many for the last fifty years have defended, or at least adinitted it? But what is still more, can one believe that such a theory should have been strenuously advocated in England, by no less a person than the translator of Michaelis, the present Lord Bishop of Peterborough? Yet such is the case. In whatever way we may account for it, we cannot doubt of the facts themselves. Writers of the graver cast, and such as do not mean to consider themselves as attached to Neology, have often admitted and built upon this theory. Thus we find Kuinoel, every where in his Commentary on the first three Gospels, appealing to the Protevangelium for the solution of difficulties and the explanation of apparent contrarieties.

Mr. Norton has judiciously reserved the discussion of this subject for the Notes subjoined to his work. He has done the same, in regard to several apocryphal Gospels which Eichhorn appeals to, as having existed antecedently to our present Gospels, and sprung from the same Protevangelium. I shall therefore dismiss the subject of them for the present, intending to resume it in the sequel, when I come to speak of the Notes in question. I would merely suggest here, with Mr. Norton (p. 94), that the whole theory rests, and must rest, upon mere presumption; for no Original Gospel, such as it assumes, was ever heard or spoken of, so far as we have any knowledge of Christian antiquity, among the churches of the primitive or early ages. But a mere presumption can not, on any proper grounds of estimating evidence, be admitted to outweigh the positive and abundant testimony to the genuineness of the present Gospels, which has been produced.

That the reader may see to what shifts the defenders of these multiplex Gospels are driven, I will produce a passage from our author in which this matter is briefly stated, and briefly, but conclusively, discussed.

It has been affirmed by Eichhorn, as a general truth, that "before the invention of printing, in transcribing a manuscript, the most arbitrary alterations were considered as allowable; since they affected only an article of private property, written for one's individual use." This statement, which, if correct, would destroy the credit of all ancient writings, seems to have been made through inadvertence; and therefore, though apparently a principal argument in defence of the supposed corruption of the Gospels, cannot be regard ed as a proper subject for particular remark. It is important only as showing, that in attacking the genuineness of their text, one is un

consciously led to assume principles which would equally prove the corruption of all other ancient works; p. 100.

The remainder of the first chapter is employed in discussing some allegations of Celsus, of a slanderous nature, against the Gospels. The answer which Mr. Norton makes is able and satisfactory.

The summary with which this first part of Mr. Norton's book is conluded, should be here presented by way of brief recapitulation.

"It [the genuineness of the Gospels] appears from the essential agreement among the very numerous copies of these books, so diverse in their character, and in their mode of derivation from the original. This agreement among different copies could not have existed, unless some archetype had been faithfully followed and this archetype, it has been shown, could have been no other than the original text. It appears from the reverence in which the Gospels were held by the early Christians; and the deep sense which they had of the impropriety and guilt of making any alteration in those writings. It appears from the historical notices respecting their text, which are wholly inconsistent with the supposition of its having suffered essential corruptions. And, finally, it appears from the internal character of the books themselves, which show no marks of gross, intentional interpolation; but, on the contrary, exhibit a consistency of style and conception, irreconcilable with the supposition of it; pp. 107, seq.

Part II. presents us with the evidence that the Gospels have been ascribed to their true authors.

It is agreed on all hands, that at or near the close of the second century, the four Gospels were generally, or rather universally received in the church, with the exception of a party or parties of heretics. Mr. Norton therefore goes on to shew, that they were attributed to the then reputed authors during the time which preceded this, i. e. in the earliest ages of the church. This he does by appeal to all the leading early Christian writers; some of them within the second century, and some of them just beyond its termination.

His quotations from Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Celsus the opposer of Christianity (about 176), and Origen, shew, in a manner past all contradiction, what was thought, said, and written, respecting the authors of the four Gospels, within the period of 160-230 or 240. Earlier evidence is produced in the sequel.

In the selection of his testimony, Mr. Norton is careful and judicious. He does not, like even Lardner, bring in every thing which he can find; but he appeals to a few direct, plain, unequivocal passages in each writer, which can leave no possible doubt on the mind what that writer's sentiments were respecting the point in question.

Would that many writers understood the business of selecting evidence much better than they appear to do! They are not contented with the principle, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established,' but they must have as many as they can summon, and of all sorts of character. Especially is this true of the appeals made to the Bible in defence of some particular doctrines. The texts that have once been adduced as evidence, no matter how unskilfully or how inconsistently with exegetical principles, are not to be given up, but always to be brought forward in a contest. Numbers seem to be regarded as more formidable than the kind of weapons, or Iskill to wield them. And all who from conscientious motives feel bound to refrain from going to such an extent in the quotation of testimonies, are regarded as secretly cherishing some heretical doubts or difficulties.

I can scarcely imagine any thing better adapted to revolt the mind of a simple and candid inquirer, than such a method of accumulating testimony. Nor can I conceive how any thing could be better adapted to gratify a wary opponent. If an advocate at the bar should summon twenty or thirty witnesses to prove the signing of a deed, or of a note of hand, or to establish almost any other fact, would not the very fact of summoning so many, strike the jury with suspicion? And would not his antagonist advocate exult in the opportunity of cross-examining twenty or thirty witnesses, who would be sure, if adroitly managed, to produce more or less of contradictions that would render the whole body of testimony suspicious?

Yet, plain as this matter seems to be, I am constrained to ask : When will it be understood, that a question in dispute is not to be decided by the number, but by the weight and quality, of the witnesses adduced? Mr. Norton, however, seems well to understand this matter, for he has conducted his investigations with due regard to it; and he has given much more weight to his book in consequence of so doing.

But it is not the testimony of the authors quoted, which is the only thing concerned with the question at issue. They

speak not merely for themselves, but for the whole body of Christians at their time. Mr. Norton has so fine a passage on this subject, that it must be presented to the reader.

In estimating the weight of evidence, which has thus far been adduced, for the genuineness of the Gospels, it is important to keep in mind, what has not always been sufficiently attended to; that it is not the testimony of certain individual writers alone, on which we rely, important as their testimony might be. These writers speak for a whole community, every member of which had the strongest reasons for ascertaining the correctness of his faith respecting the authenticity, and, consequently, the genuineness of the Gospels. We quote the Christian fathers, not chiefly to prove their individual belief; but in evidence of the belief of the community to which they belonged. It is not, therefore, the simple testimony of Irenaeus, and Theophilus, and Tertullian, and Clement, and Origen, which we bring forward; it is the testimony of thousands and tens of thousands of believers, many of whom were as well informed as they were, on this particular subject, and as capable of making a right judgment. All these believers were equally ready with the writers who have been quoted, to affirm the authority and genuineness of the Gospels. The most distinguished Christians of the age, men held in high esteem by their contemporaries and successors, assert that the Gospels were received as genuine throughout the community of which they were members, and for which they were writing. That the assertion was made by such men, under such circumstances, is sufficient evidence of its truth. But the proof of the general reception of the Gospels does not rest upon their assertions only, though these can not be doubted. It is necessarily implied in their statements and reasonings respecting their religion. It is impossible that they should have so abundantly quoted the Gospels, as conclusive authority for their own faith, and that of their fellow Christians, if these books had not been regarded by Christians as conclusive authority. We cannot infer more confidently from the sermons of Tillotson and Clarke, the estimation in which the Gospels were held in their day, than we may infer from the writers before mentioned, that they were held in similar estimation during the period when they lived; pp. 133 seq.

He then goes on to shew how different this testimony is from that which is exhibited respecting any other ancient books, where individuals spoke only their own personal conviction, and not the sentiments of a whole community; also that early Christians had abundant means of determining the question about the genuineness of the Gospels; that their moral and even literary character was much elevated above that of the

mass of the heathen around them, and therefore they were more capable than was ordinary of judging in the premises; while at the same time we have abundant evidence of their honesty and integrity. I would commend the whole of this excellent passage to the attentive perusal and consideration of every candid reader.

That early Christians did make inquiries respecting subjects of this nature, seems to be evident from the fact, that while all the spurious Gospels were rejected, the four canonical ones only were received. Nay, the matter of investigation went still further. Some of the books of the New Testament, viz. the second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, Jude, and in a certain sense the epistle to the Hebrews, and at a later period the Apocalypse, were called in question by more or less of the churches, and were reckoned by Eusebius among the ávτikeɣáμεvoi. While this fact does not decide against the genuineness or authenticity of these books, it still serves to shew that early Christians were not such stupid and passive recipients of any and all kinds of writings and reports, as many Neologists would seem to consider them. At any rate, the books about which there never seems to have been any dispute in the church catholic, give us a pure and adequate account of Christianity in its history and in its precepts. Not that others are superfluous; but what I mean is, that if the controverted books were even all laid aside, Christianity would still be in all substantial respects what it now is.

Mr. Norton, in order more effectually to remove all the difficulties and objections that lie in the way of the genuineness of the Gospels, has examined, in the next place, the theory which prevailed somewhat extensively before the time of Eichhorn, of the Gospels being derived from one another. Griesbach, for example, made a vigorous effort to shew, that Mark is the epitomator of Matthew and Luke; while others have supposed that Luke made use of Matthew's Gospel, or Matthew of Luke's, or that some one of the three Evangelists copied from both his predecessors. Notwithstanding all the learning and ingenuity which have been expended on this subject, the difficulties with which it is pressed are overpowering. All the evidence that one Evangelist copied another, or others, lies in the simple fact of similarity, and sometimes even sameness, of expression and design, in the different Gospels. But while this, as Mr. Norton has most ably and satisfactorily shewn in his