enemies with whom Christianity ever had to contend. Now testimony such as the above, to the facts recorded in the New Testament, would be strong proof of the truth of the Gospel, even if recorded by a friend to the cause, or, at least, if recorded by an indifferent writer. But when it comes from the pen of a professed enemy to our religion, who, as such, would have denied the facts, had there been any room for so doing, the force of it is almost irresistible. For Celsus never once hints, that the history itself is false, but endeavours from the facts themselves to disprove the credibility of the Gospel. And the value of this testimony is infinitely increased by taking into the account the time at which the writer lived, which was but little more than a century after the very period at which the events themselves happened. He had, therefore, ample means of satisfying himself of the truth of the facts on which he comments; and it is not easily credible, that he would have neglected those means, since the very circumstance alone of a falsity in the narrative would at once invalidate the testimony of the evangelists, and thus overthrow the religion which that testimony has established." It is also worthy of remark, that in no one instance throughout his memorable attack upon Christianity, did Celsus question the Gospels as books of history; on the contrary, he admitted most of the facts related in them; and he has borne testimony to the persecutions suffered by the Christians for their faith. He accuses the Christians of altering the Gospels, which refers to the alterations made by the Marcionites, Valentinians, and other heretics; and it is very material to remark, that this acute adversary of Christianity professed to draw his arguments from the writings received by its professors, especially the four Gospels, and that in no one instance did he derive any of bis objections from spurious writings.2 Is it in Greek, and afterwards translated into Hebrew. credible, then, that so sagacious an inquirer could have failed in discovering a forgery with respect to the New Testament, had a forgery existed-a discovery which would have given him the completest triumph, by striking at once a mortal blow at the religion which he attempted to destroy? So far, however, is this from being the case, that Porphyry not only did not deny the truth of the Gospel history, but actually considered the miracles of Jesus Christ as real facts. The writings of the ancient Christians, who answered his objections, likewise afford general evidence, that Porphyry made numerous observations on the Scriptures. 3. One hundred years after Porphyry, flourished the emperor JULIAN (A. D. 331-363), surnamed the Apostate, from his renunciation of Christianity after he mounted the imperial throne. Though he resorted to the most artful political means for undermining Christianity, yet, as a writer against it, he was every way inferior to Porphyry. From various extracts of his work against the Christians, transcribed by Jerome and Cyril, it is evident that he did not deny the truth of the Gospel history, as a history, though he denied the deity of Jesus Christ asserted in the writings of the evange lisis; he acknowledged the principal facts in the Gospels, as well as the miracles of our Saviour and his apostles. Referring to the difference between the genealogies recorded by Matthew and Luke, he noticed them by name, and recited the sayings of Christ in the very words of the evangelists: he also bore testimony to the Gospel of John being composed later than the other evangelists, and at a time when great numbers were converted to the Christian faith, both in Italy and Greece; and alluded oftener than once to facts recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. By thus quoting the four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, and by quoting no other books, 2. The testimony of PORPHYRY is still more important Julian shows that these were the only historical books rethan that of Celsus. He was born A. D. 233, of Tyrian ceived by the Christians as of authority, and as containing origin; but, unhappily for the present age, the mistaken authentic memoirs of Jesus Christ and his apostles, together zeal of Constan ine and other Christian emperors, in causing with the doctrines taught by them. But Julian's testimony his writings against Christianity to be destroyed, has de- does something more than represent the judgment of the prived us of the opportunity of knowing the full extent of Christian church in his time; it discovers also his own. He his objections against the Christian faith. It is, says Mi-himself expressly states the early date of these records: he chaelis, universally allowed that Porphyry is the most sen- calls them by the names which they now bear. He all along sible as well as severe adversary of the Christian religion supposes, he nowhere attempts to question their genuinethat antiquity can produce. He was versed not only in po- ness or authenticity; nor does he give even the slightest inlitical but also in philosophical history, as appears from his timation that he suspected the whole or any part of them to lives of the philosophers. His acquaintance with the Chris-be forgeries. tians was not confined to a single country, but he had conversed with them in Tyre, in Sicily, and in Rome: his residence in Basan afforded him the best opportunity of a strict intercourse with the Nazarenes, who adopted only the Hebrew Gospel of Saint Matthew; and his thirst for philosophical inquiry must have induced him to examine the cause of their rejecting the other writings of the New Testament, whether it was that they considered them as spurious, or that, like the Ebionites, they regarded them as a genuine work of the apostles, though not divinely inspired. Enabled by his birth to study the Syriac as well as the Greek authors, he was of all the adversaries of the Christian religion, the best qualified for inquiring into the authenticity of the sacred writings. He possessed, therefore, every advantage which natural abilities or political situation could afford, to discover whether the New Testament was a genuine work of the apostles and evangelists, or whether it was imposed upon the world after the decease of its pretended authors. But no trace of this suspicion is any where to be found, nor did it ever occur to Porphyry, to suppose that it was spurious. The prophecy of Daniel he made no scruple to pronounce a forgery, and written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes: his critical penetration enabled him to discover the perfect coincidence between the predictions and the events; and denying divine inspiration, he found no other means of solving the problem. In support of this hypothesis, he uses an argument which is an equal proof of his learning and sagacity, though his objection does not affect the authority of the prophet; viz. from a Greek paranomasia, or play on words which he discovered in the history of Daniel and Susanna, he concludes the book to have been written originally It is true that towards the end of the second or in the third century of the Christian æra, certain pieces were published, which were written by heretics, or false teachers, in order to support their errors: but so far is this fact from concluding against the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament, that it shows the difference between them and these apocryphal writings, in the clearest possible manner. For, what reception was given to these forged productions? They succeeded only among sects whose interest it was to defend them as genuine and authentic: or if they sometimes surprised the simplicity of Christian believers, these soon recovered from the imposition. Besides, these pretended sacred books had nothing apostolic in their character. Their origin was obscure, and their publication modern; and the doctrine they professed to support was different from that of the apostles. Indeed, a design to support some doctrine or practice, or to obviate some heresy, which arose subsequently to the apostolic age, is apparent throughout. Trifling and impertinent circumstances are also detailed with minuteness; useless and improbable miracles are introduced, the fabulous structure of which caused the fraud to be soon detected. Further, in these forged writings there is a studied imitation of various passages in the genuine Scriptures, both Michaelis, vol. i. p. 44. Porphyry's objections against the prophet Daniel are considered, infra. Vol. II. Part I. Ch. VI. Sect. III. §. IV. The objection above noticed, drawn from the story of Susanna, Bishop Marsh relates to a part that is acknowledged to be spurious, or at least never exvery justly remarks, does not affect that prophet's authority, because it isted in Hebrew; and is for that reason separated from the prophecy of Daniel in the modern editions of the Septuagint, though, in the Greek mabook of Daniel. Ibid. p. 368. Dr. Lardner has given an ample account of nuscripts and the Romish editions of the Latin Bible, it forms part of the Porphyry. (Works, 8vo. vol. viii. pp. 176-218.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 209-250.) See this proved in Dr. Macknight's Truth of the Gospel History, pp. 1 Trollope's Hulsean Prize Essay on the expedients to which the Gentile philosophers resorted in opposing the progress of the Gospel, 8vo. pp. 29–318. 328. 335, 337. 32. London, 1822. As the works of Celsus have long since perished, the nature of his ob. jections can only be known from Origen's reply to him; of which the best edition was published by Dr. Spencer, at Cambridge, in 1677. From this treatise Dr. Lardner has drawn up his account of the objections of Celsus. (Works, Svo. vol. viii. pp. 5–69. ; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 113–149.) See an ample account of Julian and his writings in Dr. Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vin. pp. 356-425.; 4to. vol. iv. pp. 311-350., and in Dr. Herwerden, de Juliano Imperatore Religionis Christianæ hoste, eodemque vindice, Ludg. Bat. 1827, 8vo. Dr. Macknight has also given an abstract, less copi ous than Dr. Lardner's, of Julian's objections, in his "Truth of the Gospel History," pp. 320, 321. 329. 336, 337. to Jesus.1 to conceal the style, and to allure readers; at the same time [ii.] SECONDLY, The Language and Style of the New Tes tament afford an indisputable proof of its authenticity. (1.) The LANGUAGE is Greek, which was at that period (in the first century of the Roman monarchy), and had been ever since the time of Alexander the Great, a kind of universal language, just as the French is at present. It was understood and spoken by Greeks, by Romans, and by Jews. The greater part of the Christians also, especially those to whom the Epistles of the New Testament were addressed, would not have comprehended them so universally in any other language. At Corinth, Thessalonica, Colosse, and in Galatia, scarcely was another language understood. Besides the Latin and Aramæan tongues, the Greek also was understood at Rome, and in Palestine by the Jews. The Greek in which the New Testament is written is not pure and elegant Greek, such as was written by Plato, Aristotle, or other eminent Grecian authors: but it is Hebraic-Greek, that is, Greek intermixed with many peculiarities exclusively belonging to the East Aramaan, i. e. the Hebrew or Chaldee, and the West Aramæan or Syriac tongues, which were at that time spoken in common life by the Jews of Palestine. In short, it "is such a dialect as would be used by persons who were educated in a country where Chaldee or Syriac was spoken as the vernacular tongue, but who also acquired a knowledge of Greek by frequent intercourse with strangers :"3 and it resembles pure classical Greek as much probably as the French or German written or spoken by a native Englishman, which must be constantly mixed with some anglicisms, resembles the languages of Dresden or of Paris. Now this is a very striking mark of the authenticity of these writings: for, if the New Testament had been written in pure, elegant, and classical Greek, it would be evident that the writers were either native Greeks, or scholars who had studied the Greek language, as the writings of Philo and Josephus manifestly indicate the scholar. But since we find the Greek of the New Testament perpetually intermixed with oriental idioms, it is evident from this circumstance that the writers were Jews by birth, and unlearned men, "in humble stations, who never sought to obtain an exemption from the dialect they had once acquired. They were concerned with facts and with doctrines; and if these were correctly stated, the purity of their diction apof them was a man of erudition, and moreover born at Tarsus. But if St. Paul was born at Tarsus, he was educated at Jerusa lem; and his erudition was the erudition of a Jewish, not of a Grecian school. 3. We now come to the INTERNAL EVIDENCE, or that which arises out of an examination of the books of the New Testa-peared to them a matter of no importance. It is true, that one ment; and this branch of testimony will be found equally strong and convincing with the preceding. It may be comprised under three particulars, viz. the character of the writers, the language and style of the New Testament, and the circumstantiality of the narrative, together with the coincidence of the accounts there delivered with the history of those times. [i.] FIRST, The Writers of the New Testament are said to have been Jews by birth, and of the Jewish religion, and also to have been immediate witnesses of what they relate. This is every where manifest from the mode of narrating their story-from their numerous allusions to the religious ceremonies of the Jews-from the universal prevalence of words, phrases, and thoughts derived from the Old Testament-from the variety of Hebraic words, constructions, and phrases occurring in the Greek of the New Testament, all of which betray an author to whom the Jewish mode of thinking was perfectly natural-from the characters of time, place, persons, and things evident in the New Testament, and particularly in the Gospels and Acts:-all which are related with the confidence of men, who are convinced that their readers already know that they themselves saw and experienced every thing they record, and that their assertions may therefore be considered as proofs. In short, they relate, like men who wrote for readers that were their contemporaries, and lived at the very time in which their history happened, and who knew, or might easily have known, the persons themselves. This is as evident as it is that the noble English historian, who wrote an account of the troubles in the time of Charles I., was himself concerned in those transactions. No. I. Sect. 11. The argument above briefly touched upon, is fully illustrated, with great ability and research, by the Right Rev. Dr. Maltby, in his Illustra tions of the Truth of the Christian Religion, pp. 39-67. See a further account of these apocryphal books, infra, in the Appendix to this volume, 2 Paley's Evidences, vol. i. p. 87. Notwithstanding the mass of positive evidence exhibited in the preceding pages, it has been lately affirmed by an opposer of the Scriptures, that the epistles contained in the New Testament were not written till the second century; and that the canon of the New Testament was not settled till the council of Nice!! Though the whole of it was referred to or cited by at least sixteen of the writers above quoted, besides the testimonies of Celsus and Porphyry, all of whom flourished before that council was held. such as we might expect from the persons to whom the several "The language therefore of the Greek Testament is precisely parts of it are ascribed. But we may go still further, and assert, not only that the language of the Greek Testament accords with the situation of the persons to whom it is ascribed, but that it could not have been used by any person or persons who were in a different situation from that of the apostles and evangelists. It was necessary to have lived in the first century, and to have been be enabled to write such a compound language as that of the educated in Judæa, or in Galilee, or in some adjacent country, to Greek Testament. Unless some oriental dialect had been familiar to the persons who wrote the several books of the New Testament, they would not have been able to write that particular kind of Greek, by which those books are distinguished from every classic author. Nor would this kind of language have appeared in the several books of the New Testament, even though the writers had lived in Judæa, unless they had lived also in the same age with the apostles and evangelists. Judæa itself could not have produced in the second century the compositions which we find in the New Testament. The destruction of Jerusalem and the total subversion of the Jewish state, introduced new forms and new relations, as well in language as in policy. The language therefore of a fabrication attempted in the second century would have borne a different character from that of writings composed in the same country before the destruction of Jerusalem. And even if the dialect of a former age could have been successfully imitated, no inhabitant of Judea in the second century would have made the attempt. The Jews, who remained in that country, will hardly be suspected of such a fabrication. And the only Christians who remained there in the second century were the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. But the Nazarenes and the Ebionites used only one Gospel, and that Gospel was in Hebrew. They will hardly be suspected therefore of having forged Greek Gospels. Nor can they be suspected of having forged Greek Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part v. p. 87. Epistles, especially as the Epistles of St. Paul were rejected by the Ebionites, not indeed as spurious, but as containing doctrines at variance with their peculiar tenets. But if Judæa could not have produced in the second century such writings as we find in the New Testament, no other country could have produced them. For the Christians of the second century, who lived where Greek was the vernacular language, though their dialect might differ from the dialect of Athens, never used a dialect in which oriental phraseology was so mingled with Greek words, as we find in the New Testament. The language therefore clearly shows, that it could not have been written in any other age than in the first century, nor by any other persons, than by persons in the situation of the Apostles and Evangelists." Nor is the argument for the authenticity of the New Testament, drawn from the nature of the language in which it is written, at all affected by the circumstance of the Gospel of Saint Matthew and the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews having been originally written in Hebrew ;—that is, according to the opinions of some learned men. "For," as it is most forcibly urged by the learned prelate to whose researches this section is deeply indebted, "if the arguments, which have been used in regard to language, do not apply to them immediately, those arguments apply to them indirectly, and with no inconsiderable force. If those arguments show that the Greek Gospel of Saint Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Gospel is a translation, it follows a fortiori, that the original was written before that period. And if those arguments further show, that the Greek Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by a person similarly situated with Saint Matthew, we must conclude, either that the translation was made by Saint Matthew himself (and there are instances of the same author writing the same work in two different languages), or that the translator was so connected with the author, as to give to the translation the value of an original. The Hebrew Gospel of Saint Matthew was retained by the Hebrew Christians of Palestine, and still existed, though with various interpolations, in the fourth century. But the Greek Gospel was necessarily adopted by the Greek Christians: it was so adopted from the earliest ages; and it is no less the Gospel of Saint Matthew, than the Gospel which Saint Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Similar remarks apply to the epistle which was written by Saint Paul to the He brews "2 (2.) Let us now advert to the STYLE of the New Testament, considered as an evidence of its authenticity. This style or manner of writing manifestly shows that its authors were born and educated in the Jewish religion: for the use of words and phrases is such,—the allusions to the templeworship, as well as to the peculiar usages and sentiments of the Jews, are so perpetual,-and the prevalence of the Old Testament phraseology (which is interwoven into the body of the New Testament, rather than quoted by its writers) is so great, as to prove, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that the books of the New Testament could be written by none but persons originally Jews, and who were not superior in rank and education to those whose names they bear. Thus, the style of the historical books, particularly of the Gospels, is totally devoid of ornament: it presents no beautiful transitions from one subject to another; the ear is not charmed with the melody of harmonious periods; the imagination is not fired with grand epithets or pompous expressions. The bad taste of some readers is not gratified by laboured antitheses, high sounding language, or false ornament of any kind; neither is the good taste of others pleased with terse diction, brilliant expressions, or just metaphors. In short, the elegancies of composition and style are not to be sought in the historical books of the New Testament, in which "we find the simplicity of writers, who were more intent upon things than upon words: we find men of plain education honestly relating what they knew, without attempting to adorn their narratives by any elegance or grace of diction. And this is precisely the kind of writing which we should expect from the persons to whom those books are ascribed. In the Epistles of St. Paul we find a totally different manner; but again it is precisely such as we should expect from St. Paul. His arguments, though irresistible, are frequently devoid of method; in the strength of the reasoning the regularity of the form is overlooked. The erudition there displayed is the erudition of a learned Jew; the argumentation there displayed is the argumentation of a Jewish 1 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part v. pp. 88-90. For an account of the peculiar structure of the Greek language of the New Testament, see SCRIP. CET infra, Part I. Chap. 1. Sect. II. § III. Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part v. p. 91. G convert to Christianity confuting his brethren on their own ground. Who is there that does not recognize in this description the apostle who was born at Tarsus, but educated at the feet of Gamaliel ? "If we further compare the language of the New Testament with the temper and disposition of the writers to whom the seve ral books of it are ascribed, we shall again find a correspondence which implies that those books are justly ascribed to them. The character of the disciple whom Jesus loved is every where impressed on the writings of St. John. Widely different is the character impressed on the writings of St. Paul; but it is equally accordant with the character of the writer. Gentleness and kindness were characteristic of St. John; and these qualities characterise his writings. Zeal and animation marked every where the conduct of St. Paul; and these are the qualities which are every where discernible in the writings ascribed to him."3 [iii.] THIRDLY, The circumstantiality of the narrative, as well as the coincidence of the accounts delivered in the New Testament with the history of those times, are also an indisputable internal evidence of its authenticity. "Whoever," says Michaelis, "undertakes to forge a set of Writings, and ascribe them to persons who lived in a former pewith the history and manners of the age to which his accounts riod, exposes himself to the utmost danger of a discordancy are referred; and this danger increases in proportion as they relate to points not mentioned in general history, but to such as belong only to a single city, sect, religion, or school. Of all books that ever were written, there is none, if the New Testament is a forgery, so liable to detection; the scene of action is cities of the Roman empire; allusions are made to the various not confined to a single country, but displayed in the greatest Jews, which are carried so far with respect to this last nation as manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the to extend even to the trifles and follies of their schools. A Greek or Roman Christian, who lived in the second or third century, though as well versed in the writings of the ancients Jewish literature; and a Jewish convert in those ages, even the most learned rabbi, would have been equally deficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. If, then, the New Testament, thus exposed to detection (had it been an imposture), is found, after the severest researches, to harmonize with the history, the manners, and the opinions of the first century; and since the more minutely we inquire, the more perfect we find the coincidence, we must conclude that it was beyond the reach of human abilities to effectuate so wonderful a deception." A few facts will illustrate this remark. as Eustathius or Asconius, would still have been wanting in The Gospels state that Jesus Christ was born during the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus; that he began his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius; that, about three years and a half afterwards, Pilate, the Roman governor, condemned him to death; and that he was accordingly put to death; and the book, called the Acts of the Apostles, relates that Paul defended himself before the Roman governors Felix and Festus, and before the Jewish king Agrippa, &c. An impostor would not write so circumstantially. Further, there are certain historical circumstances, respecting the political constitutions of the world mentioned in the New Testament, which coincide with the accounts of contemporary profane historians, and incontestably point out the time when they were written. (1.) Thus Palestine is stated to be divided into three principal provinces, Judæa, Samaria, and Galilee. At that time this country was subject to the Romans, but had formerly been governed by its own kings; the Jews were deprived of the absolute power of life and death; a Roman governor resided at Jerusalem. The nation was discontented with the Roman sovereignty, refused to pay tri bute, and was disposed to revolt. Two religious sects are represented as having the chief sway among the Jews, viz. the Pharisees and Sadducees; the people, by whom, however, they were almost idolised; while the latter, the former, who taught a mechanical religion, deceived and tyrannised over who adopted an epicurean philosophy, were strongly supported by the principal characters of the nation. The temple of Jerusalem was then standing, and was annually visited by a great number of the Jews, who were scattered abroad in different parts of the world. These, and similar circumstances, are rather presupposed as universally known than related by the authors of these writings; and they agree most exactly with the condition of the Jews, and of the Roman empire, in the first century of the Roman monarchy, as described by contemporary profane writers. 3 Bp. Marsh's Lectures, part v. pp. 92, 93. The reader will find some very instructive observations on the style of the evangelists in the Rev. Dr. Nare's work, intitled "The Veracity of the Evangelists demonstrated, by a comparative View of their Histories," chap. iii. pp. 28-38. 2d. edit. Michaelis's Introduction, vol. i. p. 49. (2.) We read in the Gospels that there were publicans, or possessed of his office, in consequence of certain acts of violence between tax-gatherers, established at Capernaum, and at Jericho. Now it was in this last-mentioned city that the precious balm was collected; which, constituting the principal article of exportation from that country, required their service to collect the duty imposed on it. And at Capernaum commenced the transit, which both Justin and Strabo tell us was extensively carried on by the Aradæans.1 (3.) In Luke iii. 14. we read that certain soldiers came to John the Baptist, while he was preaching in all the country about Jordan, and demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? an important question in Christian morality. It has been asked, who these soldiers were? for it does not appear that the Roman soldiers, who were then stationed in Judæa, were engaged in any war. Now it happens that the expression used by the evangelical historian is not patiα or soldiers, but peoμs, that is, men who were actually under arms or marching to battle. It is not to be supposed that he would use this word without a sufficient reason, and what that reason is, we may readily discover on consulting Josephus's account of the reign of Herod the tetrarch of Galilee. He tells us that Herod was at that very time engaged in a war with his father-in-law, Aretas, a petty king of Arabia Petræa, whose daughter he had married, but who had returned to her father in consequence of Herod's ill-treatinent. The ariny of Herod, then on its march from Galilee, passed of necessity through the country where John was baptizing; and the military men, who questioned him, were a part of that army. So minute, so perfect, and so latent a coincidence was never discovered in a forgery of later ages. (4.) The same evangelist (iii. 19, 20.) relates that Herod the tetrarch being reproved by him (John the Baptist) for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison. It does not appear what connexion there was between the soldiers above-mentioned and the place of John's imprisonment, though the context leads us to infer that it was somewhere in the vicinity of the place where the Baptist was preaching. The evangelist Mark (vi. 17-28.), who relates the circumstances of his apprehension and death, informs us that, at a royal entertainment given on occasion of Herod's birth-day, the daughter of the said Herodias came in; and that the king, being highly delighted with her dancing, promised to give her whatsoever she wished. After consulting with her mother Herodias, she demanded the head of John the Baptist; and Herod, reluctantly assenting, immediately dispatched an executioner, who went and beheaded John in prison. Now it does not appear, from the narrative of Mark, why a person in actual military service (XVÀαт) was employed; or why Herodius should have cherished such a hatred of John, as to instruct her daughter to demand the head of that holy man. But the above-cited passage from Josephus explains both circumstances. Herod, we have seen, was actually at war with Aretas: while his army was on its inarch against his father-in-law, Herod gave an entertainment in the fortress of Machærus, which was at no great distance from the place where John was preaching. Herodias was the cause of that war. It was on her account that the daughter of Aretas, the wife of Herod, was compelled by ili-treatment to take refuge with her father: and as the war in which Aretas was engaged was undertaken in order to obtain redress for his daugh ter, Herodias had a peculiar interest in accompanying Herod, even when he was marching to battle; and her hatred of John (who had reproved Herod on her account), at that particular time, is thus clearly accounted for. No spurious productions could bear so rigid a test as that which is here applied to the Gospels of Mark and Luke. the Samaritans and the Jews, and sent prisoner to Rome, whence he was afterwards released, and returned to Jerusalem. Now from that period he could not be called high-priest in the proper sense of the word, though Josephus has sometimes given him the title of appros taken in the more extensive meaning of a priest, who had a seat and voice in the Sanhedrin ;" and Jonathan, though we are not acquainted with the circumstances of his elevation, had been raised in the mean time to the supreme dignity in the Jewish church. Between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the high priesthood of Ismael, who was invested with that office by Agrippa, 10 elapsed an interval, in which this dignity continued apprehended in Jerusalem: and the Sanhedrin being destitute of a presivacant. Now it happened precisely in this interval that Saint Paul was dent, he undertook of his own authority the discharge of that office, which he executed with the greatest tyranny. It is possible, therefore, that St. Paul, who had been only a few days in Jerusalem, might be ignorant that Ananias, who had been dispossessed of the priesthood, had taken upon turally exclaim, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest Adhimself a trust to which he was not entitled; he might therefore very na mitting him, on the other hand, to have been acquainted with the fact, the expression must be considered as an indirect reproof, and a tacit refusal to recognise usurped authority. A passage, then, which has hitherto been involved in obscurity, is brought by this relation into the clearest light; fifty Jews12 with the consent of the Sanhedrin, their petition to Festus to and the whole history of St. Paul's imprisonment, the conspiracy of the send him from Cæsarea, with intent to murder him on the road,1a are facts who mentions the principal persons recorded in the Acts, and paints their which correspond to the character of the times as described by Josephus, profligacy in colours even stronger than those of St. Luke."'11 (6.) In Acts xxvii. 1. Luke relates that "when St. Paul was sent from Cæsarea to Rome, he was, with the other prisoners, committed to the care of Julius, an officer of the Augustan cohort, that is, a Roman cohort, which had the honour of bearing the name of the emperor. "Now it appears from the account, which Josephus has given in his second book on the Jewish war, 15 that when Felix was procurator of Judæa, the Roman garrison at Cæsarea was chiefly composed of soldiers who were natives of Syria But it also appears, as well from the saine book16 as from the twentieth book of his Antiquities, that a small body of Roman soldiers was stationed there at the same time, and that this body of Romas soldiers was dignified with the title of LEBALTH or Augustan, the same Greek word being employed by Josephus, as by the author of the Acts of the Apostles. This select body of Roman soldiers had been employed by Cumanus, who immediately preceded Felix in the procuratorship of Judæa, for the purpose of quelling an insurrection.18 And when Festus, who Succeeded Felix, had occasion to send prisoners from Cæsarea to Rome, he would of course intrust them to the care of an officer belonging to the select corps. Even here then we have a coincidence, which is worthy of notice; a coincidence which we should never have discovered, without consulting the writings of Josephus. But that which is most worthy of notice, is the circumstance, that this select body of soldiers bore the title of Augustan. This title was known of course to St. Luke, who accompa nied St. Paul from Cæsarea to Rome. But, that, in the time of the emperor Nero, the garrison of Cæsarea, which consisted chiefly of Syrian soldiers, contained also a small body of Roman soldiers, and that they were dignified by the epithet Augustan, are circumstances so minute, that no imposter of a later age would have known them. And they prove incontestably, that the Acts of the Apostles could have been written only by a person in the situation of St. Luke."19 (7.) Once more, between the epistles of Paul and the history undesigned coincidence or correspondency, the perusal of which related in the Acts of the Apostles, there exist many notes of is sufficient to prove, that neither the history was taken from the "And the undesignedletters, nor the letters from the history. from their latency, their minuteness, their obliquity, the suitness of these agreements (which undesignedness is gathered ableness of the circumstances in which they consist, to the places in which those circumstances occur, and the circuitous references by which they are traced out), demonstrates that they have not been produced by meditation, or by any fraudulent cluded, and which are too close and numerous to be accounted for by accidental concurrences of fiction, must necessarily have (5.) Let us now take an example from the Acts of the Apostles, (xxiii. 2—5.) where we have the following account of Paul's appearance before the council in Jerusalem, and his answer to Ananias:And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." And the high-priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth, Then said Paul, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" And they that stood by said, "Revilest thou God's high-priest?" Then said Paul, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest."-Now, on this passage, it has been asked, 1. Who was this Ananias? 2. How can it be reconciled with chronology that Ananias was at that time called the high-priest, when it is certain from Jose- in a most masterly manner, by Dr. Paley, in his "Hore PauliThese coincidences are illustrated at considerable length, and phus that the time of his holding that office was much earlier?," from which admirable treatise the following particulars are And, 3. How it happened that Paul said, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest, since the external marks of office must have determined whether he were or not. "On all these subjects," says Michaelis, "is thrown the fullest light, as soon as we examine the special history of that period; a light which is not confined to the present, but extends itself to the following chapters, inso much that it cannot be doubted that this book was written, not after the destruction of Jerusalem, but by a person who was contemporary to the events which are there related. Ananias, the son of Nebedeni, was highpriest at the time that Helena, queen of Adiabene, supplied the Jews with corn from Egypt, during the famine which took place in the fourth year of Claudius, mentioned in the eleventh chapter of the Acts. St. Paul, therefore, who took a journey to Jerusalem at that period, could not have been ignorant of the elevation of Ananias to that dignity. Soon after the holding of the first council, as it is called, at Jerusalem, Ananias was dis contrivance. But coincidences from which these causes are ex truth for their foundation." 20 the existence of the books. He observes, that in the epistles of abridged. As the basis of his argument he assumes nothing but Paul, there is an air of truth and reality that immediately strikes the reader. His letters are connected with his history in the Acts by their particularity, and by the numerous circumstances found in them. By examining and comparing these circum stances, we observe that the history and the epistles are neither | lemon. In private letters to intimate companions some expresof them taken from the other, but are independent documents sion would surely let fall a hint at least of fraud, if there were unknown to, or at least unconsulted by, each other; but we find any. Yet the same uniform design of promoting sincerity, benethe substance, and often very minute articles of the history, re-volence, and piety, is perceived; and the same histories of Christ cognised in the epistles, by allusions and references which can and of Paul are alluded to as true accounts, in his private as in neither be imputed to design, nor, without a foundation in his public epistles. truth, be accounted for by accident, by hints and expressions, and single words dropping, as it were fortuitously, from the pen of the writer, or drawn forth, each by some occasion proper to the place in which it occurs, but widely removed from any view to consistency or agreement. These, we know, are effects which reality produces, but which, without reality at the bottom, can hardly be conceived to exist. When such undesigned coincidences are too close and too numerous to be accounted for by accidental concurrences of fiction, they must necessarily have truth for their foundation. This argument depends upon a large deduction of particulars, which cannot be abstracted, but which carry great weight of evidence. If it can be thus proved, that we are in possession of the very letters which the apostle Paul wrote, they substantiate the Christian history. The great object of modern research is to come at the epistolary correspondence of the times. Amidst the obscurity, the silence, or the contradictions of history, if a letter can be found, we regard it as the discovery of a land-mark; as that by which we can correct, adjust, or supply the imperfections and uncertainties of other accounts. The facts which they disclose generally come out incidentally, and therefore without design to mislead by false or exaggerated accounts, This is applicable to Paul's epistles with as much justice as to any letters whatever. Nothing could be further from the intention of the writer than to record any part of his history, though in fact it is made public by them, and the reality of it is made probable. Besides numerous undesigned coincidences in historical circumstances and facts, which Dr. Paley has specified, there is also an undesigned agreement throughout, between the sentiments and manner of writing of Paul in his Epistles, and the account of his character and conduct given in the book of Acts. Every instance of this kind bespeaks reality, and therefore deserves notice as a branch of internal evidence. The Epistles of Paul show the author to be a man of parts and learning, of sound judg ment, quick conception, crowded thought, fluent expression, and zealous and indefatigable in his endeavours to accomplish the point at which he aimed. These properties correspond with the history of him contained in the Acts. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, he was instructed in Jewish learning. His speech to the philosophers and people of Athens, his behaviour and addresses to Agrippa, Festus, and Felix, &c. prove his sagacity, his judicious selection of topics, and his skill in reasoning. The violent manner in which he is recorded in the Acts to have persecuted the first Christians agrees with the ardour of spirit that breathes in all his letters, and the glowing warmth of his style. There are, indeed, great seeming discordances, which, however, are easily reconcileable by attending to his ardent temper, and to the ruling principle of his conduct in different periods of his life. His rage against the Christians (owing to strong Jewish prejudices) was furious and unrestrained, and unjustifiable against any peaceable persons, such as they were. On the other hand, his Epistles manifest a warmth and eagerness governed by These letters also show, 1. That Christianity had prevailed a calmer principle. After his conversion, Paul was at the same before the confusions that preceded and attended the destruction time prudent, steady, and ardent. He was as indefatigable as he of Jerusalem. 2. That the Gospels were not made up of reports had been before; but, instead of cruel and unjust means to oband stories current at the time; for a man cannot be led by re-tain his purposes, he employed argument, persuasion, and the ports to refer to transactions in which he states himself to be merciful and mighty power of GoD. The religion he embraced present and active. 3. That the converts to Christianity were accounts for these changes easily and naturally. His conversion not the barbarous, mean, ignorant set of men, incapable of to Christianity, the circumstances of which are related in the thought or reflection, which the false representations of infidelity book of Acts, and which are mentioned or alluded to in his Episwould make them; and that these letters are not adapted to the tles, harmonize every seeming contradiction in his character, and habits and comprehension of a barbarous people. 4. That the thus become a strong evidence of the truth both of his history history of Paul is so implicated with that of the other apostles, and of his Epistles. and with the substance of the Christian history itself, that if Paul's story (not the miraculous part) be admitted to be true, we cannot reject the rest as fabulous. For example; if we believe Paul to have been a preacher of Christianity, we must also believe that there were such men as Peter, and James, and other apostles, who had been companions of Christ during his life, and who published the same things concerning him which Paul taught. 5. That Paul had a sound and sober judgment. 6. That Paul underwent great sufferings, and that the church was in a distressed state, and the preaching of Christianity attended with dangers; this appears even from incidental passages, as well as direct ones. 7. Paul, in these epistles, asserts, in positive, unequivocal terms, his performance of miracles, properly so called, in the face of those amongst whom he declares they were wrought, and even to adversaries, who would have exposed the falsity, if there had been any. (Gal. iii. 5. Rom. xv. 18, 19. 2 Cor. xii. 12.) A similar observation may be made concerning Peter. Is there not a striking uniformity in the character of this Apostle, as it is delineated by the sacred writers, and as it is discoverable in the style, manner, and sentiments of his Epistles? Do they not bear the marks of the same energy, the same unpolished and nervous simplicity, the same impetuosity and vehemence of thought, the same strength and vigour of untutored genius; strong in the endowments of nature, but without the refinements of art or science? Now there would scarcely have been found such a nice agreement between the character of Peter given in the writings of others, and exemplified in his own, if the one had been a fiction, or the other spurious. It is the same Peter that speaks in the Gospel history, in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles which bear his name. The seal of his character, as graven by the Evangelists, exactly corresponds with the impression of his letters. This is an argument of the genuineness of his Epistles, and of the truth of the Christian religion.3 The other books of the New Testament furnish ample materials for pursuing this species of evidence from undesigned coincidences of different kinds. Dr. Paley, and Mr. Wakefield, have both produced some instances of it between the Gospels, to which we shall only add, in the last place, that the similitude or coincidence between the style of John's Gospel, and the first epistle that bears his name, is so striking, that no reader, who is capable of discerning what is peculiar in an author's turn of thinking, can entertain the slightest doubt of their being the productions of one and the same writer. Writings so circumstanced prove themselves and one another to be genuine. This testimony shows that the series of actions represented by Paul was real, and proves not only that the original witnesses of the Christian history devoted themselves to lives of toil and suffering, in consequence of the truth of that history, but also that the author of the Acts was well acquainted with Paul's history, and a companion of his travels; which establishes the credibility of Luke's Gospel, considering them as two parts of the same history; for though there are instances of second parts being forgeries, we know of none where the second part is genuine and the first spurious. Now, is there an example to be met with of any man voluntarily undergoing such incessant hardships as Paul did, and the constant expectation of a violent death, for the sake of attesting a story of what was false; and of what, if false, he must have known to be so? And it should not be omitted, that the prejudices of Paul's education were against his becoming a disciple of Christ, as his first violent opposition to it evidently Epistle of Saint John, will (we think) prove the point above stated beyond showed.' Further; there are four Epistles of Paul to single persons, who were his friends; two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Phi 2 Acts viii. 3. ix. 1. 3T. G. Taylor's Essay on the Cond. and Char. of Peter. Internal Evidences, pp. 207-210. The following comparative table of passages, from the Gospel and first the possibility of contradiction. Paley's Hora Paulinæ, in the conclusion. Paley's Evidences of Chris-living word. tianity, vol. ii. c. 7. Gospel. Ch. I. 1. In the beginning was the word. 14. And, 16, we beheld his glory. 4. In him was life. 14. The word was made flesh. |