Scripture.

He ascribes the first epistle to the Corinthians to Paul, and make such allusions to the following books as are sufficient to shew that he had seen and read them: Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philip pians, 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 Chap i 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 no 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.

106

The allu

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 Irenæus 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 Irenæus 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 sions and some exceptionable; but it must be remembered that references it was usual among the ancient Christians as well as to the New Jews to adopt the expressions of scripture without namTestament by the first ing the authors. Why they did so it is not necessary Christian to inquire. The only point of importance to be determined is, whether those references are a sufficient proof

writers

prove that it existed

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, Irenæus in France, Tertullian at Carthage, Origen at Alexandria, and Eusebius at Cæsarea. 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.

107

retics.

The same thing is proved by testimonies if possible Testimoless exceptionable. The ancient heretics, whose opi- nies of He nions were sometimes grosser and more impious than those 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 their

time,

Scripture, 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 writing3 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 be altered every passage that contradicted his own opinions: but as many of these alterations are what modern critics calls 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.

108

Testimo. nies of

109

Dr Lardner in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in the following words: “ Noetns, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans (Y), Priscillanists, 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 Heathens. 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 Of Celsus. various passages still found in them. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these gospels; of the precepts, Resist 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 instar 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.

ry.

110

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.

Of Porphy- 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 Marsh, 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 S 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 expres sion 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 quoting it from Isaias, 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 despositaries 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.

III

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

stament

from int

112

The style of the New Testament is singular, and proved differs very widely from the style of classical authors. It nal eviis full of Hebraisms and Syriasms; a circumstance which dence. pious ignorance has considered as a fault, and which, From the even so late as the present century, it has attempted to remove; not knowing that these very deviations style. 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 pro

duction

duction 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 suspects 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 in 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 wri tings 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, discloses frequently in the middle 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 senses. 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;

nor does he ever forget in the vehemence of bis zcal 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. In

numerable 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.

Scripture.

113

between

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

which sect. 1, 2.

VOL. XIX. Part I.

C

Seripture which has been overlooked by all the commentators, would not probably be attended to in a forgery. Chap. ii.

* Acts

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 smitten on the mouth when he was making his defence before the council in Jerusalem *. Krebs, in xxiii. 2-3 his remarks taken from Josephus, has shown him to have been the son of Nebedeni. 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 wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest?" The sacerdotal 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 Nebedeni 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 agxigus, 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 highpriesthood of Ismael, who was invested with that dignity by Agrippa, elapsed an interval during which the sacerdotal 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 wist 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

a re

ar

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. Such as would prove a book not to have been written by the author to whom it is ascribed. 2. Such as si would prove that the author was mistaken, and there- by fore not divinely inspired. To the first class belongs P the following objection: St Paul says (2 Cor. xi. 32.) ov that the governor of Damascus was under Aretas the in king: but if we are to judge from the 18th book of the ph 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 Petræa, 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 bad recognized the law of Moses. The difficulty then is so 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 Da

mascus.

11

thentic

formati

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 b are found in the gospel according to St Luke; and do want o not apply to the writings of Matthew, John, Paul, and Peter. Laying aside the idea of inspiration altogether, concer let us inquire whether Luke or Josephus be most in- the eve titled to credit in those passages where they differ; that ha which of them is most accurate, and which of them had pened t 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

those

his birt

should render great injustice, if we ranked them in the Scripture. class of unbelievers,

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 Jo. sephus 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 duly weighed and compared; and then let the preference be given to that author who, according to the strictest rules of equity and justice, seems intitled 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.

116 Inspiration Having thus ascertained the authenticity of the books of the New of the New Testament, the next thing to be considered Testament, is their inspiration. It is certainly of some importance

j 1.

117

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 asserts, that the divinity of the New Testament may be proved whether we can evince it to be written by immediate inspiration or Chap i not." The question (says 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 not neces- be well founded. The miracles by which it is consary to the firmed would equally demonstrate its truth, even if the persons who attested them were not inspired, but simply Christianity human witnesses; and their divine authority is never according to the opi- presupposed, when we discuss the question of miracles, but merely their credibility as human evidence. If the Michaelis. 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

truth of

nion of

"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 smallest 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 Messias 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.'

* Johu xv.

"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 unbeliever of the truth of Christianity, would begin his 27. 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 permit ted 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."

118

Before any inquiry is made respecting the inspiration Different of the books of the New Testament, it is necessary to meanings of determine the meaning of the term; for theologians the word have given to it a variety of significations. Most of the inspiration. German divines make it to consist in an infusion of C 2

words