網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

CHAP. IX.

There is fatisfactory evidence that many perfons, profeffing to be original witneffes of the Chriftian Miracles, paffed their lives in labours, dangers, and fufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteftation of the accounts which they delivered, and folely in confequence of their belief of the truth of thofe accounts; and that they alfa fubmitted, from the fame motives, to new rules of conduct.

"Of the authenticity of the fcriptures." NOT forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evan

gelic hiftory, fuppofing even any one of the four gofpels to be genuine; what credit is due to the gofpels, even fuppofing nothing to be known concerning them but that they were writ ten by early difciples of the religion, and received with deference by early Chriftian churches; more efpecially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Teftament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to state the proper and diftinct proofs, which fhow not only the general value of these records, but their fpecific authority, and the high probability there is that they actually came from the perfons whofe names they bear.

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw up with more regularity to the propofitions, upon which the clofe and particular difcuffion of the fubject depends. Of which nature are the following:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manufcripts, found in many different countries, and in countries widely diftant from each other, all of them anterior to the art of printing, fome certainly feven or eight hundred years old, and some which have been preferved probably above a thousand years. a We have alfo many ancient verfions of these books, and fome of them into languages which are not at prefent, nor for many ages have been, spoken in any part of the world. The exiftence of these manuscripts and verfions proves that the fcriptures were not the production of any modern contrivance. It does away alfo the uncertainty which hangs over fuch publications as the works, real or pretended, of Offian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce their manuscripts, and to

a The Alexandrian manufcript, now in the king's library, was writ ten probably in the fourth or fifth century.

fhow where they obtained their copies. The number of manufcripts, far exceeding thofe of any other book, and their wide difperfion, affords an argument, in fome meafure, to the fenfes, that the fcriptures anciently, in like manner as at this day, were more read and fought after than any other books, and that alfo in many different countries. The greatest part of fpurious Chriftian writings are utterly loft, the reft preferved by fome fingle manufcript. There is weight alfo in Dr. Bentley's obfervation, that the New Teftament has fuffered less injury by the errors of tranfcribers than the works of any profane author of the fame fize and antiquity; that is, there never was any writing in the prefervation and purity of which the world was fo interested or fo careful.

II. An argument of great weight with thofe who are judges of the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their teftimony, of being addreffed to every understanding, is that which arifes from the ftyle and language of the New Teftament. It is juft fuch language as might be expected from the apostles, from perfons of their age and in their fituation, and from no other perfons. It is the ftyle neither of claffic authors, nor of the ancient Chriftian fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebriac and Syriac idioms, fuch as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used a language spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect of the country. This happy peculiarity is a ftrong proof of the genuineness of thefe writings; for who fhould forge them? The Chriftian fathers were for the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were not. likely to infert Hebraifms and Syriafms into their writings. The few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew, as Juftin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius, wrote in a language which bears no refemblance to that of the New Teftament. The Nazarenes, who understood Hebrew, ufed chiefly, perhaps almoft entirely, the gofpel of St. Matthew, and therefore cannot be fufpected of forging the reft of the facred writings. The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity of thefe books; that they belonged to the age of the apofties; that they could be compofed indeed in no other."

a See this argument ftated more at large in Michaelis's introduction (Marth's translation) vol. I. c..ii. fec. x. from which these obser vations are taken.

III. Why should we queftion the genuineness of these books? Is it for that they contain accounts of fupernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom, is the real, though secret, caufe of our hesitation about them; for had the writings infcribed with the name of Matthew and John related nothing but ordinary hiftory, there would have been no more doubt whether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning the acknowledged works of Jofephus or Philo; that is, there would have ben no doubt at all. Now it ought to be confidered that this reafon, however it may apply to the credit which is given to a writer's judgment or veracity, affects the question of genuineness very indirectly. The works of Bede exhibit many wonderful relations; but who for that reafon doubts that they were written by Bede? The fame of a multitude of other authors. To which may be added, that we ask no more for our books than what we allow to other books in fome fort fimilar to ours. We do not deny the genuineness of the Koran. We admit that the hiftory of Appollonius Tyanæus, purporting to be written by Philoftratus, was really written by Philoftratus.

No writ

IV. If it had been an eafy thing in the early times of the inftitution to have forged Chriftian writings, and to have obtained currency and reception to the forgeries, we should have had many appearing in the name of Christ himself. ings would have been received with fo much avidity and respect as thefe; confequently none afforded fo great temptation to forgery. Yet have we heard but of one attempt of this fort deferving of the fmalleft notice, that in a piece of a very few lines, and fo far from fucceeding, I mean from obtaining acceptance and reputation, or an acceptance and reputation in any wife fimilar to that which can be proved to have attended the books of the New Testament, that it is not fo much as mentioned by any writer of the three first centuries. The learned reader need not be informed that I mean the epiftle of Chrift to Abgarus, king of Edeffa. found at present in the work of Eusebius, as a piece acknowledged by him, though not without confiderable doubt whether the whole paffage be not an interpolation, as it is most certain that after the publication of Eufebius's work, this epiftle was univerfally rejected.b

a H. Eccl. l. i. c. 13.

b Auguftin, A. D. 395, (de confenf. evang. c. 34) had heard that the Pagans pretended to be poffeffed of an epiftle from Chrift to Peter and

V. If the afcription of the gofpels to their respective authors had been arbitrary or conjectural, they would have been ascribed to more eminent men. This obfervation holds concerning the three first gofpels, the reputed authors of which were enabled, by their fituation, to obtain true intelligence, and were likely to deliver an honeft account of what they knew, but were perfons not distinguished in the history by extraordinary marks of notice or commendation. Of the apostles, I hardly know any one of whom lefs is faid than of Matthew, or of whom the little that is faid, is lefs calculated to magnify his character. Of Mark nothing is faid in the gospels; and what is faid of any person of that name in the acts, and in the epiftles, in no part bestows praise or eminence upon him. The name of Luke is mentioned only in St. Paul's epiftles, and that very tranfiently. The judgment, therefore, which affigned. these writings to thefe authors proceeded, it may be prefumed, upon proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice of names.

a

VI. Chriftian writers and Chriftian churches appear to have foon arrived at a very general agreement upon the subject, and that without the interpofition of any public authority. When the diverfity of opinion which prevailed and prevails among Christians in other points is confidered, their concurrence in the canon of fcripture is remarkable, and of great weight, efpecially as it feems to have been the refult of private and free inquiry. We have no knowledge of any interference of authority in the queftion 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 fpeaking, the judgment of fome neighbouring churches, the council itfelf confifting of no more than thirty or forty bishops of Lydia and

Paul, but he had never feen it, and appears to doubt of the cxiftence of any fuch piece, either genuine or fpurious. No other ancient writer mentions it. He alfo, and he alone notices, and that in order to condemn it, an epiftle afcribed to Chrift by the Manichees, A. D. 270, and a fhort hymn attributed to him by the Prifcillianifts, A. D. 378, (cont. Fauft. Man. lib. 28, c. 4.) The latenefs of the writer who notices these things, the manner in which he notices them, and, above all, the filence of every preceding writer, render them unworthy of confideration.

a Col. iv. 14. 2 Tim. ix, 11. Philem. 24.

the adjoining countries. Nor does its authority seem to have extended farther; for we find numerous Chriftian writers, after this time, difcuffing the queftion, "what books were entitled to be received as fcripture," with great freedom, upon proper grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the decifion at Laodicea.

Thefe confiderations are not to be neglected; but of an argument concerning the genuineness of ancient writings, the fubftance undoubtedly and strength is ancient teftimony.

This teftimony it is neceffary to exhibit somewhat in detail for when Christian advocates merely tell us, that we have the fame reason for believing the gofpels to be written by the evangelifts, whofe names they bear, as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Cæfar's, the Æneid Virgil's, or the ora tions Cicero's, they content themselves with an imperfect reprefentation. 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 teftimonies, we far exceed all other an cient books. For one, which the most celebrated work of the moft celebrated Greek or Roman writer can allege, we produce many. But then it is more requifite in our books, than in theirs, to feparate and diftinguish them from fpurious competitors. The refult, I am convinced, will be fatisfactory to every fair inquirer; but this circumftance renders an inquiry neceffary.

In a work, however like the prefent, there is a difficulty in finding a place for evidence of this kind. To purfue the detail of proofs throughout, would be to transcribe a great part of Dr. Lardner's eleven octavo volumes; to leave the argument without proofs, is to leave it without effect; for the perfuafion produced by this fpecies of evidence, depends upon a view and induction of the particulars which compofe it.

The method which I propofe to myself is, firft, to place before the reader, in one view, the propofitions which comprise the feveral heads of our teftimony, and afterwards, to repeat the fame propofitions in fo many diftinct fections, with the neceffary authorities fubjoined to each.b

The following, then, are the allegations upon the fubject, which are capable of being established by proof:

a Lardner's Cred. vol. VIII. p. 291, et. feq.

b The reader, when he has the propofitions before him, will obferve that the argument, if he fhould omit the fections, proceeds connect My from this point.

« 上一頁繼續 »