(5.) All the examples proposed to our imitation therein, are such as savour of, and lead to, holiness; and when it recom→ mends the actions or conversation of men, it is more especially for that holiness which is discovered therein: and, on the ether hand, when it gives us the character of wicked men, together with the dreadful consequences thereof, it is that we may avoid and be deterred from committing the same sins that will be their ruin in the end.

(6.) The rules laid down relating to civil affairs in the Old Testament dispensation, and the behaviour of one man towards another, have a vein of holiness running through them all. Thus the government of the Jewish state, as described in the books of Moses, and elsewhere, discovers it to be an holy commonwealth; and they are often called an holy nation, as governed by those laws which God gave them; so the government of the church in the Gospel-dispensation, is a holy government: visible holiness is a term of church-communion, and apostacy and revolt from God excludes from it.

(7.) All the promises contained in Scripture, are, or will be certainly fulfilled, and the blessings it gives us ground to expect, conferred; and therefore it is a faithful word, and consequently pure and holy.

2. If we compare the Scripture with other writings, which are of a human composure, it plainly excels in holiness. For, (1.) If we compare it with the writings of heathen moralists, such as Plato, Seneca, and others, though they contain a great many good directions for the ordering the conversations of men agreeably to the dictates of nature and right reason, yet most of them allow of, or plead for some sins, which the Scripture mentions with abhorrence, such as revenging injuries, and self-murder; several other instances of moral impurity, were not only practised by those who laid down the best rules to inforce moral virtue, but either countenanced, or, at least, not sufficiently fenced against, by what is contained in their writings; and even their strongest motives to virtue or the government of the passions, or a generous contempt of the world, are taken principally from the tendency which such a course of life will have to free us from those things that tend to debase and afflict the mind, and fill it with uneasiness, when we consider ourselves as acting contrary to the dictates of nature, which we have as intelligent creatures; whereas, on the other hand, the Scripture leads us to the practice of Christian virtues from better motives, and considers us not barely as men, but Christians, under the highest obligations to the blessed Jesus, and constrained hereunto by his condescending love expressed in all that he has done and suffered for our redemption and salvation; and it puts us upon desiring and hoping for com

munion with God, through him, in the performance of those evangelical duties, which the light of nature knows nothing of, and so discovers a solid foundation for our hope of forgiveness of sin, through his blood, together with peace of conscience and joy resulting from it; it also directs us to look for that life and immortality, which is brought to light through the Gospel; in which respects, it far exceeds the writing of the best heathen moralists, and so contains in it the visible marks and characters of its divine original.

(2.) If we compare the scriptures with other writings among Christians, which pretend not to inspiration, we shall find in these writings a great number of impure and false doctrines, derogatory to the glory of God, in many of the pretended expositions of Scripture. If therefore men, who have the Scripture in their hands, propagate unholy doctrines, they would do so much more were there no Scripture to guide them: thus the doctrine that grace is not necessary to what is spiritually good: the merit of good works, human satisfactions, penances, indulgences, and dispensations for sin, are all impure doctrines, which are directly contrary to Scripture; and, as contraries illustrate each other, so hereby the holiness and purity of Scripture, which maintains the contrary doctrines, will appear to those who impartially study it and understand the sense thereof.

(3.) If we compare the Scriptures with the imposture of Mahomet, in the book called the Alcoran, which the Turks make use of as a rule of faith, and prefer it to Scripture, and reckon it truly divine, that contains a system not only of fabulous, but corrupt and impure notions, accommodated to men's sensual inclinations. Thus it allows of polygamy, and many impurities in this world, and promises to its votaries a sensual paradise in the next, all which is contrary to Scripture; so that composures merely human, whether they pretend to divine inspiration or not, discover themselves not to be the word of God, by their unholiness; as the Scripture manifests itself to be divine, by the purity of its doctrine; and indeed, it cannot be otherwise, considering the corruption of man's nature, as well as the darkness and blindness of his mind, which, if it pretends to frame a rule of faith, it will be like himself, impure and unholy; but that which has such marks of holiness, as the Scripture has, appears to be inspired by a holy God.

Having considered the holiness of Scripture doctrines, we proceed to shew the weight of this argument, or how far it may be insisted on to prove its divine authority. It is to be confessed, that a book's containing holy things or rules for a holy life, doth not of itself prove its divine original; for then other books might be called the word of God besides the Scripture, which is so called, not only as containing some

most men uninspired, we shall find that their sentiments contained therein often times very widely differ; and if, as his

'to the genuineness of the epistles does not contradict that of other Christians. Marcion, an heretical writer in the former part of the second century, is said by Tertullian to have rejected three of the epistles which we now receive, viz. the two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. It appears to me not improbable, that Marcion might make some such distinction as this, that no apostolic epistle was to be admitted which was not read or attested by the church to which it was sent; for it is remarkable that, together with these epistles to private persons, he rejected also the catholic epistles. Now the catholic epistles and the epistles to private persons agree in the circumstance of wanting this particular species of attestation. Marcion, it seems, acknowledged the Epistle to Philemon, and is upbraided for his inconsistency in doing so by Tertullian*, who asks "why, when he received a letter written to a single person, he should re"fuse two to Timothy and one to Titus composed upon the affairs of the church?" This passage so far favours our account of Marcion's objection, as it shows that the objection was supposed by Tertullian to have been founded in something, which belonged to the nature of a private letter.

Nothing of the works of Marcion remains. Probably he was, after all, a rash, arbitrary, licentious critic (if he deserved indeed the name of critic,) and who offered no reason for his determination. What St. Jerome says of him intimates this, and is beside founded in good sense: speaking of him and Basilides, "If they had assigned any reasons," says he, "why they did not reckon these epis"tles," viz. the first and second to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, "to be the apostle's, we would have endeavoured to have answered them, and perhaps "might have satisfied the reader: but when they take upon them, by their own "authority, to pronounce one epistle to be Paul's, and another not, they can "only be replied to in the same mannert. Let it be remembered, however, that Marcion received ten of these epistles. His authority therefore, even if his credit had been better than it is, forms a very small exception to the uniformity of the evidence. Of Basilides we know still less than we do of Marcion. The same observation however belongs to him, viz. that his objection, as far as appears from this passage of St. Jerome, was confined to the three private epistles. Yet is this the only opinion which can be said to disturb the consent of the two first centuries of the Christian æra; for as to Tatian, who is reported by Jerome alone to have rejected some of St. Paul's Epistles, the extravagant or rather delirious notions into which he fell, take away all weight and credit from his judgment. If, indeed, Jerome's account of this circumstance be correct; for it appears from much older writers than Jerome, that Tatian owned and used many of these epistlest.

II. They, who in those ages disputed about so many other points, agreed in acknowledging the Scriptures now before us. Contending sects appealed to them in their controversies with equal and unreserved submission. When they were urged by one side, however they might be interpreted or misinterpreted by the other, their authority was not questioned. "Reliqui omnes," says Irenæus, speaking of Marcion, "falso scientiæ nomine inflati, scripturas quidem confiten"tur, interpretationes vero convertunt§.”

III. When the genuineness of some other writings which were in circulation, and even of a few which are now received into the canon, was contested, these were never called into dispute. Whatever was the objection, or whether, in truth, there ever was any real objection to the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third of John, the Epistle of James, or that of Jude, or to the book of the Revelations of St. John, the doubts that appear to have been entertained concerning them, exceedingly strengthen the force of the testimony as to those writings, about which there was no doubt; because it shows, that the matter was a subject, amongst the early Christians, of examination and iscussion; and that, where there was any room to doubt, they did doubt.

* Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 455. + Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 458. Iren, advers. Haer. quoted by Lardner, vol. xv. p. 425.

Lardner, vol. i. p. 313.

soriaus, they pretend to report matters of fact, their evidence, or report, does not, in all respects, agree together, which shews

66

What Eusebius hath left upon the subject is directly to the purpose of this observation. Eusebius, it is well known, divided the ecclesiastical writings which were extant in his time into three classes; the "ayayTippura, uncontradict "ed," as he calls them in one chapter; or "scriptures universally acknowledg"ed," as he calls them in another; the "controverted, yet well known and "approved by many; and "the spurious." What were the shades of difference in the books of the second, or in those of the third class; or what it was precisely that he meant by the term spurious, it is not necessary in this place to enquire. It is sufficient for us to find, that the thirteen epistles of St. Paul are placed by him in the first class without any sort of hesitation or doubt.

It is further also to be collected from the chapter in which this distinction is laid down, that the method made use of by Eusebius, and by the Christians of his time, viz. the close of the third century, in judging concerning the sacred authority of any books, was to enquire after and consider the testimony of those who lived near the age of the apostles,

IV. That no ancient writing, which is attested as these epistles are, hath had its authenticity disproved, or is in fact questioned. The controversies which have been moved concerning suspected writings, as the epistles, for instance, of Phalaris, or the eighteen epistles of Cicero, begin by showing that this attestation is wanting. That being proved, the question is thrown back upon internal marks of spuriousness or authenticity; and in these the dispute is occupied, In which disputes it is to be observed, that the contested writings are commonly attacked by arguments drawn from some opposition which they betray to "authentic history," to "true epistles," to "the real sentiments or circum"stances of the author whom they personatet;" which authentic history, which true epistles, which real sentiments themselves, are no other than ancient docu. ments, whose early existence and reception can be proved, in the manner in which the writings before us are traced up to the age of their reputed author, or to ages near to his. A modern who sits down to compose the history of some ancient period, has no stronger evidence to appeal to for the most confident assertion, or the most undisputed fact, that he delivers, than writings, whose genuineness is proved by the same medium through which we evince the authen ticity of ours. Nor, whilst he can have recourse to such authorities as these, does he apprehend any uncertainty in his accounts, from the suspicion of spuriousness or imposture in his materials.

V. It carmot be shown that any forgeries, properly so called +, that is, wri tings published under the name of the person who did not compose them, made their appearance in the first century of the Christian æra, in which century these epistles undoubtedly existed. I shall set down under this proposition the guard. ed words of Lardner himself: "There are no quotations of any books of them "(spurious and apocryphal books) in the apostolical fathers, by whom I mean "Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings "reach from the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. I say this confidently, be " cause I think it has been proved." Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.

Nor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive Christians. "Irenæus quotes not any of these books. He mentions some of them, but he "never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian: he has mentioned a "book called Acts of Paul and Thecla:' but it is only to condemn it. Clement " of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned and quoted several such books, but "never as authority, and sometimes with express marks of dislike. Eusebius "quotes no such books in any of his works. He has mentioned them indeed, "but how? Not by way of approbation, but to show that they were of little or

Lardner, vol. viii. p. 106. ↑ See the tracts written in the controversy between Tun stal and Middleton upon certain suspected epistles ascribed to Cicero. I believe that there is a great deal of truth in Dr. Lardner's observations, that comparatively few of those books, which we call apocryphal, were strictly and originally forgeries. See Lardner, vol. xii, p. 167 VOL. I.

that they are fallible; but the exact and harmonious agreement of scripture proves it divine. That other writings of human

no value; and that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians." Now, if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent examination, we compare what the same cautious writer had before said of our received scriptures, "that in the works of three only of the above-mentioned fa"thers, there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New "Testament, than of all the works of Cicero in the writers of all characters for "several ages;" and if, with the marks of obscurity or condemnation, which accompanied the mention of the several apocryphal Christian writings, when they happened to be mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner's work completely and in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and what, having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclusion to assert, that these books were not only received from the beginning, but received with the greatest respect; have been publicly and solemnly read in the assemblies of Christians throughout the world, in every age from that time to this; early translated into the languages of divers countries and people; commentaries writ to explain and illustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all arguments of a religious nature; recommended to the perusal of unbelievers, as containing the authentic account of the Christian doctrine; when we attend, I say, to this representation, we perceive in it, not only full proof of the early notoriety of these books, but a clear and sensible line of discrimination, which separates these from the pretensions of any others.

The Epistles of St. Paul stand particularly free of any doubt or confusion that might arise from this source. Until the conclusion of the fourth century, no intimation appears of any attempt whatever being made to counterfeit these writings; and then it appears only of a single and obscure instance. Jerome, who flourished in the year 392, has this expression: "Legunt quidam et ad Laodi"censes; sed ab omnibus exploditur;" there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by every body. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423, speaks of this epistle in the same termst. Beside these, I know not whether any ancient writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed during the three first centuries of the Church; and when it came afterwards to be mentioned, it was mentioned only to show, that, though such a writing did exist, it obtained no credit. It is probable that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is the epistle which we now have under that title. If so, as hath been already observed, it is nothing more than a collection of sentences from the genuine Epistles; and was perhaps, at first, rather the exercise of some idle pen, than any serious attempt to impose a forgery upon the public. Of an Epistle to the Corinthians under St. Paul's name, which was brought into Europe in the present century, antiquity is entirely silent. It was unheard of for sixteen centuries; and at this day, though it be extant, and was first found in the Armenian language, it is not, by the Christians of that country, received into their scriptures. I hope, after this, that there is no reader who will think there is any competition of credit, or of external proof, between these and the received Epistles: or rather, who will not acknowledge the evidence of anthenticity to be confirmed by the want of success which attended imposture.

When we take into our hands the letters which the suffrage and consent of antiquity nath thus transmitted to us, the first thing that strikes our attention is the air of reality and business, as well as of seriousness and conviction, which pervades the whole. Let the sceptic read them. If he be not sensible of these qualities in them, the argument can have no weight with him. If he be; if he perceive in almost every Rage the language of a mind actuated by real occasions, and operating upon real circumstances, I would wish it to be observed, that the proof which arises from this perception is not to be deemed occult or imagi nary, because it is incapable of being drawn out in words, or of being conveyed