The forgeries of these things, if forgeries they were, must (as Dr. Jortin has forcibly remarked) have equalled Father Hardouin's atheistical monks of the thirteenth century; who, according to his fantastical account, in an age of ignorance and barbarism, surpassed in abilities all the ancients and moderns; forged the Greek and Latin authors whom we call classical; and were not only great poets, but also great mathematicians, chronologers, geographers, astronomers, and critics, and capable of inserting in their proper places names and accounts of men, rivers, cities, and regions, eclipses of the sun and moon, Athenian archons, Attic months, Olympiads, and Roman consuls: all which happy inventions have been since confirmed by astronomical calculations and tables, voyages, inscriptions, Fasti Capitolini, fragments, manuscripts, and a diligent collation of authors with each other. Such are the evidences, both external and internal, direct and collateral, for the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament: and when their number, variety, and the extraordinary nature of many of them are impartially considered, it is impossible not to come to this convincing conclusion, viz. that the books now extant in the New Testament are genuine and authentic, and are the same writings which were originally composed by the authors whose names they bear. SECTION III. ON THE UNCORRUPTED PRESERVATION OF THE BOOKS OF 1. The uncorrupted Preservation of the Old Testament, II. 8. I write to you a new com. mandment. III. 11. This is the message which ye have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. II. 8. The darkness passeth away, and the light which is true, now shineth. 10. Abideth in the light, and there is no stumbling block to him. II. 13. Young children, I write to you, because ye have known the Father. 14. Because ye have known him from the beginning. II. 29. Every one who worketh righteousness, is begotten of God. See also iii. 9. v. 1. III. 1. Behold how great love the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God! III. 2. We shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. III. 8. He who worketh sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. III. 13. Do not wonder, my brethren, that the world hateth you. IV. 9. By this the love of God was manifested, that God sent his Son, the only begotten, into the world, that we might live through him. IV. 12. No man hath seen God at any time. V. 13. These things I have written to you who believe on the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life; and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. V. 14. If we ask any thing accord-ing to his will, he heareth us. V. 20. The Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true Gospel. XIV. 23. If a man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him. XV. 4. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bring forth fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in ine. XIII. 34. A new commandment I give to you, that ye love one another as I have loved you. ness. 9. That was the true light. From the Agreement of all the Versions, and Manuscripts that are known to be extant.-II. The uncorrupted Preservation of the books of the New Testament proved, I. From their contents;-2. From the utter Impossibility of an universal Corruption of them being accomplished ;—3. From the Agreement of all the Manuscripts ;—and, 4. From the Agreement of ancient versions, and of the quotations, from the New Testament in the writings of the early Christians.-III. General Proofs that none of the canonical Books of Scripture are or ever were lost.-IV. Particular Proofs, as to the integrity of the Old Testament.-V. And also of the New Testament. ALTHOUGH the genuineness and authenticity of the Old and New Testaments have been thus clearly proved, yet it may perhaps be asked whether those books have not long since been destroyed? And whether they have been transmitted to us entire and uncorrupted? To these inquiries we reply, that we have evidence, equally decisive and satisfactory with that which has demonstrated the genuineness and authenticity of the Old and New Testaments, to prove that they have descended to us entire and uncorrupted in any thing material;—such evidence indeed as can be adduced for no other production of antiquity. I. And, first, with regard to the Old Testament, although the Jews have been charged with corrupting it, yet this charge has never been substantiated, and, in fact, the thing itself is morally impossible. Generally speaking, the arguments which have demonstrated that the Pentateuch (or five books of Moses) is not, and could not be a forgery in the first instance, apply equally to prove that these books have not been wilfully and designedly corrupted. But, to be more particular, we may remark, 1. That there is no proof or vestige whatever of such pretended alteration. The Jews have in every age regarded the Pentateuch as the genuine and uncorrupted work of one single person, and have equally respected every part of it. Indeed, if they had mutilated or corrupted these writings, they would doubtless have expunged from them every relation of facts and events, that militated against the honour and credit of their nation. Besides, when could such an alteration or corruption have been executed? It was not possible, shortly after the death of Moses, for the memory of the transactions recorded in the Pentateuch was too recent for 1. 5. The light shineth in dark any one to venture upon any corruption or alteration, which public notoriety would have contradicted. The Pentateuch, therefore, could not have been altered or corrupted so long as Joshua and that generation lived, who were zealous for the worship of the true God. (Josh. xxiv. 31.) From that time to the age of Samuel, the Israelites were under the direction of civil governors or judges, who braved every danger in defence of the form of government established in the sacred books. XVII. 3. This is the eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God, And Jesus Christ whom thou hast III. 3. Except a man be begotten I. 12. To them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on his name. XVII. 24. Be with me where I am, III. 16. God so loved the world, ing life. time. 1. 18. No man hath seen God at any XX. 31. These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. XIV. 14. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. XVII. 2. Thou hast given him nal life, that they might know thee 1 Remarks on Eccles. Hist. vol. i. pp 28. et seq. Less's Authenticity of the New Testament, translated by Mr. Kingdon, pp. 1–26. Michaelis, vol. i. pp. Further, if they had wilfully corrupted the books of the Old Testament before the time of Christ and his apostles, the prophets who flourished from Samuel to Malachi, and who were neither slow nor timid in reproving the sins both of rulers and subjects, would not have passed over so heinous an offence in silence. After the separation of the ten tribes, at least, the bool of Moses were kept in the kingdom of Israel; and the rivalry that continued to subsist between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, was an insuperable bar to any corruption or alteration; for it could not have been attempted in either kingdom without opposition and detection from the other, of which some notice must have been taken in their historical books. Besides, if the Old Testament had been corrupted in the time of Jesus Christ and his apostles, the Jews could not have passed without censure from them, who rebuked their hypocrisy, incredulity, and wickedness with so much severity. If there had been any alteration or corruption, it must have been the work either of one or of many persons. It cannot be conceived that any one person could do it, without being exposed: nor that any one could have vanity enough to expect success in an attempt to alter facts in a book so universally read and so much esteemed. The unity of design, the correspondence of sentiment, and the uniform reference to the same facts, which are observable throughout the Old Testament, forbid us to imagine that many were united in corrupting or altering any part of it. In a word, no man of 4-54. Simpson's Internal Evidences, pp. 160-165. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book ii. pp. 687-692. Stosch, de Canone, p. 89. Pictet, Theologie Chrétienne, tome i. p. 83. Ernesti Interp. Nov. Test, pars. iii. pp. 147. et seq. See also a very copious discussion of the Evidences for the Authenticity of the New Testament in Dr. Cook's Inquiry into the Books of | the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1821. 8vo. number of men could make an attempt of this kind without being | ritans; which, after more than two thousand years discord beexposed. Nor is it rational to suppose, that any man or number of men could have capacity competent to effect such a design, who would not also have had the sense to observe the necessity of making it more agreeable to the natural tempers of mankind, in order that it might obtain credit in the world. Again, if the Old Testament had been mutilated or corrupted after the birth of Christ, out of malice to the Christians, and in order to deprive them of arguments and evidences for proving their religion, the Jews would unquestionably have expunged or falsified those memorable prophecies concerning Christ which were so irrefragably cited both by him and by his apostles. But no such obliteration or alteration has ever been made; on the contrary, those very passages have continued in their original purity, and are sometimes more express in the original Hebrew text than in the common translation. 2. In fact, neither before nor after the time of Christ, could the Jews corrupt or falsify the Hebrew Scriptures; for, [1] Before that event, the regard which was paid to them by the Jews, especially to the law, would render any forgery or material change in their contents impossible. tween the two nations, varies as little from the other as any [ii.] So neither have these writings been falsified or corrupted AFTER the birth of Christ. For, since that event, the Old Testament has been held in high esteem both by Jews and Christians. The Jews also frequently suffered martyrdom for their Scriptures, which they would not have done, had they suspected them to have been corrupted or altered. Besides, the Jews and Christians were a mutual guard upon each other, which must have rendered any such an attempt had been made by the Jews, they would have been detected by the Christians. The accomplishment of such a design, indeed, would have been impracticable, from the moral impossibility of the Jews (who were dispersed in every country of the then known world) being able to collect all the then existing copies with the intention of corrupting or falsifying them. On the other hand, if any such attempt had been made by the Christians, it would assuredly have been detected by the Jews; nor could any such attempt have been made by any other man or body of men, without exposure both by Jews and Christians. 3. The admirable agreement of all the ancient paraphrases and versions, 14 and of the writings of Josephus, with the The law having been the deed by which the land of Canaan was divided among the Israelites, it is improbable that this people, who possessed that land, would suffer it to be altered or falsified. The distinction of the twelve tribes, and their separate interests, made it more difficult to alter their law than that of other nations less jealous than the Jews. Further, at certain stated seasons, the law was publicly read before all the people of Israel; and it was appointed to be kept in the ark, for a constant memorial against those who transgressed it. Their king was required to write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites, and to read therein all the days of his life; their priests also were commanded to teach the children of Israel all the statutes, which the Lord had spoken to them by the hand of Moses; and parents were charged not only to make it familiar to themselves, but also to teach it diligently to their children;5 besides which, a severe prohibition was annexed, against either making any addition to or diminution from the law. Now such precepts as these could not have been given by an impostor who was adding to it, and who would wish men to forget rather than enjoin them to remember it; for, as all the people were obliged to know and observe the law under severe penalties, they were in a man-material corruption impossible, if it had been attempted; for if ner the trustees and guardians of the law, as well as the priests and Levites. The people who were to teach their children, must have had copies of it; the priests and Levites must have had copies of it; and the magistrates must have had copies of it, as being the law of the land. Further, after the people were divided into two kingdoms, both the people of Israel and those of Judah still retained the same book of the law; and the rivalry or enmity, that subsisted between the two kingdoms, prevented either of them from altering or adding to the law. After the Israelites were carried captives into Assyria, other nations were placed in the cities of Samaria in their stead; and the Samaritans received the Pentateuch, either from the priest who was sent by order of the king of Assyria, to instruct them in the manner of the God of the land, or several years afterwards from the hands of Manasseh, the son of Joiada the high-priest, who was expelled from Jerusalem by Nehemiah, for marryingthe daughter of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria; and who was constituted, by Sanballat, the first high-priest of the temple at Samaria. Now, by one or both of these means the Samaritans had the Pentateuch as well as the Jews; but with this difference, that the Samaritan Pentateuch was in the old Hebrew or Phenician characters, in which it remains to this day: whereas the Jewish copy was changed into Chaldee characters (in which it also remains to this day), which were fairer and clearer than the Hebrew, the Jews having learned the Chaldee language during their seventy years abode at Babylon. The jealousy and hatred, which subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, made it impracticable for either nation to corrupt or alter the text in any thing of consequence without certain discovery: and the general agreement between the Hebrew and Samaritan copies of the Pentateuch, which are now extant, is such, as plainly demonstrates that the copies were originally the same. any better evidence be desired, that the Jewish Bibles have not been corrupted or interpolated, than this very book of the Sama Dr. Bentley's Remarks on Freethinking, part i. remark 27. (vol. v. p. 144. of Bp. Randolph's Enchiridion Theologicum, 8vo, Oxford, 1792.) 10 Acts xiii. 14, 15. 27. Luke iv. 17-20. 11 Philo, apud Euseb. de Præp. Evang. lib. viii. c. 2. Josephus contra Apion. lib. i. $ 8. 13 John v. 46, 47. 12 John v. 39. 14 The Old Testament has been translated into a great number of languages; but the only versions, to which we shall now advert, are those which were made either previously to the Christian æra, or very shortly after its commencement. At that period, almost all the books of the Old Law had been translated into Chaldee, for the use of the Jews in the East, with whom the original Hebrew had ceased to be a living language; the whole had been rendered into Greek (two hundred and eighty-two years still less acquainted with Hebrew; and, at the close of the first, or in the before the birth of Jesus Christ) for the Jews of Alexandria, who were beginning of the second century, the Old Testament was translated into Syriac, for the Syrian Christians. These three versions have been prethem are extant; and, with the exception of a few unimportant differences, served to our time: numerous manuscript copies and printed editions of they represent to us the same text, the same books, the same predictions, and the same phrases. Now this agreement is not the result of any design on the part of the translators, or of any fraud on the part of learned men. These three sister versions, having once issued from their common parent, have been for ever separated by events and by a rivalship which still sub Nor can sists. The Chaldee version, which was carefully preserved and consulted by the Hebrews, remained unknown to Christians during the early ages of the church, and has been in their hands only for two or three centuries. The Christians of Syria knew as little of the Greek version, as the Greeks did of the Syriac and the Greek version,-which was diffused throughout the West, and translated in its turn into Latin, and which, under this second form, became the object of exclusive respect in the Romish Church, could not borrow any thing from the other versions, of the existence of which the inhabitants of the West were utterly ignorant. The agreement, therefore, of these three witnesses, is so much the more 4 Levit. x. 11. 2 Kings xvii. 27. Neh. xiii. 28. Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xi. c. 8. Bp. Newton's Works, vol. i p. 23. Old Testament as it is now extant, together with the quotations which are made from it in the New Testament, and in the writings of all ages to the present time, forbid us to indulge any suspicion of any material corruption in the books of the Old Testament; and give us every possible evidence of which a subject of this kind is capable, that these books are now in our hands genuine and unadulterated. 4. Lastly, the Agreement of all the Manuscripts of the Old Testament (amounting to nearly eleven hundred and fifty), which are known to be extant, is a clear proof of its uncorrupted preservation. These manuscripts, indeed, are not all entire; some contain one part and some another.1 But it is absolutely impossible that every manuscript, whether in the original Hebrew, or in any ancient version or paraphrase, should or could be designedly altered or falsified in the same passages, without detection either by Jews or Christians. The manuscripts now extant are, confessedly, liable to errors and mistakes from the carelessness, negligence, or inaccuracy of copyists: but they are not all uniformly incorrect throughout, nor in the same words or passages; but what is incorrect in one place is correct in another. Although the various readings, which have been discovered by learned men, who have applied themselves to the collation of every known manuscript of the Hebrew Scriptures, amount to many thousands, yet these differences are of so little real moment, that their laborious collations afford us scarcely any opportunities of correcting the sacred text in important passages. So far, however, are these extensive and profound researches from being either trivial or nugatory, that we have, in fact, derived from them the greatest advantage which could have been wished for by any real friend of revealed religion; namely, the certain knowledge of the agreement of the copies of the ancient Scriptures, now extant in their original language, with each other, and with our Bibles.2 II. Equally satisfactory is the evidence for the INTEGRITY AND UNCORRUPTNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT in any thing material. The testimonies, adduced in the preceding section in behalf of the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament, are, in a great measure, applicable to show that it has been transmitted to us entire and uncorrupted. But, to be more particular, we remark, we learn from unquestionable authority, copies were multiplied and disseminated as rapidly as the boundaries of the church increased; and translations were made into as many languages as were spoken by its professors, some of which remain to this day; so that it would very soon be rendered absolutely impossible to corrupt these books in any one important word or phrase. Now it is not to be supposed (without violating all probability) that all Christians should agree in a design of changing or corrupting the original books; and if some only should make the attempt, the uncorrupted copies would still remain to detect them. And supposing there was some error in one translation or copy, or something changed, added, or taken away; yet there were many other copies and other translations, by the help of which the neglect or fraud might be or would be corrected. [ii.] Further, as these books could not be corrupted during the lives of their respective authors, and while a great number of witnesses was alive to attest the facts which they record; so neither could any material alteration take place AFTER their decease, without being detected while the original manuscripts were preserved in the churches. The Christians who were instructed by the apostles or by their immediate successors, travelled into all parts of the world, carrying with them copies of their writings; from which other copies were multiplied and preserved. Now (as we have already seen) we have an unbroken series of testimonies for the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament, which can be traced backwards, from the fourth century of the Christian æra to the very time of the apostles; and these very testimonies are equally applicable to prove its uncorrupted preservation. Moreover, harmonies of the four Gospels were anciently constructed; commentaries were written upon them, as well as upon the other books of the New Testament (many of which are still extant), manuscripts were collated, and editions of the New Testament were put forth. These sacred records, being universally regarded as the supreme standard of truth, were received by every class of Christians with peculiar respect, as being divine compositions, and possessing an authority belonging to no other books. Whatever controversies, therefore, arose among different sects (and the church was very early rent with fierce contentions on doctrinal points), the Scriptures of the New Testament were received and appealed to by every one of them, as being conclusive in all matters of controversy; consequently it was morally impossible, and in itself impractica ble, that any man or body of men should corrupt or falsify them, in any fundamental article, should foist into them a single expression to favour their peculiar tenets, or erase a single uni-sentence, without being detected by thousands. "If one party was inclined either to omit what opposed their peculiar tenets, or to insert what might afford them additional support, there was always some other party both ready and willing to detect the fraud. And even if they persevered in altering their own manuscripts, they had not the power of altering the manuscripts in the hands of their opponents. Though the corruption therefore might be partial, it could not become general. Nor must we forget that the books which compose the Greek Testament have been transcribed, beyond all comparison, more frequently than the works of any other Greek author. And it is evident that the difficulty of corrupting the Greek manuscripts must have increased with every increase in their number. Though it cannot be denied, therefore, that there is stronger temptation to alter a work which relates to doctrines, than to alter a work which relates to matters indifferent, the impediments to the alteration of the Greek manuscripts were still more powerful than the temptation. The Gospels, which were written in different places, and the Epistles, which were addressed to different communities, were multiplied in copies, dispersed in Palestine and Egypt, in Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Under such circumstances a general corruption of the Greek manuscripts was a thing impossible, for it could not have been effected without a union of sentiment, which never existed, nor without a general combination, which could not have been formed, before Christianity had received a civil establishment. But if such a combination had been practicable, it could not have been carried into effect, without becoming a matter of general notoriety. And ecclesiastical historians are silent on such a combination. The silence of history is indeed no argument against the truth of a fact established by induction, if the fact was such that it could not be generally known. But the silence of history is important in reference to a fact, which, if it ever existed, must have been a subject of general notoriety. Whatever corruptions therefore may have taken place in the Greek manuscripts, those corrup 1. That the uncorrupted preservation of the books of the New Testament is manifest, from their contents; For, so early as the two first centuries of the Christian æra, we find the very same facts, and the very same doctrines, versally received by the Christians, which we of the present day believe on the credit of the New Testament. 2. Because an universal corruption of those writings was both impossible and impracticable, nor can the least vestige of such a corruption be found in history. [i.] They could not be corrupted during the lives of their authors; and before their death copies were dispersed among the different communities of Christians, who were scattered throughout the then known world. Within twenty years after the ascension, churches were formed in the principal cities of the Roman empire; and in all these churches the books of the New Testament, especially the four Gospels, were read as a part of their public worship, just as the writings of Moses and the Prophets were read in the Jewish synagogues. Nor would the use of them be confined to public worship; for these books were not, like the Sibylline Oracles, locked up from the perusal of the public, but were exposed to public investigation. When the books of the New Testament were first published to the world, the Christians would naturally entertain the highest esteem and reverence for writings that delivered an authentic and inspired history of the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ, and would be desirous of possessing such an invaluable treasure. Hence, as remarkable, as they never could have heard, that these versions belonged to rival and hostile churches, and were the work of inveterate enemies, of Christians and Jews, of Eastern and Western Christians, of Jews of Pales. tine, and Alexandrian Jews. They do, however, agree together. There fore they give us, with certainty, the ancient and true text of the Old Testament, precisely as it was extant before the time of Jesus Christ. Cellerier, de l'Origine Authentique et Divine de l'Ancien Testament, pp. 148-151. See an account of the principal manuscripts of the Old Testament, infra, SCRIPT. CRIT. part i. chap. iii. sect. i. and sect ii. §§ 2, 3.; and for the chief critical editions, see the Bibliographical Appendix to vol. ii. parti. chap. i. sect. î. Bp. Tomline's Elements of Christ. Theol. vol. i. p. 13. Dr. Lardner has collected numerous instances in the second part of his Credibility of the Gospel History; references to which may be seen in the general index to his works, article Scriptures. See particularly the testimonies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine. See pp. 41-46. supra. tions must have been confined to a few, and could not, by any | tament, because a few controverted passages have been cited in possibility, have been extended to them all." Indeed, though proof of them; but these doctrines are written, as with a sunall the Christian doctors, who were dispersed throughout the beam, in other parts of the New Testament. The very worst world, should have conspired to corrupt the New Testament, yet manuscript extant would not pervert one article of our faith, the people would never have consented to it; and if even both or destroy one moral precept, not elsewhere given in the most teachers and people had been disposed to have committed such explicit terms. All the omissions of the ancient manuscripts a fraud, most unquestionably their adversaries would not fail to put together could not countenance the omission of one essential have reproached them with it. The Jews and heathens, whose doctrine of the Gospel, relating either to faith or morals; and all only aim was to decry and put down their religion, would never the additions, countenanced by the whole mass of manuscripts have concealed it. Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and other acute already collated, do not introduce a single point essential either enemies of the Christians, would have derived some advantage to faith or manners beyond what may be found in the Complufrom such corruption. In a word, even though the silence of tensian or Elzevir editions. And, though for the beauty, emtheir adversaries had favoured so strange an enterprise, yet the phasis, and critical perfection of the letter of the New Testament, different parties and various heresies, which soon after sprang a new edition, formed on Griesbach's plan, is desirable; yet from up among Christians, were an insuperable obstacle to it. In- such a one infidelity can expect no help, false doctrine no supdeed, if any material alteration had been attempted by the or- port, and even true religion no accession to its excellence,―as thodox, it would have been detected by the heretics; and on indeed it needs none. The general uniformity, therefore, of the the other hand, if a heretic had inserted, altered, or falsified any manuscripts of the New Testament, which are dispersed through thing, he would have been exposed by the orthodox, or by other all the countries in the known world, and in so great a variety heretics. It is well known that a division commenced in the of languages, is truly astonishing, and demonstrates both the fourth century, between the eastern and western churches, veneration in which the Scriptures have uniformly been held, which, about the middle of the ninth century, became irrecon- and the singular care which was taken in transcribing them; and cileable, and subsists to the present day. Now it would have so far are the various readings contained in these manuscripts been impossible to alter all the copies in the eastern empire; from being hostile to the uncorrupted preservation of the books and if it had been possible in the east, the copies in the west of the New Testament, (as some sceptics have boldly affirmed, would have detected the alteration. But, in fact, both the eastern and some timid Christians have apprehended,) that they afford and western copies agree, which could not be expected if either us, on the contrary, an additional and most convincing proof of them was altered or falsified. that they exist at present, in all essential points, precisely the same as they were when they left the hands of their authors. against the divine inspiration of the prophets and apostles. The existence of various readings affords no just inference "We all distinguish between the substance and the circumstances of a work, though we may not be able to draw with accuracy the line between the one and the other. No one doubts that he possesses, in general, the sense of a valuable author, whether ancient or modern, because of some defects or interpolations in the copy, or because he may be uncertain respecting the true reading in some inconsiderable passage. The narrative of an historian, and the deposition of a witness in a court of justice, may impress the mind as true, notwithstanding they contain some mistakes and inconsistencies. I do not know why a degree of precision should be deemed requisite for a divine communication, which is not thought necessary for human testimony; or why a standing miracle should be wrought to prevent accidents happening to a sacred book, which are never supposed to affect the credit or utility of profane writings." text. church. 3. The uncorrupted preservation of the New Testament is further evident, from the Agreement of all the Manuscripts, The manuscripts of the New Testament, which are extant, are far more numerous than those of any single classic author whomsoever upwards of three hundred and fifty were collated by Griesbach, for his celebrated critical edition. These manuscripts, it is true, are not all entire: most of them contain only the Gospels; others, the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles; and a few contain the Apocalypse or Revelation of John. But they were all written in very different and distant parts of the world; several of them are upwards of twelve hundred years old, and give us the books of the New Testament, in all essential points, perfectly accordant with each other, as any person may readily ascertain by examining the critical editions published by Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, and Griesbach. The thirty thousand various readings, which are said to be found in the manuscripts collated by Dr. Mill, and the hundred and fifty thousand which Griesbach's edition is said to contain, in 4. The last testimony, to be adduced for the integrity and no degree whatever affect the general credit and integrity of the incorruptness of the New Testament, is furnished by the In fact, the more copies are multiplied, and the more nu-agreement of the Ancient Versions and Quotations from it, merous are the transcripts and translations from the original, the which are made in the writings of the Christians of the first more likely is it, that the genuine text and the true original three centuries, and in those of the succeeding fathers of the reading will be investigated and ascertained. The most correct and accurate ancient classics now extant, are those of which we have the greatest number of manuscripts; and the most deThe testimony of VERSIONS, and the evidence of the fathers praved, mutilated, and inaccurate editions of the old writers are and other ecclesiastical writers, have already been noticed as a those of which we have the fewest manuscripts, and perhaps proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament The QUOTATIONS from the New Testament in the only a single manuscript extant. Such are Athenæus, Clemens Romanus, Hesychius, and Photius. But of this formidable mass writings of the fathers are so numerous, that (as it has been freof various readings, which have been collected by the diligence quently observed) the whole body of the Gospels and Epistles of collators, not one-tenth-nay, not one.hundreth-part, either might be compiled from the various passages dispersed in their makes or can make any perceptible, or at least any material, al- commentaries and other writings. And though these citations teration in the sense in any modern version. They consist al- were, in many instances, made from memory, yet, being always most wholly of palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and made with due attention to the sense and meaning, and most verbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of an article, commonly with regard to the words as well as to the order of the substitution of a word for its equivalent, and the transposition the words, they correspond with the original records from which of a word or two in a sentence. Even the few that do change they were extracted :—an irrefragable argument this, of the purity the sense, affect it only in passages relating to unimportant, his- and integrity with which the New Testament has been pretorical, and geographical circumstances, or other collateral mat-served. The idle objection, therefore, to the incorruptness of the ters; and the still smaller number that make any alteration in New Testament, which some opposers of divine revelation have things of consequence, do not on that account place us in any the fourth century by order of the emperor Anastasius, falls comendeavoured to raise, on an alleged alteration of the Gospels in absolute uncertainty. For, either the true reading may be discovered by collating the other manuscripts, versions, and quota-pletely to the ground for want of proof. Nor do we hazard too tions found in the works of the ancients; or, should these fail to give us the requisite information, we are enabled to explain the p. 327. doctrine in question from other undisputed passages of Holy Writ. This observation particularly applies to the doctrines of the deity of Jesus Christ and of the Trinity; which some persons of late years have attempted to expunge from the New Tes-ab idiotis evangelistis composita, reprehenduntur et emendantur." (Vict. 1 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part vi. pp. 10, 11. See an account of the principal manuscripts of the New Testament, infra, Part 1. Chap. III. Sect. II. §4., and of the critical edition, above men tioned in the Bibliographical Appendix to vol. ii. Part. I. Chap. I. Sect. III. 3 Rev. R. Burnside's "Religion of Mankind, a Series of Essays," vol. i. See pp. 40-45. 48. supra. The objection above alluded to is founded on the following passage, occurring in the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis, an African bishop, who flourished about the middle of the sixth century. "Messala V. C. Coss. Constantinopoli, jubente Anastasio Imperatore, sancta evangelia, tamquam Tun. Chron. p. 6. apud Scalig. Thes. Temp.) i. e. In the consulship of Messala (A. D. 506.), at Constantinople, by order of the emperor Anastasius, the holy Gospels, as being composed by illiterate evangelists, are censured and corrected. On the objection to the integrity of the Gospels, which has been attempted to be founded on this passage, we may remark, in addition much in saying, that if all the ancient writings new extant in | warm zeal and diligent care of the faithful preserved them; and Europe were collected together, the bulk of them would by no means be comparable to that of the quotations taken from the New Testament alone; so that a man might, with more semblance of reason, dispute whether the writings ascribed to Homer, Demosthenes, Virgil, or Cæsar, are in the main such as they left them, than he could question whether those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Paul, are really their productions.1 III. Although we thus have every possible evidence that can be reasonably desired; yet, as there are some books cited or referred to in the Old and New Testaments, which are not now extant, it has been objected that some of those books are now wanting, which once were constituent parts of the Scriptures. A little consideration will suffice to show that this objection is utterly destitute of foundation, and that none of the writings which are accounted sacred by the Jews and Christians (and which claim to be received as inspired writings) ever were or could be lost; and, consequently, that no sacred or inspired writing is now wanting to complete the canon of Scripture. 1. In the first place, we may observe, that it seems very unsuitable to the ordinary conduct of Divine Providence, to suffer a book written under the influences of the Holy Spirit, to be lost. It seems to be no small reflection on the wisdom of the Divine Being, to say, that he first influenced the writing of a set of books, (that is, by his own extraordinary impressions on men's minds caused them to be written,) and afterwards permitted them by chance, or the negligence of men, to be irrecoverably lost. If they were not serviceable to instruct and direct mankind in the methods of attaining the great ends of being, why were they at first given? If they were, it seems hard to imagine that the same kind Providence which gave them would again take them away. How high such a charge as this rises, both against the wisdom and goodness of Divine Providence, may easily be perceived by every one who will think impartially on the matter. This argument becomes still more strong, when we consider the great care which the Divine Being in all ages took to preserve those books which are now received into the canon of the Old Testament, even when the persons with whom they were intrusted were under circumstances, in which, without the influence of Heaven, it would have been almost impossible for them to have preserved them. To instance only that one time when the Jews were under the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, when although that monster of iniquity laid their temple and their city waste, destroyed all the sacred books he could meet with, and at length published a decree, that all those should suffer immediately death who did not resign their copies, yet was the sacred volume safely preserved, and care was taken of by its author. although the emperor Dioclesian in his imperial edict, among other cruelties, enacted, that all the sacred books should be burnt wherever they were found; yet as the courage and resolution of the Christians baffled and frustrated the design of his rage in all other instances, so they frustrated it very remarkably in this instance. Nor indeed could it be otherwise, when we consider, 3. That the canonical books, either in the original languages or by means of versions, were dispersed into the most countries, and in the possession of innumerable persons. As the truth of this fact has been demonstrated in the two preceding sections of this chapter, we are authorized to infer how improbable it is, nay, almost impossible, that any book, so esteemed as the books of the Old and New Testament were and still are, both by Jews and Christians, and which they severally believe to be divinely inspired, so diffused into the most distant countries, the copies of which, or of translations from them, would also be continually multiplying and increasing, could by any accident or chance, by any human force or power, or much less by any careless neglect, be lost and irrecoverably perish. IV. With regard to the Old Testament, more particularly we may observe, that what has given credit to the objection, that some of the canonical books of Scripture are lost, is the common notion, that the books, so supposed to be lost, were volumes of some size, and all of them indited by the Holy Spirit. Now, in opposition to this erroneous notion, it is to be considered, 1. That the Hebrew word (DD SEPPHER), which we render book, properly signifies the bare rehearsal of any thing, or any kind of writing, however small; and it was the custom of the Jews to call every little memorandum by that name. Thus, what we translate a bill of divorcement (Deut. xxiv. 1.) is in the original a book of divorcement; and the short account of the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Matt. i. 1.) is termed in the Hebrew idiom the book of the generation of Jesus Christ. So in Matt. xix. 7. and Mark x. 4. it is in the Greek a book of divorcement. In like manner, David's letter to Joab in 2 Sam. xi. 14, 15. is a book in the Hebrew and Greek; as also the king of Syria's letter to the king of Israel, mentioned in 2 Kings v. 5.1 2. That several of these tracts, which are now extant, assistance, but by those who were styled recorders or writers were written, not by persons pretending to any supernatural of chronicles, an office of great honour and trust, but of a different kind from that of the prophets.. 3. But, supposing that the books in question were written by those who were truly prophets, yet they were not written by inspiration. This argument is forcibly stated by Augustine in the following manner:-"In the histories of the kings of Judah and Israel, several things are mentioned, which are not there explained, and are referred to as contained in other books which the pro 2. The zeal of the faithful at all times for their sacred books was such, as would be a very effectual means to se-phets wrote: and sometimes the names of these prophets are cure them from perishing. mentioned; and yet these writings are not extant in the canon which the church of God receives. The reason of which I can account for in no other way, than by supposing, that those very persons to whom the Holy Spirit revealed those things which are of the highest authority in religion, sometimes wrote only as faithful historians, and at other times as prophets under the influences of divine inspiration; and that these writings are so different from each other, that the one sort are to be imputed to themselves as the authors, the other to God, as speaking by them; the former are of service to increase our knowledge, the other of authority in religion, and canonical." In addition to this observation, we may remark, that the books of prophecy always have their authors' names expressed, and commonly This is well known both of the Jews and Christians; and indeed no less can be reasonably imagined of those, who looked upon these books as discovering the method of obtaining eternal life, and that religion, for which they willingly sacrificed both themselves and all they had. Hence, as under the barbarous persecution of the Jews by Antiochus just mentioned, so also under the Christian persecutions no endeavours were wanting to extirpate and abolish the Scriptures. It is evident that the to the observations already given, first, that, whatever this design upon the Gospels was, it does not appear to have been put in execution; for if any falsification of them had been attempted, what tumults would it have raised in the east, where Anastasius was universally hated! It would, in fact, have cost that emperor his crown and his life. Secondly, if he had really designed to corrupt the purity of the Gospels, the historians of that time, who have not been backward in relating his other malpractices, would not fail to have recorded it as a standing monument of his infamy. But they are totally silent concerning any such attempt. See Millii Prolegomena ad Nov. Test. §§ 1014, 1015. (p. 98. edit. Kusterí); Dr. Bentley's Remarks on Freethinking, rem. xxxiii. (Enchiridion Theologicum, vol. v. pp. 175-186.); Dr. Ibbot's Discourses at the Boyle Lectures, vol. ii pp. 759, 760. folio edit. 1 Ernesti, Inst. Interp. Nov. Test. pp. 151-156. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 650-672.; 4to. vol. iii. pp. 459-470. Stosch, De Canone, pp. 85. et seq. Moldenhawer, Introd. ad Lib. Bibl. pp. 196-198. Less, pp. 243-trusty domestics.-Axyovun xxvox μsvos, xx 2XITUS TOUTOU THE DATEр*, 266. Dr. Harwood's Introd. to the New Test. vol. i. pp. 120-126. Michaelis, vol. i. pp. 23-69. and vol. ii. pp. 362-374. Dr. Nares's Remarks on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, pp. xxix. xxx. 258, 259. Dr. Ryan's Evidences of the Mosaic and Christian Codes, pp. 152-159. Abbadie, Traite de la Verité de la Religion Chretienne, vol. ii. pp. 45-57. Vernet, Traité de la Vérité de la Religion Chrétienne, vol. iii. pp. 4876. Dr. Bentley's Remarks on Freethinking, remark xxxii. (in Enchirid. Theol. vol. v. pp. 154-175.) 2 Joseph. Antiq. Jud. lib. xii. c. 7. See also 1 Macc. 1. 56. 67. 3 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. lib. viii. c. 2. 4 Many similar instances are to be found in ancient profane writers, in which letters are called books. Two of the most striking are the following, taken from the father of profane history, as Herodotus is frequently called: Relating the conspiracy of Harpagus against Astyages, king of Media, he says, that Harpagus communicated his intentions to Cyrus in a letter; which, as all the roads leading to Persia were guarded by the king's troops, he sewed up in the belly of a hare, and sent it to him by one of his most και ούδεν αποτίλας, ὡς δε είχε, ούτω επέθηκε ΒΙΒΛΙΟΝ, γράψας τα οι εποχές, lib. i. c. 124. tom. i. p. 57. Oxon. 1809.-Again, speaking of Histiæus's at tempt to excite a conspiracy against Darius, he says,-His next measure was to send letters to certain persons at Sardis, with whom he had previously communicated on the subject of a revolt. Τοισι εν Σάρδισι εουσι Περσιών επεμπε ΒΙΒΛΙΑ, ὡς προκάλεσε χηνευμένων αυτω αποστασιος περί α vi. c. 4. vol. ii. p. 62. See 2Sam. viii. 16. (marginal rendering) and 2 Kings xviii. 18. |