tics throwing this back upon their orthodox opponents, when they found themselves worsted in the argument by passages quoted from these books. They would certainly have said, "Matthew never stated that "-"the Gospel you quote was not written by John, and we appeal to him in proof of what we affirm; he is alive and can answer for himself"" the Gospel in Mark's name is a forgery, and we will not admit in argument any thing taken from it"-these, or some such declarations, we should have had from the early heretics, if they could have been put forward with any show of reason, with any hope of success. But nothing of the kind is seen or heard. They do not pretend to any such thing in reply to those who attack them with these weapons; but they endeavor, as we have said, to explain and defend their doctrines by showing their harmony with the Gospels, or by asserting outright that the evangelists were mistaken. 7. Such conduct, such a course of disputation on the part of these heretics, can only be explained on the ground that the question of the authorship of the Gospel histories had, at this early day, but one side to it; that there was not the least possible pretence for denying that they were really written by those whose names they bear to this day. And they had not only the reasons for denying already given, viz the power of the arguments opposed to them, but also the arrogance with which they were treated by the orthodox party. Tertullian insolently says to them,"You have no property in these books. Who are you? Whence do you come? What are you doing on my premises? Why do you cut down my woods, draw water from my springs, and sow and pasture on my farm? You are aliens. This is my possession. I have a title from the original owners. I am the legal heir of the Apostles." Now how easy it would have been for these aliens, or heretics, when taunted in this way, to have replied 66 Very good; keep your possession. It is not worth disputing about. As to your title from the Apostles, they never owned it themselves. They never had any thing to do with your possession. They never wrote, saw, or heard of the books you talk so pompously about.* 8. If they could have answered in this way, they certainly would have done it. Not doing it, they show very plainly that they saw there was no hope of making any impression in that direction. At that period the subject admitted of no debate. There was but one opinion as to who wrote the Gospels, and the most reckless disputants never thought of opposing or denying it. Nothing, it would seem, can be more satisfactory on this point; or show more fully the certainty that the evangelical narratives are the genuine productions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If admitted by those whose interest it was to deny it, and who had the best means of knowing whether it was so or not, who were even partly contemporary with at least one of the reputed authors, and personally acquainted with him, as Cerinthus probably was-if these allow it without question or hesitation, when to deny it, if it could be done successfully, would give them a complete triumph instead of defeat, then there seems to be nothing more desired in the way of evidence. The point would appear to be beyond controversy. * De Præscript. Haeret. chapt. 37. cited in Norton, Pt. iii. chapt. xii. See also the whole subject treated in detail, as far as facts are concerned, in Lardner's History of the Heretics; works, vol. viii. pp. 290 and onward. Mosheim, Heresies of the 1st and 2d centuries, is not full on this point; and not always quite just perhaps. SECTION IV. HAVE THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BEEN CORRUPTED? 1. As there has been much said in relation to the question which stands at the head of this section, we have thought it might be proper, and acceptable, to give it a brief consideration. The assertion has often been made by the enemies of the Christian faith, that the Scriptures of the New Testament have been so much corrupted, that it is now altogether impossible for us to tell what was, and what was not, written by the disciples of Jesus. And suppose, instead of replying to this, we pronounce it mere assertion, as with all propriety we might, and, according to the rules of argument, call upon the unbeliever for proof? What would be his answer? He says the books of the New Testament have been greatly corrupted. We desire the evidence of this; let him point to any particular portion, as being of this character, and by an appeal to the authority of history prove his assertion, and so far as that portion is concerned we will submit. It is not enough to say that they may have been corrupted, he must prove to a demonstration that they have been corrupted. This is what he requires of us in regard to all our positions, and he ought not to shrink from his own rule. 2. We are not disposed to stop here, however, though in justice we might do it. With many, who are not in the habit of thinking closely in these matters, the assertion in question has passed in its full extent as undoubted truth; and the many attempts made to show its probability from circumstances, have tended to strengthen the conviction. There has been much declamation about the ambitious designs of an aspiring priesthood; the ignorance of the people; the darkness of the middle ages; the scarcity of copies of the Scriptures; and many other like particulars, for the purpose of giving an air of plausibility to the supposition. And it is through this studied mixture of a little truth with much error, this skillful blending of well known historical facts with speculations and false inferences, that not a few, who do but skim over the surface of things, have been led into the conclusion that the New Testament is too much altered and corrupted to be trusted. 3. In the observations to follow we shall endeavor to point out some particulars which will show the weakness of this position, and the utter impracticability of the supposed corruption. In the first place, then, it is well known that the original manuscripts or autographs of the writers, or at least some of them, were preserved for many years after their death. Ignatius appealed to them in the first century, and in the second century Tertullian affirms that they were carefully preserved in the Christian churches, and urges those who are curious in such matters to go and see them.* And yet later than this they are appealed to by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, in the fourth century. It will of course be admitted that while these autographs were in existence, all corruption was of necessity pre -percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ Apostolorum suis locis præsident, apud quas ipsæ authenticæ literæ aorum recitantur." Cited by Grotius, De Veritate 1 iii. §2. vented, because, in case any had been attempted, they would have been brought forward and have ended the matter at once. All attempts, therefore, at corruption must be assigned to a period posterior, or at least, to the year 350, which grants more than can be justly asked, that these autographs may bave been destroyed immediately after the death of Peter. 4. To the above consideration, we have to add, that before the year 350, copies of the Bible, and especially of the New Testament, had been greatly multiplied.* And *Eusebius informs us that he himself was ordered to provide FIFTY BIBLES, at the public expense, for different churches. It was thought that the reader might be interested in the perusal of the following letter, written more than 1500 years ago by Constantine, the emperor, to Eusebius in relation to these Bibles. "VICTOR CONSTANTIUS MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS TO EUSEBIUS." In that City which bears Our Name [Constantinople] by the assistance of God our Savior's Providence, a vast multitude of men have joined themselves to the most holy Church. Whereas, therefore, all things do there receive a very great increase, it seems highly requisite that there should be more churches erected in that city. Wherefore do you receive most willingly that which I have determined to do. For it seems fit to signify to your prudence, that you should order FIFTY COPIES OF THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES, (the provision and use whereof you know to be chiefly necessary for the instruction of the church) to be written on well prepared parchment, by artificial transcribers of books, most skillful in the art of accurate and fair writing; which [copies] must be very legible and easily portable in order to their being used. Moreover, letters are dispacthed away from our Clemency to the Rationalist of the Diœcesis, [ an officer of the province] that he should take care for the providing of all things necessary in order to the finishing of the said copies.— This therefore shall be the work of your diligence, to see that the written copies be forthwith provided. You are also empowered, by the authority of this our letter, to have the use of two public carriages, in order to their conveyance. For by this means, those which are transcribed fair, may most commodiously be conveyed even to our sight; to wit, one of the Deacons of your church being em |