[i] The Books of the New Testament are quoted or alluded to, times innumerable, by a series of Christian writers as well as by adversaries of the Christian faith, who may be traced back in regular succession from the present time to the apostolic age.

[ii.] The Antient Versions of the New Testament are another important evidence for its genuineness and authenticity, as well as of its antiquity; some of them (as the Syriac and several Latin versions) being made so early as the close of the first, or at the beginning of the second century.

3. Internal Evidence of the Genuineness and Authenticity of the New Testament.

[i] The CHARACTER of the Writers of the New Testament: -They are said to have been Jews by birth, and of the Jewish religion, and immediate witnesses of the events which they have recorded. And every page of their writings corresponds with their actual character.

[ü.] The LANGUAGE and STYLE.-The Language is Greek, which was a kind of universal language, just as the French now is: but it is Hebrew-Greek, i. e. Greek intermixed with many peculiarities from the native dialect of the Jews of Palestine, and consequently such as we might expect from the persons, to whom the several parts of the New Testament are ascribed. The Style or manner of writing, too, is such as shows that its authors were born and educated in the Jewish religion.

[iii] The CIRCUMSTANTIALITY OF THE NARRATIVE, and 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.

SECTION III. On the Uncorrupted Preservation of the Books of the Old and New Testament.

I. The Uncorrupted Preservation of the OLD TESTAMENT is proved from the impossibility of its being corrupted: for

1. There is no proof or vestige whatever of any

pretended alteration: if the Jews had wilfully corrupted the books of the Old Testament before the time of Christ and his apostles, the prophets would not have passed such on heinous offence in silence: and, if they had been corrupted in the time of Christ and his apostles, these would not have failed to censure the Jews. If they had been mutilated or corrupted after the time of Christ, the Jews would unquestionably have expunged or falsified the prophecies concerning Christ, which were cited by him and by his apostles.

2. In fact, neither before nor after the time of Christ could the Jews corrupt the Hebrew Scriptures; for, before that event, any forgery or material corruption would be rendered impossible by the reverence paid to these books by the Jews themselves, the publicity given to their contents by the reading of the law in public and in private, and by the jealousies subsisting between the Jews and Samaritans, and between the different sects into which the Jews were divided. And since the birth of Christ, the Jews and Christians have been a mutual guard and check upon each other.

3. The Agreement of all the Manuscripts.

II. The integrity and uncorruptness of the books of the NEW TESTAMENT is manifest,

1. From their contents: for, so early as the two first centuries the very same facts and doctrines were universally received by the Christians, which we at this time believe on the credit of the New Testament.

2. Because an universal corruption of those writings was both impossible and impracticable, in consequence of the early dispersion of copies, which were multiplied and disseminated, either in the original Greek or in translations, as rapidly as the boundaries of the church increased, and also of the effectual check interposed by the various sects that existed in the Christian church.

3. From the agreement of all the manuscripts, the various readings in which are not only of so little moment, as not to affect any article of faith or practice; but they also prove that the books of the New Testament exist at present in all essential points, precisely the same as they were, when they left the hands of their authors.

4. From the agreement of the antient versions of these books, and the quotations made from them in the writings of the Christians of the three first centuries and in those of the succeeding fathers of the church.

III. That no canonical books of Scripture have been lost, may be proved by the following considerations, viz.

1. The ordinary conduct of Divine Providence, and the care which the Divine Being has in all ages taken to preserve these books.

2. The zeal of the faithful to preserve their sacred books.

3. The dispersion of these books into the most distant countries and into the hands of innumerable persons.

IV. With regard to the Old Testament, more particularly, we may conclude, that, if any books seem to be wanting in our present canon, they are either such as are still remaining in the Scriptures, unobserved, under other appellations; or they are such as never were accounted canonical, and contained no points essential to the salvation of man. Consequently they are such of which we may safely remain ignorant here, and for which we shall never be responsible hereafter.

V. The same obervation applies with equal force to the Books of the New Testament; in which some learned men have imagined that they have discovered allusions to writings no longer extant; but, on examin

ation, their conjectures prove to be destitute of foundation. Thus the expression Eypala I have written, in 1 Cor. v. 9., (which has given rise to a supposition that St. Paul had already written an epistle to the Corinthian Church, that is no longer extant,) may probably be put for rpaw I write; there being nearly one hundred instances in the New Testament, in which the past tense is put for the present. So also, the expression ή Επισολη εκ Λαοδικείας -the Epistle from Laodicea (Col. iv. 16.), which seems to intimate that the same apostle had previously written an epistle to the church at Laodicea, is in all probability that which is called the Epistle to the Ephesians, Laodicea being within the circuit of the Ephesian Church.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

SECTION I. Direct Evidences of the Credibility of the Old and New Testaments.

I. THE Writers of the Books of the Old and New Testaments had a perfect knowledge of the subjects which they relate and their moral character, though rigidly tried, was never impeached by their keenest opponents.

II. If there had been any falsehood in the accounts of such transactions as were public and generally known, it could (and doubtless would) have been easily detected for these accounts were published among the people, who witnessed the events related by the historians. But this was not the case with the writings, either of Moses and the Prophets, or of the Evangelists.

1. It is impossible that MOSES could have asserted falsehoods in his writings for

[i.] If he had been an impostor, it is utterly incredible that he could have given to men so perfect and holy a law as he did.

[ii.] As Moses had been educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and was not of a rash, credulous, or superstitious temper, he could not possibly have been himself deceived.

[iii.] It is absolutely incredible that he should or could have imposed on the Israelites, as true, things that were notoriously false, and of the falsehood of which they could convict him: for he relates facts and events which had taken place in the presence of six hundred thousand men; and urges the reality and truth of those facts upon them, as motives to believe and obey the new religion which he had introduced among them.

[iv.] We cannot conceive for what end or with what view Moses could have invented all these things. He sought neither riches nor honours for himself, and he left neither offices of honour nor emoluments to his children. He did not write to flatter his nation, nor did he conceal his own failings, or attempt to palliate or excuse the errors or sins of his country

men.

These observations are equally applicable to the writers who succeeded Moses.

2. The credibility of the WRITERS OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT is established on evidence equally conclusive with that adduced for the Old Testament. For

(1.) The actions ascribed to Jesus Christ in the New Testament are of such a description, that they could not possibly have been recorded, if they had not been true. Plain and unlettered Jews, as the apostles were, though adequate to the office of recording what they had seen and heard, were incapable of fabricating a series of actions, which constituted the most exalted character that ever lived upon earth. It is, indeed,