APPENDIX.

PAGE 10. Campbell takes aurortal, eye-witnesses, as. standing in opposition to uv, to us; and therefore understands Luke as intimating, that he was not in the number of the "eye-witnesses," but of the persons to whom they delivered their account of Jesus. But this learned translator has mistaken the intended contrast. The Apostles as ministers and eye-witnesses stand opposed to roλλ01, many, meaning the persons who undertook to give a history of Jesus Christ; and who had been neither ministers nor eye-witnesses of the things which they had undertaken to relate. Being thus disqualified, their narratives were not calculated to satisfy men who, like Theophilus, wished to know the truth.

Page 28. The system of the Gnostics was founded in three principles; one was their rejection of the Creator as the supreme God and benevolent Father of mankind; the second was their rejection of the man Jesus, while they pretend to receive the Christ who was a God within him; the third was, that Christ did not come from the Almighty with a commission to save the world on the terms of repentance and reformation, but that he came to destroy the works of the Creator, and to authorize his followers to continue in the indulgence of their favourite sins. These impious sentiments, while they are attested by the Greek and Latin fathers, are obvi

ously alluded to in the Apostolic writings, see Jude iv. 1. John ii. 22. They gave various names to the supreme God, which they pretended to reveal, such as, Propater, Proarche, Bythos or Bathos, the depth. To this John alludes in Rev. ii. 24., as well as Paul in Rom. viii. 39. This chief divinity they coupled with a female called Sige. This pair gave birth to another, called Nous and Aletheia. These again uniting begot Logos and Zoe, who in their turn produced Anthropos and Ecclesia. Hence finally arose the ones or angels, or the boundless genealogies to which Paul alludes in 1 Tim. i. 4. see Iren. p. 7, 8. These fictions, Origen, in his answer to Celsus, p. 294, thus characterizes: "Celsus ought to know that there exist those, who having espoused the cause of the Serpent (0415) are called (opiavoi) Serpentists. Their fictions exceed the fictions of the Titans and the Giants." These men being Egyptians, pretended, that the Christ or the divinity in the man Jesus, was the same with Horus, or Serapis, or Pan; see Epiphanius, vol. i. 171. Iren. p. 17, 18. The Egyptians had their elder and younger Horus; hence the impostors had two Christs, one of the old, the other of the new dispensation. Duos quidem Deos ausos esse hæreticos dicere et duos Christos audivimus: Origen Teg Agxwv, lib. ii. c. 7. The same learned writer thus bears testimony to the manner in which they cursed the Lord Jesus, while they pretended to honour the divinity within him. "They vilify Jesus no less than Celsus; nor do they admit any one into their society, unless he first deposit curses upon Jesus." Contra Cels. 294. This doctrine was taught by the impostors at Corinth. To this, as we have seen, Paul pointedly alludes in 1 Cor. xii. 3., and also at the end. It is with much truth and propriety, that the following assertion is made in the interpolated letter to the Trallians. c. 6. "They (the heretics) speak of Christ, not that they might preach Christ, but that they might supersede him; and

they profess the law, in order to establish a system of iniquity." It is a remarkable fact that Josephus speaks of the Jewish Gnostics under the name of Zealots; and the description which he has given us of their wickedness, throws much light on the second Epistle of Peter, and that of Jude. The Jewish historian and these Apostles will appear, when duly compared, to speak of the same people; and hence the authenticity of these two Epistles will be placed beyond the reach of reasonable doubt. See Jones's Eccles. Researches, chap. xvii. p. 435.

Page 42. Wakefield was so sensible of the absurdity of representing the Evangelist as referring to his own testimony, that he thus renders the passage: "And he who saw this beareth testimony of it; and Jesus himself knoweth that he speaketh truth." But this is only shifting the absurdity from one person to another; and no advantage is thus gained to the credibility of the fact. Our Lord was dead at the time, and it sounds like a contradiction to cite the testimony of a man that was dead, to prove that he actually died.

Page 48. The discordances observable between the four accounts given of our Lord's resurrection, have occasioned great triumph to the enemies, and great perplexity to the friends of Christianity. West's Observations, &c., contain many valuable thoughts; but they are weakened by an injudicious diffusion; and the work would have been much more acceptable, if it had been condensed to half the size. Lardner's Observations on Macknight's Harmony are elaborate, and, so far as they expose the wildness of that man's hypothesis, useful; but, with due deference to the learning and candour of that valued author, he has left the original question where he found it, excepting that he adds to several erroneous points the sanction of his own revered name. The celebrated Priestley was not less remarkable for his fairness and candour, than for his acuteness and

T

genius. "I believe," says he, in his Harmony of the Evangelists, p. 117, "it may be possible to draw up a narrative, which shall comprize all the different accounts, and be consistent with itself; but to me it is evident that, if the different writers had had exactly the same ideas of the circumstances attending that event, they would not have written as they have done concerning it."

Page 58. That Luke was one of the two disciples who went to Emmaus, may be gathered from the narrative: for he speaks in the first person in more places than one, while relating that event; thus-" And they pressed him saying, Stay with us." Had Luke been stating an occurrence which he himself had no concern in, he would have said, " And they pressed him to stay with them." So again, "How did our heart burn within us!" This could have been said only by a man who was describing his own feelings. This is precisely similar to what takes place in the Acts. Before the historian joined the Apostle, he speaks in the third person; but when he narrates facts, in which he became an agent, the person is changed into we. See Acts xvi. 10.

Page 66. The fact that the holy spirit was given to the new converts only through the medium of the Apostles, may be illustrated by incidents that occur in the history of the Apostles. Philip, the Evangelist, preached to the Samaritans; but though they were converted by him, the presence of Peter and John was necessary to impart to them the holy spirit, see Acts viii. 14. Apollos and Aquila preached the Gospel at Ephesus; but they did not pretend to impart to their converts the power of working miracles. Paul arrived, and he was the means of endowing some of them with the holy ghost. Acts xviii. 24.; xix. 1. The circumstance that the Apostles alone were appointed to communicate these spiritual gifts is a fact of high importance, as it leads to the decision of a question which has been

much disputed in the last century, namely, at what period did these supernatural gifts cease in the Christian church? As the wisdom of Heaven made the Apostles the sole channel of communicating them, the communication of course ended with the days of the Apostles; while the exercise of them terminated in the death of those who received them from the Apostles. The learned reader must here call to mind the celebrated Inquiry of Conyers Middleton. This intrepid inquirer and fine writer limits the miraculous powers given the early converts to the apostolic age; and no rational person can doubt the validity of his conclusions: but he, with other learned Protestants, seems to have overlooked the wise principle on which that limitation was grounded. The wisdom of Jesus in making this limitation will appear hereafter, when we see the manner in which the Apostles employed the privilege which was thus given

them.

Page 84. The passage of Josephus about the death of James is quoted by Origen, who seems to consider the Jewish historian as having intended therein to set aside the divinity and miraculous birth of Jesus. For in animadverting upon Josephus he endeavours, in opposition to him, to explain and confirm these doctrines. "That James," says he, "is the same whom Paul, that genuine disciple of Jesus, says he had seen, and calls the Lord's brother, not so much for the sake of consanguinity as their common education and agreement in manners and doctrine. If, therefore, he says the destruction of Jerusalem had befallen the Jews for the sake of James, with how much more reason might he have said that this had happened for the sake of Jesus who was the Christ, to whose divinity so many churches bear witness!" See Lardner, vol. vii. 121. These remarks are evidently intended to counteract what Josephus meant to inculcate, namely, the simple humanity of Christ. Page 99. The persecution of the Christians excited by