YORK.

1815. SCRIPTURE continued from last Volume.

JEREMIAH was called to the prophetic office in the 13th year of the reign of Jofiah the son of Amon, A. M. 3376, A. C. 628, and continued to prophecy upwards of 40 years, during the reigns of the degenerate princes of Judah, to whom he boldly threatened those marks of the divine vengeance which their rebellious conduct drew on themselves and their country. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, he was suffered by Nebuchadnezzar to remain in the desolate land of Judea to lament the calamities of his infatuated countrymen. He was afterwards, as he himself informs us, carried with his disciple Baruch into Egypt, by Johanan the son of Kareah.

It appears from several passages that Jeremiah committed his prophecies to writing. In the 36th chapter we are informed, that the prophet was commanded to write upon a roll all the prophecies which he had uttered; and when the roll was destroyed by Jehoiakim the king, Jeremiah dictated the same prophecies to Baruch, who wrote them together with many additional circumstances. The works of Jeremiah extend to the last verse of the 51st chapter; in which we have these words, "Thus far the words of Jeremiah." The 52d chapter was therefore added by some other writer. It is, however, a very important supplement, as it illustrates the accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecies respecting the fate of Zedekiah.

The prophecies of Jeremiah are not arranged in the chronological order in which they were delivered. What has occasioned this transposition cannot now be determined. It is generally maintained, that if we consult their dates, they ought to be thus placed:

In the reign of Jofiah the first 12 chapters. In the reign of Jehoiakim, chapters xiii. xx. xxii. v. 11, 14.; xxii. xxiii. xxv. xxvi. xxxv. xxxvi. xlv.—xlix. 1—33. In the reign of Zedekiah, chap. xxi. 1—10. xxiv. xxvii. xxxiv. xxxvii. xxxix. xlix. 34—39. I. and li. Under the government of Gedaliah, chapters xi. xliv. The prophecies which related to the Gentiles were contained in the 46th and five following chapters, being placed at the end, as in some measure unconnected with the rest. But in some copies of the Septuagint these six chapters follow immediately after the 13th verse of the 25th chapter.

Jeremiah, though deficient neither in elegance nor sublimity, must give place in both to Isaiah. Jerome seems to object against him a sort of rusticity of language, no vestige of which Dr Lowth was able to discover. His sentiments, it is true, are not always the most elevated, nor are his periods always neat and compact; but these are faults common to those writers whose principal aim is to excite the gentler affections, and to call forth the tear of sympathy or sorrow. This observation is very strongly exemplified in the Lamentations, where these are the prevailing passions; it is, however, frequently instanced in the prophecies of this author, and most of all in the beginning of the book (L), which is chiefly poetical. The middle of it is almost entirely historical. The latter part, again, consisting of the last fix chapters, is altogether poetical (M); it contains several different predictions, which are distinctly marked; and in these the prophet approaches very near the sublimity of Isaiah. On the whole, however, not above half the book of Jeremiah's is poetical.

The book of Lamentations, as we are informed in the title, was composed by Jeremiah. We shall present to our reader an account of this elegiac poem from the elegant pen of Dr Lowth.

The lamentations of Jeremiah (for the title is properly and significantly plural) consist of a number of plaintive effusions, composed on the plan of the funeral dirges, all on the same subject, and uttered without connection as they rose in the mind, in a long course of separate stanzas. These have afterwards been put together, and formed into a collection or correspondent whole. If any reader, however, should expect to find in them an artificial and methodical arrangement of the general subject, a regular disposition of the parts, a perfect connection and orderly succession in the matter,

(L) See the whole of chap. ix. chap. xiv. 17, &c. xx. 14—18. (M) Chap. xlvii.—li. to ver. 59. Chap. llii. properly belongs to the Lamentations, to which it serves as an exordium. Scripture, and with all this an uninterrupted series of elegance and correctness, he will really expect what was foreign to the prophet's design. In the character of a mourner, he celebrates in plaintive strains the obsequies of his ruined country: whatever presented itself to his mind in the midst of desolation and misery, whatever struck him as particularly wretched and calamitous, whatever the instant sentiment of sorrow dictated, he pours forth in a kind of spontaneous effusion. He frequently pauses, and, as it were, ruminates upon the same object; frequently varies and illustrates the same thought with different imagery, and a different choice of language; so that the whole bears rather the appearance of an accumulation of corresponding sentiments, than an accurate and connected series of different ideas, arranged in the form of a regular treatise. There is, however, no wild incoherency in the poem; the transitions are easy and elegant.

The work is divided into five parts: in the first, second, and fourth chapters, the prophet addresses the people in his own person, or introduces Jerusalem as speaking. In the third chapter a chorus of the Jews is represented. In the fifth the whole captive Jews pour forth their united complaints to Almighty God. Each of these five parts is distributed into 22 stanzas, according to the number of the letters of the alphabet. In the first three chapters these stanzas consist of three lines. In the first four chapters the initial letter of each period follows the order of the alphabet; and in the third chapter each verse of the same stanza begins with the same letter. In the fourth chapter all the stanzas are evidently difficult, as also in the fifth, which is not aerotic. The intention of the aerotic was to assist the memory to retain sentences not much connected. It deserves to be remarked, that the verses of the first four chapters are longer by almost one half than Hebrew verses generally are: The length of them seems to be on an average about 12 syllables. The prophet appears to have chosen this measure as being solemn and melancholy.

"That the subject of the Lamentations is the destruction of the holy city and temple, the overthrow of the state, the extermination of the people; and that these events are described as actually accomplished, and not in the style of prediction merely, must be evident to every reader; though some authors of considerable reputation* have imagined this poem to have been composed on the death of King Josiah. The prophet, indeed, has so copiously, so tenderly, and poetically; bewailed the misfortunes of his country, that he seems completely to have fulfilled the office and duty of a mourner. In my opinion, there is not extant any poem which displays such a happy and splendid selection of imagery in so concentrated a state. What can be more elegant and poetical, than the description of that once flourishing city, lately chief among the nations, fitting in the character of a female, solitary, afflicted, in a state of widowhood, deserted by her friends, betrayed by her dearest connections, imploring relief, and seeking consolation in vain? What a beautiful personification is that of "the ways of Sion mourning because none are come to her solemn feasts?" How tender and pathetic are the following complaints?

Is this nothing to all you who pass along the way? behold and see,

If there be any sorrow, like unto my sorrow, which is Scripture, inflicted on me; Which Jehovah inflicted on me in the day of the violence of his wrath. For these things I weep, my eyes stream with water; Because the comforter is far away, that should tranquillize my soul: My children are desolate, because the enemy was strong. But to detail its beauties would be to transcribe the entire poem."

as carried to Babylon as a captive, and received the first revelations from heaven, in the fifth year of Jehoiakim's captivity, A. C. 595. The book of Ezekiel is sometimes distributed under different heads. In the three first chapters the commission of the prophet is described. From the fourth to the thirty-second chapter inclusive, the calamities that befel the enemies of the Jews are predicted, viz. the Ammonites, the Moabites, and Philistines. The ruin of Tyre and of Sidon, and the fall of Egypt, are particularly foretold; prophecies which have been fulfilled in the most literal and astonishing manner, as we have been often assured by the relation of historians and travellers. From the 32d chapter to the 40th he inveighs against the hypocrisy and murmuring spirit of his countrymen, admonishing them to resignation by promises of deliverance. In the 38th and 39th chapters he undoubtedly predicts the final return of the Jews from their dispersion in the latter days, but in a language so obscure that it cannot be understood till the event take place. The nine last chapters of this book furnish the description of a very remarkable vision of a new temple and city, of a new religion and polity.

"Ezekiel is much inferior to Jeremiah in elegance; Character in sublimity he is not even excelled by Isaiah: but his as a writer, sublimity is of a totally different kind. He is deep, vehement, tragical; the only sensation he affects to excite is the terrible; his sentiments are elevated, fervid, full of fire, indignant; his imagery is crowded, magnificent, terrific, sometimes almost to disgust: his language is pompous, solemn, austere, rough, and at times unpolished: he employs frequent repetitions, not for the sake of grace or elegance, but from the vehemence of passion and indignation. Whatever subject he treats of, that he sedulously pursues, from that he rarely departs, but cleaves as it were to it; whence the connection is in general evident and well preserved. In many respects he is perhaps excelled by the other prophets; but in that species of composition to which he seems by nature adapted, the forcible, the impetuous, the great and solemn, not one of the sacred writers is superior to him. His diction is sufficiently perspicuous; all his obscurity consists in the nature of the subject. Visions (as for instance, among others, those of Hosea, Amos, and Jeremiah) are necessarily dark and confused. The greater part of Ezekiel, towards the middle of the book especially, is poetical, whether we regard the matter or the diction. His periods, however, are frequently so rude and incompact, that I am often at a loss how to pronounce concerning his performance in this respect.

"Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, as far as relates to style, may be said to hold the same rank among the Hebrews, as Homer, Simonides, and Aeschylus among the Greeks." So full an account of Daniel and his writings has been already given under the article Daniel, that little remains to be said on that subject. Daniel flourished during the successive reigns of several Babylonish and Median kings to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus. The events recorded in the 6th chapter were contemporary with Darius the Mede; but in the 7th and 8th chapters Daniel returns to an earlier period, to relate the visions which he beheld in the three first years of Belshazzar's reign; and those which follow in the four last chapters were revealed to him in the reign of Darius. The last six chapters are composed of prophecies delivered at different times; all of which are in some degree connected as parts of one great scheme. They extend through many ages, and furnish the most striking description of the fall of successive kingdoms, which were to be introductory to the establishment of the Messiah's reign. They characterize in descriptive terms the four great monarchies of the world, to be succeeded by "that kingdom which should not be destroyed."

The whole book of Daniel being no more than a plain relation of facts, partly past and partly future, must be excluded the class of poetical prophecy. Much indeed of the parabolic imagery is introduced in that book; but the author introduces it as a prophet only; as visionary and allegorical symbols of objects and events, totally uninfected with the true poetical colouring. The Jews, indeed, would refuse to Daniel even the character of a prophet; but the arguments under which they shelter this opinion are very futile; for those points which they maintain concerning the conditions on which the gift of prophecy is imparted, the different gradations, and the discriminations between the true prophecy and mere inspiration, are all trifling and absurd, without any foundation in the nature of things, and totally destitute of scriptural authority. They add, that Daniel was neither originally educated in the prophetic discipline and precepts, nor afterwards lived conformably to the manner of the prophets. It is not, however, easy to comprehend how this can diminish his claim to a divine mission and inspiration; it may possibly enable us, indeed, to assign a reason for the dissimilarity between the style of Daniel and that of the other prophets, and for its possessing so little of the diction and character of poetry, which the rest seem to have imbibed in common from the schools and discipline in which they were educated.

The prophecies of Daniel appear so plain and intelligible after their accomplishment, that Porphyry, who wrote in the 3d century, affirms, that they were written after the events to which they refer took place. A little reflection will show the absurdity of this supposition. Some of the prophecies of Daniel clearly refer to Antiochus Epiphanes, with whose oppressions the Jews were too well acquainted. Had the book of Daniel not made its appearance till after the death of Epiphanes, every Jew who read it must have discovered the forgery. And what motive could induce them to receive it among their sacred books? It is impossible to conceive one. Their character was quite the reverse: their respect for the Scripture had degenerated into superstition. But we are not left to determine this important point from the character of the Jews; we have access to more decisive evidence; we are sure that the book of Daniel contains prophecies, for some of them have been accomplished since the time of Porphyry; particularly those respecting Antichrist: now, if it contains any prophecies, who will take upon him to affirm that the divine Spirit, which dictated these many centuries before they were fulfilled, could not also have delivered prophecies concerning Antiochus Epiphanes?

The language in which the book of Daniel is composed proves that it was written about the time of the Babylonish captivity. Part of it is pure Hebrew: a language in which none of the Jewish books were composed after the age of Epiphanius. These are arguments to a deficit. To a Christian the internal marks of the book itself will show the time in which it was written, and the testimony of Ezekiel will prove Daniel to be at least his contemporary.*

The twelve minor prophets were so called, not from any supposed inferiority in their writings, but on account of the small size of their works. Perhaps it was for this reason that the Jews joined them together, and considered them as one volume. These 12 prophets presented in scattered hints a lively sketch of many particulars relative to the history of Judah and of Israel, as Gray's Key as well as of other kingdoms; they prophesy with historical exactness the fate of Babylon, of Nineveh, of Tyre, of Sidon, and of Damascus. The three last prophets especially illustrate many circumstances at a period when the historical pages of Scripture are closed, and when profane writers are entirely wanting. At first the Jewish prophets appeared only as single lights, and followed each other in individual succession; but they became more numerous about the time of the captivity. The light of inspiration was collected into one blaze, previous to its suspension; and it served to keep alive the expectations of the Jews during the awful interval which prevailed between the expiration of prophecy and its grand completion on the advent of Christ.

Hosea has been supposed the most ancient of the 12 Prophets minor prophets. He flourished in the reign of Jero-boam II, king of Israel, and during the successive reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. He was therefore nearly contemporary with Isaiah, Amos, and Jonah. The prophecies of Hosea being scattered through the book without date or connection, cannot with any certainty be chronologically arranged.

Hosea is the first in order of the minor prophets, and Character is perhaps, Jonah excepted, the most ancient of them all. His style exhibits the appearance of very remote antiquity; it is pointed, energetic, and concise. It bears a distinguished mark of poetical composition, in that pristine brevity and condensation which is observable in the sentences, and which later writers have in some measure neglected. This peculiarity has not escaped the observation of Jerome: "He is altogether (says he, speaking of this prophet) laconic and tententious." But this very circumstance, which anciently was supposed no doubt to impart uncommon force and elegance, in the present ruinous state of the Hebrew literature is productive of so much obscurity, that although the general subject of this writer be sufficiently obvious, he is the most difficult and perplexed of all the prophets. There is, however, another reason for the obscurity of his style: Hosea prophesied during the reigns of the four Kings of Judah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. The duration of his ministry, therefore, in what

* Ezek.xiv. 14, xxviii. 3. Scripture. ever manner we calculate, must include a very considerable space of time. We have now only a small volume of his remaining, which seems to contain his principal prophecies; and these are extant in a continued series, with no marks of distinction as to the times in which they were published, or the subjects of which they treat. There is, therefore, no cause to wonder if, in perusing the prophecies of Hosea, we sometimes find ourselves in a similar predicament with those who consulted the scattered leaves of the Sibyl.

specimen of Hosea's style, we select the following beautiful pathetic passage:

How shall I recompense thee, O Ephraim! How shall I deliver thee up, O Israel! How shall I recompense thee as Admah! How shall I make thee as Zoebim! My heart is changed within me; I am warmed also with repentance towards thee, I will not do according to the fervour of my wrath; I will not return to destroy Ephraim: For I am God, and not man; Holy in the midst of thee, though I inhabit not thy cities.

Concerning the date of the prophecy of Joel there are various conjectures. The book itself affords nothing by which we can discover when the author lived, or upon what occasion it was written. Joel speaks of a great famine, and of mischiefs that happened in consequence of an inundation of locusts; but nothing can be gathered from such general observations to enable us to fix the period of his prophecy. St Jerome thinks (and it is the general opinion) that Joel was contemporary with Hosea. This is possibly true; but the foundation on which the opinion rests is very precarious, viz. That when there is no proof of the time in which a prophet lived, we are to be guided in our conjectures respecting it by that of the preceding prophet whose epoch is better known. As this rule is not infallible, it therefore ought not to hinder us from adopting any other opinion that comes recommended by good reasons. Father Calmet places him under the reign of Josiah, at the same time with Jeremiah, and thinks it probable that the famine to which Joel alludes, is the same with that which Jeremiah predicted, ch. viii. 13.

The style of Joel is essentially different from that of Hosea; but the general character of his diction, though of a different kind, is not less poetical. He is elegant, perspicuous, copious, and fluent; he is also sublime, animated, and energetic. In the first and second chapters he displays the full force of the prophetic poetry, and shows how naturally it inclines to the use of metaphors, allegories, and comparisons. Nor is the connection of the matter less clear and evident than the complexion of the style: this is exemplified in the display of the impending evils which gave rise to the prophecy; the exhortation to repentance; the promises of happiness and success both terrestrial and eternal to those who become truly penitent; the restoration of the Israelites; and the vengeance to be taken of their adversaries. But while we allow this just commendation to his perspicuity both in language and arrangement, we must not deny that there is sometimes great obscurity observable in his subject, and particularly in the latter part of the prophecy.

The following prophecy of a plague of locusts is described with great fulness of expression:

For a nation hath gone up on my land, Who are strong, and without number: They have destroyed my vine, and have made my fig-tree a broken branch. They have made it quite bare, and cast it away: the branches thereof are made white. The field is laid waste; the ground mourneth*. * Joel i. 6, 7, 10, &c.

Amos was contemporary with Hosea. They both Prophecies began to prophecy during the reigns of Uzziah over of Amos. Judah, and of Jeroboam II. over Israel. Amos saw his first vision two years before the earthquake, which Zechariah informs us happened in the days of Uzziah. See AMOS.

Amos was a herdman of Tekoa, a small town in the territory of Judah, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. In the simplicity of former times, and in the happy climates of the East, these were not considered as dishonourable occupations. He was no prophet (as he informed Amaziah†), neither was he a prophet's son,‡ Amos vii. that is, he had no regular education in the schools of the prophets.

The prophecies of Amos consist of several distinct discourses, which chiefly respect the kingdom of Israel; yet sometimes the prophet inveighs against Judah, and threatens the adjacent nations, the Syrians, Philistines, Tyrians, Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites.

Jerome calls Amos "rude in speech, but not in knowledge;" applying to him what St Paul modestly professes of himself §. "Many (says Dr Lowth) have followed the authority of Jerome in speaking of this prophet, as if he were indeed quite rude, ineloquent, and destitute of all the embellishments of composition. The matter is, however, far otherwise. Let any person who has candour and perspicacity enough to judge, not from the man but from his writings, open the volume of his predictions, and he will, I think, agree with me, that our shepherd 'is not a whit behind the very chief of the prophets!'". He will agree, that as in sublimity and magnificence he is almost equal to the greatest, so in splendour of diction and elegance of expression he is scarcely inferior to any. The same celestial Spirit indeed actuated Isaiah and Daniel in the court and Amos in the sheep-folds; constantly selecting such interpreters of the divine will as were best adapted to the occasion, and sometimes 'from the mouth of babes and sucklings perfecting prafie?' occasionally employing the natural eloquence of fome, and occasionally making others eloquent."

Mr Locke has observed, that the comparisons of this prophet are chiefly drawn from lions and other animals with which he was most accustomed; but the finest images and allusions are drawn from scenes of nature. There are many beautiful passages in the writings of Amos, of which we shall present one specimen:

Wo to them that are at ease in Zion, And trust in the mountains of Samaria; Who are named chief of the nations, To whom the house of Israel came: Pals ye unto Calneh and see, And from thence go to Hamath the Great; Scripture. Then go down to Gath of the Philistines; Are they better than these kingdoms? Or their borders greater than their borders? Ye that put far away the evil day, And cause the fear of violence to come near; That lie upon beds of ivory, And stretch yourselves upon couches; That eat the lambs out of the flock, And the calves out of the midst of the stall; That chant to the sound of the viol, And like David devise instruments of music; That drink wine in bowls, And anoint yourselves with chief ointments; But are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.

The writings of Obadiah, which consist of one chapter, are composed with much beauty, and unfold a very interesting scene of prophecy. Of this prophet little can be said, as the specimen of his genius is so short, and the greater part of it included in one of the prophecies of Jeremiah. Compare Ob. 1—9, with Jer. xlix. 14, 15, 16. See OBADIAH.

Though Jonah be placed the sixth in the order of the minor prophets both in the Hebrew and Septuagint, he is generally considered as the most ancient of all the prophets, not excepting Hosea. He lived in the kingdom of Israel, and prophesied to the ten tribes under the reign of Joash and Jeroboam. The book of Jonah is chiefly historical, and contains nothing of poetry but the prayer of the prophet. The sacred writers, and our Lord himself, speak of Jonah as a prophet of considerable eminence*. See JONAH.

Micah began to prophesy soon after Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, and Amos; and he prophesied between A. M. 3246, when Jotham began to reign, and A. M. 3305, when Hezekiah died. One of his predictions is laid† to have saved the life of Jeremiah, who under the reign of Jehoiakim would have been put to death for prophesying the destruction of the temple, had it not appeared that Micah had foretold the same thing under Hezekiah above 100 years before††. Micah is mentioned as a prophet in the book of Jeremiah and in the New Testament‡. He is imitated by succeeding prophets (N), as he himself had borrowed expressions from his predecessors (O). Our Saviour himself spoke in the language of this prophet (P).

The style of Micah is for the most part close, forcible, pointed, and concise; sometimes approaching the obscurity of Hosea; in many parts animated and sublime; and in general truly poetical. In his prophecies there is an elegant poem, which Dr Lowth thinks is a citation from the answer of Balaam to the king of the Moabites:

Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah? Wherewith shall I bow myself unto the High God? Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, With calves of a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams? With ten thousands of rivers of oil?

Josephus asserts, that Nahum lived in the time of Jo. Of Nahum. tham king of Judah; in which case he may be supposed to have prophesied against Nineveh when Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria carried captive the natives of Galilee and other parts about A. M. 3264. It is, however, probable, that his prophecies were delivered in the reign of Hezekiah; for he appears to speak of the taking of No-Ammon a city of Egypt, and of the insolent messengers of Sennacherib, as of things past; and he likewise describes the people of Judah as still in their own country, and desirous of celebrating their festivals.

While Jerusalem was threatened by Sennacherib, Nahum promised deliverance to Hezekiah, and predicted that Judah would soon celebrate her solemn feasts secure from invasion, as her enemy would no more disturb her peace. In the second and third chapters Nahum foretells the downfall of the Assyrian empire and the final destruction of Nineveh, which was probably accomplished by the Medes and Babylonians, whose combined forces overpowered the Assyrians by surplice "while they were fallen together as thorns, and while they were drunken as drunkards," when the gates of the river were opened, the palace demolished, and an "over-running flood" afflicted the conquerors in their devastation; who took an endless store of spoil of gold and silver, making an utter end of the place of Nineveh, of that vast and populous city, whose walls were 100 feet high, and so broad that three chariots could pass abreast. Yet so completely was this celebrated city destroyed, that even in the 2d century the spot on which it stood could not be ascertained, every vestige of it being gone.

It is impossible to read of the exact accomplishment of the prophetic denunciations against the enemies of the Jews, without reflecting on the astonishing proofs which that nation enjoyed of the divine origin of their religion. From the Babylonish captivity to the time of Christ they had numberless instances of the fulfillment of their prophecies.

The character of Nahum as a writer is thus described by Dr Lowth: "None of the minor prophets seem to equal Nahum in boldness, ardour, and sublimity. His prophecy, too, forms a regular and perfect poem; the exordium is not merely magnificent, it is truly majestic; the preparation for the downfall and desolation, and the description of its downfall and desolation, are expressed in the most vivid colours, and are bold and luminous in the highest degree."

As the prophet Habakkuk makes no mention of the Assyrians, and speaks of the Chaldaean invasions as near at hand, he probably lived after the destruction of the Assyrian

(N) Compare Zeph. iii. 19, with Micah iv. 7, and Ezek. xxii. 27, with Micah iii. 11. (O) Compare Micah iv. 1—3, and Isaiah ii. 2—4. (P) Compare Micah viii. 6, with Matt. x. 35, 36. Scripture. Assyrian empire in the fall of Nineveh, A.M. 3392, and not long before the devastation of Judea by Nebuchadnezzar. Habakkuk was then nearly contemporary with Jeremiah, and predicted the same event. A general account of Habakkuk's prophecies has already been given under the word HABAKKUK, which may be consulted. We should, however, farther observe, that the prayer in the third chapter is a most beautiful and perfect ode, possessing all the fire of poetry and the profound reverence of religion.

ame from Teman, And the Holy One from Mount Paran: His glory covered the heavens, And the earth was full of his praise. His brightness was as the light; Beams of glory issued from his side; And there was the hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence; And burning coals went forth at his feet. He stood and measured the earth; He beheld and drove afunder the nations; The everlasting mountains were scattered; The perpetual hills did bow.

The prophet illustrates this subject throughout with equal sublimity; selecting from such an assemblage of miraculous incidents the most noble and important, displaying them in the most splendid colours, and embellishing them with the sublime imagery, figures, and diction; the dignity of which is so heightened and recommended by the superior elegance of the conclusion, that were it not for a few shades which the hand of time has apparently cast over it in two or three passages, no composition of the kind would appear more elegant or more perfect than this poem.

s imitated by succeeding prophets, and his words are borrowed by the evangelical writers ||.

Zephaniah, who was contemporary with Jeremiah, prophesied in the reign of Josiah king of Judah; and from the idolatry which he describes as prevailing at that time, it is probable that his prophecies were delivered before the last reformation made by that pious prince A.M. 3381.

The account which Zephaniah and Jeremiah give of the idolatries of their age is so similar, that St Theodore asserts, that Zephaniah abridged the descriptions of Jeremiah. But it is more probable that the prophecies of Zephaniah were written some years before those of his contemporary; for Jeremiah seems to represent the abuses as partly removed which Zephaniah describes as flagrant and excessive (q.).

In the first chapter Zephaniah denounces the wrath of God against the idolaters who worshipped Baal and the host of heaven, and against the violent and deceitful. In the second chapter the prophet threatens destruction to the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and Ethiopians; and describes the fate of Nineveh in emphatic terms: "Flocks shall lie down in the midst of her; all the beasts of the nations, both the cormorant and bittren, shall lodge in her; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresh-

olds." In the third chapter the prophet inveighs Scripture against the pollutions and oppressions of the Jews; and concludes with the promise, "That a remnant would be saved, and that multiplied blessings would be bestowed upon the penitent." The style of Zephaniah is poetical, but is not distinguished by any peculiar elegance or beauty, though generally animated and impressive.

tenth of the minor prophets, was the first who flourished among the Jews after the Babylonish captivity. He began to prophesy in the second year of Darius Hyrcanus, about 520 years before Christ.

The intention of the prophecy of Haggai was to encourage the dispirited Jews to proceed with the building of the temple. The only prediction mentioned refers to the Messiah, whom the prophet assures his countrymen would fill the new temple with glory. So well was this prediction understood by the Jews, that they looked with earnest expectation for the Messiah's appearing in this temple till it was destroyed by the Romans. But as the victorious Messiah, whom they expected, did not then appear, they have since applied the prophecy to a third temple, which they hope to see reared in some future period.

The style of Haggai, in the opinion of Dr Lowth, is proaic. Dr Newcome, on the contrary, thinks that a great part of it is poetical.

Zechariah was undoubtedly a contemporary of Hag. Of Zechariah, and began to prophesy two months after him, in the eighth month of the second year of Darius Hyrcanus, A.M. 3484, being commissioned as well as Haggai to exhort the Jews to proceed in the building of the temple after the interruption which the work had suffered. We are informed by Ezra (vi. 14.), that the Jews prospered through the prophesying of Zechariah and Haggai.

Zechariah begins with general exhortations to his countrymen, exciting them to repent from the evil ways of their fathers, whom the prophets had admonished in vain. He describes angels of the Lord interceding for mercy on Jerusalem and the defolate cities of Judah, which had experienced the indignation of the Most High for 70 years, while the neighbouring nations were at peace. He declares, that the house of the Lord should be built in Jerusalem, and that Zion should be comforted. The prophet then represents the increase and prosperity of the Jews under several typical figures. He describes the establishment of the Jewish government and the coming of the Messiah. He admonishes those who observed solemn fasts without due contrition, to execute justice, mercy, and compassion, every man to his brother; not to oppress the widow nor the fatherless, the stranger nor the poor. He promises, that God would again show favour to Jerusalem; that their mournful fasts should be turned into cheerful feasts; and that the church of the Lord should be enlarged by the accession of many nations.

The 12th verse of the 11th chapter of this book, which exhibits a prophetic description of some circumstances afterwards fulfilled in our Saviour, appears to

(q.) Compare Zephaniah i. 4, 5, 9. with Jeremiah ii. 5, 20, 32. Scripture. be cited by St Matthew (xxvii. 9, 10.) as spoken by Jeremiah; and as the 11th, 12th, and 13th chapters have been thought to contain some particulars more suitable to the age of Jeremiah than to that of Zechariah, some learned writers are of opinion that they were written by the former prophet, and have been from similarity of subject joined by mistake to those of Zechariah. But others are of opinion that St Matthew might allude to some traditional prophecy of Jeremiah, or, what is more probable, that the name of Jeremiah was substituted by mistake in place of Zechariah.

The 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters contain prophecies which refer entirely to the Christian dispensation; the circumstances attending which he describes with a clearness which indicated their near approach.

The style of Zechariah is so similar to that of Jeremiah, that the Jews were accustomed to remark that the spirit of Jeremiah had passed into him. He is generally profane till towards the conclusion of his work, when he becomes more elevated and poetical. The whole is beautifully connected by easy transitions, and present and future scenes are blended with the greatest delicacy.

as the last prophet that flourished under the Jewish dispensation; but neither the time in which he lived, nor any particulars of his history, can now be ascertained. It is even uncertain whether the word Malachi be a proper name, or denote, as the Septuagint have rendered it, his angel (r), that is, "the angel of the Lord." Origen supposed, that Malachi was an angel incarnate, and not a man. The ancient Hebrews, the Chaldee paraphraat, and St Jerome, are of opinion he was the same person with Ezra: but if this was the case, they ought to have assigned some reason for giving two different names to the same person.

As it appears from the concurring testimony of all the ancient Jewish and Christian writers, that the light of prophecy expired in Malachi, we may suppose that the termination of his ministry coincided with the accomplishment of the first seven weeks of Daniel's prophecy, which was the period appointed for sealing the vision and prophecy. This, according to Prideaux's account, took place in A.M. 3595; but, according to the calculations of Bishop Lloyd, to A.M. 3607, twelve years later. Whatever reckoning we prefer, it must be allowed that Malachi completed the canon of the Old Testament about 400 years before the birth of Christ.

It appears certain that Malachi prophesied under Nehemiah, and after Haggai and Zechariah, at a time when great disorders reigned among the priests and people of Judah, which are reproved by Malachi. He inveighs against the priests (i. 6, &c. ii. 1, 2, &c.); he reproaches the people with having taken strange wives (ii. 11.); he reproves them for their inhumanity towards their brethren (ii. 10. iii. 5.); their too frequently divorcing their wives; their neglect of paying their tithes and first-fruits (Mal. iii. 13.). He seems to allude to the covenant that Nehemiah renewed with the Lord (iii. 10. and ii. 4, 5, &c.), affixed by the priests and the chief of the nation. He speaks of the sacrifice of the new law, and of the abolition of those of the old, in these words (i. 10, 11, 12, 13.): "I have no pleasure in you, faith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Heathen, faith the Lord of hosts." He declares that the Lord was weary with the impurity of Israel; and assures them, that the Lord whom they fought should suddenly come to his temple preceded by the messenger of the covenant, who was to prepare his way; that the Lord when he appeared should purify the sons of Levi from their unrighteousness, and refine them as metal from the dross; and that then the offering of Judah, the spiritual sacrifice of the heart, should be pleasant to the Lord. The prophet, like one who was delivering a last message, denounces destruction against the impenitent in emphatic and alarming words. He encourages those who feared the name of the Lord with the animating promise, that the "Sun of righteousness should arise with salvation in his rays;" and render them triumphant over the wicked. And now that prophecy was to cease, and miracles were no more to be performed till the coming of the Messiah; now that the Jews were to be left to the guidance of their own reason, and the written instructions of their prophets—Malachi exhorts them to remember the law of Moses, which the Lord had revealed from Horeb for the sake of all Israel. At length he heals up the prophecies of the Old Testament, by predicting the commencement of the new dispensation, which should be ushered in by John the Baptist with the power and spirit of Elijah; who should turn the hearts of fathers and children to repentance; but if his admonitions should be rejected, that the Lord would smite the land with a curse.

The collection of writings composed after the ascension of Christ, and acknowledged by his followers to be divinie, is known in general by the name of καινὴ διαθήκη. This title, though neither given by divine command, Title nor applied to these writings by the apostles, was adopted in a very early age, though the precise time of its introduction is uncertain, it being justified by several passages in Scripture*, and warranted by the authority of Matt. St Paul in particular, who calls the sacred books before the time of Christ παλαιὰ διαθήκη†. Even long before that period, either the whole of the Old Testament, or the five books of Moses, were entitled χειρῶν διαθήκης, or book of the covenant ‡.

As the word διαθήκη admits of a two-fold interpretation, we may translate this title either the New Covenant or New Testament. The former translation must be adopted, if respect be had to the texts of Scripture, from which the name is borrowed, since those passages evidently convey the idea of a covenant; and, besides a being incapable of death can neither have made an old nor make a new testament. It is likewise probable, that the earliest Greek disciples, who made use of this expression, had no other notion in view than that of co- venant.

(r) מלאכי Malachi signifies properly my angel. Scripture. venant. We, on the contrary, are accustomed to give this sacred collection the name of Testament; and since it would be not only improper, but even absurd, to speak of the Testament of God, we commonly understand the Testament of Christ; an explanation which removes but half the difficulty, since the new only, and not the old, had Christ for its testator.

In stating the evidence for the truth of Christianity, there is nothing more worthy of consideration than the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. This is the foundation on which all other arguments rest; and if it is solid, the Christian religion is fully established. The proofs for the authenticity of the New Testament have this peculiar advantage, that they are plain and simple, and involve no metaphysical subtleties.—Every man who can distinguish truth from falsehood must see their force; and if there are any so blinded by prejudice, or corrupted by licentiousness, as to attempt by sophistry to elude them, their sophistry will be easily detected by every man of common understanding, who has read the historical evidence with candour and attention. Instead, therefore, of declaiming against the infidel, we solicit his attention to this subject, convinced, that where truth resides, it will shine with so constant and clear a light, that the combined ingenuity of all the deists since the beginning of the world will never be able to extinguish or to obscure it. If the books of the New Testament are really genuine, opposition will incite the Christian to bring forward the evidence; and thus by the united efforts of the deist and the Christian, the arguments will be stated with all the clearness and accuracy of which they are susceptible in so remarkable a degree.

It is surprising that the adversaries of Christianity have not always made their first attacks in this quarter; for if they admit that the writings of the New Testament are as ancient as we affirm, and composed by the persons to whom they are ascribed, they must allow, if they reason fairly, that the Christian religion is true.

The apostles frequently allude in their epistles to the gift of miracles, which they had communicated to the Christian converts by the imposition of hands, in confirmation of the doctrine delivered in their speeches and writings, and sometimes to miracles which they themselves had performed. Now if these epistles are really genuine, it is hardly possible to deny those miracles to be true. The case is here entirely different from that of an historian, who relates extraordinary events in the course of his narrative, since either credulity or an actual intention to deceive may induce him to describe as true a series of falsehoods respecting a foreign land or distant period. Even to the Evangelists might an adversary of the Christian religion make this objection: but to write to persons with whom we stand in the nearest connection, "I have not only performed miracles in your presence, but have likewise communicated to you the fame extraordinary endowments," to write in this manner, if nothing of the kind had ever happened, would require such an incredible degree of effrontery, that he who possessed it would not only expose himself to the utmost ridicule, but by giving his adversaries the fairest opportunity to detect his imposture, would ruin the cause which he attempted to support.

St Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians is addressed to a community of which he had preached the gospel only three Sabbath days, when he was forced to quit it by the persecution of the populace. In this epistle he appeals to the miracles which he had performed, and to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which he had communicated. Now, is it possible, without forfeiting all pretensions to common sense, that, in writing to a community which he had lately established, he could speak of miracles performed, and gifts of the Holy Ghost communicated, if no member of the society had seen the one, or received the other?

To suppose that an impostor could write to the converts or adversaries of the new religion such epistles as these, with a degree of triumph over his opponents, and yet maintain his authority, implies ignorance and stupidity hardly to be believed. Credulous as the Christians have been in later ages, and even so early as the third century, no less severe were they in their inquiries, and guarded against deception, at the introduction of Christianity. This character is given them even by Lucian, a writer of the second century, who vented his satire not only against certain Christians*, who * De morte had supplied Peregrinus with the means of subsist.-Peregrini, ence, but also against heathen oracles and pretended wonders. He relates of his impostor (Pseudomantis)†, Ed. Reitz, that he attempted nothing supernatural in the presence of the Christians and Epicureans. This Pseudomantis 334—341—exclaims before the whole assembly, "Away with the Christians, away with the Epicureans, and let those only remain who believe in the Deity!" (πιστεύοντες τῷ Θεῷ) on which the populace took up stones to drive away the suspicious; while the other philosophers, Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics, as credulous friends and protectors of the cause, were permitted to remain ‡.

It is readily acknowledged, that the arguments derived from the authenticity of the New Testament only establish the truth of the miracles performed by our Saviour; yet, if we admit the first three gospels to be genuine, the truth of the Christian religion will be 244, 245—proved from the prophecies of Jesus. For if these gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at the time in which all the primitive Christians affirm, that is, previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, they must be inspired; for they contain a circumstantial prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and determine the period at which it was accomplished. Now it was impossible that human sagacity could foresee that event; for when it was predicted nothing was more improbable. The Jews were resolved to avoid an open rebellion, well knowing the greatness of their danger, and submitted to the oppressions of their governors in the hope of obtaining redress from the court of Rome.—The circumstance which gave birth to these misfortunes is so trifling in itself, that independent of its consequences, it would not deserve to be recorded. In the narrow entrance to a synagogue in Cesarea, some person had made an offering of birds merely with a view to irritate the Jews. The insult excited their indignation, and occasioned the shedding of blood. Without this trifling accident, which no human wisdom could foresee even the day before it happened, it is possible that the prophecy of Jesus would never have been fulfilled. Scripture, fulfilled. But Florus, who was then procurator of Judea, converted this private quarrel into public hostilities, and compelled the Jewish nation to rebel contrary to its will and resolution, in order to avoid what the Jews had threatened, an impeachment before the Roman emperor for his execrable cruelties. But even after this rebellion had broken out, the destruction of the temple was a very improbable event. It was not the practice of the Romans to destroy the magnificent edifices of the nations which they subdued; and of all the Roman generals, none was more unlikely to demolish so ancient and august a building as Titus Vespasian.

So important then is the question, Whether the books of the New Testament be genuine? that the arguments which prove their authenticity, prove also the truth of the Christian religion. Let us now consider the evidence which proves the authenticity of the New Testament.

We receive the books of the New Testament as the genuine works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the same reason that we receive the writings of Xenophon, of Polybius, of Plutarch, of Caesar, and of Livy. We have the uninterrupted testimony of all ages, and we have no reason to suspect imposition. This argument is much stronger when applied to the books of the New Testament than when applied to any other writings; for they were addressed to large societies, were often read in their presence, and acknowledged by them to be the writings of the apostles.—Whereas, the most eminent profane writings which still remain were addressed only to individuals, or to no persons at all: and we have no authority to affirm that they were read in public; on the contrary, we know that a liberal education was uncommon; books were scarce, and the knowledge of them was confined to a few individuals in every nation.

The New Testament was read over three quarters of the world, while profane writers were limited to one nation or to one country. An uninterrupted succession of writers from the apostolic ages to the present time quote the sacred writings, or make allusions to them; and these quotations and allusions are made not only by friends but by enemies. This cannot be asserted of even the best classic authors. And it is highly probable, that the translations of the New Testament were made so early as the second century; and in a century or two after, they became very numerous. After this period, it was impossible to forge new writings, or to corrupt the sacred text, unless we can suppose that men of different nations, of different sentiments and different languages, and often exceedingly hostile to one another, should all agree in one forgery. This argument is so strong, that if we deny the authenticity of the New Testament, we may with a thousand times more propriety reject all the other writings in the world: we may even throw aside human testimony itself. But as this subject is of great importance, we shall consider it at more length; and to enable our readers to judge with the greater accuracy, we shall state, from the valuable work of Michaelis, as translated by the judicious and learned Mr March, the reasons which may induce a critic to suspect a work to be spurious.

Negatively. 1. When doubts have been made from its first appearance in the world, whether it proceeded from the author to whom it is ascribed. 2. When the immediate friends of the pretended author, who were able to decide upon the subject, have denied it to be his production. 3. When a long series of years has elapsed after his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which it must unavoidably have been mentioned and quoted, had it really existed. 4. When the style is different from that of his other writings, or, in case no other remain, different from that which might reasonably be expected. 5. When events are recorded which happened later than the time of the pretended author. 6. When opinions are advanced which contradict those he is known to maintain in his other writings. Though this latter argument alone leads to no positive conclusion, since every man is liable to change his opinion, or through forgetfulness to vary in the circumstances of the same relation, of which Josephus, in his Antiquities and War of the Jews, affords a striking example.

1. But it cannot be shewn that any one doubted of its authenticity in the period in which it first appeared. 2. No ancient accounts are on record whence we may conclude it to be spurious. 3. No considerable period elapsed after the death of the apostles, in which the New Testament was unknown; but, on the contrary, it is mentioned by their very contemporaries, and the accounts of it in the second century are still more numerous. 4. No argument can be brought in its disfavour from the nature of the style, it being exactly such as might be expected from the apostles, not Attic but Jewish Greek. 5. No facts are recorded which happened after their death. 6. No doctrines are maintained which contradict the known tenets of the authors, since, beside the New Testament, no writings of the apostles exist. But, to the honour of the New Testament be it spoken, it contains numerous contradictions to the tenets and doctrines of the fathers in the second and third century, whose morality was different from that of the gospel, which recommends fortitude and submission to unavoidable evils, but not that enthusiastic ardour for martyrdom for which those centuries are distinguished; it alludes to ceremonies which in the following ages were either in disuse or totally unknown: all which circumstances infallibly demonstrate that the New Testament is not a production of either of those centuries.

We shall now consider the positive evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament. These may be arranged under the three following heads: 1. The impossibility of a forgery, arising from the nature of the thing itself. 2. The ancient Christian, Jewish, and Heathen testimony in its favour. 3. Its own internal evidence. 1. The impossibility of a forgery arising from the nature of the thing itself is evident. It is impossible to establish forged writings as authentic in any place where there are persons strongly inclined and well qualified to detect the fraud. Now the Jews were the most violent enemies of Christianity. They put the founder of it to death; they persecuted his disciples with implacable fury; and they were anxious to stifle the new religion in its birth. If the writings of the New Testament had been forged, would not the Jews have detected the imposture? Is there a single instance on record where a few individuals have imposed a history upon the world against the testimony of a whole nation? Would the inhabitants of Palestine have received the gospels, if they had not had sufficient evidence that Jesus Christ really appeared among them, and performed the miracles ascribed to him? Or would the churches of Rome or of Corinth have acknowledged the epistles addressed to them as the genuine works of Paul, if Paul had never preached among them? We might as well think to prove, that the history of the Reformation is the invention of historians; and that no revolution happened in Great Britain during the last century.

2. The second kind of evidence which we produce to prove the authenticity of the New Testament, is the testimony of ancient writers, Christians, Jews, and Heathens.

In reviewing the evidence of testimony, it will not be expected that we should begin at the present age, and trace backwards the authors who have written on this subject to the first ages of Christianity. This indeed, though a laborious task, could be performed in the most complete manner; the whole series of authors, numerous in every age, who have quoted from the books of the New Testament, written commentaries upon them, translated them into different languages, or who have drawn up a list of them, could be exhibited so as to form such a perfect body of evidence, that we imagine even a jury of deists would find it impossible, upon a deliberate and candid examination, to reject or disbelieve it. We do not, however, suppose that scepticism has yet arrived at so great a height as to render such a tedious and circumstantial evidence necessary. Passing over the intermediate space, therefore, we shall ascend at once to the fourth century, when the evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament was fully established, and trace it back from that period to the age of the apostles. We hope that this method of stating the evidence will appear more natural, and will afford more satisfaction, than that which has been usually adopted.

It is surely more natural, when we investigate the truth of any fact which depends on a series of testimony, to begin with those witnesses who lived nearest the present age, and whose characters are best established. In this way we shall learn from themselves the foundation of their belief, and the characters of those from whom they derived it; and thus we ascend till we arrive at its origin. This mode of investigation will give more satisfaction to the deist than the usual way; and we believe no Christian, who is confident of the goodness of his cause, will be unwilling to grant any proper concessions. The deist will thus have an opportunity of examining, separately, what he will consider as the weakest parts of the evidence, those which are exhibited by the earliest Christian writers, consisting of expressions, and not quotations, taken from the New Testament. The Christian, on the other hand, ought to wish, that these apparently weak parts of the evidence were distinctly examined, for they will afford an irrefragable proof that the New Testament was not forged: and should the deist reject the evidence of those early writers, it will be incumbent on him to account for the origin of the Christian religion, which he will find more difficult than to admit the common hypothesis.

In the fourth century we could produce the testimonies of numerous witnesses to prove that the books of the New Testament existed at that time; but it will be sufficient to mention their names, the time in which they wrote, and the substance of their evidence. This we shall present in a concise form in the following table, which is taken from Jones's New and Full Method of establishing the canon of the New Testament.

<table> <tr> <th>The names of the Writers.</th> <th>Times in which they lived.</th> <th>The variation or agreement of their catalogues with ours now received.</th> <th>The books in which these catalogues are.</th> </tr> <tr> <td>I.<br>Athanasius bishop of Alexandria.</td> <td>A. C. 315.</td> <td>The same perfectly with ours now received.</td> <td>Fragment. Epist. Teftal. tom. ii. in Synopf. tom. i.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>II.<br>Cyril bishop of Jerusalem.</td> <td>340.</td> <td>The same with ours, only the Revelation is omitted.</td> <td>Catech. IV. § ult. p. 101.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>III.<br>The bishops assembled in the council of Laodicea.</td> <td>364.</td> <td>The Revelation is omitted.</td> <td><i>Canon LIX.</i><br>N. B. The Canons of this council were not long afterwards received into the body of the canons of the universal church.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>IV.<br>Epiphanius bishop of Salamis in Cyprus.</td> <td>370.</td> <td>The same with ours now received.</td> <td>Hæret. 76. cont. Anom. p. 399.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>V.<br>Gregory Nazianzen bishop of Constantinople.</td> <td>375.</td> <td>Omits the Revelation.</td> <td>Carm. de veris et genuin. Scriptur.</td> </tr> </table> <table> <tr> <th>The Names of the Writers.</th> <th>Times in which they lived.</th> <th>The variation or agreement of their catalogues with ours now received.</th> <th>The books in which these catalogues are.</th> </tr> <tr> <td>VI.<br>Philafrius bishop of Brixia in Venice.</td> <td>380.</td> <td>The same with ours now received; except that he mentions only 13 of St Paul's epistles (omitting very probably the Epistle to the Hebrews), and leaves out the Revelation.</td> <td>Lib. de Haeret. Numb. 87.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>VII.<br>Jerome.</td> <td>382.</td> <td>The same with ours; except that he speaks dubiously of the Epistle to the Hebrews; though in other parts of his writings he receives it as canonical.</td> <td>Ep. ad Paulin. Tract. 6. p. 2. Also commonly prefixed to the Latin vulgar.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>VIII.<br>Ruffin presbyter of Aquilegium.</td> <td>390.</td> <td>It perfectly agrees with ours.</td> <td>Expos. in Symb. Apostol. §. 36. int. Ep. Hieron. Par. 1. Tract. 3. p. 110. et inter Op. Cypr. p. 575.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>IX.<br>Austin bishop of Hippo in Africa.</td> <td>394.</td> <td>It perfectly agrees with ours.</td> <td>De Doctrin. Chrism. lib. ii. c. 8. Tom. Op. 3. p. 25.</td> </tr> <tr> <td>X.<br>The XLIV bishops assembled in the third council of Carthage.</td> <td>St Austin was present at it.</td> <td>It perfectly agrees with ours.</td> <td>Vid. Canon XLVII. et cap. ult.</td> </tr> </table>

We now go back to Eusebius, who wrote about the year 315, and whose catalogue of the books of the New Testament we shall mention at more length. "Let us observe (says he) the writings of the apostle John, which are uncontradicted; and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the gospel, according to him, well known to all the churches under heaven." The author then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the gospels, and the reasons for placing St John's the last, manifestly speaking of all the four as equal in their authority, and in the certainty of their original. The second passage is taken from a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures universally acknowledged, and of those that are not such." Eusebius begins his enumeration in the following manner: "In the first place, are to be ranked the sacred four Gospels, then the book of the Acts of the Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the epistles of Paul: in the next place, that called the first Epistle of John and the Epistle of Peter are to be esteemed authentic: after this is to be placed, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of John; about which we shall observe the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well known or approved by the most, are that called the Epistle of James and that of Jude, the second of Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they were written by the evangelist or by another of the same name." He then proceeds to reckon up five others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in another controverted; evidently meaning the same thing by these two words (s).

A. D. 290, Victorin bishop of Pettaw in Germany, of Victoria in a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, rin. "The first was like a lion, the second was like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle," makes out, that by the four creatures are intended the four gospels; and to show the propriety of the symbols, he recites the subject with which each evangelist opens his history. The explication is fanciful, but the testimony positive. He also expressly cites the Acts of the Apostles.

A. D. 230, Cyprian bishop of Carthage gives the Of Cypr. following testimony: "The church (says this father) an is watered like Paradise by four rivers, that is, by four gospels." The Acts of the Apostles are also frequently quoted by Cyprian under that name, and under the name of the Divine Scriptures." In his various writings are such frequent and copious citations of Scripture, as to place this part of the testimony beyond controversy. Nor is there, in the works of this eminent African bishop, one quotation of a spurious or apocryphal Christian writing."

A. D. 210, Origen is a most important evidence. Of Origen. Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subject now

(s) That Eusebius could not intend, by the word rendered spurious, what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chapter, where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter and Thomas, and Matthias and some others, he says, "They are not so much as to be reckoned among the spurious, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious." Lard. Cred. vol. viii. p. 98. under consideration, and, from a writer of his learning and information, nothing more satisfactory, than the declaration of Origen, preserved in an extract of his works by Eusebius: "That the four gospels alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven;" to which declaration is immediately subjoined a brief history of the respective authors, to whom they were then, as they are now, ascribed. The sentiments expressed concerning the gospels in all the works of Origen which remain, entirely correspond with the testimony here cited. His attestation to the Acts of the Apostles is no less positive: "And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet relating the Acts of the Apostles." That the scriptures were then universally read, is plainly affirmed by this writer in a passage in which he is repelling the objections of Celsus, "That it is not in private books, or such as are read by few only, and those studious persons, but in books read by every body, that it is written, The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made." It is to no purpose to single out quotations of Scripture from such a writer as this. We might as well make a selection of the quotations of Scripture in Dr Clarke's sermons. They are so thickly sown in the works of Origen, that Dr Mill says, "if we had all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the whole text of the Bible."

A. D. 194, Tertullian exhibits the number of the gospels then received, the names of the evangelists, and their proper designations, in one short sentence.—"Among the apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith; among apostolical men, Luke and Mark refresh it." The next passage to be taken from Tertullian affords as complete an attestation to the authenticity of the gospels as can be well imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded by Paul at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, the church of Rome established by Peter and Paul, and other churches derived from John, he proceeds thus: "I say then, that with them, but not with them only which are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the same faith, is that gospel of Luke received from its first publication, which we so zealously maintain;" and presently afterwards adds, "The same authority of the apostolical churches will support the other gospels, which we have from them, and according to them, I mean John's and Matthew's, although that likewise which Mark published may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was." In another place Tertullian affirms, that the three other gospels, as well as St Luke's, were in the hands of the churches from the beginning. This noble testimony proves incontrovertibly the antiquity of the gospels, and that they were universally received; that they were in the hands of all, and had been so from the first. And this evidence appears not more than 150 years after the publication of the books. Dr Lardner observes, "that there are more and larger 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."

A. D. 178, Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons, and is mentioned by Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. In his youth he had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He afferts of himself and his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up in all the principal churches the succession of bishops to their first institution. His testimony to the four gospels and Acts of the Apostles is express and positive. "We have not received," says Irenaeus, "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 endowed 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, 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 leaned upon his breast, likewise published a gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia." Irenaeus then relates how Matthew begins his gospel, how Mark begins and ends his, and gives the supposed reasons for doing so. He enumerates at length all the passages of Christ's history in Luke, which are not found in any of the other evangelists. He states the particular design with which St John composed his gospel, and accounts for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative. If any modern divine should write a book upon the genuineness of the gospels, he could not assert it more expressly, or state their original more distinctly, than Irenaeus hath done within little more than 100 years after they were published.

Reflecting the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and its author, the testimony of Irenaeus is no less explicit. Referring to the account of St Paul's conversion and vocation, in the ninth chapter of that book, "Nor can they (fays he, meaning the parties with whom he argues) shew that he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the greatest exactness." In another place, he has actually collected the several texts, in which the writer of the history is represented as accompanying St Paul, which led him to exhibit a summary of almost the whole of the last twelve chapters of the book.

According to Lardner, Irenaeus quotes twelve of Paul's epistles, naming their author; also the first epistle of Peter, the two first epistles of John, and the Revelation. The epistles of Paul which he omits are those addressed to Philemon and the Hebrews. Eusebius says, that he quotes the epistle to the Hebrews, though he does not ascribe it to Paul. The work, however, is lost.

A. D. 172, Tatian, who is spoken of by Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, composed a harmony of the four gospels, which he called Diatessaron of the four. This title, as well as the work, is remarkable, Scripture. remarkable, because it shows that then as well as now there were four, and only four, gospels in general use among Christians.

A. D. 179, the churches of Lyons and Vienne in France sent an account of the sufferings of their martyrs to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, which has been preserved entire by Eusebius. And what carries, in some measure the testimony of these churches to a higher age is, that they had now for their bishop Pontimus, who was 90 years old, and whose early life consequently must have immediately followed the times of the apostles. In this epistle are exact references to the gospels of Luke and John, and to the Acts of the Apostles. The form of reference is the same as in all the preceding articles. That from St John is in these words: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he doth God service *."

Distinct references are also made to other books, viz. Acts, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation.

A. D. 149, Justin Martyr composed several books, which are mentioned by his disciple Tatian, by Tertullian, Methodius, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Photius. In his writings between 20 and 30 quotations from the gospels and Acts of the Apostles are reckoned up, which are clear, distinct, and copious; if each verse be counted separately, a much greater number; if each expression, still more. Jones, in his book on the Canon of the New Testament, ventures to affirm that he cites the books of which it consists, particularly the four gospels, above 200 times.

We meet with quotations of three of the gospels within the compass of half a page; "and in other words, he says, Depart from me into outer darkness, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his Angels," (which is from Matthew xxv. 41.). "And again he said in other words, I give unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and venomous beasts, and upon all the power of the enemy." (This from Luke x. 19.). "And, before he was crucified, he said, The son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again the third day." (This from Mark viii. 31.).

All the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author; which proves that these books were perfectly well known, and that there were no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no others so received and credited as to make it necessary to add any marks of distinction. But although Justin mentions not the authors names, he calls the books Memoirs composed by the Apostles: Memoirs composed by the Apostles and their Companions; which descriptions, the latter especially, exactly suit the titles which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles now bear.

He informs us, in his first apology, that the Memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read according as the time allows; and, when the reader has ended, the presiding makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of such excellent things.

A few short observations will show the value of this testimony. 1. The Memoirs of the Apostles, Justin in another place expressly tells us are what are called gospels. And that they were the gospels which we now use is made certain by Justin's numerous quotations of Scripture, them, and his silence about any others. 2. He describes the general usage of the Christian church. 3. He does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in the terms in which men speak of established customs.

lso makes such allusions to the following books as shews that he had read them: Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 2 Peter; and he ascribes the Revelation to John the Apostle of Christ.

A. D. 116, Papias, a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Ireneus attests, and of the apostolical age as all agree, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribes the two first gospels to Matthew and Mark; and in a manner which proves that these gospels must have publicly borne the names of these authors at that time, and probably long before; for Papias does not say, that one gospel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark; but, assuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from what materials Mark collected his account, viz. from Peter's preaching, and in what language Matthew wrote, viz. in Hebrew. Whether Papias was well informed in this statement or not, to the point for which this testimony is produced, namely, that these books bore these names at this time, his authority is complete.

Papias himself declares that he received his accounts of Christianity from those who were acquainted with the apostles, and that those accounts which he thus received from the older Christians, and had committed to memory, he inserted in his books. He farther adds, that he was in Op. very solicitous to obtain every possible information, espe. apud. Eu- cially to learn what the apostles said and preached, va- fcb. Hift. luing such information more than what was written in c. 39.

A. D. 108, Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna, and disciple of John the Apostle. This testimony concerning Polycarp is given by Ireneus, who in his youth had seen him. "I can tell the place," faith Ireneus, "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 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."

Of Polycarp, whose proximity to the age, and country and persons of the apostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle remaining; which, though a short performance, contains nearly 40 clear allusions to the books of the New Testament. This is strong evidence of the respect which was paid to them by Christians of that age. Amongst these, although the writings of St Paul are more frequently used by Polycarp than other parts of scripture, there are copious allusions to the gospel of St Matthew, some to passages found in the gospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some which more nearly resemble the words in Luke.

He thus fixes the authority of the Lord's Prayer, and the use of it among Christians. If, therefore, we pray Scripture. the Lord to forgive us, we ought also to forgive. And again, With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation.

In another place, he quotes the words of our Lord: "But remembering what the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that ye be not judged. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."* Supposing Polycarp to have had these words from the books in which we now find them, it is manifest that these books were considered by him, and by his readers, as he thought, as authentic accounts of Christ's discourses; and that this point was incontestable.

He quotes also the following books, the first of which he ascribes to St Paul: 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians; and makes evident references to others, particularly to Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Peter, 1 John.

as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, became bishop of Antioch about 37 years after Christ's ascension; and therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probable that he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Epistles of Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp his contemporary. Passages, found in the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted by Irenaeus, A. D. 178, by Origen, A. D. 230; and the occasion of writing them is fully explained by Eusebius and Jerome. What are called the smaller epistles of Ignatius are generally reckoned the same which were read by Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius.

They are admitted as genuine by Vossius, and have been proved to be so by Bishop Pearson with a force of argument which seems to admit of no reply. In these epistles are undoubted allusions to Matt. iii. 15, xi. 16, to John iii. 8; and their venerable author, who often speaks of St Paul in terms of the highest respect, once quotes his epistle to the Ephesians by name.

Near the conclusion of the epistle to the Romans, St Paul, amongst others, sends the following salutation:—"Salute Alyncrius, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobus, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them." Of Hermas, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Christians as contemporary with St Paul, there is a book still remaining, the authenticity of which cannot be disputed. It is called the Shepherd, or Pastor of Hermas. Its antiquity is incontestable, from the quotations of it in Irenaeus, A. D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, Tertullian, A. D. 200, Origen, A. D. 230. The notes of time extant in the epistle itself agree with its title, and with the testimonies concerning it, which intimate that it was written during the lifetime of Clement. In this piece are tacit allusions to St Matthew's, St Luke's, and St John's gospels; that is to say, there are applications of thoughts and expressions found in these gospels, without citing the place or writer from which they were taken. In this form appear in Hermas the confessing and denying of Christ;† Matt. x. the parable of the seed sown‡; the comparison of §; 33, or Christ's disciples to little children; the saying, "he Luke xii. that puteth away his wife, and marrieth another, com—Matt. mitheth adultery §;" the singular expression, "having §; 3, or received all power from his Father," is probably an allu.—Luke vii. tion to Matt. xxviii. 18. And Christ being the "gate,"§ Luke xvii: or only way of coming "to God," is a plain allusion to John xiv. 6. x. 7. 9. There is also a probable allusion to Acts v. 32.

The Shepherd of Hermas has been considered as a fanciful performance. This, however, is of no importance in the present case. We only adduce it as evidence that the books to which it frequently alludes existed in the first century; and for this purpose it is satisfactory, as its authenticity has never been questioned. However absurd opinions a man may entertain, while he retains his understanding his testimony to a matter of fact will still be received in any court of justice.

A. D. 96, we are in possession of an epistle written of Clement by Clement bishop of Rome, whom ancient writers, without any scruple, assert to have been the Clement whom St Paul mentions Philippians iv. 3. "with Clement also, and other my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life." This epistle is spoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and, as Irenaeus well represents its value, "written by Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, who had the preaching of the apostles still founding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes." It is addressed to the church of Corinth; and what alone may seem a decisive proof of its authenticity, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, about the year 179, i.e. about 80 or 90 years after the epistle was written, bears witness, "that it had been usually read in that church from ancient times." This epistle affords, amongst others, the following valuable passages: "Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake, teaching gentleness and long suffering; for thus he said (v), Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you; as you do, so shall it be done unto you; as you give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye shew kindnes, so shall kindnes be shewn unto you; with what measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you. By this command, and by these rules, let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his holy words."

Again, "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, Wo to that man by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not been born, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him that a millstone should be tied about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones (u)."

(T) "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy," Matt. v. 7. "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you," Luke vi. 37, 38. "Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," Matt. vii. 2. (u) Matt. xviii. 6. "But who shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea." The latter part of the passage He ascribes the first epistle to the Corinthians to Paul, and makes such allusions to the following books as are sufficient to shew that he had seen and read them: Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.

It may be said, as Clement has not mentioned the books by name from which we assert these allusions or references are made, it is uncertain whether he refers to any books, or whether he received these expressions from the discourses and conversation of the apostles. Mr Paley has given a very satisfactory answer to this objection: 1st, That Clement, in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage now found in the epistle to the Romans*; which passage, from the peculiarity of the words that compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that he must have taken from the epistle. The same remark may be applied to some very singular sentiments in the epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, That there are many sentences of St Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, to be found in Clement's epistle, without any sign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had St Paul's epistle before him; for in one place he mentions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt. "Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul." Thirdly, That this method of adopting words of scripture, without reference or acknowledgement, was a method in general use amongst the most ancient Christian writers. These analogies not only repel the objection, but cast the presumption on the other side; and afford a considerable degree of positive proof, that the words in question have been borrowed from the places of scripture in which we now find them. But take it, if you will, the other way, that Clement had heard these words from the apostles or first teachers of Christianity; with respect to the precise point of our argument, viz. that the scriptures contain what the apostles taught, this supposition may serve almost as well.

We have now traced the evidence to the times of the apostles; but we have not been anxious to draw it out to a great length, by introducing every thing. On the contrary, we have been careful to render it as concise as possible, that its force might be discerned at a glance. The evidence which has been stated is of two kinds. Till the time of Justin Martyr and Ireneus it consists chiefly of allusions, references, and expressions, borrowed from the books of the New Testament, without mentioning them by name. After the time of Ireneus it became usual to cite the sacred books, and mention the authors from whom the citations were taken.

The first species of evidence will perhaps appear to some exceptional; but it must be remembered that it was usual among the ancient Christians as well as Jews to adopt the expressions of Scripture without naming the authors. Why they did so it is not necessary to inquire. The only point of importance to be determined is, whether those references are a sufficient proof of the existence of the books to which they allude? Scripture. This, we presume, will not be denied; especially in the present age, when it is so common to charge an author with plagiarism if he happen to fall upon the same train of ideas, or express himself in a similar manner with authors who have written before him. We may farther affirm, that these tacit references afford a complete proof that those ancient writers had no intention of imposing a forgery upon the world. They prove the existence of the Christian religion and of the apostolical writings, without showing any suspicious earnestness that men should believe them. Had these books been forged, those who wished to pass them upon the world would have been at more pains than the first Christians were to prove their authenticity. They acted the part of honest men; they believed them themselves, and they never imagined that others would suspect their truth.

It is a consideration of great importance, in reviewing the evidence which has been now stated, that the witnesses lived in different countries; Clemens flourished at Rome, Polycarp at Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, Ireneus in France, Tertullian at Carthage, Origen at Alexandria, and Eusebius at Caesarea. This proves that the books of the New Testament were equally well known in distant countries by men who had no intercourse with one another.

The fame thing is proved by testimonies if possible Telemo-les' exceptionable. The ancient heretics, whose opinions of Hes- tions were sometimes grosser and more impious than thoef which any modern sectary has ventured to broach, and whose zeal in the propagation of them equalled that of the most flaming enthusiast of the last century, never called in question the authenticity of the books of the New Testament. When they met with any passage in the gospels or epistles which they could not reconcile to their own heretical notions, they either erased it, or denied that the author was inspired; but they nowhere contend that the book in which it stood was not written by the apostle or evangelist whose name it bore. Eusebius relates, that the Ebionites rejected all the epistles of Paul, and called him an apostate, because he departed from the Levitical law; and they adopted as their rule of faith the gospel of St Matthew, though indeed they greatly corrupted it. This proves therefore that the gospel according to Matthew was then published, and that St Paul's epistles were then known.

Of the heretics who erased or altered passages to make the Scriptures agree with their doctrines, we may produce Marcion as an instance, who lived in the beginning of the second century. He lived in an age when he could have easily discovered if the writings of the New Testament had been forged; and as he was much incensed against the orthodox party, if such a forgery had been committed, unquestionably he would not have failed to make the discovery, as it would have afforded the most ample means of revenge and triumph, and enabled him to establish his own opinions with less difficulty. But his whole conduct shows clearly, that he believed the writings of the New Testament to be authentic.

in Clement agrees more exactly with Luke xvii. 2. "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." authentic. He said, that the gospel according to St Matthew, the epistle to the Hebrews, with those of St Peter and St James, as well as the Old Testament in general, were writings not for Christians but for Jews. He published a new edition of the gospel according to Luke, and the first ten epistles of Paul; in which it has been affirmed by Epiphanius, that he altered every passage that contradicted his own opinions: but as many of these alterations are what modern critics call various readings, though we receive the testimony of Epiphanius, we must not rely upon his opinion (x). Hence it is evident that the books of the New Testament above mentioned did then exist, and were acknowledged to be the works of the authors whose names they bear.

Dr Lardner in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in the following words: "Noetus, Paul of Samotata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans (y), Priscillianists, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most or all the same books of the New Testament which the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them as writ by apostles or their disciples and companions."

Celsus and Porphyry, both enemies of the Christian religion, are powerful witnesses for the antiquity of the New Testament. Celsus, who lived towards the end of the second century, not only mentions by name, but quotes passages from the books of the New Testament: and that the books to which he refers were no other than our present gospels, is evident from the allusions to various passages still found in them. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these gospels; of the precepts, "Refit not him that injures you, and, If a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also;" of the woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying, that it is impossible to serve two masters; of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed which was put into the hand of Jesus; of the blood that flowed from his body upon the cross, a circumstance which is recorded only by John; and (what is in star omnium for the purpose for which we produce it) of the difference in the accounts given of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels at the sepulchre, others only one.

It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four gospels, but that he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of his objections to Christianity on any thing delivered in spurious gospels.

The testimony of Porphyry is still more important than that of Celsus. He was born in the year 213, of Tyrian origin. Unfortunately for the present age, says Michaelis, the mistaken zeal of the Christian emperors has banished his writings from the world; and every real friend of our religion would gladly give the works of one of the pious fathers to rescue those of Porphyry from the flames. But Mr Marth, the learned and judicious translator of Michaelis, relates, that, according to the accounts of Isaac Vossius, a manuscript of the works of Porphyry is preserved in the Medicean library at Florence, but kept so secret that no one is permitted to see it. It is universally allowed, that Porphyry is the most sensible, as well as the most severe, adversary of the Christian religion that antiquity can produce. He was versed not only in history, but also, in philosophy and politics. His acquaintance with the Christians was not confined to a single country; for he had conversed with them in Tyre, in Sicily, and in Rome. Enabled by his birth to study the Syriac as well as the Greek authors, he was of all the adversaries to the Christian religion the best qualified to inquire into the authenticity of the sacred writings. He possessed therefore every advantage which natural abilities or a scientific education could afford to discover whether the New Testament was a genuine work of the apostles and evangelists, or whether it was imposed upon the world after the decease of its pretended authors. But no trace of this suspicion is anywhere to be found in his writings. In the fragments which still remain, mention is made of the gospels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistle to the Galatians; and it clearly appears from the very objections of Porphyry, that the books to which he alludes were the same which we possess at present. Thus he objects to the repetition of a generation in St Matthew's genealogy; to Matthew's call; to the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a sea; to the expression in St Matthew, "the abomination of desolation;" to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text "the voice of one crying in the wilderness," Matthew citing it from Ilias, Mark from the prophets; to John's application of the term Word; to Christ's change of intention about going up to the feast of tabernacles (John vii. 8.); to the judgment denounced by St Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death.

The instances here alleged serve in some measure to show the nature of Porphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the gospels with that sort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them as the depositaries of the religion which he attacked. Beside these specifications, there exists in the writings of ancient Christians general evidence, that the places of Scripture, upon which Porphyry had made remarks, were very numerous.

The internal evidence to prove the authenticity of the New Testament consists of two parts: The nature city of the style, and the coincidence of the New Testament with the history of the times.

The style of the New Testament is singular, and from interdiffers very widely from the style of classical authors. It is full of Hebraisms and Syriams; a circumstance which dence. pious ignorance has considered as a fault, and which, even to late as the present century, it has attempted to remove; not knowing that these very deviations from Grecian purity afford the strongest presumption in its favour: for they prove that the New Testament was written by men of Hebrew origin, and is therefore a production

(x) Dr Loeser has written a learned dissertation to prove that Marcion did not corrupt the sacred writings. (y) This must be with an exception, however, of Faustus, who lived so late as the year 384. Scripture. duotion of the first century. After the death of the first Jewish converts, few of the Jews turned preachers of the gospel; the Christians were generally ignorant of Hebrew, and consequently could not write in the style of the New Testament. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews, their language must have been blended with that of other nations, and their vernacular phraseology almost entirely lost. The language of the early fathers, though not always the purest classic Greek, has no resemblance to that of the New Testament, not even excepting the works of the few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew; as Origen, Epiphanius, and Justin Martyr, the last of whom being a native of Palestine, might have written in a style similar to that of the New Testament, had such a style then prevailed. He that supposes the New Testament to be the forgery of a more recent period, ought to produce some person who has employed a similar diction; but those who are conversant with eastern writings know well that a foreigner, who has not been accustomed to eastern manners and modes of thinking from his infancy, can never imitate with success the oriental style, much less forge a history or an epistle which contains a thousand incidental allusions, which nothing but truth could suggest. To imitate closely the style of the New Testament is even more difficult than to imitate that of any other oriental book; for there is not a single author, even among the Jews themselves, since the destruction of Jerusalem, that has composed in a style in the least degree like it (z).

But though the books of the New Testament bear so close a resemblance in idiom, there is a diversity of style which shows them to be the work of different persons. Whoever reads with attention the epistles of Paul, must be convinced that they were all written by the same author. An equal degree of similarity is to be found between the gospel and 1st epistle of John. The writings of St John and St Paul exhibit marks of an original genius which no imitation can ever attain. The character of Paul as a writer is drawn with great judgement by Michaelis: "His mind overflows with sentiment, yet he never loses sight of his principal object, but hurried on by the rapidity of thought, frequently in the middle of a conclusion to be made only at the end. To a profound knowledge of the Old Testament he joins the acuteness of philosophical wisdom, which he displays in applying and expounding the sacred writings; and his explanations are therefore sometimes so new and unexpected, that superficial observers might be tempted to suppose them erroneous. The fire of his genius, and his inattention to style, occasion frequently a twofold obscurity, he being often too concise to be understood except by those to whom he immediately wrote, and not seldom on the other hand so full of his subject, as to produce long and difficult parentheses, and a repetition of the same word even in different sentences. With a talent for irony and satire, he unites the most refined sensibility, and tempers the severity of his censures by expressions of tenderness and affection; Vol. XIX. Part I.

(z) The style of Clemens Romanus may perhaps be an exception. By many eminent critics it has been thought so like to that of the epistle to the Hebrews, as to give room for the opinion that Clement either was the author of that epistle, or was the person who translated it from the Syro-Chaldaic language, in which it was originally composed.

nor does he ever forget in the vehemence of his zeal Scripture, the rules of modesty and decorum. He is a writer, in short, of so singular and wonderful a composition, that it would be difficult to find a rival. That truly sensible and sagacious philosopher Locke was of the same opinion, and contended that St Paul was without an equal."

Poems have been forged and ascribed to former ages with some success. Philosophical treatises might be invented which it would be difficult to detect; but there is not a single instance on record where an attempt has been made to forge a history or a long epistle, where the fraud has not been either fully proved, or rendered so suspicious that few are weak enough to believe it. Whoever attempts to forge a history or an epistle in the name of an ancient author, will be in great danger of contradicting the history or the manners of that age, especially if he relate events which are not mentioned in general history, but such as refer to a single city, sect, religion, or school.

The difficulty of forging such histories as the gospels, and such epistles as those of Paul, cannot be overcome by all the genius, learning, and industry, of any individual or society of men that ever lived. They contain a purer system of ethics than all the ancient philosophers could invent: They discover a candour and modesty unexampled: They exhibit an originality in the character of Jesus, and yet such a consistency as the imagination of our best poets has never reached. Now it is a very remarkable circumstance, that histories written by four different men should preserve such dignity and consistency, though frequently relating different actions of Jesus, and descending to the most minute circumstances in his life. The scene of action is too extensive, and the agreement of facts with the state of the times as represented by other historians is too close, to admit the possibility of forgery.

The scene of action is not confined to one country, it is successively laid in the greatest cities of the Roman empire; in Rome, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Athens, as well as in Jerusalem and the land of Palestine. Innumerable allusions are made to the manners and opinions of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews; and respecting the Jews, they extend even to the trifles and follies of their schools. Yet after the strictest examination, the New Testament will be found to have a wonderful coincidence and harmony with Josephus, the principal historian of these times, and an enemy of Christianity.

It has been a question who the soldiers were who are said in the gospel of Luke to have addressed John the remarkable Baptist in these words, What shall we do? An answer to this question may be found in Josephus*. Herod the tetrarch of Galilee was engaged in a war with his father-in-law Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petraea, at and the very time that John was preaching in the wilder-ness; and the road from Galilee to Arabia running through that wilderness, the soldiers on their march had this interview with the Baptist. A coincidence like this, cap. 5. which feit. 1, 2.

* Antiq. lib. lviii. Scripture, which has been overlooked by all the commentators, would not probably be attended to in a forgery.

Another instance of an agreement no less remarkable we shall quote from the valuable work of Michaelis. It has been a question of some difficulty among the learned, who was the Ananias who commanded St Paul to be fitten on the mouth when he was making his defence before the council in Jerusalem*. Krebs, in his remarks taken from Josephus, has shown him to have been the son of Nebenedi. But if so, how can it be reconciled with chronology, that Ananias was, at that time, called high priest, when it is certain from Josephus that the time of his holding that office was much earlier? And how comes it to pass that St Paul says, "I will not, brethren, that he was the high priest?" The facerdotal garb must have discovered who he was: a jest would have ill-suited the gravity of a tribunal; and a falsehood is inconsistent with the character of St Paul.

All these difficulties vanish as soon as we examine the special history of that period: "Ananias the son of Nebenedi was high priest at the time that Helena queen of Adiabene supplied the Jews with corn from Egypt during the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St Paul therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dispossessed of his office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between the Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome; but being afterwards released, he returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he could not be called high-priest in the proper sense of the word, though Josephus has sometimes given him the title of ἀξιωματικός, taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrim; and Jonathan, though we are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had been raised in the mean time to the supreme dignity in the Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the high-priesthood of Imael, who was invested with that dignity by Agrippa, elapsed an interval during which the facerdotal office was vacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval that St Paul was apprehended in Jerusalem: and, the Sanhedrim being destitute of a president, he undertook of his own authority the discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest tyranny. It is possible therefore that St Paul, who had been only a few days in Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a trust to which he was not entitled; he might therefore very naturally exclaim, 'I will not, brethren, that he was the high-priest!' Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof, and a tacit refusal to recognize usurped authority."

Could such a correspondence as this subsist between truth and falsehood, between a forgery and an authentic history? or is it credible that these events could be related by any person but a contemporary?

Impressed with the love of truth, and feeling contempt as well as detestation at pious frauds, we hesitate not to acknowledge, that in some particular facts there is a difference either real or apparent between Josephus and the writers of the New Testament. The objections arising from these differences are of two kinds: 1. So apparent. Such as would prove a book not to have been written in the time by the author to whom it is ascribed. 2. Such as iftencies would prove that the author was mistaken, and therefore not divinely inspired. To the first class belongs arise from the following objection: St Paul says (2 Cor. xi. 32.) overtight that the governor of Damascus was under Aretas the king: but if we are to judge from the 18th book of the Jewish Antiquities, which corresponds with the period of St Paul's journey to Damascus, that city must have belonged at that time to the Romans; and what authority could Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petraea, have in such a city? In answer to this question, J. G. Hyne, in a dissertation published in 1755, has shown it to be highly probable that Aretas, against whom the Romans, not long before the death of Tiberius, made a declaration of war, which they neglected to put in execution, took the opportunity of seizing Damascus, which had once belonged to his ancestors; an event omitted by Josephus, as forming no part of the Jewish history, and by the Roman historians as being a matter not flattering in itself, and belonging only to a distant province. Secondly, That Aretas was by religion a Jew; a circumstance the more credible, when we reflect that Judaism had been widely propagated in that country, and that even kings in Arabia Felix had recognized the law of Moses. The difficulty then is far removed, that it ceases to create suspicion against an epistle which has so many evident marks of authenticity; and it is only to be regretted that, in order to place the subject in the clearest point of view, we are not sufficiently acquainted with the particular history of Damascus.

Examples of the second kind are such as, if allowed their full force, might indeed prove a writer not divinely inspired, but could afford no reason to conclude that he was not the author of the writings which bear his name, since mistakes may be committed by the most accurate historian. The chief difficulties of this nature or to his are found in the gospel according to St Luke, and do want of not apply to the writings of Matthew, John, Paul, and the rest in Peter. Laying aside the idea of inspiration altogether, concerning let us inquire whether Luke or Josephus be most in the event, titled to credit in those passages where they differ; that hap- which of them is most accurate, and which of them had pened near the best opportunities of exploring the truth of the facts which they relate. Now Josephus relates the same story differently in different parts of his works, and is sometimes equally mistaken in them all. We do not recollect to have seen such inconsistencies in the writings of St Luke. Luke knew the characters, and witnessed many of the facts, of which he speaks; and he could receive the best information respecting those facts which were transacted in his absence. Josephus was born A.D. 37, some years after our Saviour's ascension. Now it is a very important observation of Michaelis, that the period of history with which mankind are least acquainted is that which includes the time of their childhood and youth, together with the twenty or thirty years immediately preceding their birth. Concerning the affairs transacted during that period, we are much more liable to fall into mistakes than concerning Scripture. those of a remoter age. The reason is, that authentic history never comes down to the period of our birth; our knowledge of the period immediately preceding depends on hearsay; and the events, which pass within the first eighteen or twenty years of our lives, we are too young and heedless to observe with attention. This must have been more remarkably the case in the time of Josephus than at present, when there were neither daily papers, nor periodical journals to supply the want of regular annals. There was no historian from whom Josephus could derive any knowledge of the times that immediately preceded his birth. There is a period then of forty or fifty years, in which, even with the most diligent inquiry, he was exposed to error.

When we find therefore the relations of Luke and Josephus so different as not to be reconciled, it would be very unfair to determine without any further inquiry in favour of Josephus. Let their character, and works, and situation, be strictly examined; let their testimony be daily weighed and compared; and then let the preference be given to that author who, according to the strictest rules of equity and justice, seems entitled to the highest degree of credit. The decision of a jury, we shall venture to say, would in every instance turn out in favour of Luke.

Having thus ascertained the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, the next thing to be considered is their inspiration. It is certainly of some importance to know how far the apostles and evangelists were guided in their writings by the immediate influence of the spirit of God; though this knowledge, if attainable, is not equally important with that of the authenticity of these writings. Michaelis indeed affirms, that the divinity of the New Testament may be proved whether we can evince it to be written by immediate inspiration or not *. "The question (lays he), whether the books of the New Testament are inspired? is not so important as the question, whether they are genuine? The truth of our religion depends upon the latter, not absolutely on the former. Had the Deity inspired not a single book of the New Testament, but left the apostles and evangelists without any other aid than that of natural abilities to commit what they knew to writing, admitting their works to be authentic, and possessed of a sufficient degree of credibility, the Christian religion would still be well founded. The miracles by which it is confirmed would equally demonstrate its truth, even if the persons who attested them were not inspired, but simply human witnesses; and their divine authority is never presupposed, when we discuss the question of miracles, but merely their credibility as human evidence. If the miracles are true which the evangelists relate, the doctrines of Christ recorded in the gospels are proved to be the infallible oracles of God; and, even if we admit the apostles to be mistaken in certain not essential circumstances, yet as the main points of the religion which Christ commissioned them to preach are so frequently repeated, their epistles would instruct us as well in the tenets of the Christian system, as the works of Maclaurin in the philosophy of Newton. It is possible therefore to doubt, and even deny, the inspiration of the New Testament, and yet be fully persuaded of the truth of the Christian religion: and many really entertain these sentiments either publicly or in private, to whom we should render great injustice, if we ranked them in the class of unbelievers.

"Yet the Christian religion would be attended with difficulty, if our principium cognoscendi rested not on firmer ground; and it might be objected, that sufficient care had not been taken for those whose consciences were tender, and who were anxiously fearful of mistaking the finallest of the divine commands. The chief articles indeed of Christianity are so frequently repeated, both by Christ and his apostles, that even were the New Testament not inspired, we could entertain no doubt of the following doctrines: 'Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, and an infallible messenger of God: he died for our iniquity; and by the satisfaction made by his death we obtain remission of sins, if on our part be faith and amendment of life: the Levitical law is abolished, and moral precepts, with the ceremonies of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, are appointed in its stead; after the present follows an everlasting life, in which the virtuous shall be rewarded and the wicked punished, and where Christ himself shall be the Judge.'

"To the epistles indeed (says Michaelis), inspiration is of real consequence; but with respect to the historical books, viz. the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, we should really be no losers if we abandoned the system of inspiration, and in some respects have a real advantage. We should be no losers, if we considered the apostles in historical facts as merely human witnesses, as Christ himself has done in saying, 'Ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.' And no one that attempts to convince an un-believer of the truth of Christianity, would begin his demonstration by presupposing a doctrine which his adversary denies, but would ground his arguments on the credibility of the evangelists as human historians, for the truth of the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. Even those who examine the grounds of their faith for their own private conviction, must treat the evangelists as human evidence; since it would be arguing in a circle to conclude that the facts recorded in the gospels are true, because they are inspired, when we conclude the Scriptures to be inspired in consequence of their contents. In these cases, then, we are obliged to consider the evangelists as human evidence; and it would be no detriment to the Christian cause to consider them at all times as such in matters of historical fact. We find it nowhere expressly recorded that the public transactions which the apostles knew by their own experience, and of which St Luke informed himself by diligent inquiry, should be particular objects of divine inspiration. We should even be considerable gainers, in adjusting the harmony of the gospels, if we were permitted to suppose that some one of the evangelists had committed an immaterial error, and that St John has rectified some trifling mistakes in the preceding gospels. The most dangerous objections which can be made to the truth of our religion, and such as are most difficult to answer, are those drawn from the different relations of the four evangelists."

Before any inquiry is made respecting the inspiration of the books of the New Testament, it is necessary to determine the meaning of the term; for theologians have given to it a variety of significations. Most of the German divines make it to consist in an infusion of words Scripture words as well as ideas. Luther, Beza, and Salmasius, restrict it to ideas alone. Doddridge understands by it an intervention of the Deity, by which the natural faculties of the mind were directed to the discovery of truth. Warburton and Law think it was a negative intervention to preserve the sacred writers from essential errors. Some believe every circumstance was dictated by the Holy Ghost; others suppose that no supernatural assistance was granted except in the epistolary writings. See Inspiration.

As there is an evident distinction between inspiration and revelation, and as the origin of the Christian religion may be still proved divine, even though it were denied that those who record its facts and doctrines were inspired in the act of writing, it will be most judicious and safe to employ the word inspiration in that sense which can be most safely defended and supported. By doing this, much may be gained and nothing lost. It is difficult to prove to a doubt that the words of Scripture are divine, because he fees that every writer has words and phrases peculiar to himself. It is difficult also to prove that the ideas were infused into the mind of the authors while they were engaged in the act of writing; because concerning facts they appeal not to divine inspiration, but declare what they have seen and heard. In reasoning they add their own sentiments to what they had received from the Lord, and subjoin, especially in their epistles, things not connected with religion. The definition which Doddridge gives, seems applicable to ordinary gifts or the usual endowments of rational creatures, rather than to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were bestowed on the apostles. Those who maintain that every fact or circumstance was suggested by divine inspiration, will find it no easy matter to prove their position. The opinion of Warburton and Law, with proper explanations, seems most probable. The opinion of Grotius, that only the epistles were inspired, may be easily refuted.

The proof of the authenticity of the New Testament depends on human testimony: The proof of its inspiration is derived from the declaration of inspired persons.

In proving that the New Testament is inspired, we presupposed its authenticity, that the sacred books were written by the apostles whose names they bear, and that they have been conveyed to us pure and uncorrupted. This we have already attempted to prove, and we hope with success. The evidence of inspiration is the testimony of Christ and his apostles, which we receive as credible, because they confirmed their doctrines by miracles. From the important mission of Christ and his apostles, we infer that every power was bestowed which divine wisdom thought expedient; and from their conduct we conclude, that it is morally impossible that they could lay claim to any powers which they did not possess. It is proper therefore to inquire into the declarations of Christ and his apostles concerning the nature, degree, and extent, of the inspiration bestowed on the writers of the sacred books.

e consider Christ's more immediate promises of inspiration to the apostles, we shall find that he has given them, in the most proper sense of the word, at three several periods, 1st, When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel*; 2dly, In holding a public discourse relating to the gospel, at which were present a considerable multitude; 3dly, In his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem†. When he sent the apostles to preach the gospel, he thus addressed them: "When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you." The same promise was made almost in the same words in the presence of an immense multitude (Luke xii. 11, 12.). From these passages it has been urged, that if the apostles were to be inspired in the presence of magistrates in delivering speeches, which were soon to be forgotten, it is surely reasonable to conclude that they would be inspired when they were to compose a standard of faith for the use of all future generations of Christians. If this conclusion be fairly deduced, it would follow that the writings of the New Testament are the dictates of inspiration, not only in the doctrines and precepts, but in the very words. But it is a conclusion to which sincere Christians have made objections; for, say they, though Christ promises to affix his apostles in cases of great emergency, where their own prudence and fortitude could not be sufficient, it does not follow that he would dictate to them those facts which they know already, or those reasonings which their own calm reflection might supply. Besides, say they, if the New Testament was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and only penned by the apostles, what reason can be given for the care with which Christ instructed them, both during his ministry and after his crucifixion, in those things pertaining to the kingdom of God?

In answer to this we may observe, that though it be Proper ideas difficult to prove that the identical words of the New of inspiration. Testament were dictated by the Holy Spirit, or the train of ideas infused into the minds of the sacred writers, there is one species of inspiration to which the New Testament has an undoubted claim. It is this, that the memories of the apostles were strengthened and their understandings preserved from falling into essential errors. This we prove from these words of our Saviour, "and I will pray the Father, and he will give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." John xiv. 16, 26. This promise was surely not restrained to the day of Pentecost: it must have been a permanent gift, enabling the apostles at all times to remember with accuracy the discourses of our Saviour. When the apostles therefore (Matthew and John) relate those precepts of Christ which they themselves had heard, they write indeed from memory, but under the protection of the spirit who secures them from the danger of mistake: and we must of course conclude that their gospels are inspired.

Were we called upon more particularly to declare what parts of the New Testament we believe to be inspired, we would answer, The doctrines, the precepts, and the prophecies, every thing essential to the Christian religion. From these the idea of inspiration is inseparable. As to the events, the memory of the apostles was sufficient to retain them. If this opinion be just, it would enable us to account for the discrepancies between the sacred writers, which are chiefly confined to the relation of facts and events.

All the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek, except the Gospel according to Mat- Scripture. they and the epistle to the Hebrews, which there is reason to believe were composed in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which in the New Testament is called Hebrew.

Various reasons have been assigned why the greatest part of the New Testament was written in Greek; but the true reason is this, It was the language best understood both by writers and readers. Had St Paul written to a community in the Roman province of Africa, he might have written perhaps in Latin; but epistles to the inhabitants of Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica, to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, from a native of Tarus, could hardly be expected in any other language than Greek. The same may be said of the epistles of St Peter, which are addressed to the Christians of different countries, who had no other language in common than the Greek; and likewise of the epistles of St James, who wrote to Jews, that lived at a distance from Palestine, and were ignorant of Hebrew. The native language of St Luke, as well as of Theophilus, to whom he addressed his gospel, and Acts of the apostles, appears to have been Greek; and that St John wrote his gospel in that language, and not in Hebrew, is by no means a matter of surprise, since he wrote at Ephesus.

With respect to the epistle to the Romans, it may be asked indeed why St Paul did not write in Latin? Now, whoever propounds this question, must suppose that St Paul was master of the Latin language in such a degree as to find no difficulty in writing it; a matter which remains to be proved. It is very probable that St Paul was acquainted with the Latin; but between understanding a language, and being able to write it, there is a very material difference. As St Paul was a native of Tarus, his native language was Greek; he had travelled during several years through countries in which no other language was spoken, and when he addressed the Roman centurion at Jerusalem, he spoke not Latin, but Greek. Is it extraordinary, then, that in writing to the inhabitants of Rome he should have used a language which was there so generally understood? It has been long remarked, that Greek was at that time as well known in Rome as French in any court of modern Europe; that according to Juvenal even the female sex made use of Greek as the language of familiarity and passion; and that in letters of friendship Greek words and phrases were introduced with greater freedom than French expressions in German letters, as appears from Cicero's epistles to Atticus, and from those of Augustus preserved in the works of Suetonius. To this must be added a material circumstance, that a great part of the Roman Christians consisted of native Jews, who were better acquainted with Greek than with Latin, as either they themselves or their ancestors had come from Greece, Asia Minor, or Egypt, in which Greek was the language of the country. At least they read the Bible in that language, as no Latin translation of the Old Testament at that time existed; and the Christian church at that period consisting chiefly of Jews, the heathen converts in Rome were of course under the necessity of accustoming themselves to the Greek language. In short, St Paul in his epistle to the Romans made use of a language in which alone those who were ignorant of Hebrew could read the Bible. What has been here advanced respecting the epistle to the Romans is equally applicable to the Greek Scripture of St Mark, on the supposition that it was written at Rome.

To the above arguments may be added the example of Josephus, who, as well as the apostles, was by birth a Jew. He even lived in Rome, which is more than can be said of St Paul and St Mark, who resided there only a certain time: he was likewise younger than either; he came to Italy at an age which is highly suitable to the learning of a language, and previous to that period had spent several years in the Roman camp. The Jewish antiquities, the history of the Jewish war, and the account of his own life, he wrote undoubtedly with a view of their being read by the Romans; and yet he composed all these writings in Greek. He expresses his motive for writing his Greek account of the Jewish war in the following terms: "That having written in his native language (i.e. the Hebrew dialect at that time spoken) a history of the war, in order that Parthians, Babylonians, Arabians, Adiabenes, and the Jews beyond the Euphrates, might be informed of those events, he was now resolved to write for the Greeks and Romans, who had not been engaged in the campaigns, a more certain account than had hitherto been given." The motives which induced Josephus to write in Greek are fully as applicable to St Paul and St Mark.

as thus characterized the style of the New Testament. "The New Testament (says he) was written in a language at that time common among the Jews, chap. iv., which may be named Hebraic Greek; the first traces fedt. 3. of which we find in the translation of the LXX. p. 11. 124. "Every man acquainted with the Greek language, who had never heard of the New Testament, must immediately perceive, on reading only a few lines, that the style is widely different from that of the clastic authors. We find this character in all the books of the New Testament in a greater or less degree, but we must not therefore conclude that they possess an uniformity of style. The hardest Hebraisms, which extended even to grammatical errors in the government of cases, are the distinguishing marks of the book of Revelation; but they are accompanied with tokens of genius and poetical enthusiasm of which every reader must be sensible who has taste and feeling. There is no translation of it which is not read with pleasure even in the days of childhood; and the very faults of grammar are so happily placed as to produce an agreeable effect. The gospels of St Matthew and St Mark have strong marks of this Hebraic style; the former has harsher Hebraisms than the latter, the fault of which may be ascribed to the Greek translator, who has made too literal a version, and yet the gospel of St Mark is written in worse language, and in a manner that is less agreeable. The epistles of St James and St Jude are somewhat better; but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St Luke has in several passages written pure and clastic Greek, of which the first four verses of his gospel may be given as an instance: in the sequel, where he describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet the style is more agreeable than that of St Matthew or St Mark. In the Acts of the apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty beauty devoid of art. St John has numerous, though not uncoth, Hebraisms both in his gospel and epistles; but he has written in a smooth and flowing language, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of narrative. St Paul again is entirely different from them all; his style is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has upon the whole a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew, and he has introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested itself the first, or was the best approved."

Michaelis has shown that the New Testament not only contains Hebraisms but Rabbinicisms, Syriacisms, Chaldaicisms, Arabisms, Latinisms, and Persian words, of which he has exhibited many specimens. To theologians, whose duty it certainly is to study the language of the New Testament with attention, we would strenuously recommend the perusal of this work, which in the English translation is one of the most valuable accretions to scriptural criticism that has yet appeared. We speak of the English translation, which the large and judicious notes of Mr Marsh has rendered infinitely superior to the original.

To the observations which have been made respecting the language of the New Testament, a few remarks may be added concerning the peculiarities of the style and manner of the sacred writers, particularly the historians.

Dr Campbell's Preliminary Observations to the New Testament.

1. Simplicity of style. The first quality for which the sacred history is remarkable is simplicity in the structure of the sentences. The first five verses of Genesis furnish an example, which consist of eleven sentences. The substantive are not attended by adjectives, nor the verbs by adverbs, no synonymous, no superlatives, no effort at expressing things in a bold, emphatical, or uncommon manner.

2. The second quality is simplicity of sentiment, particularly in the Pentateuch, arising from the very nature of the early and uncultivated state of society about which that book is conversant.

3. Simplicity of design. The subject of the narrative so engrosses the attention of the writer, that he himself is as nobody. He introduces nothing as from himself, no remarks, doubts, conjectures, or reasonings. Our Lord's biographers particularly excel in this quality. This quality of style we meet with in Xenophon and Caesar.

The Evangelists may be ranked next to Genesis for simplicity of composition in the sentences. John and Matthew are distinguished for it more than Mark and Luke. But the sentiment is not so remarkable for simplicity in the Evangelist as the Pentateuch. The reasons of this difference are, 1. The state of the Jews was totally changed; their manners, customs, &c. split into factions both in religion and politics. 2. The object of our Lord's ministry, which is the great subject of the gospels, was to inculcate a doctrine and morality with which none of their systems perfectly coincided: besides, being constantly opposed by all the great men, the greater part of his history consists of instructions and disputes. 3. As it is occupied with what our Saviour said and what he did, this makes two distinctions of style and manner; that of our Saviour, and the sacred man's. In their own character, they neither explain nor command, promise nor threaten, praise nor blame. They generally omit the names of our Lord's enemies; thus directing our hatred at the vices they committed, not at the persons. They never mention such persons without necessity; which is the case with the high priest, Pilate, Herod, and Judas: the three first for the chronology, the fourth to do justice to the eleven.

Herodias is, indeed, mentioned with dishonour; but her crime was a public one. On the other hand, all persons distinguished for any thing virtuous are carefully mentioned, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, Bartimeus, Jairus, Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. They record their own faults (Peter's, Thomas's), nor do they make any merit of their confession. In one uniform strain they relate the most signal miracles and most ordinary facts.

From the narrative is excluded that quality of style which is called animation. Nothing that diverts passion in the writer, or is calculated to excite the passions of the reader. Every thing is directed to mend the heart.

But in the discourses and dialogues of our Saviour, the expression, without losing any thing of its simplicity, is often remarkable for spirit and energy. Respecting harmony and smoothness, qualities which only add an external polish to language, they had not the least solicitude.

As to elegance, there is an elegance which results from the use of such words as are most in use with those who are accounted fine writers, and from such arrangements in the words and clauses as have generally obtained their approbation. This is disclaimed by the sacred authors.

But there is an elegance of a superior order more nearly connected with the sentiment; and in this sort of elegance they are not deficient. In all the oriental languages great use is made of tropes, especially metaphors. When the metaphors employed bear a strong resemblance, they confer vivacity: if they be borrowed from objects which are naturally agreeable, beautiful, or attractive, they add also elegance. The Evangelists furnish us with many examples of this kind of vivacity and elegance. Our Lord borrows tropes from corn-fields, vineyards, gardens, &c.

As a valuable appendage to this part of our subject, we shall subjoin Dr Campbell's method of studying the books of the New Testament. This we offer to our readers as a beautiful instance of the judicious application of philosophy to sacred studies. It is the same method of discovering truth by analysis and induction, which was pursued by Sir Isaac Newton with such astonishing success, which since his time has been uniformly practiced in natural philosophy, and has been also applied to chemistry, to medicine, to natural history, and to the philosophy of mind, by the ingenious Dr Reid. This is the path of sound philosophy, which can alone lead to the discovery of truth. In following it, our progress may be slow, but it will be sure. If all theologians would steadily adhere to it, we might then entertain the pleasing hope of discarding for ever those absurd systems of religion which are founded on single passages and detached fragments of scripture, and of establishing opinions and doctrines on a solid foundation. "1. To get acquainted with each writer's style; to observe his manner of composition, both in sentences and paragraphs; to remark the words and phrases peculiar to him, and the peculiar application that he may sometimes make of ordinary words; for there are few of those writers who have not their peculiarities in all the respects now mentioned. This acquaintance with each can be attained only by the frequent and attentive reading of his works in his own language.

"2. To inquire into the character, the situation, and the office of the writer, the time, the place, and the occasion of his writing, and the people for whose immediate use he originally intended his work. Every one of these particulars will sometimes serve to elucidate expressions otherwise obscure or doubtful. This knowledge may in part be learned from a diligent and reiterated perusal of the book itself, and in part be gathered from what authentic, or at least probable, accounts have been transmitted to us concerning the compilation of the canon.

"3. The last general direction is, to consider the principal scope of the book, and the particulars chiefly observable in the method, by which the writer has purposed to execute his design. This direction is particularly applicable to the epistolary writings, especially those of Paul.

"4. If a particular word or phrase occur, which appears obscure, perhaps unintelligible, the first thing we ought to do, if satisfied that the reading is genuine, is to consult the context, to attend to the manner wherein the term is introduced, whether in a chain of reasoning or in a historical narration, in a description, or included in an exhortation or command. As the conclusion is inferred from the premises, or as from two or more known truths a third unknown or unobserved before may fairly be deduced; so from such attention to the sentence in connection, the import of an expression, in itself obscure or ambiguous, will sometimes with moral certainty be discovered. This, however, will not always answer.

"5. If it do not, let the second consideration be, whether the term or phrase be one of the writer's peculiarities. If so, it comes naturally to be inquired, what is the acceptation in which he employs it in other places? If the sense cannot be precisely the same in the passage under review, perhaps, by an easy and natural metaphor or other trope, the common acceptation may give rise to one which perfectly suits the passage in question.—Recourse to the other places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the same author is of considerable use, though the term should not be peculiar to him.

"6. But thirdly, if there should be nothing in the same writer that can enlighten the place, let recourse be had to the parallel passages, if there be any such, in the other sacred writers. By parallel passages, I mean those places, if the difficulty occur in history, wherein the same or a similar story, miracle, or event, is related; if in teaching or reasoning, those parts wherein the same argument or doctrine is treated, or the same parable propounded; and in moral lessons, those wherein the same class of duties is recommended: or, if the difficulty be found in a quotation from the Old Testament, let the parallel passage in the book referred to, both in the original Hebrew, and in the Greek version, be consulted.

"7. But if in these there be found nothing that can throw light on the expression of which we are in doubt, the fourth recourse is to all the places wherein the word or phrase occurs in the New Testament, and in the Septuagint version of the Old, adding to these the consideration of the import of the Hebrew or Chaldaic word, whose place it occupies, and the extent of signification, of which in different occurrences such Hebrew or Chaldaic term is susceptible.

"8. Perhaps the term in question is one of those which very rarely occur in the New Testament, or those called ἀτακτοὶ λόγοι, only once read in Scripture, and not found at all in the translation of the Seventy. Several such words there are. There is then a necessity, in the fifth place, for recurring to the ordinary acceptation of the term in classical authors. This is one of those cases wherein the interpretation given by the earliest Greek fathers deserves particular notice. In this, however, I limit myself to those comments wherein they give a literal exposition of the sacred text, and do not run into vision and allegory."

The manuscripts of the New Testament are the natural source from which the genuine readings of the Greek Testament are to be drawn. The printed editions are either copies of more ancient editions, or of manuscripts; and they have no further authority than as they correspond to the manuscripts from which they were originally taken. By manuscripts of the New Testament, we mean those only which were written before the invention of printing. The most ancient of these are lost, and there is no manuscript now extant older than the sixth century. Few contain the whole New Testament; some contain the four gospels; some the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles; and others the book of Revelation. The greatest number are those which contain the first part; those which have the second, or the first and second together, are likewise numerous; but those of the third are extremely few. It must be added also, that in many manuscripts those epistles are omitted which divine authority was formerly doubted.

There are many manuscripts which have been examined only for a single text, such as 1 John v. 7, or at least for a very small number. Others have been examined from the beginning to the end, but not completely and in respect of all the readings. A third class consists of such as either have been, or are said to have been, completely and accurately collated. But this requires such phlegmatic patience, that we can hardly expect to find in critical catalogues all the various readings which have been only once collated. Wettstein, in collating many manuscripts anew, made discoveries which had entirely escaped the notice of his predecessors. The fourth class consists of such as have been completely and accurately collated more than once; but here also we are in danger of being led into error.—When various readings are transferred from one critical edition to another, as from that of Gregory to Mill's edition, and from the latter to those of Bengel and Wettstein, the manuscripts must sometimes be falsely named, and various readings must frequently be omitted. And as Wettstein has marked by ciphers manuscripts that in former editions had been denoted by their initial letters, he could scarcely avoid substituting, in some cases, one figure instead of another. The fifth class, which is by far the most valuable, consists of such as have Scripture have been printed word for word, and therefore form an original edition of the Greek Testament. We can boast but of a very few manuscripts of this kind. Hearne printed at Oxford, in 1715, the Acts of the Apostles in Greek and Latin from the Codex Laudianus 3.; Knittel has annexed to his edition of Ulphilas, p. 53—118, a copy of two very ancient fragments preserved in the library of Wolfenbuttle; the one of the four Gospels in general, the other of St Luke and St John. Woide printed in 1786 the Codex Alexandrinus, a manuscript of great antiquity, which shall afterwards be more fully described; and the university of Cambridge has resolved to publish, in a similar manner, the Cod. Cant. I. or, as it is sometimes called, the Codex Bezae, the care of which is intrusted to Dr Kipling, a publication which will be thankfully received by every friend to sacred criticism. It was the intention of the Abbé Spoletti, a few years ago, to publish the whole of the celebrated Codex Vaticanus; which would likewise have been a most valuable accession, since a more important manuscript is hardly to be found in all Europe. He delivered for this purpose a memorial to the pope; but the design was not put into execution, either because the pope refused his assent or the abbé abandoned it himself. See the Oriental Bible, vol. xxii. No 333. and vol. xxiii. No 348.

"A very valuable library," says Michaelis, "might be composed of the impressions of ancient manuscripts, which, though too expensive for a private person, should be admitted into every university collection, especially the Alexandrian and Cambridge manuscripts, to which I would add, if it were now possible to procure it, Hearne's edition of the Codex Laudianus 3. A plan of this sort could be executed only in England, by a private subscription, where a zeal is frequently displayed in literary undertakings that is unknown in other countries; and it were to be wished that the project were begun before length of time has rendered the manuscripts illegible, and the attempt therefore fruitless. Ten thousand pounds would go a great way towards the fulfilling of this request, if the learned themselves did not augment the difficulty of the undertaking, by adding their own critical remarks, and endeavouring thereby to recommend their publications, rather than by presenting to the public a faithful copy of the original. Should posterity be put in possession of faithful impressions of important manuscripts, an acquisition which would render the highest service to sacred criticism, all the editions of the New Testament should be regulated on the same plan as Hearne's edition of the Acts of the Apostles." It must be highly flattering to the patriotic spirit of an Englishman to hear the encomiums which learned foreigners have so profusely bestowed on our liberality in supporting works of genius and learning and public utility. The plan which Michaelis proposes to us, in preference to all the other nations in Europe, Scripture is noble and magnificent, and would certainly confer immortality on those men who would give it their patronage and assistance.

There are many ancient manuscripts, especially in Italy, which have never been collated, but lie till unexplored. Here is a field where much remains to be done. See Marth's Notes to Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 643.

Michaelis has given a catalogue of ancient manuscripts, amounting in number to 292, to which he has added a short account of each. In this place we shall confine our observations to the most celebrated, the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, which we have chiefly extracted from Michaelis.

The Alexandrian manuscript consists of four volumes; Account of the first three of which contain the Old Testament, the the Alexan- fourth the New Testament, together with the first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and a fragment of the second. In the New Testament, which alone is the object of our present inquiry, is wanting the beginning as far as Matthew xlv. 6, ἐν ῥαβδίοις ἐγκρατεῖ; likewise from John vi. 50. to viii. 52. and from 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7. It must likewise be observed, that the Psalms are preceded by the epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, and followed by a catalogue, containing those which are to be used in prayer for each hour, both of the day and of the night; also by 14 hymns, partly apocryphal, partly biblical, the 11th of which is an hymn in praise of the Virgin Mary, entitled ἡμέραν μαρίας τῆς Γεννήσεως: further, the Hypotheseis Eusebii are annexed to the Psalms, and his Canones to the Gospels. It is true, that this has no immediate reference to the New Testament, but may have influence in determining the antiquity of the manuscript itself.

It has neither accents nor marks of aspiration; it is written with capital, or, as they are called, uncial letters, and has very few abbreviations. There are no intervals between the words; but the sense of a passage is sometimes terminated by a point, and sometimes by a vacant space. Here arises a suspicion that the copyist did not understand Greek, because these marks are sometimes found even in the middle of a word, for instance Levit. v. 4. ἀποκεφαλι for ἀποκεφαλι, and Numb. xiii. 29. μω Τεκα.

This manuscript was presented to Charles I. in 1628, by Cyrus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople. Cyrus himself has given the following account: "We know so much of this manuscript of the holy writings of the Old and New Testament, that Thecla an Egyptian lady of distinction (nobilis femina Ægyptia) wrote it with her own hand 1300 years ago (a)." She lived soon after the council of Nice. Her name was formerly at the end of the book; but when Christianity was subverted in Egypt by the errors of Mahomet, the books of the Christians suffered the same fate, and the name of Thecla

(a) He wrote this in the year 1628. According to this account, then, the manuscript must have been written in 328; a date to which so many weighty objections may be made, that its most strenuous advocates will hardly undertake to defend it. But this error has furnished Oudin with an opportunity of producing many arguments against the antiquity of the Codex Alexandrinus, which seem to imply, that Grabe and others, who have referred it to the fourth century, suppose it to have been written in the above-mentioned year. Now it is probable, that the inference which has been deduced from the account of Cyrillus is more than he himself intended to express, as he relates that Thecla lived after the council of Nice. Scripture. Thecla was expunged. But oral tradition of no very ancient date (memoria et traditio recens) has preserved the remembrance of it.

But the reader will see that this account is merely traditional. Dr Semler very properly observes, that there is no more reason to rely on a tradition respecting the transferer of an ancient manuscript, than on a tradition which relates to an ancient relic. The arguments which have been urged by Wettstein, Semler, Oudin, and Woide, to fix the date of this manuscript, are so many, that it would be tedious to repeat them. But, after all, its antiquity cannot be determined with certainty, though it appears from the formation of the letters, which resemble those of the fourth and fifth centuries, and the want of accents, that it was not written so late as the tenth century. In this century it was placed by Oudin, while Grabe and Schulze have referred it to the fourth, which is the very utmost period that can be allowed, because it contains the epistles of Athanasius. Wettstein, with more probability, has chosen a mean between these two extremes, and referred it to the fifth century: but we are not justified in drawing this inference from the information of the letters alone, for it is well known that the same mode of forming the letters was retained longer in some countries and in some monasteries than in others.

We are now in possession of a perfect impression of this manuscript, which is accompanied with so complete and so critical a collection of various readings, as is hardly to be expected from the edition of any other manuscript. Dr Woide published it in 1786, with types cast for that purpose, line for line, without intervals between the words, as in the manuscript itself: the copy is so perfect a resemblance of the original, that it may supply its place. Its title is Novum Testamentum Graecum e codice MS. Alexandrinus qui Londini in Bibliotheca Musei Britannici afferatur descripsum. It is a very splendid folio; and the preface of the learned editor contains an accurate description of the manuscript, with an exact list of all its various readings, that takes up no less than 89 pages; and each reading is accompanied with a remark, in which is given an account of what his predecessors Junius, Walton, Fell, Mill, Grabe, and Wettstein, had performed or neglected.

The Vatican manuscript contained originally the whole Greek Bible, including both the Old and New Testament; and in this respect, as well as in regard to its antiquity, it resembles none so much as the Codex Alexandrinus, but no two manuscripts are more dissimilar in their readings, in the New Testament as well as in the Old. After the Gospels, which are placed in the usual order, come the Acts of the Apostles, which are immediately followed by the seven catholic epistles. This must be particularly noted, because some have contended that the second Epistle of St Peter, with the second and third of St John, were wanting. Professor Hwidd, in a letter dated Rome, April 12, 1781, assured Michaelis that he had seen them with his own eyes, that the second Epistle of St Peter is placed folio 1434, the second of St John fol. 1442, the third fol. 1443:

VOL. XIX. Part I.

then follow the Epistles of St Paul, but not in the usual order; for the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed immediately after those to the Theffalians: and it is not improbable, that in the more ancient manuscript, from which the Codex Vaticanus was copied, this Epistle was even placed before that to the Ephesians, and immediately after the Epistle to the Galatians (b); for the Epistles of St Paul are divided into 93 sections by figures written in the margin with red ink; but the Epistle to the Galatians ends with 59, and that to the Ephesians begins with 70; the Epistle to the Hebrews, on the contrary, begins with 60, and ends with 69. With the words ἀμὴν τῷ Θεῷ, Heb. ix. 14. the manuscript ceases, the remaining leaves being lost. There is wanting, therefore, not only the latter part of this Epistle, but the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, with the Revelation of St John: but this last book, as well as the latter part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has been supplied by a modern hand in the 15th century. In many places the faded letters have been also retouched by a modern, but careful hand; and when the person who made these amendments, who appears to have been a man of learning, found a reading in his own manuscript which differed from that of the Codex Vaticanus, he has noted it in the margin, and has generally left the text itself untouched, though in some few examples he has ventured to erase it.

It is certain, that this manuscript is of very high antiquity, though it has been disputed which of the two in this respect is entitled to the preference, the Vaticanus or Alexandrinus. The editors of the Roman edition of the Septuagint, in 1587, referred the date of the Vatican manuscript to the fourth century, the period to which the advocates for its great rival refer the Codex Alexandrinus. More moderate, and perhaps more accurate, are the sentiments of that great judge of antiquity Montfaucon, who, in his Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum, p. 3. refers it to the fifth or sixth century; and adds, that though he had seen other manuscripts of equal antiquity, he had found none at the same time so complete.

The Codex Vaticanus has a great resemblance to the manuscripts noted by Wettstein, C. D. L. 1. 13. 33. 69. 102. and to the Latin, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions; but it is preferable to most of them, in being almost entirely free from those undeniable interpolations and arbitrary corrections which are very frequently found in the above-mentioned manuscripts, especially in D. r. and 69.' It may be applied, therefore, as a mean not only of confirming their genuine readings, but of detecting and correcting those that are spurious. It is written with great accuracy, and is evidently a faithful copy of the more ancient manuscript from which it was transcribed. Peculiar readings, or such as are found neither in other manuscripts nor ancient versions, are seldom discovered in the Codex Vaticanus; and of the few which have been actually found, the greatest part are of little importance. But in proportion as the number of such readings is small, the number of those is great; in support of which few only, though ancient authorities,

(b) Probably because the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as the Epistle to the Galatians, relates to the abolition of the Mosaic law. authorities, have been hitherto produced: But this manuscript has not throughout the whole New Testament the same uniform text.

As we have now a beautiful printed edition of the Alexandrian manuscript by Dr Woidc, it is much to be wished that we had also an exact impression of the Vatican manuscript. From the superstitious fears and intolerant spirit of the inquisition at Rome, all access to this manuscript was refused to the Abbé Spoletti, who presented a memorial for that purpose. Unless the pope interpose his authority, we must therefore despair of having our wishes gratified; but from the liberality of sentiment which the head of the Catholic church has shewn on several occasions, we hope that the period is not far distant when the Vatican library will be open to the learned, and when the pope will think it his greatest honour to encourage their researches.

The most valuable editions of the Greek New Testament are those of Mill, Bengel, and Wetstein.

The edition of Mill, which was only finished 14 days before his death, occupied the attention of the author for 30 years.

The collections of various readings which had been made before the time of Mill, the Velestan, the Barberini, those of Stephens, the London Polyglot, and Fell's edition, with those which the bishop had left in manuscript, and whatever he was able to procure elsewhere, he brought together into one large collection. He made likewise very considerable additions to it. He collated several original editions more accurately than had been done before: he procured extracts from Greek manuscripts which had never been collated; and of such as had been before collated, but not with sufficient attention, he obtained more complete extracts. It is said that he has collected from manuscripts, fathers, and versions, not fewer than 30,000 various readings. This collection, notwithstanding its many imperfections, and the superiority of that of Wetstein, is still absolutely necessary to every critic: for Wetstein has omitted a great number of readings which are to be found in Mill, especially those which are either taken from the Vulgate, or confirm its readings. Mill was indeed too much attached to this version; yet he cannot be accused of partiality in producing its evidence, because it is the duty of a critic to examine the witnesses on both sides of the question: and Wetstein, by too frequently neglecting the evidence in favour of the Vulgate, has rendered his collection less perfect than it would otherwise have been. He likewise added, as far as he was able, readings from the ancient versions; and is much to be commended for the great attention which he paid to the quotations of the fathers; the importance of which he had sagacity enough to discern.

It cannot, however, be denied, that Mill's Greek Testament has many imperfections, and some of real importance. His extracts from manuscripts often are not only incomplete, but erroneous; and it is frequently necessary to correct his mistakes from the edition of Wetstein. His extracts from the oriental versions are also imperfect, because he was unacquainted with these languages; and in selecting readings from the Syriac, the Arabic, and Ethiopic, he was obliged to have recourse to the Latin translations, which are annexed to those versions in the London Polyglot.

The great diligence which Mill had shewn in collecting so many various readings, alarmed the clergy as if the Christian religion had been in danger of subversion. It gave occasion for a time to the triumphs of the deist, and exposed the author to many attacks. But it is now universally known, that not a single article of the Christian religion would be altered though a deist were allowed to select out of Mill's 30,000 readings whatever he should think most inimical to the Christian cause.

In 1734, Bengel abbot of Alpirbach, in the duchy of Wurttemburg, published a new edition of the Greek Testament. The fears which Mill had excited began to subside on this new publication; for Bengel was universally esteemed a man of piety. Bengel was not only diligent in the examination of various readings, but in the strictest sense of the word conscientious; for he considered it as an offence against the Deity, if, through his own fault, that is, through levity or carelessness, he introduced a false reading into the sacred text. His object was not merely to make a collection of readings, and leave the choice of them to the judgement of the reader, but to examine the evidence on both sides, and draw the inference; yet he has not given his own opinion so frequently as Mill, whom he resembled in his reverence for the Latin version, and in the preference which he gave to harsh and difficult readings, before those which were smooth and flowing. It may be observed in general, that he was a man of profound learning, and had a cool and sound judgment, though it did not prevent him from thinking too highly of the Latin readings, and of the Codex Alexandrinus, with other Latinizing manuscripts.

The imperfections of Bengel's edition arise chiefly from his diffidence and caution. He did not venture to insert into the text any reading which had not already appeared in some printed edition, even though he believed it to be the genuine reading. In the book of Revelation indeed he took the liberty to insert readings which had never been printed; because few manuscripts had been used in the printing of that book.

The celebrated edition of John James Wetstein, which is the most important of all, and the most necessary to those engaged in sacred criticism, was published at Amsterdam in 1751 and 1752, in two volumes folio. No man will deny that Wetstein's Prolegomena discover profound erudition, critical penetration, and an intimate acquaintance with the Greek manuscripts. It is a work which in many respects has given a new turn to sacred criticism, and no man engaged in that study can dispense with it. Wherever Wetstein has delivered his sentiments respecting a Greek manuscript, which he has done less frequently than Mill, and indeed less frequently than we could have wished, he shows himself an experienced and sagacious critic. He is likewise more concise than Mill in delivering his opinion, and does not support it by producing so great a number of readings from the manuscript in question. This conciseness is the consequence of that warmth and haste which were peculiar to Wetstein's character, and which have sometimes given birth to mistakes. The fire of his disposition was likewise the cause of his advancing conjectures, in regard to the history of his manuscripts, which exceed the bounds of probability. But the critical tical rules which he has delivered are perfectly just; and in this respect there is a remarkable agreement between him and his eminent predecessors Mill and Bengel. In regard to the Latin version alone they appear to differ: in Mill and Bengel it has powerful, and perhaps partial, advocates; but in Wettstein a severe and sagacious judge, who sometimes condemns it without a cause. The Greek manuscripts which confirm the readings of the Vulgate, and which he supposed had been corrupted from it, he of course condemned with equal severity: and some collections of various readings which had been made by Catholics, he made no scruple to pronounce a forgery, saying, "Tineo Danaos et dona ferentes." But in consequence of his antipathy to the Vulgate, his collection of various readings is less perfect than it might have been.

It has been asked, 1. Whether he has quoted his manuscripts either falsely or imperfectly, in order to establish his own religious opinions? or, 2. Whether his diligence and accuracy have been such that we may at all times depend upon them? To the first of these questions there can be no other answer, than that Wettstein, in his character of a critic, is perfectly honest. With respect to the second, his diligence and accuracy, Michaelis thinks there is less reason to pronounce him faultless. But Mr Marth has examined the examples on which Michaelis founds his assertion, and declares that Michaelis is mistaken in every one of them.

The diligence of Wettstein can scarcely be questioned by any who are acquainted with his history. He travelled into different countries, and examined with his own eyes a much greater number of manuscripts than any of his predecessors. His collection of various reading amounts to above a million; and he has not only produced a much greater quantity of matter than his predecessors, but has likewise corrected their mistakes. The extracts from manuscripts, versions, and printed editions of the Greek Testament, which had been quoted by Mill, are generally quoted by Wettstein. Whenever Wettstein had no new extracts from the manuscripts quoted by Mill, or had no opportunity of examining them himself, he copied literally from Mill; but wherever Mill has quoted from printed editions, as from the margin of Robert Stephens's for instance, or from the London Polyglot, Wettstein did not copy from Mill, but went to the original source, as appears from his having corrected many mistakes in Mill's quotations.

In the opinion of Michaelis, there are many defects in the edition of Wettstein, which require to be supplied, and many errors to be corrected. Yet still it must be allowed to be a work of immense labour, and most valuable to those engaged in sacred criticism; and it is surprising, when we consider the difficulties and labour which Wettstein had to encounter, that his errors and imperfections are so few.

The proposal of Michaelis, however, of a new collation of manuscripts, in order to form a complete collection of various readings, is worthy the attention of the learned. In mentioning this proposal, Michaelis turns a wishful eye towards Britain, the only country, he says, which possesses the will and the means to execute the task. Should a resolution, he adds, be formed in this island, so happily situated for promoting the purposes of general knowledge, to make the undertaking a public concern, to enter into a subscription, and to employ men of abilities in collating manuscripts both at home and abroad, they would be able to do more in ten years than could otherwise be done in a century. And could this nation direct its attention to any object more glorious or more useful than in ascertaining the text of the sacred Scriptures, and giving to posterity an accurate edition?

As the sense of Scripture, as well as all other books, is affected by the punctuation, it is of importance to determine whether the stops or points which we find in the sacred books were used by the sacred writers, or have been inserted by modern transcribers.

We are told by Montfaucon, in his Palaeographia Graeca, p. 31, that the person who first distinguished the several parts of a period in Greek writing, by the introduction of a point, was Aristophanes of Byzantium, who lived under Ptolemaeus Epiphanes, in the 145th Olympiad. But though points were not used in books before this period, they were employed in inscriptions above 400 years before the birth of Christ. See Mont. Pal. Græc. p. 135.

Under the article Punctuation we mentioned, on authority which we reckoned unquestionable, that the ancient manuscripts were written without any points. We have now, however, discovered, from Woide's edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, that points are used in that manuscript, though omitted in the facsimile given by Montfaucon. That they are found too in the Codex Vaticanus, though not frequently, is related by Birch in his Prolegomena, p. 14.

As the fact has not been generally known, that the ancients pointed their manuscripts, and as it is an important and interesting fact, we shall present our readers with the first fix lines of St John's Gospel, as they are pointed in the Alexandrian manuscript:

ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟΣΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟΣΗΝ ΠΡΟΣΤΟΝΩΝ ΚΑΙΘΕΣΗΝΟΛΟΓΟΣ. ΟΥΤΟΣΗΝΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΠΡΟΣΤΟΝΩΝ ΠΑΝΤΑΔΙΑΥΤΟΥΕΓΕΝΕΤΟ ΚΑΙΧΩ ΡΕΙΣΑΥΤΟΥΕΓΕΝΕΤΟΟΥΔΕΕΝ· ΟΙΓΕΝΟΝΕΝΑΥΤΩΖΩΗΗΝ·

Whether any points for marking the sense were used by the apostles, cannot be determined; but the points now in use have been invented since.

In the fourth century, Jerome began to add the comma and colon to the Latin version; and they were then inserted in many more ancient manuscripts. In the fifth century, Euthalius a deacon of Alexandria divided the New Testament into lines. This division was regulated by the sense, so that each line ended where some pause was to be made in speaking. And when a copyist was disposed to contract his space, and therefore crowded the lines into each other, he then placed a point where Euthalius had terminated the line. In the eighth century, the stroke was invented which we call a comma. In the Latin manuscripts, Jerome's points were introduced by Paul Warnfried and Alcuin, at the command of Charlemagne. In the ninth century, the Greek note of interrogation (:) was first used. At the invention of printing the editors placed the points points arbitrarily, probably without bestowing the necessary attention; and Stephens, in particular, varied his points in every edition (d).

The meaning of many passages in the Scripture has been altered by false pointing. We shall produce one instance of this: Mat. v. 34, is commonly pointed in this manner, ἐγὼ δὲ λαλῶ ὑμῖν, ἐπὶ ὀρκοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἐγκέφαλον, and consequently translated, "But I say unto you, swear not at all." But if, instead of the colon placed after ὅτι, we substitute a comma, the translation will be, "But I say to you that you ought by no means to swear, either by heaven, for it is his throne, or by earth, for it is his footstool." The command of Christ therefore applies particularly to the abuse of oaths among the Pharisees, who on every trivial occasion swore by the heaven, the earth, the temple, the head, &c. but it implies no prohibition to take an oath in the name of the Deity on solemn and important occasions.

The ancients divided the New Testament into two kinds of chapters, some longer and some shorter. This method appears to be more ancient than St Jerome, for he expunged a passage from the New Testament, which makes an entire chapter. The longer kind of chapters were called breves, the shorter capitula. St Matthew contained, according to Jerome, 68 breves; Mark contained 48; Luke 83; and John 18. All the evangelists together consisted of 217 breves and 1126 capitula. The inventor of our modern division into chapters was Hugo de S. Caro, a French Dominican friar, who lived in the 13th century.

The ancients had two kinds of verses, one of which they called syzygi, and the other equara. The remata were lines which contained a certain number of letters, like our printed books, and therefore often broke off in the middle of a word. Josephus's 20 books of Antiquities contained 60,000 of them, though in Ittiquis's edition there are only 40,000 broken lines.

Stichi were lines measured by the senfe: according to an ancient written list mentioned by Father Simin, there were in the New Testament 18,612 of these.

The verses into which the New Testament is now divided are more modern, and an imitation of the division of the Old Testament. Robert Stephens, the first inventor, introduced them in his edition in the year 1551. He made this division on a journey from Lyons Scripture, to Paris; and, as his son Henry tells us in the preface to the Concordance of the New Testament, he made it inter equitandum. This phrase probably means, that when he was weary of riding, he amused himself with this work at his inn.

This invention of the learned printer was soon introduced into all the editions of the New Testament; and advantages, it must be confessed, that in consulting and quoting the Scriptures, and in framing concordances for them, a subdivision into minute parts is of the greatest utility. But all the purposes of utility could surely have been gained, without adopting the hasty and indigested division of Stephens, which often breaks the sense in pieces, renders plain passages obscure, and difficult passages unintelligible. To the injudicious division of Stephens we may ascribe a great part of the difficulties which attend the interpretation of the New Testament, and a great many of those absurd opinions which have disgraced the ages of the Reformation. For as separate verses appear to the eyes of the learned, and to the minds of the unlearned, as so many detached sentences, they have been supposed to contain complete sense, and they have accordingly been explained without any regard to the context, and often in direct opposition to it. Were any modern history or continued discourse divided into fragments with as little regard to the sense, we should soon find, that as many opposite meanings could be forced upon them as have been forced upon the books of the New Testament. The division into verses has been still more injurious to the Epistles than to the Gospels, for there is a close connection between the different parts of the Epistles, which the verses entirely dissolve. It is therefore to be wished that this division into verses were laid aside. The Scriptures ought to be divided into paragraphs, according to the sense; and the figures ought to be thrown into the margin. In this way, the figures will retain their utility without their disadvantages. Dr Campbell, in his beautiful translation of the Gospels, has adopted this method with great judgment and success; and he who will read that translation, will perceive that this single alteration renders the Gospels much more intelligible, and, we may add, more entertaining (e).

The word ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ signifies any joyful tidings, and the word Gospel.

(d) The reader will perceive that the account of the origin of points is different from that given under PUNCTUATION. But the best authors differ upon this subject. We shall perhaps reconcile the difference, by supposing that points were invented at the time here mentioned, but were not in general use till the time mentioned under the article PUNCTUATION.

(e) We shall here subjoin, as a curiosity, what the anonymous author terms the Old and New Testament dissected. It contains an enumeration of all the books, chapters, verses, words, and letters, which occur in the English Bible and Apocrypha. It is said to have occupied three years of the author's life, and is a singular instance of the trifling employments to which superstition has led mankind.

<table> <tr> <th>Books in the Old</th> <th>39</th> <th>in the New</th> <th>27</th> <th>Total</th> <th>66</th> <th>Apocryph.</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Chapters</th> <td>929</td> <td></td> <td>260</td> <td></td> <td>1189</td> <th>Chapters</th> <th>183</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Verse</th> <td>23,214</td> <td></td> <td>7959</td> <td></td> <td>31,173</td> <th>Verles</th> <th>6881</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Words</th> <td>592,439</td> <td></td> <td>181,253</td> <td></td> <td>773,692</td> <th>Words</th> <th>152,185</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Letters</th> <td>2,728,100</td> <td></td> <td>838,380</td> <td></td> <td>3,566,480</td> <th></th> <th></th> </tr> </table>

The OLD and NEW TESTAMENT dissected. and exactly corresponds to our English word GOSPEL. In the New Testament this term is confined to "The glad tidings of the coming of the Messiah." Thus, in Mat. xi. 5, our Lord says, "The poor have the Gospel preached;" that is, The coming of the Messiah is preached to the poor. Hence the name of Gospel was given to the histories of Christ, in which the good news of the coming of the Messiah, with all its joyful circumstances, are recorded.

That the Gospel according to Matthew was composed, says Dr Campbell, by one born a Jew, familiarly acquainted with the opinions, ceremonies, and customs of his countrymen; that it was composed by one conversant in the sacred writings, and habituated to their idiom; a man of plain sense, but of little or no learning, except what he derived from the Scriptures of the Old Testament; and finally, that it was the production of a man who wrote from conviction, and had attended closely to the facts and speeches which he related, but who in writing entertained not the most distant view of setting off himself—we have as strong internal evidence as the nature of the thing will admit, and much stronger than that wherein the mind ninety-nine cases out of a hundred acquiesces.

That the author of this history of our blessed Saviour was Matthew, appears from the testimony of the early Christians. It is attested by Jerome, Augustin, Epiphanius, and Chrysostom, and in such a manner as shews that they knew the fact to be uncontroverted, and judged it to be uncontrovertible. Origen, who flourished in the former part of the 3d century, is also respectable authority. He is quoted by Eusebius in a chapter * wherein he specially treats of Origen's account vi. cap. 25. of the sacred canon. "As I have learned (says Origen) by tradition concerning the four gospels, which alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven; the first was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language." In another place he says, "Matthew writing for the Hebrews who expected him who was to descend from Abraham and David, says the lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." It must be observed, that the Greek word παράδοσις does not exactly correspond to the English word tradition, which signifies any thing delivered orally from age to age. Παράδοσις properly implies any thing transmitted from former ages, whether by oral or written testimony. In this acceptation we find it used in Scripture†: "Hold the traditions (τὰς παραδόσεις), which † Thefl. ii. ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."‡

The next authority to which we shall have recourse is that of Irenæus bishop of Lyons, who had been a disciple of Polycarp. He says in the only book of his extant, that "Matthew, among the Hebrews, wrote a Euseb. Hist. gospel in their own language, whilst Peter and Paul Eccl. lib. v. were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the cap. 8. church there."

To the testimony of these writers it may be objected, that, except Irenæus, they all lived in the third and fourth centuries, and consequently their evidence is of little importance. But there is such unanimity in the testimony, that it must have been derived from some authentic source. And is it fair to question the veracity of respectable men merely because we knew not from what writings they received their information? Many books which were then extant are now lost; and how do we know but these might have contained sufficient evidence? Irenæus at least had the best opportunities of information, having been well acquainted in his youth with Polycarp, the disciple of John; no objection can therefore be made to his evidence. But we can quote an authority still nearer the times of the apostles. Papias bishop of Hierapolis, in Caesarea, who flourished about A. D. 116, affirms that Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew tongue, which every one interpreted as he was able §. Papias was the companion of Polycarp, and besides must have been acquainted with many persons who lived in the time of the apostles. The fact therefore is fully established, that Matthew, the apostle of our Saviour, was the author of that gospel which is placed first in our editions of the New Testament.

The next subject of inquiry respects the language in which

* Hist. lib. vi. cap. 25. † Euseb. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 39. ‡ The 21st Verse of the 7th Chapter of Ezra has all the letters of the alphabet. The 19th Chapter of 2d Kings and 37th of Isaiah are alike.

The middle Chapter and the least in the Bible is Psalm 117. The middle Verse is the 8th of the 118th Psalm. The middle time is the 2d of Chronicles, 4th Chap. 16th Verse. The word And occurs in the Old Testament 35,543 times. The same in the New Testament occurs 10,684 times. The word Jehovah occurs 6855 times.

OLD TESTAMENT. The middle Book is Proverbs. The middle Chapter is Job 29th. The middle Verse is 2d Chron. 20th Chap. between 17th and 18th Verses. The least Verse is 1 Chron. 1st Chap. and 1st Verse.

The middle Book is Thessalonians 2d. The middle Chapter is between the 13th and 14th Romans. The middle Verse is 17th Chap. Acts, 17th Verse. The least Verse is 11th Chap. John, Verse 35. The 21st Verse of the 7th Chapter of Ezra has all the letters of the alphabet. The 19th Chapter of 2d Kings and 37th of Isaiah are alike. which it was written. This we are assured by Papias, by Irenaeus, and Origen, was the Hebrew; but the truth of this fact has been disputed by Erafmus, Whitby, and others. Whitby urges the improbability that Providence would have suffered the original of this gospel to be lost, and nothing to remain but a translation. This is an argument of no force against written testimony; indeed we are always in danger of drawing false conclusions when we argue from our own opinions of the conduct of Providence: For His ways are not as our ways, nor His thoughts as our thoughts. But though we are forced to acknowledge that the gospel according to Matthew which we possess is a translation, it is evidently a close one; and the very circumstance that it has superseeded the original, is a clear proof that it was thought equally valuable by the ancient Christians. It is necessary to remark, that the language in which the gospel according to Matthew was originally composed, and which is called Hebrew by Papias, Irenaeus, and Origen, is not the same with the Hebrew of the Old Testament: it was what Jerome very properly terms Syro-Chaldaic, having an affinity to both languages, but much more to the Chaldean than to the Syrian.

The time when this gospel was composed has not been precisely ascertained by the learned. Irenaeus says that "Matthew published his gospel when Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome." Now Paul arrived at Rome A.D. 60 or 61, and it is very probable suffered martyrdom in A.D. 65. This may be justly concluded from comparing the relation of Tacitus with that of Orosius, a writer of the fifth century. Orosius having given an account of Nero's persecution of the Christians, and of the death of the two apostles in it, adds, that it was followed by a pestilence in the city, and other disasters. And Tacitus relates that a pestilence prevailed in the city, and violent storms took place in Italy, in the year of Christ 65. Matthew's gospel was therefore written between the year 60 and 65.

That this history was primarily intended for the use of the Jews, we have, besides historical evidence, very strong presumptions from the book itself. Every circumstance is carefully pointed out which might conciliate the faith of that nation; every unnecessary expression is avoided, which might in any way serve to obstruct it. To come to particulars, there was no sentiment relating to the Messiah with which the Jews were more strongly possessed, than that he must be of the race of Abraham, and of the family of David. Matthew, therefore, with great propriety, begins his narrative with the genealogy of Jesus. That he should be born at Bethlehem in Judea, is another circumstance in which the learned among the Jews were universally agreed. His birth in that city, with some very memorable circumstances that attended it, this historian has also taken the first opportunity to mention. Those passages in the prophets, or other sacred books, which either foretell anything that should happen to him, or admit an allusive appellation, or were in that age generally understood to be applicable to events which respect the Messiah, are never passed over in silence by this Evangelist. The fulfilment of prophecy was always to the Jews, who were convinced of the inspiration of their sacred writings, strong evidence. Accordingly none of the Evangelists has been more careful than Matthew, that nothing of this kind should be overlooked.

That which chiefly distinguishes Matthew's writings from those of the other Evangelists, is the minute and distinct manner in which he has related many of our Lord's discourses and moral instructions. Of these his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his master to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the apostleship, he was an eye and ear witness of most of the things which he relates. And these are circumstances which incline Dr Campbell to think that Matthew has approached as near the precise order of time in which the events happened as any of the Evangelists.

Concerning the life of the apostle Matthew we have nothing to add, as the principal circumstances in his life have already been mentioned. See MATTHEW.

The Gospel according to Matthew is cited seven times in the epistle of Barnabas, twice in the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, eight times in the Shepherd of Hermas, fix times in Polycarp's small epistle to the Philippians, and seven times in the smaller epistles of Ignatius. These citations may be seen at full length in Jones's New and Full Method of Settling the Canon, with the parallel passages in the gospel according to Matthew.

That Mark was the author of the gospel which bears Gospel his name, and that it was the second in the order of time, is proved by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Christians. Many authorities are therefore un- necessary; we shall only mention those of Papias and Irenaeus. Eusebius has preserved the following passage of Papias: "This is what was related by the elder Hist. Eccl. that is, John, not the apostle, but a disciple of Jesus) lib. iii. cap. 39. Mark being Peter's interpreter wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order wherein things were spoken and done by the Lord; for he was not himself a hearer or follower of our Lord; but he afterwards, as I said, followed Peter who gave instructions as suited the occasions, but not as a regular history of our Lord's teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing such things as occurred to his memory: for of this one thing he was careful, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert no falsehood into his narrative." Such is the testimony of Papias, which is the more to be regarded as he affirms his authority. He spoke not from hearsay, but from the information which he had received from a most credible witness, John the elder, or presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and a companion of the apostles.

Irenaeus, after telling us that Matthew published his gospel whilst Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, adds: "After their departure (τεκνον), Mark also, the Adv. Har. disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter." The Greek τεκνον, like the English word departure, may either denote death, which is a departure out of the world, or mean a departure out of the city. It is probably in the former of these senses it is here used. Yet by the accounts given by some others, Mark's gospel was published in Peter's lifetime, and had his approbation.