6

the apostles and the period of the universal diffusion of the books. But St. John lived till quite the close of the first century-his own disciple, Polycarp, till beyond the middle of the second-and Irenæus,' the disciple of Polycarp, to the commencement of the third; when Tertullian and a host of witnesses put the supposition of forgery quite out of the question. Can any one imagine, that during this brief period a daring falsification, such as we are considering, could have been made-a falsification which must at least have demanded a long series of ages-much obscurity-many favourable opportunities, to have been attempted even as to a single book out of the twentyseven, in a single community, out of the thousands which overspread, according to all testimony, the Roman empire, by the beginning of the second century!

But not only so. Christianity was planted in the midst of enemies and persecutors-Christianity raised its head amidst Judaism and Heathen idolatry-Christianity was assaulted for three hundred years by a succession of violent and cruel and unjust persecutions. Christianity was never without some false disciples in its own bosom, watchful to seize every advantage. It was morally impossible to give currency to false writings in the face of an angry, a malicious, and obstinate hostility from every quarter. It was morally impossible that any fraud should have escaped, not only discovery, but that public exposure and disgraceful defeat from all parties, which attend on a detected imposition.

But, we have specimens remaining of what false, or, rather, of what unauthentic works would be, and of the treatment they would meet with. We have productions of uninspired men, forgeries in the names of the apostles and their companions, professing to be narratives of the acts of our Lord and his disci

ples. But what are they ?-weak, puerile, impertinent, inconsistent, absurd, contradictory; with those very marks of spuriousness about them, from which our sacred writings are entirely free. And how were they received? With the scorn and neglect, when piously designed; and with the abhorrence and detestation, when of a worse character, with which such fabrications would be received now.

But more than this. Even the works of instruction composed by the apostolical fathers, for the use of the Churches, sufficiently prove, how utterly incapable they were of producing the inspired Scriptures. Not merely the purity of their principles and their faith in our sacred books, but the capacity of their minds and their faculty of judgment, forbid such a supposition. Their simplicity of character and cast of intellect, make them invaluable, as witnesses to the broad historical facts of Christianity, for which they suffered the loss of all things; but at the same time prove them to be the last persons who could compose sacred books, or frame long and artful documents, or prepare and support and propagate a lie.

Here I pause, and ask any candid hearer, whether on this first historical and naked fact of the Christian books being the real productions of their professed authors, any doubt can remain? Let an objector be governed by historical testimony and the nature of the case, in this, as he uniformly is in all like instances; and let him transfer his objections, if he entertain any, from the authenticity, to the credibility or divine authority of the sacred writings; that is, from the mere external question of, who are the authors of them, to, whether their contents be true.

This is the fair and only fair course. It is thus Christians do as to the Koran of Mahomet. We quarrel not about its authenticity; but we maintain, that the work, though the genuine production of its

professed author-just as the Morals of Seneca are genuine-yet affords no sufficient proofs of its being a divine revelation; we say, there are no evidences to be derived from the contents of the Koran, or from the facts accompanying its publication, of a revelation from God; we say it is a mere compilation from the Christian Scriptures, and apocryphal gospels, mixed up with Jewish legends and popular superstitions of Arabia, adapted to the ignorance and vices of the people for whom it was designed. This is a legitimate line of argument. We dispute not against the authenticity, but object to the other pretensions of the Mahometan record. We say the matter condemns itself.

But this leads me to make a

III. General observation, that MEN PRACTICALLY ACT ON THE SLIGHTEST GROUNDS as to the mere authenticity of writings, where the contents commend themselves to their judgment or taste.

If a literary work be discovered, after having lain hidden for ages, its authenticity is allowed, if the contents bespeak the author's mind and character. I inquire into the authenticity of the greatest Roman historian, Livy. What do I find? I am told that he died about the fourth year of Tiberius and the twenty-first of the Christian æra? I am told he published one hundred and forty or more books of history. I see him quoted by contemporary authors. But I hear nothing of his writings afterwards for a thousand years. The chain of testimony is broken to pieces. About thirty books, and some of those imperfect, are published at the close of the 15th century. Further portions are found in the library of Mayence. The last five books are found in the Abbey of St. Gall in Switzerland, in the year 1531. A Jesuit discovers some more at Bamberg. So lately as the year 1772 a further fragment is added. The authenticity of all these portions is admitted and acted upon by every

critic in every part of Europe, slight as the outward evidence is, upon the mere style and character of the

contents.

Again, M. Angelo Maio, about five years since, discovered in the library of the Vatican at Rome, one of the long lost works of Cicero, the valuable and elaborate Dialogues on the Republic. I find a notice of such a work in the other writings of Cicero: but his contemporaries, and the authors of the following ages, afford me no testimony to its authenticity. I am told that the tyranny of the emperors, jealous of the great principles of liberty asserted in that treatise, silenced Seneca, Quintillian, Pliny, Tacitus. Be it so. For thirteen or fourteen centuries I see nothing of it, except in the very few quotations found in Lactantius, St. Augustine, and Macrobius. In the year 1822, the work is discovered, with a Commentary of St. Austin on the Psalms, written over it crosswise, probably in the sixth century, as was frequently practised at that time, to avoid the expense of parchment. M. Maio publishes it a French scholar, of the first reputation, eagerly makes a translation, and tells us, "it is sufficient to cast an eye on the simple and learned account which M. Maio gives of his labours, to be convinced of an authenticity materially, I will almost say, legally demonstrated. But," adds the critic, "for men of taste, this authenticity will shine forth yet more in the great characters of patriotic elevation, of genius, and of eloquence, which mark the work. This kind of moral proof is more agreeable to the reader than dissertations on the orthography of an old word, and on the probable dimensions of a letter." "The immortal character," he concludes, "of the writer of genius and the Roman Consul, which shines in every page, and in the least traits of the work, gives it a sublime authenticity."

A. D. 1822 or 3.

VOL. II.

9 M. Villemair.

G

9

On such narrow grounds of external testimony do men build. Might I not, then, boldly appeal to the sacred sublimity, the divine wisdom, the unequalled discoveries of grace, the dignity and yet naturalness of style, the clearness and force of the arguments, the circumstantial character of the narrative, the unnumbered incidental agreements, the whole cast and impress of truth, which, as we shall see hereafter, characterizes the New Testament; and might I not leave it to the practical common sense of every pious mind, to determine whether, even if the external testimony to its authenticity were ever so slight, we might not be permitted to repose securely on the inward character of genuineness, the holy stamp and seal of truth, the native impress of veracity and trustworthiness, which commend our sacred books, not to the taste and judgment of a critic merely, but to the enlightened understanding, the best-informed feelings, the conscientious admiration of every candid and serious reader?

But we insist not on this at present. We are now concerned with the argument arising from the various and accumulated external testimony. We shall hereafter unite both kinds of evidences-historical proofs of authenticity beyond any former example, and inward evidences from the character and style of the writings themselves-each so strong, as not to require the other; because each in the highest and most complete form ever exhibited to mankind: and we shall maintain, that if men admit ancient works every day on the slightest outward proof, they are morally obliged to allow the authenticity of the sacred writings, sustained by every outward and every inward species of evidence.

But, we return to the historical point before us, and ask, whether it is not for the objector to establish a contrary case, before he can claim the attention of any reasonable person? We ask, whether the