תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

from the letters; in which cafe it is manifeft that the history adds nothing to the evidence already afforded by the letters;

or,

2. The letters may have been fabricated out of the history: a fpecies of impofture which is certainly practicable; and which, without any acceffion of proof or authority, would neceffarily produce the appearance of confiftency and agreement; or,

3. The hiftory and letters may have been founded upon fome authority com-. mon to both; as upon reports and traditions which prevailed in the age in which they were composed, or upon fome ancient record now loft, which both writers confulted: in which cafe also, the letters, without being genuine, may exhibit marks of conformity with the hiftory; and the hiftory, without being true, may agree with the letters.

Agreement therefore, or conformity, is only to be relied upon fo far as we can exclude thefe everal fuppofitions. Now the point to be noticed is, that, in the three cafes above enumerated, conformity muft

[ocr errors][merged small]

be the effect of defign. Where the history is compiled from the letters, which is the first case, the defign and compofition of the work are in general fo confeffed, or made fo evident by comparifon, as to leave us in no danger of confounding the production with original history, or of miftaking it for an independent authority. The agreement, it is probable, will be clofe and uniform, and will eafily be perceived to refult from the intention of the author, and from the plan and conduct of his work.

Where the letters are fabricated from the hiftory, which is the second cafe, it is always for the purpose of impofing a forgery upon the public; and, in order to give colour and probability to the fraud, names, places, and circumftances, found in the hiftory, may be ftudioufly introduced into the letters, as well as a general confiftency be endeavoured to be maintained. But here it is manifeft, that whatever congruity appears, is the confequence of meditation, artifice, and defign.-The third cafe is that wherein the history and the letters, without any direct privity or communica

tion with each other, derive their materials from the fame fource; and, by reafon of their common original, furnish instances of accordance and correfpondency. This is a fituation in which we muft allow it to be poffible for ancient writings to be placed; and it is a fituation in which it is more difficult to distinguish fpurious from genuine writings, than in either of the cafes described in the preceding fuppofitions; inafmuch as the congruities obfervable are so far accidental, as that they are not produced by the immediate transplanting of names and circumstances out of one writing into the other. But although, with respect to each other, the agreement in these writings be mediate and fecondary, yet is it not properly or abfolutely undefigned; because, with respect to the common original from which the information of the writers proceeds, it is ftudied and factitious. The cafe of which we treat muft, as to the letters, be a cafe of forgery; and when the writer, who is perfonating another, fits down to his compofition-whether he have the history with which we now compare B 3

the

the letters, or fome other record, before him; or whether he have only loofe tradition and reports to go by-he must adapt his impofture, as well as he can, to what he finds in these accounts; and his adaptations will be the refult of council, fcheme, and industry: art must be employed; and veftiges will appear of management and defign. Add to this, that, in most of the following examples, the circumstances in which the coincidence is remarked are of too particular and domeftic a nature, to have floated down upon the ftream of general tradition.

Of the three cafes which we have stated, the difference between the firft and the two others is, that in the first the defign may be fair and honest, in the others it must be accompanied with the consciousness of fraud : but in all there is defign. In examining, therefore, the agreement between ancient writings, the character of truth and originality is undefignednefs: and this teft plies to every fuppofition; for, whether we fuppofe the history to be true, but the letters fpurious; or the letters to be genuine,

ap

but

but the history false; or, laftly, falsehood to belong to both-the history to be a fable, and the letters fictitious; the fame inference will refult-that either there will be no agreement between them, or the agreement will be the effect of defign. Nor will it elude the principle of this rule, to fuppose the same perfon to have been the author of all the letters, or even the author both of the letters and the hiftory; for no lefs defign is neceffary to produce coincidence between different parts of a man's own writings, especially when they are made to take the different forms of a hiftory and of original letters, than to adjust them to the circumftances found in any other writing.

With refpect to thofe writings of the New Testament which are to be the subject of our prefent confideration, I think that, as to the authenticity of the epiftles, this argument, where it is fufficiently fuftained by inftances, is nearly conclufive; for I cannot affign a fuppofition of forgery, in which coincidences of the kind we enquire after are likely to appear. As to the hiftory,

« הקודםהמשך »