately conproceeded from him; we still, even upon the low-nected with the transaction, with the witnesses of est supposition, possess the accounts of one writer it, with the persons engaged in it, and composed at least, who was not only contemporary with the from materials which that person, thus situated, apostles, but associated with them in their minis-deemed to be safe sources of intelligence; in other try; which authority seems sufficient, when the question is simply what it was which these apostles advanced.

words, whatever supposition be made concerning any or all the other Gospels, if Saint Luke's Gospel be genuine, we have in it a credible evidence of the point which we maintain.

again repeat what I before said, that if any one of the four be genuine, we have, in that one strong reason, from the character and situation of the writer, to believe that we possess the accounts which the original emissaries of the religion delivered.

I think it material to have this well noticed. The New Testament contains a great number of The Gospel according to Saint John appears to distinct writings, the genuineness of any one of be, and is on all hands allowed to be, an independwhich is almost sufficient to prove the truth of the ent testimony, strictly and properly so called. Notreligion: it contains, however, four distinct histo- withstanding, therefore, any connexion, or supries, the genuineness of any one of which is per-posed connexion, between some of the Gospels, I fectly sufficient. If, therefore, we must be considered as encountering the risk of error in as signing the authors of our books, we are entitled to the advantage of so many separate probabilities. And although it should appear that some of the evangelists had seen and used each other's works; this discovery, whilst it subtracts indeed from Secondly: In treating of the written evidences their characters as testimonies strictly independ- of Christianity, next to their separate, we are to ent, diminishes, I conceive, little, either their se- consider their aggregate authority. Now, there parate authority (by which I mean the authority is in the evangelic history a cumulation of testiof any one that is genuine,) or their mutual con- mony which belongs hardly to any other history, firmation. For, let the most disadvantageous but which our habitual mode of reading the Scripsupposition possible be made concerning them; tures sometimes causes us to overlook. When a let it be allowed, what I should have no great dif- passage, in any wise relating to the history of ficulty in admitting, that Mark compiled his his-Christ, is read to us out of the epistle of Clemens tory almost entirely from those of Matthew and Romanus, the epistles of Ignatius, of Polycarp, or

If we dispose our ideas in a different order, the matter stands thus:-Whilst the transaction was recent, and the original witnesses were at hand to relate it; and whilst the apostles were busied in preaching and travelling, in collecting disciples, in forming and regulating societies of converts, ir supporting themselves against opposition; whilst they exercised their ministry under the harassing of frequent persecution, and in a state of almost continual alarm, it is not probable that, in this engaged, anxious, and unsettled condition of life, they would think immediately of writing histories for the information of the public or of posterity.* But it is very probable, that emergencies might draw from some of them occasional letters upon the subject of their mission, to converts, or to societies of converts, with which they were connected; or that they might address written discourses and exhortations to the disciples of the institution at large, which would be received and read with a respect proportioned to the character of the writer. Accounts in the mean time would get abroad of the extraordinary things that had been passing, written with different degrees of information and correctness. The extension of the Christian society, which could no longer be instructed by a personal intercourse with the apostles, and the possible circulation of imperfect or erroneous narratives, would soon teach some amongst them the expediency of sending forth authentic memoirs of the life and doctrine of their Master. When accounts appeared authorized by the name, and credit, and situation of the writers, recommended or recognised by the apostles and first preachers of the religion, or found to coincide with what the apostles and first preachers of the religion had taught, other accounts would fall into disuse and neglect; whilst these maintaining their reputation (as, if genuine and well founded, they would do) under the test of time, inquiry, and contradiction, might be expected to make their way into the hands of Christians of all countries of the world.

from any other writing of that age, we are immediately sensible of the confirmation which it affords to the Scripture account. Here is a new witness. Now, if we had been accustomed to read the Gospel of Matthew alone, and had known that of Luke only as the generality of Christians know the writings of the apostolical fathers, that is, had known that such a writing was extant and acknowledged; when we came, for the first time, to look into what it contained, and found many of the facts which Matthew recorded, recorded also there, many other facts of a similar nature added, and throughout the whole work the same general series of transactions stated, and the same general character of the person who was the subject of the history preserved, I apprehend that we should feel our minds strongly impressed by this discovery of fresh evidence. We should feel a renewal of the same sentiment in first reading the Gospel of Saint John. That of Saint Mark perhaps would strike us as an abridgment of the history with which we were already acquainted; but we should naturally reflect, that if that history was abridged by such a person as Mark, or by any person of so early an age, it afforded one of the highest possible attestations to the value of the work. This successive disclosure of proof would leave us assured, that there must have been at least some reality in a story which not one, but many, had taken in hand to commit to writing. The very existence of four separate histories would satisfy us that the subject had a foundation; and when, amidst the variety which the different information of the different writers had supplied to their accounts, or which their different choice and judgment in selecting their materials had produced, we observed many facts to stand the same in all; of these facts, at least, we should conclude, that they were fixed in their credit and publicity. If, after this, we should come to the knowledge of a distinct history, and that also of the same age with the rest, taking up the subject where the others had left it, and carrying on a narrative of the effects produced in the This seems the natural progress of the business; world by the extraordinary causes of which we and with this the records in our possession, and had already been informed, and which effects sub- the evidence concerning them, correspond. We sist at this day, we should think the reality of the have remaining, in the first place, many letters original story in no little degree established by this of the kind above described, which have been presupplement. If subsequent inquiries should bring served with a care and fidelity answering to the to our knowledge, one after another, letters writ-respect with which we may suppose that such letten by some of the principal agents in the business, ters would be received. But as these letters were upon the business, and during the time of their not written to prove the truth of the Christian reactivity and concern in it, assuming all along and ligion, in the sense in which we regard that quesrecognising the original story, agitating the ques- tion: nor to convey information of facts, of which tions that arose out of it, pressing the obligations those to whom the letters were written had been which resulted from it, giving advice and direc- previously informed; we are not to look in them tions to those who acted upon it; I conceive that for any thing more than incidental allusions to we should find, in every one of these, a still fur- the Christian history. We are able, however, to ther support to the conclusion we had formed. At gather from these documents, various particular present, the weight of this successive confirmation attestations which have been already enumerated; is, in a great measure, unperceived by us. The and this is a species of written evidence, as far as evidence does not appear to us what it is; for, being it goes, in the highest degree satisfactory, and in from our infancy accustomed to regard the New point of time perhaps the first. But for our more Testament as one book, we see in it only one testi- circumstantial information, we have in the next mony. The whole occurs to us as a single evidence; place five direct histories, bearing the names of and its different parts, not as distinct attestations, persons acquainted, by their situation, with the out as different portions only of the same. Yet in truth of what they relate, and three of them purthis conception of the subject, we are certainly porting, in the very body of the narrative, to be mistaken; for the very discrepancies among the several documents which form our volume, prove, if all other proof were wanting, that in their original composition they were separate, and most of them independent productions.

This thought occurred to Eusebius: "Nor were the apostles of Christ greatly concerned about the writing of books, being engaged in a more excellent ministry which is above all human power."-Eccles. Hist. 1. iii. c. 24 The same consideration accounts also for the pau city of Christian writings in the first century of its era.

Now the fact of their early existence, and not only of their existence but their reputation, is made out by some ancient testimonies which do not happen to specify the names of the writers: add to which, what hath been already hinted, that two out of the four Gospels contain averments in the body of the history, which, though they do not disclose the names, fix the time and situation of the authors, viz. that one was written by an eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ, the other by a contemporary of the apostles. In the Gospel of Saint John, (xix. 35,) after describing the crucifixion, with the particular circumstance of piercing Christ's side with a spear, the historian adds, as for himself, "and he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." Again, (xxi. 24,) after relating a conversation which passed between Peter and "the disciple," as it is there expressed, "whom Jesus loved," it is added, "this is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things." This testimony, let it be remarked, is not the less worthy of regard, because it is, in one view, imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if a fraudulent purpose had been intended, would have been done. The

written by such persons; of which books we know, that some were in the hands of those who were contemporaries of the apostles, and that, in the age immediately posterior to that, they were in the hands, we may say, of every one, and received by Christians with so much respect and deference, as to be constantly quoted and referred to by them, without any doubt of the truth of their accounts. They were treated as such histories, proceeding from such authorities, might expect to be treated. In the preface to one of our histories, we have intimations left us of the existence of some ancient accounts which are now lost. There is nothing in this circumstance that can surprise us. It was to be expected, from the magnitude and novelty of the occasion, that such accounts would swarm. When better accounts came forth, these died away. Our present histories superseded others. They soon acquired a character and established a reputation which does not appear to have belonged to any other: that, at least, can be proved concerning them, which cannot be proved concerning any other. But to return to the point which led to these reflections. By considering our records in either of the two views in which we have represented them, we shall perceive that we possess a collection of proofs, and not a naked or solitary testi-third of our present Gospels purports to have been mony; and that the written evidence is of such a kind, and comes to us in such a state, as the natural order and progress of things, in the infancy of the institution, might be expected to produce.

written by the person who wrote the Acts of the Apostles; in which latter history, or rather, latter part of the same history, the author, by using, in various places, the first person plural, declares himself to have been a contemporary of all, and a companion of one, of the original preachers of the religion.

CHAPTER IX.

There is satisfactory evidence that many, pro fessing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Thirdly: The genuineness of the historical books of the New Testament is undoubtedly a point of importance, because the strength of their evidence is augmented by our knowledge of the situation of their authors, their relation to the subject, and the part which they sustained in the transaction; and the testimonies which we are able to produce, compose a firm ground of persuasion, that the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear. Nevertheless, 1 must be allowed to state, that to the argument which I am endeavouring to maintain, this point is not essential; I mean, so essential as that the fate of the argument depends upon it. The question before us is, whether the Gospels exhibit the story which the apostles and first emissaries of the religion published, and for which they acted and suffered in the manner in which, for some miraculous story or other, they did act and suffer. Nor forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to Now let us suppose that we possessed no other the evangelical history, supposing even any ne information concerning these books than that they of the four Gospels to be genuine; what credit is were written by early disciples of Christianity; due to the Gospels, even supposing nothing to be that they were known and read during the time, known concerning them but that they were writor near the time, of the original apostles of the re- ten by early disciples of the religion, and received ligion; that by Christians whom the apostles in- with deference by early Christian churches: more structed, by societies of Christians which the especially not forgetting what credit is due to the apostles founded, these books were received, (by New Testament in its capacity of cumulative eviwhich term "received," I mean that they were dence; we now proceed to state the proper and believed to contain authentic accounts of the trans-distinct proofs, which show not only the general actions upon which the religion rested, and accounts which were accordingly used, repeated, and relied upon,) this reception would be a valid proof that these books, whoever were the authors of them, must have accorded with what the apostles taught. A reception by the first race of Christians, is evidence that they agreed with what the first teachers of the religion delivered. In particular, if they had not agreed with what the apostles themselves preached, how could they have gained credit in churches and societies which the apostles established?

value of these records, but their specific authority, and the high probability there is that they actual ly came from the persons whose names they bear.

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw up with more regularity to the propositions upon which the close and particular discussion of the subject depends. Of which nature are the following:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, found in many different countries, and in countries widely distant from each other, all of them anterior to the art of print

hesitation about them: for, had the writings inscribed with the names of Matthew and John, related nothing but ordinary history, there would have been no more doubt whether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning the acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have been no doubt at all. Now it ought to be considered that this reason, however it may apply to the credit which is given to a writer's judgment or veracity, affects the question of genuineness very indirectly. The works of Bede exhibit many wonderful relations: but who, for that reason, doubts that they were written by Bede? The same of a multitude of other authors. To which may be added, that we ask no more for our books than what we allow to other books in some sort similar to ours: we do not deny the genuineness of the Koran; we admit that the history of Apollonius Tyanæus, purporting to be written by Philostratus, was really written by Philostratus. IV. If it had been an easy thing in the early times of the institution to have forged Christian writings, and to have obtained currency and reception to the forgeries, we should have had many appearing in the name of Christ himself. No writings would have been received with so much

ing, some certainly seven or eight hundred years old, and some which have been preserved probably above a thousand years. We have also many ancient versions of these books, and some of them into languages which are not at present, nor for many ages have been, spoken in any part of the world. The existence of these manuscripts and versions proves that the Scriptures were not the production of any modern contrivance. It does away also the uncertainty which hangs over such publications as the works, real or pretended, of Ossian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce their manuscripts, and to show where they obtained their copies. The number of manuscripts, far exceeding those of any other book, and their wide dispersion, afford an argument, in some measure to the senses, that the Scriptures anciently, in like manner as at this day, were more read and sought after than any other books, and that also in many different countries. The greatest part of spurious Christian writings are utterly lost, the rest preserved by some single manuscript. There is weight also in Dr. Bentley's observation, that the New Testament has suffered less injury by the errors of transcribers, than the works of any profane author of the same size and antiquity; that is, there ne-avidity and respect as these: consequently none ver was any writing, in the preservation and purity of which the world was so interested or so careful.

afforded so great temptation to forgery. Yet have we heard but of one attempt of this sort, deserving of the smallest notice, that in a piece of a very few lines, and so far from succeeding, I mean, from obtaining acceptance and reputation, or an acceptance and reputation in any wise similar to that which can be proved to have attended the books of the New Testament, that it is not so much as mentioned by any writer of the first three centuries. The learned reader need not be informed that I mean the epistle of Christ to Abgarus, king of Edessa, found at present in the work of Eusebius,* as a piece acknowledged by him, though not without considerable doubt whether the whole passage be not an interpolation, as it is most certain, that, after the publication of Eusebius's work, this epistle was universally rejected.†

II. An argument of great weight with those who are judges of the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their testimony, of being addressed to every understanding, is that which arises from the style and language of the New Testament. It is just such a language as might be expected from the apostles, from persons of their age and in their situation, and from no other persons. It is the style neither of classic authors, nor of the ancient Christian Fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, such as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used a language spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dia- V. If the ascription of the Gospels to their reslect of the country. This happy peculiarity is a pective authors had been arbitrary or conjectural, strong proof of the genuineness of these writings: they would have been ascribed to more eminent for who should forge them? The Christian fa- men. This observation holds concerning the thers were for the most part totally ignorant of first three Gospels, the reputed authors of which Hebrew, and therefore were not likely to insert were enabled, by their situation, to obtain true inHebraisms and Syriasms into their writings. The telligence, and were likely to deliver an honest acfew who had a knowledge of the Hebrew, as Jus- count of what they knew, but were persons not tin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius, wrote in a distinguished in the history by extraordinary language which bears no resemblance to that of marks of notice or commendation. Of the aposthe New Testament. The Nazarenes, who un-tles, I hardly know any one of whom less is said derstood Hebrew, used chiefly, perhaps almost entirely, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and therefore cannot be suspected of forging the rest of the sacred writings. The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity of these books; that they belonged to the age of the apostles; that they could be composed indeed in no other.t

III. Why should we question the genuineness of these books? Is it for that they contain accounts of supernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom, is the real, though secret, cause of our

The Alexandrian manuscript, now in the British Museum, was written probably in the fourth or fifth century.

† See this argument stated more at large in Michaelis's Introduction (Marsh's translation,) vol. i. c. ii. sect. 10, from which these observations are taken.

than of Matthew, or of whom the little that is said, is less calculated to magnify his character. Of Mark, nothing is said in the Gospels; and what is said of any person of that name in the

*Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15.

Augustin, A. D. 895, (De Consens. Evang. c. 34.) had heard that the Pagans pretended to be possessed of an epistle from Christ to Peter and Paul; but he had never seen it, and appears to doubt of the existence of any cient writer mentions it. He also, and he alone, notices, such piece, either genuine or spurious. No other an and that in order to con emn it, an epistle ascribed to Christ by the Manichees, A. D. 270, and a short hymn attributed to him by the priscillianists, A. D. 378. [cont. Faust. Man. lib. xxviii. c. 4.] The lateness of the wri ter who notices these things, the manner in which he notices them, and, above all, the silence of every prece. ding writer, render them unworthy of consideration