which, bearing a common appellation, confound at first sight the most tenacious recollection, and yet are found to be always correctly alluded to. The usages of the Jews, their divisions into sects, their popular opinions, are all described or referred to with the ease of things perfectly familiar. The different high-priests, the various Roman governors, the Herods, the geographical position of different places in Palestine, are minutely, and, as we should say, speaking of other books, unnecessarily brought in. The accuracy of all these can only be accounted for by one supposition-the truth of the story. Fictitious works never descend into such particulars.* Manetho's account of the Egyptian dynasties is vague and general whilst Thucydides' and Cæsar's authentic histories of the wars of which they were eye-witnesses, abound in circumstances of time, person, place. The circumstantiality of the New Testament proclaims its authenticity; and when connected with the single fact, that the whole scene was swept away before the middle of the first century, makes that authenticity certain and palpable.

Further, notwithstanding all this copiousness of allusion, the sacred writers agree with each other. Eight authors, composing twenty-seven works, during an interval of sixty years, with no appearance of concert or symptom of artificial method; but, on the contrary, with a thousand seeming disagreements, and many actual obscurities in point of arrangement and order-writing also on every kind of topic connected with the religion they promulgated, and addressing different churches on different points of doctrine and practice -I say, the substantial harmony of these writings stamps upon them an authenticity which nothing can impeach. A thousand undesigned coincidences have been pointed out between the Gospels, the Acts, and Epistles,† too slight in themselves to have been concerted, and yet, when brought out, flashing conviction upon every mind. During the space of eighteen centuries, not one contradiction has been established

* The French author, to whom I referred in my last Lecture, gives an example of a work which professed to be the production of the age of Louis XIV.-merely one hundred years since the spuriousness of which was detected by the want of circumstantiality, of minuteness of reference and naturalness of remark in the narrative.-Penseés Judic. ut supra.

+ By Dr. Paley in his Hore Pauline, and lately by Mr. Blunt in his Veracity of the Gospels.

against our sacred books; and for this plain reason—they are the genuine production of the inspired writers.

The confirmation of the chief facts recorded in the New Testament, by heathen and Jewish authors, is a further evidence of authenticity. Every thing that admits of being proved by the writings of contemporary historians-by Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, &c., as we shall see more fully in the next discourse is so proved. The substratum of the gospel history is found in the writings of the most bitter adversaries.

Again, the openness and simplicity of the whole manner and cast of the New Testament writings confirm the argument of authenticity. A fraudulent composition may always be detected, in one part or other, by artificial attempts to hide some things and display others, according as a human and debased prudence dictates. Commendations are dealt outirritation and prejudice appear-apologies are made-effect is studied the passions of men and the opinions of the times are consulted-curiosity is gratified at one time, national pride at another. Now the divine scriptures stand free from all this. Their simplicity and naturalness are inimitable. The New Testament has the frankness and straight-forwardness of an honest witness in a court of justice, who carries on his countenance and in all his expressions the credentials of truth. Our sacred writers let every thing speak for itself. They conceal nothing; they make no apologies; they consult no popular prepossessions; they hide no faults in their own conduct; they bestow no commendation; they utter no expressions of wonder; they flatter no one. They speak with the candor and openness of persons perfectly familiar with the truth of all they narrate, and who know they are addressing contemporaries as familiar with the facts as themselves. There is not a chapter read in our churches which should not strike every pious hearer as incapable of being an invention.

In short, it is not too much to say, that such is the style and manner of our divine books, as to evince their authenticity, independently of that mass of direct historical testimony which is increasing in every age.

For this is a further argument.

VIII. The Unexpected coNFIRMATIONS Which have arisen in different ages, and from the most opposite quarters, to the authenticity of the New Testament.

About the close of the sixteenth century, the then bishop of Antioch sent over to Europe a Syriac version of the New Testament, in the language of the inhabitants of Palestine, where the Christian religion was first propagated. The work, previously, was utterly unknown in Europe. It was found upon examination to be a manuscript, probably of the second century. It agrees entirely with our canon so far as it extends; for it contains twenty-four books, only wanting the second and third of St. John and the Revelation. This striking and unlooked-for confirmation of the authenticity of the New Testament, received additional importance by a copy of the same Syriac version brought over from Syria by Dr. Claudius Buchanan in 1806, and presented to the university of Cambridge. The manuscript is supposed to be of the seventh century, and contains twenty-six books, all except the Revelation.* The sections of each book, and sometimes the words, are numbered.† The addition of two books in this copy, and the marks of extreme care in the transcription, give a considerable value to this discovery in itself, besides that derived from its falling in with the previous copy of the second century. Both concur in supporting our authentic books.

Again, our Sir Thomas Rowe, in the year 1628, brought over a manuscript of part of the sacred Bible, as a present to King Charles the first, from Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople. It is called the Codex Alexandrinus, because he had brought it from Alexandria, and it is now in the British Museum. Dr. Woide, who published a fac-simile of the New Testament, in 1786, considers it of the date of about A. D. 370. It agrees with our books.

Once more. In 1817, M. Angelo Mai, whom we have already mentioned, discovered, in the library of St. Ambrose, a part of the hitherto unknown, Mæso-Gothic Version of the New Testament, made by Ulphilas, the bishop of the Mæso

*

See Dr. Yeates's interesting account of this MS.

↑ The Title to St. John's Gospel is, "The Holy Gospel preached by John the Apostle." The Subscript, "Here endeth the holy Gospel preached by the Apostle John; preached at Ephesus. Its words are 1938." At the close of the four Gospels is the General Subscript, "Here end, by the aid of divine grace, the books of the holy Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All the words according to their letters, are 9937." At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews is a second Subscript, "Here endeth the writings of the fourteen Epistles of the blessed Paul, the holy Apostle and wise master-builder of the Church of Christ."

Goths, in the year 370. We had previously only some considerable portions of the four gospels, and fragments of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Two MS. copies of the thirteen Epistles are now found, and some parts of the Old Testament; which last are the more valuable, because not the smallest portion of the Old Testament was known to be in existence, and they contain fragments of the books of Kings, which refute the tale of Gibbon, repeated after Philostorgius the Arian,* * "that Ulphilas had prudently suppressed the four books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of his countrymen." It is thus that the scoffs and blunders of the unbeliever are from time to time exposed by facts.

an

I come now to a most curious and important discovery. Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) speaking of the writings of the " cient ecclesiastical men," says: "There is also come to our hands a dialogue, a disputation of Caius, held at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, (A. D. 195–214,) with Proclus, a patron of the Cataphrygian heresy, in which he reproves the rashness and audacity of his adversary, in composing new writings or scriptures, and makes mention of only thirteen Epistles of the holy apostle, not reckoning that of the Hebrews." St. Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, refers to the same work, and says, it was a very celebrated disputation.

After citing this passage of Eusebius, Dr. Lardner expresses his deep regret that Eusebius had not given us the catalogue itself; our first complete one being that of Athanasius, 120 or 130 years later.

Now it is remarkable, that in the year 1740, more than fifteen centuries after the time of Caius, a fragment, which is most probably a part of the lost dialogue—and, if not, is clearly of the same age-was discovered by Muratori, in a MS. volume in the Ambrosian library at Milan, written in the eighth century. The present learned president of Magdalen College, Oxford, has published a critical edition of the fragment. It was probably written towards the close of the second century, if not earlier. It contains not merely a distinct reference to certain books of the New Testament by name, but a formal catalogue of those sacred writings, with

* Gibbon, vi. 269. Lardner, in loc. Horne.

† Dr. Martin Routh, in his Reliquiæ Sacræ, Oxon. 1814, vol. ii. 1— 32. and vol. iv. 1-37. He has completed what Muratori, Gallandius, Stoschius, Keilius, Mosheim and Freindaller had begun.

observations on the circumstances connected with them. It makes a marked distinction also between them and ecclesiastical and apocryphal books. The language is striking: "It is not fit that gall should be mingled with honey." In a fragment it is impossible to determine what books might be enumerated in the lost parts; but it actually contains a list of twenty-two books of our canon.

As the fragment is exquisite, and has never, I believe, appeared in our language, I shall be excused if I attempt a translation, so far as the imperfect state of the reading will allow. It begins of course abruptly.

"At which, however, he was present, and thus he described things. In the third place, is the book of the gospel according to St. Luke. Luke, the physician, wrote it in due order, in his own name, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him, as one also studious of truth. Yet neither did he see the Lord in the flesh; but as he had a perfect knowledge of every thing, he begins to speak from the birth of John. In the fourth place, the gospel of John, one of the disciples. He, upon being urged to write it by the fellow-disciples and bishops, said to those around him, 'Fast with me now for three days, and what shall be revealed to each, let us communicate, that we may know whether the gospel shall be written or not.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write every thing in his own name, all the rest giving it their authority. And, therefore, although various points are taught in the several gospels, yet the faith of those who believe does not differ: since by one guiding and overruling Spirit, the same things are declared in all the books concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, the conversation of the Lord with his disciples, and his twofold advent; the first when he was despised in his humiliation, as it was foretold; the second, which is yet future, when he shall be glorious in royal power. What wonder, therefore, if John so confidently declares every thing in his epistles also, saying of himself, Those things which we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, have we written. For thus he professes himself, not only a beholder and hearer, but also a writer in due order, of all the wonderful things of the Lord.*

"But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in one book. Luke comprehends them in the work addressed to the excellent Theophilus, because every thing took place in his presence; as other accounts clearly declare the sufferings of Peter and the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain.†

*Thus we have the four Gospels acknowledged as canonical.

The Acts of the Apostles are next admitted as canonical. The