The Genuineness and Authenticity of the Holy Scriptures: New Testament

From the time when the Old Testament was completed by Malachi, the last of the prophets, till the publication of the New Testament, about 460 years elapsed. During the life of Jesus Christ, and for some time after his ascension, nothing on the subject of his mission was committed to writing. The period of his remaining upon earth, may be regarded as an intermediate state between the Old and New Dispensations. His personal ministry was confined to the land of Judea; and, by means of his miracles and discourses, together with those of his disciples, the attention of men, in that country, was sufficiently directed to his doctrine. They were also in possession of the Old Testament Scriptures, which, at that season, it was of the greatest importance they should consult, in order to compare the ancient predictions with what was then taking place. Immediately after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, his disciples, in the most public manner, and in the place where he had been crucified, proclaimed that event, and the whole of the doctrine which y5**nad commanded them to preach. In this service they continued personally to labour for a considerable time, first among their countrymen the Jews, and then among the other nations. During the period between the resurrection and the publication of the New Testament, the churches possessed miraculous gifts, and the prophets were enabled to explain the predictions of the Old Testament, and to show their fulfilment.

After their doctrine had every where attracted attention, and, in spite of the most violent opposition, had forced its way through the civilized world; and when churches or societies of Christians were collected, not only in Judea, but in the most celebrated cities of Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, the Scriptures of the New Testament were written by the Apostles, and other inspired men, and intrusted to the keeping of these churches.

The whole of the New Testament was not written at once, but in different parts, and on various occasions. Six of the Apostles, and two inspired disciples who accompanied them in their journeys, were employed in this work. The histories which it contains of the life of Christ, known by the name of the Gospels, were composed by four of his contemporaries, two of whom had been constant attendants on his public ministry. The first of these was published within a few years* after his death, in that very country where he had lived, and among the people who had seen him and observed his conduct. The his-

* “Some have thought tfat Jf was written no more than eight years after our Lord’s ascension; others have reckoned it no fewer than fifteen.” — Campbell’s Preface to Matthew’s. Gospel, tory called the “Acts of the Apostles,” which contains an account of their proceedings, and of the progress of the Gospel, from Jerusalem, among the gentile nations, was published about the year 6-i, being 30 years after our Lord’s crucifixion, by one who, although not an Apostle, declares that he had “perfect understanding of all things, from the very first,” and who had written one of the Gospels. This book, commencing with a detail of proceedings, from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, carries down the evangelical history till the arrival of Paul as a prisoner at Rome. The Epistles, addressed to churches in particular places, to believers scattered up and down in different countries, or to individuals, in all twenty-one in number, were separately written, by five of the Apostles, from seventeen to twenty, thirty, and thirty-five years after the death of Christ. Four of these writers had accompanied the Lord Jesus during his life, and had been c: eye-witnesses of his majesty.’’ The fifth was the Apostle Paul, who, as he expresses it. was 61 one born out of due time,” but who had likewise seen Jesus Christ, and had been empowered by him to work miracles, which were “the signs of an apostle.” One of these five also wrote the book of Revelation, about the year 96, addressed to seven churches in Asia, containing epistles to these churches from Jesus Christ himself, with various instructions for the immediate use of all Christians, together with a prophetical view of the kiraplom of God till the end of time. These several^^s, which compose the Scriptures of the New Testament, were received by the churches with the highest veneration; and, as the instructions they contain, though partially addressed, were equally intended for all, they were immediately copied, and handed about from one church to another, till each was in possession of the whole. The volume of the New Testament was thus completed before the death of the last of the Apostles, most of whom had sealed their testimony with their blood.

From the manner in which these Scriptures were at first circulated, some of their parts were necessarily longer of reaching certain places than others. These, of course, could not be so soon received into the canon as the rest. Owing to this circumstance, and to that of a few of the books being addressed to individual believers, or to their not having the name of their writers affixed, or the designation of Apostle added, a doubt for a time existed among some respecting the genuineness of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the 2d Epistle of Peter, the 2d and 3d Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Book of Revelation. These, however, though not universally, were generally acknowledged; while all the other books of the New Testament were without dispute received from the beginning. This discrimination proves the scrupulous care of the first churches on this highly important subject.

At length these books, which had not at first been admitted, were like the rest, universally received, not by the votes of a council, as is sometimes asserted, but after deliberate and free enquiry by many separate churches, under the superintending providence of God, in different parts of the world. It is at the same time a certain fact, that no other books besides those which at present compose the volume of the New Testament, were admitted by the churches. Several Apocryphal writings were published under the name of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, which are mentioned by the writers of the first four centuries, most of which have perished, though some are still extant. Few or none of them were composed before the second century, and several of them were forged so late as the third century. But they were not acknowledged as authentic by the first Christians, and were rejected, by those who have noticed them, as spurious and heretical.* Histories, too, as might have been expected, were written of the life of Christ, and one forgery was attempted, of a letter said to be written by Jesus himself to Abgarus, King of Edessa; but of the first, none were received as of any authority, and the last was universally rejected. “Besides our Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles,” says Paley,” no Christian history claiming to be written by an apostle, or apostolical man, is quoted within 300 years after the birth of Christ, by any writer now extant or

* u These forged writings,” says Lardner, “do not oppose, but confirm, the account given us in the canonical Scriptures. They all take for granted the dignity of our Lord’s person, and his power of working miracles; they acknowledge the certainty of there having been such persons as Matthew and the other evangelists, and Peter and the other Apostles. They authenticate the general and leading facts contained in the New Testament. They presuppose that the Apostles received from Christ a commission to propagate his religion, and a supernatural power to enforce its authority. And thus they indirectly establish the truth and divine original of the Gospel.” D known, or if quoted, is quoted with marks of censure and rejection.”

This agreement of Christians respecting the Scriptures, when we consider their many differences in other respects, is the more remarkable, since it took place without any public authority being interposed. “We have no knowledge,” says the above author, 66 of any interference of authority in the question before the council of Laodicea, in the year 363. Probably the decree of this council rather declared than regulated the public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment of some neighbouring churches — the council itself consisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries. Nor does its authority seem to have extended farther.” But the fact, that no public authority was interposed, does not require to be supported by the above reasoning. The churches at the beginning, being widely separated from each other, necessarily judged for themselves in this matter, and the decree of the council was founded on the coincidence of their judgment.

In delivering this part of his written revelation, God proceeded as he had done in the publication of the Old Testament Scriptures. For a considerable time, his will was declared to mankind through the medium of oral tradition. At length he saw meet, in his wisdom, to give it a more permanent form. But this did not take place, till a nation, separated from all others, was provided for its reception. In the same manner, when Jesus Christ set up his kingdom in the world, of which the nation of Israel was a type, he first made known his will by means of verbal communication, through his servants whom he commissioned and sent out for that purpose; and when, through their means, he had prepared his subjects and collected them into churches, to be the depositaries of his word, he caused it to be delivered to them in writing. His kingdom was not to consist of any particular nation, like that of Israel, but of all those individuals, in every part of the world, who should believe in his name. It was to be ruled, not by means of human authority, or compulsion of any kind, but solely by his authority. These sacred writings were thus intrusted to a people prepared for their reception — a nation among the nations, but singularly distinct from all the rest, who guarded and preserved them with the same inviolable attachment as the Old Testament Scriptures had experienced from the Jews.

Respecting the lateness of the time when the Scriptures of the New Testament were written, no objection can be offered, since they were published before that generation passed which had witnessed the transactions they record. The dates of these writings fall within the period of the lives of many who were in full manhood when the Lord Jesus Christ was upon earth; and the facts detailed in the histories, and referred to in the Epistles, being of the most public nature, ere still open to full investigation. It must also be recollected, that the Apostles and disciples, during the whole intermediate period, were publicly proclaiming to the world the same things which were afterwards recorded in their writings.

Had these Scriptures been published before societies of Christians were in existence, to whose care could they have been intrusted? What security would there have been for their preservation, or that they would not have been corrupted? In the way which was adopted, they were committed to faithful men, who, viewing them as the charter of their own salvation, and the doctrine which they contained as the appointed means of rescuing their fellow creatures from misery and guilt, watched over their preservation with the most zealous and assiduous care.

But unless the whole manner of communicating the revelation of God, in these Scriptures, had been altered, it is not possible, that, excepting the accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, they could have been earlier committed to writing. The history of the Acts of the Apostles, being carried down to about the year 63 of the Christian era, could not, it is evident, have been published sooner. The Epistles are not addressed to men of the world, or to the whole inhabitants of particular countries, but exclusively to believers. The truth conveyed in them is not delivered in an abstract form, but in the way of immediate application to existing cases and circumstances. This practical method of communicating the doctrine, and of recording the laws of the kingdom of Christ, which commends itself to every reflecting mind, could not, it is manifest, have been adopted till societies of Christians were in existence, and till they had existed for some considerable time. In this way, too, we have an undeniable proof of the success of the Apostles in the rapid progress of the Gospel. We are made acquainted, as we could not otherwise have been, with their zeal, resolution, self-denial, disinterestedness,” patience, and meekness, and have the most convincing evidence of the extraordinary gifts they possessed. We are also put in possession of indubitable evidence of the miraculous gifts conferred on the first Christians, as well as of their sincerity, courage, and patience.

Thus were the Scriptures, as we now possess them, delivered to the first churches. By the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, both of friends and foes, they were received by Christians of different sects, and were constantly appealed to on all hands, in the controversies that arose among them. Commentaries upon them were written at a very early period, and translations made into different languages. Formal catalogues of them were published, and they were attacked by the adversaries of Christianity, who not only did not question, but expressly admitted, the facts they contained, and that they were the genuine productions of the persons whose names they bore.

In this manner the Scriptures were also secured from the danger of being in any respect altered or vitiated. “The books of Scripture,” says Augustine, “could not have been corrupted. If such an attempt had been made by any one, his design would have been prevented and defeated. His alterations would have been immediately detected by many and more ancient copies. The difficulty of succeeding in such an attempt is apparent hence, that the Scriptures were early translated into divers languages, and copies of them were numerous. The alterations which any one attempted to make would have been soon perceived; just even as now, in fact, lesser faults in some copies are amended by comparing ancient copies or those of the original. ... If any one,” continues Augustine, “should charge you with having interpolated some texts alleged by you as favourable to your cause, what would you say? Would you not immediately answer that it is impossible for you to do such a thing in books read by all Christians? And that if any such attempt had been made by you, it would have been presently discerned and defeated by comparing the ancient copies? Well, then, for the same reason that the Scriptures cannot be corrupted by you, neither could they be corrupted by any other people.”

Accordingly, the uniformity of the manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures that are extant, which are incomparably more numerous than those of any ancient author, and which are dispersed through so many countries, and in so great a variety of languages, is truly astonishing. It demonstrates both the veneration in which the Scriptures have always been held, and the singular care that has been taken in transcribing them. The number of various readings, that by the most minute and laborious investigation and collations of manuscripts have been discovered in them, said to amount to one hundred and fifty thousand, though at first sight they may seem calculated to diminish confidence in the sacred text, yet in no degree whatever do they affect its credit and integrity. They consist almost wholly in palpable errors in transcription, grammatical and verbal differences, such as the insertion or omission of a letter or article, the substitution of a word for its equivalent, the transposition of a word or two in a sentence. Taken altogether, they neither change nor affect a single doctrine or duty announced or enjoined in the Word of God.* When, therefore, we consider the great antiquity of the sacred books, the almost infinite number of copies, of versions, of editions, which have been made of them in all languages, — in languages which have not any analogy one with another, among nations differing so much in their customs and their religious opinions, — When we consider these things, it is truly astonishing, and can only be ascribed to the watchful providence of God over his own word, that amongst the various readings, nothing truly essential can be discerned, which relates to either precept or doctrine, or which breaks that connexion — that unity — which subsists in all the various parts of divine revelation, and which demonstrates the whole to be the work of one and the same Spirit.

In proof that the Scriptures were published and delivered to the churches in the age to which their dates refer, we have the attestation of a connected chain of Christian writers, from that period to the present day. No fewer than six of these authors, part of whose works are still extant, were contemporaries of the Apostles.

* Dr Kennicott examined and collated 600 Hebrew manuscripts, and so trilling were the variations he discovered, that it has been objected, though very unjustly, that he had effected nothing by all his labours.

Barnabas was the companion of the Apostle Paul. He is the author of an Epistle, which was well known among the early Christians. It is still extant, and refers to the Apostolic writings.

Clement was the third bishop of the church in Rome, and is mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians. He has left a long Epistle, which is extant, though not entire, written in name of the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, in which the latter is admonished to adhere to the commands of Christ. Irenseus says that it was written by Clement, “who had seen the blessed Apostles, and conversed with them; who had the preaching of the Apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor he alone, for there were then still many alive, who had been taught by the Apostles. In the time therefore of this Clement, when there was no small dissension among the brethren at Corinth, the church at Rome sent a most excellent letter to the Corinthians, persuading them to peace among themselves.” About 80 or 90 years after this letter was written, Dionysius, the Bishop at Corinth, declares, that “it had been wont to be read in that church from ancient times.” It contains several quotations from the New Testament Scriptures, and allusions to them.

Hermas also, contemporary with the Apostles, has left a book that still remains, called, “The Shepherd of Hermas,” in which he quotes and enforces the doctrine of Scripture.

Ignatius was bishop of the church at Antioch, about thirty- seven years after Christ’s ascension. He suffered martyrdom at Rome under the Emperor «. Trajan. Ignatius has left several Epistles that are * *; still extant, which give testimony to Jesus Christ and yata JUu,- his doctrine. He declares, that he “fled to the Gos-,)^oJa. LM^ui pels as the flesh of Jesus, and to the Apostles as the qiU,f elders of the church.” 5|U*tk. (Wt

Polycarp had been taught by the Apostles, and U t arr had conversed with many who had seen Christ. He 2 was appointed by the Apostles, Bishop of the church wm c^l -lc at Smyrna. One epistle of his still remains, which w A* ^t4^Cu” evinces the respect that he and other Christians bore 1 c ’ for the Scriptures. Ireriseus, who, in his youth, had 1 been a disciple of Polycarp, says, concerning him, in a letter to Florinus, —” I saw you when I was very young, in the Lower Asia with Polycarp. For I better remember the affairs of that time, than those which have lately happened; the things which we learn in our childhood growing up with the soul, and uniting themselves to it. Insomuch, that I can tell the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and the form of his person, and the discourses he made to the people; and how he related his conversation with John, and others who had seen the Lord; and how he related their sayings, and what he had heard from them concerning the Lord; both concerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he had received them from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life: all which Polycarp related agreeable to the Scriptures. These things I then, through the mercy of God toward me, diligently heard and attended to, recording them not on paper, but upon my heart.

And through the grace of God I continually renew the remembrance of them.” Polycarp was condemned to the flames at Smyrna, the proconsul being present, and all the people in the amphitheatre demanding his death. Thus, like Ignatius, he confirmed his testimony to the Scriptures with his blood.

Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John, and a companion of Polycarp. He was the author of five books, which are now lost, but which, according to quotations from them that remain, bore testimony to the Scriptures. He expressly ascribes their respective Gospels to Matthew and Mark.

The above six writers had all lived and conversed with some of the Apostles. Those parts which remain of the writings of the first five, who are called the Apostolical Fathers, are valuable by their antiquity; and all of them contain some important testimony to the Scriptures.

About twenty years after these writers follows Justin Martyr. He was born about the year 89, and suffered martyrdom about the year 163. Originally he had been a Heathen philosopher; and, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he relates the circumstances of his conversion to Christianity. From his works might be extracted almost a complete life of Christ; and he uniformly represents the Scriptures as, containing the authentic account of his doctrine. The

luu. ccaciAA.u. a)^ q Qgpgig he sayS> were read and expounded every

oL^iucrtt iuicuounday m the solemn assemblies or the Christians, twit- ^iwyHe particularly mentions the Acts of the Apostles, d tL i^Mt along with the books of the Old Testament, which were also regularly read as in the Jewish synjyrojgues; and he appeals to the Scriptures as writings open to all the world, and read by Jews and Gentiles. He presented two apologies for the Christian religion; the first to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, in the year 140; the second to Marcus Antoninus, the philosopher, in the year 162. Both these apologies are still extant; the first entire, of the second the beginning is wanting.

Dionysius, Tatian, and Hegesippus, wrote about thirty years after Justin Martyr, and give their testimony to the Scriptures. Hegesippus relates, that, travelling from Palestine to Rome, he visited in his journey many bishops; and that c< in every succession, and in every city, the same doctrine is taught which the law and the prophets and the Lord teacheth.”

About the year 177, the churches of Lyons and Vienne in France sent a relation of the persecutions they suffered to the churches in Asia and Phrygia. Pothixus, bishop of the church at Lyons, was then 90 years old; and in his early life was contemporary with the Apostle John. This letter, which is preserved entire, makes exact references to the Scriptures.

Iren.eus succeeded Pothinus as bishop at Lyons. In his youth, as has been already noticed, he had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Thus he was only one step removed from the Apostles. Irenseus gives a most ample testimony, both to the genuineness and the authenticity of the Scriptures. “We have not received,” says he,” the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others than those by whom the

Gospel has been brought to us; which Gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of our faith. — For after that our Lord rose from the dead, and they (the Apostles) were endued from above with the power of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly peace, having, all of them, and every one alike, the Gospel of God. Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome, and founding a church there. And after their exit, (death or departure,) Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him (Paul.) Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also lean-Ivul lxfi<ifcU<t-ed upon his breast, he likewise published a Gospel i^^xU while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia. And all these nti % <<”)ui* jjave delivered to us, that there is one God, the maker CthcL Lu°f the heaven and the earth, declared by the law and / r the prophets, and one Christ, the Son of God. And he who does not assent to them, despisetn indeed

those who knew the mind of the Lord: but he despiseth also Christ himself the Lord, and he despiseth likewise the Father, and is self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as all heretics do.” — “The tradition of the Apostles hath spread itself over the whole universe; and all they who search after the sources of truth, will find this tradition to be held sacred in every church. We might enumerate all those who have been appointed bishops to those churches by the Apostles, and all their successors up to our days. It is by this uninterrupted succession that we have received the tradition which actually exists in the church, and also the doctrine of truth as it is preached by the Apostles.”

After giving some reasons why he supposed the number of the Gospels was precisely four, Irenseus says, “Whence it is manifest that the Word, the Former of all things, who sits upon the cherubim, and upholds all things, having appeared to men, has given to us a Gospel of a fourfold character, but joined in one spirit. — The Gospel according to John discloses his primary and glorious generation from the Father: 6 In the beginning was the Word.’ — But the Gospel according to Luke, being of a priestly character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense to God. — Matthew relates his generation, which is according to men: i The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham, — Mark begins from the prophetic spirit which came down from above to men, saying, 6 The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”

The above passage distinctly ascertains, that the four Gospels, as we have them, and no more, were equally received and acknowledged by the first churches.

Irenseus farther says, “The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews, for they earnestly desired a Messiah of the seed of David; and Matthew, having also the same desire to a yet greater degree, strove by all means to give them full satisfaction that Christ was of the seed of David, wherefore he began with his genealogy.” — “Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, makes this the beginning of his evangelic writing, The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’ And in the end of the Gospel, Mark says, 6 So then, the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.’” — “But if any one rejects Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will be convicted of throwing away the Gospel, of which he professeth to be a disciple. For there are many, and those very necessary, parts of the Gospel, which we know by his means.” He then refers to several particulars, which are known only from Luke.

The Acts of the Apostles is a book much quoted by Irenseus, as written by Luke, the companion of the Apostles. There are few things recorded in that book which have not been mentioned by him. “And that Luke,” says he, “was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-worker in the Gospel, he himself shows, not boasting of it indeed, but obliged to it for the sake of truth.”

Irenseus quotes largely from the Epistles of Paul, and remarks, that this Apostle “frequently uses hyperbata,” (or transpositions of words from their natural order,) “because of the rapidity of his words, and because of the mighty force of ( the Spirit in him,” The book of .Revelation Irenseus often quotes, and says, “It was seen no long time ago, but almost in our own age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” He mentions the code of the Old Testament and of the New, and calls the one, as well as the other, the Oracles of God.

Speaking of the Scriptures in general, he says, “well knowing that the Scriptures are perfect, as ’ being dictated by the word of God and his Spirit.” — “A heavy punishment awaits those who add to or take from the Scriptures.” — “But we, following the one and the only true God as our teacher, and having his words as a rule of truth, do all always speak the same things concerning the same things.”

Athenagoras, Miltiades, Theophilus, and Pant2ENUSj who lived at the same time with Ireneeus, all bear testimony to the Scriptures. Some of their works remain, and others are lost.

Clement, of Alexandria, followed Irenseus at the distance of sixteen years. He was a man of great learning, and presided in the Catechetical School at Alexandria. Clement travelled into different countries in search of information. “The law and the Prophets, together with the Gospels,” he says, “conduct to one and the same knowledge in the name of Christ.” — “One God and Almighty Lord is taught by the law and the prophets, and the blessed Gospels.” He has given a distinct account of the order in which-the four Gospels were written. The Gospels which contain the genealogies were, he says, written first, * Mark’s next, and John’s the last. He repeatedly quotes the four Gospels by the names of their authors, and expressly ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to

Luke. His quotations from the Scriptures of the New Testament are numerous, and he calls them “the Scriptures of the Lord,” and the “true evangelical canon.”

Next to Clement, and in the same age, comes Tertullian, who was born at Carthage about the year 160. He was a man of extensive learning, and the most considerable of all the Latin writers on Christianity. He wrote a very valuable apology for the Christians, about the year 198, addressed to the governors of provinces, which is still extant. He gives the most ample attestation to the Scriptures, quoting them so frequently, that, as Lardner observes, there are more and longer quotations of the small volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author, than there are of all the works of Cicero in writers of all characters for several ages. After enumerating many churches which had been gathered by Paul and the other Apostles, he declares, that not those churches only which were called Apostolical, but all who have fellowship with them in the same faith, received the Knx a, fom. Gospels/and that these had been in the posses- 2- <^W^/v sion of the churches from the beginning. He also declares, that the original manuscripts of the Apostles, at least some of them, were preserved till the age in which he lived, and were then to be seen.

“In the first place,” says Tertullian, “we lay this down for a certain truth, that the Evangelic Scriptures have for their authors the Apostles, to whom the work of publishing the Gospel was committed by the Lord himself; and also Apostolical men. — Among the Apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; among Apostolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it, going upon the same principles as concerning the one God the Creator, and his Christ born of a virgin, the accomplishment of the law and the prophets. — If it be certain that that is most genuine which is most ancient, that most ancient which is from the beginning, and that from the beginning which is from the Apostles; in like manner, it will be also certain that that has been delivered from the Apostles which is held sacred in the churches of the Apostles. Let us then see what milk the Corinthians received from Paul, to what rule the Galatians were reduced, what the Philippians read, what the Thessalonians, the Ephesians, and also the Romans recite, who are near to us; with whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed with their blood. We have also churches which are the disciples of John; for, though Marcion rejects his Revelation, the succession of Bishops, traced up to the beginning, will show it to have John for its author. We know also the original of other churches, (that is, that they are Apostolical.) I say, then, that with them, but not with them only that are Apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received, which we so zealously maintain.” That is the genuine entire Gospel of Luke, not that which had been curtailed and altered by Marcion.” The same authority of the Apostolical churches will support the other Gospels, which we have from them, and according to them, (that is, according to their copies.) I mean John’s and Matthew’s, although that likewise which Mark published may be said to be Peter’s, whose in-GENUINENESS AND

terpreter Mark was, for Luke’s digest also is often ascribed to Paul.” Tertullian says that Matthew’s Gospel began in this manner, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” The Acts of the Apostles are often quoted by him under that title: he calls them Luke’s Commentary, or History.

“I will,” says Tertullian, “by no means say Gods nor Lords, but I will follow the Apostle; so that, if the Father and the Son are to be mentioned together, I will say God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord; but when I mention Christ only, I can call him God, as the Apostle does.” “Of whom Christ came, who is” says he, “over all, God blessed for ever”

To Tertullian succeeds a multitude of Christian writers. Of the works of these authors, only fragments and quotations remain, in which several testimonies to the Gospels are found. In one of them is an abstract of the whole Gospel history.

After those writers, and at the distance of twenty-five years from Tertullian, comes the celebrated Origen of Alexandria, of whom it is said, that “he did not so much recommend Christianity by what he preached, or by what he wrote, as by the general tenor of his life.” He was born about 150 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the quantity of his writings he exceeded the most laborious of the Greek and Latin writers. He gives full and decisive testimony to the Scriptures. He says, “that the four Gospels alone are received without dispute by the U*^^^^? .whole church of God under heaven;” and he sub - ^uj~ ckj; ^j0jns a jjystory 0f tneir respective authors. “The first,” says Origen, “is written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ. The second is that according to Mark, who wrote it as Peter dictated to him, who therefore calls him his son in his Catholic Epistle. The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts. Lastly, that according to John.” He speaks of the Acts of the Apostles as an uncontested book, and gives the same account concerning Mark’s Gospel as having been written under the direction of the Apostle Peter, which is -given “by Clement. It is reckoned a monument of the humility of Peter, that several very remarkable circumstances in his favour, that are related by the other Evangelists, y-eu are not mentioned, or even hinted at, by Mark.^ *^”7*t£!

Origen uniformly quotes the Epistle to the He-^^*^^ U brews as the writing of the Apostle Paul, and the “ty kp eUe/rcM, $ Book of Revelation as the writing of the Apostle Xl W&C+ John. His quotations of Scripture are so numerous, jta that Dr Mill says, “if we had all his works remain- RuA-™*^ ^jtkc ing. we should have before us almost the whole text jm.,, y w of the Bible.” He expresses, in the most unqualified tatW.. terms, his opinion of the authority of the books of the New Testament as inspired writings, and says, that “the sacred books are not writings of men, but have been written and delivered to us from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the will of the Father of all, through Jesus Christ.” He urges, with earnestness, the reading of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, as a sacred obligation in the churches of Christ. “Food,” says he, “is eaten, physic is taken; though the good effect is not presently perceived, a benefit is expected in time, and may be obtained. So it is with the Holy Scriptures; though, at the very time of reading of them, there be no sensible advantage, yet, in the end, they will be thought profitable for strengthening virtuous dispositions, and weakening the habits of vice. — The true food of the rational nature is the word of God. — Let us come daily to the wells of the Scriptures, the waters of the Holy Spirit, and there draw and carry hence a full vessel. The greatest torment of demons is to see men reading the word of God, and labouring to understand the divine law.”

In his Apology for the Christian Religion, in answer to Celsus the Epicurean philosopher, Origen, when giving a quotation from Scripture, says that it is written, “not in any private book, or such as are read by a few persons only, but in books read by every body.” In that Apology, he has preserved, from the writings of Celsus, most distinct and complete attestations to the Gospel history.

Gregory, Bishop at Neocesaria, and Dionysius of Alexandria, scholars of Origen, and the well-known Cyprian, Bishop at Carthage, come about twenty years after Origen. Their writings abound with copious citations from the Scriptures, to which they give their full and particular attestation. Cyprian says, 4 ‘The church is watered, like Paradise, by four rivers, that is, four Gospels.”

Within forty years after Cyprian, Vic torin us, Bishop at Pettaw, in Germany, and a multitude of Christian writers, all testify their profound respect for the Scriptures.

About the year 306, Arnobius and Lactantius wrote in support of the Christian religion. Lactan-* tius argues in its defence, from the consistency, simplicity, disinterestedness, and sufferings of the writers of the Gospels. Arnobius vindicates the credit of the writers of the Gospels, observing, that they were eye-witnesses of the facts which they relate, and that their ignorance of the arts of composition was rather a confirmation of their testimony, than an objection to it.

Eusebius, Bishop at Caesarea, born about the year 270, wrote about fifteen years after the above authors. He composed a History of Christianity, from its origin to his own time; and has handed down many valuable extracts of ancient authors, whose works have perished. In giving his testimony to the Scriptures, he shows himself to be much conversant in the works of Christian authors, and he appears to have collected every thing that had been said, before his own time, respecting the volume of the New Testament.

Athanasius became Bishop at Alexandria about the year 326. He expressly affirms, that every one of the books of the New Testament that we now receive, are inspired Scriptures, which he specifies in their order, and ascribes them to the writers whose names they bear. He represents them as constantly and publicly read in the Christian churches. Athanasius had access to every source of information, and applied himself to ascertain the canon of the Old Testament as well as of the New. It appears, that he sent to the Emperor Constance a copy of the whole Bible, which he described as the whole inspired Scriptures. Speaking of the Scriptures, he says, “These are fountains of salvation. In them alone, the doctrine of religion is taught. Let no man add to them, or take any thing from them.”

It is unnecessary to carry down this chain of historical evidence any farther. The Council of Nice was called by Constantine in the year 325; and as Christianity had then become the established religion of the Roman empire, its history is afterwards inseparably interwoven with every thing connected with the state of the world.

From the above numerous and early writers, we have most unquestionable attestations to the integrity and authority of the Holy Scriptures. First, we have six writers who were contemporary with the Apostles, and then eleven more who lived in distant parts of the world, regularly succeeding each other during the first hundred years after the Apostles. From that period, the chain of evidence continues unbroken and uninterrupted. “When Christian advocates,” says Paley, “merely tell us that we have the same reason for believing the Gospels to be written by the Evangelists whose names they bear, as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Caesar’s, the iEneid Virgil’s, or the Orations Cicero’s, they content themselves with an imperfect representation. They state nothing more than what is true, but they do not state the truth correctly. In the number, variety, and early date of our testimonies, we far exceed all other ancient books. For one which the most celebrated work of the most celebrated Greek or Roman writer can allege, we produce many.”

The force of the above testimony is greatly strengthened by the consideration, that it is the eoncurringevidence of separate, independent, and well-informed writers, who lived in countries remote from one another. Clement lived at Rome; Ignatius, at Antioch; Poly carp, at Smyrna; Justin Martyr, in Syria; Irenaeus, in France; Tertullian, at Carthage; Origen, in Egypt; Eusebius, at Ccesarea; Victorinus, in Germany. The dangers which they encountered, and the hardships and persecutions which they suffered, some of them even unto death, on account of their adherence to the Christian faith, give irresistible weight to their testimony.

“No writings,” says Augustine, “ever had a better testimony afforded them than those of the Apostles and Evangelists. Nor does it weaken the credit and authority of books, received by the church of Christ from the beginning, that some other writings have been, without ground, and falsely, ascribed to the Apostles. For the like has happened, for instance, to Hippocrates; but yet his genuine works are distinguished from others which have been published under his name. We know the writings of the Apostles as we know the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and others, to be theirs, and as we know the writings of divine ecclesiastical authors; for as much as they have the testimony of contemporaries, and of those who have lived in succeeding times. I might, moreover, by way of illustration, produce for examples those now in hand. Suppose some one in time to come should deny those to be the works of Faustus, or those to be mine; how should he be satisfied but by the testimony of those of this time who knew both, and have transmitted their accounts to others? And shall not, then, the testimony of the churches, and Christian brethren, be valid here; especially when they are so numerous, and so harmonious, and the tradition is with so much ease and certainty traced down from the Apostles to our time — I say, shall any be so foolish and unreasonable as to deny or dispute the credibility of such a testimony to the Scriptures, which would be allowed in behalf of any writings whatever, whether heathen or ecclesiastical?”

In another place Augustine observes, “If you here ask us, how we know these to be the writings of the Apostles; in brief we answer, in the same way that you know the epistles, or any other writings of Maui, to be his: for if any one should be pleased to dispute with you, and offer to deny the epistles ascribed to Mani to be his, what would you do? Would you not laugh at the assurance of the man who denied the genuineness of writings generally allowed? As therefore it is certain those books are Mani’s, and he would be ridiculous who should now dispute it; so certain is it that the Manichees deserve to be laughed at, or rather ought to be pitied, who dispute the truth and genuineness of those writings of the Apostles, which have been handed down as theirs from their time to this through an uninterrupted succession of well-known witnesses.”

Should it occur to any that to prove the genuine* ness and authenticity of the Scriptures by the testimony of the Fathers, is to sanction the traditions of the Church of Rome, they ought to consider that there is a radical distinction between these two cases. Testimony is a first principle, universally acknowledged as authoritative in its own province, as far as it is unexceptionable. The whole business of the world proceeds on this principle, and without it human affairs would run into utter confusion. That historical testimony is a legitimate source of evidence, the general sentiments of mankind admit, in the universal appeal to history for the knowledge of past events. Historical testimony may be false, but this is not peculiar to this class of first principles. We are liable to be deceived on all subjects to which our faculties are directed; but there are means by which historical evidence may be ascertained. Its proof may vary from the lowest degree of probability to the highest degree of certainty. Of many things recorded even in profane history, we can have no more doubt than we can have of truths that contain their own evidence. Now, the stress laid on the testimony of the ancient writers that have been quoted, is warranted by the most cautious laws of historical evidence; and it cannot be rejected, without entirely rejecting history as a legitimate ground of knowledge. That such writers did give such testimony, is as indisputable as any historical fact can be. And the proof of this lies open to every man who has time, opportunity, and ability to examine the subject. If so, there is no reason to reject as insufficient, in proof of the authenticity of the Bible, the same kind of evidence that is allowed to prove any other fact. But the traditions of the Church of Rome are not of this nature. They are not historical at all. They have not been written; they are nowhere to be found. It is not pretended by their friends that they possess historical evidence. They are recommended altogether on another foundation, — the authority of the church. It is said the church has had them treasured up in secret; but we can have no higher assurance of their authenticity than what we are willing to rest on the authority of the church. The difference, then, between the two cases, is manifest and essential. And clearer historical proof cannot be exhibited on any subject, than has been adduced for the genuineness and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures.

It has been supposed that if a list of the names and numbers of the books of Scripture had been recorded in any part of the canon, it would have added to our certainty respecting the divine original of the whole. But if there were such a list, it would still remain to be decided whether the books we possess were the very books named, in words and substance, as well as in name. Indeed if the list were written, and the number of lines and words recorded, the case would still be the same. It would not in the smallest degree add to our certainty respecting their divine original; for how could we be assured of that inspired list, but from the certainty of the book being from God that contained the list? Such a list could neither ascertain its own accuracy, nor the authenticity of the book which contained it. The authenticity of that list must have been ascertained precisely in the same manner as that of each and all of the books is now ascertained.

If, therefore, the name and number of the inspired books were contained in any epistle, it would still leave the authority of the books named, on the same foundation of the authority of the epistle in which they were named; and that authority must have been ascertained exactly in the same way by which we now ascertain the authority of each and all of the inspired books. The ultimate foundation, then, of the evidence would be the same, as to that particular part which contained the list; and, with respect to the books mentioned in the list, we could not be assured against their mutilation and corruption. It is quite absurd, then, to suppose that a list of the names and numbers of the inspired books would have given us better evidence of their authority. The authority of that part which contained such a list, must be ascertained in the ordinary way; and, as the stream cannot rise higher than the fountain, the authority of all the books, as resting on the testimony of one, would be no stronger than that of the one which supported them. In whatever way that one could prove its divine authority, in the same way we now prove the authority of all.^ fa. w*>^ The circumstance, then, that there is not a list of ^f^^’^^l. the books of inspiration contained in the page of in- / C: spiration itself, does not lessen the certainty as to the canon, nor increase the difficulty 01 ascertaining the ,<c<//^- & truth of it. That if a list of the books of Scripture //L were given in the Scriptures, it would not fix the ‘^/f**^?^’.y question of the canon on a surer foundation, is obvious, “v ‘,. too, from the consideration that a forgery might con-V,, oLcCcCt tain such a list, as well as an authentic document, and, /*< ’ °$ nz< that the truth of such a list takes it for granted that the book which contains it is canonical. Is the second epistle of Peter put above the first, as to the certainty of its being canonical, by the assertion, “This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you.” Does such an expression establish its being canonical? Is it not evident, on the contrary, that the epistle’s being canonical must be established, before the assertion, “This second epistle I now write unto you,” is believed to be inspired? So far from such a list proving that the books which contain it are canonical, it Jnc, is their being canonical that verifies the list. If the claim of a book of Scripture to be canonical is not ascertained, the list which it contains is not revelation. With respect to the books of the Old Testament, however, such a list is in effect given, and the inspiration of them warranted in the assertion, “All Scripture is given by inspiration.” Now, the steps by which we arrive at certainty here, are few and simple. If the book of the New Testament which contains this assertion is canonical, it warrants all the books of the Old Testament which at the time of its publication were received as Scripture. We have only to enquire what books were then contained in the Jewish canon, to be assured in this matter. This is a point of testimony on which no difficulty exists. It must be observed, however, that the confidence placed in the list, or notification, rests entirely upon the authenticity of the book that contains it being previously ascertained. But if a list of the whole of the inspired books is the only thing that could ascertain with sufficient evidence, such as are from God, then no man can have a thorough faith in the Scriptures, for such a list has not been given. And had it been given, it could not have secured against forgery, as has been already noticed, for nothing is easier than for a forger to give such a list. Had the Scriptures been a forgery, they would probably have recommended themselves by a very correct list.

It has been asserted that “the question of the canon is a point of erudition, not of divine revelation.” This is to undermine boih the certainty and the importance of the sacred canon. The assertion, that the question of the canon is not a point of revelation is false. It is not true either of the Old Testament, or of the New. The integrity of the canon of the Old Testament, is a matter of revelation, as much as any thing contained in the Bible. This is attested, as has been shown, by the whole nation of the Jews, to whom it was committed, and their fidelity to the truth has been avouched by the Lord and his Apostles, Is not this revelation? The integrity of the canon of the New Testament is equally a point of revelation. As God had said to the Jews, “Ye are my witnesses,” and as they “received the lively oracles to give unto us,” Acts vii. 38; so the Lord Jesus said to the Apostles, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” The first churches received the New Testament Scriptures from these witnesses of the Lord, and thus had inspired authority for those books. It was not left to erudition or reasoning to collect, that they were a revelation from God. This the first Christians knew from the testimony of those who wrote them. They could not be more assured that the things taught were from God, than they were that the writings which contained them were from God. The integrity of the sacred canon is, then, a matter of revelation, conveyed to us by testimony, like every thing contained in the Scriptures.

While it has been denied that the question of the canon is a point of revelation, it has been asserted that it is a point of erudition. But erudition has nothing further to do with the question, than as it may be employed in conveying to us the testimony. Erudition did not produce the revelation of the canon. If the canon had not been a point of revelation, erudition could never have made it so; for erudition can create nothing; it can only investigate and confirm truth, and testify to that which exists, or detect error. We receive the canon of Scripture by revelation, in the same way that the Jews received the law which was given from Mount Sinai. Only one generation of the Jews witnessed the giving of the law; but to all the future generations of that people, it was equally a matter of revelation. The knowledge of this was conveyed to them by testimony. In the same way, Christians, in their successive generations, receive the canon of Scripture as a matter of revelation. The testimony through which this is received, must indeed be translated from a foreign language; but so must the account brought to us of any occurrence the most trivial that takes place in a foreign country. If in this sense the question of the canon be called a point of erudition, the gospel itself must be called a point of erudition; for it, too, must be translated from the original language in which it was announced, as also must every thing which the

Scriptures contain. When a preacher inculcates the belief of the gospel, or of a doctrine of Scripture, or obedience to any duty, would he be warranted in telling his audience that these are questions of erudition, not of divine revelation? Erudition may be allowed its full value, without suspending on it the authority of the Word of God.

The assertion that the question of the canon is a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, is subversive of the whole of revelation. We have no way of knowing that the miracles related in the Scriptures were wrought, and that the doctrines inculcated were taught, but by testimony and the internal evidence of the books themselves. We have the evidence of miracles, as that evidence comes to us by the testimony which vouches the authenticity of the inspired books. As far as the genuineness and authenticity of any book are brought into suspicion, so far is every thing contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should always be remembered, that there is no greater absurdity than to question the claim of a book to a place in the canon, and at the same time to acknowledge its contents to be a revelation from God. There can be no evidence that the doctrines of Scripture are revealed truths, unless we are certain that the books of Scripture are revelation. If the books which compose the canon are not matter of revelation, then we have no revelation. If the truth of the canon be not established to us as matter of revelation, then the books of which it is composed are not so established; and if the books be not so, then not one sentence of them, nor one doctrine or precept which they contain, comes established to us as a revelation from God. If then the question of the canon be a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, so is every doctrine which the Scriptures contain. For the doctrine cannot be assured revelation, if the book that contains it be not assured revelation. There can be no higher evidence of the doctrine being revelation, than of the book that contains it; and thus were not the canon a matter of divine revelation, the whole Bible would be stripped of divine authority. Any thing, therefore, that goes to unsettle the canon, goes to unsettle every doctrine contained in the canon.

Without a particular revelation to every individual, it does not appear that the authority of the canon could be ascertained to us in any other way than it is at present. The whole of the Scriptures was given at first by revelation, and afterwards this revelation was confirmed by ordinary means. The testimony concerning it has been handed down in the churches from one generation to another. On this, and on their own internal characteristics of being divine, we receive the Scriptures with the most unsuspecting confidence, and on the same ground, the Jews received the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In these ways, it is fixed by divine authority, and not left in any uncertainty; for, if its truth can be ascertained by ordinary means, it is fixed by the authority of God, as much as if an angel from heaven were every day to proclaim it over the earth. When Paul says, that his handwriting of the salutation was the token in every epistle, be at once shows us the importance of the canon, and warrants us in receiving it as a divine revelation attested by ordinary means. Those to whom he wrote had no other way of knowing the handwriting of the Apostle than that by which they knew any other handwriting. Even at that time the churches knew the genuineness of the epistles sent to them by ordinary means: and Paul’s authority warrants this as sufficient. We have, then, the authority of revelation for resting the canon on the ordinary sources of human evidence, and they are such as to preclude the possibility of deception. The claim of the Epistles sent to the first churches, and of the doctrine they contain as divine, rested even to those churches on the same kind of evidence on which we now receive them. It is very important to settle what kind of evidence is sufficient for our receiving the Scriptures. Many have rated this too high, and as the Scriptures contain a revelation, they wished to have them attested to every age by revelation, which is, in fact, requiring the continuance of miraculous in- [ terference, which it might easily be shown would be pernicious.

With respect to the validity of the internal evidence on which the canon is received, an important argument may be founded on John, iv. 39. From the account of the woman of Samaria there related, we learn the kind of evidence on which the Lord Jesus was acknowledged while on earth. The foundation of this woman’s faith was the Lord’s having told her all things that ever she did. This was sufficient for her to recognise him as a prophet, or as one sent of God; and, consequently, when he declared to her that he was the Messiah, she had sufficient ground to believe so, for God would not enable any one to tell her such things in order to deceive. For if there was evidence from what he said that he was sent by o 2^ God, there was evidence from his assertion that he pUi ht-outoi- was Messiah.^ From verse 41 of the same chap- 9 Cittl tL ‘vtuJ1*1* we earn? tnat “many more believed because of ( 7f J^dc- his own word;” and that they did so, and that the wor$j -f^U^ u xxiaii believed, are exhibited to us, not only as facts, but as valid grounds of belief. Jesus had not worked any miracle, and the reason why they believed on him, is expressly stated to be because of his own word. If, then, the words of Jesus, unaccompanied by miracle, was a sufficient ground of faith when he spoke, it is equally valid in writing. From hearing him, the people of Samaria could assert, with confidence, that they themselves knew that he was indeed the Christ. And from reading the Scriptures, the same satisfactory ^, evidence is obtained. In reading the Scriptures, we

^/tl/^^’A are °ften so struck with their evidence, that, inde-Ur.’tiu * 4 )pendently of any other proof, we firmly believe that lcUa* frrrj. ) they come from God. We are often most forcibly / convinced by evidence which we could hardly state ’ intelligibly to others.* The Apostles still commend themselves to every man’s conscience, and we feel the force of the question, “What is the chaff to the wheat, — is not my word like a fire?” Must, then, the illiterate man receive the Scriptures as a question of erudition? Must the canonical authority of an epistle that recommends itself as the light of heaven, depend on questions of erudition?

Christians receive the Holy Scriptures on the authority of God, as declared by his inspired messengers, so that they are received on the ground of revelation. The illiterate are equally bound to receive them in this way, and interested in so doing, as the learned. As all are to be judged by them, it was necessary that all should have full assurance that they are from God; and it is matter of express revelation, that nothing but hatred of the light, and the love of darkness, prevents any man who reads them from receiving the truth. Both the Old Testament and the New come to us stamped with the authority of Him who is “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person,’’ and of those to whom God bore “witness both with signs and wonders, and diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost,” and also with their own internal evidence of being divine. And if any portion of them be set aside as uninspired, or if any addition be made to them, it is done in spite of that authority and that evidence.

If we displace from the canon any one of those books that have been sanctioned by the recognition of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, we overturn the authority on which the rest are held, and invite the evil propensities of our nature to quarrel with any thing in the Bible to which we find a disrelish. Those who hold that the question of the canon is open to discussion, and who set aside any part of it on the ground of either external or internal evidence, cannot be said to have a Bible. Their Bible will be longer or shorter, according to their researches; and a fixed standard they can never have.

If it be asked, should we be precluded from enquiring into the grounds on which the canon is received, it is replied, certainly not. We ought to enquire into the grounds on which the canon is received, as well as into any other subject. But the permanent ground on which it stands, is testimony: and such must be the ground of every historical fact. Internal evidence may confirm the authenticity of a book sanctioned by the canon, but to suspend belief till we receive such confirmation, argues an ignorance of the principles of evidence. A book might be inspired, when no such internal confirmation, from the nature of the subject, might be found. And when a book is substantially approved, by testimony, as belonging to the canon, no evidence can, by a Christian, be legitimately supposed possible, in opposition to its inspiration. This would be to suppose valid objections to first principles. Sufficient testimony deserves the same rank as a first principle, with axioms themselves. Axioms are not more necessary than testimony, to all the business of human life. Internal evidence may be sufficient to prove that a book is not divine; but it is absurd to suppose that such a book can have valid testimony, and therefore it can never be supposed by a Christian, that any of those books that are received as part of the sacred canon, on the authority of sufficient testimony, can contain any internal marks of imposture. This would be to suppose the possibility of the clashing of two first principles. The thing that can be proved by a legitimate first principle, can never be disproved by another legitimate first principle.^ This would be to suppose that God is not the author of the human constitution. If, then, in a book recognised by the canon, as the Song of Solomon, we find matter which to our wisdom does not appear to be worthy of inspiration, we may be assured that we mistake. For if that book is authenticated by testimony as a part of the sacred Scriptures, which the Lord Jesus Christ sanctioned, it is authenticated by a first principle, to which God has bound us by the constitution of our nature to submit. If, in this instance, or in any particular instance, we reject it, our own conduct in other things will be our condemnation. There is no first principle in the constitution of man that can enable him to reject any thing in the Song of Solomon, comings as it does, under the sanction of a first principle. Those persons who reject any books of the canon on such grounds, would show themselves much more rational, as well as more humble Christians, if, recognising the paramount authority of a first principle universally acknowledged, they would receive the Song of Solomon and the Book of Esther, or any other of the books that they now reject, as parts of the Word of God, and humbly endeavour to gain from them the instruction and edification which, as divine books, they must be calculated to give. This questioning of the canon, then, proceeds on infidel and irrational principles, which, if carried to their legitimate length, must end in complete unbelief.

“According to your way of proceeding,” observes Augustine, in reference to those who supposed that the Scriptures had been interpolated or corrupted, and the observation is equally applicable to all who add to, or reject, certain parts of the sacred canon — “According to your way of proceeding, the authority of Scripture is quite destroyed, and every one’s fancy is to determine what in the Scriptures is to be received, and what not. He does not admit it, because it is found in writings of so great credit and authority; but it is rightly written, because it is agreeable to his judgment. Into what confusion and uncertainty must men be brought by such a principle!”

It is a wonderful circumstance in the providence of God, that while the two parts of Scripture were delivered to two classes, with the fullest attestation of their divine original, both the one and the other have been faithful in preserving the precious trust respectively committed to them, while they have both been rebellious in regard to that part of which they were not originally appointed the depositaries. The Jews always held the books of the Old Testament in the highest veneration, and continued to preserve them, without addition or diminution, until the coming of Him concerning whom they testify, and they have kept them entire to this day; yet they have altogether rejected the New Testament Scriptures. And while Christians have all agreed in preserving the Scriptures of the New Testament entire and uncorrupted, they have wickedly adulterated those of the Old by a spurious addition, or have retrenched certain portions of them. Of the divine original of the Sacred Scriptures, as we now possess them, we have evidence the most abundant and diversified. It is the distinguishing characteristic of the Gospel, that it is preached to the poor, and God has so ordered it, that the authenticity of that word by which all are to be judged, should not be presented to them as a matter of doubtful disputation.