mans, St Paul, amongst others, fends the following falutation: "Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobus, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them." Of HERMAS, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Chriftians as contemporary with St Paul, there is a book ftill remaining, the authenticity of which cannot be difputed. (See HERMAS, N° 1.) It is called the Shepherd, or Paftor of Hermas. Its antiquity is incontestable from the quotations of it in Irenæus, A. D. 178, Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, Tertullian, A. D. 200, Origen, A. D. 230. The notes of time extant in the epiftle itself agree with its title, and with the teftimonies concerning it, which intimate that it was written during the lifetime of Clement. In this piece are tacit allufions to St Matthew's, St Luke's, and St John's gofpels; that is to fay, there are applications of thoughts and expreffions found in thefe gofpels, without citing the place or writer from which they were taken. In this form appear in Hermas the confeffing and denying of Chrift; the parable of the feed fown; the comparison of Chrift's difciples to little children; the faying," he that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery;" the fingular expreffion," having received all power from his Father," is probably an allufion to Matthew xxviii. 18. and Chrift being the gate, or only way of coming" to God," is a plain allufion to John xiv. 6. x. 7, 9. There is also a probable allufion to Acta v. 32. The Shepherd of Hermas has been confidered as a fanciful performance. This, however, is of no importance in the prefent cafe. We only adduce it as an evidence, that the books to which it frequently alludes exifted in the firft century; and for this purpose it is fatisfactory, as its authenticity has never been queftioned. A. D. 96, we have an epiftle written by CLE. MENT, the 4th bishop of Rome, whom ancient writers, without any doubt, affert to have been the Clement whom St Paul mentions, Philip. iv. 3." with Clement alfo, and other my fellow labourers, whofe names are in the book of life." This epiftle is fpoken of by the ancients as an epiftle acknowledged by all; and, as Irenæus well reprefents its value, "written by Clement, who had feen the bleffed apoftles and converfed with them, who had the preaching of the apostles ftill founding in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes." It is addreffed to the church of Corinth; and what alone may feem a decifive proof of its authenticity, Dionysus bishop of Corinth, about the year 170, i. e. about 80 or 90 years after the epiftle was written, bears witnefs, "that it had been ufually read in that church from ancient times." This epiftle affords, amongst others, the following valuable paffages: "Efpecially remembering the words of the Lord Jefus, which he fpake, teaching gentleness and long fuffering" for thus he faid, "Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven unto you," &c. Again, "Remember the words of the Lord Jefus, for he faid, Wo to that man by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not been born," &c. He afcribes the firft epiftle to the Corinthians to Paul, and makes fuch allufion to the following books, as is fufficient to fhew that he had feen and read them: Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephefians, Philippians, Coloffians, Theffalo nians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2. Peter. It may be faid, as Clement has not mentioned the books by name from which we affert these allufions or references are made, it is uncertain whether he refers to any books, or whether he received thefe expreffions from the difcourfes and converfation of the apoftles. Mr Paley has given a very fatisfactory answer to this objection: ift, That Clement, in the very fame manner, namely, without any mark of reference, ufes a paffage now found in the epiftle to the Romans, (chap. i. 29.;) which paffage, from the peculiarity of the words that compofe it, and from their order, it is manifeft that he muft have taken from the epistle. 2dly, That there are many fentences of St Paul's first epiftle to the Corinthians to be found in Clement's epiftle, without any fign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had St Paul's epiftle before him; for in one place he mentions it in terms too exprefs to leave us in any doubt. "Take into your hands the epiftle of the bleffed apoftle Paul" 3dly, That this method of adopting words of fcripture, without reference or acknowledgment, was a method in general use amongst the moft ancient Chriftian writers. St Paul, himself quotes the heathen poet, ARATUS, without naming him. (See ARATUS, N° 1.) These analogies not only repel the objection, but caft the prefumption on the other fide; and afford a confiderable degree of pofitive proof, that the words in queftion have been borrowed from the places of fcripture in which we now find them. But take it the other way, that Clement had heard these words from the apoftles or firft teachers of Chriftianity; with refpect to the precise point of our argument, viz. that the fcriptures contain what the apoftles taught, this fuppofition may serve almoft as well. 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 concife as poffible, that its force might be difcerned at a glance. The evidence which has been stated is of two kinds. Till the time of Juftin Martyr and Irenæus, it confifts chiefly of allufions, references, and expreffions, borrowed from the books of the New Teftament, without mentioning them by name. After the time of Irenæus it became ufual to cite the facred books, and mention the authors from which the citations were taken. The only point of importance to be determined is, whether these references are a fufficient proof of the exiftence of the books to which they allude? This, we prefume, will not be denied, especially in the prefent age, when it is fo common to charge an author with plagiarism if he happen to fall upon the fame train of ideas, or exprefs himself in a fimilar manner with authors who have written before him. We may farther affirm, that thefe tacit references afford a complete proof, that thofe ancient writers had no intention of impofing a forgery upon the world. They prove the exiftence of the Christian religion, and and of the apoftolical writings, without fhowing any fufpicious earneftnefs that men should believe them. Had thefe books been forged, thofe who wished to pass them upon the world would have been at more pains than the firft Chriftians were to prove their authenticity. They acted the part of honeft men; they believed them themfelves, and they never imagined that others would fufpect their truth. It is a confideration of great importance, in reviewing the evidence which has been now ftated, that the witneffes lived in different countries; Clemens flourished at Rome, Polycarp at Smyrna, Juftin Martyr in Syria, Irenæus in France, Tertullian at Carthage, Origen at Alexandria, and Eufebius at Cæfarea. This proves that the books of the New Teftament were equally well known in diftant countries by men who had no intercourfe with one another. The fame thing is proved by teftimonies, if poffible, lefs exceptionable. The ancient heretics, whofe opinions were fometimes groffer and more impious than those which any modern fectary has ventured to broach, and whofe zeal in the propagation of them equalled that of the moft flaming enthufiaft of the 17th century, never called in queftion the authenticity of the books of the New Teftament. When they met with any paffage in the gofpels or epiftles which they could not reconcile to their own heretical notions, they either erafed it, or denied that the author was infpired; but they nowhere contend that the book in which it ftood was not written by the apoftle or evange⚫ lift whofe name it bore. Eufebius relates, that the Ebionites rejected all the Epiftles of Paul, and called him an apoftate, 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 gofpel according to Matthew was then publifhed, and that St Paul's epiftles were then known. Of the heretics who erased or altered paffages to make the Scriptures agree with their doctrines, we may produce MARCION as an inftance, who lived in the beginning of the ad century. He lived in an age when he could have eafily difcovered if the writings of the New Teftament had been forged; and as he was much incenfed against the orthodox party, if fuch a forgery had been committed, unquestionably he would not have failed to make the difcovery, as it would have afforded the moft ample means of revenge and triumph, and enabled him to establish his own opinions with lefs difficulty. But his whole conduct shows clearly, that he believed the writings of the New Teftament to be authentic. He faid that the gofpel according to St Matthew, the epiftle to the Hebrews, with thofe of St Peter and St James, as well as the Old Teftament in general, were writings not for Chriftians but for Jews. He publifhed a new edition of the gofpel according to Luke, and the firft ten epiftles of Paul; in which it has been affirmed by Epiphanius, that he altered every paffage that contradicted his own' opinions: but as many of thefe alterations are what modern critics call various readings, though we receive the teftimony of Epiphanius, we must not rely upon his opinion, Dr LOEFFER wrote a differtation vindicating Marcion from this charge. Hence it is evident that the books of the New Teftament above-mentioned did then exift, and were acknowledged to be the works of the authors whofe names they bear. Dr LARDNER, in his General Review, fums up this head of evidence in the following words; "Noetus, Paul of Samofata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatifts, Manicheans, Prifcillianifts, befide Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received moft or all the fame books of the New Teftament which the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them as written by apostles or their difciples and companions." CELSUS and PORPHYRY, both enemies of the Chriftian religion, are powerful witnesses for the antiquity of the New Teftament. Celfus, who lived towards the end of the ad century, not only mentions by name, but quotes paffages from the books of the New Teftament: and that the books to which he refers were no other than our prefent gofpels, is evident from the allufions to various paffages ftill found in them. Celfus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two of these gof. pels; of the precepts, Refift not him that injures you, and, If a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other alfo; of the woes denounced by Chrift; of his predictions; of his faying that it is impoffible to ferve two mafters; of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed which was put into the hand of Jefus; of the blood that flowed from his body upon the crofs, a circumftance which is recorded only by John; and (what is inflar omnium for the purpose for which we produce it) of the difference in the accounts given of the refurrection by the evangelifts, fome mention. ing two angels at the fepulchre, others only one. It is extremely material to remark, that Celfus not only perpetually referred to the accounts of Chrift contained in the four gofpels, but that he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of his objections to Chriftianity upon any thing delivered in fpurious gofpels. has The teftimony of PORPHYRY is ftill more important than that of Celfus. (See PORPHYRIUS.] He was born in 233, and died in 304, aged 71. Unfortunately for the prefent age, fays MICHAELIS, the mistaken zeal of the Chriftian emperors 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 refcue thole of Porphyry from the flames. But Mr MARSH, the learned and judicious translator of Michaelis, relates, that, according to the accounts of Ifaac Voffius, a MS. of the works of Porphyry, is preferved in the Medicean library at Florence, but kept fo fecret that no one is permitted to fee it. It is univerfally allowed, that Porphyry is the moft fenfible, as well as the most severe adverfary of the Chriftian religion that antiquity can produce. He was verfed not only in hiftory, but also in philofophy and politics. His acquaintance with the Chriftians was not confined to a fingle country; for he had converfed with them in Tyre, in Sicily, and in Rome. Enabled by his birth to study the Syriac as well as the Greek authots, he was of all the adverfaries to the Chriftian religion the beft qualified to inquire into the authenticity of the facred writings. He poffeffed therefore every advantage which natural abilities or a scientific education could afford, to difcover whether the New Teftament was a genuine work of the apoftles and evangelifts, or whether it was impofed upon the world after the deceafe of its pretended authors. But no trace of this fufpicion is anywhere to be found in his writings. In the fragments which fill remain, mention is made of the gofpels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St John, the Acts of the Apoftles, and the epiftle to the Galatians; and it clearly appears, from the very objections of Porphyry, that the books to which he alludes were the fame which we poffefs at prefent. 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 Ifaiah, which is found in a pfalm afcribed to Afaph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a fea; to the expreffion in St Matthew, "the abomination of defolation;" to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text "the voice of one crying in the wilderness," Matthew citing it from Ifaias, Mark from the prophets; to John's application of the term Word; to Chrift's change of intention about going up to the feaft of tabernacles (John vii. 8.); to the judgment denounced by St Peter upon Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death. The inftances here alleged ferve in fome meafure to fhow the nature of Porphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the gospels, with that fort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them as the depofitories of the religion which he attacked. Befides thefe fpecifications, there exifts in the writings of ancient Chriftians general evidence, that the places of Scripture, upon which Porphyry had made remarks, were very numerous. The internal evidence to prove the authenticity of the new Teftament confifts of two parts: The nature of the ftyle, and the coincidence of the New Teftament with the hiftory of the times. 1. The STYLE of the New Teftament is fingular, and differs very widely from the flyle of claffical authors. It is full of Hebraifms and Syriafms; a circumftance which pious ignorance has confidered as a fault, and which, even fo late as the prefent century, it has attempted to remove; not knowing that thefe very deviations from Grecian purity afford the ftrengeft prefumption in its favour; for they prove, that the New Tefiament was written by men of Hebrew origin, and is therefore a production of the first century. After the death of the first Jewish converts, few of the Jews turned preachers of the gofpel; the Chriftians were generally ignorant of the Hebrew, and confequently could not write in the ftyle of the New Teftament. After the deftruction of Jerufalem and the difperfion of the Jews, their language must have been blended with that of other nations, and their vernacular phrafcology almost entirely loft. The language of the early fathers, though not always the pureft claffic Greek, has no refemblance to that of the New Teftament, not even excepting the works of the few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew; as Origen, Epiphanius, and Juftin Mar VOL. XX. PART. I. tyr, who being a native of Palestine, might have written in a flyle fimilar to that of the New Teftament, had fuch a ftyle then prevailed. He that fufpects the New Teftament to be the forgery of a more recent period, ought to produce fome perfon who has employed a fimilar diction; but thofe who are converfant with eaftern writings know well, that a foreigner who has not been inured to eaftern manners and modes of thinking from his infancy, can never imitate with fuccefs the orien tal ftyle, much lefs forge a hiftory or an epiftie, which contains a thousand incidental allufions, which nothing but truth could fuggeft. To imi tate clofely the ftyle of the New Teftament is even more difficult than to imitate that of any other oriental book; for there is not a fingle author, even among the Jews themfelves, face the deftruction of Jerufalem, that has compofed in a ftyle in the leaft degree like it. The style of Clemens Romanus may perhaps be an exception. By many eminent critics it has been thought fo like to that of the epiftle to the Hebrews, as to give room for the opinion that Clement either was the author of that epiftle, or was the perfon who tranflated it from the Syro-Chaldaic language, in which it was originally compofed. To a But though the books of the New Teftament bear fo close a refemblance in idiom, there is a diverfity of ftyle which shows them to be the work of different perfons. Whoever reads with attention the epiftles of Paul, muft be convinced that they were all written by the fame author. An equal degree of fimilarity is to be found between the gospel and 1ft epistle of John. The writings of St John and St Paul exhibit marks of an origi nal genius which no imitation can ever attain. The character of PAUL as a writer is drawn with great judgment by MICHAELIS: "His mind overflows with fentiment, yet he never lofes fight of his principal object, but, hurried on by the rapidity of thought, difclofes frequently in the middle a conclufion to be made only at the end. profound knowledge of the Old Teftament he joins the acutenefs of philofophical wifdom, which he difplays in applying and expounding the facred writings; and his explanations are therefore fome. times fo new and unexpected, that fuperficial obfervers might be tempted to fuppofe them erroneous. The fire of his genius, and his inattention to ftyle, occafion frequently a twofold obfcurity, he being often too concife to be understood except by thofe to whom he immediately wrote, and not feldom on the other hand fo full of his fubject, as to produce long and difficult parentheses, and a repetition of the fame word even in different fenfes. With a talent for irony and fatire, he unites the moft refined fenfibility, and tempers the feverity of his cenfures by expreffions of tenderness and affection; nor does he ever forget in the vehemence of his zeal the rules of modefty and decorum. He is a writer, in fhort, of fo fingular and wonderful a compofition, that it would be difficult to find a rival. That truly fenfible and fagacious philofopher Locke was of the fame opinion, and contended that St Paul was without an equal." 2. Poems have been forged and afcribed to former ages with fome fuccefs. Philofophical treatifes might be invented which it would be difficult to No detect; detect; but there is not a fingle inftance on record where an attempt has been made to forge a HrsTORY or a long epiftle, where the fraud has not been either fully proved, or rendered fo fufpicious that few are weak enough to believe it. Whoever attempts to forge a history or an epifle in the name of an ancient author, will be in great danger of contradicting the hiftory or the manners of that age, especially if he relate events which are not mentioned in general hiftory, but fuch as refer to a fingle city, fect, religion, or fchool. The difficulty of forging fuch hiftories as the gofpels, and fuch epiftles as thofe of Paul, cannot be overcome by all the genius, learning, and induftry, of any individual or fociety of men that ever lived. They contain a purer fyftem of ethics than all the ancient philofophers could invent: They difcover a candour and modefty unexampled: They exhibit an originality in the character of JESUS, and yet fuch a confiftency, as the imagination of our beft poets has never reached. Now it is a very remarkable circumftance, that hiftories written by four different men fhould preferve fuch dignity and confiftency, though frequently relating diffe. ren actions of Jefus, and defcending to the most minute circumftances in his life. The fcene of action is too extenfive, and the agreement of facts with the ftate of the times as reprefented by other hiftorians is too clofe, to admit the poffibility of forgery. The scene of action is not confined to one country, it is fucceffively laid in the greateft cities of the Roman empire; in Rome, in Antioch, in Corinth, in Athens, as well as in Jerufalem and the land of Paleftine. Innumerable allufions are made to the manners and opinions of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews; and refpecting the Jews, they extend even to the trifles and follies of their fchools. Yet after the ftricteft examination, the New Teftament will be found to have a wonder ful coincidence and harmony with Jofephus, the principal hiftorian of thefe times, and an enemy of Christianity. It has been a queftion who the foldiers were, who are faid in the gofpel of Luke to have addreffed John the Baptift in thefe words, What shall we do? An anfwer to this queftion may be found in Jofephus. (Antiq. lib. 58. c. 5. § 1, 2.). Herod the tetrarch of Galilee was engaged a war with his father-in-law Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petræa, at the very time that John was preaching in the wilderness; and the road from Galilee to Arabia running through that wilderness, the foldiers on their march had this interview with the Baptift. A coincidence like this, which has been overlooked by all the commentators, would not probably be attended to in a forgery. Another inftance of an agreement no lefs remarkable we fhall quote from the valuable work of Michaelis. It has been a queftion of fome difficulty among the learned, who was the Ananias who commanded St Paul to be fmitten on the mouth when he was making his defence before, the council in Jerufalem. (Acts xxiii. 2-5.), Krebs, in his remarks taken from Jofephus, has hown him to have been the fon of Nebedeni. But if fo, how can it be reconciled with chronology, that Ananias was, at that time, called high prieft, when it is certain from Jofephus that the time of his holding that office was much earlier? And how comes it to pafs that St Paul fays, "I wift not, brethren, that he was the high prieft?" The facerdotal garb must have difcovered who be was; a jeft would have ill-fuited the gravity of a tribunal; and a falfehood is inconfiftent with the character of St Paul. All thefe difficulties vanil as foon as we examine the fpecial hiftory of that period: "Ananias the fon of Nebedeni was high prieft at the time that Helena queen of Adiabene fupplied the Jews with corn from Egypt, during the famine which took place in the 4th year of Claudius, mentioned in the 11th chapter of the Acts. St Paul, therefore, who took a journey to Jerufalem at that period, could not have been ig. norant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerufalem, Ananias was difpoffefled of his office, in confequence of certain acts of violence between the Samaritans and the Jews, and fent prifoner to Rome; but being afterwards released, he returned to Jerufalem. Now from that period he could not be called high priest in the proper fenfe of the word, though Jofephus has fometimes given him the title of aggius, taken in the more extenfive meaning of a prieft, who had a feat and voice in the Sanhedrim; and Jonathan, though we are not acquainted with the circum ftances of his elevation, had been raised in the mean time to the fupreme dignity in the Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the high priesthood of Ifmael, who was invefted with that dignity by Agrippa, elapfed an interval during which the facerdotal office was vacant. Now it happened precifely in this interval that St Paul was apprehended in Jerufalem; and, the Sanhe drim being deftitute of a prefident, he undertook of his own authority the difcharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest tyranny. It is poffible therefore that St Paul, who had been only a few days in Jerufalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been difpoffeffed of the priesthood, had taken upon himself a truft to which he was not entitled; he might therefore very naturally exclaim, I wift not, brethren, that he was the high prieft!' Admitting him on the other hand to have been acquainted with the fact, the expreffion must be confidered as an indirect reproof, and a tacit refufal to recognize ufurped authority." tween truth and falfehood, between a forgery and Could fuch a correfpondence as this fubfift be an authentic hiftory? or is it credible that there events could be related by any perfon but a con feeling contempt as well as deteftation at pious temporary? Impreffed with the love of truth, and frauds, we hesitate not to acknowledge, that in fome particular facts there is a difference either real or apparent between Jofephus and the writers of the New Teftament. from thefe differences are of two kinds: 1. Such The objections ariling as would prove a book not to have been written by the author to whom it is afcribed. 2. Such as would prove that the author was mistaken, and therefore not divinely inspired. To the firft clas belongs the following objection: St Paul, fays (2 Cor. (1 Cor. xi. 31.) that the governor of Damafcus was under Aretas the king; but if we are to judge from the 18th book of the Jewish Antiquities, which correfponds with the period of St Paul's journey to Damafcus, this city muft have belong ed at that time to the Romans; and what autho. rity could Aretas, a petty king in Arabia Petræa, have in fuch a city? In answer to this question, J.G. Hyne, in a differtation publifhed 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 féizing Damafcus, which had once belonged to his ancestors; an event' omitted by Jofephus, as forming no part of the Jewish history, and by the Roman hiftorians, as being a matter not flattering in itself, and belonging only to a diftant province. 2dly, That Aretas was by religion a Jew; a circumstance the more credible, when we reflect that Judaffm had been widely propagated in that country, and that éven kings in Arabia Felix had recognized the law of Mofes, The difficulty then is fo far removed, that it ceases to create fufpicion against an epiftle which has fo many evident marks of authenticity; and it is only to be regretted, that, in order to place the fubject in the cleareft point of view, we are not fufficiently acquainted with the particular hiftory of Damafcus. Examples of the 2d kind, are fuch as, if allow ed their full force, might indeed prove a writer not divinely inspired, but could afford no reafon to conclude that he was not the author of the writings which bear his name, fince miftakes may be committed by the most accurate hiftorian The chief difficulties of this nature are found in the gospel according to St Luke, and do not ap ply to the writings of Matthew, John, Paul, and Petery Laying afide the idea of infpiration alto gether, let us inquire whether Luke or Jofephus be most entitled to credit in those paffages where they differ; which of them is most accurate, and which of them had the beft opportunities of exploring the truth of the facts which they relate. Now Jofephus relates the fame ftory differently in different parts of his works, and is fometimes equally mistaken in them all. We do not recol let to have feen fuch inconfiftencies in the writings of St Luke. Luke knew the characters, and witneffed many of the facts, of which he fpeaks, and he could receive the beft information refpect ing thofe facts which were tranfacted in his abfence. Jofephus was born A. D. 37. fome years after our Saviour's afcenfion. Now it is a very important obfervation of Michaelis, that the period of hiftory with which mankind are leaft acquainted, is that which includes the time of their childhood and youth, together with the 20 or 30 years immediately preceding their birth. Concerning the affairs tranfacted during that period, we are much more liable to fall into miftakes than concerning thofe of a remoter age. The reafon is, that authentic hiftory never comes down to the period of our birth; our knowledge of the period immediately preceding depends on hearfay; and the events, which pafs within the first 18 or 20 years of our lives, we are too young and heedlefs to obferve with attention. This muft have been more remarkably the cafe in the time of Jofephus than at prefent, when there were neither daily papers nor periodical journals to supply the want of regular annals. There was no historian from whom Jofephus 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 enquiry, he was exposed to error. When we find, therefore, the relations of Luke and Jofephus fo different as not to be reconciled, it would be very unfair to determine, without any further inquiry, in favour of Jofephus. Let their cha racter, works, and fituation, be ftrictly examined; let their teftimony be duly weighed and compared; and then let the preference be given to that author who, according to the ftricteft rules of equity and juftice, feems entitled to the highest degree of credit. The decifion of a jury, we shall venture to fay, would in every inftance turn out in favour of Luke. SECT. VI. Of the INSPIRATION of the SCRIP TURES of the NEW TESTAMENT. HAVING thus afcertained the authenticity of the books of the New Teftament, the next thing to be confidered is their infpiration. It is certainly of fome importance to know, how far the apoftles and evangelifts 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 afferts, that the divinity of the New Teftament may be proved whether we can evince it to be written by immediate inspiration or not. "The queftion (fays he), whether the books of the New Teftament are infpired? is not fo important as the queftion, whether they are gentine? The truth of our religion depends upon the latter, not abfolutely on the former. Had the Deity infpired not a fingle book of the New Teftament, 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 poffeffed of a fufficient degree of credibility, the Christian religion would still be well founded. The miracles by which it is confirmed would equally demonftrate its truth, even if the perfons who attefted them were not infpired, but fimply human witnesses; and their divine authority is never prefuppofed, when we difcufs the queftion of miracles, but merely their credibility as human evidence. the miracles are true which the evangelifts relate, the doctrines of Chrift recorded in the gofpels, are proved to be the infallible oracles of God; and even if we admit the apoftles to be mistaken in certain not effential circumftances, yet as the main points of the religion which Chrift commiffioned them to preach are fo frequently repeated, their epiftles would inftruct us as well in the tenets of the Chriftian fyftem, as the works of Maclaurin in the philofophy of Newton. It is poffible therefore to doubt, and even to deny, the infpiration of the New Teftament, and yet be fully perfuaded of the truth of the Chriftian religion; and many really entertain these fentiments either publicly or No 2 If in |