תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

fined, we proceeded to lay the foundation of all our subsequent reasonings by making good the AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, and the CREDIBILITY OF THE HISTORY contained therein. In reference to the question of authenticity, we instituted an inquiry whether there is sufficient evidence that the several scriptures composing the New Testament were written by the men whose names they bear, the original apostles and disciples of Christ? For an answer to this, we pursued precisely the same method as in determining the authenticity of any other writings. The evidence required in such investigations was shown to be so unaffected by time, that whether a book be ascribed to the christian era or to five centuries earlier or later, a similar description of proof would possess a similar conclusiveness. That for the authenticity of the books of the New Testament was presented under the following heads: They are quoted or alluded to by a series of writers extending, in unbroken succession, from the present to the apostolic age. In the earliest writers of this series, as well as the later, they are treated with peculiar respect, as possessing an authority belonging to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions of religion; they were collected at a very early period into a distinct volume; were publicly read and expounded in the assemblies of the primitive Christians; commentaries were written upon them; harmonies were formed out of them; different copies were carefully compared, and versions were made into different languages, in the first centuries of christianity. Hence it appeared that the agreement of the ancient church, as to what were the authentic books of the New Testament, was complete, and was no more imperfect among the various sects of heretics, than among the orthodox fathers. None of these several heads of evidence attach to any of those spurious writings commonly called Apocryphal Scriptures; while the marks of the spuriousness of these can be asserted with regard to none of those which are esteemed as authentic. In confirmation of the mass of testimony, adduced in support

of these propositions, we exhibited a most important collection of proofs from the writings of the early adversaries of christianity. The style and language of the New Testament were spoken of, as in perfect agreement with the local and other circumstances of its reputed writers; as in perfect harmony with their known character, and with the age and country in which they lived; and such as could not have been produced in any age subsequent to theirs. In conclusion of the whole argument, we endeavoured to show that such was the necessity of detection, in case of a forgery, during the primitive centuries, that had the books in question been deficeient in the evidence of apostolic origin, nothing less than a miracle in their aid could account for their early and universal currency. The whole train of evidence concluded with this result: that to suppose the New Testament unauthentic or even questionable in this particular, is t resign the authenticity of every other book of the least antiquity; yea, and the sufficiency of human testimony, in its most conclusive form, to establish the authenticity of any such work. Having come to this, it seemed no presumption to proceed in our subsequent lectures, as if the question of authenticity were answered in the affirmative with entire satisfaction.

But in connexion with the apostolic origin, it was important to look into the integrity of the New Testament scriptures; for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent they have been preserved without mutilation or corruption. That they have undergone no material alteration since they were first published, was inferred from the perfect impossibility of such a change; from obvious agreement among the existing manuscripts of the New Testament; and from the harmony of our present text with the numerous quotations in the works of early christian writers, as well as with those ancient translations which are still extant.

But in laying the foundation of our subsequent argument, another question remained: Is the history, contained in these

authentic writings, credible? In answer to this, we assumed that the credibility of the gospel history is to be ascertained precisely like that of any other history. It appeared that, in questions of this kind, the two great points to be proved are, a competency of knowledge, and trustworthy honesty, on the part of the historian; did he know enough to write a true account, and was he too honest to write any other account than such as he believed to be true? These points established, the credibility of the history is settled. The first was easily determined by the consideration that the amount of knowledge required for the writing of the gospel history was by no means great; that the narrative is extremely simple and unambitious; and that those who penned it were personal companions of Christ, and eye-witnesses of almost all they related. In reference to the second point to be made out, we took the position that there is abundant evidence that the writers of the gospel history were too honest to relate any thing but what they believed to be truth. Taking the history as written by St. John for a specimen, we discovered a strong internal evidence of the honesty of the writer in the fact that it is in a high degree circumstantial; and another, in the incidental characteristic of the writer, that he takes no pains to convince us of his honesty, and makes no parade about it, as if it were possible to be suspected; and another, in the circumstance, that while he could not have been ignorant that he was relating many extraordinary and wonderful events, he betrays no appearance of wonder in himself, nor any expectation of wonder from his readers, thus evincing that he was conscious of narrating events of universal notoriety. In addition to these striking imprints of honesty; we perceived another, in the minute accuracy which distinguishes all the allusions of this narrative to the manners, customs, opinions, political events, and circumstances of the times.

Having thus exhibited satisfactory evidence of the honesty of one of the writers of the gospel narrative; we produced seven other writers, each entirely independent of the rest, and

possessing all the internal marks of honesty discovered in St. John; all concurring in their statements so entirely that no contradiction can be detected; and yet with so much incidental variety, that the suspicion of a concerted scheme for mutual support is as unreasonable as if they had lived in different centuries. The fact that they were heartily interested in the gospel; that they so firmly believed what they wrote, as to have lived in zealous devotion to Christ, even to the sacrifice of life, was shown to be the strongest confirmation, instead of the least abridgement, of their united testimony. In their co-operating evidence, we have a proof of the honesty of each writer, and of the credibility of the whole body of facts contained in their pages, such as no history of any individual of the world can equal. Four histories, written by persons contemporaneous with the subject, are only found in the case before us. When it is considered that the authors were not only contemporaries but companions of the personage whose history is given; their mutual support and internal evidences of honesty afford a body of proof which, were their narratives untrue, would be morally impossible.

Here, we might have left the question of credibility. But we proceeded to show, that to suppose these writers to have published what they did not believe, is to suppose that they acted not only without any conceivable motive, but in direct opposition to all the motives by which the minds of men are ever influenced. And finally, it was made to appear that the gospel history has in its support, not only all the tes. timony that could fairly have been expected from its enemies all of them yielding at least the evidence of silence, when, had they been able, they would assuredly have published a denial; but much stronger testimony than could fairly have been expected from enemies, since several of their most hostile writers positively acknowledge all the facts that are necessary to establish the divine authority of Jesus. But this was not our highest reach of testimony. We found a great cloud of witnesses to the truth of this history in the multi

tudes converted to the gospel under the preaching of the apostles: witnesses who have this peculiar excellence, that, from having once been enemies, they became devoted friends, by the mere force of their conviction of the facts in question. The whole argument for credibility was finished by showing, from the very nature and circumstances of the history, that had it not been true, its currency for a single year would have been quite as miraculous, and more unaccountable, than any thing related therein.

Having thus cleared our way to the New Testament, by ascertaining the authenticity of its books, and the credibility of its history; we were prepared to open the volume, and investigate its contents. It professes to contain a revelation from God, communicated to mankind by the Lord Jesus and his apostles, as invested with a divine commission for this very purpose. We asked for their credentials. They referred us to their miraculous works. The appeal was confessedly fair. Miracles perfectly proved, are perfect evidence of divine attestation. But, before proceeding to a direct investigation of the testimony in favour of the miracles of the gospel, we found it necessary, on account of the desperate efforts which enemies of christianity have made to escape this argument, to illustrate the following preliminary truths: that there is nothing unreasonable or improbable in the idea of a miracle in proof of divine revelation; that the miracles wrought for this purpose, in the first century, can be rendered credible to us of the nineteenth, by no other evidence than that of testimony; that such evidence is perfectly sufficient to prove a miracle; that the testimony to the gospel miracles has suffered no diminution of force by increase of age; and that we, who are restricted to such means of conviction, are situated in regard to our state of probation and moral discipline, more consistently than if we had been present when the miracles were wrought, and could have proved their reality by the test of our senses.

From these important propositions, we proceeded to the

« הקודםהמשך »