fyxmll Hmmsiitg pib»g 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 FROM THE 
 
 SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND 
 
 THE GIFT OF 
 
 1891 
 
 .Ar...^..^::/./:..^.. 
 
BR45 .B2n810'™'""' '""'""» 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 180 707 
 
The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924029180707 
 
Certain Principles in Evamoiis "Dissonance of the 
 
 " Four generally received Evangelists" 8fc. 
 
 examined 
 
 IN 
 
 EIGHT DISCOURSES 
 
 DELIVERED BEFORE 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, 
 
 AT ST. MART'S, 
 IN THE YEAR MDCCCX. 
 
 AT 
 
 THE LECTURE 
 
 FOUNDED BY 
 
 THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY.' 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS FALCONER, A.M. 
 
 OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 
 At the University Press, for the Author. 
 
 Sold by Messrs. Longman, Huest, Rees, and Obme, London; and 
 
 J. Upham, Bath. 
 
 1811. 
 
ifio 
 
 A.i5^i7f 
 
TO 
 
 THE REV. W- WHITEHALL DAVIES, 
 
 OF 
 
 BROUGHTON, FLINTSHIRE, 
 
 I INSCRIBE 
 
 THIS VOLUME 
 
 A» 
 
 A MEMORIAL 
 
 OF- 
 
 ENDURING FRIENDSHIP. 
 
 T. F. 
 
 Bath, 
 March ir, 1811. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Perhaps an obfcure lludent of the hiftory 
 of religious controverfies may be fomewhere 
 found, who will not think the information 
 unneceflary, that a book entitled " The Dif- 
 " fonance of the Four generally received Evanr 
 " gelifts, &c. by the Rev. E. Evanfort," which 
 fiiggefted the principal fubjeds of difcuffion 
 in the following Lectures, was firft publiflied 
 in the year 1 792 ; that Dr. Prieftley, in the 
 year 1793, replied to this work in " Letters 
 "to a Young Man;" that Mr. E. addrefled 
 " A Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man" in 
 the following year, and in a Poftfcript animr 
 adverted on another opponent, the Rev. D. 
 Simpfon ; that a fecond edition of " The Dif- 
 " fonance" was publiflied in 1805; that the 
 dodrines and principles and arguments of 
 
 a 3 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 " The 13ii&bnance" were fti'Il IriegleHed by the 
 eftablilhed Clergy, with the exception of Mr, 
 Simpfon, till fome of thefe were repeated (and 
 they were merely repeated) in a Vifitation Ser- 
 mon at Daribufy in 1 So6, when this Sermon 
 was examined in certain anonymous " Stric- 
 " tures," and alfo in a moft able Letter to the 
 author, the Rev. F. Stone, A. M. by the Rev. 
 E. Nares, Re6tor of Biddenden ; and laftly, that 
 in 1807 a Ckhon of the New Teftameht was 
 publiihed, according to the fele<9;ion of Mr. 
 Evanlbn in his " Diflonance." it is Ibmewbat 
 remarkable, that an attempt, like Mr. E s, to 
 annul the teftimony of the ancient Chrillians, 
 as Chriilians, to the geriuinehefs and authenti- 
 city 6f the Gofpels, did not excite more foli- 
 citude 'and exertion. This work had engaged 
 my attention foon after its firft publication, 
 and at an early period of my life ; and when 
 I refumed this occupation, I found that the 
 remains of this controverfial eflay containedar- 
 guments which I had no occafion to ftrehgtheh, 
 •and were written in a llyle Which I could riot 
 fubfequeritly improve. I did hot purfue the 
 enquiry at that time, becaufe I daily expeded 
 that more experienced contrpverfialifts wouM 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 appear in the field with armour of proofs. 
 Mr. E. might have conlidered himfelf as for- 
 tunate that he was not oppofed by the late 
 Bifliop of Clonfert, (the pious, the learned, 
 and the lufferirig Chriftian,) who was of opi- 
 fiion, that this fophiftical book Ihould be exa^ 
 mined and anfwered. Whilft I thus flate to 
 advantage the importance of the objeA of 
 my own labours, the reader will fympathize 
 in my regret, that what was thought worthy 
 the powers of his mind was attempted by any 
 other. 
 
 It is neceflary to remark, that the Difcourfe 
 on thfe Greek language was finiflied feveral 
 months before the publication of a difquifi- 
 tion on a part of the fame fubjed: in the 
 *• Herculanenfia." 
 
 ^ To guard ag^tift mifreprefentation I wifli to ob- 
 .ferve, that my Difcourfes comprife a much fmaller ex- 
 tent of enquiry than Dr. Prieftley's Letter, which con- 
 tains a large proportion of very admirable argument; 
 and, if I fliould not have my meaning diftorted by a ca- 
 lumnious gang of local inquifitors and familiars, I wrould 
 lay, that what I have done may be confidered as fupple- 
 mentary to the orthodox parts of Dr. Prieftley's reply. • 
 
 a4 
 
viii PREFACE. 
 
 The Tiuftees of the late Canon Barapton':S 
 benefadtion require each Candidate for the 
 appointment to the Ledure to preach before 
 ,the Univerfity within the year preceding the 
 election. The Difcourle on November 5, 
 1808, which is fubjoined, is this probationary 
 academical exercife. 
 
 I am obliged to the lingular patience of 
 more than one friend, who perufed, oftenei' 
 than once, nearly all the difcoarfes in manu- 
 fcript ; and if I have adopted only forae of 
 their corrections, or inferted only fome of 
 their fuggefted additions, (which, if colledled 
 together, would not occupy the fpace of more 
 than three or four pages at the utmoft.) I 
 ^dmit that the work is thus rendered lefs per- 
 fect : but 1 willied as well lo fultain alone the 
 whole cenfure, as to lay an undivided claim 
 to the vthole of the approbation of the pub- 
 lic. With refped: to the Difcourie on the 
 fifth of November, as originally publilhed, I 
 am refponfible for every fentiment and ex- 
 preflion, and, with one exception, for^every 
 fadt., I have been fince reminded, that Arch- 
 bifhop Tillotfon, in his fermon on the fame 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 occafion, had preferved the curious informa- 
 tion relpedling Sir Everard Digby. 
 
 The fubjeds feleded by the preachers of 
 this LeAure, from the time of its inftitution, 
 will Ihew, that the want of merit in the pre- 
 fent Ledlures, or in any that may foon follow, 
 is not to be afcribed to the preoccupation of 
 all the beft topics by our predeceflbrs. 
 
 I beg leave, in concluding, to explain the 
 apparent neglect of preceding writers. I have 
 been fo ftudious, perhaps culpably ftudious, of 
 originality, if not of novelty of reply, to many 
 objeAions, that I forbore to confult other au- 
 thors ; and indeed, where I wiflied to have 
 extrinfic aid, it was often more eafy to invent 
 an argument for the occafion, than to procure 
 the book, to examine a reference, or to pene- 
 trate to the conclufion of a comment. 
 
EXTRACT 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE LA?T WILL AND TESTAMENT 
 
 OF THE LATE 
 
 REV. JOHN BAMPTON, 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY. 
 
 " I give and bequeath my Lands and 
 
 « Eftates to the Chancellor, Mafters, and Scholars 
 " of the Univerfity of Oxford for ever, to have and 
 " to hold all and Angular the faid Lands or Eftates 
 "upon tr-uft, and to the intents and purpofes herein- 
 " after mentioned ; that is to fay, I will and appoirit 
 « that the Vice- Chancellor of the Univerfity of Ox- 
 " ford for the time being fhall take and receive all 
 « the rents, iffues, and profits thereof, and (after all 
 '' taxes, reparations, and neceffary dedudlions mad"(^) 
 "that he pay all the remainder to the endowmertt 
 " of eight Divinity Lefture Sermons, to. be efta- 
 " blilhed for ever in the faid Univerfity, and to bte 
 " performed in the manner following : 
 
 « I direft and appoint, that, upon the firft Tuef- 
 " day in Eafl:er Term, a Ledurer be yearly chofelj 
 
[ xii ] 
 
 ^' by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no otners, 
 " in the room adjoining to the Printing-Houfe, 
 " between the hours of ten in the morning and 
 " two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity- 
 " Ledlure Sermons, ^e year following, at St. 
 " Mary's in Oxford, between the commencement 
 " of the lafb month in Lent Term, arid the end of 
 " the third week in Adl Term. 
 
 " Alfo I diredl and appoint, that the eight Di- 
 " vinity Lbdture Sermons fhall be preached upon 
 " either of the following Subjedts — to confirm and 
 " eftablifh the Chriftian Faith, and to confute all 
 " heretics and fchifmatics — upon the divine au- 
 " thority of the holy Scriptures — upon the autho- 
 " rity of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as 
 " to the faith and practice of the primitive Church 
 " — upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour 
 " Jefus Chrift — upon the Divinity of the Holy 
 " Ghoft^-upon the Articles of the Chriftian Faith, 
 " as comprehended in the Apoftles' and Nicene 
 " Creeds. 
 
 " Alfo I dircdt, that thirty copies of the eight 
 " Divinity Ledture Sermons Ihall be always print- 
 " ed, within two months after they are preached, 
 " and one copy fhall be given to the Chancelloi: 
 *' of the. Univerfity, and one copy to the Head of 
 " every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the 
 " city of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the 
 « Bodleian Library ; and the expence of, printing 
 " them fhall be paid out of the revenue of the 
 ." Land or Eftates given for eftablifhing the Divi- 
 
C xiii J 
 
 " nity Ledture Sermons ; and the Preacher fhall 
 " not be paid, nor be*entitled to the revenue, be- 
 " fore they are printed. 
 
 " Alfo I direft and appoint, that no perfon fhall 
 " be qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Ser- 
 " mons, unlefs he hath taken the Degree of Matter 
 *' of Arts at leafl, in one of the two Univerfities 
 *' of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that the fame per- 
 " fon, fhall never preach the Divinity Lefture Ser- 
 ** mons twice,'.' 
 
NAMES OF LECTURERS, &c. 
 
 1780. James BANDINEL, D. D. of JefuS College ; 
 
 Public Orator of the Univerfity. The author 
 
 -firft eftablifties " the truth and authority of the 
 
 " Scriptures 5— for the authenticity of the hif- 
 
 " tory being acknowledged; and the fafts which 
 
 " are therein recorded being granted, the tefti- 
 
 " mony of miracles and prophecies, joined to the 
 
 " excellence of the doSirines, is a clear and com- 
 
 " plete demonftration of our Saviour's divine 
 
 " commiffion." P. 37. 
 
 »- 
 
 1781. Timothy Neve, D, p. Chaplajn.ojF Mertot) College. 
 
 " The great point which the author h^s prin- 
 " (jipally attempted, to, illuftr3,tp is,^ that '«?elj 
 "known, but too much neglected truth, that 
 " Jefus Chrift is the Saviour of thes vyorld, and 
 " the Redeemer of mankind." 
 
 1783. Robert Holmes, M. A, Fellow of New> College. 
 " On the prophecies and teftimony of ' John the 
 " Baptift, and the parallel prophecies of Jefus 
 " Chrift." 
 
 1)783. John Cobb, D.D. Fel}ow of St. John's, College. 
 The fubjefts .difcufled arej "Aji, inquiry after 
 "happinefs; natural religipn;. the Gqfpel; re- 
 "" pentance ; faith ; profeiEonal faith ; prafliical 
 " faith ; the Chriflian's,privileges," 
 
 1,784. Jofeph White, B. D. Fellow of Wadham College; 
 " A comparifon of Mahometifm and Chriftia- 
 " nity in their hiftory, their evidence, and their 
 
 <« effeds." 
 
xvi NAMES OF J^ECTURERS. 
 
 1785. Ralph Churton, M. A. Fellow of Brafe Nofe Col- 
 
 lege ; " On the prophecies refpefting the de- 
 " ftrufihion of Jerufalem." 
 
 1786. George Croft, M. A. late Fellow of Univerfity 
 
 College; "The ufe and abufe of reafon; ob- 
 " je£lions againft infpiration confidered ; the au- 
 " thority of , the ancient Fathers examined ; on 
 " the conduft of the firft Reformers ; the charge 
 " of intolerance in the Church of England re- 
 " futed ; objeffions againft the Liturgy an- 
 " fwered; on the evils of feparation; conjec- 
 " tural remarks upon prophecies to be fulfilled 
 " hereafter." 
 
 1787. William Hawkins, M. A. late Fellow of Pembroke 
 
 College ; " On Scripture Myfteries." 
 
 1788. Richard Shepherd, D. D. of Corpus Chrifti Col- 
 
 lege; "The ground and credibility of the Chrif- 
 " tian Religion." 
 
 1789. Edward Tatham, D. D. of Lincoln College; "The 
 
 " Chart and Scale of .Truth." 
 
 1790. Henry Kett, M. A. Fellow of Trinity College. 
 
 . "The objeft" of thefe Leftures is "to reflify, 
 " the rriifreprefentations of Mr. Gibbon and 
 " Dr. Prieftley with refpeft to the hiftory of the 
 " primitive Church." ' » 
 
 1791. Robert Morres, M. A. late Fellow of Brafe Nofe 
 
 College; On "faith ingenerail; faith in divine 
 " teftimony no fubjeft of queftion ; internal evi- 
 " dence of the Gofpel ; effeiis of faith ; reli- 
 " glous eftablifhments ; herefies." 
 
NAMES OF LECTURERS. ^ xvli 
 
 1793. John Eveleigh, D. D. Provoft of Oriel College, 
 "I fhall endeavour," fays the learned author, 
 " firft to ftate regularly the fubftance of our 
 " religion from its earlieft declarations in the 
 " Scriptures of both the Old and New Tefta- 
 " ment to its complete publication after the re- 
 " furreftion of Chrift; fecondly, to give a fketch 
 " of the hiftory of our, religion frorn its com- 
 " plete publication after the refurreftion of 
 " Chrift to the prefent times, confining however 
 " this (ketch, towards the conclufion, to the 
 " particular hiftory of our own Church ; thirdly, 
 " to ftate in a fummary manner the arguments 
 " adducible in proof of the truth of our reli- 
 " gion ; and fourthly, to point out tlie general 
 " fources of objeftion againft it." 
 
 1793. James Williamfon, B. D. of Queen's College; 
 
 " The truth, infpiration, authority and evidence 
 " of the Scriptures confidered and defended." 
 
 1794. Thomas Wintle, B. D. of Pembroke College; 
 
 " The expediency, predidion, and accomplifh- 
 " ment of the Chriftian redemption illuftrated." 
 
 1795. Daniel Veyfie, B. D. Fellow of Oriel College; 
 
 " The doftrine of Atonement illuftrated and de- 
 «' fended." 
 
 - 1796. Robert Gray, M. A. late of St. Mary Hall; « On 
 " the principles upon which the reformation of 
 " the Church of England was eftabliftied." 
 
 . 1797. William Finch, LL. D. late Fellow of St. John's 
 College ; " The objeftions of infidel hiftorians 
 " and other writers againft Chriftianity confi- 
 " dered." 
 
 b 
 
xviii NAMES OF UECTURERS. 
 
 1798. Charles Henry Hall, B. D. late Student of Cbrift 
 Church. " It is the purpofe of thefe difcourfes 
 " to coniidef at large what is meant by the 
 " fcriptufal expreffion, ' fulnefs of time ;' or, in 
 " other words, to point out the previous fteps 
 " by which God Almighty gradually prepared 
 " the way for the introduSion and promulga- 
 tion of the Gofpel." See the Preface. 
 
 u ■ 
 
 1799. William Barrow, LL.D. of Queen's College. Thefe 
 
 Leftures contain " anfwers to fome popular 
 " objeftions againft the neceffity or the credi- 
 " bility of the Chriftian revelation." 
 
 1800. George Richards, M. A. late Fellow of Oriel Col- 
 
 lege; " The divine origin of prophecy illuftrated 
 " and defended." 
 
 i8oi. George Stanley Faber, M. A. Fellow of Lincoln 
 College ; " Horae Mofaicae ; or, a view of the 
 " Mofaical records with refpe£fe to their coin- 
 " cidence with profane antiquity, their internal 
 " credibility, and their connexion with Chrif- 
 " tjanity." 
 
 1 80a. George Frederic Nott, B. D. Fellow of All Souls 
 College ; " Religious Enthufiafm confidered." 
 
 i8o3-. John Farrer, M. A. of Queen's College ; " On the 
 " miffion and charaSer of Chrift, and on the 
 « Beatitudes." 
 
 1804. Richard Laurence, LL.D. of Univerfity CoUiege; 
 " An attempt to lUuftrate thofe Articles of the 
 " Church of England which the Calvinifts ira- 
 " properly confider as Calviniftical." 
 
NAMES OF LECTURERS. xix 
 
 1805. Edward Nares, M. A. late Fellow of Merton Col- 
 
 lege ; " A view of the evidences of Chriftianity 
 " at the clofe of the pretended age of reafon." 
 
 1 806. John Browne, M. A. late Fellow of Corpus Chrifti 
 
 College. In thefe Leftures the following prin- 
 ciple is varioufly applied in the vindication of 
 religion ; that " there has been an infancy of 
 *' the fpecies, analogous to that of the indivi- 
 " duals of whom it is compofed, and that the 
 " infancy of human nature required a different 
 *' mode of treatment from that which was fuit- 
 " able to its advanced ftate." 
 
 1807. Thomas Le Mefurier, M. A. late Fellow of New 
 
 College; " The nature and guilt of Schifm con- 
 " fidered with a particular reference to the prin- 
 " ciples of the Reformation." 
 
 - 1808. John Penrofe, M, A. of Corpus Chrifti College ; 
 " Ah attempt to prove the truth of Chriftianity 
 " from the wifdom difplayed in its original efta- 
 " blifhment, and from the hiftory of falfe and 
 " corrupted fyftems of religion." 
 
 1809. J. B. S. Carwithen, M. A, of St. Mary Hall ; " A 
 " view of the Brahminical religion in its confir- 
 " mation of the truth of the facred hiftory, and 
 " in its influence on the moral charafter." 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 I Cor. ii. 5. 
 
 That your faith Jkould not Jtand in the wifdom of 
 men, hut in the power of God. 
 
 j^EVERAL eminent^ theological writers have 
 fuggefted an hypothefis, that Providence fe- 
 lefted the firft teachers of Chriftianity from 
 perfons, not merely defe6live in attainments, 
 but alfo in mental capacity. Thefe writers 
 do not indeed depreciate the ufe of human 
 learning in the prefent time, but maintain, 
 that neither learning nor human abilities were 
 employed, as inftruments of converlion, at the 
 conjmencement of the miniftry of the Apo<- 
 ftles. The very poflibility of the employment 
 of liberal learning in this manner is excluded 
 by the hypothefis, which fuppofes, that the 
 firft teachers of Chriftianity were not only 
 deftitute, but not even fufceptible pf improve- 
 ment by education ; that therefore they could 
 not ufe, as means of propagating Chriftianitj, 
 
 B 
 
2 SERMON I. 
 
 the fecular wifdom, which they had not na- 
 tural ability to acquire. They cannot indeed 
 deny, that Paul and Apollos poflefled both 
 eloquence and learning ; but they feem to be 
 rellrained by a fuperftitious reludlance from 
 admitting, that thefe acquired qualifications 
 were applied to the inftruftion of the primi- 
 tive converts, left perhaps they fliould appear 
 to admit the neceffity, or even ufeful concur- 
 rence, of thefe aids, as fecondary caufes, in ad- 
 vancing the progrefs of the Chriftian religion. 
 
 They, who fuppofe that St. Paul fufpended 
 the full exercife of his natural abilities, and 
 circumscribed the difplay of his eloquence and 
 learning, feem to imagine, that the ufe of fiich 
 powers was injurious to the miraculous evi- 
 dence of Chriftianity, as if thofe powers were 
 not equally the gift of God, with any in- 
 fpired faculties whatfoever. They alfo ex- 
 clude, by this reafoning, the adaptation of 
 means, already exifting, to an end defigned tq 
 be promoted ; and forget, that the Almighty 
 does not a6l by the intervention of miraculous 
 endowments, when thofe beftowed by Him 
 in the natural courfe of his bounty are ade- 
 quate to the purpofes of his wifdom. Thefe 
 purpofes were equally manifefted in the preach- 
 ing and adions of the Apoftle to the Gentiles, 
 
SERMON I. 3 
 
 to whatever fource, whether to nature, or to 
 inlpiration, the means, by which thefe pur- 
 pofes were accomplilhed, are to be referred. 
 It feems to be the objedl of fuch reafoners to 
 deduce the wifdom of the Almighty from a 
 total difcrepancy and unfitnefs between the 
 end, which was to be attained, and the means, 
 which were to be employed. They would 
 prove, that our Lord defighedly preferred the 
 twelve, as men not only of uncultivated, but 
 of weak under|landings. But if all thole, 
 who promulgated the Gofpel to the world, 
 were not perfons of this defcription, the argu- 
 ment, which is derived from the infufficiency 
 of the agent oppofed to the greatnefs of the 
 efFed, is defective and illufory. No other 
 ilandard ispropofed of the imperfedion of the 
 capacities of the firft teachers of the Golpel, 
 befides " the erroneous views, which they 
 " formed of their Mailer's dodrine, intentions^ 
 " and kingdom, when he was with them 
 " upon earth." How much foever they might 
 mifunderftand thefe fubjeds, the mifconcep- 
 tion of them was an error common to a great 
 part of their nation, and could not fo much 
 be confidered as a tell of " natural incapa- 
 " city," as a raeafure of their prejudices and 
 paffions, which fupeufeded the exercife of their 
 
 £ 2 
 
4 . SERMON r. 
 
 Teafon. The fplendid exception of St. Paul 
 Uiufl: fubvert all fpeculations, which are found- 
 ed upon the hjpothefis, that the Almightjr 
 provided incompetent phyfical means in order 
 to diftinguifh his own agency, as if His wif- 
 dom and power required the contrail of the 
 wifdom and power of thofe, to whom He 
 bimfelf had not difpenfed the ordinary mea- 
 fure of intelleAual ability. In conformity with 
 this unworthy, theory we might have exped:- 
 «d to fee an illiterate Galilean miraculdufly 
 enabled to reafon, without premeditation, and 
 even inftantaneoufly, before the philofophic 
 tribunal of Stoics and Epicureans, affembled 
 at the Areopagus. But inftead of fuch a fud-^ 
 den communication of knowledge, or inlpira- 
 tion of qualifications for the particular occa- 
 lion, an eloquent and learned Jew of TarfuS 
 was fele(9:ed to be the Apoflle of the eloquent 
 and learned Gentiles. It is obferved by the 
 philofophical Greek * geographer of antiquity, 
 that every kind of knowledge was cultivated 
 with fo much ardour at Tarfus, that it fur- 
 paiTed Athens and Alexandria, and every other 
 
 » Strab. Geog. lib. xiv. p. 673. This paflage has been 
 often referred to ; but if I had been fatisfied with the 
 particulars ufually cited, I fhould not have found the moft 
 curious part of the account. ' ^ 
 
SERMON I. s 
 
 feat of fcience that could be named, and 
 that it differed from them all in this refped, 
 that its learned men were all citizens, with a 
 fmall intermixture of ftrangers ; fo that St, 
 Paul might aver with propfiety and truth, 
 that he was " a citizen of no mean city." 
 When the inhabitants of Lyftra applied to 
 him the title of Mercury, " becaufe be was 
 " the cliief fpeaker," are we to underftand 
 that this appellation was defcriptive of his 
 eloquence, or iimply intended to ' diftinguifh 
 his fpeaking from the comparative lilence of 
 his affociate ? To the Jews he relates with juf- 
 tij&able fatisfaftion the advantages of the Jew- 
 iih part of his education under Gamaliel, and 
 in his orations at Athens and Caefarea he does 
 not hefitate to dilplay the erudition of the 
 fchools of Tarfus. 
 
 This argument, drawn from the fuppofed 
 defe6tive capacities of the Apoftles, has been 
 ftill further extended, in con tradition to fadts 
 with an innocent and fanciful credulity, which 
 may extenuate the imprudence of the author, 
 but expofes Chriftianity to new objedions. 
 It has been faid ^, that if we compare " the 
 " excellence and fublimity of the dodrine and 
 
 k See Maclaine'fl Anfwer to Soame Jenyns. 
 B 3 
 
6 SERMON I. 
 
 " precepts of the Gofpel, with the rank and 
 '•' capacities of its teachers, we then are 
 " brought into the fphere of miracles." But 
 the rank and capacity of St. Paul were much 
 too great to prefent luch a contrail.* Excel- 
 lence charaAerizes all the writings of this 
 Apoftle, and fublimity is riot the cafual orna- 
 ment of a few paflages only ; but in the pro- 
 portion that his natural abilities exceeded 
 thofe of the Galilean teachers, in the fame 
 degree do they fhew the infufficiency of this 
 llandard of revelation. ■ It would follow from 
 this reafoning, that the more we degrade the 
 intelledlual abilities of the firft teachers of the 
 Gofpel, the further we recede from the pro- 
 bability of forgery and impofture ; and that, 
 upon the intimation of fuch fufpicions from 
 an adverfary, we may confidently direft him 
 to compare the excellence and fublimity of 
 the precepts and doctrines of the Gofpel with 
 the capacities of its original teachers. But 
 great as we may be willing to fuppofe this 
 difparity to have been, what do we really 
 know of the abilities of the firft teachers of 
 Chriftianity ? They purfued indeed humble 
 occupations ; they were vilified in the popular 
 adage, that " no good thing could come out 
 f of Galilee ;" and of two of the chief apo- 
 
SERMON I. 7 
 
 ftle's, Peter and John, it is faid, that they were 
 " unlearned and ignorant." If the paflages 
 in the epiftle to the Corinthians relate to the 
 preachers of Chriftianity, we muft further 
 defcribe them as " things bafe," " ysreak," 
 " foolifli," and " defpifed." But according to 
 this interpretation St. Paul would include 
 himfelf among thofe, who were not merely 
 in the eftimation of men weak and foolilh, 
 but abfolutely fuch in refpe6t to natural ca- 
 pacity. We, might with equal propriety af- 
 firm, that among the firft converts were the 
 poor only, and the illiterate, when the Apo- 
 ftle declares, that " the wife after the flefh," 
 " the noble," and " the mighty," who were 
 called, were " not many," as aflert, that the 
 Apoftles were not ignorant only, but inca- 
 pable of intelledual improvement. It feems 
 not to have been attended to, that the want of 
 that worldly intereft and confequence, which 
 is derived from wealth or power, were more 
 likely to deprefs them lower in the opinion of 
 mankind, and to expofe them to greater negled: 
 and contempt, than mere mental inferiority. 
 
 We may examine this argument in anothcE 
 light. Whatever may have been the other 
 fubjefts on which Jnfpiration may have ope- 
 rated, we cannot conceive, that the weak in. 
 
 B 4 
 
ft SERMON I.* 
 
 underftariding have in any cale been purpofely 
 ieleded to {hew its nature and effects. ' In the 
 inftance of a written fyftem of inftruAion 
 mental deficiency in the author would be no 
 fecurity againft iinpofture, but would certainly 
 perplex and irivolve the fubjeft in additional 
 intricacies. It would tend to prove, that a wri- 
 ter of more ability might be able to make the 
 diftinAion between infpiration and ordinary 
 human endowments lefs perceptible. If thi& 
 confequence is not to be admitted, why are we 
 to appreciate the excellence and fublimity of 
 the doftrines and precepts of the Gofpel by an 
 oppofition of the incapacity of its teachers ? 
 If, on the other hand, no comparifdn can be 
 made, and none certainly can be made, be- 
 tween the extent of the wifdom of man and 
 the fuggeftions of infpiration, it will not de- 
 pend upon the degree of his intelled, be it 
 more or be it lefs, whether we are or are not 
 brought " into the Iphere of miracles." 
 '*' But in the ftatement of the fa6l, that, the 
 firft teachers were either Galileans, or perfons 
 of defective abilities, an exception occurs, 
 which has been negleded in the zeal to aug- 
 ment the neceffity of miraculous interpofition. 
 A portion of the world was inftruded neither 
 by Galileans, nor by perfons of "natural in- 
 
SERMON l; 
 
 " capacity," even if we exclude the labours of 
 the learned Apoftle of Tarfus. They were 
 inllruAed through the medium of written do- 
 cuments, dompofed by men, whofe under- 
 flandings cannot be reduced to the ftandard 
 of the hypothelis, and the place of whofe 
 birth we cannot corre<9;ly affign to the region 
 of Galilee. '' The neceffity of infpiration can- 
 not vary^with the inequalities of human capa- 
 city, and infpiration itfelf can be referred to 
 human Capacity only as being fo'mething, 
 whofe dictates could not originate from the 
 powers of man, but which thofe powers are 
 adapted to communicate. 
 
 We may now adjuft the iftatement of the 
 argument in this manner, according to the 
 hypothefis and according to the fad;. One 
 portion of the world was converted by Jews, 
 who are fuppofed to have been men of " na- 
 ■ " tural incapacity;" another portion was con- 
 verted by a Jew, who poflefled an intelled of 
 no ordinary meafure, improved by the inftruc- 
 tion of learned preceptors, and the learned 
 intercourfe of his native city. But whatever 
 fuperiority the fublimity and excellence of 
 dodrines or precepts may have, as vifi- 
 ble effects of infpiration, when contrafted 
 with the incapacity of the teachers, who de- 
 
10 SERMON I. 
 
 livered them, this criterion is not applicable 
 to the example of St. Paul, nor can we equal- 
 ize this difference of ability by the evafive 
 affumption, that in the fervice of Chrillianity 
 he alfo might become, like others, a mere 
 paffive channel of inlpiration. 
 • We are not at liberty, I conceive, to illus- 
 trate the words of the text by any conjectural 
 explanation relpe6ting the conduct of St. Paul, 
 whether he might apply the whole of the pow- 
 ers which he poffeffed, or whether he reftrain- 
 ed his eloquence and fuppreffed his erudition, 
 in his perfonal teaching. We know that when 
 he affirms that " his fpeech and his preaching 
 *' were not with enticing words of man's wif- 
 " dom," he could not allude to eloquence ; 
 for in this epiftle he has given the firft, per- 
 haps, and moft perfe6l fpecimen of its applica- 
 tion, to fubje6ls arifing out of the Chriftian 
 dilpenfation. He could not mean to dilparage 
 the ufe of argument by his apoftrophe, " where 
 " is the difputer of this world ?" when he 
 fliews himfelf, whenever it is required, to be 
 a great mafter of the art of reafoning. Men 
 did not know God by means of the wifdom 
 of this world ; and St. Paul does not ignorantly 
 cenfure the philofophy of his own, or any other 
 age, in thefe expreffions, but decides upon its 
 
SERMON I. 11 
 
 nature and incompetency from a learned ac- 
 quaintance with its tenets. The do6trine of 
 Chrift crucified, which he oppofed to this wif- 
 dom, was fufficient to counterbalance any ca- 
 fual eflfedls of the eloquence with which he 
 might have Ipoken of its benefits to mankind ; 
 for it was ftill regarded as foolilhnefs by the 
 Greeks, the authors and cultivators of this wif- 
 dom, the difciples of the Lyceum and the Aca- 
 demy, of Zeno and of Epicurus. He defcribes 
 his preaching among the Corinthians in his re- 
 folution not " to know any thing among them, 
 " fave Jefus Chrift, and him crucified ;" inti^ 
 mating however that he could have accom- 
 modated his manner and teaching to hearers, 
 who might have expelled him to adapt his 
 reafonings to rules of captious difputation, and 
 to conform his ftyle to examples of delufive 
 oratory. 
 
 It appears then, that the natural abilities 
 of the firft teachers of Chriftianity, whatever 
 they might have been originally, were not 
 changed by the influence of infpiration ; fo 
 that, on one hand, the loweft meafure of un- 
 derftanding was not defigned to prefent a con- 
 traft to infpiration; nor, on the other, was the 
 greateft neceflary to aflift or to difplay its na- 
 ture or its powers. The preaching of an elo- 
 
m SERMON Iv 
 
 quent and learned Apoftle to the eloquent and' 
 learned Gentiles could not furprize or delude 
 them into the reception of Chriftianity, for 
 eloquence and learning were not novelties to a 
 Grecian auditory, and therefore theie qualifi- 
 qations would have availed but little, if thefe 
 bearers had not difcerned, in the fubjed; of 
 his preaching, fomething, which their own 
 enquiries enabled them to decide was not the 
 invention of an accomplilhed teacher, nor 
 owed its exiftenoe to " the wifdom of man." 
 
 If we examine the four Golpels, we Ihall 
 not perhaps find in them either the powers 
 of St. Paul, or the unlettered ignorance of Ga- 
 lileans. We may obferve, that although they 
 all proceeded from *' the-fame.fpirit of truth," 
 yet thefe narratives of nearly the fame fa6ts 
 have not been reduced by the controul of 
 infpiration to an uniformity of ftyle and man- 
 ner, fo as to exclude the appearance of pecu- 
 liarities of the writers, arifing from difference 
 of difpofition, of habits, of education, in Ihort, 
 of natural abilities. 
 
 • In the depreciation of the capacities of the 
 firft teachers of the Gofpel, thefe teachers are 
 apparently confounded with the Evangelifts; 
 and what is alledged refpeAing one is applied 
 without difcrimination to the other. But is 
 
SERMON I. IS 
 
 tLere any reafon to think that mankind wer6 
 not then inftrudled, as they have been fince, 
 by perfons of various abilities and acquire- 
 ments,' as infpiration neither communicated 
 fcuman learning, where it had not been pre- 
 vioufly attained, nor did it obliterate what had 
 "been formerly ftored in the memory. It nei- 
 ther annihilated that improvement of the fa* 
 culties, which refults from their exercile and 
 application, nor reduced the mind to its ori- 
 ginal rudenefs. The gift of tongues is not 
 an exception, as I conceive, to this remark. 
 The knowledge of languages is not itfelf learn- 
 ing, but the means of communication; not 
 the thing to be communicated, which may, or 
 may not, be learning. 
 
 If indeed it ihould be imagined, that after 
 a lapfe of time it might be neceffary that the 
 Golpel Ihould be preached by perfons of fu- 
 perior qualifications, this reafoning cannot be 
 reconciled to the known inequality of abilities 
 among the contemporary teachers. It is not 
 perhaps eafy to explain, how the neceflity of 
 employing the eloquent and the learned, in dif- 
 fufing the Gofpel, Ihould arife from the change 
 of circumftances in the lapfe of time. The A- 
 poftles in general* were commanded to preach 
 the Gofpel "everywhere," "to every creature," 
 
14 SERMON I. 
 
 " to all nations," without any other reftridion, 
 than that they fliould commence their labours 
 at Jerufalem. Some of the epiftles of St. Paul 
 are thought to have preceded the publication 
 of the Gofpels ; the time, therefore, when 
 learning was to be more properly applied to 
 the inftruftion of mankind, coincides with the 
 period, when the lefs educated Apoftles were 
 engaged in preaching the fame Gofpel in other 
 parts of the world. But the portion of time, 
 which had elapfed lince the promulgation of 
 Chriftianity, had made no alteration in the ftate 
 of the w^orld, as to the progrefs of literature. 
 The nations of Greece and Afia were not ex- 
 tending their knowledge, nor advancing in 
 civilization by the introdu6lion of new arts. 
 About the period of the birth of our Saviour 
 literature and the arts had nearly reached, at 
 Rome particularly, that perfe6lion of which, un- 
 der the circumftances of the empire, they were 
 fufceptible. The nations above mentioned had 
 neither receded nor advanced in thofe refpeds, 
 which might feem to require more than ordi- 
 nary attainments and abilities in the primitive 
 teachers of Chriftianity. Befides, the converts 
 in thefe countries were numerous long before 
 the conclufion of the firft century. The in- 
 terval of time therefore, which the argument 
 
SERMON I. 15 
 
 comprifes, is much too narrow, and the change 
 6f circumftances too fmall, to enable us to de- 
 termine the neceflity or propriety of employ- 
 ing the learned and eloquent in the apoftolical 
 miffions. 
 
 ' By feparating fecular wifdom from infpira- 
 tion we Ihould diftinguifli, and perhaps not ad- 
 vantageoufly, the teachers of the evangelical 
 from the great teacher of the Jewilh difpenfa- 
 tion. What could create the incompatibility of 
 one with the other under the Gofpel ? Nothing 
 can be difcovered in the nature of infpiration, 
 or of human knowledge, which will explain it. 
 All the various wifdom of the Egyptians did 
 not interfere, as far as we can difcern, with the 
 infpiration of Mofes, nor could the erudition 
 of Daniel, nor the natural abilities of the other 
 prophets, be fuppofed to obfcure or to aug- 
 ment the fplendour of their divine illumina- 
 tion. They preferved indeed, as the Evan- 
 gelifts preferve, a difference of ftyle and man- 
 ner, which appear to be their own. The 
 learning and acquired knowledge of Solomon 
 were confpicuous, as well as the wifdom, 
 which he received from God. But as all 
 knowledge is the gift of God, the wifdom of 
 the Almighty was as much manifefted in the 
 choice of perfons, on whom this gift had been 
 
lO SERMON I. 
 
 previoully beftowed, as it would have been by 
 a fubfequent inspiration of fuch a proportion 
 of human knowledge, as was necelTary to 
 enable the Apoftles to perform the duties of 
 teachers of the Gofpel. 
 
 The expreffions of St. Paul, " the wifdom 
 " of men,'* have been paradoxically inter- 
 preted, and arbitrarily applied by a writer, the 
 principles of whofe work, " The Diffonance 
 " of the four generally received Evangeliftsj 
 ** &c." it is my intention to attempt to analyze; 
 in the ufual feries of thefe Lectures. He has» 
 explained the phrafe, as denoting not merely 
 the early evidence of the Chriftian Fathers in 
 eftablifliing the authenticity of the books of 
 the New Teftament, but alfo the human learn- 
 ing by which that evidence has been coUedtec^ 
 and examined. He condemns upon this au- 
 thority " the pious fraud," as he terms it, •* of 
 " the Fathers of the Church," and the fludies 
 of modern critics. " <= Obferving," he fays, 
 '* from St, Paul's mode of preaching the Gof- 
 *' pel to the Corinthians, that the faith of a wife 
 " and rational Chriftian ought to ftand not in 
 *' the wifdom of men, but in the power of 
 " God," he rejeds all the teftimony, and all 
 
 e Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p; 
 4, 5- 
 
SERMON I. 17 
 
 the enquiries of writers " from Serapion to Mi- 
 *' chaelis." The words of St. Paul, in which 
 he defcribes his own manner of preaching the 
 Gofpel, are then referred, not, as the analogy- 
 required, to the character of the prefent narra- 
 tives of the Evangelills, but to the teftimony 
 on which thefe narratives have been lince 
 received as authentic. But it is evident that 
 thefe words were written at a time ante- 
 cedent to the exiftence of any fuch evidence, 
 for this fpecies of evidence neceflarily pre- 
 fuppofes a written document. Can it be ima- 
 gined that St. Paul intended prophetically to 
 admonifh Chriftians of every age not to attend 
 to the external teftimony of the Golpels, which 
 the writers were then compofing, when he 
 muft at the fame time impeach the teftimony 
 of the Corinthians themfelyes and all others, 
 who were able to atteft, from perfonal know- 
 ledge, the authenticity of this Epiftle ? 
 
 It is alfo aftirmed, " that all the external 
 " ^ evidence, which the cafe admits, is fo 
 *' fcanty and defective, that it is not poffible 
 " to prove the authenticity of any of the evan- 
 " gelical hiftories upon that ground only;" 
 
 d Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, Pref. 
 p. I. 
 
 c 
 
18 SERMON I. ^ 
 
 and it is expefted, " that the feveral objedlion- 
 " able palTages Ihould be clearly reconciled, as 
 " the Scriptures really exift, without recur- 
 " ring to any human authority, or to conjee 
 " tures unwarranted by the Gofpels them- 
 " felves." That the external teftimony is 
 " fcanty and defective" is an aflertion which 
 is incorrect, in whatever way we explain it. 
 ' It is incorreft, whether we underftand that it 
 implies, that the cafe did not from its nature 
 admit fufiicient evidence, or, that what was 
 known to many, has been attefted by few. 
 We have not indeed all the original evidence ; 
 for much, that was written, has perilhed. " At 
 prefent I fliall only obferve, that the Gofpel 
 was taught orally during a period of eight years. 
 During this interval the number of witneffes 
 of this teaching mull have been increafing by 
 the acceflion of new converts, and their fami- 
 lies. The Gofpels therefore were committed 
 to writing, when their contents could be 
 verified, not by determining the identity of 
 autographs, but by comparing the preaching, 
 to which the Chriftians had been habituated, 
 with the written narrative. At this time alfo 
 there mull have been alive many believers at 
 Jerufalem, contemporary with our Saviour, 
 who muft have remembered not only the latter 
 
SERMON I. ig 
 
 events of his hiftory, but his teaching in their 
 fynagogues, and in the Temple. This cir- 
 cumftance effentiallj diftinguifhes the authen- 
 tication of the evangelical, from the authenti-* 
 cation of every other hiftory. The teftimony 
 of the firll converts would prove, what their 
 contemporaries would be fo much interefted 
 in knowing, that fuch a Gofpel was the fame 
 with that, by the preaching of which they had 
 been converted to Chriftianity, or according to 
 which the firft Chriftians had been educated, 
 before it was committed to writing. How 
 much more latisfadory would this be than a 
 mere alTurance, that fuch a writing was cer- 
 tainly an apoftolical autograph ! We may in- 
 lift likewife upon the facility with which the 
 written narrative could be thus verified, even 
 by fuch converts as the adverfaries of Chrif- 
 tianity terra mean and ignorant perfons. ~ The 
 original evidence then was fimple and copious ; 
 and that which we now have cannot be de- 
 nominated fcanty, when, even in the fhort 
 letter, of ^ Polycarp, he either cites or refers to 
 more than one half of the books, which con- 
 Hitute the prefent volume of the New Teft^- 
 ment. Our next enquiry is, whether it is de- 
 
 e Powel's Difc. p. 70. 
 C 2 
 
30 SERMON I. 
 
 fed;ive > Atid this involves a queftion, how far 
 the citation by contemporary writers of paf- 
 fkges from various parts of a book, is evidence 
 of the genuinenefs and authenticity of the 
 whole ? It might indeed be fuppofed, how- 
 ever r&flily, that the citations themfelves were 
 the only genuine parts of the work ; but this 
 could be faid of the Gofpels with lefs detri- 
 ment to their credibility, than of any othcF 
 writings whatever. They have a fource of cre- 
 dibility peculiar to themfelves, arifing from 
 their form of compofition. The identification 
 of the dod.rines with the fads of the Gof- 
 pels, by augmenting the intimacy of the con- 
 nection of one with the other, has rendered 
 a forgery of detached parts more difficult than 
 it would have been, if the Gofpels had con- 
 filled merely of a fyfliem of moral precepts, 
 fevered from the narrative, and had not re- 
 ferred to the general charader of the divine 
 perfon, who delivered them. For the fame 
 reafon they, who would attempt to mutilate 
 the Gofpels on the pretext of the want of au- 
 thenticity, would find it difficult to conceal 
 the chafm which would be produced by the 
 abfl:radion of even no very confiderable portion 
 of the narrative. The external evidence there- 
 fore mull be rejeded, if at all, for reafons. 
 
SERMON I. 21 
 
 which are better fupported than any, that are 
 drawn from its fcantinefs, or defeds. We may 
 indeed rather fulped that " wifdom of man," 
 by which, after a lapfe of fo many centuries, it 
 has now been difcovered, that the evidence, 
 on which the authenticity of the Goipels has 
 been received, is defedlive in kind, and in- 
 fufficient in degree, and therefore cannot pro- 
 duce rational conviction ; and that there is 
 other evidence, better adapted to the under- 
 ftanding of mankind, and which we are di- 
 reded in Scripture to apply, not only as a teft 
 of authenticity, but alfo as a criterion of Re- 
 velation itfelf. 
 
 It is alledged, that another method is in- 
 dicated for attaining certainty on thefe fub- 
 je<3;s ; " the power of God," by which the au- 
 thor of " The Diflbnance" underftands " the 
 " teftimony of prophecy." But no example 
 is, or perhaps can be, adduced, of the ufe of this 
 expreflion in this manner from the writings of 
 St. Paul, or from any other part of Scripture. 
 It was obferved before, that the mere phrafe, 
 " the wifdom of man," conftituted the fole 
 fcriptural authority refpeding the incompe- 
 tency of external evidence in general; and here, 
 " the power of God" is fuppofed, by the fame 
 arbitrary expolition, to denote not only fome 
 
 c 3 
 
22 SERMON I. 
 
 fuperior teflimony, but particularly that of 
 prophecy. " The Diflbnance" however is a 
 work, which fully illuftrates the pofition, that 
 perverfion of intelledl is marked by requiring 
 more proof than particular fubjedls will admit; 
 as natural incapacity or great ignorance are 
 indicated, by being fatisfied with infufficient 
 or with inapplicable teftimony. 
 
 The redu6tion of the Canon of the New 
 Teftament to its juft extent by the direftioa 
 of Scripture and the light of prophecy, mull 
 derive its claim to attention, after the expi- 
 ration of eighteen centuries, folely from our 
 reverence for the alledged fanclion of the at- 
 tempt. ' The invalidation of the authenticity 
 of the books of which the canon at prefent 
 confifts, has been undertaken in order to re- 
 move palTages, the interpretation of which 
 does not favour the Socinian lyftem ; and it is 
 perhaps more eafy to al ledge defedts in the 
 external evidence, and to intimate fufpicions of 
 extenfive forgery, than to pervert the meaning 
 of fo large a portion, which thofe paflages form 
 of the individual books, and to withftand 
 an explication of them founded on that gene- 
 ral analogy, which fublifts in the different 
 parts of the unmutilated record. 
 
 It will be my objed in this inveftigation to 
 
SERMON I. 23 
 
 refer a large mafs of minute and independent 
 obje6lions to fome general topics of difcuffion, 
 and trace them to their principles. I propofe 
 therefore to examine the paflages of Scripture 
 relative to the application of prophecy, as a 
 ftandard of the authenticity of the facred writ- 
 ings ; to determine the fufficiency of the ex- 
 ternal evidence, w^hen compared with pro- 
 phecy, for tfee authority of thefe works ; to en- 
 quire: whether the publication of fpurious and 
 fidlitious books had, at the time, any in- 
 fluence in perplexing the queftion refpe&ing 
 the genuinenefs of the Scriptures ; to afcer- 
 tain the grounds on which we receive the two 
 firft chapters of St. Matthew's Gofpel ; to in- 
 veftigate in what manner, if in any, the efta- 
 blifhment of Chriftianity in the time of Con- 
 llantine, as the religion of the ftate, tended to 
 facilitate the corruption of the written Gof- 
 pels ; and to reconcile the fuppofed anachro- 
 riifms in the language of the Gofpels by an 
 hiftorical Iketch of the diffuiion of the Greek 
 tongue among various parts of the world. 
 Thefe fubjeds are not altogether, new; but it 
 is not my intention to arrange, or* abbreviate, 
 or repeat the arguments and enquiries, of pre- 
 ceding writers. It is fcarcely nec'eflary to 
 remark, that a complete examination of " The 
 
 c 4 
 
24 SERMON I. 
 
 " Diffonaiice" cannot be comprifed in thefe 
 Lectures from the minutenefs of fome parts, 
 and the extent of others, Thefe therefore 
 may perhaps be referred for another place. 
 ^ The peculiarity, which diftinguifhes the 
 mode, adopted in that work, from every other 
 mode of determining the Canon of the New 
 Teftament, is the abfolute rejedlion of one 
 branch of evidence, to which much import- 
 ance has been always juftly attributed, the ex- 
 ternal or hiftorical teftimony. All fa6ls feem 
 to admit the fame fpecies of proof; but the 
 author of " The Diflbnance" affirms, that 
 " fails of different natures, to render them cre- 
 " dible, require very different kinds of tefti- 
 " mony." ' It may not be unneceffary to con- 
 lider the application of this principle to two 
 hiftorical fadls, the truth of which depends on 
 this variety of evidence. Thefe fails are, 
 " the invafion of Greece by Xerxes," and 
 " the deliverance of the Ifraelites from Egypt." 
 The reafon affigned for admitting the former 
 f fail to be true is, that the Greek " Hiftorians, 
 " who have recorded it, could have no fup- 
 " pofeable motive to falfify as to the main fad: 
 " itfelf." . It muft indeed be allowed, that 
 
 f Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p. 6. 
 
SERMON I. 25 
 
 where the evidence is contemporary with the 
 events, and particularly, where it is the evi- 
 dence of perfons, who have had fome fliare in 
 producing them, it may happen, that their ac- 
 counts, according to the nature of the events, 
 may be exaggerated through vanity, or mif- 
 reprefented through a fpirit of animofity to a 
 contrary party. This is a defeat to which per- 
 fonal evidence may, in general, be liable ; but, 
 on the other hand, the truth of great events is 
 fecured by their publicity being in proportion 
 to the magnitude of their objects, to the num- 
 ber of agents, and the time occupied in their 
 preparation and accomplifhment. This pub- 
 licity is not fuppofed to prevent partiality alto- 
 gether from operating upon the mind of the 
 hiftorian, but it expbfes him to detection by a 
 comparifon of other narratives, originating in 
 the importance of the events and the facility 
 of obtaining information. If we regard the 
 Evangelifts merely as contemporary witnefles, 
 we canndt difcover any occafion on which 
 they could glory in their Matter, that would 
 not be counterbalanced by the circumftance 
 of his death, Chrift crucified was " a lium- 
 " bling-block" to their countrymen, and 
 " foolifhnefs" to the philofophic ftranger, not- 
 withftanding the dignity of our Lord's defcent, 
 
36 SERMON I. 
 
 and the perfeftion of his moral chara(9:er. ,It 
 is difficult to difcover what worldly intereft 
 could be promoted by thofe doctrines, which 
 it is the objed of " The Diffonance" to prove 
 to be fpurious interpolations. ' Indeed it would 
 be difficult to Ihew, that Chriftianity was not 
 in every form unfavourable to the temporal 
 welfare of its difciples, till the reign of Con- 
 ftantine, a period much too diftant for the 
 fuppofed impoftors to derive or to expeft 
 any advantage from their corruptions of the 
 Gofpels. 
 
 That the truth or falfehood of the invalion 
 of Greece by Xerxes is of no confequence to 
 individuals of thefe times, is a pofition which 
 cannot be admitted. It may not be of im- 
 portance to us; that is, our political or any 
 other condition are not affected by the former 
 exiftence of fuch a place as Troy, or by fuch 
 an event as the Trojan war ; but it is of much 
 importance to the general credibility of hiftory 
 that thefe fafts Ihould be received as true. It 
 may have the femblance of paradox to alTert, 
 that the truth of the fafts recorded in the 
 New Teftament has any dependence upon the 
 truth of fuch fadls as the war of Troy, or the 
 invafion of Greece. But hiftory has been 
 always believed on the fame kind of evidence. 
 
SERMON I. 27 
 
 Even fable itfelf has not been always intro- 
 duced to falfify hiftory, but fometimes to be 
 its form of communication, and on other oc- 
 cafions to complete its imperfect chronicles. 
 When therefore we endeavour, on fpeculative 
 grounds, to invalidate the veracity of perfons, 
 who had the heft opportunity of knowing the 
 fa6ls which they commemorate, what will 
 prevent the'application of the fame doubts to 
 the evidence of the credibility of the New 
 Teftament ? The affiftance of the Holy Spirit 
 confifted in calling all things to the remem- 
 brance of our Lord's difciples ; not in fuper- 
 feding the former employment of their facul- 
 ties, but in renewing the impreffions formerly 
 made, and in diftinguifhing their teflimony, not 
 by its kind, but by its fuperior fulnefs and ac- 
 curacy. When our Saviour faid, " The Holy 
 " Ghoft, whom the Father will lend in m^ 
 " name, he Ihall teach you all things, and 
 " bring all things to your remembrance what- 
 " foever I have faid unto you ;" he did not 
 however affign this as the only caufe of the 
 force of their teftimony, but <;ombined it with 
 another, " Ye alfo fliall bear witnefs . of me, 
 " becaufe ye have been with me from the 
 " beginning." 
 
 The miraculous fads recorded of the Exo- 
 
28 SERMO^N I. 
 
 dus of the Ifraelites are received by the Author 
 of *' The DilTonance" merely on account of 
 *' the teftimony s which the fpirit of prophecy 
 " bears to the general truth of the Pentateuch, 
 *• and the divine authority of the Jewifli re- 
 *^ ligion," This is the different kind of tefti- 
 mony, by which the truth of the miraculous 
 fadls of the ancient facred hiftory is faid to be 
 confirmed, in oppofition to the evidence of the 
 fads of the Heathen annals. But where this 
 teftimony of the fpirit of prophecy is to be 
 found, in what words it is communicated, and 
 in what manner it is applied, are queftions, 
 which I propofe foon to difcufs. 
 
 . At prefent I llwll vindicate the minutenefs, 
 with which I fliall be found frequently to have 
 purfued the reply to various objections, that 
 may feem to derive their importance folely 
 from fuch an examination. For I apprehend, 
 that a falfe dignity is not rarely aflumed in con- 
 troverfial difcuffions, and is fuftained by a con- 
 temptuous difregard of objections, which it is 
 perhaps more eafy to ftigmatize with epithets 
 of reproach, than to analyze by regular ar- 
 gument. If objections, be intricate, they 
 
 may be difentangled ; if futile, their inefBci- 
 
 g Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p.-;. 
 
SERMON I. 29 
 
 cney may be expofed ; if abfard, their abfur- 
 dity may be demonftrated. Contempt is too 
 often the refuge of ignorance in diftrefs; but 
 even if it were the effect of better know- 
 ledge, and fuperior abilitjr, it ist moft impro- 
 perly applied to the fubje6t of religion, both 
 as it is dogmatical and irreverent. Contempt 
 is neither the proof nor the lign of fuperiority ; 
 and in what inftance may not reafon and ar- 
 gument be fubftituted for expreffions of con- 
 tempt ? If an adverfary be difpofed to affign 
 to it all the polemical value which we can 
 expe<3:, it can never amount to more than the 
 limple oppofition of a negative. Would ex- 
 teniive knowledge and fuperior ability ap- 
 pear lefs cbnfpicu^&ufly to vulgar obfervers, in 
 a direct examination, than when they are to 
 be inferred from fupercilious negle6t ? If an 
 objeftion be neglected, who can diftinguilh 
 whether it is neglefted becaufe it is con- 
 temned only, or becaufe it is unanfwerable ? 
 ' This ambiguity, which is as favourable to one 
 party as to the other, can be removed only by 
 a formal inveftigation. Sophiftry and igno- 
 rance may be obvious to the experienced rea- 
 foner, or the learned enquirer ; yet contempt 
 cannot be judicioully employed to detach the 
 adherents of fcepticifm, who are perhaps more 
 
80 SERMON I. 
 
 fatisfied, that, as nothing but contempt is op* 
 pofed to what has influenced their minds, they 
 themfelves have jufl: reafoning and accurate 
 knowledge on their fide.^ But no objedtion is 
 unworthy the. confideration of the moft able, 
 or the moft learned. Different perfons are fo 
 varioufly impreiTed by different objedlions, 
 that it is impoflible to affirm, that the moft 
 frivolous, are the moft harmlefs. Prejudice 
 may fo far countera6l the effeft of liberal at- 
 tainments, as to reduce improved minds to the 
 level of thofe, which are rude and undifci- 
 plined ; and conjedures and infinuations may 
 perplex with doubts, underflandings, which, 
 when employed on othei: fubjedts, appear to be 
 vigorous, and cultivated, and'enlarged. 
 
SERMON n. 
 
 Rev. xix. lo. 
 For the teftimony of Jejiis is the fprit of prophecy, 
 
 AT may be juftly queftioned, whether the 
 Almighty has ever employed prophecy to au- 
 thenticate any of the writings, in which the 
 revelation of his will has been communicated 
 to mankind. If this had been one of the pur- 
 pofqs of this teftimony, we might have ex- 
 pedled, that it would confift of a diftind; col- 
 ledlion of predictions, and not of a few inde- 
 terminate paflages of fcripture ; and, that it 
 would not be refolvable into a ftill more inde- 
 finite form, "the general fpirit of prophecy." 
 
 It is the objedl of the author of " The Dif- 
 " fonance" (in obedience, as he profelTes, to 
 an infpired command) to reje6t all the proofs 
 "of written revelation, which are founded " on 
 " mere human teftimony." The words of the 
 text, according to this interpretation, contain 
 the injundion, by which we are direded to 
 
32 SERMON II. 
 
 apply to prophecy, as to the llandard of reve- 
 lation, and the criterion of the authenticity of 
 the writings, in which it is conveyed. 
 
 Thofe miracles, which are admitted by this 
 writer to have any validity, as proofs, are faid 
 to derive their credibility, as fads, from their 
 aflbciation with predictions; and, without this 
 combination, they are declared to be infuffi- 
 cient means of convid;ion. He fiippofes, that 
 ^ " he can prove, not only from the dictates of 
 " human reafon, but from the voice of revela- 
 " tion, that miracles, of themfelves, do not 
 " afford even to the IpeAators a fufficiently 
 " firm and fatisfaitory foundation for their re- 
 " ligious faith." I propofe therefore to con- 
 fider, although perhaps not ftridlly according 
 to this arrangement, whether the evidence of 
 miracles is affedled by its connection with 
 prophecy ; to examine the reafons, which are 
 adduced in fupport of the fuperiority of the 
 proof by prophecy, above that by miracles ; 
 the grounds on which we receive thefe two 
 fpecies of evidence, and the prophetic paffages 
 of the infpired writers, which are faid to con- 
 llitute the criterion of authentic fcripture. 
 
 ^ Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p. 
 
SERMON II. 33 
 
 When we are referred to fcripture, as the 
 authority for the rejediion of miracles, becaufe 
 mankind might have been " deluded and de- 
 " ceived by fach evidence," we muft enquire 
 in what language of fci-ipture the evidence, 
 ariling from miracles, is thus condemned; in 
 what circumftances their defeds, as proofs, 
 are faid to confift, and whether prophecy al- 
 ters or corrects them. 
 ■■- • ■ 
 
 " With regard to miracles imder the Old 
 " Covenant," it is faid^, " that God himfelf, 
 "by his prophet Mofes^ cautioned the Jews 
 "againft receiving the religious doctrines of 
 " any pretended prophet, though he Ihould 
 . " even work miracles to convince them, be- 
 " caufe they would be liable to be deluded 
 " and deceived by fuch evidence. * If there 
 ' arife among you a prophet, or a dreamer of 
 
 * dreams, and giveth thee a fign or a wonder, 
 ^ and the lign or the wonder come to pafs, 
 
 * whereof he fpake Unto thee, faying. Let us 
 
 * go after other gods, which thou haft not 
 ' known, and let us ferve them ; thou (halt 
 ' not hearken unto the words of that prophet, 
 
 * or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your 
 
 * God proveth you, to know whether ye love 
 
 i» Diff. Pref. p. viii. ad edit. 
 
si SERMON ir. 
 
 'the Lbrd your God with all yout heart and 
 * with all your foul." The fufficiency of the 
 evidence of miracles, fo Tai* from being invali- 
 dated, is ailerted in this injundlion of Mofes. 
 He feems to refer to it familiarly, as the beft 
 lj)ecies of evidence ; as the evidence to which 
 they had been habituated, and the fou'ndatioti 
 on which thdir faith is fuppxjfed at this time 
 to be eftablilhed. The temptation therefore 
 conlifted in witnefEng the fame evidence ap- 
 plied to a contrary purpofe; that evidence, 
 whofe force they had before acknowledged, 
 now adduced to evince their firmnefs, to dif- 
 cover the principle of their profeffions, to af- 
 certain whether they were ready to transfer 
 their obedifence to another mafter, whofe 
 power they might erroiieoufly eftimate from 
 the miracles of his pretended minifters. But 
 if we argue from the explanation of the au- 
 thor of " The Diflbnance," we may fay, thaf, 
 as the objeft of the Almighty was to afcertain 
 the influence of his favours and mercies on 
 the minds of the Ifraelites, what proof could 
 be expected of their fidelity, when a teft was 
 to be applied, which was, in the eftimation of 
 the Almighty himfelf, inadequate and falla- 
 cious ? Was not this alfo a late period of their 
 hiflory to promulgate a caution againft the 
 
SERMON II. 55 
 
 evidence of miracles derived from its intrinfic 
 imperfe<9ions ? The Ifraelites had been long 
 accuftomed to the vifible and extraordinary 
 dilplaj of the power of the Almighty, and are 
 now, for the firft time, informed, that mira- 
 cles may delude their fenfes, and miflead 
 their underftandings. What could be the 
 guilt, in the eye of God, of thofe men, who 
 refufed tp admit, as evidences of his will, 
 thofe l^gns and wonders, to which He him- 
 felf had not communicated authority or real- 
 ity ? According to the impious principle 
 which I am oppofing, miracles are dive'fted 
 of their awful charadter, and deprived of their 
 proper influence upon the fenfes and under- 
 ftanding of mankind, and are reduced to fome- 
 thing lower, as to dignity, and weaker, as to 
 effed:, than ordinary events. But in this very 
 paffage of fcripture, in which miracles are faid 
 to be delufive and fallacious, they are intro- 
 duced in combination with prophecy, and 
 therefore the diftindtion of miracles with, and 
 of miracles without, preceding predidtions, 
 (by which we are faid to be enabled to dif- 
 criminate real from fidlitious wonders,) is not 
 to be deduced from the authority of this paf- 
 fage. 
 
 Nor do I conceive, even if it fliould be ad- ' 
 D 2 
 
56 SERMON II. 
 
 mitted to be a correft remark, that God " hatH 
 " never refted the credit of his fupernattiral 
 " revelation to his creatures upon mere mira- 
 " cles alone, even to thofe Ipeftators of them; 
 " w^ho were chiefly intended to be convinced 
 " of its truth and certainty," that we Ihould 
 be at liberty to frame an inductive argument 
 from the general obfervation. We could not 
 infer (as it would almofl: feem, according to 
 this reafoning, that we might infer) that we 
 had here difcovered a law, which the Al- 
 mighty had prefcribed to himfelf in confirm- 
 ing the communication of his will to man- 
 kind, in the fame manner as we may colledt 
 the laws, by which he continues the exift- 
 ence, and regulates the operations, of the ma- 
 terial world. The language and fpirit of the 
 remark imply, that the Almigly:y did not efta- 
 blifh miracles alone as the foundation of be- 
 lief, becaufe they were of a nature not to juf- 
 tify fuch a degree of confidence in the repre- 
 fentations of the fenfes. Are we then to ima- 
 gine that the fped:ators might truft to the im- 
 preffions made upon their fenfes, when the 
 miracle was accompanied with prophecy; but 
 that a miracle, without this fecurity for its 
 reality, is to be confidered as of uncertain ex- 
 iftence ? But when it is aflumed that the 
 
SERMQN II. 37 
 
 fenfes may be deluded, the addition of pro- 
 phecy would not be any confirmation of the 
 miraculous a6l. The uncertainty ftill remains 
 the iame. Whether the fpeftator affirm that 
 the miraculous a^t qoincides with the pro^ 
 phecy, or is contradictory to it, his teftimony 
 may be difputed. As we are fuppofed to be 
 incompetent judges of the reality of a miracle, 
 fo are we of the exiftence of all fenfible ob- 
 je6ls ; and therefore the moft conclufive pro- 
 qeeding would be, to queftion the exiftence of 
 the prophecy itfelf, the reality of which, as 
 well as *that of the miracle, can be proved 
 only by the evidence of the fenfes. And why 
 fhould this evidence be regarded as unquef- 
 tionable in one cafe, and liable to*fallacy in 
 the other ? 
 
 ■ With refped: to thofe perfons who derive, 
 from hiftorical records, the convidtion of the 
 truth of the ^arly fads of this nature, the au- 
 thor of " The DiiTonance" would refer them 
 folely to prophecy, as the foundation of their 
 credit. He " receives the miraculous fads 
 " recorded of the Exodus of the Ifraelites on 
 " the teftimony which the fpirit of prophecy 
 " bears to the general truth of the Pentateuch, 
 " and to the divine authority of the Jewifli 
 *' religion ; but other wife he would have re- 
 
 D 3 
 
38 SERMON ii. 
 
 " ferred" thofe fadls " to the fame clafs with 
 " the early fables of the Romans^ and all thofe 
 " wonderful circumftances, which are faid to 
 " have attended the origin of every other na- 
 " tion recorded in ancient hiftory." It is to 
 be obferved, that in the miracles performed, 
 by Mofes immediately preceding the depar- 
 ture of the Ifraelites from Egypt, the accom- 
 plifhment fucceeded the predidiion with the 
 interpofition of a very fliort interval. When 
 indeed the prophecy is delivered in one age, 
 and the tranfadions, to which it refers, take 
 place after the revolution of many fuBceeding 
 ages, we may then be fatisfied that they are 
 not contemporary fidlions. But if the pre- 
 didlion arid the accomplilhment be feparated 
 by an inconliderable portion of time, and are 
 both recorded by the fame writer, as in the 
 inftances of the miracles wrought by Mofes, 
 which attended the Exod of the Ifraelites, in 
 this cafe the evidence of prophecy can add no 
 weight to that of miracles. The writer may 
 be able to adjuft the miracles to the prophecy, 
 or the prophecy to the miracles, as the inter- 
 val comprehends fo very fmall a portion of 
 futurity. The record of the miracle, uncon- 
 neded with the delivery of prophecy, would 
 have been equally fatisfadory, as a ^proof, and 
 
SERMON 11. ^a 
 
 Qbligatorj ypon the condud. Jf l;hg one will 
 not convince, convidlion cannot be expedled 
 from the other. This, it muft be acknow- 
 le^ge4, is the weakeft cafe in prophecy that 
 can ])e fpecified, becaufe the fliortnefs of the 
 ititervening period brings the accomplilhment 
 ^nd the ppedidlion into the fan^e record, and 
 under the controul pf the fame writer. I wifh 
 however t^, guard, my meaning from mifap- 
 prehenfion by obferving, that although the 
 length or fhortpefs of the interval fhould 
 really mak^ no difference whatever with re- 
 fpeft tq the powers and evidences of pro- 
 phecy, yet, when the prophecy and tl^e fadl 
 are recorded in the fame writing, the queflion 
 of the priority of the prophecy may be dif- 
 puted with more plaufibility -than when the 
 periods bptvyeen each are longer, and one per- 
 fon records the prophecy, and another the 
 fulfilment. 
 
 In order to evince the effe<3;s of the fuperior 
 influence of prophecy, it is obferved in " The 
 " DifTonance," that " the Jews were conti- 
 " nually apofiatizing to idolatry, notwith- 
 " fiaiiding the numerous miracles recorded in 
 " their hiflory, and the occafional fuperna- 
 " tural interpofition of divine power, and yet 
 " were thoroughly convinced of the truth and 
 
 D 4 
 
40 SERMON II. 
 
 " divine origin, and authority of the Mofaic 
 " covenant, upon their fo forcibly feeling the 
 " fevere completion of the prophecies in their 
 " Babylonifli captivity." That a nation would 
 be permanently influenced by the fufFerings 
 of captivity, and that their condud would be 
 altered ppon thofe refledlions, which a ftate of 
 general fuffering would neceflarily produce, 
 is probable and natural. But it is not the 
 defign of the author to explain the reforma- 
 tion of the Jewifli people in fo fimple a man-- 
 ner. We are expected, if not entirely to 
 overlook the neceflary efFe<fts of a long pref- 
 fure of calamity upon the mind, yet to refer 
 this conviction of the Jews refpefting the 
 truth and divine origin of the Mofaic cove- 
 nant, and their abandonment of idolatry, to 
 two caufes inftead of one : firft, to the influ- 
 ence of their reflections on the completion of 
 their prophecies ; and, fecondly, to the evils 
 of their late condition. If the real caufe of 
 their apoftaiy to idolatry had been, their 
 doubts refpeCting the truth and divine origin 
 of the Mofaic covenant, it might perhaps have 
 been accounted for, perhaps even vindicated, 
 upon the principles of " The Difl'onance," by 
 alledging the want of other evidence than 
 miracles. But this want of evidence was not 
 
SERMON II. 41 
 
 the caufe of their apoftafy ; neither is it pro- 
 bable that an accumulation of prophecies 
 Would have prevented it. 
 
 It would appear from the expreffions of the 
 preceding citation, as if the former genera- 
 tions were required to receive and acknow- 
 ledge the truth and divine origin of the Mo- 
 faic covenant upon one kind of proof, and the 
 latter upon another. But, if we place on one 
 fide the accumulated teftimony, which the 
 Almighty gave of himfelf, and, on the other, 
 the intermarriages of the Jews with the ido- 
 latrous nations, we may then be convinced, 
 that thefe connections, continued through fe- 
 vefal generations, were fufficiently powerful 
 to counteract the operation of the commands 
 of the Almighty, and to obliterate for a time 
 the evidence of the revelation of his will. The 
 Jews perfifted in their difobedience to the im- 
 portant precept, not to contract alliances with 
 the families of idolatrous ftrangers, from the 
 time of their firft fettlement in the land pro- 
 mifed to their forefathers, to the conclufion of 
 their captivity. This land too they were ena- 
 bled to occupy by the means of miracles, and 
 in conformity with prophecy. That they were 
 at length reclaimed from idolatry by their re- 
 flections on thofe prophecies, which were ac- 
 
42 SERMON II. 
 
 camplilhed in the^r punifliment, is not con- 
 firmed by any hiftorical fafts. It is a reafon,. 
 which is not affigned in the account of their 
 conduct at that time. The Jevy^ilh hiftoiiian 
 relates «=, " that the people, defired of Ezra, 
 " that the laws of Mofes might be read to 
 " them. Accordingly' he ftood in the midfl: 
 " of the multitude and read them. Now by 
 " hearing the laws read to them, they were 
 " inftrudled to be righteous men for the pre- 
 " fent and for the future; but as for their paft 
 " offences, they were diipleafed at themfelves, 
 " confidering, that if they had kept the law, 
 " they had endured none of thofe miferies 
 " which they had experienced." Hence it is 
 evident, that they did not refer to their pro- 
 phets to examine, how their calamities had 
 coincided with the, predidlions, but to the laws 
 of Mofes, to obferve the deviations of their 
 conduct from the injundlions of their vene- 
 rated legiflator. For prophecies, without any 
 derogation from their awful and fublime na- 
 ture, cannot be faid to be ftandards of moral 
 conduct, by the application of which degrees 
 of guilt or righteoufnefs may be determined. 
 
 <= Antiq. lib. xi. cap. 5. Whifton's tranflation ; and 
 pzra. 
 
SERMON II. 4* 
 
 Tranfgreffions are greater or lefs according to 
 their deviations from certain laws. 
 
 ' It is invidioufly obferved, that the Jews 
 apoftatized, " notwitbftanding the numerous 
 *' miracles recorded in their hiftory ;" as if 
 prophecy would have prevented that defec- 
 tion, from which afterwards, according to our 
 author's fuppolition, they were reclaimed 
 through the lu^erior influence of this more 
 perfect evidence. But the Ifraelites were not 
 led to repentance in former ages by the ac- 
 complifliment of the prophecies againft the 
 houfe of Jeroboam. The very perfon, who 
 exterminated the houfe of Jeroboam accord- 
 ing to the prophecy of Ahijah, committed the 
 fame abominations as his predeceflbr ; and the 
 fame fentence, which was prophetically de- 
 nounced againft Jeroboam, was prophelied 
 and fulfilled againft his race alfo. Even Zimri, 
 who executed the prophecy, tranfgrefled in a 
 limilar manner, and received a firailar con- 
 demnation. The fons and fucceffors of Jofiah^ 
 who had witnefled the fulfilment of the pro-, 
 phecies in the perfon and actions of their fa- 
 ther, were as corrupt and difobedient as any 
 of their predeceflbrs. We may therefore en- 
 quire, whether it appears, upon an examina- 
 tion of the hiftory of the Jews, that they were 
 
44 SERMON II. 
 
 more retrained from ^poftafy by the means 
 of prophecy under their kings, than by the 
 means of miracles under their theocracy ? 
 "^ There are ftrong exceptions to the obferva- 
 tion, that miracles derive their authority from 
 preceding predidlions^ They fometimes en- 
 hance the credit of a prophecy at the time 
 that it is delivered, and impart aflurance to. 
 the perfon who is the objedl of it, that it fliall 
 be fulfilled. When Hezekiah was informed 
 by Ifaiah that he Ihould recover from his 
 ficknefs, and that his life Ihould be prolonged, 
 he required a fign which fhould confirm the 
 prophetic promife. He believed the prophecy 
 on the evidence of a miracle, the retrograda- 
 tion of the fhadow on the dial of Ahaz, which,^ 
 although intended for his own conviction, was 
 of fuch a nature as to be obferved at Babylon, 
 and was probably recorded in their aftrono- 
 mical regifters, and was otherwife well calcu- 
 lated, without fuch affiftance, to be remem- 
 bered by individuals of other countries, for a 
 longer period than that to which the life of 
 Hezekiah was protracted. When alfo a pro- 
 phet of the Lord unexpectedly appeared be- 
 fore Jeroboam, while he was ftanding at an 
 idolatrous altar, and performing abominable 
 rites, he, without regarding the authority of 
 
SERMON IL 45 
 
 Jeroboam, or the prefence of the children of 
 Ifrael at this " feaft," which their king had 
 *' ordained," " even in the month which he 
 " had devifed of his own heart," abruptly 
 addrefled his awful denunciation to the altar, 
 on which the ofFenfive facrifices had been of- 
 fered up, and foretold, that a time would 
 come, when the bodies of the priefts of the 
 high places Ih^ould be burnt upon it, as a fa- 
 crifice to avenge the crime of its prefent pol- 
 lution, " And he gave a lign the fame day, 
 '• faying. Behold, the altar fhall be rent, and 
 " the afties that are upon it Ihall be poured 
 -^' out. When Jeroboam heard the faying of 
 ^' the man of God, he ftretched forth his hand 
 "** from the altar," as a fignal of violence to 
 the perfon of the prophet, and " his hand 
 ** dried up," " the altar alfo was rent, and the 
 " afhes poured out from the altar, according 
 " to the iign which the man of God had given 
 " by the word of the Lord." The event here 
 predided was not to take place till the time 
 of Jofiah, a period of 350 years ; but we can- 
 not doubt that the impreffion of the truth of 
 the predid:ion on the minds of the Ipedtators of 
 thefe miracles was their real end and purpofe. 
 The author of " The Diffonance" has pur- 
 fued ftrongly, but inaccurately, a parallel be- 
 
46 SERMON 11. 
 
 tween miracles and prophecy. " To thofe of 
 *' tJie prefent age," he bbferves'^, "who have 
 *' any doubt about the certainty of the Chrif- 
 *' tian religion, and confequently of the tnit& 
 " and authenticity of thofe hiftories in which 
 " it is recorded, it cannot be of the leaft ufe 
 " to altedge the miraculous asfts there, and 
 " there only, relate;d> to have been performed 
 " by the firft teachers of that revelation, be- 
 " caufe thofe adls, marking a very confiderabl^ 
 " part of the narrative, the authority and cre- 
 " dibility of the hiftories muft be firft firmly 
 " eftablifhed before the miracles contained in 
 *' them can reafonably be admitted as real 
 '" faifts." That the eftablifhment of the cre- 
 ^dibility of the hiliory Ihould precede any rea*- 
 foning from the miracles recorded in it, may 
 be allowied. We may alfo add, that the mo- 
 ral precepts, which are inculcated, derive their 
 obligator}'^ faiidtion, as divine rules of conduct, 
 irom the refult of the lame enquiry. We 
 may, and indeed muft think, that the morality 
 contained in the Gofpel is, when taken in a 
 ipeculative light, tmrthy a divine original ; 
 'but fomedired; evidence of this is required to 
 enforce the duty of applying its maxims to 
 
 ^ Diflbnance, p. 22, 23. 
 
SfeRMON II. ^47 
 
 the Tegulatidn of our anions as Chriftians. 
 Its purity, its excellence, its fublimity, are 
 charadleriftics of evangelical morality; bat 
 ihefe qualities are not the fanAions by which 
 its precepts haive been eftablilhed, nor the au*- 
 thorities 'upoii which they have been received. 
 Our obligation to obey theiii is derived only 
 irom the Authenticity of the records which 
 contain thetn ; records, by which we are af- 
 fured that thefe rules of life were delivered by 
 a teacher, whofe miffion was fhewn indifpu- 
 tably to be from heaven. The genuinenefs 
 or authenticity of every hiftory muft be efta- 
 blifhed in the fame manner, whether the hif- 
 ■tory contains miracles, or not. This circum- 
 ilance does not afFedl the fpecies of evidence, 
 nor compel us to admit any proof, with which 
 we fliould not otherwife be fatisfied ; neither 
 does it make lefs evidence, nor a greater pro- 
 portion, nor a different kind of it, indifpenfa'- 
 ble for convitSlion. The Jeafon alio does not 
 appear why it is more or lefs heceffary to 
 afcertain the authenticity of thefe books, bc- 
 caufe the miraculous a6ls form " a very con- 
 " liderable part of the narration," and becaule 
 " they are there, and there only, related." If 
 external evidence were required to be of fuch 
 a nature as to extend to every portion of a 
 
■48 JSERMON 11. 
 
 book, and to recite or to refer to each fadl or 
 opinion, taken feparately, then indeed the 
 proportion of the number of miracles to the 
 whole book might make more or left pf that 
 evidence neceflary for its authentication. But 
 what form would fuch evidence then afTume >? 
 It would become merely a copy of the writing^ 
 in queflion. Nor fliould we obtain more af- 
 furance, even if thefe miracles were all fepa- 
 rately fpecified in any other book. It would 
 be ftill neceflary to examine that book by the 
 fame canons of evidence, which we apply to 
 the Golpels. And of what defcription would 
 that work be, which Ihould contain all the 
 miracles of our Saviour ? We muft fuppofe 
 that the miracles are all relatcid in the fame 
 manner as we find them in the evangelical 
 hiftorieSi or otherwife they could not be iden- 
 tified with thofe which they were defigned tp 
 confirm. If all the miracles were recorded, 
 and nothing more, how could fuch docu- 
 ments, even if they were contemporary works, 
 corroborate the authenticity of the prefent 
 Gofpels ? The readers would juftly conclude, 
 that the Gofpels were the perfedl hiftory ; and 
 the other, the miracles detached from their 
 connexion with thefe very narratives. No 
 advantage therefore is gained by recurring to 
 
SERMON II. 49 
 
 other accounts, as if they would communicate 
 authority to the Gofpels. The objeftion would 
 have had fome appeafance of reafon, if there 
 had been but one Gofpel only ; but, in the 
 prefent circumftances, it is little lefs than ab^ 
 furd to fay, that the miracles are " there, and 
 " there only, related." 
 
 With refpedl to prophecy, and its fuppofed 
 luperiority^to miracles, as evidence, an attempt 
 is made to deduce it from an imputed pecu- 
 liarity in its nature, which, if true, would 
 feem to prove, that it did, as a fpecies of evi- 
 dence, exceed that of miracles. " The tefti- 
 " mony of prophecy," it is faid, " does not 
 " depend in the leaft upon the veracity or 
 " credibility of the writer; but every man, 
 " capable of underftanding the meaning of 
 " the prediction, and comparing it with the 
 " correlponding events, whereby it hath been, 
 *' or is completed, is a competent judge of the 
 " degree of proof it affords." But this afler- 
 tion of the infallibility of prophecy, as a teft, 
 cannot be made with reference to the in- 
 ftances of miracles and prophecy which the 
 author himfelf has adduced as credible, on the 
 " general teftimony," as he calls it, " of the 
 " Ipirit of prophecy." Where the interval 
 between the prediftion and the accomplifti- 
 
 £ 
 
50 SERMON II. 
 
 ment is very Qxbrt, the credibility both of the 
 miracle and the prophecy depends on the vera- 
 city of the writer, and the authenticity of the 
 hiflory. In the other cafe, where prophecieis 
 allude to remote periods, are they to be con- 
 fidered as infulated, and detached from the 
 credibility of the reft of the book, in which 
 they are inferted ? We can fcarcely indeed 
 admit, that they are independent of all con- 
 nediion with the other fubjeds in it ; but, 
 even if we allow that this might be fo, yet we 
 cannot feparate them from the age of the wri- 
 ter. If we do, it will be very difficult, per- 
 haps impoffible, to determine, whether the 
 prophecy preceded the alledged accomplilh- 
 ment, or not: particularly, if they have no 
 appropriate place in the writing to which we 
 can affign their date, and no reference to col- 
 lateral incidents. It is faid, that we have 
 only to compare the predid:ion with the 
 events to which it refers, in order to be con- 
 vinced of the preeminence of prophecy over 
 miracles. But the priority of the prophecy, 
 which is the moft difficult part of the enquiry, 
 is here aflumed • and that priority can be de- 
 termined by that external evidence only, of 
 which it is declared to be independent. A 
 prophecy, which is not fulfilled at the time 
 
SERMON 11. 51 
 
 predi6led, is of no value; but how can we 
 afcertain the fulfilment, if we cannot rely 
 upon the Veracity and credibility of hiftorical 
 tefiimony ? The truth or falfehood of fads 
 cannot be determined either by argument or 
 |)rophecy, but by a fimple appeal to written 
 evidence. If there be any reafon to doubt 
 whether thefe predifted events actually came 
 to pafs, to»what other teftimony, befides that 
 of hiftory,;can we refort ? Unbelievers have 
 iaid, on fo many occafions, that they do not 
 require fpecification, that the hiftory of the 
 accomplilhment was accommodated to the 
 prophecy, and that they have no fatisfaftory 
 evidence of the divine origin of a prediction. 
 But how fliall we ever be able to convince 
 the profefled infidel upon the principles of the 
 author of " The Diffonance ?" 
 
 It is further afferted, " that prophecy is 
 •* not only the moft fatisfadlory, but alfo the 
 " moft lafting fupefnatural evidence of the 
 " truth of any revelation." As the author of 
 " the Divine Legation of Mofes'" has ex- 
 preffed the lame remark partly in the fame, 
 and partly in more forcible terms, and at 
 greater length, I wilh to exhibit the pofition 
 
 « Book ix. c- 6. p. 375. &VO. , 
 E 2 
 
52 SERMON II. 
 
 which he affumes, of the fuperiority of pro- 
 phecy over miracles, with the advantage of a 
 more expanded reprefentation. " But by the 
 " time this miraculous power began to fail, 
 " another was preparing to fupply its place, 
 " of ftill greater efficacy ; I mean, that of 
 " prophecy. For the fovereign Mafter has 
 " been gracioully pleafed to give to the later 
 " ages of the church more than an equivalent 
 " for what he had bellowed upon the earlier, 
 " in beginning to Ihower down on his chofen 
 " fervants of the New Covenant the riches of 
 " prophecy, as the power of working miracles 
 " abated. So early was this preparation made 
 " for that Jtronger and more lajling Jupport." 
 The epithet " lading" may denote, either 
 fome intrinfic durability in the fupport itfelf, 
 as oppofed to that kind of fupport, whofe 
 ftrength and ftability diminilh from fome ex- 
 ternal caufes ; or, as one that is not to be lii- 
 perleded by fomething elfe ; or, laftly, onfe 
 that is continued from one age to another. 
 " The evidence of miracles," according to thfe 
 fame writer, ■ " feems by its nature to leflen 
 " fomewhat by time; while that from pro^ 
 " phecy gains ftrength by it, and grows more 
 
 ^ Divine Legat. b. ix. c. 6. p. 2,f^. 
 
SERMON II. 53 
 
 " and more convidive, till the gradual and 
 " full completion of all its parts makes the 
 " fplendour of it irrefiftible." It is of im- 
 portance to examine whether there is any 
 thing of this perifhable kind in the nature of 
 the eridence of miracles. Let us fuppofe that, 
 at a given period, a prophecy receives its com- 
 pletion ; and a miracle, unconnefted with the 
 prophecy, is performed at the fame time. The 
 events, by which the prediction is fulfilled, 
 and the circumftances of the miracle, are both 
 recorded with the fame accuracy by contem- 
 porary writers. Ages pafs away before the 
 accomplifhment of another prophecy arrives. 
 During fhis interval, do the miracle exhibited, 
 and the* prophecy fulfilled, continue to be re- 
 Ipedlively of the fame authority and credibi- 
 lity, or do they not ? What caufe is there, 
 which fliall impair the credibility of the mi- 
 racle, which Ihall not equally affe6t the hif- 
 tory of the events, by which the prophecy is 
 fuppofed to be accomplilhed ? On the con- 
 trary, it is evident the foundation of the cre- 
 dibility both of miracles and of prophecy, 
 when recorded, is the fame ; that they both 
 equally derive their authority from their truth 
 and reality, and muft have, as written evi- 
 dences, an equaf durability and permanence, 
 
 E 3 
 
54 SERMON II. 
 
 ' Befides, what Ihall we obtain, if we fup- 
 pofe prediAions and their fulfilments to be 
 increafed to any number whatever; is this ac- 
 cumulation any thing more than an augmen- 
 tation of the quantity of this kind of evidence ? 
 As to the kind of evidence, it cannot acquire 
 any additional ftrength ; and, indeed, though 
 the quantity of it may be augmented, it is but 
 an accumulation of the fame kind of mate- 
 rials, without connection or dependence. The 
 truth of each particular prediftion is founded 
 upon the limitation of it to its own period, 
 and can neither be invalidated nor confirmed 
 by the truth or falfehood of thofe of higher 
 date, or different difpenfations. If a pfophecy 
 be not fupported by external evidence, it is 
 nothing in itfelf ; whereas the reality of a mi- 
 racle may be examined by that evidence, 
 which in " The Diflbnance" is preferred to 
 every other." We may enquire into the cir- 
 cumftances of its performance, its degree of 
 publicity, the apparent means employed, the 
 occafion, the completenefs of the efFedl pro- 
 duced, and the advancement of the intereft, 
 if any, of the agent. Thefe particulars belong 
 to the head of internal evidence, and the oral 
 delivery of a prophecy fcaircely admits of its 
 application. ' , 
 
SERMON II. 55 
 
 '.' Miracles are however thought to be fuper- 
 feded by prophecy, " The fupernatural power 
 " of working miraclfes," it is faid, " was only 
 " intended to gain the new religion attention 
 " from the world, and to be a prefent tefti- 
 " mony of its divine origin and authority, till 
 " the more lafting and more fatisfadory proof 
 " of completed prophecy could take place." 
 To affirm that any evidence pofleffes, on one 
 hand, fo much force, as to be fufficient to 
 prove, that the origin and authority of a new 
 religion are divine ; and, on the other, to have 
 only a temporary duration ; is inconliftent and 
 unintelligible : for in whatever Inanner or de- 
 gree we weaken the evidence, either as to its 
 foundation, its fupport, its extent, or its per- 
 manency, in the fame degree alfo its general 
 credibility is afFeded. Befides, we do not 
 perceive any fuch charaAeriftic difference in 
 thefe two fupernatural fpecies of teftimony, 
 miracles and prophecy, whatever there may 
 be in others, that miracles proved a religion 
 to be divine during the time that more lafting 
 and more fatisfadtory evidence was preparing. 
 Completed prophecy could do no more than 
 prove a religion to be divine in its origin. 
 And this is fuppofed to have been previoufly 
 done by miracles. Can there be this ftrange 
 
 e4 
 
56 SERMON II. 
 
 diverfity in the two, that one kind proyes, 
 for a time, the religion to be divine in its ori- 
 gin, while the other proves the fame to be 
 divine for ever ? The believers therefore of 
 that new religion muft be divided into two 
 clafles ; thofe who receive it on the proof of 
 miracles, and thofe who live when they can 
 have the more lading and more latisfadlory 
 teftimony of prophecy : and yet both Jjelieve 
 their religion to be divine in its origin. The 
 introduAion therefore of the new religion 
 muft have been unfeafonable, if the beft proof 
 of its divine authority were not ready at the 
 time of its publication. 
 
 But the power of proving, even for a fea- 
 fon, a new religion to be divine, cannot be 
 afcribed to miracles, confiftently with the 
 principles of " The Diflbnance." The author 
 does not attribute any credibility to miracles, 
 not preceded by prophecy ; and here miracles 
 are fuppofed to have a reality when feparated 
 from prophecy, and to anfwer a moft import- 
 ant purpofe. He has previoufly obferved, that 
 the Jews were cautioned by Mofes, that they 
 might be " deceived and deluded" by fuch 
 evidence ; and yet the fame evidence is in this 
 paflage regarded as capable of proving, at leaft 
 for a time, the origin of a new religion tq be 
 
SJIRMON II. 57 
 
 divine : and therefore is confidered by. this 
 writer as latisfa6tory grounds of faith during 
 that interval. The author alfo of the Divine 
 legation incurs a limilar imputation of incon- 
 fiftency, when he aflerts, that the evidence of 
 prophecy " was not wanted while miracles 
 " in a fort remained ;" and yet, in defcribing 
 the preeminence of prophecy above miracles, 
 he argues, tjjat " this advantage is further 
 " feen by its being lefs fubje6l to the miftakes 
 " and fallacious impreffions of fenfe than mi- 
 " racles are." Upon comparing thefe parages 
 we find, that in one a miracle is admitted to 
 be a perfedl proof, and in the other to be no 
 proof whatever. 
 
 It was an argument of an acute metaphyfi- 
 cian, who was alfo the diftinguilhed hiftorian 
 of our own country, that the teftimony of 
 fa<$ts became' every day lefs credible by lapfe 
 of time. But the exiftence of the hiftorical 
 fa<fts related of feveral eminent perfons of an- 
 tiquity are at prefent more credible than they 
 were ten centuries ago. The circumftances 
 connedled with their adions have been more 
 accurately examined ; they have been con- 
 firmed by the teftimony of ancient writers, 
 fcarcely known, or perhaps difcovered, in 
 thofe dark ages ; by the accounts of modern 
 
53 SERMON II. 
 
 travellers; by the progrefs of geographical 
 fcience ; by; the adjuftment of chronology to 
 hiftory ; and even by the evidence of ancient 
 memorials, brought to light in later ages. 
 Thefe concurring and auxiliary proofs have 
 removed difficulties in hiftory fo effe^ually, 
 that the faAs of the ancient periods have now 
 a more fecure foundation of credibility than 
 many parts of our s own hiftory, the events 
 of which occurred at a much lefs confiderable 
 diftance of time. It may indeed be objecfted, 
 that there is only an accumulation of the lame 
 Ipecies of evidence, and that time may affed: 
 it in its largeft as well as fmalleft collections. 
 But it is difficult to conceive how time can 
 operate towards the invalidation of evidence 
 of this kind, otherwifti than by the deftruc- 
 tion of the hiftorical memorials themfelves. 
 But this effed of time upon different kinds 
 of evidence would (if it did at all) equally 
 diminifh the credibility of a prophecy as well 
 as that of a miracle. The former is a mat- 
 ter of fad: as well as the latter, and more 
 liable to have the credibility of its exiftence 
 injured by lapfe of time, as it muft always 
 precede, and often does precede, the fad of 
 
 s The hiftories of th6 families of the Lancaftrians and 
 Yorkifts. See Hume. 
 
SERMON 11. 50 
 
 fulfilment, feveral centuries. The author of 
 " The DilTonance" inverts this order of things, 
 and the grounds of his convi6tion. He pro- 
 fefles to believe fads in hiftory becaufe they 
 were prediifted. Others believe the divine au- 
 thority of prophecy becaufe the fafts, which 
 are predicted, are hiftorically true. It is in- 
 deed abfurd to fuppofe, that prophecy can, at 
 the time of itidelivery, be an evidence to the 
 truth of hiftory, as it muft be adduced as a 
 teftimony to what was not in exiftence at the 
 time it was pronoun^pd. The prophet, ac- 
 cording to the former fuppolition, mull have 
 forefeen the compofition of the hiftory, in 
 which fliould be recorded the accomplifliment 
 of his own predidlions. 
 
 We may next enquire, whether any delu- 
 five miracles are related in fcripture to have 
 been performed by any agents, human or de- 
 moniacal. In " The DilTonance" we are in- 
 formed, that '^ in the New Teftament our Sa- 
 " viour and his. apoftles Paul and John have 
 " warned us, that the falfe and fabulous fii- 
 " perftition, which would for fo many cen- 
 " turies fupplant the true religion of the Gof- 
 " pel, would be embraced by ttfe people, in 
 " oonfequence of their delufion, by figns and 
 
60 SERMON II. 
 
 " lying wonders, and all the deceivablenefs of 
 ", unrighteoufnefs." The Apollledoes notfpeak 
 o£ falfe miracles ; and the miracles performed 
 by falfe prophets and deceivers, and even by 
 the man of lin himfelf, are no where faid to 
 have been illufory. The trial confided in re- 
 filling the efforts of an adverfary, who might 
 adduce true evidence for a pretended revelation, 
 and the delufion itfelf confifted in believing 
 that he came from God, not in believing falfe 
 evidence to be true. It feems, that if in any 
 fingle inftance, well authenticated, the evi- 
 dence of miracles had been rendered ambi- 
 guous by unreal phenomena, a revelation 
 would have been requifite, whenever a mira- 
 cle was fubfequently performed, in order to 
 convince the mind that the fenfes had not 
 been deluded. If we recur to the hypothefis 
 of " The Diflbnance," that miracles in ge- 
 neral, unlefs accompanied with prediftions, 
 may deceive the Ipedators, how are " lying 
 " wonders" to be diftinguifhed from any 
 others ? 
 
 The author of " The Diflbnance" reproaches 
 the advocates of the truth of the Gofpel with 
 being unablfe to adduce any demonflrative 
 proof of its divine authority, and affirms, that 
 
SERMON II. 61 
 
 he has learnt from the '' " only infallible au- 
 " thority the dire6l contrary." We are then 
 to confider whether completecf prophecy has 
 in it the nature of demonftrative evidence. 
 " Demonftration," according to the definition 
 by Locke ', " is the Ihowing the agreement 
 " or difagreement of two ideas by the inter- 
 " vention of one or more proofs, which have 
 *' a conftant, immutable, and vifible connec- 
 " tion one with another." It is evident from 
 this definition, that we are removed by the 
 author of " The Diffonance" into a very dif- 
 ferent fphere of objects, the relation of which 
 to each other is determined in a different 
 manner from that by which the reality of the 
 fadls of a written hiftory is afcertained. We 
 are required to compare together a prophecy 
 and its accomplifhment, and to obferve their 
 difcrepancy, or agreement. But in this com- 
 parifon we are not to ftiew the agreement of 
 two things by the intervention of a third, and 
 not to determine the equality, but the iden- 
 tity of both. This however is the lafl: procefs 
 of the enquiry. We muft previoufly know 
 that the prophecy is not a contemporary ab- 
 
 ^ DiiTonance, Pref. p. vi. 
 
 ' Eflay on the Human Underftanding, book iv. ch.' 15. 
 §.i. 
 
62 SERMON n. 
 
 ftra<9; of the hiftory. Befides, there is no 
 effential repugnance in their natures between 
 a falfe propHfecy, and the alledged fads to 
 which it is faid to relate. In matters of quan- 
 tity, the abfurdity or impoffibility at which 
 we arrive in our conclufions, fliew the errors 
 of our reiafoning ; but the obfcurity of pro- 
 phecy does not confine the enquirer to one 
 conclufion, and exclude every other. The 
 difcovery of truth and falfehood may refult 
 from different modes of reafoning ; but a dif- 
 ference in the efiential properties of one fet 
 of fubjects prevents us from transferring a 
 mode of invelligatibn, which is adapted to 
 determine their truth or falfehood, to others, 
 of which it is not the appropriate inftru- 
 menf. 
 
 The author of " The Diffonance," the bold- 
 nefs of whofe affertions increafes with the 
 deficiency of his proofs, avers, that the ortho- 
 dox religion, eftablifhed by Conftantine, is an 
 idolatrous fuperftition, an apoftafy from the 
 religion of Jefus Chrift, which it has fup- 
 planted ; that it is the apoftafy predi6led by 
 St. Paul and our Saviour, that it was occa- 
 fioned by " turning away their ears from the 
 " truth, and liftening to fables, and believing 
 " falfehoods," " circumftances of the predic- 
 
SERMON II. 6» 
 
 " tion, which, if taken together, cannot have 
 " been fulfilled, unlefs fables and falfehoods 
 " are at leaft intermixed with difregarded 
 " truth in thofe writings, to which the church 
 *' of Conftantine hath in all ages appealed, as 
 " containing the grounds and foundation of 
 " every dodrine flie hath taught"." The whoje 
 of the argument then, as directed to the quef-r 
 tion of the altefation of the canon of Scrip7 
 ture, may be thus briefly reprefented. Mira- 
 cles, unaccompanied with prophecy, are faid 
 to be fictitious ; thole books, which contain 
 miracles of this kind,-may not be genuine, or 
 their authenticity may be fufpeded in any 
 part. It is faid, that an apofi:aly took place, 
 at an early period, from the pure religion of 
 Jelus Chrift ; that the apoliates were, the 
 members of the church efliablilhed by Con- 
 ftantine ; that they were influenced, by " fa- 
 " bles" and falfehoods j that thefe " fables" 
 muft have been contained in the prefent vo- 
 lume of the New Teftameqt ; that we are to 
 feparate the falfe miracles from the true, and 
 the mythological interpolations from the ge-r 
 nuine writings, and the remainder will be the 
 books of pure revelation, cleared from corrupt 
 
 ^ Diflanance, p. %6. 
 
64 SERMON 11. 
 
 additions by the diredion of prophetic inti- 
 mations alone, without the affiftance of any 
 external evidence. 
 
 ■ Such then are the expedients, which it is 
 neceffary to employ when we attempt to fe- 
 leidl our own grounds of belief. The Al- 
 mighty, we may be aflured, has eftablifhed 
 the connexion between the proof and the 
 thing to be believed, which cannot be broken 
 with impunity. We cannot fay that we will 
 believe on this kind of evidence, and on no 
 other, or that we will rejedl one portion, and 
 adopt the remainder, without believing, either 
 upon lefs evidence than is afforded, or than 
 ought to be required, or upon evidence, which, 
 having no appropriate reference to the thing 
 whofe exiftence or properties we admit, is 
 equivalent to no evidence whatever. Even to 
 afieft habi|aally a faftidious fcepticifm in mat- 
 ters where the proof is fufficient and appro- 
 priate, is to trifle dangeroufly with the under- 
 ftanding, and is an a6l not deftitute of crimi- 
 nality. The mind foon lofes its power of dif- 
 criminating between the various degrees and 
 kinds of evidence which fliould authorize af- 
 fent, till it is at laft charafterized by a fort of 
 credulous fatuity. It will not be eafy, and at 
 length not poliible, to return at pleafure from 
 
SERMON II. 65 
 
 the defence of paradoxes, or the llrufture of 
 hypothefis, to the exercife of corred judg- 
 ment ; and the faculty, the ufe of which has 
 been long perverted, will be found at laft to 
 be irrecoverably impaired : and, according to 
 the language of revelation, which expreffes 
 npt only the fentence of the Almighty upon 
 this abufe of the intelledlual powers, but alfo 
 the general ^onclufion of a juft philofophy, 
 that voluntary deception is deftined to termi- 
 nate in believing a lie. 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 •^ — 
 
 Pet. i. i6. 
 ffe have not followed cunningly devifed fables. 
 
 Whether the Apoftle intended to al- 
 lude to the fame Ipecies of falfehood, which 
 St. Paul expreifes by the. fame term, when he 
 lays, that fome would turn " unto fables," it 
 is not neceflary to determine. There is in- 
 deed this difference, that what St. Paul de- 
 fcribes as future, St. Peter fpeaks of as already 
 exifting and operating. The author of " The 
 " Diflbnance" is of opinion, that, St. Paul re- 
 fers, prophetically, to certain forged and fpu- 
 rious writings, and to corruptions of the Scrip- 
 tures, which fliould appear, and which were 
 to be inftrumental in producing the apoftafy, 
 as he calls it, of the church of Conftantine 
 from the pure religion of Jefus Chrift. He 
 infifts upon the probability, that the Scriptures 
 were interpolated in the fecond and third cen- 
 turies, when certain pfeudo-evangelical bodes 
 
 F2 
 
68 ,_ SERMON III. 
 
 were thought to have been fabricated. It is 
 reprefented as a practice at this period " fo 
 " common amongft fevera], who called them- 
 " felves Chriftiaris, to produce entire pieces of 
 " their own, or others' forgery, under the 
 " name of any writer they pleafed, that, if 
 " what we call the fcriptures of the New Tef- 
 " tament were not fo tampered with, they 
 " are almofl: the only writings upon the fanie 
 " fubjeA, of thofe early times, which have 
 " efcaped free." It will therefore be necef- 
 fary to examine, whether the fame cailfes, to 
 which the compofition of fuch writings is to 
 be afcribed, operated towards the corruptibn 
 of the facred writings ; whether fuch forged 
 writings were ever fubftituted wholly, or in 
 part, for the acknowledged records of Chrif- 
 tianity ; and, whether there is any ground to 
 fuppofe, that they, who compofed, or they, 
 who ufed thefe forged works, extended the 
 impofition to the falfification of the genuine 
 Scriptures. 
 
 " Irenasus," it is faid, " informs us, that 
 " the different fe6larifl:s of thofe early ages 
 " had publilhed an innumerable multitude of 
 " apocryphal and Ipurious fcriptures to afto- 
 " nifti the weak and ignorant." The mode 
 of quoting and applying thefe words might 
 
SERMON III. 69 
 
 induce the reader to conclude, that the afto- 
 nifliment of the weak and ignorant was the 
 fole objed of the fedtarifts of that age ; that 
 they were fatisfied with an inglorious triumph 
 of this kind ; that the embarraiTment and per- 
 plexity of ignorance and imbecillity was the 
 fole reward which they expeded from theif 
 laborious frauds. It is however evident, that 
 this could neither be the intention of the Fa- 
 ther, nor is it indeed the import of his words. 
 He has fimply defcribed the efFed: of thefe 
 writings, and the kind of perfons whofe minds 
 they influencedy without afligning any motives 
 to the authors'. But were our adverfary more 
 corredl in afligning motives for thefe corrup- 
 tions, the corruptions would fcarcely have 
 been extended to the Scriptures, merely for 
 the fake of deluding fuch guardians of their 
 integrity and purity as the >veak and igno- 
 rant. „ 
 
 If he admits the authority of TertuUian to 
 be valid in one part of his narrative, when he 
 relates, that ^an Afiatie Prieft had been de- 
 tected in " afcribing a work, entirely his own, 
 " to St. Paul," we may jullly exped the de- 
 claration of the fequel, that the offender was 
 
 a Lardner, vol. ii. p. 385. 
 F-3 
 
70 SERMON III. 
 
 depofed, and by thofe perfons who had the 
 fame veneration, as he profeiTed, for the cha- 
 rader of the Apoftle, and whofe worldly in- 
 terefts and religious opinions were the fame. 
 
 That they, who had the temerity to forge. 
 Would interpolate a writing, is perhaps a plau- 
 fible prefumption. But the authors of fuch 
 books would fcarcely extend their fraudulent 
 innovations to the Scriptures, becaufe altera- 
 tions, favourable to their particular opinions, 
 could not always be reduced to the compafs 
 of a few fupplemental interpolations. When 
 a new fyftem of dodlrine was to be framed, 
 the foundation muft have been broader and 
 deeper than the infertion of a Ihort paflage, 
 or a fingle fentence. Thefe perfons therefore 
 compofed exprefs treatifes, in which they 
 might inculcate their tenets at large. It might 
 have been perhaps more eafy to niiflead the 
 ancient Chriftians, for a time, by the pro- 
 duction of a new volume, than by recent ad- 
 ditions to the original collection of the facred 
 writings already in their hands. When an 
 evangelift or an apoftle had committed his 
 work to the cuftody of his converts, it had, 
 we may fuppofe, its due complement and full 
 perfection of parts. Nothing could fubfe- 
 quently be added or fubftituted, or taken 
 
SERMON III. 71 
 
 away, without foiiie diflioneft purpofe. When- 
 ever fuCh an alteration took place, it might 
 have been Jtnown, becaufe it admitted of ready 
 proof; and muft have been known, becaufe 
 the Ghriftian converts were qualified, merely 
 by habitual perufal, to dete6t the innovation. 
 They did not however authorize the inven- 
 tions of men, who profefled the lame fenti- 
 ments with themfelves, and they were able 
 to difcriminate between fuppofititious and ge- 
 nuine writings. 
 
 It is faid, that there is an interpolation in 
 the Gofpel of St. Luke of fo late a date as the 
 third century, and that " we have the cleareft 
 " eonvid^ion of it ;" " that Origen informs us, 
 " that feveral believers were offended with 
 " that part of St. Luke's Gofpel, wherein our 
 " Lord promifes the penitent thief upon the 
 *' crofs, that he fhould that day be with him 
 " in paradife ; that they declared, that the 
 " pafTage was not in the older copies, but a 
 " late addition of fome interpolators," " It is 
 " clear," fays the author of The DifTonance'', 
 " that as the db6trine of an intermediate flate 
 *' of purgatory and paradife gained ground in 
 " the orthodox church after the fecond cen- 
 
 ^ Diflbnance,, p. 39.- 
 F 4 
 
72 SERMON m. 
 
 " tury, that particular paiTage was interpo-J 
 " lated to give the fandion of holy Scripture 
 " to the newly received dodlrine." If this 
 interpolation were introduced before; or foon 
 after, the fecond century, Origen would fcarce- 
 ly have related the furmifes of others, when 
 he could have afcertaihed, if not by his own 
 knowledge, certainly by teftimony contem- 
 porary with the interpolation, whether it were 
 a genuine part of the Gofpel, or not. If 'it 
 had exifted, continues the objeiftor, in the 
 time of Tertullian, it could not have been' 
 omitted " by him," when writing his treatife 
 upon the Soulj as it would " have fettled the 
 " point beyond dilpute." If we confider the 
 tendur of TertuUian's difcourfe upon the Soul, 
 we may perhaps difcover a probable reafort 
 for the omiffion of a paflage apparently fo 
 well adapted to his fubje6l. When he refers 
 to the parable of the rich man. and Lazarus, 
 his obje6t is, not •= " to confider exprefsly th6 
 *' intermediate ftate of the fouls of bad and 
 " good men after death," but to Ihew the na-' 
 ture of 'the foul in general, and to derive fronl 
 theilce a proof of its corporeality ^^ The pro- 
 
 e Diflbnance, p. 29. 
 
 ^ See below the paffage of Irensus for the meaning 
 of this term. It by no mfeans implies mortality. 
 
SERMON III. 73 
 
 mife of our Saviour gave no direct informa* 
 tion in what ftate the foul would then be, 'but 
 merely indicated to what place it fhould be 
 configned. It may then appear, that the ci- 
 tation of the paflage in queftion might, of 
 might not, be introduced into the treatife ori 
 the Soul ; that as the introduftion of it would 
 not have ftrengthened, fo the omiflion could 
 not weaken, fhe argument ; and the exiftenc6 
 of .the paflage at the time of Tertullian can 
 fcarcely be dilputed on the ground, that it 
 was not adduced, when inapplicable to the 
 reafoning of the writer. But this Father had 
 compofed another work, in which we might 
 have exped:ed to find it, and probably Ihould 
 have found it, if that treatife had been pre- 
 ferved. Indeed it is moft; probable, that his- 
 loft difcourfe "on Paradife «="- originated in 
 the very paflage, whofe authenticity is quef- 
 tioned; The authority therefore of Tertul- 
 lian is not in favour of the hypothefis of in- 
 terpolation. 
 
 That Irenasus alfo Ihould not " take the 
 " leaft notice of fo very remarkable a circum- 
 *' fiance f," is to be afcribed to the fame rea- 
 
 « " Habes etiam de Paradifel a nobis libellum." Ter-' 
 tull. De Anim. §. 35. ad fin. 
 f Diflbnance, p. 39. 
 
74 SERMON III. 
 
 fon as the filence of TertuUian. The courfe 
 of his argument did not lead to its confidera- 
 tion and infertion. " Our Lord," lays Ire- 
 nseus, " has taught us moft fully in the para- 
 " ble of the rich man and Lazarus, that the 
 " foul does not only remain, (not palling 
 " from body to body,) but alfo retains the 
 '" figure of the body to which it is adapted, 
 " and that it recollects the works which it 
 " has done here, and now ceafes to perform." 
 In this parable " it is manifeftly declared, that 
 " the foul continues, and does not migrate 
 " from body to body, and preferves the re- 
 " femblance of the man, by which it is recog- 
 " nized ; that it remembers thofe things which 
 " are in the world ; that Abraham pofleffed a 
 " prophetic power, aad that to each nation 
 ^' is allotted a fuitable habitation, even before 
 " the judgments." I am not further con- 
 cerned •» with thefe opinions, than to ftate, 
 that the principal object of this reafoning was 
 to prove, that the foul did not leave the ori- 
 ginal body, to which it was conjoined, in or- 
 
 s Irenasus cont. Haeref. lib. ii. c. 34. 
 
 *• The controverfy on the nature of the foul originated 
 in a pamphlet written by H. Dodwell. His opponents 
 were, S. Clarke, Whitby, Norris of Bemerton, and-Chif- 
 hull. 
 
SERMON III. 75 
 
 der to be united to another. Of what ufe 
 then would it have been to have alledged the 
 paflage of St. Luke ? The promife of an abode 
 in paradife did not imply the ftate and con- 
 dition of the foul when it Ihould be trans- 
 ferred thither. The mention therefore of this 
 place was omitted for the obvious reafon, 
 that it was not fuited to the purpofe of the 
 writer. 
 
 With refpedl to the filence of Juftin Mar- 
 tyr, it may not be eafy to explain the reafon 
 why he has not referred to this paflage of St. 
 Luke, although ' " he himfelf, Irenaeus, and 
 " TertuUian, have quoted almoft every other 
 " relating to the crucifixion." If the faft of, 
 the crucifixion be taken as the fubjedl with 
 which it is thought to be fo intimately con- 
 necfted, that it could not be omitted, if it were 
 there related, the circumftance relpe<9:ing the 
 penitent thief does not conftitute a neceflary 
 appendage to the principal tranfadion, and, 
 of courfe, the omiflion of it in the argument 
 of Jufl:in does not bring any imputation upon 
 the genuinenefs of the pafl!age. 
 
 When we recur to Origen's own account 
 of this part of St. Luke's Gofpel, it is fimply 
 
 » Diflbnance, p. a^. 
 
76 SERMON III. 
 
 this : " " This faying of our Lord has fo dif- 
 " turbed fome perfons, as appearing to them 
 " incongruous or diflbnant, that they have 
 "ventured of themfelves to fufped, that it 
 " was added to the Gofpel by certain ' falfa- 
 " ries." Hence it is, at length; that we are 
 to derive " the cleareft conviftion" that it is 
 an interpolation, and that " fome perfons de- 
 " clared, that it was not in the older copies." 
 
 But the author of " The Diifonance" is not 
 latisfied with producing one fufpedled paflage, 
 as a reafon for extending his fufpicions to 
 others, but at once affirms, that the teftimony 
 of the witnefles ™ " cannot be depended upon 
 '^ refpe<3:ing the writings of the feveral apo- 
 " files and apoftolic men, whole names they 
 " bear." He attempts to prove their incom-^ 
 petency generally by the following canon ; 
 that, as there are " fuch very extraordinary, 
 " julelefs, . ill-fupported, improbable fadls in 
 f' the Golpels of Matthew and John," which 
 he fuppofes to have been the compolition of 
 
 ^ Lardner's Credibility, vol. ii. p. 634. The verfion 
 of Lardner is (lightly altered. 
 
 1 The word falfaries I find in Cockburn's Hiftorical 
 Diffeftation on the Books of the New Teftam'enti and it 
 obviates the neceflity of a great multiplication of words. 
 ■ m Diffonance, p. 36— -33.1 
 
SERMON III. n 
 
 perfons " infeded with the groiTeft fuperfti- 
 " tious credulity," fo no " fuperilitioiis arid 
 "credulous perfon" can be admitted to, be a 
 proper witnefs of the. authenticity of any writ- 
 ings, in which fuch fad:s are related. Let us- 
 apply this rule to the writings of the martyr 
 Juftin. That he employed an injudicious rnode 
 of vindicating to the Romans the fadl of our 
 Saviour's birth againft the appearance of no- 
 velty, by producing analogies from their own 
 mythology, is, I think, the extreme point, to 
 which the accufation can be extended ; but it 
 may be better to hear his own explanation of 
 the ufe which he made of the mythic fyftem. 
 " But be this known to you," fays he ", " that 
 " whatever things we declare, having learned 
 " them from Chrift, and the prophets who 
 " preceded him, are ailone true, and more an- 
 " cient than all writers ; and we do not think 
 " ourfelves worthy of regard becaufe we fay 
 " the fame things as thofe writers, but be- 
 " caufe we fpeak what is true." Juftin pur- 
 fued his apology in this manner, becaufe it 
 was his opinion that the fentiments of Plato 
 were to be traced in the writers of the Old 
 Teftament, and that certain parts of the hea- 
 
 n Apol. i. p. 35. ed- Thirlb. 
 
78 SERMON III. 
 
 then mythology originated in the perverfion 
 of the language of the prophets refpeiding our 
 Saviour, through the influence of evil dae- 
 mons. But that he fhould " illuftrate and 
 " plead for the toleration, by the Heathen 
 " Emperors, of the orthodox do6trine of the 
 " generation of the Word, becaufe of its re- 
 " femblance to the fabulous origin of their 
 " own deities, and juflify the dodlrine of the 
 " incarnation by its fimilarity to the births of 
 " ^fculapius and Hercules, and the other il- 
 " luftrious god-men of Pagan mythology," 
 and at the lame time " account for this fimi- 
 " larity between the orthodox dodlrines and 
 " the fables of the poets, by aflerting, that the 
 " poets delivered them through the infpira- 
 " tion of daemons and evil geniufes, in order 
 " to prejudice the world againft the reception 
 " of thofe orthodox tenets, when the time 
 " Ihould come for their promulgation," is to 
 attribute to the ancient Father inconfiftency, 
 aggravated by abfurdity. The only paiTage, 
 to which the author of " The Diflbnance" 
 may be fuppofed to refer, is the following, in 
 the firft Apology of the Father : " They, who 
 " teach the mythic compolitions of the poets, 
 " do not prefent to the youth who are in- 
 " llruded any means of attaining to the truth; 
 
SERMON III. 7Q 
 
 and I prove that " they were uttered to de- 
 " ceive and feduce mankind through the agen- 
 " cy of evil daemons." I conceive that it will 
 not be inferred from this paflage, that the be- 
 lief in the influence of daemons argues inca- 
 pacity, or indeed the want of any quality, 
 which can detract from the competency of 
 Juftin's teflimony refpefting the authenticity 
 of the Gofpels, 
 
 The evidence of Irenaeus alfo is thought to 
 be invalidated by a puerile defcription of the 
 ftate of the earth during the Millenium, a fub- 
 je6t where fancy and imagination might expa- 
 tiate without violating any other rules than 
 thofe of probability, and where the milrepre- 
 fentation of actual fads could not have any 
 place whatever. 
 
 The teftimony of Tertullian is weakened, it 
 is faid, becaufe, in his treatife on the Soul, he 
 relates concerning a perfon, with whom he 
 had been acquainted, fome extraordinary cir- 
 Gumflances, which occurred after death. The 
 inference is, that we muft fufpedl his tefti- 
 mony refpedting the genuinenefs and authen- 
 ticity of the Gofpels. There is not here, how- 
 ever, a fufScient indication of a credulous faci- 
 lity in receiving fuch accounts, and we are 
 not to infer that this was the propenfity of his 
 
80 SERMON III. 
 
 mind. The difqualification of the evidence of 
 a witnefs muft principally proceed from fome 
 moral incapacitation ; but fuperftition and cre- 
 dulity are not connedted with any thing ex- 
 cept paffive impofition. But in what manner 
 is the imagination to be afFeAed, or fuperfti- 
 tion and credulity to be operated upon, by 
 fuch limple fads as thefe ; that the Gofpels of 
 Tertullian's age were thofe of the preceding 
 times, and that fuch perfons, with fuch appel- 
 lations, were generally reputed to be the au- 
 thors ? This is what the Father believed and 
 aflerted, with ample means of information in 
 his power to juftify his belief, and fubftantiate 
 his aflertions. But the credulity of Tertullian 
 certainly did not appear even in the examina- 
 tion of fuch fubje<9;s. He did not receive a 
 forgery afcribed to St. Paul as an authentic 
 writing of that apoftle ; and he knew how to 
 vindicate the genuinenefs of the entire Gofpel 
 of St. Luke againft the charge of corruption 
 adduced by Marcion. The queftion then is, 
 did he in the cafe of the Gofpels of St. Mat- 
 thew and St. John fubmit his judgment to the 
 authority of the credulous and fuperftitious, 
 and the cunning, and exercife it only when 
 he received that of St. Luke ? It feems, how- 
 ever, that Tertullian is to be considered as a 
 
S^ERMON III. 81 
 
 clredulous, fuperftitious Writer^ and that his 
 evidence cannot be depended upon relpeding 
 the authenticity of the Gofpels of St. Mat- 
 thew and St. John, which contain fuch fadls 
 as he was always inclined to believe " very 
 " (extraordinary, ill fupported, ufelefs, and im- 
 " probable." With refpedl to the queftion of 
 authenticity, he could not be influenced by 
 fuperftition oi^ credulity to afcribe the Gofpels 
 to one perfon rather than to another. Had 
 his credulity been as great as is reprefented, 
 the Ipurious gofpels would have been more 
 acceptable to an intelled:, in which the power 
 of diftinguilhing fidtion from truth was fa 
 much impaired. 
 
 The preceding reafoning is followed by a 
 falfe but popular analogical illuftration. "When 
 " no court of juftice," it is faid, " will admit 
 ** the tefiimony of witnefles, who are them- 
 *' felves notorioufly convicted of the fame 
 " crime of which the defendant is accufed, 
 " how can it be expected that any reafonable 
 " unprejudiced perfon fliould admit fimilar 
 *' evidence to be of weight in a cafe of the 
 " greateft importance poffible, not to himfelf 
 " only, but to the whole human race ?" It 
 is here firft alTumed, that the Golpels contain 
 ill fupported and improbable fatfts, and then 
 
 e 
 
B2' SERMON III. 
 
 it is alTerted that thofe, who do mt think 
 them improbable and ill fupported, are un- 
 worthy of credit on that account. This au- 
 dacious propofition is fuppofed to be con- 
 firmed by the preceding analogy. But let us 
 obferve the pradlical effed of the principles 
 of " The Diflbnance" in the very example 
 which is produced to illuftrate and confirm 
 this argument. A witnefs lays his hand on 
 the Gofpels, and attefl:s the truth of his alle- 
 gations by profeffing, as a fandlion of his own 
 veracity, a belief in the authority of thefe fa- 
 cred books. If the judge maintained the doc- 
 trines of " The Diflbnance," he mufl:, con- 
 fifl:ently with fuch opinions, reje6t the evi* 
 dence altogether, or reprefeht the witnefs as 
 Unworthy of attention on account of his cre- 
 dulous weaknefs in paying any regard to fuch 
 " fuperftitious, ill fupported, improbable" nar- 
 ratives. 
 
 Credulity and fuperftition often prevail in 
 minds which are not weak, and in moral dif- 
 pofitions which are charaAerized by rigorous 
 veracity. But to reprefent the martyr Juftin 
 as an unfit witnefs of the authenticity of th6 
 Scriptures, becaufe he believed in the agency 
 of daemons, is to aflign a caufe which has no 
 relation- to the imputed efFed. Were fuch 
 
SERMON IIL 83 
 
 reafoning admitted, it would invalidate all the 
 hiftories of our own country, which preceded 
 the laft century, and indeed thofe of Europe 
 to a ftill later period. The great Lord Bacon 
 was himfelf a believer in the influence of 
 ° daemons, and in the ufe of the ftudy of re- 
 formed ''aftrology. By that fpecies, which he 
 
 ° Caeteram fo^ria circa illos (Angelos foil.) inquifitio, 
 quae vel per rerum corporearum fcalam ad eorum natu- 
 ram pernofcendam afcendat, vel in anima humana, veluti 
 in fpeculo,. earn intueatur, neutiquam prohibetur. Idem 
 de fpiritibus ftatuendum immundis, qui a ftatu fuo deci- 
 derunt. Confortiumcum Us, atque ufus operce eorum illi~ 
 citus eft; multo magis qualifcunqne cultus vel veneratio. 
 At conteniplatio et cognitio illorum naturae, poteftatis, 
 illufionum, non folum ex locis fcripturae facrae, fed ex ra- 
 tione, aut experientia, baud poftrema pars eft fapientiae 
 fpiritualis. Sic certe Apoftolus, ftratagematum ejus non 
 ignari fumus. Ac non minus daemonum naturann invefti- 
 gare in theologia naturali conceditur, quam venenorum 
 in phyfica, aut vitiorum in etbica. De Augment. Scient. 
 lib. ii. c. a. p. 97. 
 
 P Adhibetur autem aftrologia fana; ad praedifitiones 
 fidentius, ad eleftiones cautius, ad utraque autem intra 
 terminos debitos. Praedidtiones fieri poffint, de cometis 
 futuris, qui (ut noftra fert conjeftura) prsenunciari pof- 
 funt : et de omni genere meteororum, de diluviis — ^bellisj 
 feditionibusj feftis, tranfmigrationibus populorum ; deni- 
 que de omnibus rerum vel naturalium vel civilium moti- 
 bus, aut innovationibus majoribus. De Augm. Scient. 
 lib. iii. c. 4. p. 103, 104. 
 
 It is curious to examine the conftituents of the aftrolo- 
 
 G 2 
 
84 SERMON IIL 
 
 diftinguiflies as the aftrologia fana, he allows 
 may be foretold, not only phyfical events, as 
 meteors, deluges, and tempefts, but alfo wars, 
 feditions, the rife of religious feds, and popu- 
 lar '^ emigrations. 
 
 gia fana. Prima, in aftrologiam fanam reclpiatur doftrina 
 de commlxtionibus radiorum, conjuiKftionibus fcilicet, et 
 oppofitionibus et reliquis fyzygiis, five afpeftibus planeta- 
 rum inter fe: planetarum autem per figna zodiaci per- 
 tranfitum, et locationem fub iifdem fignis, etiara huic 
 parti de commixtionibus radiorum allignamus. 
 
 Secundo) recipiantur accefBones fingulorum planetarum 
 propius ad perpendiculum aut receffiones ab ipfo, fecun- 
 dum regionum climata. 
 
 Tertio, recipiantur apogaea et perigsea planetarum cum 
 debita difquifitione, ad quse pertineat planetae vigor in fe 
 ipfo, ad qua vicinitas ad nos. Quarto, recipiantur (ut 
 fummatim dicamus) omnia reliqua accidentia motus pla- 
 netarum. Quinto, recipiantur, quae naturas ftellarum, five 
 erraticarum, five fixarum, in propria fua eflentia et aftivi- 
 tate, refecare et detegere uUo modo queant ; qualis mag- 
 nitudo ; qualis color et afpeftus ; qualis fcintillatio et vi- 
 bratio luminis &cc. 
 
 Pojlremo, recipiantur etiam ex traditione naturae et in- 
 clinationes planetarum particula'res, atque etiam ftellarum 
 fixarum j quae^ quandoquidem magno confenfu tradantur, 
 non leviter (praeterquam ubi cum phyficis ratronibus pla- 
 ne difcordant).rejiciendae furit. Atque ex talihus obfer^ 
 vationibus coagmentalur aftrohgia fana ; et fecundum eas 
 tantum, fchemata'caeli et componere et interpretari opor- 
 tet. I)e Augm. Scietit. lib. iii. cap. 4. p. loa, 133. 
 
 1 De Augment. Sclent, lib. iii. c. 4. 
 
SERMON III. 85 
 
 But credulity and fuperllition are not the 
 greateft defeats in the teftimony of the ancient 
 Chriftians. They difregarded " honour and 
 *' veracity (as it is faid) in whatever con- 
 ** cerned the caufe of their particular fyftem." 
 " They have deftroyed (according to the af- 
 " fertion of their enemies) every writing upon 
 " the fubje6l of Chriftianity, which they could 
 " not by fome means or other apply to the 
 " fupport of their own fuperftition." The 
 writings of " the many," alluded to in St. 
 Luke's preface, are luppofed to be fome of 
 thofe which have been deftroyed ; and, from 
 the multiplicity of thefe and other works, the 
 pernicious " induftry" of the Fathers has been 
 denominated by the author of " The Diflb- 
 *« nance," as, if it were true, it might juftly be 
 denominated, *' lingular." But we are not 
 informed that there was any thing lingular 
 in the mode of preferving the Gofpel of St; 
 Luke which was contemporary. This Evan- 
 gelift however merely intimates, that others 
 had written upon the fame fubjedl before, and 
 that his inducement to compofe another nar- 
 rative was, a defire to communicate his own 
 correal information to his own converts. He 
 fent his hiftory into the world to be received 
 or rejeded on the fame grounds as the others, 
 
 G 3 
 
86 SERMON III. 
 
 relating to the fame events, were to be re- 
 ceived or reje6led. 
 
 The names hoWeyer of the authors of the 
 various books are not preferved, although the 
 author of " The Diffonance" has computed 
 the number thus fupprefled w^ith a «" minute- 
 nefs and particularity, which has no founda- 
 tion in the hiftory of the time. He muft 
 therefore be regarded as attempting not to 
 fupply by fpeculation the events of that pe- 
 riod, but to forge annals to fupport an hypo- 
 thefis. But in proportion as he aggravates 
 the criminality of the early Fathers, by multi- 
 plying the number of gofpels originally writ- 
 ten, in the fame proportion does he augment 
 the difficulty of their proje6t. If fuch books 
 were received as the rule of faith, and confe- 
 quently preferved in the different Chriftian 
 churches that were founded at that time, the 
 difficulty of deftroying them is ftill further 
 increafed. Could they annihilate, do we fup*- 
 pofe, all the Gofpels ufed in the Chriftian af- 
 femblies at the places fpecified in " The Dif- 
 " fonance," « " at Jerufalem, in Samaria, Phoe- 
 " nice, Syria, in every province of Alia Mi- 
 
 r Evanfon's Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p. 27. 
 « Ibid. 
 
SERMON III. 87 
 
 " nor, and in many cities of Macedonia and 
 " Greece ?" We may however enquire, why 
 they permitted the fpurious and apocryphal 
 work of their own relpe<£tive periods to de- 
 fcend, even in fragments, to thefe times. Is 
 jt not extraordinary, that this intention, pur- 
 fued from the age of one Father to the age of 
 another, fhould have been a difcovery referved 
 Jfor the prefent generation. Such writings, 
 and particularly thofe received by the early 
 Chriftian churches, if ever they had an exift- 
 ence, would have been in the careful cuftody 
 ^f thofe who ufed them ; and they would have 
 maintained their credit on the ground of their 
 original reception. Surely we are juftified in 
 expedting fome evidence that fuch books were 
 written, if we are deprived of the opportunity 
 of examining their contents. The whole hy- 
 pothefis however of " The DilTonance" re- 
 .lpe<9;ing the deftruftion, or even the exift^nce 
 of thofe books, refts entirely with the author 
 of that work ; who produces no authority for 
 his aflertions, and therefore the denial of the 
 truth of the fuppofition is at leaft as valid 
 againft it as the affumption of its reality can be 
 in its favour. The hypothefis is of large extent. 
 It involves various propolitions ; that twenty 
 gofpels were comppfed at the time of which 
 
 G4 
 
88 SERMON III. 
 
 St. Luke fpeaks in his proem ; that, at a dii^ 
 tance of half a century, fixteen more were 
 added to thefe ; that the Chriftians, and parti- 
 cularly the Chriftian Fathers, were inft^-umen- 
 tal at leaft in the deftruftion of thefe writings; 
 that the books thus deftroyed contained fails 
 or doctrines contradi6lory to thofe adopted by 
 the Fathers. Of thefe pofitions he produces 
 no proof, not even the names of the authors^ 
 on whofe imaginary teftimony he relies fo fe- 
 curely. The Greek and Roman hiftories, and 
 indeed every hiftory that was ever written, 
 might be invalidated by fuppofing in the lame 
 manner the exiilence of hiftorians, whofe 
 works and names are now loft, who might 
 have given different accounts of the tranf- 
 adtions of thofe nations from any that are re- 
 corded by the writers, whofe hiftories we now 
 poffefs. 
 
 The number of gofpels, fuppofed once to 
 have exifted, is derived from the unfupported 
 conje6lure, that each Chriftian church had an 
 original gofpel, compofed for its peculiar ufe. 
 Yet ^ Eufebius relates, and his authority will 
 avail where it has not been^queftioned, and it 
 will not be queftioned merely becaufe he was 
 
 * Hlft. Ecclef. lib. iii. c. 37. 
 
SERMON III. sg 
 
 an ecclefiaftic of rank, and an ecclefiaftical 
 hiftorian, that in the fecond century great 
 numbers of perfons ", " difciples of the Apo- 
 ** files, travelled over the world, building up 
 " churches where the Apoftles had before laid 
 " the foundations, and preaching the faith of 
 " Chrift in other places, which had never 
 " heard of it before, carrying along with them 
 " the written Gofpels." This teftimony, then, 
 diredly fubverts this pofition, (and the tefti- 
 mony is without fufpicion, becaufe it was ne- 
 ver defigned to be thus applied,) that, as the 
 number of churches increafed, diftindl golpels 
 were written for their inftruftion by perfons, 
 who, as the author of " The Diflbnance" ex- 
 prefles their qualifications, had been " edu- 
 " cated from their infancy in the religion of 
 " Jefus Chrift, as taught by the Apoftles them- 
 " felves." And further, Marcion, who had 
 an opportunity of knowing what other works 
 there were, which in authority might vie with 
 that of the acknowledged Gofpels, was re- 
 duced to the neceffity of adapting the Gofpel 
 of St. Luke to his own views and opinions. 
 
 Neither can we obtain any information re- 
 fpefting thefe fuppofed writings from any evi- 
 
 " See Richardfon on the Canon of the New Teft. 
 
go SERMON III. 
 
 dence relpefting their deftruftion. When co- 
 pies of writings were to be multiplied by 
 tranfcription, the number of copies would be 
 in proportion to the efteem in which the work 
 was held; and the defire of obtaining a copy 
 would of courfe be general, not merely as a 
 matter of curiofity or learning, but from a fear 
 ©f miftaking the rule of Chriftian conduct. 
 Any defeft therefore, either in the importance 
 of the contents, or in the affurances refpedling 
 its authenticity, or the appearance of better 
 writings, would make the work itfelf to be 
 lefs regarded, and of courfe caufe copies to be 
 lefs fought after, and in time to be negleded, 
 and at length to be loft altogether. If this 
 reafoning will not account for the lofs of an- 
 cient works, as not probable in itfelf, in what 
 manner could the Fathers proceed to effect 
 the pofitive deftrudion of any writings, which 
 derived their value from the inftrudtion and 
 education of their authors in the Chriftian re^ 
 ligion, " as taught by the Apoftles ?" 
 
 It is to be remarked, that, although the ac- 
 cufation extends to a body of perfons, the 
 Fathers of the church, and their fucceflbrs, 
 yet not one is fpecified by name who is faid 
 by the author of " The Diflbnance" to have 
 fuggefted, or to have attempted to execute. 
 
SERMON III. 91 
 
 this inoft extraordinary projed. How then 
 fliall we account for this fubtle referve ? Only 
 one reafon fpr it can be produced; that we, 
 know enough of the biography of the Fathers 
 to repel a charge fo malevolent. But our in- 
 formation refpeding the early periods of the 
 hiilory of Chriftianity is not fo complete as to 
 enable us always to oppofe licentious fuppofi- 
 tions with dire6t fa^ls. We are obliged there- 
 fore to have recourle to probability, where 
 proofs cannot be had; and this has already 
 occurred too often, and muft occur again ftiore 
 frequently, from the nature of this contrd- 
 verly. We may therefore enquire, in what 
 fituation would thofe churches have been left 
 which had been accuftomed to ufe the writ- 
 ings that the Fathers had deftroyed? Would 
 they adopt others, authorized by perfons who 
 were not difciples of the Apoftles, and filently 
 acquiefce in the lofs of works, which were 
 written by thofe who were known to be fo, 
 and when fo few years had elapfed fince they 
 had received them from fincere depofitaries of 
 the faith? 
 
 We may alfo enquire, of what nature were 
 thofe books, which, by an edid of Diocletian, 
 at the commencement of the fourth century, 
 were demanded of the Chriftians by the impe- 
 
92 SERMON III. 
 
 rial inquifitors. The furrender of their facred 
 books was the obje6l of this law, which was 
 enforced by fanguinary penalties. But whe- 
 ther the Roman emperors perfecuted the pof- 
 feflbrs of one fet of books, or the Fathers em- 
 ployed fubtlety to deftroy another colIe<Slion, 
 neither the one nor the other were able to 
 effedt their intention. The inquifitors could 
 not get into their power all the copies of thefe 
 writings, nor the perfpns of all who ufed 
 them. Had this been the confequence of fuch 
 meafures, it might have happened that the 
 churches would have loft altogether, at this 
 time, their copies of the facred writings. The 
 decree of Diocletian was executed in Gaul, in 
 Africa, and in Paleftine ; but the traitors did 
 not, as far as we know, vilify the authority of 
 their books, even as a timid ftratagem to pre- 
 ferve them, nor did they intimate in this apo- 
 ftafy any fufpicion of a fpurious original. 
 Why fhould the Chriftians deliver their books 
 with lefs relu6lance to the officers of the Em- 
 peror, who could punilh oppofition with death, 
 than to the Fathers and their agents, who 
 could only offer in exchange fpurious works 
 for genuine, fince we may be aflured that they 
 would not have been fatisfied without having 
 fome fubftitute for the books which they had 
 
SERMON III. 93 
 
 furrendered ? How the ancient Fathers could 
 allow one work to be tranfmitted, and fup- 
 prefs another, of apparently higher authority, 
 muft be explained by fome extraordinary in- 
 fluence, which it is not recorded they ever ob- 
 tained over the minds of Chriflians in gene- 
 ral. It Ihould. alfo be confidered, that all the 
 Fathers were not in public ftations, and thofe 
 who were c»uld have had only a very limited 
 Iphere of power. Befides, the foundation of 
 the authority which their writings have at 
 prefent is chiefly derived from their proximity 
 to the times concerning which they write ; a 
 circumfliance which, during their lives, could 
 not be the fource of any extraordinary or par'- 
 ticular influence, as they mufl: have only par- 
 ticipated in it with others their contempora- 
 ries. 
 
 Nothing of this kind would have enabled 
 them to tranfmit to poflerity a fet of Ipurious 
 evangelical hiftories, which might have been 
 confuted by records, the authenticity of which 
 might have been confirmed by perfons, who 
 had the fame opportunities of examining them 
 as the Fathers themfelves had. 
 
 To provide for the tranlmiffion of their own 
 works would have required the formation of 
 a moft lingular confederacy. They did not 
 
94 SERMON III. 
 
 however fucceed in this ; for moft of the va- 
 luable compofitions of the early times are loft, 
 notwithftanding the intereft which the or- 
 thodox evidently had, according to the hypo- 
 thefis of " The Diflbnance," in preferving 
 them from negledl or injury. 
 
 It is more than implied in, another objec- 
 tion, that the Fathers infidioully permitted 
 *' the works of a few other writers to be 
 *' tranfmitted, who were all of them not only 
 " converts from Paganifm, but men who had 
 *' been educated and well inflruded in the 
 ** philofophic fchools of the later Platonifts 
 " and Pythagoreans." The author of " The 
 *• Diflbnance" folicitoufly infifls upon the au- 
 thority of a celebrated writer on ecclefiaftical 
 hiftory for affirming, that " the Chriftian 
 " teachers, who had been inftrudled in the 
 " Ichools of fophifls and rhetoricians, trans- 
 " ferred the arts of their mailers to the Chrif- 
 " tian difcipline, and adopted that mode of 
 " contending with their adverfaries, in which 
 *' truth was not fo much their aim as victory ; 
 ." and they were confirmed in this pra6lice by 
 *' the Platonifts, who aflertedj, that a man did 
 ** no wrong who fupported truth, when hard 
 " preffed, by deceit and lies. This vicious 
 *- eagernefs not to vanquilh their adverfaries 
 
SERMON III. 95 
 
 ** by reafon and fair argument, but to over- 
 " throw and confound them, produced fo 
 " many books, falfely attributed to perfons of 
 *• great eminence and renown, to oppofe to 
 " their antagonifls." Whatever abfurd opi- 
 nions the latter Platonifts conjoined with the 
 profeffion of Ghriftianity, or whatever unwor- 
 thy methods they might employ in their con- 
 troverlies, their teftimony is not affedted where 
 no philofophical or theological fubtlety was to 
 be difcufled, no interpretation of Scripture 
 propofed, and where particularly no difpute 
 exifted concerning the fubje6t of their evi- 
 dence. In this cafe it is of no moment whe- 
 ther or not the witnefs were a philofopheif 
 before he was a Chriftian. His philofophy 
 was an inftrument, which, if he had been dif- 
 pofed to ufe it, he could not apply to the fim- 
 f)le facft of what books of the New Teftament 
 were received in his time. But the martyr 
 Juftin, although a philofopher, was not one of 
 the latter Platonifts ; and what books he con* 
 lidered as authentic is not determined by a 
 formal or authoritative enumeration, but his 
 teftimony is collected from incidental cita- 
 tions introduced, as various topics fuggefted 
 their application. 
 It has been afterted by the author of the 
 
go SERMON III. 
 
 *' Free Enquiry into the Miraculous Powfirs of 
 •'the early Ages/' that forged "books are 
 " applied to the defence of Chriftianity by the 
 " moft eminent Fathers of the fame ages, as 
 " true and genuine writings, and of equal au- 
 " thority with the Scriptures themlelves ".'' 
 This aflertion has not indeed remained till this 
 time without fome examination ; but it may 
 not be ufelefs to enquire, how it is fupported 
 in the inftance of one Father, whofe valuable 
 teftimony and extenfive learning have been 
 depreciated by this cenfure ; I mean, Clement 
 of Alexandria. 
 
 The charge, which I propofe to repel on 
 the ground of exprefs enquiry, is this ; that 
 Clement has quoted the Preaching of Peter 
 as authentic Scripture, and has affociated the 
 verfes of the Sibyll with the prophecies of the 
 Old Teftament. This Father has frequently 
 appealed to the firft Epiftle of Peter; and, 
 from a comparifon of his mode of citing the 
 genuine writings of the Apoftle himfelf with 
 that of the work, entitled, the Preaching of 
 Peter, it appears, that he did not confider the 
 latter as authentic Scripture, He cites the 
 firft Epiftle of Peter either without any in- 
 
 * Dr. Middkton, Introd, Difc. voL i, p< 75, 
 
SERMON HI. g? 
 
 trodudiony, or with the fimple addition^, of 
 his name, or with the preface, " this is chiefly 
 " to be had in mind, which was faid « holily," 
 or by the Holy Spirit ; the " Teacher fays^" 
 a name which in his work with this infcrip- 
 tion '. he afcribes to the Lord ; " the , Lord 
 " fays'^;" "the admirable Peter fays^;" "Pe- 
 " teri in the Epiftle^;" " Peter in the Adsf." 
 On the other hand, in the various paflages, 
 where he cites the Preaching of Peter, the 
 extradls are not introduced with any terms 
 expreffing peculiar approbation, and much lefs 
 which afcribe to them any authority. The 
 form is univerfally either " the Preaching of 
 " Peter," or " Peter in the Preaching," un- 
 accompanied with any of thofe emphatic ad- 
 ditions, which he ufes in fpeaking of the ca- 
 nonical Epiftle. Befides, he is always cautious 
 to' mark the citation from the Preaching; 
 whereas he is not always folicitous to Ihew 
 that his citations from the authentic, writings 
 are to be found there particularly, but only 
 
 y Clem. Alexandrin. p. 40. ^ lb. p. 16^. 
 
 a lb. p. 244. ^ lb. p. 350* 
 
 = lb. p. 35i. ^ lb. p. 457. 
 
 ^ lb. p. 473. ^^S. f lb. p. 646. 
 
 H 
 
^8 SERMON III. 
 
 in fome part of the general coUedion of the 
 ihfpired writings ^. 
 
 With refped to the inlertion of palTages 
 from the Sibylline verfes, it cannot be ' al- 
 ledged that Clement has ranked them in au- 
 thority with the prophecies of the Old Tefta- 
 ment, although he mentions them together. 
 " Let the Sibyll firft ling to us the hymn of 
 " falvation :" and, after fome remarks on the 
 citation, he proceeds ; " But Jeremiah the 
 " prophet, full of all wifdom, or rather the 
 " Holy Spirit, Ipeaking through Jeremiah, 
 " points out God to us." Wherever this Fa- 
 ther traces a fimilarity of lentiment, he tran- 
 fcribes promifcuoufly from facred and profane 
 authors ; and out of fourteen palTages of the 
 Sibylline verfes, two only accompany citations 
 from Scripture : fo that we cannot deduce 
 from their combination in this manner with 
 Scripture any fuppofed equality in authority 
 which we may hot, with as much propriety, 
 attribute to his other illuftrations of the fame 
 fubjecft, adduced at the fame time from Ho- 
 mer, Orpheus, and Xenophon. 
 
 g It does not feem " fo difficult" as Lafdner thought 
 " to decide what authority Clement a'ffigned to this 
 " book." Vol. ii. p. 339. v 
 
SERMON III. 99 
 
 Anotlxer circumftance, fuppofed to coun- 
 tera«^ the teftimony of the Fathers relative to 
 the books of Scripture which were received 
 in their relpedtive ages, is difcovered ^ " in the 
 " pretenfions of the Fathers of the orthodox 
 " church of the latter half of the fecond cen- 
 " tury, and of the third, and of the members 
 " of the fame church after it was eftablilhed 
 " by Conft&ntine during feveral centuries, to 
 " the fupernatural power of working mira- 
 " cles." Gregory of Neo-Csefarea, who lived 
 in the middle of the third century, obtained, 
 from a reputed power of performing miracleS;, 
 the appellation of Thaumaturgus. But if the 
 Fathers of the latter half of the fecond cen- 
 tury, and of the third, had poffefled the fame 
 power, the cognominal appellation would have 
 conferred little or no diftindtion upon one 
 who only participated in a common gift. He 
 does not affirm, in the fragments of his own 
 writings, that he performed any miracles ; and 
 his life was written by a perfop who lived a 
 century fubfequent to thefe times, and who 
 writes in a ftyle which renders the truth of 
 the whole narrative fufpicious. The Fathers 
 themfelves do not profefs ever to have had 
 
 h Diflbnance, p. 37. 
 H 2 
 
100 SERMON III. 
 
 this power, although they relate its affairs, as 
 matters of hiftory, when exercifed by others; 
 The life of Chryfoftom has been compbfed in 
 a limilar manner. JHe avers in his own works^ 
 with much repetition, that miracles were no 
 longeir performed; and yet his biographer 
 Ipecifies in detail miracles of various kinds, 
 which the Father is faid to have wrought for 
 the benefit of the fick. 
 
 It may be difficult to afcertain what period 
 is comprifed in thofe " feveral centuries" be- 
 fore alluded to, which fucceeded the age of 
 Confiantine. In the eighth century, in the 
 time of Gregory I. " the miraculous powers" 
 had ceafed in the church by his own reludlant 
 acknowledgment. Even at the clofe of the 
 fourth century Chryfoflom fays, "But be- 
 *' caufe miracles are not wrought now, do 
 " not therefore conclude that none were 
 " wrought at that time ; for then they were 
 " ufeful, but now they are not ufeful:" and 
 in another place he afTerts, " God has now 
 *' ceafed to work miracles." I conceive how- 
 ever, that when this Father relates that " the 
 " afhes of the holy martyrs repel dcembns,'* 
 we are not to infer that there is any contra«- 
 didion in his politions. The relics of mar- 
 tyrs, whether they are faid to have counter- 
 
&ERMON HI; 101 
 
 a6led theinfluence of daemons, or to have cured 
 difeales, were ftill n^ver confidered as miracles, 
 or as exceptions to the ceffation of miracles, or 
 as contributing to the difFufion of Chriftianity, 
 as proofs of its truth. The fame Father who 
 records the property of repelling daemons, 
 fuppofed to be inherent in the relics, and even 
 communicated to the receptacles of their alhes, 
 teftifies alfo, that miracles were no longer 
 needful ; fo that we cannot regard this power 
 as any thing more than a kind of honorary 
 and inferior energy, or an attribute derived 
 from the veneration of the faithful, and which 
 extended no farther than to augment the re- 
 putation of the refpedive martyr. 
 
 It appears therefore that the Fathers did 
 not pretend to the " fupernatural power of 
 " working miracles" at the periods which 
 " The DiiTonance" afligns, nor indeed at any 
 other whatever. The conclufion alfo, which 
 we are required to draw, is; that the tefti- 
 mony of thole, who pretended to miraculous 
 powers, is not credible, not merely with re- 
 aped to the exiftence of fuch powers at that 
 time, and in thofe perfons, but with refped 
 to the authenticity of the books of the New 
 Teftamentj a conclufion which, if corred, 
 
 H 3 
 
102 SERMbN Ilir 
 
 would ftill fall Ihort of its obje<3:, for other 
 evidence would remain after the invalidation 
 of that of the Chriftian Fathers. 
 
 The authenticity of the books of the New 
 Teftament is thus impeached by a tenor of 
 argument fo dark and devious, that the invef-^ 
 tigation, with whatever profeffions it may be 
 accompanied, will convince us, that truth was 
 not the objeft of the enquiry, Unlefs fallacy is 
 to be confidered as the moft approved guide 
 to certainty, and fophiftry the moft faithful 
 auxiliary of reafon. To cite the opinion of 
 one Father on a fubjed: of inferior importance, 
 and not connected with faifts, for the purpofe 
 of invalidating his teftimony upon every point 
 of great moment, and with the means of full 
 information ; to attribute to the Fathers in ge- 
 neral the affumption of the power of working 
 miracles, that he may ground an indefinite 
 accufation of their moral incompetency as 
 witnefles ; to reprefent as fa6ts what is not 
 recorded in any hiftory ; to advance as truth 
 what is only remotely probable ; are arts, 
 which can be employed by a difputant only 
 with the irrational expedlation, that perfons 
 in general would complacently receive, withr- 
 put fufpicion, as firmly eftabliflied truths, re- 
 
SERMON III. 103 
 
 fults, to which it can be objeAed, that they 
 have been obtained by means, the ufe of which 
 is eflentially inconfiftent with perfonal vera- 
 city and integrity. 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 a Pet. i. i6. 
 We heme not followed cunningly devifed fables. 
 
 X'URING the interval between the afcen- 
 fion of our Lord and the publication of the 
 Gofpels in writing, the Chriftian difpenfation 
 remained among the converts in the form of 
 tradition. As it was at firft orally communi- 
 cated to them, it was fubjed; to many of the 
 imperfedions of oral communication. Some- 
 thing might have been added, or fupprelTed, 
 or milreprefented, or mifunderftood, accord- 
 ing to the prejudices, or zeal, or weaknefs of 
 converts, or the artifices of falfe teachers^ 
 when the only llandard to which they covdd 
 refer any variations, either in the do6trine or 
 the hillory, was the recolle6lion of one party, 
 oppofed to the alledged contrary recoUedion of 
 another. The Apoflles indeed received a promife, 
 that the Holy Ghoft fhould bring all things, 
 which Jefus Chrift had faid on earth, to their; 
 
io6 SERMON IV. 
 
 remembrance; but we have no authority to 
 lay, that this afliftance was cohtinued to other 
 converts, ^e do not exped: that the provi- 
 dence of God, which does not a&. in vain, 
 Ihould neceflarily have interpofed in this man- 
 ner after the knowledge of the Golpel had 
 been fo widely difFufed by its firft teachers, 
 who alone were favoured with fupernatural 
 ftrength of recolle(3:ion. The extent of coun- 
 try, and the diverfity of people to whom the 
 Gofpel had been communicated, enfiired, in a 
 great degree, truth and corre6lnefs, whenever 
 it fliould be committed to writing. What the 
 circumftances were which might fuggeft the 
 neceffity of perpetuating the fa<9;s and doc- 
 trines of Chriftianity in written records at one 
 time rather than at another, we are not in- 
 formed. St. Luke was induced to compole 
 his Gofpel by the appearance of other ac- 
 counts of the fame fads. The publication of 
 other narratives by other teachers would make 
 the converts of the Apoftles alfo expeft, that 
 the fyftem of their religion Ihould be pre- 
 ferved in the fame permanent manner by 
 fome of their original inftrudors. It is an 
 enquiry therefore more curious than neceflkry, 
 to distermine precifely the refpeftive dates of 
 the firft three Gofpels. For, whether we adopt 
 
SERMON IV. 107 
 
 the dates whicli contra6t, or thofe which en- 
 large, the interval between the afcehfion of 
 our Lord and the appearance of the Gbfpels 
 in writing, ftill Chriftianify had been preached 
 for a period of fufficient duration to enfure 
 the complete inftru6l;ion of the new difciples 
 in the nature of its do6lrines, and the hiftory 
 of its author. We muft fuppofe that the early 
 teachers of this religion were qualified foi* 
 their functions by the pofleffion of accurate 
 information on the topics peculiar to this reli- 
 gion. For we cannot iinagine that, as far as 
 corl-edl knowledge and fihcerity of intention 
 were concerned, the qualifications for teach- 
 ing could be in any relped; inferior to thofe 
 which would be required for writing a Gof- 
 pel. We are told indeed, by the belt tefti- 
 mony, what were the qualifications of* the 
 perfon who was admitted to participate in 
 the labours of the Apoftles. In fupplying 
 the place of the traitorous difciple, it was 
 judged neceffary that his fuccelTor Ihould have 
 a perfonal knowledge of our Saviour, his ac- 
 tions, and his teaching. " Wherefore of thefe 
 " men, which have companied with us all the 
 " time that the Lord Jefus went in and out 
 ** among us, beginning from the baptifm of 
 " John, unto that fame day that he was taken 
 
108 SERMON IV. 
 
 " up from us, muft one be ordained to be a 
 " witnefs with us of his refurredion ^." Thefe 
 qualifications are not to be reftridled to the 
 knowledge, by which thej might be able to 
 verify the i(^entity of our Lord's perfon. They 
 were defigned to include a perfect acquaint- 
 ance with the hiftory of our Saviour's life, 
 and of the tratifaftions which related to him 
 during his abode on earth, of his refurredlion 
 from death, of his afcenfion into heaven, of 
 the dodtrines which he communicated, and of 
 the precepts which he enjoined. A perfedb 
 knowledge of all thefe important fafts muft 
 of itfelf have imparted high authority to the 
 preaching of the Apoftles, and was intended^ 
 to have a due and correlponding influence on 
 their hearers. Their natural and uninfpired 
 teftimony was not an oftenfible inftrument, 
 liable to be fuperfeded by others of greater 
 utility and efficacy, on which their fuccefs 
 principally and really depended. The requi- 
 fites above defcribed were conlidered as indif- 
 penfable, notwithftanding the afliftance which 
 the fucceflbr of Judas would receive from the 
 Holy Spirit, in common with the other Apo- 
 ftles. 
 
 » A£ts i. 31, 23. 
 
SERMON IV. 10^ 
 
 In another view it appears extraordinary, 
 that thofe men, who were qualified as eye- 
 witneffes for preaching the Gofpel, fliould af- 
 terwards find it expedient, through a confci- 
 oufnefs of inadequate knowledge, to recur to 
 documents of inferior authority as neceffary 
 for perfe6ting their brief hiftories. Their pre- 
 vious preaching furnilhed their converts with 
 a ftandard, bj% which the accuracy and con- 
 fiftency of the written Gofpel might be deter- 
 mined. They could not preach dodlrines and 
 relate fafts perfonally, and afterwards record 
 others, inconfiftent with thefe, when the means 
 of detediori were obvious to all. The hifto- 
 rical form given to the fubfl:ance of their relii 
 gion would enable the new difciples to recol- 
 lect a greater portion of it, ahd with more 
 correcStnefs, than if it had confifted of a fyftem 
 of abftract doftrines and unconneAed pre- 
 cepts. The occafions, on which our Lord's 
 precepts were delivered, have a certain natural 
 and necelTary connection with the precepts 
 themfelves, that imprints them more perma- 
 nently on the memory. • It is not neceflary 
 to determine whether the members of the 
 newly-eftabliflied churches received from hea- 
 ven any peculiar aid, by which the naturally 
 fugitive impreffions of oral teaching might re- 
 
no SERMON IV. 
 
 main perfed in, the recoUeAion till the infor- 
 ipation, was committed to writing. Without 
 any intention of diminifliing the meafpre of 
 the promifed gifts of the Holy Spirit, we need 
 not infift upon the neceflity of their commu- 
 nication in this inflance, becaufe the natural, 
 although providential means, derived from a 
 more early publication of the Gofpels, were 
 probably interpofed before the evangelical tra- 
 ditions might require either renewal or cor- 
 rection. ^Thofe writers, who affign dates to 
 the firft three Gofpels at a confiderable inter- 
 val from the time of our Lord's afcenfion, 
 oblige us to fuppofe, either that the primitive 
 Chriftians could not be left to the fole direc- 
 
 ^ The human motives for committing the Gofpel to 
 writing are well affigned by a friend, whofe remarks I 
 have inferted in another part of this Difcourfe ; the Rev. 
 R. Warner of Bath. " To me it appears, that the Gof- 
 " pels were written, not fo much to correft exifting er- 
 " rors, as to prevent future ones; to embody and perpe- 
 " tuate thofe fads and doftrines, the reality and truth of 
 " which the evangelical writers ' moft furely believed,' 
 " and what they would of courfe be anxious to put toge- 
 " ther and deliver in a written form, for the ufe of their 
 " hearers and prpfelytes, as early as they conveniently 
 " could, that in cafe of their own departure the Chriftian 
 " fyftem might remain with them perfed and eomplete. 
 " This has always weighed with me in adopting the hy- 
 " pothefis of the earlie/i dates of the Gofpels." 
 
SERMON lY. Ill 
 
 tion of tradition for fo long k time without 
 the danger of their lofing or impairing, through 
 imperfed recoUedtion, the eflential doctrines 
 of their religion, fo as to be unable to afcer- 
 tain clearly the truth and the corre6lnefs of 
 the written documents, when they were deli- 
 vered to the Chriftian churches; or elfe, that 
 fome fupernatural affiftance was afforded to 
 ftrengthen their natural intelledual powers, 
 both for receiving and retaining divine truth. 
 
 In a " Differtation concerning the Origin 
 " and Compofition of the three firft canonical 
 " Gofpels," it is faid, that the Apoftles had 
 made communicatiohs of fome of the evange- 
 lical fa6ts, of which they had been eye-wit- 
 nefles. Their firft communications, as we 
 know from '^Irenaeus, were oral, and confti- 
 tuted the preaching by which they converted 
 the nations to Chriftianity. Their written 
 communications would naturally be addrefled 
 to thole, who had been their hearers; to thofe, 
 who would preferve what was written on ac- 
 count of their recolledlion of the effeft which 
 had been produced on themfelves by vv^hat 
 they had heard. It is not probable that the 
 
 c Non enim per literas traditam illaiiti (veritatem fc.) 
 fed per viram vocem; Adv. Haer^f. lib. iii. c. a. 
 
112 SERMON IV. 
 
 Apoftles would make communications, what- 
 ever others might do, without direAing them 
 to fome ufeful or precife object. That obje<9: 
 was, the confirmation of their converts in the 
 Chriftian faith, which required the written to 
 be no lefs fatisfadiory and complete than the 
 oral communication, and- perhaps nearly the 
 fame. Any hypothefis therefore muft fail, 
 which fuppofes, that the communications 
 made by the Apollles were fo imperfedt as 
 to form, " not a finifhed hiftory," but only 
 " materials for a hiftory." On the contrary, 
 it appears probable that the. written apoftolical 
 communications were the prefent Gofpels, 
 and as perfeA in form as was neceflary for an 
 hiftorical compofition, intended for the expla- 
 nation and proof of the truth of the Chriftian 
 difp.enfation, and the foundation and teft of 
 all future teaching. If there be any particular 
 advantage in point of argument in the re- 
 motenefs of the date of the facfts upon which 
 I have reafoned; I mean, the previous preach- 
 ing of the Apoftles ; it reaches, like the hypo- 
 thefis of the author to whom I am referring, 
 much higher ^ " than that proof, which is 
 *' derived from ancient manufcripts, from an- 
 
 <J Letters, p. 15. . 
 
SERMON IV. 113 
 
 " cient verfions, and from the qudtations of 
 " the Fathers." , 
 
 The epiftles of St. Paul uniformly allude to 
 this preadhingy and do riot imply that the 
 Greek converts had at th&t time been inlirudt- 
 ed by any other means. This is, we might 
 fuppofe, an irrefragable argument of the pre- 
 cedence, in point of time, of the epiftles of 
 St^ Fatil to^any of the written Gofpels ; and 
 the Adits of the Apoftles. fliew, in conformity 
 with the language of St. Paul, that Chriftianity 
 Was firft eftabliflied in other places, and by 
 other teachers, in the fame manner. If it be 
 allowable, in imitation of a learned ^theolo- 
 gical writer, to examine a work no further 
 than the title for authority and proof, I might 
 like wife derive an equal fupport of my poiir 
 tioij, if fuch fupport were not fiipplied from 
 better fources, from the apocFyphal books of 
 the fecond century, called, '*^ the Preaching of 
 *' Peter," and " the Preaching of Paul." 
 
 e " I argued, that the title of thofe works, the Gofpel 
 ** of the Twelve, and the Memoirs of the Apoftles, were 
 " derived from the title of the dtjcument which gave 
 " them birth. But though; I argued irom the\ titles of 
 " thofe works to tlie title of the document K, yet I never 
 " argued from the contents either of the Gofpel of the 
 " Twdve, or of the Memoirs of the Apoftles, to the con- 
 " tents of the document Nv ' Marih's Letters, p. ,a6, 27. 
 
 I 
 
114 .SERMON IV. 
 
 '--' St. Paul, before he had any perfonal iriter- 
 courfe with the Apoftles at Jeriifalem, preach- 
 ed, by revelation from our Saviour himfelf, 
 the fame gofpel as they preached. They were 
 -fatisfied that he had not preached a different 
 "gofpel from their own, although he had not 
 -participated with them in the advantage of 
 ■either oral or written communications. From 
 an attentive examination of this reiafoning, I 
 conceive that it is not neceffary to fuppofe 
 the exiftence of any previous documents what- 
 ever, that may be coniidered as the bafis of 
 ithe firft three Golpels, becaufe thefe Golpels 
 -do not contain any thing which might not 
 have been there inferted by means of perfonal 
 Jino^ledge, aided, but not fuperfeded, by the 
 •common gift of infpiration. 
 
 If' however we are to fuppofe, that fome 
 original document did exift, and that it was 
 incorpca:ated with the Gofpels, it muft have 
 been conipofed without any particular view 
 .to publication, and .not deiigned for any fpe- 
 cific object, (as it is faid to have been imper* 
 fe<3:,) until others Ihould be publiflied on the 
 fame fubjecft, which required the aid or expla- 
 nation of fach a fupplementary addition. Its 
 exiftence however, its original ufe, its fubfe* 
 quent incorporation, and its final -difappear- 
 
SERMON IV. 115 
 
 ance, are equally unfupported by hiftory or 
 probability. 
 
 When it was abforbed in the Gofpels, the 
 original was foon loft, beeaufe it was no Ion* 
 ger neceflary ;- and ^" few copies are fuppofed 
 ". to have ever exifted/' That the ApoftleS 
 ever conlmitted to writing any facfts relative 
 to the hiftory of our Saviour, which they did 
 not defign for the inftrudion of others, is not 
 probable. The regard of the new converts 
 for what the ApoftleS had preached would 
 intereft the former in the prefervation of every 
 thing that the Apoftle's had written. 
 
 The mode of multiplying copies by tran- 
 fcribers ttiight, for any thing we know, have 
 been a matter of very confiderable charge and 
 coft to the poorer converts, and of courfe not 
 likely to be undertaken unneceflarily; but, not- 
 withftanding this obftacle, the multiplication 
 of them is proved by the fubfequent progrefs 
 of Ghriftianity. We cannot pretend to enter 
 upon a minute enquiry refpeding the fources- 
 of the means, which the early Chriftians pof- 
 fefled, of defraying the charge of copies of 
 the Scriptures. It is certain that, wherever 
 Chriftianity was eftabliftied, copies of the Scrip- 
 
 f lUuftration of the Hypothefis, p. 57.- 
 T2 
 
ii6 SERMON IV. 
 
 tiires, in fufEcient numbers to prevent its fub- 
 verfion and decline, and to enfure its purity, . 
 nluft have been procured in fome way or an- 
 other. We iriay not be able to compute the 
 expence, but we cannot fuppofe that Chrif- 
 tianity long exifted in any place where its re- 
 cords were fcantily difperfed. If then this 
 expence of tranfcription Were no obftacle to 
 the multiplication of copies at the firft diffu- 
 lion of the Gofpel, we may conclude, that it 
 would be no obftacle afterwards ; for the dif- 
 ference between thefe two points of time was 
 too fmall to admit of fuch an augmentation of 
 expence as to prevent the difperlion of new 
 copies. Indeed, if it operated at all, it would 
 rather have a contrary effe&. An increafed 
 facility in executing this Ipecies of labour 
 would tend to diminifh the expence. This 
 argument is ftill further weakened, if we Con- 
 fider the fliortnefs of the writings which the 
 Apoftles are fuppofed to have communicated ; 
 fo that whether we refer to the compendious 
 brevity of thefe fuppofed apoftolical works, 
 or the fliortnefs of the period between tkeir 
 publicatiouj and that of the more complete 
 evangelical hiftories, we muft be perfuaded, 
 that the expence of copying cannot be afllgn- 
 ed as a reafon why a fmall number of them 
 
SERMON IV. n; 
 
 only fliould be publiflied and difperfed. If 
 the document above alluded to had been of 
 apoftolical authority, the zeal of the con- 
 verts vi^ould moft probably in either cafe 
 have increafed the number of copies, and 
 caufed an anxious attention to the prefer- 
 vation of them ; whilft the neceflary retire- 
 ment and privacy of the firft Chriftians af- 
 forded them fufficient leifure for this employ- 
 ment. 
 
 It is not neceflary to have recourfe to the 
 farther fuppofition, that the copies were sloft 
 at the time " Jerufalem was deflroyed, and 
 " Judeca itfelf fubverted," if it were true* that 
 they were " already confidered by Chriftians 
 " as ufelefs, and regarded with abhorrence by 
 " the Jews." But the Jews would not have 
 had more refpe6t for the Gofpels themfelves^ 
 
 s I cannot refufe myfelf the pleafure of tranfcribing 
 from the oppofite page of my MS. the following remarks, 
 of a very able and eloquent writer, my friend, the Rev. 
 R. Warner, of Bath : " The deftru£tion of Jerufalem does 
 " not appear to be an event likely to have produced the 
 " lofs of any thing highly efleemed by the Chriftians ; 
 " it was not effefted in a moment, but was the work of 
 " years. Befides, the Chriftians, I apprehend, forewarned 
 " of what was to happen, were fufficiently on their 
 " guard to have fecured themfelves, as well as every 
 " thing of importance to them^" 
 
 I 3 
 
118 SERMON IT; 
 
 tban they had for the document, on which; 
 the Gofpels were founded. The Chriftians 
 might indeed have loft their Gofpels " in the 
 " convullions of that period," if they had not 
 heen influenced by a particular regard to pre- 
 ferve them ; but the fmall number of copies 
 in exiftence, according to the hypothefis, 
 would have operated in awakening their foli^ 
 citude, and invigorating their exertions, for 
 their prefervation. The copies of the Gofpels, 
 and the memorials of the preaching of the 
 Apoftles, were too widely difFufed to be anni-r 
 hilated at the deftrucftion of Jerufalem. All 
 the evangelifts, except St. John, were dead, 
 and their Gofpels were publiftied ; nor can it 
 be fuppofed that, even at Jerufalem, thofe 
 Chriftians, who had fuch warning to fly to the" 
 mountains, would not remove the evidences 
 of their religion to the place of fafety, to 
 which they themfelves were inftrudled to fly. 
 The document then, if any fuch ever exifted, 
 puft have been an objeA of care at this time. 
 A period of convullion and national diftrefs 
 would have made the Chriftians attentive to 
 the prefervation of every authentic record of 
 their religion ; particularly when the dan- 
 ger, which extended to the minuteft objed of 
 concern, and threatened the document itfelf. 
 
SERMON IV. 119 
 
 ttii^t have deftroyed the fuller account that 
 contained the document, which, if preferved, 
 might have its ufe again. 
 
 The lofs of it however, it feems, is to be 
 attributed to another ^ caufe ; for we are in- 
 formed, that the church was concerned only 
 with " canonical Gofpels, but the document 
 *' was never taken into the canon." But ftill, 
 if it had ever exifted, it would have partici- 
 pated in that regard and veneration which 
 were due to the original authority and recep-, 
 tion of the canonical Gofpels. For there is 
 great probability that the Gofpels themfelves 
 were received* by the firft Chriftians, not 
 merely becaufe fuch books were written by 
 certain perfons, but likewife becaufe thefe 
 books coincided with that preaching, by which 
 they themfelves had been inftruded and con-r 
 verted. From this coincidence it is probable, 
 that the written records of the Chriftian reli- 
 gion derived their claims to an acknowledg- 
 ment of their authenticity, not from any de- 
 cree of the Apoftles affembled at Jerufalem. 
 The Apoftles had preached a certain dodtrine, 
 and propagated certain fa^ls ; and they were 
 to take care that they did not write what was 
 
 h lUuftratipn qf the Hyppthefis, p, 57. 
 I 4 
 
120 SERMON IV. 
 
 eontradidory to either: and of tfeis agfeeiient 
 their converts were to be the judges. The 
 written Gofpels themfeflves were, fubfequerit* 
 ly, the guide to other teachers, and the teft in 
 the hands of other converts ; but they had 
 originally been examined by a rule, which 
 would fully eftablilh the confiftency of the 
 authors, and would determine by this, among 
 other proofs, the reality of the divine affift- 
 ance in their compofitions. Is it, in Ihort, ne- 
 eeffary to reduce the meafure of infpiration,, 
 or to annihilate it altogether, in order the bet- 
 ter to account for certain verbal agreements, 
 or minute difcreparicies, in the narratives of 
 the authors of the New Teftament ? The in^ 
 Ipiration was a promife which refted on the 
 fame authority with the other promifes of the 
 Scriptures ; and one of its offices was, to do 
 what the document, by the hypothelis, was 
 not calculated to do, " to call all things to 
 " their remembrance." 
 
 It is to be 'lamented that the fubjedl of the 
 origin of the three firft Gofpels has been pur- 
 
 » I allude to an able and ingenious pampHet by the 
 Rev. D. Veyfie, B. D, late fellow of Oriel College, Ox- 
 ford. The examination of Mr. Mar(h's Hypothefis was 
 neceflary, and the expofure of its inadequacy is fuccefs- 
 ful ; but I confefs I fliould have been more fatisfied if 
 
SERMON IV. 121 
 
 fined by another writer on a fimilar principle 
 ef the exrftence of imaginary documents. It 
 is, I conceive, a miflake to affume that the ex- 
 igence of a given writing is a qaeftion to be 
 decided by a fuperiority of one hypothefis to 
 another. The queftion itfelf is a queflion of 
 fads, of which we have no information, con- 
 nedted with the operation of a fupernatural 
 power, the nattire of which we do not under- 
 ftand. Every hypothefis on this fubjedl muft, 
 probably from our ignorance, exclude itifpira- 
 tion in a greater or lefs degree ; and it muft 
 therefore be defective, becaufe that affiftance 
 cannot be meafured under all the circumflances 
 of the compofition of the Gofpds. But were 
 we to declare that we neither can, nor wifli 
 to account for the verbal agreement in the 
 narratives of the Evangelifts, how would the 
 caufe of Chriftianity be difgraced by the 
 avowal of fuch an incurious difpofition, or by 
 fuch an expofure of irremediable ignorance ? 
 How far. would fuch a confeffion extend ? 
 Merely to the acknowledgment, that we did 
 
 the above eflSiy had concluded with proving, that hypo- 
 thefis was inadniiffible in determining a queftion of faft. 
 Mr. Marfh's Hypothefis might be correftly denominated, 
 A Theory of a portion of the private lives of the Evan- 
 gelifts and Apoftles. 
 
122 SERMON IV. 
 
 not know under what circumftances the GoA 
 pels were written, and did not attempt to fupw 
 ply by conjefture the defers, if any, of the 
 private hiftory of the Apoftjes, nor to adapt a 
 theory of infpiration to the nature and quan- 
 tity of information which, we are to prefup- 
 ppfe, previoufly exifted in writing. 
 
 With regard to the prefervation of the re- 
 cords of the Chriftian religion, it has been 
 faid, that both the wifdom and goodnefs of 
 
 « 
 
 God required the interpofition of his provi- 
 dence to preferve ^ pure and uncorrupt " the 
 " genuine authentic records of that Gofpel, 
 " which he had thought fit, at the expence of 
 " fo many miracles and prophecies, to publilh 
 " to the world." To fay nothing of the pre- 
 fumption of adjudging the duties of divine 
 wifdom and goodnefs, which with fuch cold 
 effrontery here obtrudes itfelf^ let it be recol- 
 lefted, that, as foon as the Gofpels were com- 
 mitted to writing, and made public, the au- 
 thenticity of, thefe books was fubjeiSt to the 
 farpe laws of evidence as any other written 
 document whatfoever. The Almighty did not 
 fubftitute other grounds of credibility for the 
 reception of the evangelical writings, in the 
 
 ^ Diflbnance, Pref. p. xi. 
 
SERMON IV. 123 
 
 place of thofe which are regarded as necef- 
 fary for the eftablilhment of the truth of any 
 hiftory that contains fads of an ordinary na- 
 ture. 'And the diffuiion of Chriftianity among 
 nations which had attained to different degrees 
 of improvement, and fublifted under different 
 political forms, has not been attended with 
 any peculiar fludluation in the purity of its 
 records that can be fuppofed to be connefted 
 with the interefts oppofed to it, or the learned 
 difputes which arofe after its eftabliftiment. 
 Yet it feems to be implied in the fuppofi- 
 tion of " The Diffonance," that whenever 
 the doftrines of Chriftianity, or its precepts^ 
 or its fa6ls, oppofed the theories of fome, as 
 well as the interefts of others, that an at- 
 tempt was then made to pervert the writings 
 in which the precepts, faAs, and dodrines 
 were contained ; or that fome events were 
 continually occurring, the effe61;s of which 
 upon the facred books it required the hand 
 of the Almighty to avert or to fruftrate. 
 One writer indeed has conje6lured, ^ " that 
 " the canonical writings of the New Tefta-» 
 " ment were concealed in the coffers of pri^ 
 " vate churches, or perfons, till the. time of 
 
 > Dodwell, Diff. in Iren. p. 66. Toland's tranflation. 
 
124 SERMON IV, 
 
 " Trajan, or even perhaps of Hadrian, that 
 " they might not come to the knowledge of 
 " the catholic cliurch." Had this been an 
 eflal)liflied fad, we injuil have received it on 
 the credit of the author, and have accounted 
 for it as we were able. But it is evident that 
 it is only a conjeifture. It would ofherwife 
 have protracted the period of tradition to an 
 extent, which would have required the con- 
 ftant interpofition of a miraculous power to 
 preferve it in its original integrity. It would 
 alfo have fupported the invidious hypothe- 
 cs of thofe, who think that the Chriftians 
 could not but have ufed every opportunity in 
 their power of adapting to t^ieir own purpofes 
 all the exifting copies of the New Teftament. 
 Thefe Chriftians are faid indeed to have with- 
 held their copies from general infpediion, un- 
 der the apprehenfion of danger; but it does 
 not appear that they had recourfe to this pro-- 
 jeSt even in the perfecution of Diocletian : and 
 indeed it would be more difficult to vindicate 
 the purity of the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment, if it had happened that there was a 
 time when the Chriftians bad at once in their 
 hands every copy of the books of the evan- 
 gelical colle6lion. 
 
 It is further ftated, upon the fame ground 
 
SERMON IV. i25 
 
 of conjedure, that if "» " by chance the ha&ks 
 " of the New Teftament had been publicly 
 " circulated, they would have been over- 
 " whelmed by the multitude of apocryphal 
 " and "fuppofititious books, fo that the Scrip-» 
 " tures could not have been diftinguiflied froni 
 " thefe without a new examination, and a 
 " new tefUmony." This argument refts upon 
 the alTumption, .that the apocryphal and fup- 
 pofititious books were intended by their au- 
 thors, or by thofe who ufed them, to fuper-* 
 Jede, or to be fubftituted in the place of, th© 
 acknowledged writings of thd New Tefta-^ 
 nient. Ecclefiaftical hiftory does not confirm 
 any part of this fufpicion. But if fuch had 
 been the defign of the writers, it would ftilJ 
 have been nedeffary to examine what might 
 be the authority of the books which were then 
 received, and of thofe which were producedj. 
 although at a fubfequent period, in competi- 
 
 "1 Dodwell in Iren. 
 
 " Profeflbr Lefs feems to have had fimikr doubts. 
 '* Mot-edver, fubfequent information is inadequate to efta- 
 " blifli the authenticity of the fcripturts of the New Tef- 
 " tament. It is too recent^ and the foregoing centuries 
 " were too replete with fpurioiS and forged works, to be 
 " capable of in?Eru£ling us confidently what writings were 
 " aftually eompofed by the-difc^les of Jefus in the fir ft 
 " century." Kingdon's tranflation, p. 10,11. 
 
126 SERMON IV. 
 
 tion for Ihe fame authority among Chriftian'Sw 
 The circumftande of mere priority of publica- 
 tion of the Gofpels could not have made fuch 
 an enquiry faperfluous at any time, but parti- 
 cularly at fo late a period as the reign of Ha-^ 
 drian ". 
 
 r It is however of importance to inlift upon 
 the obfervation, that thofe, who ufed apocry- 
 phal books, did not on this account reje6t the, 
 genuine apoftolical writings.^ The P Marcou- 
 fians, who received the gofpel of the Infancy 
 of Jefus Chrift, perverted the meaning, and 
 mifapplied different palTages of the three firft 
 Golpels, in confirmation of their own opi- 
 nions ; but, they did not falfify the words, nor 
 infert Ipurious additions. We may conclude, 
 that thofe books of Scripture, which a parti- 
 cular fed; interpreted in their own favour, 
 •yv^ith a view to deduce fome fupport to a par- 
 ticular fyftem^ were received as authentic : 
 but it is Angular, that they feemed to prefer 
 the fandion of Scripture, when they might 
 have appealed exclulively to their own apo- 
 cryphal treatifes- 
 
 Some, however, of the older bciretics, as 
 
 Hadrian began to reign A..D. 117, or 119. 
 P Irenseus, p. 91 — 93. 
 
^EHMON IT. 12? 
 
 h " the Ebionites and Marcionltes, and ibme 
 " other pretended Chriftians, rejeAed fome 
 *• books of the New Teftament ; but their au- 
 -" thority," it is faid, " can be of no weight, as 
 " they could not fairly pafs for Chriftians/' 
 This fummary condemnation of thefe wit- 
 nefles will not excufe us from the farther la- 
 Ijour of enquiring into the reafons on which 
 they are objqjfted to. Whether they were 
 ^hriftians or not is a queftion which has no 
 xeference to the fubjed:. It does not afied: 
 the antiquity of the period when thefe perfons 
 lived, nor their proximity to the apoftolical 
 times. Their teftimony, if favourable* would 
 perhaps have been regarded as important from 
 this very circumftance of proximity; and when 
 in oppofitiony if it be not formidable, it is at 
 leaft worthy of examination. Th6 Ebionites 
 "however certainly received one Gofp'el, that 
 of St. Matthew ; the Marcionites, that of St. 
 Luke; and the Gnoftics, that of St. John. 
 The queftion then is, whether thofe perfons 
 are to be denominated Chriftians, .who re- 
 ceived one Gofpel only. But all the primitive 
 Chriftians were at firft, throiJgh neceffityin- 
 
 1 Richardfon on the Canon of the New Teftament; 
 and Cockburn's Hiftorical Differtation on the books of 
 the New Teftament, p. i. 
 
129 SIRMON IV. 
 
 deed, in the fame fituatign ; for they Could 
 Bot probably know that others exjftedj unkfs 
 the three firfl: Gofpels were compofed and 
 publilhed, and interchanged among the va- 
 rious Chriftian communities at the fame time. 
 Indeed there might have been a natural par- 
 tiality for the Gofpel, written by the perfon 
 by whom the Chriftians of a certain trad; of 
 country were converted. Belides, as all the 
 Apoftles preached the fame Gofpel, containing 
 nearly the fame fadls, and promulgating the 
 fame dodlrine, the reception o/ one Goipel, 
 without mutilation, could not juftly expofe the 
 perfons'to the lofs of the name and diftindlion 
 of Chriftians ; and it is indeed rather to be 
 confidered as one of the technical reproaches 
 of controverfy. 'It appears that the Carpo- 
 cratians, Cerinthians, the followers of Prodi- 
 cus and Cerdon, received the fame books of 
 Scripture that other Chriftians received. He- 
 racleon the Valentinian compofed comments 
 on feveral parts of the New Teftament, and 
 probably, as it is fuppofed, on all the books. 
 Origen indeed, in his reply to Celfus, has faid, 
 that none but the Valentinians, the Mardon- 
 
 ' See Lardner under the refpe£live heads, Carpocra- 
 tians, &c. 
 
SERMON IV. 129 
 
 ites, and the difciples of Lucius, corrupted 
 the Scriptures. But had any of the alteration^ 
 of thefe heretics contaminated the generality 
 of the copies of the Scriptijres, it muft have 
 been difcovered by the traces of their peculiar 
 opinions in fuch variatioqs. 
 
 The author of " The Diflbnance" fuppofes 
 that the Scriptures were corrupted in the fe- 
 cond and tjjird centuries, becaufe at this time 
 certain perfons wrote apocryphal books ; and 
 the tranfition was eafy from one fraud to the 
 other. But admitting the principle, that the 
 altered paflages would probably be accom- 
 modated to the peculiar tenets of the fedla^ 
 rifts, it is a lingular fa(9:, that ° " none of the 
 *' numerous manufcripts brought from Greece 
 *' favours any heretical dogma ;" and that " no 
 " criterion exifts for diftinguiftiing the ojtho- 
 
 s Wetftein, Prolegom. pp. 159. 33. " In tot codicibus 
 " ex Grsecia allatis ne una quidera haftenus reperta eft, 
 " qu£e hseretico dogmati faveat; ne jam dicam de codi- 
 *' cibus Graecis Latinorum imprimis de nbftro Cahtabri- 
 *' gienfi ejufque Luc. vi. 5. viros dodtos aliter judicare. 
 *' Cum igitur omnes varietates partim negligentia, partim 
 " ftudio emendandi adeoque fcriptorum facrorum :ftonori 
 ** confulenti, originem debeant, nee x§iT^piov jrelinquitur, 
 " quo librarius orthodoxus ab hseretico diftinguatur, nee 
 " rationi demonftrari poteft, in folos haereticos cadere aut 
 " ilegligentiau^j aut fludium emend3,iidi." 
 
 K 
 
330 SERMON IV. 
 
 " dox from the heretical tranfcriber." It may- 
 be inferred, I conceive, from thele fkdls; thait 
 feme of the heretics corrupted their own pri-^ 
 vate copies only; and the golpel of this or 
 that herefiarch will denote only a copy of a 
 part of the Scriptures, altered in various modes 
 to favour the principles xt£ their fyllem, and 
 not a new fabrication of their own. This 
 may explain the admiflion of only one Gofpel 
 among feveral of the feds, but this admiffion 
 does not imply a renunciation of the reft on 
 the ground of want of authority. 
 - It is the opinion of an eminent writer on 
 the Canon of the New Teftament, that the 
 heretics, thofe efpecially who compofed an 
 apocryphal gofpel, could not receive, or ' even 
 regard thofe, which were authentic and cano- 
 nical. Bafilides is faid to have " compofed 
 " twenty-four books on the Gofpel : this is 
 " thought to imply his own gofpel, and not 
 " any of ours ;" and it is confidered as " much 
 " the more probable opinion," " becaufe it 
 " cannot be imagined that herefiarch would 
 " fhew fo great refped: to ours." It is not 
 certain that Bafilides did fabricate an apocry- 
 phal gofpel, but it is more probable that he 
 
 t Jones, Canon of the New Teft. vol. i. p. 177^ 
 
SERMON ly. 431 
 
 commented upon the genuine books; How- 
 ever, whether he hirafelf compofed a gofpel 
 or not, he received that of St. Matthew ; 
 " -" and there is no proof that he rejedted the 
 " other three." ^Leucius, or Lucanus, it is 
 .admitted, furniflied a large proportion of the 
 'apocryphal A^orks, which, neverthelefs, it is 
 to be remarked, do not contradidl the general 
 fads qf the canonical Scriptures. His fol- 
 lowers, according to the y hypothetical decla- 
 ration of Origen, are thought to have altered 
 the received books of the New Teftament ; 
 and it is to be prefumed that, if they received 
 them even with their own -alterations, they 
 did not deviate from th§ injundions and pracr 
 tice of their mafter : at leaft it is^vident, that 
 ;they did not prefer his compofitions altoge- 
 ;ther to the 'evangelical hiftories. If this be 
 correctly reprefented, and I am not fenfible 
 that it is inaccurate, we fhall not aggravate 
 ,the danger to which the faith of the early 
 .Chriftians was expofed, although " the fpu- 
 " rious writings of heretics were not rejedled, 
 
 " Lardner, vol. ix. p. 305, 
 
 * Lardner under Leucius, and Jones on the Canon of 
 the New Teftament. 
 
 J Oijitai Se XM TOO? «5ro Asxava. Lib. ii. p. 77. Edit. 
 Cant. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 SERMON IV. 
 
 " nor the faithful admoniflied to beware of 
 " them for the future." 
 ' It is indeed fuggefted, that the cathdlic 
 church fhould have taken thefe precautions 
 of determining the authenticity or fpuriouf- 
 nefs of the books of the New Teftament. To 
 determine however what we are to under- 
 ftand by the catholic church at this peribd, is 
 not eafy, fo as to be able to form any notion 
 of its concurrence in a general a6l. Befides, 
 it is here fuppofed that thefe fpurious writings 
 had been difperfed to nearly the fame extent 
 as the authentic Scriptures, if the effeds of 
 their contents required the interpolition of the 
 catholic church. But how could the opinions 
 of all the churches have been collected for the 
 determination of this queftion ? The chufcih 
 acquired more real ftrength without fuch an 
 interpolition, than it could have obtained by 
 it. The fpurious works appeared not indeed 
 without the oppofitidn and cenfure of indivi- 
 duals, but they were not fuppreffed or ftig- 
 matized by the authority of the church. The 
 fentence of individuals will not be regarded 
 unlefs founded upon enquiry and examina- 
 tion : a body of perfons may decree praife or 
 cenfure, afluring others that they have indivi- 
 dually enquired and examined, and without 
 
SERMON IV. 133 
 
 ^ecifying the reafons of their concltifion. But 
 it is obyious that fuch determinations can have 
 no weight or title to regard. 
 * It has been obferved, that the " writings 
 " of the "^ Apoftles were fo conjoined with the 
 " apocryphal, that it was not manifeft, by any 
 " mark or public cenfure of the church, which 
 " of the two Ihould be prefersed to the other." 
 It has appeared from previous obfervations, 
 that this mark or cenfure was unneceflary> 
 becaufe it was not the defign even of the au- 
 thors of the apocryphal books to fubftitute 
 them in the place of the writings of the Apo- 
 ftles. It is fatisfaftory to know, that we do 
 not derive our prefent canon of Scripture from 
 the interpofition of the church, dictating what 
 books were genuine, and what books were 
 fpurious. The confent of the churches, both 
 as to what they received, and what they re-" 
 je<9:ed, was the refult of independent enquiry, 
 and not the effect of a confederacy of fpiri* 
 tual rulers, or the flratagems of a party. The 
 liberty of judgment, whether flowing from 
 the ffate of the Chriftians at the time, or from 
 any religious forbearance, is indicated by the 
 numerous writings and fe6ls of heretics ; andy 
 
 * Toknd from Dodwell^ p. 71, 7a. 
 k3 
 
434 SERMON IV. 
 
 if we may judge from the^afperities of their 
 Gontroverlial language, their adverfariee woul4 
 fcarcely have been fatisfied with oppofing the 
 uncertain and circuitous reftraint of argument 
 only, if, as a body, they had poflefled either 
 power of their own, or could have engaged 
 that of the civil magiftrate on their behalf: 
 Thofe times muft be regarded as favourable 
 to Chriftianity, which, when its farther pro- 
 grefs was to be efFedted by means of written- 
 documents, obliged its profeflbrs to appeal to 
 the underftanding alone for the conviction of 
 their adverfaries. 
 
 . ■ The determination however of the queftioh 
 relative to the canonical books has been re- 
 folved into authority of fome kind. It is the 
 opinion of an ^ eminent writer, that the Apo- 
 ftles approved and authorized certain books 
 of the canon, and that " teftimonials were 
 " tranfmitted to the churches to prove them 
 " apoftolical." 
 
 It is b certainly a Angular circumftance, that 
 the form at leaft of fuch a warrant for the re- 
 
 a Richardfon, Canon of the New Teft. Vindicate^, 
 
 ^ I had not read at this time the obfervatlons of Mi- 
 chaelis, vol. i. p. 88. " Another proof which has been 
 " given is much ftronger than the former; viz. that the 
 
SERMON IV; J3^ 
 
 eeptiori of the canonical books has not been 
 any where preferved. Its importance was 
 fuch, that it ought always to have accom- 
 panied the inftrument itfelf, which it fanc- 
 tioned, particularly as fo momentous a con- 
 fequence was involved in the exiftence of fuch 
 a formulary ; namely, that what was approved 
 " by the Apoftles was, without controverfy, 
 " di6tatedl)y the Holy Ghoft." If we apply 
 this rule to the Gofpels of St. Mark and St. 
 Luke, it is not neceflary to deduce their infpir 
 ration from any apoftolical recommendation. 
 They had both preached the Gofpel ; and, if 
 One committed to writing what St. Peter deli- 
 vered, and the other the preaching of St. Paul, 
 it is probable that each of thefe written Gof- 
 pels was firlt communicated to the converts 
 of thefe Apoftles, and it was unneceflary to 
 add the approbation as a corroborating autho- 
 rity, when the oral teaching muft ultimately 
 try the approbation itfelf, as well as the ge- 
 nuinenefs of the written Golpel. Befides> 
 
 " Apoftles tbemfelves have recommended thefe books as 
 " canonical. If that be true, all doubt of their canonic£^l 
 " authority is removed. But which of the Apoftles has 
 " given this recommendation or teftimony, and where is 
 " it recorded ? In their epiftles, at leaft In refjied to'St. 
 " Luke, no trace is to be found." 
 
 K4 
 
136 SERMON IV. 
 
 fuch a fanftion might have been fo ealily imi- 
 tated, that it might have occalioned much 
 perplexity, at a very early period, in diftin- 
 guifliing the fpurious from the genuine apo- 
 llolical writings. But the queftion of inlpi- 
 ration could not have been folely dependent 
 on the authenticity of a detached autograph. 
 The forgeries contained in the *= decretals fhew 
 how inadequate fuch aflurances would have 
 been to fecure credibility, when thefe aflu- 
 rances had been withheld for a conliderable 
 length of time after the fuppofed events had 
 taken place. Thefe can be no doubt, that, 
 had there been any hiftorical proof of fuch 
 approbation, we muft have admitted it ; but 
 an appeal to authority could fcarcely have 
 been made fecretly, when it would at firft 
 have been neceffary for the Chriftians to refer 
 to it frequently and publicly for the latisfac- 
 tion of new believers. 
 
 It is indeed faid, that ^ " we have no rea- 
 " fon to afcribe infpiration to the works of a 
 " prophet, except when he declares, as fuch, 
 " that what he writes is infpired, and that he 
 *' in thofe inftances affumes that charadler. 
 
 c See Hume's Hift. of England, vol. ii. p. 229. 
 d Michaelis, vol. h-pf88. 
 
SERMON TV. 137 
 
 " But this neither St. Mark nor St. Luke have 
 " declared in any part of their writings." 
 But what fecurity for the validity of thefe 
 claims to inspiration Ihould we find in men's 
 own aflertions. « " How do we know that 
 " the hooks of Efdras, Tobit, Judith, were 
 " not divinely infpired, and that the books of 
 ** Mofes, Joftiua, Judges, and others, were 
 *' written by divine Infpiration, but from tra- 
 *' dition ? We cannot learn it from the books 
 ** themfelves, for the apocryphal Efdras, for 
 *' inftance, tells us, that he was divinely in>- 
 " fpired, which is more than the authors of 
 " the books of Jolhua, Judges, Ruth, or Kings 
 *• tell us in any of thofe books." This crite- 
 rion then is evidently ambiguous ; and the 
 queftion may admit fome digreflive examina- 
 tion, in what manner we are to prove the 
 infpiration of thefe writers. It is admitted 
 that we could not deduce it from their own 
 affirmation. We could not infer it from their 
 being contemporaries or companions of the 
 Apoftles, for we do not reafon in this man- 
 ner; f"a difciple accompanied an apoftle on 
 
 s " Tradition neceflary to explain and interpret the 
 « Holy Scriptures." By T. Brett, LL.D. 1718.P.31. 
 f Michaelis, vol. i. p. 88. 
 
IBS SERMON IV. 
 
 •* his journies, therefore his writings are in-' 
 " fpired." We are told, " that a difciple 
 " might poflefs the gift of miracles, be able 
 •' to reftore the fick, to fpeak languages which 
 " he had never learnt, and even be endowed 
 " with the fpirit of prophecy, though his 
 "writings were not infpired." It may be 
 conceded, that there is no necefiary connec- 
 tion in thefe circumftances. To advert again 
 to the argument from apoftolical approbation ; 
 nothing approaches fo near to a proof of fuch 
 approbation having been given to St. Luke; 
 than his compolition of the early hiftory of 
 Chriftianity, contained in the Ails of the Apo-^ 
 files. But ftill the approbation itfelf is not 
 extant, however our reafonings from proba- 
 bility only would juftify us in alTuming fuch 
 an authority for the undertaking, and fuch a 
 landbion to it after its completion. I do not 
 indeed conceive how the infpiration of one 
 •perfon could be fo afcertained as to be a mat- 
 ter of teftimony, which was to be received 
 upon the evidence of another inspired perfon. 
 Infpiration itfelf does not appear to have beeu 
 fufceptible of thM nice and clear examination, 
 which Ihould be the ground of teftimony; not 
 to omit, that this might occafion no unrealbnT* 
 able fufpicion of coUulion between the parties. 
 
SERMON IV. isg 
 
 In what manner then can we be fatisfied that 
 they were infpired ? It is true indeed, that all 
 who preached* did not alfo write a Gofpel; 
 but it is probable that they, who wrote a Gof- 
 pel, had previoufly preached it in fome '* quar- 
 " ters" of the Jews or Gentiles. The preach- 
 ing of the Gofpel was neceffarily attended 
 with the ability to perform miracles, which, 
 while they .teftified the divinity of the revela-: 
 tion, conftituted tlie evidence for the autho- 
 rity of the preacher, and the great public and 
 cogent proof of his infpi ration. Can any 
 proof, except that by miracles, of infpiration, 
 'or, what is the fame thing, of knowledge 
 being revealed, be addrelTed to the fenles of 
 the underftanding ? The nature of the thing 
 does not admit of any other proof. In what 
 manner the faculties of the infpired perfon 
 are affedled, how his memory is affifted, that 
 the fubjedl and language of his communica- 
 tion are fuggefted, and do not originate in 
 himlfelf, may be affirmed, and perhaps imperr 
 fedly defcribed ; but what diredt proof can 
 we have that this is his real intelledtual flate ? 
 It is evident that we cannot have any. We 
 may apply this criterion to the enquiry, whe" 
 ther the genuine epiftle of Clemens Romanus, 
 
140 SERMON IV. 
 
 and thofe of the other " apoftolic fathers, muft 
 *' be received as genuine." * We muft preniife, 
 that the early Chriftians did not confider them 
 as part of the canon ; and we muft admire 
 their caution in not raflily blending with the 
 known produftions of infpiration, thofe, which 
 veneration for the fituation and charafters of 
 their authors might have impelled them to in- 
 troduce. In the epiftle of Clemens, for ex- 
 ample, it may be remarked, that the quota- 
 tions from the books of Scripture furnifli all 
 that is imperative in his exhortation. There 
 is nothing authoritative but what is derived 
 from the words of the Holy Spirit, ipeaking 
 in the writings of others ; whereas a writer, 
 who was himfelf inlpired, would not appeal 
 fo frequently for the fupport of his injunc- 
 tions, and ftill lefs for the injunctions them- 
 felves, to extraneous authority. I do not pre- 
 fume to aflert, that this was one of the rea- 
 fons which prevented the Chriftians from af- 
 •figning to this epiftle the fame rank as to 
 thofe of St. Paul; but it is a circumftance 
 which, even in our judgment, would indi- 
 cate fome deficiency in the proof of infpi- 
 ration. 
 
 We are willing however to be accufed of 
 
SERMON ly. 141 
 
 credulity iti admitting the iiifpiratiott of St. 
 Mark attd St. Luke. Any ap|)areiit incdn- 
 fiftency of theirs with the writings of St^ 
 Matthew and St. John, in feveral particulars, 
 does hot dferogate from infpiration. It mferfely 
 (hdwfe our ignorance of the inode how thele 
 writings are to be ireconciled. This is no 
 fubterfuge. Atiy fuppofed itiCoflfiftertcy in 
 the narratives «6f the events of our Saviour's 
 miniftry. Where the fatnc ads were fo often 
 repeated, Within the compafs of a fmall tra6l 
 of countt-y> and at fuch a variety of places 
 and feafons> may be relblved into a gratuitous 
 affumption of identity in thofe incidents 
 which were really different, or which occur- 
 red at a different place, or at a different fea- 
 fon, or at a different part of the fame road, 
 or city, or village. This however is an incon- 
 fiftency of the loWeft clafs. We have no re- 
 pugnancises in the precepts, no feilure of 
 prophecy, no unreal miracles. We fhall not 
 therefore abandon the infpiration of St. Mark 
 and St. Luke upon the ground of diflbnance 
 from the other Evangelifls. TJie infidel might 
 objed to an excefs of harmonious uniformity, 
 as an indication of coUufive- confederacy. But 
 in accounting for differences on one hand^ 
 
:142 SERMON IV. 
 
 .and a verbal agreement on the other, between 
 4he Evangeili#s, it is Angular that infpiration 
 is equally excluded by the critic. We know- 
 indeed that contradictions are inconfiftent 
 with inspiration ; but are we certain that a 
 verbal agreement is incompatible with this 
 igift of the Spirit ? We know what a contra- 
 idiflion is ; but an hiftorical difcrepancy is 
 not to be confounded with variations which 
 afFe6t the principles of morality or the vera- 
 city of the. writer. There is therefore much 
 .; latitude for the reconciliation of the alledged 
 .differences, without ufing the violent expe- 
 dient of denying the infpiration in order tg 
 .takeaway the ueceffity of attempting to har- 
 monize fadts, which were never perhaps in- 
 , tended to be identified with others, or might 
 be fuppofed to be the fame fa6ls without imr 
 puting to the authors contradiction or incon- 
 ijftency ; or to thofe, who receive them as 
 true, credulity and fyperftition. But let cre- 
 dulity and fuperftition be imputed to us. We 
 can fcarcely boaft of much ftrength of under- 
 -ilanding, or of great Chriftian fortitude, even 
 if we fhould hold faft, againft fuch tempta,- 
 ;;tion, this part of our faith without waver- 
 ing; even if we Ihould pot be influenced to 
 
SERMON IV. 143 
 
 rejedt a great portion of the records of Chrif- 
 tianity by trite reproaches, dilhoneft argu- 
 ment, unfounded politions, and perverted 
 Scripture. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 a Pet. i. 16. 
 fVe have itot followed cunningly devifed fahteL 
 
 AN order to complete a part of the enquiry 
 relative to the authenticity of the prefent ca- 
 non of the New Teftament, wc are in the 
 next place to examine, whether " the feeond 
 ^' and fueceeding centuries" Were as favour-" 
 able as is repreiented to the corruption of the 
 facred writings ; and whether the fabrication 
 of books, which appeared at thofe periods 
 ifinder the names of apoftles, or apoftolical per- 
 fons, tended to confound the diftincftion be^ 
 tween authentic and fpurious records; The 
 author of " The Diffonance'' canfiders it to 
 be fufficient if he refers bis imaginary interpo- 
 lations and- corruptions to the eopyifts of thofe 
 ages, and is fatisfied that by fuch an intima- 
 tion he produces full authority for his critical 
 fufpicions, and for the impeachment of the 
 credibility of 9II which he prefiimes to ftig- 
 
146 SERMON V. 
 
 matize. It is alledged, that, before the difco- 
 very of ^ " printing, it was very eaiy for art- 
 " ful or fuperftitious copyifts, not only to in- 
 " terpolate authentic writings with fuch al- 
 " terations and additions as accorded with 
 " their own credulity or cunning, but even to 
 " produce entire works of their own or others' 
 " forgery, under the name of any writer they 
 " pleafed." The facility, upon which the au- 
 thor infills, of corrupting maliufcripts before 
 the invention of printing, is aflumed to be 
 much greater than I conceive it really was. 
 But this point will require farther elucidation. 
 It may be remarked, and, had the obfervation 
 been repeated as often as it was neceflary, 
 it would have recurred with tirefome fre- 
 quency, that there is no hiftorical proof of the 
 other particulars. We are expeded to admit, 
 without teflimony, that the copyifts of the 
 facred writings were the perfons who were 
 authors of certain forgeries, of the exiftenee 
 of which no trace is to be difcovered; and 
 that perfons. engaged in this employment of 
 tranfcribing the facred volumes were more 
 likely to be the authors of fuch forgeries than 
 any other perfons. But we are entirely igno- 
 
 a Piffonance, p. %6, 37. 
 
SERMON V. 147 
 
 rant of the opinions of thefe copyifts, of the 
 numbers that were employed, and of the 
 mode of executing their tranfcripts; and there- 
 fore we cannot judge to what extent they 
 were able to dilTeminate the errors which they 
 adopted or invented, and incorporated with 
 the genuine apoftolical records. All that we 
 know is, that fuch perfons had an opportunity 
 of adapting their copies, by fraudulent altera- 
 tions, to a certain fyftem of opinions; but 
 there is no proof of fuch deviations from their 
 originals. . It is eafy indeed to afcribe to thefe 
 copyifts any moral qualities which may fup- 
 port an hypothefis ; but it is not according to 
 nature, I conceive, to reprefent interpolated 
 additions as originating in the credulity of the 
 fuperftitious, whofe chara6ter it rather is to 
 obferve fuch a rigid accuracy as would not 
 admit any departure from the facred arche- 
 type. The fuperftitious copyift muft be ex- 
 cepted from the number of agents occupied 
 in falfifying the genuine Scriptures, or in fa- 
 bricating original fiftions. But thefe credulous 
 and fuperftitious agents are mere creatures of 
 a fceptical imagination. They are to be re- 
 garded only as neceflary conftituents of a gra- 
 tuitous hypothefis, and whofe exiftence is no 
 more to be admitted than the vibrations of 
 
 L 2 
 
148 SERMON V. 
 
 the Hartleian theory, afcribed to ^" a. fub- 
 *' ftance, which no man could ever prove to 
 " have vibrations, or to be capable of them." 
 
 It is more plaufible,^ perhaps, than juft, to 
 reprelent the invention of printing as a better 
 fecuritj againft this fpecies of impofture, than 
 the multiplication of copies of compofitions by 
 means of tranfcripts. It does not however 
 appear from the hiftory of the times, that the 
 books of the facred writings could have been 
 more generally difperfed by means of the art 
 of the typographer, than they were by the 
 lefs expeditious labour of the pen of the co- 
 pyift. The eftablifliment of Chriftianity might 
 be-fuppofed to be fufficiently fecure on the 
 foundation of the authority of its firft teachers^ 
 and upon tradition. But its further progrefs 
 could not be enfured without the opportunity 
 of recurring to the records of the religion, in 
 order to verify the inftruiSlion which they re- 
 ceived, or to fatisfy the doubts that would 
 naturally arife in minds more inquifitive and 
 more accuftomed to intelleAual exertion. We 
 are further* to confider, that the collation of 
 copies would not have been more facilitated 
 by the art of printing. This fpecies of labour, 
 
 ^ Reid's Eflays, p. 94. edit. 4to. 
 
SERMON V. 149 
 
 although it was the more immediate concern 
 of perfons who might be expected to be the 
 guardians of the integrity and purity of the 
 facred books, might have been fo eafy, that 
 the mere impulfe of curiofity would have been 
 a fufficient inducement to undertake it, even 
 without any fufpicion of differences and con- 
 tradictions. ^ We muft alfo remember, that 
 when no other mode of multiplying copies of 
 writings was known but by means of manu- 
 fcripts, the difcrimination of each nice parti- 
 ' cular was eafy and familiar to the contempo- 
 rary reader. The argument however of the 
 obje6lor is reduced, towards the conclusion of 
 the ftatement, to a form of affertion, mitigated 
 and tempered, perhaps, on account of his own 
 fufpicions of its invahdity. " This pradtice," 
 he fays'", " of interpolation and forgery was 
 " actually fo common amongft feveral, who 
 " called themfelves Chriftians, in the fecond 
 " and fucceeding centuries, that, if what we 
 " call the fcriptures of the New Teftament 
 " were not fo tampered with, they are almoft 
 " the only writings upon the lame fubjeCt of 
 " thofe early times which have efcaped free." 
 With an adverfary, who avails himfelf of 
 
 c Diffonance, p. ay. 
 L 3 
 
150 SERMON V. 
 
 every minute circumftance which can be made 
 to favour his hypothefis, it cannot be thought 
 hypercritical or uncandid to obferve, that " if 
 " the practice was common amoiigft feveral 
 " only, who called themfelves Chriftians," 
 their whole lives muft have been occupied in 
 this employment ; and yet the names of thefe 
 falfaries have not been preferved, nor any par- 
 ticulars refpeding their frauds. Their bufinefs 
 muft be fuppofed to have confifted in corrupt- 
 ing the Scriptures, and in forging writings in 
 confonance to thole corruptions. In examin- ' 
 ing this queftion of the corruption of the 
 Scriptures, it is not however intended to be 
 affirmed, that opportunities were not eafily 
 afforded of attempting any alterations in the 
 facred books ; but we are to feparate the ac- 
 tions of individuals from thofe changes, which 
 are thought to have been effedled by Chrif- 
 tians in their collective capacity. Some of 
 the alterations of St. Luke's Gofpel by Mar- 
 cion are refolvable into the variations of co- 
 pies ; yet he did accommodate the Scripture 
 to his own fentiments, but not without de- 
 tection and cenfure. The imaginary falfaries 
 of " The Diffonance," however, although they 
 adled under the diredion, and with the autho- 
 
SERMON V. 151 
 
 rity, of a fuppofed corrupt church, have not 
 yet been difcovered. 
 
 ' In confidering the queftion of the difFufion 
 of tranfcripts from various originals, we attri- 
 bute perhaps more advantages to the invention 
 of printing than ought to be afcribed to it. 
 The mere mention of this fplendid acquilition 
 operates upon the mind in a confufed man- 
 ner, and feems to imply a vifible and direift 
 fuperiority over the mode of communication 
 by means of the hand-writing of individuals. 
 It may perhaps appear, upon enquiry, that 
 this prefumed fuperiority is queftionable when 
 referred to this particular inftance, the difper- 
 fion of copies of the fcriptures of the New 
 Teftament. 
 
 With regard to the facility of multiplying 
 copies of thefe books, one confequence fliould 
 have enfued, which did not take place. Had 
 they been provided llowly, or at very confi- 
 derable charge, the promulgation of Chriftia- 
 nity muft have been impeded by both thele 
 caufes. But even if the whole of the prefent 
 coUedion had been copied by the fame indi- 
 vidual, his zeal and induftry need not be fup- 
 pofed to exceed the zeal and induftry of later 
 ages, as exerted in the limilar occupation of 
 copying the liturgical offices of the church. 
 
 L 4 
 
152 SERMON Y. 
 
 The legal incapacities of the early Chriftiaris 
 for civil offices, and their indifference to 
 worldly advantages and purfuits, produced na- 
 turally a fpeculative and retired mode of life. 
 This afforded much Opportunity for fedentary 
 employment, and the multiplication of copies 
 of the facred Scriptures was probably the only 
 atftive bufinefs in which they interefted them- 
 felves. 
 
 We may remark, that in a printed book, 
 whatever fubfequent infertion may be fuf- 
 peded, its detedlion would be more difficult 
 than in any manufcript. Every printed book 
 retains and repeats errors of every kind, and 
 prefents an uniformity of miftake in every 
 copy : whereas in a manufcript one tran- 
 fcript checks the errors of another, becaufe 
 we oppofe the negligence of one individual 
 to the greater care of another ; or at leaft we 
 have the contingency, that the fame error has 
 not been committed by different perfons. In 
 every different manufcript we can generally 
 apply, or we can diftinguilh when we ^o ap- 
 ply, to the diligence of a different perfon ; 
 whereas, in a printed book, the errors of the 
 fame individual perplex every reader of the 
 work, without any refource. 
 
 The very charadler of the letters of a ma- 
 
SERMON V. isa 
 
 nufcript is a criterion of its date, and a mea- 
 fure of its value ; and fubfequent infertions 
 prefent the marks of a different period. Thefe 
 niceties, but all of them of great moment^ 
 are loft, when the contents of a manufcript 
 are transferred to a printed book. 
 
 The fubftitution of printed books for ma- 
 nufcripts was not defirable at the period when 
 it is fuppoted that the art of printing would 
 have been a better fecurity againft impofitiort 
 than the art of the tranfcriber. There are 
 many nice particulars which would betray 
 anachronifmal errors. Indeed there is fcarcely 
 any thing,^ both from the materials employed, 
 and the formation of the letters, which does 
 not afford an appropriate indication of dates. 
 Thefe are incommunicable, almoft by defcrip- 
 tion, and could not have been transferred by {fmMeJoyn. 
 i"''' i l iiiii into the copies deftined for general 
 ufe. We fhould not omit likewife to notice, 
 that where all learning was in the form of 
 manufcripts only, the difcrimination of age, 
 and the particulars neceflary to give authority 
 to any writing, muft have been familiar, and 
 have occafioned little or no trouble, and cer- 
 tainly none to have produced much uncer- 
 tainty. 
 
 The invention of the art of printing would 
 
154 SERMON V. 
 
 in reality have been detrimental, had it been 
 introduced when, according to the fuppo- 
 fition of fome perfons, it would have been 
 attended with greater utility. Although the 
 materials of manufcripts are fufficiently fra- 
 gile, and liable to decay and injury, yet, 
 when they have been copied, lefs care for 
 the prefervation of the originals has been 
 confidered as neceffary upon the fuppofi- 
 tion, that an inftrument of equivalent autho- 
 rity has been fubftituted. We cannot pre- 
 cifely afcertain the length of time before this 
 would take place; but we may be alTured, 
 that this diminution of attention would, fooner 
 or later, be the efie6l of the introdu6tion of 
 a new fpecies of cuftody, which would be re- 
 garded as fuperfeding any troublefome dili- 
 gence that might have been previoufly re- 
 quired to protect them from the ordinary ca- 
 fualties of lituation or nature. Would it have 
 been defirable, we may alk, to have had fuch 
 an art as that of printing, at fuch a period, 
 which would have had fuch an effe6l as this ? 
 The evidence for the Gofpel hiftory, when 
 in the form of a writing, would have been 
 greatly reduced in quantity, and would have 
 been made doubtful and even fufpicious in 
 kind. 
 
SERMON V. 155 
 
 The author of " The DifTonance" has ob- 
 jedled, in a plaufible manner, to the authority 
 of that multiplicity of copies, which we fup- 
 pofe to have been derived from the fame ori- 
 ginal. He has again recourfe to his ufual 
 expedient, a fallacious analogy, to illuftrate 
 his argument. He compares the cafe to that 
 of a will, where one copy only can poflefs 
 full authority. But the comparifon of a copy 
 of a writing and of a will is defective. The 
 circumftances of a will originate in the perfon 
 whole will it is faid to be; and if it cannot be 
 proved to be his, it is of no confequence 
 whole it may be, or what are the circum- 
 ftances, as they are all dependent upon the 
 determination, who was the individual. A 
 copy of a writing may have every mark of 
 genuinenefs as a hiftory, and every criterion 
 of probability ; and we may be fatisfied of its 
 truth, although we Ihould not be acquainted 
 with the name of its author. Internal evi- 
 dence and analogy are admiffible in reafoning 
 on the genuinenefs of a narrative; whereas 
 they are excluded abfolutely by the nature 
 of a tellamentary inllrument. A hiftory ad- 
 mits teftimony relative to the circumftances 
 and fads ; but a will does not admit any but 
 what is relative to the perfon who made it. 
 
15Q SERMON V. 
 
 It feems as if the author of ''The Diflbnance" 
 had at length difcovered a cafe, where the 
 copy of a writing, after one remove from the 
 original, was of no value as evidence, without 
 confidering that the nature of the contents of 
 each writing gives the fpecific difference ta 
 the evidence in queftion. 
 
 It is aflerted in " The Diflbnance," with 
 refpe6t to the writings ^ " which are attri- 
 '^ buted to any Chriftian writers within the 
 " firft half of the fecond century, that of the 
 "^^ whole colledlion there is no fatisfaftory 
 " proof that any one compofition worth no- 
 " tice is really the work of the writer whofe 
 '■' name it bears, except the firft Epiftle of 
 " Clemens the Roman ; and even that this has 
 *' been evidently corrupted." The argument 
 which is deduced from this obfervation ought 
 to be well examined. Becaufe there are doubts- 
 refpe^ling the authenticity of fome ancient 
 writings on certain fubjed;s connected with 
 Chriftianity, therefore we can have no better 
 proof refpe6ling the genuinenefs of other writ- 
 ings, of greater antiquity, and of different 
 authority and importance. The queftion is 
 artfully contrived to appear to depend upon 
 
 * Diflbnance,, p. 3,y.' 
 
SERMON V. 157 
 
 the confideration of time, when it really re- 
 lates to another particular. The argument in- 
 deed, if it were expected to have any weight, 
 Ihould have fliewed, that the difficulty of de- 
 termining the authenticity of thefe writings 
 was either contemporary with the writings* 
 themfelves, or that there was no criterion by 
 which their real authority could be afcer- 
 tained ; or, that although the evidence of the 
 authenticity of fuch writings was obfcure and 
 defective, yet they had been received as parts 
 of the ancient coUedlion of Scripture, and 
 therefore that the records of Ghriftianity it- 
 felf, from being nearly contemporary ^Tilings, 
 were not capable of more fubliantial authenti- 
 cation than the Shephei'd of Hermas, or the 
 epiftles of Clement. It is however fortunate 
 that this delulion has terminated even in fome 
 diftant age of the church. We may rather 
 perhaps be fatisfied, that, if there was any 
 reafon for doubt in compofitions of great anti- 
 quity and of fmall fize, fufBcient teftimony 
 has remained to diredl our judgment in af^ 
 figning to them due authority, and a proper 
 place in a clafs fubordinate to the authentic 
 writings of apoftles and evangelifts. But there 
 is no teftimony of the early enlargement of 
 the canon by the infertion of works of dti^ 
 
158 SERMON V. 
 
 bious claims, and the fubfequent contraftion 
 of it by the rejedion of fuch writings, upon 
 the difcovery of their want of authority. We 
 know indeed that it did not originally confift 
 of fo many books ; but it was never fubfe^ 
 •tjuently diminilhed by the neceffity of obviat-' 
 ing the pretipitate admiflion of ambiguous 
 writings. The prefervation of the brief letter to 
 Philemon is a proof of the care of the Chriftian 
 aflemblies in the cuftody of their documents ; 
 and the exclufion of the Shepherd of Hermas 
 and the genuine epiftle of Clement from the 
 canon Ihews alfo, that the canon was not form- 
 ed without the exercife of judgment, and a 
 cautious examination of its future conftituent 
 portions. It ought to be proved by an adver- 
 fary who is never perplexed for the invention 
 of objeAions, that the Chriftian communions 
 did not polTefs, or, if they poflefled, did not 
 ufe, the evidence which we have at this day ; 
 that the pradlice of forgery and interpolation 
 bad prevailed, fo as to render ufelefs the ordi- 
 nary rules of determining the authenticity and 
 genuinenefs of any writing, and that what 
 they received they received in this ftate of 
 confiilion and perplexity, and that the collec- 
 tion of the fcriptures of the New Teftament 
 was haftily and ignorantly feparated from a 
 
SERMON V. 159 
 
 mafs of writings contemporary in their public- 
 cation, each of which had apparently an equal 
 claim to be a conftituent part of the projected 
 canon, and thofe certainly, that prefented 
 themfelves to notice with the commendatory 
 and authoritative diftinftion of an apoftolical 
 name. The author of " The Diflbnance" indeed 
 fays, *= " that every competent impartial judge 
 " muft agree with the truly learned and candid 
 *• Molheim, that of the whole colledion there 
 " is no fatisfacftory -proof that any piece worth 
 " notice is really the work of the writer whofe 
 " name it bears, except the firft epiftle of Cle- 
 " mens the Roman." But this difcovery was 
 not referved for the lagacity and erudition of 
 Molheim, nor for the literacy refearches of his 
 age. Eufebius was as well acquainted with 
 the different evidence for the authority of 
 both, and has fpoken of the two epiftles as 
 Mofheim himfelf would fpeak. " One un- 
 " doubted epiftle of his is circulated. The 
 " fame epiftle I have known to be publicly 
 " recited in many churches, both formerly 
 " and in our own times." Of the other epiftle 
 he fpeaks in this manner : " We are to learn 
 " that there is a fecond epiftle of Clement, 
 
 e Diffonance, p. aj?. 
 
i6o SERMON V. 
 
 " not fo notable as the former, and we know 
 " that the ancients did not ufe it." Neither 
 did he afcribe undue authority to the Shep- 
 herd of Hermas, or the epiftle of St. Bar- 
 nabas, 
 
 It is further clear, that the ground on which . 
 one book was received, and another reje<9;ed, 
 was not merely, that one was written by a 
 heretic, and the other by a perfon of the ca- 
 thwlic church. Eufebius, fpeaking in a well 
 known paliage of certain golpels and atfts, 
 fays, that " they were the inventions of he- 
 <' retics, and are not fo much as to be ranked 
 *' among fpurious books, but are to be rejed:ed 
 " as wicked and abfurd." The produ6tion of 
 thefe paffages is fo far ufeful, that we perceive 
 that the fame criterion was applied to one 
 writing as to another, and that examination 
 preceded cenfure. 
 
 It might perhaps be fuppoled, that in the 
 early periods of the critical art the Chriftians 
 might receive books, which, after its intro- 
 dudion, and in its improved ftate, they, or at 
 leaft others, would have rejed;ed. This is 
 however rather to anticipate, than to reply to 
 ^n objedion which has been adually ad- 
 vanced. The fubjeA then of examination 
 would be either fuppofititious books, or cor- 
 
SERMON V. i61 
 
 ruptions of the Scriptures. It h^s however 
 appeared, that the heretics, who ufed certain 
 fpupious and apocryphal books in conjunftion 
 with the Scriptures, did not alledge any ob- 
 jedion derogatory to the authenticity of the 
 latter, although they appealed for the fupport 
 of their peculiar fentiments to writings of no 
 authority. Sacred criticifm might be faid tp 
 cpnfift §t that time of two branches only ; 
 the difcfimination of genuine and authentic 
 from Ipurious compofitions, and the cpllec^^iion, 
 or rather perhaps the pblery^tion, of variations 
 of the copies of the Scriptures, fuppofed to liave 
 been altered by heretical individuals, from thofe 
 copies which were in general ufe. Tl;iis fecond 
 jdivifion was npt neglected; and the comparifon 
 pf different copies among the early Chriftians, 
 whether a matter of neceffity or curiolity, of 
 <:ommon or of official vigilance, or the efFe<9: 
 of a reafonable jealoufy of innovation, muft 
 from thefe caufes have been frequently under- 
 taken. The ftandard would firft be, the evan- 
 gelical and apoftolical autographs, as long as 
 they could be preferved entire ; and after- 
 wards, accurate tranfcripts from thefe, fo that 
 an examination of this kind might to a certain 
 degree be denominated critical. But when 
 Tertullian, in his controverfial work againft 
 
 M 
 
162 SERMON y. 
 
 Marcion, affirms, that his Gofpel was ge- 
 nuine, and that of Marcion adulterated; and 
 when Marcion is ^ reprefented as retorting the 
 imputation, and TertuUian alking, " Who Ihall 
 " decide between us ?" we are anxious to 
 know what he regarded as fufficient to termi- 
 nate fuch a doubt ; and we find that it was 
 the confideration of the priority of time, and 
 the writings in the poffeffion of the churches 
 founded by the Apoftles ; not the decrees of 
 churches, but the books which the moft an- 
 cient churches followed as their fource of reli- 
 gious inflru<ftion, and the law of their adions ; 
 in fliort, it was virtually the comparifon of the 
 copies of the Scriptures among the various 
 Chriftian communities, diftin6t from any exer- 
 tion of power on their part to recommend, or 
 to conftitute fuch a canon of Scripture, and no 
 other authority whatever. It may perhaps be 
 
 ^ " Quis inter nos detefminabit, nifi temporis ratio ei 
 prsefcribens auftoritatem, quod antiquius reperietur; et 
 ei prsEJudicans vitiationem, quod pofterius revincetur ? . . . 
 Videaiiius quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauferint; ad quam 
 regulam GaJatae fint recorrefti ; quid legant Philippehfes, 
 Theflalonicenfes, Ephefii j quid etiam Romani de proximo 
 fonent, quibus Evangelium et Petrus et Paulus fanguine 
 quoque fuo fignatum reliquerunt. Habemus et Joannis 
 alumnas ecclefias. Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. iv. p- 504,505. 
 edit. I.utet.'i634. 
 
SERMON V. 163 
 
 worthy of tranfient notice, that the paflage of 
 sTertuUian to which I refer has been lately em- 
 ployed by one pf the Socinian improvers of the 
 Verfion of the New Teftament to fhew the ho- 
 nefty of the Father in acknowledging, that the 
 queftion could not be determined whether his 
 Gofpel or Marcion's were the true one. But 
 the Father has not any title to the praife of ho- 
 netty from this ^ modern upon the ground of 
 the confefBon, that fuch a queftion muft re- 
 main undecided ; for he appeals to antiquity 
 as the arbitrator, not in any remote part of 
 the fame treatife, but in the fame fentence, 
 and in words which furnifh the anfwer to his 
 own interrogation : " Quis inter nos deter- 
 " minabit, nili temporis ratio ei praefcribens 
 *• audioritatem, quod antiquius reperietur ; et 
 " ei praejudicans vitiationem, quod pofterivis 
 " revincetur." 
 
 g TertuU. adv. Marcion. 1. 1, p. 504. Lutet. 1634. 
 
 h I cannot have much refpeft for the diffent of a per- 
 fon who adapts his authorities to his argument by omif- 
 fions. To do full juftice to the author of the letter in 
 the Monthly Repofitory of Theology, No. 44, I fliall 
 certainly ftate, that after determinabit he has put &c, 
 hut he has alfo placed a note of interrogation after deter- 
 minabit, as if the fentence were fini/bed. 
 
 The author fays, that " Epiphanius accufes Marcion 
 " of corrupting and mutilating his copy of Luke's Gof- 
 
 M 2 
 
<c 
 
 e( 
 
 164 SERMON V. 
 
 It is difficult, and indeed it is the prominent 
 difficulty in the whole of this enquiry, to difco- 
 
 " pel ; but Marcion himfelf maintains his copy to be ge- 
 " nuine." Monthly Rep, p. 425. Dr. Marfti, in his notes 
 on Michaelis, fays, " But that Marcion ufed St. Luke's 
 " Gofpel at all, is a pofition which has been taken for 
 granted, without the leaft proof. Marcion himfelf 
 never pretended that it was the Gofpel of St. Luke, 
 as TertuUian acknowledges, faying, ' Marcion Evan- 
 ' gelio fuo nullum afcribit autorem.' Adv. Marc.^ lib., iv. 
 " c. a." The whole paffage fhould be given : " Deniqoe 
 " nobis fidem ex Apoftolis Joannes et Mattha&us infinu- 
 " ant ; ex Apoftolicis, Lucas et Marcus inftaurant, iifdem 
 " regulis exorfi, quantum ad unicum Deum attinet Crea- 
 " torem, et Chriftum ejus, natum ex virgine, fupplemen- 
 " tum Legis et Prophetarum. Viderit enim fi narralio- 
 " num difpofitio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conve- 
 niatj de quo cum Marcione non convenit. Contra 
 Marcion, evangelio fcilicet fuo, nullum adfcribit auSo- 
 rem; quafi non licuerit illi titulum quoque adfingere, 
 " cui nefas non fuit ipfum corpus evertere. Et poflem 
 " hie jam gradum figere, non agnofcendum contendens 
 " opus, quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam conftan- 
 " tiam prEeferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine 
 *'tituli,'et profeffione debita autStoris. Sed per omnia 
 " congredi malumus, nee diffimulamus quod ex noftro 
 " intelligi poteft. Nam ex iis commentatoribus qnos 
 " habenms, Lucam videiur Marcion elegiffe quem cse- 
 " deret." TertulEan wiflied that he could have eftabliflied 
 tile fa6t, that it was the gofpel of thi^ or that writer, be- 
 caufe he had then hi's mode of arguing prepared for bis 
 antagoriift. " We," faith he, as Dr. Barrow has tranf- 
 lated the paflage, "when we would difpatch againft te- 
 
 « 
 
 (( 
 
SERMON V. i6s 
 
 ver any fa(9s whatever ; and even thofe which 
 are colleded do not preclude the necelBty of 
 
 " retics for the faith of the Gofpel, do commonly ufe 
 " thefe fliort ways, which dp maintain both the order of 
 " times prefcribing againft the latenefs of impoftors, and 
 " the authority of the churches patronizing apoflolical 
 " tradition *." Tertullian ufes anpther word for Mar- 
 cion's fyftem; he calls it the Gofpel of Marcion, and 
 fays, that although fuch was the mode of proceeding 
 y;ith heretics, yet in this cafe " fed alium jam hinc ini- 
 " mus gradum, ipfum (ut profeffi fumus) Evangeliiun 
 " Marcionis provocantes, fie quoque probaturi adultera- 
 ** tum." The author of the letter avers boldly, " The 
 " faS then is clear. The difputed chapters were wanting 
 " iij the_ copy of Marcion, a Chriftian writer of unim- 
 " peached integrity, in the beginning of the fecond cen- 
 *' tury, who maintained, that his was the genuine un- 
 " adulterated Gofpel of Luke ; who probably had much 
 " better opportunities of information than thofe whb 
 " came after him, and who could have no inducement 
 ** to have rejected this narrative, had it been related by 
 « the Evangelift." Monthly Rep. p. 435. I fhould ra- 
 ther think that the opinion in the following paflage 
 would be that inducement : " Marcion, ut carnem Chrifti 
 " negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem, aut ut nativitatem 
 « negaret, negavit et carnem, fcilicet ne invicem fibi tefti- 
 " monium redderent et refponderent, nativitas et caro, 
 " quia nee nativitas fine came, nee caro fine nativi 
 ** tate." It would feem that Marcion had objefted to the 
 fk^s contained in thefe chapters, as Tertullian intimates : 
 *• His, opinor, confiliis tot originalia in^rvmenta Phri/ti 
 
 * Dr. Barrow on the Pope's Saptemacy, p, 118. 
 M 3 
 
166 SERMON V. 
 
 hypothetical reafoning, either by relating im- 
 mediately to the fubjedt, or by fupplying eafy 
 and indifputable inferences. Eufebius how- 
 ever has preferved an extrad from an ancient 
 anonymous writer on the fubje6t of the altera- 
 tions of copies of the Scriptures by fome early 
 heretics. It is a curious i 'example of their 
 practice, and fliews that the evidence of an- 
 cient writers was not founded upon authority 
 exclufive of examination. ■ '* They who abufe 
 " the fciences of the infidels for the fupport 
 " of their heretical fentiments, and with an 
 " impious fubtlety adulterate the fimple faith 
 " of the divine Scriptures ; of fuch men what 
 " need I fay, that they are far from the faith ? 
 
 " deleve Marcion aufus eft, ne caro ejus probaretur." 
 After further expoftulation he fays, " defiderantes ratior 
 " nem qua non putaveris natum efle Chriftum." Tertull. 
 de Came Chrifti, cap. i — ^3. The heretics were required 
 to ftiew their originals, or the authority for the devia- 
 tions in their books from thofe received in general ; but 
 Marcion certainly did not appeal even to any known 
 apoftolical writer. Jf^nA. the anonymous author againft 
 Artemo fays, that " they did not receive fuch books 
 " from thofe by whom they were firft taught the Chrif- 
 " tian doftrine;" that " the copies had been written out 
 " with their own hands ;" and that they were not " able 
 " to prpduce the copies from whence they tranfcribed 
 " thefe things." 
 
 » Lardner's tranflatipn. 
 
SERMON V. i6f 
 
 " for which reafon they have without fear laid 
 " their hands upon the divine Scriptures, fayr 
 " ing, that they have amended them. And 
 " that I do not charge them falfely any one 
 " may know that pleafeth. For if any one 
 '* will be at the pains to procurea number of 
 " their copies, and compare them together, he 
 " will find, that they difagree very much. 
 " For the copies of Afclepiades (or Afclepio- 
 " dotus) differ from thofe of Theodotus. And 
 " many of them, may be met with, becaufe 
 " their dilciples have diligently tranfcribed 
 " their feveral emendations, as they call them, 
 " but indeed corruptions. Again, the copies 
 " of Hermophilus agree not with thefe already 
 " mentioned. And thofe of ApoUonides (or 
 " ApoUonius) differ one from another : for 
 " any one, by comparing thofe firft put out 
 " with thefe, which were afterwards again 
 " perverted by him, may perceive a difference. 
 " How daring a crime this is, poffibly they 
 " themfelves are not ignorant : for either they 
 " do not believe the divine Scriptures to have 
 " been dilated by the Holy Spirit, and then 
 " they are infidels ; or elfe they think them- 
 " felves wifer than the Holy Spirit, and what 
 " are they then but mad men ? For they can- 
 " not deny this their daring crime, fince the 
 
 M 4 
 
i68 SERMON V. 
 
 " copied have been writ out with their own 
 " hands ; and they did not receive fuch books 
 " from thofe by whom they were firft taught 
 " the Chriftian dodrine : nor are they able 
 " to produce the copieSj from whence they 
 " tranfcribed thefe things^." To this extraft 
 it has been objeifted, " that it is probable that 
 " all the alterations or corruptions complained 
 " of concerned only the copies of the Old 
 " Teftament." But a paffage in a pteceding 
 part of the citation, expreffed in limilar Ian'- 
 guage, will not permit us to avail ourfelves of 
 the advantage, if advantage it can be called, 
 of transferring thefe corruptions to other au-^ 
 thentic books. " Moreover," fays the fame 
 author, " they have without fear corrupted 
 " the divine Scriptures, and have rejefted the 
 " rule or canoh of the ancient faith, and have 
 " been ignorant ofChrift'." 
 
 k Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef. lib. v. verf. fin. 
 
 ' Td this paflage I may add others from Lardner him- 
 iblif, which fliew that the Scriptures of the New, and not 
 the Old Teftament, were the fubjet9: of this citation. 
 
 1. " The defign of the firft pafllage of this work Is to 
 " fliew the novelty of that herefy, that our Saviour was 
 " a mere man ; whereas the perfons againft whom the 
 " author writes alterted its antiquity." We may now 
 obfervfe how the fubfbqiieht paflagies relate to this txtpic, 
 and confequently to thofe books which contain it, 
 
SERMON V- 169 
 
 It is not perhaps a corred affertion of the 
 
 a. "For they fay, that all the ancients, and even the A- 
 " poftles themfelves, received and taught the fanie things 
 " which they now hold ; and that the truth of the Gof- 
 " pel was ^refefved till the time of Viftor : but by his 
 " fucceffor (or, from the time of his fucceflbr) Zephyrine 
 ^' the truth has been corrupted." The words " of the 
 " Gofpel" are inferted by Lardner. I do not mean that 
 the fenfe of the^aflage does not juftify fuch an infertion; 
 but it evinces how he himfelf underftood the tendency of 
 the quotation. 
 
 3. " And poflibly what they fay might have been cre- 
 " dited, ifj firft of allj the divine Scriptures did not contra- 
 " di£i: them; and then alfo, fecondly, the writings of bre- 
 " thren more ancient than Viftor, which they publifhed in 
 " defence of the truth againft the Gentiles, and againft the 
 " herefies of their time." " The brethren mentioned by 
 " name," proceeds Lardner, " are Juftin, Miltiades, Ta- 
 " tian, Clement, IrenaBus, Melito, with a general appeal 
 " to many more not named, and to ancient hymns, com- 
 " pofed by the faithful in honour of Chrift." Lardner 
 has not given the full import of the fentence. " Who 
 ** is unacquainted with the books of Irenseus, and Me^ 
 " lito, and the reft, which declare the Chrift to be God 
 " and man ? How many pfalms and hymns, compofed 
 " long fiiice by faithfiil brethren, celebrate and afcribe 
 " divinity to the Chrift the Word of God!" This is what 
 was faid " in honour of Chrift." 
 
 4. " There was one Natalis, a confeffor, nbt long ago, 
 " but in our tiwaes. This perfon was deceived by Afcle- 
 " piodatus, and another, Theodotms, a banker, both dif- 
 " ciples of the firft, who had been excommunicated by 
 " Viflor for this opinion, or rather madnefe." It was 
 
170 Sermon V. 
 
 very learned author of the Canon of the New 
 
 before alledged by the heretics, that the " truth of the 
 " Gofpel," or their own opinion, was preferved till th6 
 " time of Viftor." To which it is replied, that " what 
 ^' they fay might have been credited, if, firft of all, the 
 " divine Scriptures did not contradift them; and then 
 " alfo, fecondly, the writings of brethren more ancient 
 " than Victor, which they publiflied in defence of the 
 " truth againft the Gentiles, and againft the herefies of 
 " their time." I muft confider all thefe portions of the 
 extraft, which I have feparated into thefe divifions in 
 order to examine them minutely; and I fee no reafon 
 why tliey are not to be confidered as forming, not fo 
 much the introduftion, as a part of the citation itfelf, 
 which is faid to refer to the Old Teftament. If fo, there 
 is a great confufion in the references; for in the above 
 paflage " writings more ancient than Viftor" would not 
 be affociated with " the divine Scriptures" in the preced- 
 ing fentence, unlefs the periods of both approximated to 
 each other. 
 
 5. " They did not receive fuch books from thofe by 
 " whom they were firft taught the Chriftian doftrine." 
 I muft firft obferve, that the words " Chriftian doftrine" 
 are an addition of Lardner. I think therefore that I am 
 authorized by thefe paflages to conclude, that the fub- 
 jefts of them were, the Chriftian doftrine and the Chrif- 
 tian fcriptures. The termination of the extract relates, 
 it may be fuppofed, in part to the Old Teftament. " Nay, 
 « fome of them have not thought it worth the while to 
 " corrupt the Scriptures, but, plainly rejefting the law 
 " and the prophets, by means of a lawlefs and impious 
 " doftrine, [taken up] under pretence of grace, they 
 " have fallen into the loweft pit of deftruftion." I can- 
 
SERMON V. 171 
 
 Teftament, tbat certain heretics agreed " in 
 
 not acquiefce in Lardner's inference^ " that they are 
 *' therefore the feriptures of the Old Teftament that he 
 " had been fpeaking of all along, when he complained 
 " of the alterations of the divine Scriptures." Thefe 
 perfons feem to have rejefted all the feriptures both of 
 the Old and New Teftament, and were fatisfied that 
 grace was fuflScient without either. 
 
 6. " And fince* thefe alterations were made, or at- 
 " tempted to be made, in a verfion only, (fome Greek 
 " verfion of the Old Teftament, probably that of the 
 " Seventy,) the damage is the lefs." I do not perceive 
 whut is gained by transferring the injury to the Greek 
 verfion of the Seventy, even if that were the fubjeft of 
 the citation. But the alterations evidently related tcV a 
 doctrine, the antiquity of which is not carried higher 
 by the difputants themfelves than the time of the Apo- 
 .ftles. " For they fay, that all the ancients, and even the 
 
 " Apoftles themfelves, received and taught the fame 
 " things which they now hold." 
 
 7. " It is reafonable to make fome abatements In the 
 " charges of this writer. He blames thefe perfons, againft 
 .'? whom he writes, for things in which there is no fault. 
 " He cenfures theip for ftudying geometry, and for ad- 
 " miring Ariftotle and Theophraftus." This is not can- 
 did. He explains it by faying, that they did not enquire 
 " what the divine Scriptures fay," but " carefully" ftu- 
 died " what figure of fyllogifm may be found out to 
 "Jupport their impious fK/iem. And if any one objefit 
 "to them a text of divine Scripture, they confider whe- 
 " ther a conjunctive or disjunftive form of fyllogifm can 
 " be made of it. He does not cenfure the ftudy of geo- 
 metry in the abftra6l : he exprefsly fpecifies, that, " leav- 
 
172 SERMON V- 
 
 " receiving and efteeming a fpurious work 
 
 " ing the holy Jcripture^ of God, they fludy geoflietry, 
 " as being of the earth, and fpeaking of the earth, and 
 " ignorant of him that cometh from above." 
 
 8. " Poffibly they only joined together thefe two ftu- 
 " dies." That is not improbable, I allow ; but how were 
 they conjoined ? He fpeaks of them as perfons " who 
 " ahufe the fciences of the infidels for the fupport of their 
 * heretical fentiment, and with an impious Jkbtlety adul- 
 " terate the fimple faith of the divine Scriptures." 
 
 9. " He infinuates too, that fome of them adored Ga- 
 " len, which is very improbable." The improbability 
 here is againft the refpeftable author : Galen was a dia- 
 leftician of great eminence. Lardner could icarcely be 
 ignorant of this note of Valefius on this paffage : " Ga- 
 " lenus enim de figuris fyllogifmorum et de tola philofi^ 
 " phia libros confcripferat, ut ex librorum ejus indice 
 " cognofcimus. — Nee vero ex hoc tantum fcriptore, vfe- 
 " rum etiam ex aliis quamplurimis id«m colligere licet, 
 " qui Galenum Ariftoteli ac Theophrafto, ipfique adeo 
 " Platoni sequare non dubitarunt." And then follows 
 a paffage in confirmation of this iaB. from Alexander 
 Aphrodifienfis. I may perhaps be allowed to ufe the 
 authority of this extrafl: from Eufebius to explain the 
 reafon why Ariftotle, Theophraftus, and a work of Ga- 
 len, lisp) ^iKo(r4(ps ISIaf, are found together in the fplen- 
 did colleftion of thefe writers printed by Aldus. Thejr 
 are thus affociated, and perhaps not cafually, in the mag- 
 nificent copies on vellum and paper. 
 
 I cannot but remark, that Lardner has tranflated the 
 ^paffage from Eufebius as if he underftood it as the gene- 
 rality of readers would underftand it« tendency, and has 
 reafoned from it in oppofition to the words which he 
 
SERMON V. 173 
 
 " above all other fcriptures™." The Encra- 
 tites are faid to have ufed principally thofe 
 writings entitled the A6ts of Andrew and 
 John, the Apoftolici to have depended chiefiy 
 upon them, and the Manichees to have ufed 
 them ; but it does not follow that they re- 
 jected the Scriptures, becaufe they received 
 books of this kind : it rather feems that the 
 authority of each was diftinA and indepen- 
 dent. The Scriptures ftill maintained, even 
 in the eftimation of the heretics themfelves, an 
 ufe and an importance, which certainly were 
 not deftroyed, nor even impaired, by being 
 aflbciated with fiAitious compofitions. We 
 may be allowed to conclude Ukewife, that 
 thefe forgeries were ufed without any inten- 
 tion to vilify the genuine Scriptures, and with- 
 out any attempt to corrupt them, however 
 contrary to the Scriptures thofe do<9:rines 
 might be, which the heretics introduced into 
 
 has, iuftifiably indeed, added to his verfiorij but which re- 
 ftrift aJl, except tlie conclufion of the citation, to the fub- 
 jeft t)f the doSritie of the New Teftament refpeaing our 
 Saviour's iiature, and the alteration of the copies of the 
 New Teftament ; Aiad even the lafl part refpe^tsthe ajbuie 
 of a do£lrine .peculiar to the Gofpel of Chrift. Is thig 
 one of the early intimations of the abufe of the doftrine 
 of grace ? 
 •" Jeaes, vol. i. p. 148. 
 
174 SERMON V. 
 
 fuch writings. This diftindlion is precifdy 
 and fatisfa6lorily obferved in the account of 
 the praftices of the Sabellians by Epiphaniusj 
 and probably the other heretical feds a6ted 
 in the fame manner. " " They make ufe of 
 *' all the Scriptures both of the Old and New 
 " Teftament ; but principally of fome certain 
 " paiTages, which they pick out according to 
 " their own corrupt and prepoflerous fenti- 
 " ments. But the whole of their errors, and 
 " the main flrength of their heterodoxy, they 
 *' have from fome apocryphal books, but prin-^ 
 " cipally from that which is called the Gofpel 
 " of the Egyptians." 
 
 The next inftance, from which we may de-r 
 duce a probable argument refpe^ting the ftate 
 of the Scriptures, is the life of Pythagoras by 
 Jamblichus, who has been fuppofed to write 
 this charader with a view to put it in com- 
 petition with that of our Saviour. I am not 
 ignorant that this intention is diiputed by an 
 able and learned writer, but perhaps without 
 fufficient reafon. In reprefenting Pythagoras 
 as equal in every refped to our Saviour, the 
 author found it neceflary, in the adaptation of 
 this fiditious refemblatice, not merely to make 
 
 " Jones, Canon of the New Teft. vol. i. p. 300.. 
 
SERMON V. 175 
 
 him a rival teacher of morality, but to aflign 
 to him a divine defcent. He is defcribed to 
 have had God as his father, and to have been 
 himfelf a god in the forni of man for the fake 
 of men, left they might be overpowered by 
 the greatnefs of his majefty, and thus be de- 
 terred from becoming his difciples. The au- 
 thor of " The Diflbnance" has aflerted, as 
 I have remarked in a preceding Lecture, that 
 St. Matthew and St. Luke formed their ge- 
 nealogies of our Saviour on the model of the 
 ancient mythology. But in this account of 
 the origin of Pythagoras we may obferve a 
 ftriking and charaderiftic variation. It is not 
 adjufted to the principles, if they may be fo 
 called, of the Pagan theogony. In this the 
 parent deities had previoufly paffed through 
 the ftate of humanity. In the comparifon of 
 Pythagoras with our Saviour, the former is 
 faid to be a god, and the fon of God, with 
 the form of man. The beneficence to men 
 followed from his power as a god, but was 
 not the caufe of a fubfequent deification. If 
 however it be a corre6t obfervation of " Lard- 
 ner, who is learned and judicious, but not al- 
 ways unprejudiced, when he affirms of the 
 
 » Vol. viii. p. 283. orig. ed. in 17 vol. 
 
176 SERMON Y- 
 
 authors of the different lives of Pythagoras, 
 " that they have faid nothing new of him ; 
 " nothing, but what had been often faid of 
 " him before the appearance pf the Chrjftian 
 "• religion in the world ;" then the latter Pla-< 
 tonifts bad no inducement to alter the Gof- 
 pels in this important particular, the divinity 
 pf our Lord, or to accommodate the older ac- 
 counts of Pythagoras to the evangelical ftand-r 
 ard of perfedipn. 
 
 We have reafon then to conclude, that 
 Chriftianity, upon its firft publication in writ- 
 ing, would not have been expofed to any pe- 
 culiar danger even from the previous appear- 
 ance of (purious and apocryphal books. There 
 vras a greater peril, which arpfe from falfified 
 copies pf the genuine Scriptures. But ftill 
 there was the fame mode, not indeed of avoid- 
 ing, but of paffing throygh both thefe Mfids 
 of trial. We certainly cannot refolve the re-^ 
 ception of the records pf Cbriftianity into the 
 degrading advantage pf having prepccupied 
 the attention of manjcind. but muft deduce 
 their fuperior difperfion, in ppppfitipn tp vy^h^t 
 was either intrinfecally bale, pr partially yi-r 
 tiated, as tbe reftilt pf extenfive and equal inr 
 veftigation. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 a Pet. i. i6. 
 tVe have nop followed cunningly divifed fablei. 
 
 X^URSUING the inveftigation refpeding the 
 authenticity of the writings of the New Tefta- 
 ment, I am next to conlider in what mari- 
 ner the genealogy, and the two firft chapters 
 of St. Matthew's Gofpel, were received in 
 the early ages. The fubjedl has been fre-f 
 quently difculTed by theological writers, but 
 fomething may ftill remain for fubfequent en- 
 quiry. All the fadls refpedling this fubjedr 
 may not have been colle6ted, and the conclu- 
 sions, which the well known fads fuggeft, 
 may differ according to the peculiar olsjed; of 
 the writer, and the extent of his previous exa- 
 mination of the queftion. 
 
 The genealogy of Chrift in the beginning 
 of this Golpel has been rejeded by fome on 
 account of an aliedged deficiency both in the 
 internal and external evidencfe of its authen-' 
 
178 SERMON VI. 
 
 ticity. The author of * " The Diffonance" is 
 fatisfied with boldly alTerting " its irrecon- 
 " cileable contradiction to that introduced into 
 "St. Luke's Gofpel." ^ others affirm, that 
 fome of the ancient fe&s of Chriftians received 
 a copy of St. Matthew's Gofpel " which had 
 " not the genealogy." If this be intended to 
 imply, that fuch was the original ftate of the 
 Volume, it is a falfification of its hiftory. We 
 know that one of thefe fedls removed it from 
 it& ancient and proper place by finifter means, 
 as by erafure, or excifion ; and then we are to 
 be informed, that the genuine copy did not 
 contain the genealogy. It is extraordinary 
 that it Ihould be taken away without afligning 
 any reafon relative tp its want of authenticity. 
 The perfons who rempvied or expunged it 
 were interefted in the expofure of fuch an im- 
 polition as the infertion of what was repug-, 
 nant to their peculiar opinions ; and, inliead 
 of reje(3:ing it under the pretext of disappro- 
 bation of the dp<3:rines which it favoured, 
 
 a Page 149. 
 
 *• Williams's Free Enquiry into the authenticity of the 
 firft and feconJ Chapters of St. Matthew's Gofpel, p. 33 j 
 and Dr. Prieftley's Hiftory of Early Opinions,, vol. iii, 
 p. 213. 
 
 c Free Enquiry, p. 54. 
 
SERMON VL 17^ 
 
 fllould have flagmatized it as a forgery, and 
 have juftified their rejedion df it in this man- 
 ner. Had their pretenfidns been well found- 
 ed, they might have proved from their own 
 proximity to the tiiHe, when all the copies of 
 the Gofpel might be faid to be recent, that 
 they derived their tenets from the unadulte- 
 rated and acknowledged language of Scrip- 
 ture ; and they ought to have appealed for 
 the proof of this to the numerous copies of 
 the New Teftament, difperfed among thfe 
 faithful in Various parts of the Chriftian World. 
 But they do not alledge reafons of this kind. 
 They do not fay, that the genealogy was a 
 novel and ftrange addition to this Gofpel. 
 They affign a fpCculative reafon, the oppofi- 
 tion of their own opinions to the written 
 word, when they ought to have produced di- 
 re6l evidence from! the confent of the greater 
 part of the tranfcripts that the obtioxious por^ 
 fion was an interpolation ; and they Ihould 
 have determined and fpecified the time of its 
 infertion. Both common fenfe and vulgar 
 honefty concurred in dilating this mode of 
 Conduct ; thefe fuperfeded the authority of 
 criticifm, and impofed upon them the necef- 
 fity of collating copies, as an office of candour 
 and integrity,! and not an effort of learning 
 
 N 2 
 
180 SERMON VI. 
 
 and ingenuity. They did not collate, becaufc 
 fuch a reference and comparifon would have 
 been deftrudive of the opinions which they 
 wilhed to fupport, becaufe it would have ap^ 
 peared that the genealogy was contained in 
 all the authentic copies. Tatian indeed is 
 faid to have omitted in his Diateffaron " the 
 "genealogies; and every thing that Ihewed 
 " the Lord to have been born of the feed of 
 " David according to the flelh." Hence it 
 has been argued ^, that Tatian " would riot ufe 
 " any copies of the Gofpels but what were 
 " kpown to be authentic;" and therefore the 
 authentic copies did not contain the genea- 
 logy. But, allowing more force to this argu- 
 ment of the author of the Free Enquiry than 
 it deferves, it cannot be applied to a work 
 which profeffed to be a compendium only, 
 and therefore may reafonably be fuppofed to 
 omit whatever was not comprehended within 
 the plan of the abbreviator. If indeed Tatian 
 had propofed to give tranfcripts of each of the 
 former Goipels, inftead of an epitome of them 
 all, then the argument would have had fome 
 weight ; but even as it is circumftanced at 
 prefent, thefe fuppofed authentic copies of the 
 
 * Free Enquiry, p. 54. 
 
SERMON VI. 381 
 
 (Gofpels were not only without the genealo- 
 gies, but likewife " every thing that Ihewed 
 " the Lord to have been born of the feed of 
 " David according to the ilefli." Tt is how- 
 ever not only not reafonable, but it is in con- 
 tradiction to fa6t, to extend the deficiency of 
 Tatian's Diateflaron to the originals from 
 which he cbmpiled that fummary. Theodoret 
 difcovered in fome Chriftian churches no lefs 
 than two hundred copies of this work of Ta- 
 tian, which he took away, and fubftituted in 
 their place entire copies of the Golpels. The 
 facility with which he fupplied the Chriftian 
 aflemblies with fo many entire and complete 
 tranfcripts of the Golpels proves, that the he- 
 retics might alter by mutilation or infertion 
 their own copies of the books of Scripture, 
 without any impeachment of the integrity of 
 thofe which were in the hands of others. In 
 thofe churches which had received the Dia- 
 teflaron of Tatian, enquiries would be made 
 refpefting the portions which had been omit- 
 ted in that work, and now appeared in thofe 
 volumes, which Theodoret had authoritatively 
 fubftituted. Tatian's book however had been 
 ufed, e " not only by thofe of his own fed, 
 
 •= Lardner, vol. ii. p. 138. 
 N 3 
 
182 SERMON VI. 
 
 " but alfo by them who follow the apoftolical 
 " doftrine, not perceiving the fraud of the 
 " compofition, but fimply ufing it as a eom- 
 " pendious work." This is no confirmation 
 of the opinion of thofe who aflert, that the 
 Unitarian was the apoftohcal do6lrine. Thefe 
 perfons, it feems, did not difcover the omiffiott 
 of any material parts. Shall we then: fay, 
 that the birth of our Lord according to the 
 fielh might, or might not, be inferted without 
 affefting the proofs of the Unitarian faith ? 
 It is evident, that, from the time of Tatian in 
 the fecond century, to that of Theodoret in 
 the fifth, the knowledge of this deficiency in 
 the Diateifaron had not bqen fp generally pro- 
 mulgated, as we may conceive it would have 
 been, if the majority of the members of the 
 apoftolical church had been Unitarians. It 
 fhould alfo appear to be a remarkable incident* 
 that one of the fathers of the church, who 
 are fo frequently accufed of corrupting the 
 facred volume through their zeal for ortho- 
 doxy, Ihould furnifb other copies of the Gof- 
 pels, which contained thofe paflages, that, in 
 the interpretation of the Cerinthians, " proved 
 "the human defcent; of pur Lord from the 
 " feed of David according to the flefh," and 
 which for this reafon vvould have dilpofed 
 
SERMON VI. 183 
 
 Theodoret to have recommended the ufe of 
 the Diateflaron of Tatian. But the argument 
 refpeAing Tatian's life of none but authentic 
 copies is equivocal, and may be applied to 
 afffed the credit of Tatian himfelf, at leaft as 
 liitich as it does that of the genealogies. We 
 have no reafon to think that Tatian would 
 be very fcrupulous refpe6ting the authenticity 
 of thofe copies of St. Matthew's Goipel which 
 he confulted, when he publifhed many opi- 
 nions and dodrines repugnant to the prin- 
 ciples contained in all the Gofpels. He that 
 condemhed marriage as a diabolical inftitution 
 tvould not be much interefted in the prefer- 
 vation of the purity of a record, which gave 
 to it a religious fanftion. We are prefled 
 however with meaner difficulties than thefe, 
 which, if they do not increafe the number or 
 the force of the Arguments of our adverfaries, 
 ftrongly characterize the Ipirit of their oppo- 
 fition. They infift, that there is " full proof 
 " that the genealogy was queftioned in very 
 " eariy ages." It was the practice of feveral 
 copyills to place the genealogy at fome dif- 
 tanc^ from the commencement of the Goipel; 
 and hence it is concluded, that it did not con- 
 flitute a part of the Golpei itfelf. We cannot 
 believe that doubts refpeding its authenticii:y 
 
 N 4 
 
184 SERMON YI. 
 
 •would produce only a peculiarity in the arr 
 rangement of the introductory palTages. Are 
 we to colled; an opinion fo important from 
 the mechanical procefs of meafuring the myftic 
 interval between one fentence and another? Are 
 thefe the ufual indications of critical difappro- 
 bation ? But to what other caufe than imper- 
 fect enquiry can we afcribe the following af- 
 fertion of the learned ^ translator of Michaelis, 
 who informs us, that " the writers of Latin 
 " manufcripts, who wrote the genealogy apart 
 f from the reft of the Gofpel, were actuated 
 '' not by critical, but theological motives. 
 " They found difficulty in reconciling the ge- 
 " nealogy in Matth. i; with that of Luke iii. 
 " and therefore wilhed to get rid of it." It 
 i? not pretended that the tranfcriber has inti- 
 mated that there was any fignificant peculia- 
 rity in the collocatipn of the genealogy. When 
 one scopyift has explicitly apprized the reader, 
 that he " omitted the ftory of the adulterous 
 " woman in the Gofpel of St. John, as being 
 " wanting in moft copies, and not mentioned 
 " by the holy fathers Chryfoftom, Cyril, Theo- 
 " dorus, and others," we are juftified in ex- 
 
 f Vol. iii. part ii. p. 139, ' - 
 
 g See Wetftein in loc. It is the Reuchlin MS. 
 
SERMON VI. 185 
 
 pe(9:ing fome explanation of this critical in- 
 vention, the interpofitioji of a certain interval 
 between the genealogy and the commence- 
 ment of the narrative; and we ought to be 
 informed, that it is fymbolical of fulpe6l:ed 
 authenticity, or expreflive of " the theological 
 " motives" of the tranfcribers. We cannot 
 adnait that ajiy mode of placing the genealogy 
 is equivalent to " getting rid of it." It is 
 fuppofed ^, " that the plain inconfiftencies be- 
 " tween this genealogy and the Old Tefta- 
 " ment hiftory might eafily be perceived, and 
 " fufpicions concerning its authenticity be 
 " foon fpread abroad." But in what manner 
 were thefe fufpicions made known ? Was the 
 mode of difpofing the genealogy among the 
 means employed for this purpofe ? Was it the 
 only evidence of fuch fufpicions ? If fuch fuf- 
 picions were ever entertained, there were two 
 unambiguous ways of communicating them 
 to the aflemblies of Chriftians 5 either an ex- 
 plicit declaration of the fa&., or the abfo- 
 lute omiffion in the generality of copies of 
 what was fufpedled. It feems however as 
 if the genealogy exifted' as a document inde^ 
 pendent and unattached, Epiphanius re- 
 
 ^ Free Enquiry, p. 36. 
 
180 SERMON VI. 
 
 ktes", that a Jfew difcovered in a cell of one 
 of the treafuries at Tiberias, among other vo- 
 lumeSj " the Hebrew ftemmata according to 
 *' St. Matthew." In whatever way we inter- 
 pret thefe Words of Epiphanius, whether thej?^ 
 fignify the portion of the Hebrew Gofpel 
 \>rhich had been cut away by fome of the he- 
 retics ; or whether, they denote the whole; 
 Gofpel, by expreffing a part, ftill the reference 
 to the writing is preferved, from which it de- 
 rived its appellation and authority. It is ad- 
 mitted by the editors of " the improved ver- 
 " fion," as it is called, " of the New Tefta- 
 '? ment, that the genealogy was in the copies 
 " at leaft of Cerinthus and Carpocrates." It 
 is fomewhat extraordinary that this conceffion 
 fhould be made in favour of the prefent Greek* 
 Gofpel, when Cerinthus and Carpocrates cer- 
 tainly ufed the Gofpel according to the He- 
 brews, which was written in the Syro-Chal- 
 
 • Jones has noticed this paflage of Epiphanius, but 
 tranflated furh, Gofpel. Od fiiji/ aWa xa) to xarx MxT^oiiov 
 %Speeixov (foriv. Epiphan. adv. Hser. p. 130. ed. Petav. 
 The author of the Free Enquiry has fpoken of it in the 
 feme manner : " Epiphanius fays, that a Jew named Jo-,, 
 " feph fpund in a cell at Tiberias the Hebrew Gofpel 
 " afcribed to St. Matthew." He refers to Mofheim de' 
 Reb. Chriftian. p. 307, whence he had the reference to 
 Epiphanius. ' 
 
SERMON VL 187 
 
 flaic dialed. This Golpel, which had its dou- 
 ble appellation from the Jewifli party who 
 received it, and from the Evangelift Matthew*, 
 whofe narrative it profefled to follow, was' 
 nfed by the Nazarenes, Cerinthians, and Ebi- 
 onites ; but it underwent fome change in the 
 hands of the latter feft. The Nazarenes do 
 not feera to have altered their copy in any 
 known refpe(9: ; and Epiphanius calls it " mofi? 
 " entire." The Ebionites had introduced un^ 
 authorized additions, and had mutilated the 
 commencement of it ; and the fame Father 
 terms this " not wholly entire." It is thought, 
 however, that Epiphanius does not confiii- 
 ently apply the epithet " moft entire" to the 
 Gofpel of the Nazarenes, and at the fame time 
 exprefs his ignorance, " whether they had 
 " taken away the genealogy from Abraham 
 " to Chrift." k « WTith what propriety," it i& 
 alked, " could he fay that it was moft entire, 
 " if he fufpe6ted that any genuine part of it 
 " was taken away ?" But he did not fulpecft ; 
 his want of information precluded, fuipicion. 
 He fpeaks in the fame dubious language of 
 the opinions of the Nazarenes concerni^ng the 
 nature of Chrift : " I cannot affirm," he'fays, 
 
 ^ Free Enquiry, p. 74. 
 
188 SERMON VI. 
 
 " whether, carried away by the impiety of 
 ** Cerinthus and Merinthus, they confider him 
 " as a mere man ; or, as the truth is, that he 
 " was begotten of Mary by the Holy Ghoft." 
 It may perhaps be doubted whether a late 
 learned Prelate, in his reply to the writer of 
 " the Hiftory of the Corruptions of Chrif-' 
 *' tianity," has not impaired the general cre- 
 dibility of the evidence of the ancient Father 
 by the extent of his cenfure. ' " The confef- 
 " lion of Epiphanius amounts," he thinks, 
 " to that of a bafe accufer, who had not the 
 " liberality to abiblve in explicit terms, when 
 */ he found himfelf unable to convi6l." If 
 this were a juft character of the evidence of 
 the hiftorian in this inftance, it would be im- 
 proper to appeal to it in any queftion relative 
 to the tenets of particular fedts. It appears 
 however, upon a careful comparifon of the 
 two paflages, that one doubt depended upon 
 another; that the rejection of the genealogy 
 would have afcertained their opinion concern- 
 ing Chrift, or the knowledge of this opinion 
 would have determined the fad; of the rejec- 
 tion of the genealogy. His language is cer- 
 tainly, not reconcileable with the fuppofition, 
 
 • ^lorfley's Trafts, p. 144. 
 
SERMON VI. 189 
 
 that he had feen the Hebrew Gofpel of the 
 Nazarenes; but no other reafon is affigned 
 for his having feen it, than that he ™was a 
 native of Paleftine. This argument will only 
 Ihew, that he could not be ignorant of the 
 contents of a certain book, becaufe he was a 
 native of the country where the perfons lived 
 who ufed it, and where the particular place 
 was fituated in Vhich it was'prefervcd, The 
 morality of the Father will not be impeached 
 by the mere authority of the objectors, whole 
 furmifes cannot be admitted without proof. 
 Cerinthus and Carpocrates appealed to the ge- 
 nealogy as authority for their relpeAive opi- 
 nions; and the Cerinthians ufed the Golpel 
 according to Matthew on account of ^" the 
 " carnal genealogy," as it is exprefled by Epi- 
 phanius. The Ebionites rejected the genea- 
 logy. It has been before obferved", that the 
 editors of the improved verfion of the New 
 Teftament admit the authenticity of the ge- 
 
 ™ Free Enquiry, p. 84. '' It is not credible that he 
 " was unacquainted with the Nazarene Gofpel," and the 
 reafon of this opinion is fubjoined in a note, " as he was 
 " a native of Paleftine." 
 
 " A(fi T^v ha-afKov ysveot^oyiav are the words of Epipha- 
 nius. * 
 
 o Page 186. 
 
190 s|:rmon VI: 
 
 JEiealogy in the Greek Gofpel on the authority 
 of its insertion in the Hebrew Gofpel of the 
 Nazarenes, which, it has been conjectured, 
 was the original of St. Matthew. It is not 
 my intention to confider the queftion, whe* 
 ther the Greek of St. Matthew is a verfion 
 from the Hebrew, not only becaufe it has 
 been fo often difcuffed before, but becaufe it 
 muft be nearly a mere conjedtural enquiry 
 from the paucity of hiftorical fad:s. But fuch 
 fa<3:s as remain are in favour of Greek ori- 
 ginals, and Syro-Chaldaic verfions. After the 
 ,deftru(3:ion of Jerulalem, the Jews retired to 
 Tiberias ; where they eftablifhed fynagogues 
 and fchoois, and preferved their writings. In 
 a cell of one of the treafuries at Tiberias, He^ 
 brew verfions, as they are called, were found 
 of thofe books of the New Teftament which 
 are allowed to have been originally written in 
 the Greek language. It may alfo be remarked/ 
 that whatever force there may be in the ob- 
 fervation of the author of the Hiftory of the 
 early Opinions concerrting Chriff, refpedling a 
 Hebrew verfion of the Gofpel of St. John, it 
 is in favour of the orthodox faith, P " Though 
 " this Gofpel," , fays he, " was written in 
 
 P Hiftory of Early Opinions, vol. iii. p. i6i. 
 
SERMON VI. tgt 
 
 •V Greek, there were not wanting among the 
 " Jewilh Chriftians men of learning, who; 
 *' would i^ot have failed to give an accQiunfe 
 " of it to Jtljeir more ignprant countrymen^ 
 " or to tranflate it for their ufe, if it had beert 
 " thought neceflary." Whether the verfion 
 were undertaken becaufe it was " thoughts 
 " neceflary," we are not informed ; hut only 
 that the hoeks of the New Teftament, to 
 which I before alluded as exifting in Hebrew*, 
 verfions, were, the A.<9;s of the Apoftles, and 
 t^is very Golpel of St. John. We are not 
 tpld by Epiphanius, who has recorded the 
 fadt, whether this Gofpel were Ipurious, or 
 mutilated, or entire ; but he defcribes it as a 
 tranflation from the Greek : and we may fup- 
 pofe, that it had at leaft as go.od a title to be 
 called the Gofpel of St. John, as the Golpel Of 
 St. Matthew, ufed by the Nazarenes, had to 
 be denpminated after that Evangelift. It is 
 arguedj however, that the mutilation or cor- 
 ruption of St. Matthew's Gofpel could not be 
 effedled at all, becaufe it could not be effedled 
 without difcovery; and that it would have 
 created new divifions among the heretical bre- 
 thren, q *' of which we have not the leaft foot^ 
 
 q Frs;e Enquiry, p. 7a. 
 
192 SERMON VI. 
 
 " Heps in all antiquity." But this is afluming, 
 that the Hate of the books of Scripture deter- 
 mined the exiftence of fefts, and particularly 
 of thofe, which owed their origin to their dif- 
 ferent opinions concerning the nature of Chrift. 
 But there is reafon to think that thefe opi- 
 nions were adopted independently of the lan- 
 guage of fcripture, and applied as the ftandard 
 of its reception, wit;h,ou|; any view to the con- 
 fideration of its fi upmut^ authority. The fear 
 of difcovery did not operate in preventing the 
 Ebionites from mutilating their Gofpel without 
 referve, and from effeding, without any record- 
 ed endeavour to conceal it, the excifion of its 
 commencement. Marcion indeed feems to have 
 been reftrained by fome motive from afcribing 
 his Gofpel to an Evangelift, after he had adapt- 
 ed it to his own fentiments ; and Tertullian re- 
 proaches him with this filence, as an attempt 
 to veil his fraud from the world : but ftill the 
 fear of detediion only produced the endeavour 
 to conceal what he had done, but did not in- 
 fluence him fo ftrongly as to caufe him to ab- 
 ftain from his purpofe. We may alfo enquire, 
 who were the heretics that were to be flill 
 further divided by altering this Gofpel, which 
 was common to them all? Thofe certainly, 
 who maintained dodrines wJiich thofe parts 
 
SERMON VI. 193 
 
 of the Gofpel, that were either to be retained 
 or taken away, confirmed or oppofed. Thefe 
 then muft have been the Nazarenes, the Ebi- 
 onites, Cerinthians, and Carpocratians. The 
 Nazarenes had not perhaps altered the Gofpel 
 in any refpedl. Cerinthus and the Cerinthians 
 ufed it becaufe it contained the genealogy, 
 and Ihewed the human defcent of our Saviour; 
 Carpocrates adopted it for the lame reafon, 
 but the Ebionites rejeded it. It is clear then 
 that the fe&s were already feparated ; that 
 their difference of opinion influenced their no- 
 tion of the ftandard of their Gofpel, and that 
 the prefervation merely of the integrity of the 
 Scripture would not have diminilhed the num- 
 ber of contending parties, becaufe their dif- 
 ferences did not originate from this fource. 
 Another expedient has been fiiggefted, which, 
 if there were any foundation for the appre- 
 henfion of multiplying divifions among the 
 heretics, by the erafure of the genealogy, or 
 of the two firft chapters of St. Matthew's 
 Golpel, would not have obviated the expeded 
 confequence. ' " There was another way, by 
 " which Cerinthus and the other heretics 
 " might get clear of this difficulty, without 
 
 «■ Free Enqiiuy, p. 75. 
 o 
 
194 SERMON VI. 
 
 " expunging two whole chapters ; they might 
 " have fejefted St. Matthew's Gofpel alto- 
 " gather, and acknowledged St. Mark's as 
 " alone authentic." It is not eafy to under- 
 iland how the rejeftion of the entire Gofpel 
 would have promoted unanimity, when the 
 extin6tion of two chapters would have occa- 
 fioned a new feparation among the fe6ls. But 
 whatever advantage might have accrued to 
 the feAs in preferring St. Mark's Gofpel, 
 which required no adaptation to their pur- 
 pofe, at leaft of the fame violent kind, yet we 
 muft allow the ancient fecfts to have under- 
 ftood their own reafons for feparation from 
 each other better than we can in the prefent 
 age. There muft ftill have been fomething in 
 St. Matthew's Gofpel, even when mutilated 
 by themfelves, which they preferred to that 
 of St. Mark, which did not accord fo well 
 with their own peculiar objeifts and lenti- 
 ments. Our opponents are not unwilling to 
 admit that Cerinthus and Carpocrates were 
 not * " afraid of thefe two chapters, as unfa- 
 " vourable to their peculiar opinions." Here 
 then we might hope to conclude the argu- 
 ment with this acknowledgment : but it does 
 
 s Fre& Enquiry, p. 72* 
 
SERMON VI. 195 
 
 not terminate at this point. TheageofCei- 
 rinthus, it is alledged, is to be referred to a 
 later period thdn is ufually afligned, becaufe 
 the two chapters in queftion are not diftinftly 
 alluded to before the fecond century. But it 
 muft be obferved, that the paflkges, to which 
 thefe references are made by the Fathers, who 
 flourifhed in the fecond century, occur in the 
 Greek copy_ which we now have ; and they 
 did not cite, as Cerinthus and Carpoqrates 
 did, a Hebrew Gofpel. It fliQuld alfo be re- 
 membered, that, in this controverfy refpedl- 
 ing the genealogy and the two firft chap- 
 ters of St. Matthew, the parties appeal in- 
 difcrimindtely to the copy ufed by Cerinthus 
 and the Ebionites, which was the Gofpd ac- 
 cording to the Hebrews • and the Greek 
 copy, which thofe Fathers ufed, who could 
 not ufe any other, on account of their igno- 
 rance of the Syro-Chaldaic language. The 
 want of references to thefe chapters in the 
 writings of the apoftolical Fathers is to be ac- 
 counted for on the fuppofition, that there was 
 not a proper occafion to introduce them. Their 
 debates with Jewilh unbelievers were not of 
 a kind, probably, to require an appeal to this 
 part of the Golpel. The preceptive and hor- 
 tatory portions of Scripture were more adapt- 
 
 o 2 
 
196 SERMON VI. 
 
 ed to their paftoral addreffes than proofs of 
 controverted fufcjefts. But the martyr Juftin 
 has made fuch fipequent appeals to tbefe chap- 
 ters, that the author of the Hiftory of the 
 Early Opmions fays, '" that it is almoft cer- 
 " tain that the ftory of the miraculous con- 
 " ceptio^n was in the received Gofpek of Mat- 
 " tbew and L,vk.e in the time of Ju!ftin Mar- 
 " tyr." We are not how^ever to employ this 
 evidence, becaufe it is doubted whether tbefe 
 fa6ts were in all the copies of the Cefpel in 
 that age. We do not indeed pretend to know 
 what was in all the copies of that age, nor 
 what particular copy each ancient 'Father 
 might have ufed ; but the hiftorical evidence 
 which we now pofiefs relates to a period prior 
 to the times of Ju'ftin : and we are told that 
 from the Hebrew Xatofpel of St. Matthew one 
 fet of heretics erafed the two firft chapters, 
 and another fet retained them. Whether the 
 Greek copies underwent, at that time, the 
 fame alteration, or were adopted entire, it is 
 impoffible now to afeertain. It is important, 
 however, to know upon what grounds the 
 {e&s mutilated the books which they received. 
 They do not Ipedt of copies which did not 
 
 t Theological Repofitory, p. a68. 
 
SERMON VI. 197 
 
 originally contain what they expunged, but 
 condemn the paiTages from their contrariety, 
 to their own tenets. But there is another 
 mode of reafoning, which would annihilate all 
 hiftorical teftimony, and not that of Juftin. 
 only. " " The argument of general reception 
 " we ufe in favour of Chriftianity, and with 
 " great jufti<?e ; becaufe this made its way 
 " amidft the greateft oppolition, and the moft 
 " dreadful perfecution. But this cannot be 
 " iaid with refpedfe to any particular fyftem of 
 " opinions, contained, or fuppofed to be con- 
 " tainedi, in; the New Teftament. Thefe there- 
 " fore may have not only found their way, 
 " but may have become very prevalent, among 
 " Chriftians, without having gone through a 
 " proper difcuHion. And as this may have 
 " been the cafe in Juftin's age, as well as in 
 " any other, no conclufion can be drawn 
 " from his mere declaration, that any parti- 
 *' cular doftrine which he advances is to be 
 " regarded as part of the original Gofpel of 
 " Jelus Chrift." There is a peculiarity in the 
 fa<9:s of the Gofpel, of which this adverfary 
 has availed himfelf, and that will admit of a 
 double interpretation. The fadts related in 
 
 " Pope on the Miraculous Conception, p. 205. 
 O 3 
 
108 SERMON VI. 
 
 the Gofpel are not merely hiftorical anecdotes, 
 but are to be confidered as objects both of hif- 
 torical and religious belief. When therefore 
 it is faid that any particular dodlrine, which 
 an ancient Father advances, is not to be re- 
 garded, from the authority of his mere decla- 
 ration, as part of the original Gofpel of Jefus 
 Chrift, we have no hefitation in affehting to 
 this pofition. But when the particular doc- 
 trine is alfo a fad:, as the miraculous concep- 
 tion, and the declaration of the Father is a 
 reference to the hiftory, of which the miracu- 
 lous conception is one of the events, the tefti-. 
 mony of the Father is of the greateft weight, 
 when conjoined with the agreement of the co- 
 pies of the hiftory with his citations or allufions. 
 But it is faid, firft, that thefe doftrines had 
 not, at the time of Juftin, been properly dif- 
 cufled. And again, another adverfary affirms, 
 that the chapters containing the dodlrines are 
 not noticed till the fecond century; which; 
 whilft it allows time for the difcuffion, fup- 
 pofed to have been fo neceflary by the other 
 opponent, detrads on the other fide from their 
 antiquity. But the fad is otherwife. The 
 early divifions in the church were founded on 
 difference of opinion relating to the nature of 
 Chrift; and it was in confequence of opinions. 
 
SERMON VI. 19^ 
 
 formed upon the difcuffion of parties ifeparal- 
 ing from one another upon fuch enquiries, 
 that the Hebrew Gofpel was mutilated and 
 corrupted. It is in confequence of the per- 
 verfion of the prophecy of Ifaiah by the Jew 
 Trypho that Juftin Martyr adduces the paf- 
 fages relating to the miraculous conception ; 
 and we may conclude that this conference, 
 whether real or fidlitious, related to topics 
 which formed the moft intereftiijg fubjeds of 
 difcuffion in that age. It would alfo follow 
 from the preceding hypothefis, what cannot 
 be proved, that Juftin could not ufe any tran- 
 fcripts of the Gofpel but thofe which had 
 been made within the period of his own life. 
 
 The internal evidence of thefe chapters has 
 been fo frequently impugned by the fame ob- 
 jections, and defended by fuch well known 
 arguments, that it is neceflary to feleft fuch 
 of the former as will admit of fome novelty 
 in the reply. The author of " The Diflbnance" 
 aflerts, " that they contain many wonderful 
 " circumftances, repugnant to the other fcrip- 
 " tures, arid to common fenfe, and iinfup-- 
 " ported by any other hiftory, facred or pro-' 
 " fane." Some of thefe circumftances, as the 
 arrival of the Magi at Jerufalem, guided by 
 fome celeftial phenomenon, the declai^tion of 
 
 o 4 
 
200 SERMON VL 
 
 the objecSfe of their journey, the alarm of He- 
 rod, and the folicitude of the whole Jewifti 
 capital, form a natural combination of inci- 
 dents, not impoffible indeed to be forged, but 
 agreeable to every teft of moral certainty ; as, 
 if falfe, the impofition would be fo eafily de- 
 teded, from the publicity with which the 
 fa6ls are laid to have been tranfafted, and the 
 numerous opportunities of minute examina- 
 tion to which they were fubjeded. We can- 
 not draw from this, or any other confidera- 
 tion deduced from the narrative itfelf, a pofi- 
 tive conclufion that the events were real, but 
 we do not fee any defeats in this argument 
 which dimini£h its probability. The pretended 
 repugnancy of the feAs to Scripture is faid to 
 confift in the feledtion of a delcription of per- 
 fons to announce the Meffiab, whofe art had 
 been ridiculed by the ancient prophets, and 
 who, when they appeared amoug the Jewsy 
 were to be put to death. Not latisfied, how- 
 ever, with this mode of oppofition, our adver- 
 sary proceeds in the fpirit of in&ddity to re- 
 duce it to a mere cafe of judicial aftrology. 
 There n»aj be perhaps cafual refembknce 
 enough to afford a pretence for the perverted 
 analogy of the fcorraer, but there mufl! exift 
 an effential difference in the nature of thefe: 
 
SERMON VL 201 
 
 inftances, which Ihall leave no doubt refped- 
 ing the folly and the impietj of the compa- 
 rifoD. In the firft place, the iimilarity airiHes 
 from the literal interpretation of the word 
 flar, which, does not neceflarily denote a hea- 
 venly fcody of that kind. It was not Sirius^ 
 nor Arfturus, that was fo indicated, nor any 
 of the planets, but a luminous appearance in 
 the Ikies, fuiSciently diftinft to guide their 
 ftepsi refembling in its purpofe, though not 
 perhaps exactly in its appearance, the pillar 
 of light that direded the Ifraelites, when they 
 were conducted by the prophet of the Lord 
 from Egyptian bondage and idolatry, to li- 
 berty, and the worfliip of the true God. Ad- 
 mitting that genethliology wer6 a branch of 
 aftrological knowledge cultivated in the time 
 of our Saviour, and that there were judicial 
 alirologers coeval with the Jewilh prophets, 
 and the fubjedls of the denunciations of the 
 Almighty, it is ftill a queftion whether this 
 ftar, as it is termed, would have fupplied any 
 data whatever for the procefs of the aftro- 
 loger. His art is founded upon the appear- 
 ances, and arbitrary arrangements and ficfti- 
 tious qualities, of the known ftars and con- 
 llellations; but the Magi were called away 
 before they could have time to afcertain the 
 
202 SERMON VI. 
 
 nature of this new light, its courfe and alpeiSl, 
 or whether, in Ihort, it could be ufed at all 
 (from its "doubtful permanency) in any of 
 their computations. But it is ufelefs to pro- 
 trad the difcuffion of thefe matters according 
 to the principles of the art. The author of 
 " The Diflbnance" fpeaks of the Almighty as 
 y" permitting Pagan diviners to difcover the 
 " nativity of the promifed Mefliah by their 
 " Ikill in aftrology." He has here confounded 
 the calculation with the predidlion of the nati- 
 vity. In the calculation of a nativity, the birth 
 of the particular individual is aflumed, and the 
 computation of the aftrologer commences 
 from this period. He does not in this cafe pre- 
 di(3; the time of the nativity of the individual, 
 but foretells, from the known circumftances 
 of this fadt, the future events of his life. The 
 
 * I had reafoned this as well as I was able, without 
 an opportunity of recurring to any authority. I am now 
 happy in being able to refer to Pious of Mirandula in 
 confirmation of what I had advanced. " Et ecce Jlella, 
 " &c. Quod nemo, nifi infaniens, exiftimabit de coeli 
 " fideribus configurationibufque efle jntelligendum. Erat 
 " igitur ilia faBitia, et temporaria, non perpetua ftella et 
 " naturalis, condita ad id officii a Creatore, per quam 
 " fignificari natum regem Judaeorum." In Aftrol. lib. iv. 
 c. 15. torn. i. p. 370. edit. Bafil. 
 
 y Diffonance, p. 155. 
 
SERMON VI. 203 
 
 celebrated Cardan computed, as it is exprefled, 
 according to ,the technical jargon of the art, 
 his own nativity, which he did without any 
 violation of the rules of this abfurd fyftem, 
 but which muft have been aff obvious impoffi- 
 bility if this phrafe, according to its accep- 
 tation by the author of " The Diflbnance," 
 never denoted«any thing but a predi<9:ion of a 
 birth. Thefe things may appear to be un- 
 becoming the dignity of this place, and un- 
 worthy of the attention of a learned aflembly ; 
 but an objedlor may perhaps triumph more 
 in retaining pofleffion of a fource of ridicule, 
 than in defending himfelf againft the moft 
 fubtle and recondite argument. 
 
 The next objedlion, which furnifties mate- 
 rials for a continued difcuffion, relates to the 
 alledged ignorance of St. Matthew refpefting 
 the geography of Paleftine, evinced in the con- 
 clusion of the fecond of the difputed chapters. 
 When St. Matthew relates, that multitudes 
 of people followed Jefus from Decapolis, it is 
 faid to be an error indicating great ignorance, 
 becaufe, according to the author of " The 
 " Diflbnance," it is evident, that the Decapolis 
 " was not any country or continued diiftrid;, 
 " as the pretended Matthew and Mark repre- 
 " fent it, but merely tbe general appellation 
 
2avt SERMON VI. 
 
 •* of the <ictachedl infalated cities, lying all^ 
 " except Scjthopolis, beyond, or eaft of the 
 " river Jordan, which in later times were 
 " taken from the jurifdidlion of the original- 
 " tetrarchies, and made fubjeft to Syria.'" 
 Pliny, however, fpeaks of the ^Decapolitan 
 region as adjoining on one fide to Syria ; and 
 in another paflage he defcribes it as being 
 fituated inland from Anti-Libanus. Here be 
 ufes the formal and precife language of a geo- 
 grapher ; but, even in Ipeaking* of the lame 
 trad, he familiarly calls it the Decapolis of 
 Syria, and ■> commends the excellence of one 
 of its pecHiliar productions, which would 
 fcarcely allow of the appropriation of it t© 
 one of thiefe detached cities. Auguftus united 
 <= two, and not three towns of the Decapolis 
 to Syria ; and it is argued, that, as no other 
 diftribution of Palertine took place till the 
 twelfth year of Claudius, the term Decapolis, 
 
 * Jungitur ei latere Syriae Decapolitana regio a nu- 
 inero oppidorum, in quo non omnes eadem olfervant. -Plin. 
 JsFat. Hift. lib. v. c. i8. 
 
 * DecapoU Syrise perquam parvae (olivae fcil.) came 
 tamen Gommendantur ; quam ob caufam Italicis traaift- 
 marinae praeferuntur in cibis, quum oleo vincantur. Plin. 
 Nat. Hift. lib. xv. c. 3. 
 
 <= Gaza was not one ; Gadara and Hippos were the 
 ftthers. 
 
SERMON VI. 205 
 
 in whatever feoife we take it, could ®ot hare 
 had exigence when St. Matthew is laid to have 
 written his GQi|>el. If this annexation of thefe 
 cities to Syria were the foundation -of the dd^ 
 tindion of the Decapolis, the name could not 
 liave been given till the whole decad were in- 
 cluded within the province. But Pliny ex- 
 prefsly fays, that t^e tetrarchies iurrounded 
 ibme, and were intermixed with others of the 
 conftituent cities. We may therefore be per- 
 mitted to conjeiSlure, without refining upon 
 flight intimations, that as the Decapolitan re- 
 ^on retained its delignation, notwithllanding 
 its ^ interfeAion by the divifion of the country 
 into tetrarchies, that the Decapolis was a more 
 ancient diftribution and appellation than the 
 tetrarchies themfelves, and related to a period 
 when the ten cities were conjoined by fbme 
 bond of union, the memory of which re- 
 mained, but its exa6l: nature was not expre^d 
 in the denomination of Decapolis. We may 
 alfo appeal to a ^ Ealmyrene infcription for the 
 
 ^ " Intenairfant, d^witque has urbes 't^rfinMee, re- 
 " gnoirum iitfiar, fiugiiUe, et in regma contribiiinntitir.''' 
 -PJin. Mat. Hi& lib. v. c. t8. And in anotiber pafTage ; 
 " Pod eum inlrorfus Dea^alikma regio, prseii&eBque 4!um 
 " ea tetrarchicB." Lib. v. c ao. 
 
 • JMac alia e&, Ab'Aa., qu» Decapoli attdbukur in 4q- 
 
2o6 SERMON VI. 
 
 duration of the name, to whatever age the anl- 
 tiqiiarian enquirer may affign this monument. 
 It is neceflary alfo to remark, that the tefti- 
 mony of Pliny is not the teftimony of writers 
 of his own times only, but alfo of more an- 
 cient hiftorians and geographers, who had 
 either themfelves feen the countries which 
 they defcribed, or followed the accounts, of 
 thofe who had travelled in that part of the 
 world. Our opponent, however, produces -a 
 fupplementary objedlion. He afferts, that the 
 author of the Gofpel fpeaks, of it as a country 
 ^ " which did not lie eaftward of Jordan, be- 
 " caufe he exprefsly diftinguifties it from the 
 " country beyond Jordan," But he cannot 
 think of any diftindlions which may reconcile 
 an apparent contradiftion. The multitudes 
 who affembled to hear our Saviour came from 
 every quarter ; and the Evangelift, by fpecifyr 
 ing the Decapolis, included but a part of the 
 country beyond Jordan. The sJewifh hiftor 
 rian has diftinguilhed the tetrarchy of Gaulo- 
 
 fcriptione veteri, quae extat n. 3. inter monumenta Palmy- 
 rena, quse cum fcholiis Edvardi Bernardi et Thomae 
 Smith prodiemnt ubi legitur ArAGANrEAOS ABIAH- 
 N02 AEKAnOAEOS. Reland. Pal. p. ^25. 
 
 ' Diflbnance, p. 165, 
 
 e Jofeph. Antiq. lib. xvii. c. 13. et de Bell. lib. iii. c. 2. 
 
SERMON VI. 207 
 
 nitis from the country beyond Jordan, not 
 becaufe they were fituated on -different fidfes 
 of that river, but becaufe the former did not 
 comprehend the latter. We may here paufe, 
 and obferve on what foundation the whole 
 argument has been raifed. It depends merely 
 upon the date, which has been arbitrarily af- 
 cribed to the publication of St. Matthew's 
 Gofpel. If we admit that the argument has 
 been fuccefsful, it will only invalidate the pro- 
 bable aflumption of fome writers on the ca- 
 non of the New Teftament. It will not affe6t 
 the veracity of any hiftorian whatever. And 
 why Ihould not fome latitude be allowed in 
 deternflning a point of much obfcurity, which 
 again refts upon fuch circumftances as thefe ; 
 at what precife year a written Gofpel became 
 neceflary, was then undertaken, and at faft 
 completed and divulged ? 
 
SERMON Vn. 
 
 3 Pet. I. id. 
 We have not followed cunningly devtfed fables, 
 
 A HE eftablifliment of the church of Con- 
 ftantine is faid by the author of " The DifTo- 
 " nance" to be fignified by " the apoftafy from 
 " the truths of the Golpel, predi<3:ed in dif- 
 " ferent fcriptures of the New Teftament." 
 Xhe queftion will not be mifreprefented, if 
 we underftand the eftablifliment of the church 
 of Conftantine to be equivalent, in the mean- 
 ing of our opponent, to the eftablifliment of 
 Chriftianity as the religion of the ftate. The 
 import of the accufation is, that this religion 
 was derived from corrupted copies of the 
 books of Scripture. The incarnation of our 
 Saviour is defcribed as a fundamental dodlrine 
 of this church, and the tendency of the adop- 
 tion of corrupted books was to authorize and 
 difFufe this interpolated tenet. It may be re- 
 marked, that the corruption of the books of 
 
210 SERMON VII. 
 
 Scripture, to which this apoftafy is attributed, 
 is faid in " The DilTonance" to have been 
 efFefted in the latter part of the fecond cen- 
 tury. From this period, then, downwards to 
 the age of Conftantine, the obnoxious opinions 
 muft have been fpreading among thofe who 
 ufed the adulterated volumes ; that is, for the 
 Ipace of more than a century and a half: and 
 yet the failure of the true faith is not fup- 
 pofed tQ have become general, till it can be 
 invidioufly reprefented, that it then corre- 
 Ipqnded with the terms of the predidtions, 
 when it had acquired the fan6lion of the civil 
 magiftrate. 
 
 It does not appear that the ftate of the 
 books of the Chriftians was ever examined by 
 Conftantine, or that he decreed that certain 
 books, and no others, fhould be received as 
 the ftandard of the Chriftian faith throughout 
 the Roman empire. We can only alledge, 
 that the eccleliaftical annals do not furnilh a 
 diredl reply to the polition, that the corrup- 
 tions of the books, which had been admitted 
 or fuggefted before, were eftablilhed, as far as 
 the influence of political power extended, un- 
 der the adminiftration of Conftantine. We 
 muft therefore attempt by fome circuitous en- 
 quiry to difeover fadts, which may invalidate 
 
SERMON VII. 211 
 
 objedions that originate folely in the filence! 
 of hiftory ; and which^ it Ihould be remarked, 
 is lilent only, and riot defedive. The edi6t 
 of Milan, whether we adopt the words of the 
 ^ hiftorian of the Decline and Fall of the Ro- 
 man Empire, in fpeaking of its tendency, or 
 extradl a portion of the edift itfelf, granted 
 fuch abfolute permiflion to perfons of every 
 religious denomination to follow their own 
 tenets, that they could not be reftridled to 
 any particular fource, or to the ufe of certain 
 books, from which they were expelled to de- 
 rive them. " The indulgence which ^^e have 
 " granted in matters of religion," fay Conftan- 
 tine and Licinius in their edidr, " is amplS 
 " and unconditional; and that you might per-" 
 " ceivCi at the fame time, that the open and 
 " free exercife of their refpedtive religions is 
 " granted to all others, as well as to the Chrif- 
 " tians." It was alfo provided, that no man 
 fliould be denied leave " of attaching himfelf 
 " to the rites of the Chriftians, or to whatever 
 *' other religion his mind direAed him tp^" 
 That Licinius did not adhere to the terms of 
 this declaration, is not denied ; but his col- 
 
 a (jibbon, vol. ili. p. 444, M6' ^^it. 8vo. fie MoftV 
 l*erfec. tranflated by Sir D. Dalrymple^ p. 1 14. 
 
 P 3 
 
212 SERMON VII. 
 
 league, when he poflefled the empire undi- 
 vided, was fo far from revoking it, that the 
 ^ hiftorian of the Decline and Fall of the Ro- 
 man Empire has been induced to confider 
 fome of its provifions as having the fame au- 
 thority wittj " the maxims of the civil law." 
 But Conftantine afterwards violated, rather 
 than retracSted, the privileges which this; edi6t 
 conferred. Heretics were diftinguifhed from 
 other believers, and not inerely excluded from 
 a participation with the orthodox in their civil 
 diftindlions. By the confeflioh of Eufebius, 
 the places of their religious aflemblies were 
 deftroyed, and perfons were conlidered as he- 
 retics when they were difcovered to have in 
 their polTeffion certain books. From thefe 
 circumllances we may infer what was the 
 operation of the edidi: of Milan in thofe parts 
 of the empire more immediately fubjed: to the 
 government of Conftantine. The mere efta- 
 blilhment of Chriftianity by the ftate, without 
 
 b « The edia of Milan (de Mort. Perf. c. 48.) acknow- 
 *' ledgps, by recitipg that there exifted a fpecies of landed 
 " property ' ad jus corppris eorum, id eft, ecclefiarum, 
 * non hominum fingulorum pertinentia.' Such a folemn 
 " declaration of the fupreme magiftrate muft have been 
 " received in all the tribunals as a maxim of civil law." 
 Gibbon, vol. ili. p. 306. edit. 8vo. 
 
SERMON VII. 213 
 
 a toleration of all the fubdivifions of its fe&s, 
 would not have been favourable to the in- 
 terefts of religion at that time. This tolera- 
 tion indeed might in part be attributed to the 
 indifference of Licinius towards all modes of 
 religion ; and tb Conftantine alfo, who was 
 not yet qualified by information, or induced 
 by intereft or perfuafion, to diftinguifh one 
 form of opinion among Chriftians from an- 
 other. It is indeed curious to contemplate 
 the ftrerigth which the different bodies of the 
 heretical Chrifiians had acquired at the time 
 of the publication of the edid. They had 
 their refpedlive buildings for the cfelebration 
 of public worlhip. Their oppofition does riot 
 feem to have been obvioufly conneAed with 
 political intrigues ; but we find that they ex- 
 cited, by their variety and numbers, the jea- 
 loufy of thofe, who were dignified with the 
 ecclefiaflical honours of the empire. All the 
 fe6ls, however, were not indifcriminately ex- 
 pdfed to the perfecution of the magiflrate. 
 The opinions of the Novatians were examined 
 and tolerated. But this fe6l received, we inay 
 prefume, the fame books of Scripture as their 
 founder adopted in the third century; and it 
 is admitted that Novatian did not rejeft the 
 facred canon received in his own times, and 
 
 p 3 
 
214 SERMON VII. 
 
 that he does not mention any Ipurious apo- 
 cryphal Chriftian writings. 
 
 The manners of the eccleiiailics might be 
 in fome degree corrupted by the exuberance 
 of profperity, and the purfuits of ambition, 
 which opened upon them in the reign of Con- 
 ftantine ; but in what manner the interefts of 
 the llate could be promoted by the adoption 
 of the fuppofed old corruptions of the records 
 of their rehgion, it is difficult to conceive. 
 According to the hypothefis of " The Diflb- 
 " nance" we are to fuppofe, that certain books 
 of the New Teftament were either forged or 
 corrupted in the fecond century ; and that, in 
 this ftate, a colledlion of them was received 
 and eftablifhed when Chriftianity became the 
 religion of a powerful and extenlive empire. 
 But what are the grounds of this bold con- 
 jecture ? Conttantine himfelf did not deter- 
 mine, nor authorize others to determine, what 
 books were to be regarded as authentic, and 
 what to be rejeded as fpurious. This queftion 
 was not difcufled during his reign. Whatever 
 was afcertained refpedllng this fubjed; had 
 been previoufly examined by the cpuncil of 
 Laodicea. ' Not that any other authority is tq 
 be attributed to the decilion of this alTembly, 
 than what may be derived from its antiquity, 
 
SERMON VII. 215 
 
 and the nature of the enquiry in which that 
 aflembly was engaged. It had likewife fome 
 advantage in being only a provincial council ; 
 a circumftance which, if it fubtracfts from the 
 univerfality of the opinion which they pro- 
 nounced, increafes the validity of that opinion 
 by the probability that it was exempt from 
 the influence of fecular rulers. 
 
 . We are Squired, however, to fuppofe, that 
 in the latter part of the fecond century all the 
 copies were corrupted, and the forged books 
 generally difperfed; and that in the time of 
 Conftantine the Chriftians had availed them - 
 felves of thefe corruptions. But would not 
 the Arian coritroverfy have brought to light 
 fuch a deception as this ? Or, without recur- 
 ring to antiquity, can it be imagined that the 
 author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman 
 Empire overlooked, in his extenfive refearches 
 into this reign, a fa(9: of fuch importance, 
 which accorded fo well with his purpofe of 
 degrading the charader of Conftantine, and 
 impugning Chriftianity as an impofture ? The 
 wilhed-for difcovery, however, muft eafily 
 have been made at the time of the Arian con- 
 troverfy, if the impofition had then exifted ; 
 and it is not a little fufpicious, that the author 
 of "The Diflbnance" ihould have efFecfted a 
 
 p 4 
 
2i6 SERMON VII. 
 
 difcovery, without any intimation or affiftance 
 from ancient authors, after an interval of four- 
 teen hundred years, and that he Ihould have 
 fuggefted corruptions and interpolations, v^^hich 
 did not occur to the difputants, nor are re- 
 corded by the hiftorians, of that diftant period. 
 Nor can we avoid admiring the good fortune, 
 as well as the acutenefs, of the inventors and 
 fabricators of thefe writings, who could at 
 fo early a time infert paflages, or compofe 
 books, that ihould afterwards be fo exadly 
 accommodated to the future interefts of Chrif- 
 tians, the eftablilhment of whole religious fyf- 
 tem, as the religion of the ftate, could not be 
 traced in any events of their own age. If we 
 fuppofe that the copies of the interpolated and 
 of the forged writings were the fame through- 
 out both the eaftern and the weftern empire, 
 to what are we to afcribe this conformity ? 
 Was it fo ancient as to have acquired no ad- 
 ditional authority from the favour and pro- 
 ted:ion of the Emperor ? If it were the refult 
 of fome ad: of political power, it muft, from 
 the extent of its operation, have been noticed, 
 if not preferved, among the memorials of the 
 empire. But we have no record of fiich tranf- 
 adions; and we are juliified in concluding, 
 that no fuch ever exifted. 
 
SERMON VII. 217 
 
 ■ If this mode of reply Ihould be regarded 
 as unfatisfaAory, it mull be confidered, that it 
 is the only mode which can be employed. 
 When objections relate to periods of time, of 
 which no hiftorical monuments whatever re- 
 main, it is eafy to invent feme anfwer, de- 
 duced from probability, which may fatisfy 
 common enquiry, and be applicable to ordi- 
 nary doubts. *But when objediofts relate to 
 periods of time, of which hiftories are pre- 
 ferved, and the hiftorians do not fpeak of 
 events, which are ftated in the objeftions to 
 have occurred, we can only (hew, that the 
 obje6tors aflume more than the annals of hif- 
 tory furnilh, and argue upon fuppofititious and 
 prefumptive data. 
 
 "We are next to confider the effeds of the 
 alledged corruptions upon the Gofpel in ge- 
 neral. The author of " The Diflbnance" af- 
 firms, that the prefent Gofpel <=" is totally 
 " unlike the Golpel originally preached by 
 •' Jefus and his Apoftles." This boldly af- 
 ferted diverfity he attempts to eftablifh by an 
 hypothetical comparifon of the prefent artd 
 former intdligibihty of the intent and pur- 
 pofes of the Gofpel, and of the evidences of 
 
 c Diflbnance, Pref. p. v. 
 
218 SJERMON VII. 
 
 its , truth. He ftates it to be indilpenfable, 
 that ^ " fatisfadory proofs of the truth and 
 " divine authority of the Gofpel, and a com- 
 " plete knowledge of its intents and do6lrines, 
 " Ihould be really attainable to the ordinary 
 " faculties of the human mind, and eafy to be 
 " comprehended by , children, and the moft 
 " illiterate of the people." In the firft place, 
 the ordinary faculties of the human mind are 
 incorre6lly oppofed " to children, and the 
 " moft illiterate of the people;" whofe facul- 
 ties are the ordinary faculties of the Ipecies. 
 The ftate of intellectual powers not yet ma- 
 tured, or left uncultivated, cannot be taken 
 for the ftandard of the intelligibility or fatif- 
 fadtory nature of " proofs of the truth and 
 " divine authority of the Gofpel, or of its in- 
 " tent and purpofe," or of any other book or 
 fyftem whatfoever. Here however are three 
 diftindl objects to be confidered ; the Golpel 
 which was preached, its intent and purpofe, 
 and the proofs of its truth and divine autho- 
 rity. The Gofpel which our Saviour preached 
 confifted, in its moral part, of purity of thought 
 and intentions, and uniyerfal benevolence; in 
 its religious fyftem, it inculcated the refur- 
 
 "^ Diflbnance, Pref. p. y. 
 
SERMON YII. 219 
 
 redion from the dead, a ftate of future re- 
 wards and punifhments, an atonement for lin, 
 through the blood of the divine , Teacher of 
 thefe dodlrines. Its intent and purpofe was 
 reprefented by the Jews to be, to deftroy the 
 law of Mofes, inftead of being the fulfilment 
 of one difpenfation, and the introdu<Stion of 
 another. The proofs of its truth and divine 
 authority were, miraclei?, and the completion 
 of prophecy. In what then, we may alk, did 
 the fuperior advantage of the unlearned per- 
 fon in the days of our Saviour confift, with 
 regard to the facility of underftanding the 
 Gofpel, with its intent and its proofs ? He un- 
 derftood the language in which it was prin- 
 cipally communicated, which now perhaps 
 conftitutes a part of the literary refearch of 
 modern ages. The Gofpel itfelf was intelli- 
 gible to the poor, or the reply to the Baptift's 
 enquiry, "the poor have the Gofpel preached 
 " to them," was delufive. The proofs of its 
 truth and divine authority were intelligible to 
 all. The fick , were healed inftantaneoufly, 
 the fight of the blind was reftored, and devils 
 were call out. Biut thefe were not " latif- 
 " fa6lory, proofs" to all. The fick, indeed, 
 were healed, but it was upon the fabbath- 
 day ; the power of fight was communicated 
 
220 SERMON VII. 
 
 to a man who was born blind, but it was 
 fuipe<fted that he had not been blind from his 
 birth ; dfevils Were caft out, but it was churl- 
 ilhly alledged that it was by the power of 
 Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. The fa6l 
 is, fomething elfe is intimated to be wanting 
 to produce convi6lion befides plfenary and 
 intelligible evidence ; befides being contempo- 
 raries of our Saviour, hearers of his wifdom^ 
 and witnefles of his power. Proofs ihay be 
 fufficient, although not iktlsfkSiOty in the 
 event of their influence ; although they do 
 not produce convi6tion ; becaufe it may be 
 objeded at any time, that fadis were deficient^ 
 as proofs : either that the miracles were not 
 performed at all, or not at a convenient fea- 
 forli or not by the inherent power of the vi- 
 fible agent ; for wherever a doubt can be fug- 
 gelied, or a dilpute is intended, objeftions to 
 the beft received truths may be invented ; in- 
 genious, perhaps, but not fubftantial ; plaufible, 
 but vifionary ; learned, but irrational and in- 
 conclufive. With regard to the full compre- 
 henfion of the intent of the Gofpel, a degree 
 of prejudice prevailed at its firft publication, 
 which is no reproach to the revelation itfelf. 
 It required repeated aflurances from our Lord 
 himfelf to fatisfy his'followers, that he did not 
 
SERMON VII. 221 
 
 come to deftroy, but to fulfil the law of Mor 
 fes; and the fame prejudices fubfifted to a 
 difiant period. The circumftance, therefore, 
 of living at the time did not in this relpe<ft 
 tend to clear, but rather to obfcure, this par- 
 ticular defign of the Gofpel. 
 
 It is not however doubted, that there ex- 
 ifted a fource of more complete informa- 
 tion than could be pofleffed in fucceeding 
 times, and had no reference to the intelleftual 
 qualifications of thofe, to whom it was afford- 
 ed : this was, the advantage of a perfonal 
 communication, and in hearing the dodlrines 
 promulgated, and in being eye-witnefles of 
 thofe tranfaftions in which our Lord and his 
 Apoftles were concerned. Yet this is likewife 
 independent of the peculiar intelligibility of 
 the revelation itfelf, and its proofs. 
 
 We are further informed, that ^ " the truth 
 " of the Gofpel, and the authenticity of the 
 " Scriptures which teach it, reft folely upon 
 " the plurality of the voices of corrupt and 
 " erring men, of no authority from heaven, 
 " and fupported only by the power of earthly 
 " magiftrates." " But, upon a review of the 
 
 « Diflbnance, Pref. p. v. 
 
222 SERMON VII. 
 
 records of the early centuries, it does not ap-* 
 pear that the civil magiftrate interpofed to 
 adapt the teftimony of the authenticity of the 
 Scriptures to any objed of his own ; but the 
 Chriftians received fome as genuine^ and re- 
 je6led»others as fpurious, upon the proper evi- 
 dence and examination, without arrogating 
 to themfelves any exclulive authority to de-" 
 termine for others, and certainly without the 
 fandion of the civil magiftrate. For it is well 
 known, that the canon of the New Teftament 
 was formed and eftablilhed, not merely ]be- 
 fore the civil magiftrate protected Chriftia- 
 nity, but during his oppofition and hoftility^ 
 No agreement of a plurality of voices, either 
 pure or corrupt, in a council, fo early as the 
 fourth century, determined that the canon of 
 Scripture fh<3uld conlift of fuch books, and no 
 others. If we feek for this majority of fuf- 
 frages in the proceeding's of the Council of 
 Laodicea, or that of Nice, the refult will bef 
 in contradiction to the aflertions of the author 
 of "The Diflbriance." If our accounts on 
 this fubjeft are true, we do not difcover that 
 any difference of opinion divided the alTembly 
 at Laodicea ; fo that, for any thing we know, 
 they wfere unanimous in their deeifions^ Their 
 
SERMON VII. 223 
 
 condudl, as far as it is to be coUeded from hif- 
 tory, was candid and Unexceptionable. They 
 examined what books were received by the 
 churches in former times, and, as the conclu- 
 fion of that enquiry, determined which were, 
 or were not, the canonical books. But their 
 catalogue is to be regarded rather as an affu- 
 rance that the enquiry was duly and carefully 
 conducted, than as an authoritative fanftion 
 of a collection of facred books. And fome- 
 thing of weight on this topic ought in reafon 
 to be afcribed to the opinion of the council of 
 Laodicea, becaufe they might poflefs fources 
 of information which are not now in exift- 
 ence. If we refer to the meafures of the 
 council of NicCj at which Conftantine himfelf 
 is faid to have prefided, the queftion refpedl- 
 ing the canon of Scripture was not difcuffed. 
 It is laid to have been attended by an incre- 
 dible number of eccleliaftics of inferior rank, 
 as well as bifhops. Much indeed has been 
 feverely, and» in general ^ forcibly alledged, 
 againft the decifions of thefe conventions; but 
 it is fcarcely to be fuppofed, that, in fuch a 
 multitude of various orders of men, no perfon 
 could be found, whom the affectation of fin- 
 
 ^ I allude to Jortln's Remarks on Ecclefiaflical Hiftory. 
 
224 SERMON VII. 
 
 gularity, the pride of diftindion, or the per- 
 verfenefs of jealoufy, might not have led to 
 diflent from the majority of their aflbciates ? 
 But where are we informed of the amount of 
 the numbers on each fide, which determined 
 the authenticity of the evangelical writings ? 
 The independent conftitution of the primitive 
 churches had a tendency to leave to the dif- 
 cretion of each fociety of Chriftians refped- 
 ively the reception of fuch books of Scripture 
 as they had reafon to think were genuine, 
 uninfluenced by the fuperiority of any one 
 church or fociety in particular. The tem- 
 porary exclufion of the Apocalypfe from the 
 canon evinced caution in the determination of 
 the ancient churches, and proved that they 
 did not raflily admit the books, which had 
 been already placed in the number of thofe 
 that were genuine, and that they waited till 
 farther enquiry juftified their reception of this 
 book under that character, like the reft. 
 
 We cannot indeed difcover any mode of 
 corrupting the facred Scriptures, or of efta- 
 blifliing the authority of fuch as are fuppofed 
 to have been corrupted, that neceflarily re- 
 fulted from the eflablilhment of Chriftianity 
 as the imperial rule of faith. We are not in- 
 formed what reafons induced Conllantine to 
 
SERMON VII. 225 
 
 adopt the faith of the majority, nor whether 
 any intrigue was employed to attach him to 
 that party ; and no poKtical reafori can be 
 afligned why he might not have apoftatized 
 after his converfion. We muft therefore fup- 
 pofe, that the ordinary motives of conviAidn 
 operated up6n his mind as they had done on 
 perfons' of inferior rank, and as they ftill ope- 
 rate upon mankind in general. What deter- 
 mined one man to be a heretic, and another 
 to profefs orthodoxy, at that time, was pi^o- 
 bably the lame caufe. which has always pro- 
 duced divei"fity of opinion, and will continue 
 to produce it, under all modes of government 
 whatfoever. • -.* 
 
 It is remarked by s Molheim, in anfwer to 
 thofe who would refer the profeffion of Chrif- 
 tianity by Conftantine to motives of ainbition, 
 'that upon attentive reflexion, and after a di- 
 ligent examination of the hilldry of that pe- 
 riod, he could not perceive that the profeffion 
 of the Chriftian faith either did or qould pro- 
 mote the attainment of his wilh to reign with- 
 out a colleague ; an objeft which, he does n6t 
 deny, he ardently purfued. His government 
 
 E Moflieim de Reb. Chrift. ante Conft. Magn. p. 969, 
 
 970/ 
 
226 SERMON VII. 
 
 was profperous before he was a Chriftiao, and 
 not a difciple of any religious fyftem what- 
 ever. 
 
 ' The ^heretics of that age were feverely 
 treated, and the various ediAs againft their 
 followers Ihew that they were numerous and 
 powerful bodies of men, and able in their turn 
 to impofe confiderable reftraint upon the more 
 favoured profeiTors of orthodoxy; and their 
 proceedings continued to excite the jealoufy 
 of the prince, and ultimately provoked his co- 
 ercion. They would afluredly at this timq 
 have reproached the orthodox, if there had 
 been any foundation for it, with having fubfti- 
 tuted a forged and interpolated canon of Scrip- 
 ture inftead of the genuine writings, when 
 the fufferings, which the fupreme authority 
 inflicted, confilled of the demolition of their 
 places of public worlhip, and the plunder and 
 deflrudlion of their books. But we do not 
 hear of any complaints of this kind ; nor does 
 it appear, that the public reading of the Scrips 
 tures was under any reftraint, or that any me- 
 thods were ufed to prevent the difFufion of the 
 knowledge and information which they con- 
 tain. This muft have taken place, we may 
 
 *> See Bingham. 
 
SERMON VIL 227 
 
 conclude, had the ruhfig party been confcious 
 that they had by fraud and impofition obtain- 
 ed the fan<ftion of the civil authority for the 
 reception and acknowledgment of forged 
 Scriptures. The very exiftence of the heretics 
 fuppofes, that there was in their pofleflion a 
 ftandard of fcriptures of the New Teftament, 
 by w^hich the deviations of the orthodox, if 
 any, might have been afcertained. 
 
 One of the efFe6ls of the corruption of the 
 Gofpel is faid to be, the alteration of its ori- 
 ginal character of perfpicuity. ' " Its moft 
 " important, becaufe its fundamental doc- 
 " trines, are to be interpreted only by the fa- 
 " gacity of the learned relpedling the mean- 
 " ing of a few controverted words or fentences 
 *' of Greek or Hebrew." For this confe- 
 quence neither the church of Conftantine, nor 
 any other church, is relponlible; nor do we 
 know how the difficulty would be leffened, if 
 the Gofpel had been preferved in any other 
 language than the Greek. The lagacity of the 
 learned would ftill have been neceflary, and 
 perhaps lefs fuccefsful, becaufe it mull have 
 been ftudied undfer much greater difadvan-^ 
 tages. The Gofpel indeed, if it had been the 
 
 • Dlflbnancie, Pref. p. v. 
 Q2 
 
228 SERMON VII. 
 
 intention of Providence, might, and it would, 
 have been written in fome other of the tongues, 
 the knowledge of which was imparted to the 
 Apoftles on the day of Pentecoft. But this 
 circumftance would not have obviated objec- 
 tions deduced from the language in which it 
 was compofed. The language in which it is 
 written correfponds with the publicity of our 
 Saviour's adlions. They were not performed 
 in fome obfcure and remote diflrid:, nor is the 
 language of the Goipel the ancient dialed; of 
 fome barbarous or illiterate tribe of Afia. It 
 fubje6ted the facred hiftory and doctrine to 
 the examination of the whole civilized world. 
 We can have the Gofpel only in two ways ; 
 with or without writing. Would the fuppo- 
 lition enhance the credibility of what we of 
 the prefent day are to receive as the rule of 
 our faith, were we to fuppofe, that the Gofpel 
 might have been communicated and tranf- 
 mitted orally from the firfl: apoftolical teacher, 
 who underflood the language of the converts 
 by fpecial revelation ?, As the language in 
 which the Gofpel is written was the beft un- 
 derftood, the moft widely diffuled, and pre- 
 vailed longer in the world than any other, 
 therefore we have better fecurity for the 
 prefent refemblance of the Gofpel to its 
 
SERMON VII. 229 
 
 prototype, than we otherwife could have 
 had. 
 
 Another pbfition of our opponent is, thut 
 to underftand the doctrines of the Gofpel re- 
 quires critical learning and fagacity ; but this 
 may be applied with more force to any other 
 ancient language. The objeAion, however, 
 comprizes feveral particulars ; as, what are to 
 be confidered as the fundamental dodlrines of 
 Chriftianity, and in what fentences of Greek 
 or Hebrew are they contained ? We are not 
 favoured, however, with any direftion to dif- 
 cover what thofe fundamental doftrines may 
 be which are charadterized or alluded to by 
 the author of " The Diflbnance," no other- 
 wife than that they are " contained in a few 
 " words or fentences of Greek or Hebrew." 
 Is it meant that we fhould collect briefly, 
 that the fundamental were the intelligible 
 dodtrines ? Thefe dodlrines, however, were 
 preached intelligibly to the bulk of mankind 
 by Jefus and his Apofiles. But it will not 
 detraft from the authority or authenticity of 
 any part of the New Teftament to fuppofe, 
 that thofe pafl^ages, which are now interpreted 
 by the afllftance of the critical fagacity of the 
 learned, were the fame, that were ealily un- 
 derftood by the generality of the hearers who 
 
 Q 3 
 
230 SERMON VIL 
 
 were at the time addrefl^ed by our Saviour and 
 his Apoftles. If thefe paflages were not the 
 lame, ftill more fagacity and more critical 
 knowledge would be necelTary to eftablilh the 
 difference, or the interpolation. That the con- 
 temporaries of the Apoftles and Jefus Chrift 
 underftood many allufions, many parts of the 
 hiftory, the metaphorical language, and other 
 circumflances, more perfedtly than we can 
 underftand them at prefent, is no more than 
 what muft be faid of the readers of the works 
 of all ancient authors : but if the Golpel were 
 to be committed to writing at all, it muft ne- 
 ceflarily follow, that whatever language was 
 ufed, it would equally require the ftudy of the 
 learned to deliver corre6lly the plainer parts, 
 for the inftru6lion of Chriftians in general, as 
 to fupport a difcuffion of the more difficult 
 or lefs obvious ones with adverfaries. Want 
 of intelligibility, however, cannot be alledged 
 candidly againft the fundamental doctrines of 
 the Gofpels, when it is faid folely to confift in 
 the language. The language is not a fource 
 of unintelligibility, when that language confti- 
 tutes a part of the education of every liberal 
 fchplar. It is not a myftic language, confined 
 to the priefts of our religion ; it is not the 
 hieroglyphic lore of the hierophant. If thb 
 
SERMON VII. 231 
 
 fubjed indeed has difficulties which perplex 
 the underftanding, and which, without fome 
 kbour, and perhaps after every exertion of 
 the underftanding, are not apparently fufcep- 
 tible of explication, the mere words and phra- 
 feology, as belonging to the extind: dialed: of 
 another country, cannot be adduced as a fair 
 criterion of priftine intelligibility. 
 
 The four Gofpels were received by the 
 church of Conftantine, according to the au- 
 thor of " The Diflbnance," ^ " upon the au- 
 " thority of thofe profefled Chriftians of the 
 " lecond and third centuries, whom they have 
 " thought fit to denominate orthodox ; and 
 '* who, rejeding all thofe numerous evange-- 
 " lical hiftories, which, Luke informs us, were 
 " written in his time, admitted and preferved 
 *' thele four alone, and attributed them to the 
 " authors, under whofe names they now ap- 
 *' pear." It is here affumed, without evidence, 
 that the hiftories, to which St. Luke alludes,, 
 were contradictory to his own. It is then 
 argued, that the Chriftians of the fecond and 
 third centuries rejedled thefe evangelical hif- 
 tories becaule they were in opppfition to the 
 accounts in the other Gofpels. But who has 
 
 k DiflbnaHce, p. 19. 
 <14 
 
232 SERMON VII. 
 
 related any of thefe circumllances, the fads 
 of the hiftories of which St. Luke fpeaks, the 
 names of the authors, the names of the pro- 
 feffed Chriftians who adopted or rejefted them, 
 in what manner the rejedion was agreed upon 
 and declared, or who has preferred the mi- 
 nuteft fragment of any one of thefe " nu- 
 " merous evangelical hiftories ?" The author 
 of " The Diffonance" has himfelf fetthe ex- 
 ample of interpolation in his own perfon by 
 audacioufly prefuming to fupply the alledged 
 defeats of hiftory by fubftituting his own un- 
 founded conjeAures and affumptions in the 
 place of the records of truth. But it is not 
 eafy to conceive how thefe Chriftians could 
 admit and preferve four Gofpels only, without 
 expofing themfelves, not merely to the notice, 
 but to the refentment of thofe perfons, whofe 
 facred books were anterior to that of St. Luke. 
 It is difficult to imagine that a mere ftratagem 
 of party, in favour of four fpurious narratives, 
 could at once annihilate the credit, or even 
 deftroy the exiftence, of all the other more 
 ancient and more authentic accounts of the 
 fame fubjeft^ and it is ftill more difficult to 
 imagine by what means the contents of thefe 
 loft writings have been fo well afcertained, as 
 to juftify the affirmation, that they contra- 
 
SERMON VII. 233 
 
 didled the accounts contained in the Gofpels 
 which we now receive. But as the general 
 prefervation of any particular writing is tiot 
 eafily accomplifhed by intereft or favour, fo 
 neither is the annihilation of oppofite accounts 
 of fafts to be efFeded completely by any 
 means whatever. The procefs is not altoge- 
 ther mechanical. The inftruments are not 
 merely fire and violence, or a combination of 
 a party, or a tribunal of inquifitors. Public 
 opinion is of much too intellectual a nature 
 to be tangible by any of thefe human con- 
 trivances. How could the Chriftians controul 
 and direct, to their own ends, fuch a fubtle 
 and delicate, but extenfive engine as this, in 
 the fecond and third centuries ? Both the or- 
 thodox and the heretics refpe6tively preferved 
 copies of their own books, in oppoiition to 
 the fame fpecies of political force ; the former 
 in the reign of Diocletian, and the latter un- 
 der that of Conftantine. 
 
 The author of " The DifTonance," however, 
 does not wholly attribute the reception of 
 what he confiders a fabulous and Ipurious 
 Gofpel to the influence of a great worldly ru-' 
 ler. He is perfuaded, that it has been ad- 
 mitted, according to a predidion of St. Paul, 
 that men would believe " a ftrong delufion," 
 
234 SERMON VII. 
 
 becaufe they took " pleafure in unrighteouf- 
 '' nefs." He has " no douht" " that the doc- 
 '' trine of Chrift's death being a full fatis- 
 '^ fa(9:ion to the divine juftice for all the fins 
 " and unrighteoufnefs of men, which is found- 
 " ed principally upon this fabulous and fpu- 
 " rious Gofpel called Matthew's, is particu- 
 " Imrly alluded to hxf the Chrijlmn prophet in 
 " this prediSion; and that this "has always 
 " been the grand inducement with the mem- 
 " hers of the orthodox church of Conflantine, 
 " next to corapulfion and temporal allure^ 
 " ments of the civil magiftrate, to attach them 
 " to its fabulous, idolatrous fuperftition." The 
 true hiftory is fuppofed to be that in which are 
 omitted the words " for the remiffion of fins," 
 which St. Matthew has recorded in his ac- 
 count of the inftitution of the laft fupper. As 
 it has not been my objedl to difcufs the dec- 
 trines contained in the feveral books, the au- 
 thenticity of which this writer has endea- 
 vowed to invalidate, I fliall here only obferve, 
 that the rejedion of the words, " for the re- 
 '• naiflion of fins," will not be fufficient for 
 the purpofe of the ohjeAor. For although he 
 wiCbes to reduce the inftitution of the laft fup- 
 per to a mere memorial of the former exift^ 
 ence of fuch a perfon as our Saviour, yet he 
 
SERMON VII. 23S 
 
 retains as genuine other wor(Js, which cannot; 
 be referred to the notion of ^ merely comme* 
 morative rite. St. Luke, whofe narrative is 
 aflerte^bj the objeftor to be more corre(9; 
 than that of St. Matthew, relates, that our 
 Saviour's words were, " This cup is the New 
 " Teftament in my bloo^, vvhich is flied for 
 *' you." We cannot fo far fimpUfy the mean- 
 ing of this expreffion as to fuppofe, that its 
 whole force is employed tP fignify, that our 
 Saviour fhed his blood merely to imprefs the 
 memory of his death upon the recolledlion of 
 his difciples. As the final caufe of the death 
 of Chrift, this explanation will not fatisfy any 
 enquirer. The great objedl of the appearance 
 of our Saviour in the fleflh, after the proRiulga- 
 tion of the Gofpel, was his death ; and a very 
 inadequate reafon of his death is to be found 
 in the purpofe of the perpetuation of his own 
 memory. If the rite fimply commemorated 
 the fa<9:, and did not denote its nature and de- 
 fign, the words " my blood, whiph was fhed 
 " for you," would exprefs,- that the memory 
 of his mere appearance would not have been 
 preferved without this Ihedding of his blood. 
 
 It is remarkable, that this dodrine of atone- 
 ment is faid to have been received by the mem- 
 bers of the church of Conftajitine, upon its 
 
23d SERMON VII. 
 
 own intrinlic tendendji next to the compulfion 
 and temporal allurements " of the civil magif- 
 " trate." Among Co many powerful motives it 
 is not eafy to difcriminate the feparaie ope- 
 ration of each, and to aflign to it the appro- 
 priate effedl. A dodlrine, which is reprefented 
 as being fo favourabfe to the vicious and im- 
 moral propenlities of our corrupt nature, could 
 not fail of alluring numerous profelytes. This 
 indeed would defervedlj claim a place among 
 the fecondary caufes in the propagation of 
 Chriftianity, Temporal allurements and poli- 
 tical compulfion were unneceflary, and could 
 not be compared in influence with the agency 
 of the other caufe. But the doftrine is re- 
 prefented as ading only in fubordination to 
 compulfion and allurement. This indeed is 
 an inftance of metaphyfical accuracy, which 
 does not perhaps yet belong to the fcience. 
 The mind is here fuppofed to be under the 
 influence of various caufes, and the order is 
 afcertained in which the energy of each is 
 exercifed. This furely furniflies a mofl: extra- 
 ordinary pifture of the ftate of the Chriftian 
 community at that period. They are fuppofed 
 to have been actuated by feveral interefl:ed 
 confiderations in receiving one of the funda- 
 mental dodrines of their religion ; by the dread 
 
se;rmon vil 237 
 
 of force, by the allurement of temporal com- 
 penfation, and by the abfolute atonement for 
 the fins of the wicked by the death of Chrift. 
 For what period are we to fuppofe that thefe 
 principles of condud: continue^ to operate on 
 the minds of men ? The delufion is fuppofed 
 to have been ftrong, yet it might have been 
 diffipated. It required only the interpofition 
 of fome innovating enthufiaft, or exafperated 
 heretic, to expofe to the multitude the inftru- 
 ment of the deception, the forgery of the book 
 from which the dodrine of the atonement 
 was firft^ divulged. This could have been at- 
 tempted at any time; for we can fee no moral 
 or political obftacle to prevent the difclofure 
 of fuch an impofture, if fuch an impofture had 
 exifted. The fame fpirit, which reformed the 
 weftern churches in fubfequent ages, would 
 have burft forth and have undeceived that of 
 Conftantine. But the church of Conftantine 
 did not prevent any of its members from ap- 
 plying the fame tell for the general authenti- 
 city of the books of the New Teftament that 
 the author of " The DilTonance" has employ- 
 ed. The Golpel of St. Luke was as open to 
 their examination, as it has been fince to his. 
 They might have aflumed it as the ftandard 
 of the truth of the other narratives, or, from 
 
2^8 SERMON VII. 
 
 the frequent perufal of it, they might have 
 tobferved that difcrepancy with the othdf Gpf- 
 pels, which might have led tb a fimilar cdn- 
 clufion of want of accuracy in the reft. But 
 of fuch proceedings there is not the llighte^ 
 intimation any where. It is indeed acknow- 
 Itedged by the obje<9:or, that his oWn ftandard 
 is not without imperfections. The interpo- 
 lators, he thinks, have altered fome portions; 
 fo that the rule, by which we are to afcertain 
 the correfpondence or variation of the thing 
 to be examined, is itfelf correct only to a cer- 
 tain degree. The interpolations indeed are 
 faid ta be " not difficult to be diftinguiflied 
 *' by an accurate attentive reader;'* but the 
 charafteriftic of a rule is not, that it has devia- 
 tions esifily difcerriibki and that it is ftraight 
 in general; but this, that it Ihall be capable of 
 fliewing the equality or inequality in every 
 part of that to which it is applied. By this 
 acknowledgment, we are juftified in rejedling 
 an appeal to fuch an imperfedl and inadequate 
 teft of truth or falfehood. 
 
 In commendation, however, of the Gofpel 
 of St. Luke, and as a reafon for preferring it 
 to that of St. Matthew, it is faid, that " St. 
 " Luke wrote his hiftories in the language in 
 " which we have received them j" but that 
 
SERMON VII. 239 
 
 St. Matthew wrote his Gofpel in Hebrew or 
 Syro-Chaldaic, and we have received it in 
 Greek. Without adverting to the obfcui?ity 
 relpe(9:ing the nature and exiftence of the 
 Syro-Chaldaic original of St. Matthew's Gof* 
 pel, it is affumed, that the Greek is a tranfla- 
 tion, and that '"a critical attention to the 
 " language of the writing itfelf, compared 
 *' with that of Luke's hiftories, ihews that it 
 " is not a tranflation from any uniform ori" 
 *' ginal ;" that " it was written long after 
 " Luke's fecdnd hiftory j" that it was of latet 
 date than the " hiftory of Jofephus ;" that 
 the author " was not an Apoftle ;" that " his 
 " ignorance of the geography of Paleftine, and 
 *' of the cuftoms of the Hebrew people/' IheW 
 " he was not a Jew ; and that he did n5t un- 
 " derftand the prophecies of the Jewilh Scrip- 
 " ture." Of thefe particulars we Ihall here con- 
 lider two only. That there is a difference in 
 the ftyle of St. Luke from that of the other 
 Evangelifts, has been too often remarked to 
 leave a doubt, that the critics have not been 
 miftaken. But to affirm that this difference 
 of ftyle Ihall denote the difference, in thelb 
 ihftances, of the age of the refpedive writers 
 
 ' Diflbnancej p. 41. 
 
240 SERMON VII, 
 
 with great, or indeed with any approxima- 
 tion to exadlnefs, is to aflign to it the pro- 
 perty of a criterion, which it does not poffefs. 
 When we fpeak of the pure writers of anti'- 
 quity, then we may appeal to thisftandard; 
 but when we are confidering the compofitions 
 of authors in a language not indigenous, a dif- 
 ference not only in the general education of 
 the perfons, but merely the difference of place 
 where they acquired the language in which 
 they wrote, was fufficient to produce a varia- 
 tion in their ftyle, which might be miftaken 
 for the charadleriftics of different ages in which 
 the writers are faid to have lived. 
 
 We are next to remark, that the very omif- 
 lions of St. Luke are affumed as decifive of the 
 propwety and authenticity of what is inferted 
 in St. Matthew. This is an unwarranted ap- 
 plication of the ftandard of the truth of hif- 
 tory. It is ufed likewife by this management 
 to determine, not merely what portions are 
 omitted, but to afcertain the reafon why they 
 have been omitted by the other writer. Such 
 is the exemplification of the licentious aadw- 
 BSgH^ ufe of a rule, affumed under the pre- 
 tence, and indeed with an oftentation, of ac- 
 curacy ; and fuch are the confequences of 
 abandoning the ufual kinds of evidence, and 
 
SERMON Vli. 241 
 
 inventing modes of inveftigation, which could 
 not perhaps, even to the author, feem to pro- 
 mife refults of greater certainty. A queftion 
 however occurs in this place j with what de- 
 gree of innocence can this be done ? The en-" 
 quiry after truth is laudable : and we are not 
 affirming that there is guilt in fearching fof 
 it, where others have not preceded us ; but in 
 fearching for < it by means which are known 
 not to be adapted for its difcovery* The pro- 
 feffion of the love of truth has been repeated 
 by polemics till it produces wearinefs and rea- 
 fonable diftruli^ becaufe it has too often pro- 
 ceeded from the lips of thofe who have pre-- 
 vioufly perverted the neceflary evidence, or 
 who have diredled others to fearch for it in 
 fources, which they knew would be explored 
 in vain- 
 
 R 
 
SERMON Vm. 
 
 Acts xxi. 37^ 
 
 And as Paul wgs to he led into the caflJe,hefaid unto 
 the chief captain, May Iffeak unto thee? whojaidi 
 Canji thou /peak Greek ? 
 
 a 
 
 In conlidlering the queftion of the authen- 
 ticity and genuinenefs of the evangelical writ- 
 ings, the language in which they are written 
 claims our attention, not merely as a fubje6t 
 of curious refearch, but alfo as it comprehends 
 the enquiry, whether any of them, in the form 
 
 " The reader is defired to obferve, that the " Hercula-' 
 " nenfia" were not publiflied when this difcourfe was 
 finifhed ', aind iio ia.&s have fince been ihferted from that 
 work. The whole affiftance which I have received in the 
 Gompofition of this difcourfe has been derived from the 
 "Appendix" to " Obfervations on the Words of the 
 " Centurion uttered at the Crucifixion of our Lord, by a 
 " Layman ; Oxford printed, 1809 :^' and I have acknow- 
 ledged it, as the occafions occur. For the reft of the fafts-, 
 their difcovery, their difpofition, and their application, I 
 am to receive, without participation, qenfure or pr^fe.^ 
 
 R2 
 
244 SERMON VIII. 
 
 in which we have received them, are verfions 
 from another tongue; and whether the firft 
 introduction of Latin terms can be {6 afcer- 
 tained as to form an argument to prove a fpu- 
 rious original, when they are found in writ- 
 ings of a particular date. The author of "The 
 " Diflbnance" has declared, that " this fingle 
 " circumftance of the language," the mixture 
 of Latin words, induces him to " fiifpfeft ev€ry 
 " paffage and writing, wherein it is found, to 
 " be either an interpolation Or fic^tioh of no 
 " earlier date than the middle of the fecond 
 "century; a:nd, if corroborated by other cir- 
 " cumfiances of inconfiitency or great im- 
 " probabiHty, to afford a full conviction of 
 " their fpurioiifnefs, and want of apdftoHc au- 
 " thenticity I'." The moft complete mode of 
 refuting this objection feemed to be, that of 
 giving an hiftorical Iketch of the diffiifion of 
 the knowledge of the Greek language among 
 various nations in general, or among fuch as 
 were conne(3:ed with the Romans by fubju- 
 gation or alliance; although a ihorter, yet fiaf- 
 ficient anfwer, might be found in the confi- 
 deration, that in the books of the Evangelifls, 
 and the apollle Paul, we have inllances of the 
 
 >> DiflbnaiiCB, p.53. 
 
SERMON VIII. 245 
 
 current Gollqquial phrafeology of the country, 
 which we cannot exped: Ihould be exemplified 
 or repeated in authors, whofe bufinefs it was 
 to record other events, in which other fub- 
 jeAs, and perfons of a different and higher 
 clafs, were concerned. 
 
 It is forne prefumption in favour of the au- 
 thenticity of a revelation, when it is commu- 
 nicated in the language which is moft general, 
 and bell underflood, in thofe places where it 
 is the objecS; and bufinefs of the agents to dif- 
 fufe a knowledge of that revelation^ To pro- 
 mulgate it originally through the means of a 
 translation would' be a fufpicious introdu(3;ion 
 of a new religious fyfl;em. A verfion removes 
 the original too far from general examination, 
 and interpofes a veil, which obftrucSts and li- 
 mits the enquiry to which a recent revelation 
 fhould be unrefervedly expofed. We mufl: 
 contend for the- prefence of every circum- 
 fi:ance which could facilitate invefl:igation, and 
 extend to all, the knowledge of the fubjedl re- 
 vealed, and which would leave the judgment 
 undifturbed with any fufpicion of a fraudulent 
 interpretation of the original. 
 
 It is' faid to be afcertained by fufficient tef- 
 timony, that the Gofpel of St. Matthew wa§ 
 originally compofed in the Hebrew language 
 
 R 3 
 
246 SERMON VIII. 
 
 of that period. As we have no remains of 
 this work in that language, it is argued, that 
 •= " the eaftern Jews, and the many thoufands 
 " of Jewilh Chriftians who fled to Pella, and 
 *' alfo the Nazarenes," would require a Golpel 
 in their own language, becaufe they did not un- 
 derftand Greek '^. If this reafoning be admitted 
 to prove a neceffity for the compofition of a 
 Gofpel in the Syro-Chaldaic or Hebrew lan- 
 guage, it ought likewife to be admitted to 
 prove, that fuch a Gofpel would have been 
 neceflarily preferved among the members of 
 fo conliderable a community. The queftion 
 is not, whether any infpired writing is loft; 
 nor do we inlift upon the infpiration as a 
 pledge of the interference of the Almighty to 
 preferve it. We rather enquire, whether a 
 book ever exifted which was purpofely de- 
 figned for fo large a number of converts, and 
 which, if it exifted, muft have been loft by the 
 intervention of fuch caufes only as, we might 
 prefume, would have afFedied the condition of 
 the people in fuch a manner, as would have 
 
 «= Michaelis, vol. iii. parti, p. 115. 
 
 d Michaelis, vol. iii. parti, p. 143. "Dr. MaTtfi indeed 
 " has brought nine arguments to prove, that the Jewrs, 
 " even at Jerufalejn, univerfally underftood Greek ; but 
 f they really are of no value whatever." 
 
SERMON VIII. 247 
 
 attraded the attention of the hiftorian. But 
 we learn alfo from hiftorical evidence, that 
 the Greek Gofpel of St. Matthew was edrly 
 known, fo that the period, during which the 
 ufe of the Hebrew Gofpel fublifted, if it ever 
 fubfifted exclufively of the other, muft have 
 been fo fhort, as almoft to have made it unne- 
 ceffary to compofe fuch a work. We might alk, 
 how a Greek tranllation became neceflary at 
 all, but particularly fo foon after the publica- 
 tion of the Hebrew original. Who were the 
 perfons that required St. Matthew's Gofpel 
 to be publilhed in the Greek language, rather 
 than the Gofpels of St. Mark and St. Luke ? 
 Againft thefe hypothetical arguments the tef- 
 timony of Papias will perhaps be adduced as 
 decifive. This teftimony it is not my inten- 
 tion to weaken by any attempt to depreciate 
 the underftanding and abilities of the witnefs, 
 becaufe a very fmall portion of either was fuf- 
 ficient to qualify him for this very limple 
 effort. He fays, that " each perfon interpret- 
 " ed the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew as 
 " he was able," Thefe words feem to de- 
 fcribe the ftate of the knowledge of the He- 
 brew language at that time ; but in what 
 place, and among what perfons, is not fpeci- 
 fied. If however St. Matthew wrote, as it is 
 
 R 4 
 
348 SERMON VIII. 
 
 related upon as- good authority, for Jews, who. 
 underftood Hebrew only, what neceffity was 
 there for the interpretation of which Papias 
 fpeaks ? There certainly are difficulties in the 
 evidence of Papias; but we are not juliified in 
 explaining away, or in reje(£bing that evidence. 
 He had not feen the book itfelf, although he 
 was an ancient writer ; nor was he informed, 
 although he was particularly affiduous in col- 
 lecting information on fubjeCls of this nature, 
 in what place it was to be found. And yet 
 his ^ diftance from the time of the appearance 
 of the Hebrew Golpel needed not to have pre- 
 cluded him from knowing thefe circumftances 
 from the lame perfons who related the others. 
 The limple explanation of the words of Pa- 
 pias certainly juftifies the reader in concluding, 
 that the Hebrew language was not well un- 
 derftood by the perfons who ufed the Hebrew 
 copy of St. Matthew's Golpel ; and thofe 
 perfons could not be, on the other hand, Jews,; 
 who underftood the Greek language only. It 
 is not ufual to reprefent as a remarkable oc- 
 currence, that a certain body of people were 
 able to comprehend the meaning of a book 
 which was written in their native language ; 
 
 « He was a difciple of St. John. 
 
SERMON VliL 249 
 
 t 
 
 but it certai'Eily is a curious fa£t, that they 
 underfl:aodi it fo imperffeAly as the expreflion 
 implies. But whatever theory the teftimQiay 
 of Papias may contradid:, we muft never- 
 thelefs retain it. The Jews of Jerufalem, it 
 has been ^ITerted, did not underfiand Greek., 
 But thefe perfons might, from their fitua- 
 tion and connections, ha;ve been fuppofed to 
 be almoft neceflarily acquainted with the 
 Greek language ; and this not as a part of a 
 learned, or even an ordinary education, but 
 from the neceffity there was for its employ- 
 ment in the ufual intercourfe of life, and from) 
 their connection with Greeks and even with 
 Romans. The annual refort of Jews to the nie- 
 tropolis frotti the countries where the Greefc 
 tongue was the vernacular language, was 
 alone fufficient to induce, if not to oblige 
 them, to attain in early age this additional 
 medium of communication. The text indeed 
 fliews, that ^ " when St. Paul Ipake in pub- 
 " lie before thq, Jews in Jerufalem, he ad- 
 *• drefled them in Hebrew." But he ufed the 
 Hebrew with an obvious intention, and for 
 the fame reafon that he ufed Greek in ad- 
 dreffing the captain of the band, who wast 
 
 f Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 215. 
 
250 SERMON VIII. 
 
 furprifed at it, and immediately enquired, 
 " Art not thou that Egyptian, which before 
 " thefe days madeft an uproar, and leddeft 
 " out into the wildernefs four thoufand men 
 " that were murderers ?" It is aflumed that 
 St. Paul was, at this time, known to the body 
 of the, people; but it is evident, from the 
 words of a fubfequent paflage, that they were 
 acquainted with him only as he had been re- 
 prefented by the Afiatic Jews, as " the man 
 " that teacheth all men every where againft 
 " the people, and the law, and the temple ;" 
 and that " he had brought Greeks into the 
 " temple, and had polluted that holy place." 
 St. Paul had conciliated the courtefy of the 
 Roman officer by Ipeaking Greek, and ob- 
 tained permiffion to addrefs the people, whofe 
 violence he thought he could reftrain till he 
 had explained the hiftory of his life, and the 
 particular actions of which he was accufed. 
 Nothing therefore could more fuddenly excite 
 their curiofity, and prefent a potive for atten- 
 tion, than the contrail of their accufation with 
 the language of his defence ; which, other- 
 wife, might have been loft in clamour at its 
 commencement, and he might not have had 
 the opportunity of faying, " I am verily a 
 " man which am a Jew." St. Paul therefore 
 
SERMON VIII. 251 
 
 fpoke in Hebrew to obviate this part of the 
 acculation, and to Ihew that he was a Jew, 
 and not a Greek, and had no inducement to 
 pollute the temple by introducing into it 
 Greeks, or other ftrangers. 
 
 There can be no other reafon for an an- 
 xious and minute inveftigation of the fad:, 
 whether any Jaook, or part of Scripture, be a 
 tranflation, but that it is conneded with the 
 enquiry, whether or not, on that account, it 
 can be regarded as divinely infpired. This 
 very addfefs of St. Paul was in the Hebrew 
 tongue; but it is tranfmitted to us in Greek 
 only. Now we muft have it either from St. 
 Paul himfelf, or from St. Luke. In the firft 
 cafe, there muft have been two originals ; and 
 in the other, we are not ignorant who was 
 the tranllator. In confidering the queftion of" 
 the iiripiration of a tranflated work, it feems 
 neceflary that the tranllator fliould be known, 
 and that an original Ihould be found to have 
 exifted, or to have been ufed among thofe per- 
 fons where it was firft publiflied. It is not 
 intended to deny the claim of infpiration to 
 any work merely becaufe it is a verfion. If 
 it is corred to explain, according to this no- 
 tion, the interpretation of tongues, this was no 
 lefs a fpiritual gift to the apoftolical teachers 
 
352 SERMON VIII. 
 
 than the power of Ipeaking the tongjies which 
 were interpreted ; and. then the only queftion 
 that remains is, whether an oral had better, 
 pretenfions to inlpiration than a written ver- 
 fion. This power of interpretation would 
 not. merely facilitate, but enfure the corredl- 
 pefs of fuch a verfion. We might after all 
 expert, that the fame traditiony by which the 
 Gofpel itfclf is afcribed to St. Matthew, woul(i 
 alfo inform us who was the tranflator. But 
 it is not necelTary to purfue thefe conjetftures.. 
 It may be more ufefiil to trace an ctwtline of 
 the biftory of the diffufion of the GJreek lan- 
 guage among the inhabitants of thofe coun- 
 tries who reforted to Jemlalem, and witnefled 
 the fudden communication of their refpe6tive 
 dialedils or languages to the uninflirudted Gali- 
 leans. It may perhaps in this view be re- 
 garded as an illuftrative comment upon this 
 part of the A(9;s of the Apoftles. 
 
 We may firfl: examine, to what degree the 
 Greek language was cultivated, not merely 
 " in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about 
 " Gyrene," but in the northern region of 
 Africa in general. One of the moft remark- 
 able effedls of the fettlement of the Greeks in 
 Africa, after the conquefts of Alexander, was 
 the verfion of the facred books of the Jews. 
 
SERMON VIII. 25« 
 
 We may deduce ufeful conclufions from 'either 
 iide of the difputed hiftoiy of this verfion. If 
 the lecond Ptolemy applied to the Jewifh San- 
 hedrim for tranflatorSj then the Jews of Jeru- 
 falem underftood the language of Greece more 
 than two centuries and a half before the age 
 of our Saviour. And what caufes, we might 
 alk, had operated fo as to make them lofe 
 what they had once pofleiled in fo eminent a 
 manner? If, again, it were the work of the 
 Alexandrine Jews, we fee at what a remote 
 period the people of that nation, and in this 
 icountry, were qualified to ufe the Greek lan- 
 guage for every purpofe. If we continue our 
 progrefs fouth wards, we difcover, not far from 
 the coaft of the Erythrean fea, the fovereign 
 of a confiderable tra:6l Ikilled in the language 
 bf Greece ; not perhaps the remains of the 
 literature of the age of the Ptolemies, but 
 the effefts of the commerce of the adjacent 
 fea. The eompardtively recent infcription it 
 Aicum markis the public ufe of the fame lan- 
 guage, and its continuance probably in the 
 fame diftrid: to the beginning of the fourth 
 centtrry. If we return to the northern fhtjres, 
 we are reminde^d, that although the Gatthagi- 
 nians, who were jealous of expofing their go- 
 vernment or their commerce to the enquiry 
 
264 SERMON VIIL 
 
 of foreigners, had with this view interdifted 
 the acquifition of the Greek learning ; yet 
 they did not enforce the law. Hannibal was 
 acquainted with it not only as a foldier, but is 
 laid to have compofed leveral hiftorical works 
 in that language, and was attended in his ex- 
 peditions by a native of Lacedaemon. Indeed 
 their frequent wars in Sicily would have ob- 
 liged their commanders to neglect the edift 
 made at Carthage, if they meant to qualify 
 themfelves to condud; their military affairs 
 with fuccefs. The Greeks of Lacedeemon, of 
 Corinth, and of Italy, were required to affift 
 their soppreffed countrymen in the Sicilian 
 colonies, which were fubjed; to the Carthagi- 
 nians. What would the law above alluded 
 to avail againft the probable efFedts of a hoftile 
 or a pacific intercourfe of their armies with 
 the Greek inhabitants of their foreign poflef- 
 fions ? At a later period the younger Micipla 
 invited to his court learned Greeks, palled his 
 time in their fociety, and lludied their philo- 
 fophy. Nor Ihould we omit the name of 
 Juba, who, during his refidence at Rome, ac- 
 quired fo much knowledge of the Greek learn- 
 ing, and indeed of general literature, that he 
 
 s Diodor. Sic. p. 449. ed. Weflel. 
 
SERMON VIII. 255 
 
 did not obtain more diftin6tion'» from his em- 
 pire of Mauritania as a fqvereign, than from 
 his liberal erudition as a fcholar. 
 
 If we pafs from " the parts of Libya" to 
 " the dwellers in Alia," it will not be neeeC-. 
 fary to prove formally, that the Greek colonies 
 in Alia Minor preferred the language of the 
 mother country, or that , Phrygia and Pam- 
 phylia, which ^muft have had fo much inter- 
 courfe with them, were not ignorant of it. 
 It is exprefsly related of the celebrated 'Prinoe 
 of Pontus, that he fludied the Greek philo- 
 fophy ; and, in the age of Tiberius, the ^ Cap- 
 padocian geographer did not exclude his coun- 
 trymen, we may fuppole, from the perulal of 
 his writings, by his ufe of the Greek language. 
 On the conqueft of the more eallern parts of 
 Alia by Alexander, the poetry of Homer was 
 commonly recited ; (or, if I may be permitted 
 to ufe the ftronger expreflions of ' Plutarch, 
 ''O/AJf^of fiv dvayma-ficf) and the youth of Perlia, 
 Suliana, and Gedrofia, rehearled in public the 
 tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides "». But,, 
 
 h PHn. Nat. Hift. 
 
 ' Appian. de B. Mithrid. p. 8r5. ed. Schweigh. 
 
 ^ Strabo. 
 
 1 De Fort, et Virt. Alex. p. 385, ed. Steph. 
 
 •" Plut. ibid. 
 
25§ SERMON VIII. 
 
 prior to ttie time of the conquefts of Alex- 
 ander, the Greek language was not merely 
 known, but ufed in the call for public pur- 
 pofes and occafions. The infcription on the 
 tomb of Gjrus at PaflagardcC was written 
 both in the Greek and Perfian tongues. But 
 BariuiS had fettled a colony of Greeks from 
 Miletus near the extremity of the Perfian 
 gulph. The generals of Alexander might 
 mak^ the ufe of the Gresk language more po- 
 pular, and more neceflary through their re- 
 fpe(ftive fovereignties ; and the foundation of 
 Si^leucia on the Tigris fpread the language 
 among " the dwellers in Mefopotamia." We 
 are not to conclude that all the knowledge of 
 this language in tbefe parts of the world is to 
 be afcribed to the influence of the Macedo- 
 nian conquefts. We are informed, upon the 
 authorityiof Ariftotle himfelf, cited by "Jofe- 
 phus, that he met with a learned Jew of Coele- 
 
 " Jofeph. cont. Apion. lib. i. p. 1347. 
 
 " There I met a Jew by birth from Coele-Syria. Thefe' 
 " are defcendants of the philofophers of India ; and are 
 " called among the Indian philofophers Calani, but amon^ 
 " the Syrians Jews, from the name of their country, 
 " which is termed Judasa. But the name of their city 
 " is very uncouth, for they call it Jerufalem. This man 
 " then, who- had travelled much, and was gbing down 
 " from the countries of Upper Afia to the maritime 
 
SERMON Vm. 2^1 
 
 Syria who had cultivated the philofophy of 
 the Greeks with fo much ardour, that he was, 
 as he is defcribed, " " an Hellenic, riot in his 
 " language only, but in his foul alfo/' The 
 cities on the Euxine fea were Greek colonies, 
 founded long before the age of Alexander. 
 
 " coaftsj was a Greek, not only in his dialefit, but in hi8 
 " foul alfo. And during our ftay in Afia Minor, hap- 
 " pening to arrive where v(re were, he joined uS, and fonfife 
 " other foholars, in order to make trial of our wifdom ; 
 " and, when we had converfed on many topics of litera- 
 " ture, he comtnumcated rather more information than he 
 " received. Thefe oircumftances Ariflotle mentioned to 
 " Clearchus," [his pupil, and inferior to none of the Peri- 
 patetics,] "and moreover detailed the great and wonderful 
 " temperance of the Jew in his diet and fbbriety/' This 
 reference I owe to " The Infpeftor," a work written by 
 a^ moft learned and excellent man, and my own and my 
 father's friend, the Rev. Dr. Hales of Killifandra, for- 
 merly of Trinity College, Dublin. The Eftabliftied Church 
 has been greatly indebted of late to the erudition and 
 ability of Irifli fcholars. I wifti they would increafe the 
 effeft of their exertions by more candour in their treat- 
 ment of each other as authors. 
 
 ° Plutarchy Vit. Crafli. I am indebted for this im- 
 portant reference to. the "Appendix" to " Obfervations 
 " on the Words of the Centurion uttered at the Cruci- 
 " fixion of our Lord." " In confirmation of this we 
 " learn from Plutarch, that it was well underftood at 
 " the courts both of Parthia and of Armenia. Orodes 
 " the Parthian, and Artuafdes the Armenian monarch, 
 " were both of them fkilled in the Greek language and 
 
258 SERMON Vm. 
 
 If we furvey the nations adjacent to Mefo- 
 potamia, we find that, in the time of CrafTus, 
 Orodes the Parthian king was well verfed in 
 the Greek language and Greek learning, and 
 that Artuafdes the king of Armenia, his con- 
 temporary, compofed tragedies, orations, and 
 hiftories in that language, fome of which are 
 laid by Plutarch to have been extant in his 
 time. The fame author relates alfo, that a 
 part of the feftivities in celebration of the 
 nuptials between the fon of Orodes and the 
 daughter of Artuafdes, confifted of the recita- 
 tion and fcenic exhibition of fome of the 
 Greek dramatic compofitions. While a dif- 
 tinguifhed Lydian adlor was rehearfing a part 
 of the Bacchae of Euripides, a meifenger en- 
 tered, and laid the head of Craflus, recently 
 
 " the Greek literature ; and the latter compofed trage- 
 " dies, difcourfes, and hiftories in Greek, fome of which 
 ^' were extant in the time of Plutarch. A remarkable 
 " circumftance to this purpofe is related by the writer 
 " laft mentioned, that, at the inftant when the news of 
 " the defeat and death of Craflus was brought to the 
 " court of Parthia, they v/ere engaged in the perform- 
 " ance of dramatic pieces in the Greek language, and 
 " particularly of the Bacchae of Euripides, in the afting^ 
 " of which they employed the head of Craflus as if it had 
 ^« been that of Pentheus, murdered by his mother A^ 
 " gave." Page 27. 
 
SERMON VIII. 259 
 
 flain, at the feet of Orodes. The ador in* 
 ftantly applied the occurrence ; and, alTuming 
 the character of Agave, bore upon a thyrfus 
 the head of Craffus, as if it were that of Pen- 
 theus, and repeated the appropriate paflages 
 of the Greek tragedian. The fpedators, it is 
 faid, applauded the addrefs of the adtor, and 
 felt the happy adaptation of the fidlion to the 
 reality. Nor fhould it be omitted that Su- 
 rena, the general of Orodes, in order to expofe 
 the corrupt manners of the Romans, and the 
 fubjed: of their thoughts, even at a time when 
 they were oppofed to an enemy in the field, 
 exprefsly aflembled the fenate of Seleucia, and 
 produced for their indignant infpedion the 
 licentious volumes of the PMilefiacs of Ari- 
 ftides, which had been found among the plun- 
 der in the military baggage of a Roman officer 
 of rank. 
 
 We are now to pafs to the " ftrangers pf 
 ** Rome," and to examine curforily the ftate 
 of the Greek language in Italy. It is certain 
 
 P Plut. in Vit. Craff. Ovid queruloufly remarfcs, that, 
 although Ariftides had written licentioufly, yet he was 
 not exiled. 
 
 Junxit Ariftides Milefia crimina fecum, 
 Pulfus Ariftides nee tamen urbe fua. 
 
 Trift. ii. 413. 
 s 2 
 
26o SERMON VIIL 
 
 that Italy received many colonies from Greece ; 
 but whether after the deftrudlion of Troy, it 
 is not neceiTary to difcufs. The tra6t of coun- 
 try denominated Magna Gra?cia was not the 
 only part which was. occupied by thefe fo- 
 reign adventurers. The coaft of Etruria was 
 originally peopled by migrations from Greecei 
 and its Afiatic colonies., Soon after the efta- 
 blifhment of a regular fyftem of polity among 
 the Romans, the compilation of the laws of 
 the twelve tables fhews the frequency as 
 well as the facility of their intcrccwrfe with 
 Greece, which might perhaps have originated 
 among the mixed, races of the inhabitants of 
 Rome itfelf. We are not to conclude that the 
 ufe of the Greek language was not introduced 
 before the introduction of the Grecian philo- 
 fophy. There were other caufes, which had 
 led to the acquifition of this language before 
 the ftate of fociety had prepared the Romans 
 for adopting or engaging in philofophical Gre- 
 cian fpeculations. The ambaffador of Pyrrhus 
 addrefled the Roman fenate in the Greek lan- 
 guage three centuries before the Ghriftian asra. 
 It appears that Fabricius, who^was deputed to 
 confer with Pyrrhus and Cipeas, underftood 
 this language fufficiently for every public pur- 
 pofe. At his interview with Pyrrhus, Cineas 
 
SERMON Vm. 201 
 
 fliocked the fimplicity and purity of charader 
 of the Roman conful by his avowal of the 
 corrupt dodrines of the Epicureaii fyftem. 
 Ciheas direded the converfation to the cha- 
 rader of Epicurus, and informed Fabricius, 
 " that the Epicureans placed the chief end 
 *' and happinefs of man in pleafure; that they 
 " avoided all offices and employments in the 
 " ftate, as fo many obftacles to that happinefs; 
 " that they attributed to the fupreme Being 
 " neither love nor hate, maintaining that he 
 " was perfectly regardlefs of men and all hu- 
 " man affairs,' and confined himfelf to an in- 
 " active life, where he fpent whole ages in the 
 " full enjoyment of all kinds of pleafure." 
 The minifter of Pyrrhus found the ftern Ro* 
 man acquainted with the language, but hot 
 with the enervating philofophy of the Greeks. 
 " May Pyrrhus and the Tarentines," exclaim- 
 ed Fabricius, " maintain thefe dodrines as 
 " long as they are at war with the Romans!" 
 There is a remarkable contraft between the 
 two reprefefitations which introduced Fabri- 
 cius and the cenfor Cato to the knowledge of 
 the tenets of fome of the moft eminent Gre- 
 cian philofophers. When Tarentum was taken 
 by Fabius Maximus, Cato, then young, lived 
 with Nearchus, a Pythagorean. He defired 
 
 s 3 
 
263 SERMON VIII. 
 
 to hear the nature " of his philofophy, and, 
 " finding his refledlions the fame with Plato's, 
 " that pleafure is the greateft allurement to 
 " evil ; that the greateft plague and calamity 
 " of the foul is the body, from which it canr 
 "not difengage and free itfelf in this world 
 " but by fuch thoughts and reafonings as 
 " wean and feparate it from all corporeal paf- 
 " fions and affedhions; he was fo much pleafed 
 " with this difcourfe, that he was ftill more 
 " determined |to adhere to frugality and tem- 
 " perance." Thefe fentiments might have in- 
 duced a Roman of this period to cultivate the 
 language for the fake of fuch philofophy. In 
 the time of Marcus Marcellus the Romans had 
 adopted the polifhed manners of the Greeks : 
 and he himfelf admired fo much the Grecian 
 learning and eloquence, that he " honoured 
 " all that excelled in them ; but he himfelf 
 " did not make a progrefs equal to his defires, 
 " becaufe his other bufinefs and employment 
 " took him off from a clofe application 1." 
 Catoj ho\yever, evidently made a difti nation 
 between the language and the philofophy of 
 Greece : for he perufed the writings of the 
 moft eminent Greek authors, " among whom 
 
 q Plut, Vit. Marc. 
 
SERMON VIIL 263 
 
 " he received fome advantage from Thycy- 
 f* dides, but much more from Demofthenes, 
 " towards forming his ftyle and improving his 
 " eloquence." When he was at Athens as a 
 Roman ambaffador, he fpoke to the people 
 f* through an interpreter ; not that he was un- 
 " able to fpeak to them in their own tongue ; 
 " but his intention was, to maintain the dig- 
 " nity of the Roman language"^." When Cato 
 was old, Carneades the academic, and Dio- 
 genes the ftoic, came from Athens on an em- 
 bafly to Rome. This occurrence formed an 
 aera, not fo much in the ftudy of the Greek 
 language, as of the ftudy of the Grecian phi- 
 lofophy in that city. The invedlives of Cato 
 were not indifcriminate. He cenfured the 
 tenets of the philofophers, and directed his 
 indignant remonftrances againft Carneades, 
 who adorned the precepts of philofophy with 
 all the graces of eloquence, and attracted the 
 Roman youth from their martial fports to 
 
 ■■ It is added, " and ridicule thofe who admired no- 
 " thing btrt what was Greek." This was not, and pould 
 not be his intention. He was required to fuftain the 
 dignity of the people who had deputed him their ambaf- 
 fedor ; and the ufe of their language was a point of cere- 
 mony, an aflumption of oiScial ftate^ and an expreffion of 
 political independence. 
 
 S 4 
 
26.4 SERMON VIIL 
 
 liften to the delufive oratory of the Athenian 
 mafters of wifdom. It was at this period that 
 he predicted the evils which would arife from 
 the admiration of the Greek learning and of 
 the Greek philofophy, which would produce 
 the decline of the ancient Roman cbara<9Er. 
 Eveg at the clofe of life, when the ufe of the 
 Greek language was feparated from the Greek 
 philofophy, he prophetically chara6lerized, in 
 the language of Homer, the greatnefs of the 
 younger Scipio. The fubfequent detail would 
 occupy too much time if it were piarfued 
 through fimilar inftances minutely. It may 
 be fufficient to ftate briefly, that Auguftus ad- 
 drefled the inhabitants of Alexandria in a 
 Greek oration, when he explained the reafon 
 of the pardon which he had granted, after 
 they had efpoufed the caufe of Mark Antony; 
 and he is faid to have fpoken in Greek ^'^ in 
 " order that he might be underftood :" that 
 " Molo the rhetorician, a contemporary of 
 " Cicero, declaimed * in the fenate in Greek ; 
 
 ? Ka< Tovye hoyov, 8»' ou (ruvsyvcu <r(pi(r»u, 'EXXijvifi, bVcuj a-uy- 
 aiTiv airou, sIts. D. Caff, lib, li. p. 454- 
 
 t See the Appendix before referred to for .thefe exam^- 
 pies of Molo, Tiberius, and the previous ftudy of Greek, 
 recorded by Quin&ilian. This is the ufe, to its full ex- 
 tent, which I have made of the Appendix. 
 
SERMON Vm. 26s 
 
 " and Tiberius Caefar examined witnefles, and 
 •* heard pleadings and arguments in Gi-eek, in 
 " caufes that came before that affembly;" 
 that it was the language of both fecial and 
 public intercourfe at Rome with ambaffadors 
 and all foreigners ; that " it was ufual to in- 
 " ftru6t the youth in Greek before they com- 
 " menced the ftudy of Latin." We may add, 
 that if we paft the borders of Italy, we find 
 it among the ^^Helvetii, who regiflered theif 
 population in the Greek language. 
 
 With relped; to the furprife of the dwellers 
 in Judasa, when they heard the Galileans 
 Ipeak in the tongue wherein they were bom, 
 we do not perhaps underftand how it was 
 occalioned. We Ihould imagine, that a Jew 
 of Paleftine fpeaking in the Hebrew or Syro^ 
 Chaldee could not be regarded as a miraculous 
 fad; by a Jew of the fame country. Even if 
 the Galileans had been peculiarly illiterate, 
 they muft have underftood enough of the lan- 
 
 * 
 " Casfar. Comment, lib. i. c. 18. It has been remark- 
 ed, that the words Gr^ecis Utteris may imply onjy Greek 
 charafters j but I am difpofed to thipk that we fliall not 
 be able to find any other inftance, if this be one, of the 
 \ife of the Greek charadlers exifting independently of a 
 knowledge of the language. See a note at the end of 
 tho volume. ■ " 
 
266 SERMON VIII. 
 
 guage in which they carried on their Various 
 occupations ; but how could their original ig- 
 norance in this refped be fo well known as to 
 make their facility of expreffing themfelves at 
 this time appear to be miraculous ? This, we 
 may prefume, was not the meaning of the 
 hiftorian. The majority of the Jews who re- 
 forted to Jerufalem probably ufed the Greek 
 language in fome of the various dialefts of the 
 countries where they refided. If we fuppofe 
 that the Apoftles Ipoke every variety of lan- 
 guage which was ftridlly indigenous in the 
 feveral quarters of the world, of which the 
 hearers were refpedively natives, it is fome- 
 wbat remarkable that gofpels were not com- 
 pofed in fome of thefe tongues for the ufe of 
 thefe profelytes. The period from the com- 
 munication of the gift of tongues, to the com- 
 pofition of the Gofpels, was not of fufEcient 
 duration to allow the acquifition of the Greek 
 language fo generally among diftant nations. 
 Nor indeed had they any other motive to ac- 
 quire it, than to qualify themfelves to under- 
 liand a gofpel which had been at firft promul- 
 gated orally in their native tongue, iand was 
 committed' to writing in another. It may be 
 remarked, that, throughout the whole tra6t of 
 the apoftolical miffions, although a native Ian- 
 
SERMON VIII. 2&7 
 
 guage muft be fuppofed to maintain its place 
 and ufe, yet we alfo know that the Greek was 
 fuperadded to the vernacular tongue through- 
 out the fame countries, and more commonly 
 acquired and employed than any modern lan- 
 guage that can be named, which has beep 
 ever attained for the purpofe of foreign com- 
 munication. 
 
 To the preceding detail it may be objededj 
 that it has been proved only that it formed a 
 medium of intercourfe among the more culti- 
 vated and intelligent, and not among that de- 
 fcription of perfons to whom the Goipel was 
 to be preached. There are caufes adequate 
 to accbunt for a ftill more general difFufion of 
 the Greek language than we can at prefent 
 prove to have prevailed from exifting hiftories. 
 It was the language in which the commerce 
 of the ancient world was carried on : if w'e 
 add to this the difperfion of numerous colo- 
 nies of Greeks in Afia Minor, Italy, and Si- 
 cily ; and the efFedls of the conquefts of Alex- 
 ander ; we Ihall find the language eftablilhing 
 itfelf by the influence of faihion, by the pro- 
 grefs of the Greek philofophy, anid by the 
 moft powerful motives of human adlion, the 
 interefts of nations and individuals. 
 
 If it be an accurate obferyation, that the 
 
268 SERMON VIII. 
 
 Greek language of the New Teflament con- 
 taiiis a mixture of oriental idioms, it might 
 be expedied that fuch foreign additions would 
 be incorporated with the Greek of Paleftine. 
 But this ftate of the language fhews, that it 
 had not acquired fuch modes of phrafeologj 
 on a fudden; but that the Greek had been 
 long enough in ufe in Paleftine, or elfewhere, 
 to be tinftured with the peculiarities of the 
 native tongues of thofe who adopted it. The 
 langilage of Lycaohia was only a dialed: of 
 the Greek- At what period certain Latin words 
 began to be introduced into the Greek, it may 
 not be poflible to afcertain ; particularly the 
 names of things, which were not common in 
 the ufages or habits of Greece and Italy. This 
 would prevent the mention of any thing which 
 was not previoufly known to thofe who inha- 
 bited the countries in which Greek and Latin 
 were the vernacular tongues, as no word in 
 ufe could be found that would exprels the 
 meaning. ^ Tiberius, we are informed; when 
 he enafted a law, forbade the infertion of the 
 word defcribing the obje6l of the decree, as 
 being a Greek term, although it could not be 
 
 X D. Caff. lib. Ivii. p. 613. Dr. Townfon, I afterwards 
 faw, had. cited the fame fa£t from another author, Sue- 
 tonius; and for a diflferent purpdfe. 
 
SERMON VIII. 26g 
 
 adequately expreffed by any word in the La- 
 tin language. Are we not then to expert to 
 find fuch words as a-ii^a.^ia. and mfuxlvB^ieb. where 
 the manners and habits of the people did not 
 furniih the things themfelves ? And y^ it is 
 upon the authority of thefe^ and finiilar words, 
 that we are to pronounce to be forgeries any 
 books which contain them before the time of 
 Trajan. This is an unreafpnable ftandard of 
 authenticity, becaufe it fuppofes that every 
 word was firft ufed in writing before it was 
 employed in converlation and general inter- 
 courfe. It may happen that terms of this! 
 kind are not to be found elfewhere ; when at 
 the fame time we know, from the nature of 
 the objects which they reprefent, that they 
 muft have been ufed from the period of the 
 invention or adoption of the things themfelves*. 
 Befides, it may not fall within the view of a 
 writer to mention fads relative to fuch ob- 
 jfidts ; and Hill lefs can we determine that 
 they were never defcribed, or their ufe noticed 
 before, fo that the. word might remain con- 
 fined to colloquial ufe becaufe the occafions 
 of employing it otherwife might feldom occur; 
 or again we muft fuppofe, that we poflefs 
 all the writings in which it had ever been in- 
 troduced. 
 
270 SERMON VIII. 
 
 By this view of the extenfive diffufion of 
 the Greek language we fhall be able to judge 
 of an obfervation refpe<9;ing the language in 
 which the Epiftle to the Hebrews was written. 
 It is remarked, that y " if this Epiftle had 
 " been lent to Parthian Jews, who became 
 " converts to Chriftianity, the Hebrew ori- 
 " ginal would hardly have been loft ; for in 
 " the countries which bordered upon the Eu- 
 " phrates the Chriftian religion was propa- 
 '* gated at a very early period." But I have 
 before fhewn, that at the tirtie of Craflus the 
 Greek language was well underftood in Par- 
 thia ; nor are we to limit the ufe of the Sep- 
 tuagint verfion of the Jewifh Scriptures to the 
 country where it was executed. If the early 
 eftablifliment of Chriftianity in the countries 
 near the Euphrates were a reafon why any 
 Hebrew writing fhould be preferved, the fame 
 caufe fliould have operated ftill more power- 
 fully in the prefervation of the Hebrew ori- 
 ginal of St. Matthew's Golpel in Judea and 
 Jerufalem, where Chriftianity was firft pro- 
 mulgated. 
 
 It is an aflertion not well fupported, that 
 " the greateft part of the inhabitants of Jeru- 
 
 >■ Michaelisj vol. iv. p. 194. 
 
SERMON VIII. 271 
 
 " ikiem were certainly not acquainted with 
 " Greek." This is contradided by every ar- 
 gument even from probability. The metro- 
 polis of the country, to which perfons of the 
 fame unmixed defcent reforted annually in 
 great multitudes to attend their common reli- 
 gious feftivals from almoft every part of the 
 world, would prefent opportunities of a more 
 complete communication than could be af- 
 forded by any other place in the fame coun- 
 try. It was not an intercourfe between Jews 
 and ftrangers, but each ftranger recognifed the 
 other as a member of the lame great family; 
 and therefore the ufual caufes which create 
 diftruft, referve, and jealoufy, and a difin- 
 elination to converfe with foreigners, would 
 here have no place. It is faid farther, that 
 even the '^Jews themfelves called the Greek 
 the vernacular tongue, and acknowledged it 
 in this character almoft in Judea itfelf. ^ Jo- 
 fephus compofed his work on the wars of his 
 countrymen in Hebrew, which is now loft; 
 but the Greek verlion of it is preferved. He 
 has however informed us, that he himfelf 
 tranflated it, and that he ftudied the Greek 
 
 2 RumpEfeus, p. 93. 
 . a In Prsfat. ad lib. de Bell. Jud. 
 
2)72 SERMON VIII. 
 
 language at Rome in ofder to qualify himfelf 
 to write with more corre<£lnefs, as we may 
 fuppofe ; not that he acquired it there from 
 its very elements. He defigned his verfion 
 for the ufe of the Romans as well as the 
 Greeks ; and, as he learnt the Greek language 
 at Rome, he had the choice of the two lan- 
 guages, but certainly did not prefer that which 
 was leaft known : and he could have no in^ 
 tereft to write an account of the w^ars of his 
 countrymen more intelligibly for the ufe of 
 the Greeks, than for that of the Romans. 
 
 I am not fenfible that this enquiry into the 
 general prevalence of the Greek language is 
 defective in the proof of an important cir- 
 cumflance ; namely, that it was fo gene- 
 rally fpoken, that the Gofpels, when written 
 in that tongue, would be eafily underftood 
 by perfons of almoft every condition. It 
 would otherwife have feemed to be repug- 
 nant to propriety, to the apoftolical pradlice 
 and directions, and to the defign of the Au- 
 thor of Chriftianity, that the Gofpel Ihould 
 be preached in the native language of each 
 people, but publiflied in writing in a language 
 known to one nation only. On the other 
 hand, the extent of its difFufion, or the length 
 of time during which it continued in ufe. 
 
SERMON vm. in 
 
 would not prevent the introduftion of ver- 
 fions, wherever they were neceflary. But it 
 is worthy of remark, that the language of the 
 originals was fo i well underftood at that time, 
 that it was a fecurity for a faithful interpre- 
 tation ; that i one party was able to execute 
 fuch a work, and another to exercife a con- 
 troul, which might lead to the knowledge of 
 the . true meaning of Scripture, and tend to 
 preferve its- integrity. 
 
 We do not inlift upon the adoption of the 
 Greek language as a fuggeftion of infpiration. 
 It was neceflary to ufe it even if the writers 
 had a6led only in conformity with prudence 
 and. duty, as it was their objedt to diffufe 
 Chriftianity as widely as poflible among the 
 nations , of the world. It has been remarked 
 indeed, that ^ " the fuppofition that God has 
 " chofen in his wifdom the Greek language 
 "as a vehicle of revelation, becaufe it was 
 " at that time the language moft generally 
 " known, will not prove the divinity of the 
 "revelation." We do not conned the divi- 
 nity of a revelation with the language t in" 
 which it is communicated, fo as to deduce a 
 pjoof of its divine origin from the univerfality 
 of the language. But we may be allowed to 
 
 <• Michaelis, vol. i. p. 99. 
 T 
 
274 SERMON VIII. 
 
 admire the concurrence of. this fa6fe with ther 
 time and. feafon fixed by Providence for the 
 promulgation of the Gofpel to the world. It 
 heightened the publicity of the revelation by 
 enlarging the field of examination, and imme- 
 diate^ fttbjedted a religion, whofe eflential 
 charaAepiftic was, its adaptation to all per- 
 fons, to the curious fcrutiny of a larger por- 
 tion of mankind, and indeed to the whofe: 
 civilized world, which would not have taken 
 place had it been conveyed in a language ufed 
 by any other of the communities of the eartb. 
 '^" No language," it is faid, " is fo widely ex- 
 " tended as to be underftood by a tenth part 
 " of the inhabitants of the globe." Wheia 
 the Gofpel was firfi; preached, and afterwards 
 publiflied . in writing, the Greek language had 
 acquired an afceudancy which was not di- 
 vided with any other. The queftion is, to 
 what extent is the language known in which 
 a certain revelation is firft communicated. The 
 facility of fuch an examination, at the firft 
 appearance of a divine revelation,, will deter- 
 mine its pretenfions to credibility. It is in. 
 vain to urge that "a language may eeafe ta be 
 " a living language in a thoufand years'." A 
 much fmaller period would fuffice fiaar every 
 
 «= Michaelis^ ' ' 
 
SERMON VIlI. S7& 
 
 imrpofe of examination, and for the execution 
 of exad vejriions of the alledged revelation. 
 The language fliould indeed afford ai^ large a 
 ^herc as poflible for the examination of the 
 faAs and documents on their firft appearancd 
 and publication, and the Greek above all other 
 languages afforded the opportunity of exten- 
 fire inveftigation. It m^ht have feeroed, ac- 
 cording £o a paradoxical foreigner, ♦' not un- 
 *^ w^orthy the wifdom of Providence to have 
 " chofen the Latin language as the medium 
 " of revelation." Chriftianity did not require, 
 but fought greater means of publicity. A 
 language comparatively little known could 
 not have been feled:ed confiftently with the 
 comprehenfive deflgn of infinite wifdom, or 
 with the Tjofpel, the cbarafter of which is, 
 that nothing was taught or done in fecret. 
 If we adopt the trite citation from Cicero re- 
 i|>e(fting the language of his country, com- 
 pared with the Greek by the ftandard of ex^ 
 tenfive ufe, we Ihall find, that the former 
 would have been a defe<ftive inftrument for 
 Ipreading a knowledge of the Gofpel, becaufe 
 it would have limited that indifpenlable fearch 
 and enquiry, to which every recent revelation 
 fhould be fully fubmitted, while the latter 
 correlponds with almoft a prcA^idential preci- 
 
 T 3 
 
27,6 SERMON yilL 
 
 fion with the commands of the Author of 
 Chriftianity to his difciples, " to go and teach 
 •' all nations;" <^" Graeca leguntur in omni- 
 " bus fere gentibus; Latina fuis finibus, exi- 
 ^' guis fane, continentur." 
 
 I have thus brought the propofed difcuffion 
 to its , deftined clofe. I have avoided any re- 
 capitulation of the topics and reafdning, be-r 
 caufe it might appear rather as an obtriifive 
 difplay of refearch, than as neceflary to the 
 elucidation of the general argument ; becaule; 
 too, the difputant feems to award to hirafelf 
 the advantage in the controverfy ; and, laftly, 
 becaufe I remember that there are limits to 
 the indulgence of the moft candid. I cannot 
 chara6terize the Ipirit of " The Diflbnance" 
 in more accurate terms, nor conclude with a 
 more juft reprehenfion qf the private and 
 public condu3 of thofe, who ir^dimi/ly endea- 
 vour to invalidate the befl evidence of which 
 the thing in quejiion of any hind is fufcepfible, 
 than is contained in the practical and admoni- 
 tory dogma of the Council of Chalcedon; " Qui 
 " poft femel inventam veritatem aliud quaerit;^ 
 " mendacium qu8erit, nxjn veritatem." 
 
 * Gic, pro Arch. Poet. 
 
 
THE 
 
 PROBATIONARY 
 
 DISCOURSE, 
 
 PREACHED 
 
 NOVEMBER 5, 1808. 
 
 T 3 
 
Daniel ii. 31. 
 He rerngveth kings, and fetteti uf kings. 
 
 ^Although a fopenntending Providence 
 be acknowledged to prefide oTei* the whole 
 Gourfe of affairs, both of particular peribns, 
 and thofe of nations, yet we are difpofed to 
 think, from a vain wifli to difcover its imme- 
 diate operation, that this controul is more 
 eoiifpicuoully difplayed in the convulfions and 
 fall of kingdoms, than in the ordinary changes 
 of the condition of the individual. The Deity 
 feems to approach nearer to us in inidiifting 
 bis judgments, than in difpenfing his mer- 
 cies; and his power is apparently rendered 
 more diftinguifliable from the efforts and wif- 
 dom of man in the deftru<ftion, than in th€ 
 
 a I had not at rfiis time feen an able difcoiirfe on the 
 fame occafion by the Rev. R. Churton, Archdeacon of 
 St. David's. I can judge of the labour and fuccefs of 
 his refearch. I likewife feafched in vain the Bodleian 
 and odier caataIogu6s for the book which Dr. Milner has 
 gited under the title of Political Catechifm'. 
 
 T 4 
 
280 A DISCOURSE, &c. 
 
 prefervation of ftates. It is from the impref- 
 fion, which this fentiment makes upon the 
 mind, that, when nations commemorate their 
 deliverances from the rage or the machina- 
 tions of political or religious factions, they in- 
 cur fome danger of perpetuating a vindi6live 
 fpirit of animofity againft thofe, who tranfmit 
 the name, and profefs the opinions of the an- 
 cient aggrelTors. It is painful, by the acknow- 
 ledgment of mercies Ihewn to ourfelves, to 
 remind others of the delinquency of their pre- 
 deceflbrs ; and this facrifice of thanklgiving 
 may perhaps engage on the fide of devotion 
 thofe feelings, w^iich without this religious, 
 homage might tend only to renew the refent- 
 ment of former grievances. 
 
 The two great events, the memory of which 
 the appointment of this feftival was intended 
 to preferve, have, at different periods, excited 
 different degrees of interefl in this country ; 
 arid the time has again arrived, when the one, 
 whofe importance feemed to be merged in the 
 glory of the other, has regained the power of 
 attracting curiofity, and of ftimulating en- 
 quiry. 
 
 The necefSty of reviewjng a large part o^ 
 the.hiflpry of this event in particular has pro- 
 ceeded from the public alTertions of a modern 
 
A DISCOURSE, &c. 281 
 
 adverfary of no mean name and rank among 
 his own people. It ^'has been confidently 
 averred, that this fanguinary ftratagera was 
 in reality the invention of a Proteftant Mi- 
 nifter of fiate, to make an oppolite religious 
 party odious in the eyes of the nation ; fo 
 that, if this fad be truly reprefented, our gra- 
 titude to Providence has been annually offered 
 up in error for fancied mercies, and a fiditious 
 deliverance. 
 
 Although the Catholics had difturbed the 
 government of the firft James at an early pe- 
 riod by frequent confpiracies, yet they had 
 been treated with a lenity, during his ftparate 
 reign in Scotland, which roufed the fufpicions 
 of Elizabeth, and the jealoufy of his Proteftant 
 fubjeds. If the fovereign Pontiff had been 
 exafperated, although he might not have been 
 able to prevent by his hoftile interpofition, yet 
 he might have obftruded by many difSculties 
 the acceffion of this prince to the throne of 
 England, and might afterwards have conti- 
 nued to harafs his fettlement in his new king- 
 dom with the oppofition of a body of men 
 more numerous, and n^ore adive, than thofe 
 pf the fame perfuafion in Scotland. As the 
 
 b See note (A) at the end. 
 
292 A DISCOURSE, &6, 
 
 time approadafid, when it was probable that 
 he would foon be the fucceflbr o£ Elizabeth, 
 his communications with th€ court of Rome, 
 chiefly relating to his right to the Englifli 
 crown, were frequent and fecret. Of the 
 reality of thefe communications the proof is 
 clear ^nd full ; and, if we were to add to them 
 th« celebrated letter to Clement VIII. without 
 intimating that the authenticity of this inftru- 
 ment has not been acknowledged by hiftorians 
 in general, ftill <^ the attajchment of Jamfes to 
 the Catholic religion would foarcely appear to 
 be ftrpnger than before. That he might " de- 
 " clare in 'I open parliament, that he confi* 
 " dered the church of Rome as the mother 
 " Church, although defiled with fome corrup- 
 " tions ;" that he " might admit the Pope to 
 " be the Patriarch of the weft ;" that " the 
 " King's difpofition was for peace and recOn- 
 " cihation with Rome at the beginning ;" are 
 circumftances,, all of whkih may be conceded 
 to our adyerfary, without dinaiflilhing the 
 ftrength of the argument. Such confiderations 
 do not indicate any inclination in the King to 
 
 c See note (B) at tlie end. 
 
 ^' But in the fame fpeech he very iincourteoxifly terms 
 the Pope, " that three-crowned monarch, or rather mon- 
 " fter." Rapin, vol. ii. p. l66. 
 
A DISCOURSE, &ie. 28^ 
 
 grant liberij of confcience to tfeue Catholics, 
 nor is the ^knowledgnjent of "Came degree 
 " -of ^cclefiaftical fopremacy belonging to the 
 " Pontiff," to be adduced as a weceflary preli- 
 minary, or a pledge of that indulgence. If 
 then the zeal of James for the fiipport of fche 
 Catholic caniife does not, even according to the 
 refearches of an acute advcrfery, much exceed 
 this fcantj meafure, why flaould the Miniftpr 
 be accufed fof alieaiating the regard of his Maf- 
 ter, or ©f diverting the current of his benevo- 
 lence ? If however this accufetion comprifed 
 all the odious interfeirence of the Minifter, we 
 Jhould not be fiarprifed, nor think it neceilary 
 to vindicate his ardour. But, when we are 
 further required to believe, that he was the 
 author taf a plot, by means of which he chiefly 
 intended to remove a jperfon, whofe offence 
 cpniiiied in feeing a witnefs to the Kiujg's 
 flrong promifes " to ihew indulgence to the 
 " Catholics of England, whenever he fhould 
 " mount the throne of his country," we anxi- 
 oufly examine ^e evidence of fuch guilt. Yet 
 how does iiad%nati<»n fupplant every other 
 emotion, when we idifcover in a contemporary 
 dopument, that tljis man could not he the 
 depofilary of promifes, which, by his own unr 
 biaffed confefliona were never made. He de- 
 
284 A DISCOURSE, &c. 
 
 clared in efFeft that in his interview with the 
 King e " he could not obtain any promife, 
 " hope, or comfort of encouragement to Ca- 
 " tholics concerning toleration." We do not 
 here appeal to the writings of partial and ob- 
 fcure annalifts, which are now rarely to be 
 found, becaufe they were originally infignifi- 
 cant ; but to an inftrument of high authority, 
 of eafy accefs, and of general notoriety. We 
 are indeed ready to admit that Raleigh's con- 
 Ipiracy, as this plot was called, had been af- 
 cribed to Cecil before the trial : but as he was 
 then confronted with the accufed, the latter 
 would not have hefitated, in his own defence, 
 to have retorted the accufation upon the fecret 
 author. When both were prefent, then was 
 the time to difclofe the real agent. The fa<9: 
 however is, that Cecil was exculpated from 
 any participation in this enterprife by the con- 
 fefEon and trial of the parties themfelves con- 
 cerned in this confpiracy. But it is alledged, 
 that " this artful minifter was not long with- 
 " out finding the means of wreaking his ven- 
 " geance upon the whole catholic body, and 
 " (which was his principal object) of diflblv- 
 " ing the ties by which the King was united 
 
 e State Trials, vol. i. p. 303. 
 
A DISCOURSE, &c. 285 
 
 " to them." It does not appear from any hif- 
 torical fa6ts of what kind thofe ties were by 
 which James was fo firmly attached to the 
 Catholics. But whatever they might be, they 
 ftill continued unaltered and unbroken, even 
 after the difcovery of this atrocious conlpiracy. 
 He acquainted his parliament, that he was 
 willing to confine the guilt of it to the indi- 
 viduals who were deteded in its execution, 
 and not to involve in a general fufpicion and 
 cenfure the majority of that perfuafion. Thus 
 imperfe6tly was the vengeance of the Minifter 
 wreaked upon his devoted vi6tims, if the blow 
 were intercepted in its defcent by the King 
 himfelf. The number, the weight, and the 
 characters of the confpirators have been ad- 
 duced as reafons, why we fhould not attribute 
 this barbarous proje6t to the Catholics at 
 largCi, But this queftion cannot be determined 
 merely by the confideration of what propor- 
 tion of perfons ought to be concerned in de- 
 vifing and executing any plan, fo as to juftify 
 an obferver in referring it to the body, to 
 which the individuals, who engaged in it, be- 
 longed. This is to change a moral into an 
 arithmetical enquiry* The fmall number of 
 the agents is not to be compared with the 
 number of perfons, of which the fed qonfifts. 
 
286 A DrSCOlURSE, &«L 
 
 iiji order to s«fc«srtain the proportion which o«ie 
 might bear to the other. We are rather td 
 refer the number of agents to the nature of 
 the deed, to its eompatibiUtj with the necef* 
 faiy degree <rf^ fecrecy, aad to the manner in 
 whijch thcj were to put it into execution. We 
 do not altdgetber reject the confideration of 
 an affembkge of perfons numerically, becaufe 
 it may be compofed of fo few, that they wo«id 
 not be employed to effed; any poHtic^ pur^ 
 pofe whatever. A 
 
 It is however admitted, that in the prefenf 
 inftanee there waa aaother part af the confpi- 
 racy, the execution of which dependied upon 
 the fuccefs of the firft. It may be hghtly de- 
 fcribed in this manner, that fome of the trai-» 
 tors were " ohly concerned in the fcheme of 
 ** an infurreftion ;" but a plot and an infur- 
 redion require a very different force to enfure 
 the defired iffue of each. Will not therefore 
 the propofed infurredaon, in conjundfeion with 
 the pl<>t, extend the knowledge and the guilt 
 &£ this execrable device to a larger prt^rtioEi 
 of the Catholics, than the plot alone ? We 
 may enquire, in what manner has our adyer- 
 fery computed their numhier? By what he 
 terms " the ad; of attainder." By thus re- 
 ftriding otir enquiry, we may abridge the 
 
it DISCOURSE/ &c. 28/ 
 
 enumeration of the agents, and perliaps con- 
 trad the fphere of their f)rojeft: but why 
 IbouM we fiippafe that the law operated fo 
 exactly as to comprehend all the guilty, or^^ 
 that the whole of the guilty were fo impro- 
 vident in their deliberations, that puniflimeht 
 was here commenfurate with criminality J 
 
 They were, it is alfo faid, not only few in 
 
 number, hut deficient " in weight and chia- 
 
 " rader." But what degree of confequence 
 
 is it expeded that confpkators Ihould polFefs > 
 
 If we regard the part which they were to a6l, 
 
 we are, on the contp&ry, furprifed that fo" few 
 
 of fliem Ihould want the perfonal requifites to- 
 
 make their treachery to be the effort of mean 
 
 and defperate, and wnfupported adventurers? 
 
 Some of them were perfons of family attd 
 
 op>ulem>ce, none of them were deHiitute of edu- 
 
 catiOTf, and others poffefled amiable qualitiesi 
 
 amd conciliatory manners. If we add to this^ 
 
 favourable, but accurate delineation of their 
 
 •origin, and habits in general, the counteraft- 
 
 ing defeats, which are formally afcribed to. oile 
 
 or more of them, youth and temerity, weihall 
 
 add all that hiftorical truth can require ; and^ 
 
 yet we add nothing that;rwith the exception 
 
 of th«ir coop^ratiQii. io tbia daring attempt, > 
 
288 A DISCOURSE, &c.. 
 
 would otherwife impair their weight, or de- 
 bafe their charafter. 
 
 Our adverfary is again ready with a com- 
 plicated and unliable objeAion, that they were 
 ^ " apollates and outcafts from the body of the 
 " Catholics;" or, they were " not sRecufants;" 
 or, they were " nominal Catholics ;" or, " if 
 '* any of them were Catholics, or fo died, they 
 " were known Proteftants not long before." 
 It is evident from the inconfiftency of thefe 
 fuppofitions, that the private religious opinions 
 of thefe perfons muft be inferred from their 
 actions, where we cannot obtain any precife 
 and regular declaration of their belief. But 
 we cannot conclude that they were apoftates 
 from the Catholic body, and at the fame time 
 recent and unfteady converts from Proteftant- 
 ifm. The cafuiftical doubt, which feemed to 
 perplex one of the chief a6tors in this enor- 
 mity, and which related to a difficulty- only in 
 the execution, and not to the principle of the. 
 
 ' Milner, p. 370. note (i). 
 
 E Henry Earl of Northumberland was fined in the 
 Star Chamber " for having admitted Thomas Percy his 
 " kinfman to be a Gentleman Penfioner without admini- 
 "' ftering the oath of fupremacy, when he knew him to 
 "be a Recufant." Hiftory of the Gunpowder Treafpn, 
 P- 31- 
 
A DISCOURSEr&i^. 2S9 
 
 deed, was refolved ultimatelj by the fuperior 
 pf the Englifti jefuits ; an^ this oraculiar deci* 
 fion was confidently appealed to as having 
 fufficieht authority to difpel the fame fceptical 
 uncfertainty tbatamfe in the minds of fome 
 «f his nefarious colleagues. 1" The counfellprs 
 then, to whom he repaired, were Jefuits^who 
 did not hefitate to comtnunicate thcr refponfes 
 to an enqwiring. " oUtcaft and apoftate." We 
 May ilill further alk, from what religious party 
 are cohverts in general to derive their charao* 
 teriftic denomination ; from the one which 
 they relinquilh, or from that by which they 
 ^e received ? To which is to belong the di,f* 
 tindiori, and to which the dilgrace of their 
 choice } To which.^are the laft virtues, or thd 
 lafi; vices of their lives to be afcribed ? " The 
 'f dying behaviour," as it is called, of thefe 
 apoftafes is adduced as a proof that *' they did 
 •^ not a^ in conformity with the principles of 
 " their religion, even as they conceived it, and 
 Y that. they did. not. think the horrible attegipt, 
 *^ in which they were engaged, lawful and 
 ^^ meritpriouB.'' ^Admitting that they elofcd 
 their lives with penitence worthy of the pureff 
 
 ^ See note (C) at the end. 
 " See note (DJ at the end. 
 
 V 
 
ago A DISCOURSE, &c, 
 
 Ijftetn of religious opinions, we muft ftill con- 
 fider whether the principles of their religion^ 
 or the original feelings of human nature, ope- 
 rated moft ftrongly in producing their dubious 
 concern. Their compun6lion came too late. 
 Their fentiments muft have been very differ- 
 ent on the profpeft of a fuccefsful conclufion 
 of their enterprife ; and at the time of failure, 
 difappointment, and death. Did they faulter 
 in their career in confequence of the cbunfel 
 which they folicited ? They prepared their 
 plan without any interruption from their own 
 confciences, or thofe of (heir advifers. Reli- 
 gion did not alarm them with its terrors till 
 they had firft tried what they could effed;. 
 The contemplation of the attempt was not 
 attended with any doubts or remorfe which, 
 were creditable to their principles, and theit 
 end was the lame as that of other baffted af- 
 faffins,— ''It is to be further remarked, that 
 
 k « Thomas Winter was fent Into Spdn, by the joint 
 *' advice of Henry Garnet, and Ofwald Tefmond; jefnit, 
 *' and of Robert Catefby, and Francis Trefliam, gentlemen 
 " of good quality and reputation, to try what could b« 
 " done' for their affiftance, that were ready to facrifice 
 " their lives and fortunes for the catholic caufe," Hiftory 
 oi the Gunpowder Treafon, collefted from approved Au- 
 thors as well Poplfli as Proteftant, J678, 
 
A DISCOURSE, &c. 2gi- 
 
 fome of the principal agents in this plot wer^ 
 the fame perfbns who had, in the name of the 
 Ehglifli Catholics in general, fecretly applied 
 to the court of Spain for affiftance in the time 
 of Elizabeth. The Popilh Plot has therefore 
 been regarded by hiftorians as a continua- 
 tion of the former; and can we fuppofe that 
 it was calculated to gratify the inclinations of 
 a fmaller dumber of perfons than the fcheme 
 (bf the cooperation of domeftic infurgents 
 With the forces of a foreign invader ? There is 
 however proof that the plot was not altoge- 
 ther difagreeable to the Roman Pontiff, al- 
 though it is faid that the fuperior of the Eng- 
 lifh Jefuits " well knew that he would never 
 " approve of fo diabolical an undertaking." 
 The Catholics both here and at Rome could 
 neverthelefs folemnly petition Heaven to fa- 
 tour the intfentions of the confpirators ; and it 
 is affirmed, not by any irritated Proteftanti 
 but by a Jefuit, that the " Pontiff was ac- 
 *{ quaintfed with the defigUi and had proper 
 <' bulls ready to be iffued upon the fuccefs of 
 " iO." Such then are the grounds,, upon 
 
 ■• ' " •■.■':' '; ■■'■■> 
 
 ' " It is affirmed by the voluntary confeffion of a Jei 
 ** fuit, That at this time there were two bulls procured 
 "from the f'ope, and ready upon this oecafion, and 
 ** fliouid have been publifted, -had -the poM^er doiis (bii 
 
 U2 
 
?9^ A DISeOUR'SE, &<?. 
 
 whi^h we coiitinue tp think th^t thi? plot ha» 
 been apprppriately defigoated by its common 
 ?|)ithet, as indieatorj of the agents, and of the 
 particular interefts, which it was their objetSI; 
 to promote. 
 
 We are now to examine briefly the means 
 which the minifter Cecil is faid to have; ufed 
 either to iupprefe or to pervert the, evidence, 
 by which his agency in this afiair inight baye, 
 been dete^ed. — ^That he permitted four pf the 
 traitors tp be deftrpyed, whpfe perfpns .b.@ 
 might , have fecured withpufc lacrificing. their 
 lives, from the confcioufnefs that they cpul4 
 have expoled his participatipn in their prpje^t^ 
 is a fupppfitian which will not influence the 
 ttioft credulous n^ind, as it requires the pre- 
 vious, or rather the; fimultaneous belief of le- 
 Tcral incpnfiftent particulars. Is it probable 
 that tl^is participation IJiould be known to 
 thofe four perfonsi only? Why did not the 
 murderpus hireling, who efcaped with wounds 
 pnly from the arm pf the magiftrate, betray 
 their lurking emplpyer ? , It ™ is urged as anf 
 
 *' intended execution ; but, that failing, they were fup- 
 « preft." Fpulis's Roiuifli Treaf. Vxd. Bp. Andrews, Re- 
 fponC S'd Apoiog. Bellarmine, c. v. p. J13. 
 
 «> " Sir R, Wajfli having gotten fure trial of their tak- 
 « ing harbour at tj^ehpufe abov& nam.«!d,, h§ did fend 
 
A t)iseouRSE, &c: 2q^ 
 
 Article of crimination, that no diriedibns were 
 given for employing the milder expedient of 
 apprehenfion, when a delay fufficient for that 
 purpbfe had intervened; and that it would 
 have been ealy to have taken them alive. But' 
 no directions are fpecified by hiftorians rela- 
 tive either to the capture or the death of thefe 
 men. Is it extraordinary that perfons fhould 
 *.' not be taken alive who had refolved " to 
 *• break through their bppofers, and die fight- 
 ing"?" Death was the effeft of their own' 
 choice, not the preconcerted ftrong refource' 
 of the Minifter againft babbling accomplices^ 
 who would " have related the ilory lefs to 
 ^' his advantage, than he caufed it to be pub- 
 
 " trumpeters and meffengers to theni, cpnQijiandmg them. 
 " in the King's name to render unto him. His Majefties 
 " Minifter, and knowing no more at that time of their 
 " guilt than was publickly vifible, did promife, upon 
 " tlieir dutiful and obedient rendrirg unto him, to inter- 
 *f cede at the King's hands for th^ fpanng of their lives, 
 *' who received only from tjjern this fcornful anfwerj 
 " That he had need of better affiftance than of thofe few 
 " numbers that were with him before he could be able to 
 " command or controul them." Gunpowder Tfeafon,' 
 p. 6.8. , 
 
 " " Then faid Catelhy to me, (ftanding by the doop 
 " they were to enter,) Stand by me, and we will die to- 
 *' gether." Winter's confefEon, Gunpovi'der Treafon^ 
 p.6o;- ... ■ '"';■'■ :;:l 
 
 U 3 
 
294 A DISCOURSE, ^cc: 
 
 ^Uiflied." After haying thus difpofed of the 
 living witnefles, we are informed that he pub-, 
 lilhed interefted and falfe narratives of this 
 dark affair, which have miiled " the generality 
 *' of writers." All the accounts, which we 
 have of this affair, did not proceed from the 
 inventive and fabricating diligence of Cecil,: 
 and his " plot wrights." There "is furely one, 
 exception among the documents of the time, ■ 
 which he neither compofed, nor mutilated,' 
 nor augmented,, nor did it require his patron- 
 age. Did he publilh and circulate the trials 
 of the confpiratbrs ? Did they confefs at bis^ 
 inftigation, or' by his direction ? Did he pro- 
 cure perfons to falfify thefe records? Did' 
 he didate the confeffions of the confpirators 
 againft themfelves? and by what known means 
 <;ould he induce them to conceal all that was 
 unfavourable to himfelf, and relate only all 
 that was deftruAive to their own caufe ? Do 
 not the generality of later writers follow thefe' 
 as much as any other public and contempo- 
 rary inftruments ? We may confidently repeat, 
 the queftion, for it will well bear the repeti- 
 tion. Why did not the Confpirators boldly ac- 
 cufe the Secretary when they had the oppor- 
 tunity ? Why did he fo raftily venture fo often, 
 into their prefence? Why did he appear at 
 
A DISCOURSE, &b. 295 
 
 their trials, if he had been confcious that he 
 might have been betrayed ? Did he confer 
 with thofe traitors only who were killed ? Did 
 they never fpeak of their illuflrious confederate 
 to others? Is it probable that the Jefuits, Gar- 
 net in particular, fhould know fo many other 
 circumftances of the confpiracy, and be igno- 
 rant of this ? The lilence of the Confpirators 
 at this time muft be alTumed as a proof that 
 they had it not in their power to palliate their 
 guilt by a declaration, which they had every 
 worldly inducement to alledge °. — I have thus 
 examined " the faithful view," as it is deno- 
 minated, of this confpiracy. It cannot be ex- 
 pedited that the detail Ihould be completely 
 developed from this place; at the fame time 
 it is not very defedrive. It is difficult to con- 
 fine fuch a difcuffion to the limits prefcribed 
 to me on the prefent occafion. There are 
 other topics, which from their . minutenefs 
 could not be explained orally, and from their 
 merely fecular character could not be here in- 
 troduced with propriety^ 
 
 Another important branch of the enquiry 
 alfo claims our attention. We are now to 
 turn our eyes from the endeavours of fubjeits 
 
 o See note (E) at the end. 
 V 4 
 
206 A DISCOURSE, &fc. 
 
 t6 eftablifli the ;Catholic religion, to the ab- 
 tempt of a. Sovereign to attain the lame ob- 
 Jed. 
 
 It has been liippofed by no vulgar autho- 
 rity^ that the. motives of the political conduA 
 of the fecond James hive been mifunderftood 
 by the earlier hiftorians, from the want of 
 that, private information, which we now pofr 
 fefs. His moll important aftions are thought 
 to have, proceeded from a predominant defire 
 of abfolute power. But we muft remember^ 
 that he was a bigot long before he afcehded 
 the throne ; and can we believe, that it is 
 conliftent, not with the fa<9; only, but alfo 
 with the conftitution of human nature, tha| 
 this bigotry Ihould fliddenly lofe its known 
 and charadleriftic property as a principle; that 
 it Ihould infpire inactivity with a larger fcope 
 for adiion, and that it Ihould produce no ef- 
 feifts with the power of producing the great-* 
 eft ? This is not merely to rejed: a portion of 
 the annals of the country, but to matilate the 
 hiftory of man. But even thefe contemned 
 annals do not exhibit any fuch moral anoma- 
 lies. Were the proceedings of the legiQature 
 refpedling i\i& Exclujiori founded on a general 
 miftake, or merely on a religious prejudice ? 
 They wilhed to prevent the combination in 
 
A DISCOURSE, &e. 2g7 
 
 the fame perfon of certain religious fentiihents 
 with the authority of a Sovereign ;^ and the 
 event fhewed,. that their anticipation of evils 
 wa« not a weak and Jbypothetical fordaodiijgi 
 and tliat their deliberations were not the ordw 
 nary contention of adverfe parties. Gan.wti 
 imagine that the King's proceedings in this 
 place were only the wanton fpeculation of an 
 arbitrary ruler ? that his interference was only 
 tentative arid exploratory, to afcertain how far 
 he might Ihake and controul the independenea 
 of thefe ecclefiaftical bodies ; and that the opi-^ 
 nions of the arefpedlive perfons, who were thft 
 objeds either of his dangerous favour, or of 
 his donteroptible refentment, were otherwift 
 pf no acGouat ? That he wiftied to goverd his 
 people without the medium of their reprefen-*- 
 tatives was a part, , and a part only, of his in* 
 aulpicious ambition* An attempt of this ma:g- 
 nitude makes fo ftrong an imprelEon uport 
 the minds of Britons, that it is with difficulty 
 we can calmly and difpaffionately regard fuch 
 an enterprife in the degraded light of means' 
 for the attainment of Ibme other objedl,whe» 
 it appears to be itfelf that object, which would 
 occupy the powers of the mind excluiively, 
 and require for its purfuit and attainment 
 every inftrumenty fimilar and oppofite, animate 
 
298 A DISCOURSE, &<?. 
 
 and inanimate, that could be employed. But 
 do we really difcern any inadequacy in the 
 obje<a:, compared with the means, when we 
 fuppofe that this objed relates to a general 
 change of the eftablifhed religion of a coun- 
 try? Do we perceive that this could be ac- 
 complifhed by expedients of uncertain agency, 
 and by an engine of lefs force ? The fubfti- 
 tution of edicts for laws, intrigues with a fo- 
 reign ftate to obtain pecuniary fupplies, in- 
 iiead of a manly application to his own peo- 
 ple, and attempts to dilpenfe with the execu- 
 tion of Hatutes, are all of them indeed the re- 
 sources of a delpot ; but they alfo mark the 
 neceffary career of a regal bigot, who, if he 
 wiflied to eftablifli his own fyftem of belief, 
 muft either find, or make his fubjefts flaves. 
 If however we fet afide thefe abftra6t argu- 
 ments, and recur to the fa6t, we fhall P fee irt 
 the authorities themfelves, to which an appeal 
 is made, that the eftablilhment of the Catholic 
 religion was the ftipulated return which was 
 expelled for the bountiful aid of the royal 
 ally and coadjutor. But if this be an error, 
 that the bigotry of James is not to be over- 
 Ipoked in the analyfis of his government, it ii 
 
 P See note (F) at th« end. 
 
APISCOUESE, &c. 299 
 
 an error, in which the aftors in the great 
 event, which put an end to his machinations 
 and his reign, perfified ; and they do not 
 feera to have confidered whether it was pof- 
 fible for a Catholic King to obferve the an-, 
 cient laws and ordinances of the country, and 
 the new ones, which they intended to deviie, 
 but they confidered Proteftantifm as a necef-: 
 lary qualification for the princely office, and 
 as a better guarantee of their rights and liber-, 
 ties. It was ealier alfo for the people to make 
 a new contraft with a new Governor, than to 
 obtain a faithful acquiefcence in the jufteft re-5 
 quilitions from the inlidious Monarch on the, 
 throne. 
 
 ^ q It has been a fubjed of difculHon > by 
 what name this great fa<9: fhould be perpetu-^ 
 ated. This important change, it is faid, we 
 ^re not to denominate a revolution, and our 
 anceftors have affixed to it an improper appel-r 
 lation. It cannot perhaps be made to corre- 
 spond with the definition of the logician ; but 
 isiit furprifing that he is unable to bind th^ 
 meaning of the term with fuch bonds ) We 
 
 1 The fentiments which I here oppofe may he found- 
 in a Sermon, preached before the Univerfityof Oxford 
 tffi the fifth of November, 1804. by the Rev. H. Phillpottii 
 M. A. now Prebendary of Durham* j 
 
mny dais and getierallze political events t6 
 fecilitate arrangement, or to aflift recolleftiori r 
 but by what rules fliall we prohibit the ufe of 
 a term, merely becaufe it cannot be reduced 
 under any of the Artificial divifions which we 
 fcave invented ?" Is the hiftorian to fufpendf 
 the infertion of great aftions' in the records of 
 fame till the reclufe have found names to ex- 
 pt&fs their effential diilindions ? It is in vai» 
 to remonftrate, after the laple of {b long a 
 period, againft the impofition of a term, the 
 »fe of which has been lan6tioned by time "■, 
 confeerated by the opinion of the wife and* 
 good, ^nd will be perpetuated by ftrong aflb- 
 ciations, and can only be rendered obfolete by 
 the lofs of that liberty," df Which it would re- 
 main the melancholy memorial. " We are alfb' 
 to be retrained from applying to this event 
 the epithet glorious^ We are dire6led to feefc 
 for the glory, of- which we boaft, in the cha- 
 rafter, and not in the confeqneiices, of this 
 ev&nt. Certainly there was no glory in the 
 attempt to fubvert the religion and govern^ 
 '. : \ ' : i. ' . . . ' '- - .; 1 
 
 ' The Speaker's reply to the city addrefs : " They^ 
 <* have taken notice of the inoft eminent courage and 
 ^ ConftanCy the city hath (hewed in the late Revolution." 
 Ghaindler's Hiftory ind Proceedings of tlie Houfe of 
 Commons, vol. ii. p. 383. i6S^. 
 
nieftt"o,f the; c^untty. , We ^d hot; gloigr in 
 tht^ faults , or cjrUiiesj, -of; others. God fofbid 
 that we IhoUld find in ounces agak^ God, or 
 man, any , fubjeft of exultation, or 'v^l{&,.that 
 fuph ojfFences fliould • " CQme." ' Etit «ve do 
 derive a iltianly and ratioijfll fatisfatStidn froiji 
 ireflediling on the ;r6fiftaoce. which s was/ tfcea 
 (fijade to, the arbitrary eticroaehments of th6 
 Sovereign on" the, liberties of th6 people. . We 
 glory indeed in this riefiftance; but we do not 
 glory in the; jcaufe. which made it neceflar^^i 
 and which left , np other remedy for the pub* 
 jlic^rievances, in the, hands of our. anceftorSi 
 Whatever moderation however Slight appeat 
 'in the cpndu!iSl;of .men w-ho;had fuffered fo 
 much, apd , might have . a6ted i'alhly from . a 
 julj apprehenfioji of fuffering much more front 
 the tenowtr of the Monarch's proceedings.; j^et 
 we are to recpUetStj that we muft not attribW:e 
 to theif untried wifitom and moderation that 
 iSeaceful terlmination of ? the ;cont^,. wlnoh 
 really aroife .from the well-timed but.ignobid 
 flight of their Sovereign. \But; is it ingenu«wj 
 to enumerate among the effential conftituenta 
 of revolutions in general, one of the fore judg^ 
 tnenta of the Almjghty, the fword, and to in-^ 
 tiraatle, that it muft neceffimlp " pafs througil 
 r, the laitMji J", ;, Are nten. t» adapt, theiir forbe^c* 
 
ao2 A DISCOtJilSE, &c. 
 
 ance to thefe alarms, and to be fatisfied that; 
 as long as life is fpared, they poffefs all that 
 reafonable men and peaceable citizens can re- 
 quire ? This is, as is well known, to eftimate 
 mere exiftence, and the tenure of it, under 
 fuch circumliances, erroneoully. The value^ 
 which is here fet upon it, is too great ; but 
 thofe who love their lives fo well, muft alfo 
 be content to have their days numbered at the 
 will of an earthly fuperior. — We are alfo furi 
 ther apprized, that the authors of the Revolu- 
 tion did not talk of the rights of men, but of 
 the rights of Englifbmen. That we fhould 
 hear more of the rights of Englilhmen than 
 of the rights of men, cannot be a matter of 
 admiration. Their rights in general were, not 
 for the firft time, afferted. The artificial are 
 alfo more extenfive than the natural rights; 
 and althou^ the former may be agreeable to 
 the Ipirit of the latter, yet they could not be 
 deduced from that fource. Trial by jury is 
 the right, and the right by birth, of an Erig- 
 lifbmanj but it would be difficult to trace its 
 origin to any natural right. Thefe artificial 
 rights, the creatures of fociety, are, by their 
 peculiar formation, more liable to be invaded 
 than the aiatutal rights. They are not fo ea- 
 iily nox lb perfedtlyunderftood, ^nd do aot 
 
A DISCOURSE, &c, 30» 
 
 addrefs themfelves fo much to our Feelingsi 
 — Thefe might be perhaps feme of the reafons 
 of the filence refpeding the rights of men. 
 '' By this memorable tranfaiftion the Revo- 
 lutionifts taught, that from the rights of one 
 party flow certain duties of the other; that 
 the regal ftate is not a fpecies of hereditary 
 property only, but alfo an office which has 
 certain relative duties belonging to it; and 
 likcwife, that the regal authority has its li- 
 mits, but that its limits are identified with 
 thofe duties. In the cafe of any attempt to 
 fubvert the government, or, in other words^ 
 to violate thefe fundamental principles of juP 
 tice, they rather revived than eftablifhed the 
 do6trine of refiftance, which is diftin6lly xe- 
 cognifed in the » Articles of the Great Charter. 
 ' If we confider that the turbulent barons of 
 that period required the whole community to 
 obtain, both by defined and by undefined re* 
 fiftance, the poiTeffion of the property of the 
 Sovereign, till their wrongs were redrefled, 
 we cannot but admire the delicacy, the genC'- 
 rofity, and the juftice, which dictated a re- 
 verence for the perfon of the King, and thofe 
 
 s See Articuli Carte Reg. Johann. p. ix. Blackflone's' 
 Law Trails, ed. 4to. , - i . 
 
«o4 A -discourse; i&d 
 
 of all the i^yal Koufe, ih the itiidft' of tUdie 
 refolute provifions, which they framed to fe- 
 cure the fialfiiment of the political tonttaSt) 
 and "^hilft they ftill retained their fVrords in 
 titeiri hands. To reveft to firft principles isii 
 fcw^uage frequently ufed to denote a recur- 
 rence to fbme natural rights when thofe rights, 
 which are derived from the fociety in which 
 fve are! placed, are no longer regarded. But 
 we here fee, that it will either fignify this, or 
 a recuirrence to the ancient forms of the con-» 
 ftitution, where the refiftance of the people 
 uiider the calaimty of hopelefs tyranny is re- 
 folved into the natural right, and received 
 into its due rank,. Hence alfo it appears, that 
 anciently there was fuppofed to refide in the 
 motiarch a large proportion of perfonal relpon-r 
 fifbility, lince violent and unjuft public pror 
 ceedings were immediately referred to him-- 
 3felf as the aaithor ; and this is not obfcurely 
 ijatiniated in the precedent of the Revolution, 
 ylrhere, if the deluded James could have tranC' 
 ferred his guilt and its punifhment to his ad-* 
 vifers, he would have been moft eager tor 
 have. availed himfelf of any fpeculative fiction j 
 by which he himfelf could have been de- 
 clared innocent, and could have obtained a 
 formal immunity from the effects of the re^ 
 
A DISCOURSE, &c. 305 
 
 fentment of a people, who had refolved to be 
 free. 
 
 •^ What degree of political influence the 
 Catholics in this country may again obtain, 
 ieemed at one period to depend on the refult 
 of an enquiry into the prefent ftate of their 
 Ijeligious opinions. But it is not ealy to afcer- 
 tain what tenets they now profefs. Their 
 principal advocate exults in the mifreprefen- 
 tations of their adverfaries. But whilft they 
 are more ready to declare what they do not, 
 than what they do believe, whilft they will 
 not direct us to purer or more genuine fources 
 of information, the charge of mifreprefenta- 
 tiort on our fide will be converted into that of 
 fubtle and interefted cdncealment on theirs. 
 If we appeal to a- canon of a council, they 
 reply, that its effefts were local, and its au- 
 thority temporary; if we fpecify a dodtrine, 
 fliey intimate, that it is obfolete ; if we object 
 the inftitution of the Inquifition, we are af- 
 fured, that its fires are extinguifhed, and its 
 prifons clofed ; and as to the Papal power, its 
 harmleflnefs and its limits are at once illuf- 
 trated by its reftri6lion to Ipirittial matters. 
 We are told, that this change of fentiment is 
 to be attributed to the progrefs of general fci- 
 ence, and the difFufion of learning, and that 
 
806 A DISCOURSE, &c. 
 
 the proof of it is to be collected from the de- 
 clarations of liberal and enlightened indivi- 
 duals,, and from the decifions of. academical 
 bodies. But liberal and^ enlightened indivi- 
 duals do not perhaps corjftitute a competent 
 tribunal to determine this queftion. If it be 
 to their liberality and illumination that we 
 are to refer their rejeAion of what were for- 
 merly efteemed fome of the moft momentous 
 articles of their creed, as the Supremacy and 
 Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, it is pro- 
 bable that the other parts of a rehgion, which 
 is founded fo deeply on the derived perfonal 
 authority of its- teachers, retain but a flight 
 hold on the minds of men thus liberal and en- 
 lightened ; and that, v^^hilft we feem to have 
 the opinion of the fcientific and literate, we 
 have perhaps millaken for it the levity and 
 relaxed . conduct of a band of fceptics and 
 IcofFers. If we examine the characters of the 
 academical bodies whofe decifions we are to 
 refpe(9:, fome of them refide in a country 
 where a great part of their learning confills 
 pf fuch branches as have been reje<3;ed in this, 
 on account of their inutility, for nearly two 
 centuries, and is alfo limited to thofe foun- 
 tains, from which alone the Roman Pontiff 
 previoully permits the thirfling multitude " to 
 
A DISCOURSE, &c. so; 
 
 ** draw freely." Such an application might 
 indeed inform us what influence the learning, 
 the extenfion of commerce, and the general 
 fpirit of liberty in our own country might 
 have on the determination of thefe queftions, 
 and but little elfe has been learnt from the 
 enquiry. ' It is not fo much from the opera- 
 tion of fome principle from within, as from 
 reftraint inipofed by others from without, that 
 a feeming change has been produced in this 
 extraordinary polity. How far a fyftem, which 
 has for its bafis the fubjugation of the mind 
 and judgment, ■ can be improved from the ac- 
 tion of principles in its own conftitution, is 
 noteafy to conjecture. " But can the opinions 
 of individuals, however liberal or learned, or 
 of academical bodies, however illuftrious, be 
 made the grounds of any legiflative proceed- 
 ings refpeding the enlargement or contraction 
 of the privileges of the Catholics, whilft the 
 Roman Pontiff is overlooked, whofe fpiritual 
 authority is ftill paramount to every other, 
 and who could confirm, reverfe, or invalidate 
 the decifions of ailemblies, which might: not 
 be adapted to the real policy of the times ? 
 RefpeCling the future fituation of the Catho- 
 lics it would be prefumptuous to obtrude any 
 opinion in this place. * I would only remark, 
 
 x2 
 
308 A"DJSeO^;RSE, &c. 
 
 that it may be wieful to confider how far we 
 may have miftaken o^r own ignorance of 
 their religious opinions for a change of theitj 
 on their part. It, wouI4 be neqeffary for thofe 
 who ha^e fuch dpujbtSj, and there are many: 
 that have, to afcertain whether our adverfaries: 
 ffiU think, and flill teach; their children fo, 
 that they do God fervice, in killing tihofe,. 
 whom-, under thc! name of heretics, they thruft 
 out of the fynagogue*. ^ We dp utterly deny, 
 that in recurring to the records of hiftory, 
 and in. enumerating the enormities aijd cruel- 
 ties of Proteftants, and comparing them as to 
 kind and degree with thofe of the CathoUes,, 
 it is inerely " oppofing hiftory to hiftory, and 
 *' the. man of blood to the man of blood." 
 t.Perfecution is not an article in the Primer of 
 Proteftants. It is not a fijbje<3: of the early 
 precepts of our teachers. We have no Opinions, 
 on which we cquld found it. "We dp not think 
 that the Almighty will difpenfe falvation ac- 
 cording to the diftin6lipn of churches; or 
 that there are perfons who have power on 
 earth to forgive fins, or who can, here in the 
 
 V • The queftion is very imperfectly and fallacioiifly 
 ftated, if it is confined to this confideration ; which fet of 
 men is more or lefs difpofed tp abiijfe power, when they 
 poflefs it. 
 
iieffli, tJiai' the doors of mei-cy, ©r Of)en th6 
 gates of i$ell. 
 " We do not with decorous affe^ation Gott* 
 demn a perfecuting Ipirit, whilfl: we teach 
 that there are cafes, where it is a duty, and 
 perfons, who are the appropriate obje<9:s of it ; 
 but we teach, that it is fo far from refembUng 
 a duty, th%t it is a violation of all others, and 
 moft contrary to the nature of every thing 
 which pretends to be religion. If however 
 upon the moft exaft fcrutiny it ftiould appear, 
 that oppofite tenets are ftill maintained by 
 our adverlaries, the conclulion would certainly 
 be this ; that no Proteftant could wilh to fee 
 again fuch perfons, or fuch opinions, among 
 " the many noble" and the " many mighty" 
 " of Caefar's houfehold." 
 
 I fliall be fatisfied with fpecifying one ge- 
 neral conclulion, although the fubjecSl might 
 fuggeft many others; namely, that however 
 delirable a ftate of national tfanquillity may 
 appear to be in a Ipeculative light, yet where 
 the powers of the mind, the emotions of the 
 heart, and the ftrength of the animal frame 
 are permitted, in any country, to produce 
 their full effedls in determining and improving 
 the condition of man, there the balance of the 
 political conftitution can never be quiefcent, 
 
 X3 
 
810 A DISCOURSE, &c. 
 
 and where fuch an equilibrium is fuppoled to 
 exift, we find on one fide a defpot, and on the 
 other, flaves. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 NOTES AND DISQUISITIONS. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 IT could not be a doubt whether fome notes were ne- 
 ceffary, but how far they fhould extend. I have included 
 in them feveral difquifitions, which will enlarge my or% 
 ginal plan of confining the difcuffion to fome general 
 portions contained in " The Diffonance," and will com- 
 prehend an examination of the Letter to Dr. Prieftley's 
 Young Man. I have called the whole an Apf endixj 
 but I . think that the contingency of perufal is exaftly 
 eqvial, whether the name Notes or Appendix be ufed, 
 when it is neceffary to feek for information in any, other 
 place than the page immediately before the eye. 
 
 Page I. Theological writers. The elegant author 
 of " liCtters to Soame Jenyns, Ef(j." has deduced more 
 from this remark than, I thii^k, the cafe will'juftify» 
 Pag. 31,3a. " He leaves behind him for his difciples 
 " a few fifhermen, and perfons in low life, remarkable 
 " for qdthing, while he was with them upon earth, bu4 
 " profound ignorance, natural inpapacity, dulnefs of apn 
 " prehenfion, and erroneous views of their Mafter's doc- 
 " trine, intentions, and kingdom. Now it is by thefe 
 " manifedly ignorant, dull, and iv,c(tpahle perfons, that 
 " the fublime dofitrines and truths of the Gofpel are re- 
 « corded and publifted. Here, I fay, the tenor of the 
 " argument changes, and here the popf of a fuperna- 
 *' tura} ^ifpeniHtjpQ pjroperly cojniaences. Why? Beeaufe 
 
3^4 APPENDIX. 
 
 " we have here a real miracle^ and miracles alone are th6 
 '* direft proof of a commiffion immediately divine." Lett, 
 by Archibald Maclaine, D. D. It might be objefted to 
 this reafoning, that as we have hot a knowledge of all 
 the powers of nature, fo we have not any ftandard of the 
 capacities of men j and the Gofpel might poflibly have 
 been a late invention of man, as well as any of the arts 
 which he has difcovered. But we are not to coUeft the 
 infpiration, or original revelation of the Gofpel, from 
 reafoning on the narrow extent of the intelleftual facul- 
 ties of the human fpecies. Had the Gofpel been a mere 
 #jrftem of moral and religious precepts, the notion of in- 
 vention would have been fomewhat plaufible; but fo 
 many fafts relating to its Author are interwoven with 
 the Gofpel, and on account of that relation have become 
 parts of its doctrines, as almoft exclude the poflibility of 
 its invention, as the refult of improved reafon, or indeed 
 as being in the leaft connefted with mere reafon in thi^ 
 manner. 
 
 P. 2. eloquence and learning. " Erant hi viri, ple- 
 " beii, pauperes, illiterati, neque vel artibus, vel dotibus 
 " illis inftrufti, quae auftpritatem, fidemque apud aliosi 
 " parere, mentefque ad temere credendum impellere fo- 
 " lent ; tales autem eos e0e volebat, ne quis fruftus mu- 
 " neris et legationis eorum non divinae virtuti, verum 
 " eloquentice, auflioritati, aliifque caufis humanis et natu- 
 " ralibus adfcribere poffet." Moflieim de Reb. Chrift. 
 ante Conft. M. 
 
 P. 4. philofopkical Greek geographer. I beg leave to 
 notice the following paflage in Mr. Carwithen's Bampton 
 Leftures refpefting this writer : " But if the Grecian 
 " poet has alfo been dignified by Strabo with the appel- 
 « lation of the firft and greateft of geographers, becaufe 
 
APPENDIX. 315 
 
 " he has recounted the names of a few petty tribes en- 
 " gaged in a temporary alliance for the execution of a 
 " military enterprife, which he alone has drawn forth 
 " from obfcurity, and refcued from oblivion^ but which 
 " are now vanifhed from the earth, and whofe place can 
 " no where be found, &c." I would refer Mr, C. to the 
 Jecond page of Strabo for the reafons why he calls Ho- 
 mer the firft of geographers, and he will not find this 
 among the number ; and alfo to Schoennemann's Com- 
 mentatio de Geographia Homeri, a prize exercife pub- 
 liflied at Gottingen, the objeft of which was, " orhis ter- 
 " rarum faciem, qualis depingitur ah Homer Oj declarare, 
 " hoc eft, ex utroque poetae principis opere^ tam Iliade, 
 " quam Odyflea, quicquid iis geographici argumenti con^ 
 " tinetur, diligenter ac plene colligere, ita, ut Homero 
 " duce, per itres Orlis partes eatur." The knowledge of 
 Homer, and the judgment of Strabo, fliould not be im- 
 pugned conjefturally, but upon a perufal of their refpefti 
 ive writings. 
 
 P. 5. erudition of the Jchools ofTarfus. Michaelis lays, 
 that " many have fuppofed that St. Paul was endowed 
 " with a great fhare of profane learning, and have af- 
 " cribed to him a knowledge of all thofe fciences, which 
 " might have been learnt in the fchools of Tarfus. But 
 *< this opinion feeras totally ungrounded ; and I fubfcribe, 
 " on the whole, to the fentiments of Dr. Thalemann, in 
 " his treatife * De Eruditione Pauli Apoftoli, Judaica, non 
 ' Graeca." Michaelis by Marfli, vol. i. p. 153. The ac- 
 count of Tarfus, and the charafter of St. Paul, diminifh 
 very much the probability, that he remained an exception 
 to the remark of Strabo, or- that he confined his reading- 
 to the Greek poets, and neglefted the Greek philofophy. 
 St. Paul would not deferve attention, if he had fpokea 
 
$i6 AFPENDfX. 
 
 pf the wifdom of th^s -w&rH without being acqaainte3 
 with its nature aa4 teachers. 
 
 P. 17. Upptt that ground only. The reader may ob- 
 serve, that an advaqtggp is here t&km of the imture of 
 tjris external evidence. It does no^ indeed it camiDt, 
 reach to every individwal pafflage of a book. And this 
 may be r^arded as an ^va«tage ; for ptherwife it might 
 IJiterfiere with, and perhaps fuperfede the internal. It 
 would alfo become more of an authoritative declaration, 
 that fuch and no other was the true archetype of the 
 Gofpelj than remain what it is, a plain teftimony, which 
 fuggefls rather than excludes a comparifon of other co- 
 pies of the facred books. 
 
 P. 18. taught, orally. , This topic I have enlarged upon 
 in another difcourfe. It was fuggefbed fey the following 
 paflage in Prieftley's Anfwer to Evanfon, p. 8. " The 
 " books called the Gofpels were not the caufe, but the 
 " effefl: of the belief of Chriftianity in the Grft ages. For 
 " Chriftianity had been propagated with great fucdefs 
 ''long before thofe books were written; nor had the 
 " publication of thero any particular effeft in adding to 
 " riie number of Chriftian converts. Chriftians received 
 'f the books becaufe they knew beforehemd that the con- 
 " tents of them were true ; and they were at that time 
 " of no further ySe than to afcertain and fix the teftimony 
 " of living "yvitnefles, in order to its being tranfmitted 
 " without variation to fucceeding ages. For what could 
 " have been thp preaching of the Gofpel originally, but 
 ^ a recital of the difcourfes and miracles of Chrift by 
 *? thofe who weriB eye-witnefles of thfcm to thofe who 
 " were not. The Gofpels therefore contain the fubftaftcie 
 '^ of all their preaching." I cannot refrain from fubjoin- 
 
APPENDIX. ^17 
 
 ing an extraft from a wbric hy the pious and Iparnecf 
 Richard Baxter. " Yea more, it is paid doubt that a 
 " man may (in fomei cafes or circumftaijdes) be a true 
 *f Chriftian, who. knoweth not that there is any Scrip- 
 " ture, which isi God's inlkllible word. For firji fa all 
 " believers of the old world werefaved, before Mofes wrote 
 " the law. And the Chfii/iian churches were gathered, 
 " and thovfands converted to Chrift, many years before, a 
 'f word of the New Teftameni was written" More Rea- 
 fons for the Chriftian Religion, p. aa. 
 
 m 
 
 P. 19. This circumjiance effentially diftinguiflies, &e." 
 The authenticity of the hiftory of Herodotus likewife 
 was eftabliflied in a peculiar manner not only by the re- 
 citation of it at the Olympic games, but previoufly in 
 feveral of the ftates of CJreece, according to Lucian, 
 p. 337. ed. Bourdelot, 
 
 P. ao. authenticity of the whole. " Now my reafons, 
 fays the admirable. Baxter, " why .1 take every hiftory ,^ 
 " chronology, genealogy in Scripture as certednly true, 
 •^ and every other word, which is. fpoken by a true pro- 
 " phet and apoftle as by the Spirit, (and not difowned 
 " by the Scripture itfelf,) but efpecially fuch as you ac- 
 " cufe in the Gofpel, are thefe ; firft,' a priori, becaufe 
 'f it feemeth to me that the writing of the whole books 
 •< of the New Teftament by them was done in the dif- 
 " charge of the commiffion given them by Chrift.^ And 
 '« he promifed his Apoftles his Spirit for the perform-' 
 " ance of all their commiffioned office work. This writ- 
 " ing is part of the preaching which Chrift fent them for. 
 ". And no doubt but the Spirit did caufe them, to write 
 "all the fubftantial part: and therefore we have reafon 
 "■ to think that the fmalleft Jjarts are from the fame Au- 
 '<• thor, and that he affifted them in the leaft as well as 
 
•518 APPENDIX. 
 
 o) 
 
 "the greateft." And again ; " And though dll the rea- 
 " fons which I have given prove, that the truth of the 
 " Chriftian religion may be certainly proved, though we 
 " could not prove every by-expreflion in the Scripture to 
 « be true ; and though we deny not but the penmen 
 " manifefted their human imperfeftions in ftyle and me- 
 " thod ; yet if each paflage were not true, it would be fo 
 " great a temptation to the weak, and make it fo diffi- 
 " cult to know in feme points what is true, in compa- 
 " rifon of what it would be, if all be true, that we have 
 " no reafon to imagine this difficulty ourfelves, while it 
 " is unproved." More Reafons for the Chriftian Religion, 
 &c. by R. Baxter. I refer the reader with much fatif- 
 fa6tion to this treatife, the author of which has been in- 
 fidioufly called by a modern Archdeacon, vs^ho in much 
 humility calls his own voice, in his own favour, " the 
 "-voice of truth," a regicide! This man flio.uld not 
 meddle with paft hiftory; hinifelf and his own aftions 
 will furnifti a period and events better fuited to his deep- 
 eil GOrifideration and timely correSion. 
 
 P. 3 a. Thofe" miracles. Bifliop Bagot has well diftin- 
 guifhed the evidences of miracles and prophecy in his 
 firft fermon at Biftiop Warburton's Lefture, pp. 32, 23. 
 " The argument from prophecy, thus urged, (in one 
 " comprehenfive view,) adds a credibility to thofe mi- 
 " racles, which once carried their own conviftion with 
 *' them. In former ages, while the firft defign only of 
 *' prophecy was in view, (namely, to raife hopes and ex- 
 " peftations in the minds of men, without which no reli- 
 *' gion could have fubfifted in the world,) then was their 
 " faith in it commoiily confirmed by fome miraculous 
 " work. Of this kind was the immediate change in the 
 <' ferpent's form when our firft parents received the ori- 
 " ginal promjfe of a future reftoration ; fuch the mira- 
 
APPENDIX. 319 
 
 « 'culAus birth of Ifaac, and many other like jnftances* 
 " Now in their turn prophecies accomphfhed give an 
 " affurance to our faith in paft miracles, which includes 
 " one evident reafon why miracles fhould ceafe to be re- 
 " peatedj fince the other, from their nature^ muft be go* 
 " ing on to the end of the world." 
 
 P" 33 > JVith regard to miracles f &c. It will appear to 
 the reader, as he proceeds, that I might have extended 
 my prefent inveftigation to another volume, even if I had 
 compreffed, as far as perfpicuity would allow, the dif- 
 cuffion of each topic. The following extraft would, 
 furnifh materials for an entire difcourfe. Diffonance, pj 
 7. " And in the New Teftament, in conformity to this 
 " criterion given us by Mofes, we are affured upon the 
 ", higheft authority, that ' the teftimony of Jefus is the 
 " fpirit of prophecy.' Either therefore thofe predictions 
 " contained in the New Teftament, which relate to the 
 " prefent time and to times already paft, muft have been 
 <' fulfilled, or elfe the Gofpel itfelf muft be an impofture, 
 " and of no authority at all. Now the obvious purport 
 " of almoft all the prophecies of the Gofpelj as they are 
 " difperfed in different fcriptures of the New Teftament, 
 " is to predift the eircumftances of a moft unhappy cor- 
 " ruption of the genuine religion of Jefus, which began 
 ♦* to operate even in the days of the Apoftles themfelves, 
 " and was to end in an entire apoftafy from the truths of 
 " the Gofpel, and the eftabijftiment of a falfe, fabulous^ 
 "irrational, idolatrous, .blafphemous fuperftition, firft by 
 " the civil power of the Roman empire, under fome fig- 
 " nal change in its eircumftances, and afterwards by the 
 " civil power of all thofe weftern kingdoms, into which- 
 " that empire, at its diflblution, was to be divided. And, 
 " the fame prophecies afliire us, that the true religion of 
 " Chrift would be no where generally received, till after 
 
gao APPENDIX. 
 
 *' the fame civil powersj which eftablilhed it, fhall hav6 
 *' aboliflied and deftroyed the Antichriftian church thus 
 *« predifted. Unlefs therefore . the teftimony of thefe 
 "prophecies fails us entirely, and the Gofpel itfelf is 
 « falfe, the orthodox church efkblifhed by Conftantine, 
 ** which is now, and has been ever fince his time, in fome 
 " modification of it or other, the only religion eftablifhed 
 " by the civil powers of Europe, is the very objeft of 
 " thefe prophecies, the completion of the predifted apo- 
 " ftafy ; for no other is to be foUnd." It is added in a 
 note, that » " if there be, let the zealous advocates of the 
 " doftrines of that church, and her canonical fcriptures, 
 " point it out to us ; or, if that be not in their power, let 
 " them honeftly and candidly yield to the force of argu- 
 " ments founded upon the infallible word of the God of 
 « truth." The idolatry, to which Mr. E. refers, is the 
 worfliip of Jefiis Chrift as the Son of God ; and this, in 
 his opinion, conftitutes the apoftafy which the Apoftle 
 predifted. We have no comparifon of thefe prophecies 
 with this alledged fulfilment, but merely an afferted ac- 
 cordance of orte with the other. An opponent therefore 
 might, on this ground, be excufed from proceeding with 
 the controverfy. But it is better to examine where this 
 maze of hypol^efis leads. It may be obferved then that 
 there are two branches of this apoftafy : the idolatry it- 
 felf, and the accommodation of certain entire books, or 
 parts of certain books, of the New Teftament to this ido- 
 latrous fyftem, which acconmlodation was alfo, it feems, 
 a fubjeft of particular prophecy. That part of the queftion 
 which relates to the corruption or fabrication of books 
 I have examined in another place. The enquiry whether 
 the worfliip of Jefus Chrift the Son of God is idolatry, is 
 determined by afluming, that he was a mere man, and 
 
 ^ DiOfonance, p. 35, 36, 
 
APPENDIX. 331 
 
 therefore the worlhip of our Saviour is the worfhip of a 
 man long fince dead^ according to the language and in- 
 terpretation of ''Julian. Mr. E. has obferved at what 
 time the*'adqration of faints and martyrs commenced, 
 and has arbitrarily affigned the worfhip of our Saviour 
 to the fame date. There only remains this queftion, 
 the mere humanity of our Saviour. This it would be 
 prefumptuous to difcufs generally, as if it were a new 
 topic. It will be more proper to cOhfider, as they occur, 
 thofe arguments, by which Mr. E. propofes to prove it. 
 He fays, that the apoftafy began in the days of the Apo- 
 ftles. He fhould have faid, that it began with the Apo- 
 ftles themfelves ; that they fet the example of the firft aft 
 of fuch a fpecies of apoftafy, when they prayed to our 
 Lord, as knowing the hearts of all men, to direft their 
 choice in fupplying the place of the traitor Judas ; and 
 Stephen, before his martyrdom, addrefled our Saviour in 
 language relative to the fame opinion of his divinity. This 
 was done not long after they had feen the fame Jefus, 
 whom they then called upon, afcend, in the human 
 ihape, into the heavens. This was not the adoration of 
 a man long fince dead, but a fimple, plain, and recent 
 teftimony to his nature. 
 
 P. 3^. miracles are divefted, &c. The argument pur- 
 fued by Mr. E. is in conformity with his hypothefis of 
 an apoftafy : he now attempts to fhew that the delufion 
 of the profeflbrs of Chriftianity, who apoftatized, was 
 effefted by falfe miracles, " lying wonders," and " all 
 " the deceivablenefs of unrighteoufnefs." He wifhes to 
 invalidate the teftimony of eyewitnefles and hiftorical 
 evidence in general, by an appeal to certain fafts, which 
 he himfelf deems incredible. I therefore propofe to exa- 
 mine the circumftances of their fuppofed incredibility. 
 
 * Mr. E. has repeated more than one argument from Julian. 
 T 
 
333 A P {> E N D I X. 
 
 I. In his Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Yb'Utig Man, p. f. 
 lie fays, " Be fo good then as to alk this Do6lor oSf eafy 
 " faith, whether he believes the African miracle, fo 
 " ftfongly and judicioufly ftated by Mr. Gibl^n, that a 
 " number of the orthodox, whofe tongues thfeir inhumati 
 " Arian antagonifts had cut out, fpoke diftinftly and per- 
 " fedly well, after that cruel operation, without iany 
 " tongues at all ?" And, p. 8. " H« certainly, according 
 " to his own principles, ought to believe it ; becaute the 
 •" fa£t was attefted by great numbers of eyte and ear- 
 " witneffeS, both in Africa and at Conftantanople, whofe 
 " teftimoriy is recorded, not only in the writings of pri- 
 " vate individuals, but eVen in the public annals of the 
 " eaftern ettipire." The completenefs of this teftittioriy 
 makes the tranfaflion worthy of a minute analyfis. Mr. 
 Gibbon, vol. vi. p. 295. calls the evidence of <= Juftinian 
 " fuperfluous ■" but it is not fo to others : " Vidimus 
 "' venerabiles viros qui abfciffis radicJtus Grtguis fiias poe- 
 *' nas miferabililer loquebantur." Jtlftinian does not fpeak 
 of it as a miracle, but merely as a fpecimen of the cru- 
 'elty of the Vandals, who had fubjugated Africa. <iVi<Stor 
 Vitenfis refers the incredulous to " a furvivirig viftim." 
 If any one (hould doubt " of the truth, let hitai repair to 
 " Conftantinople, and hften to the clear and perfeSi lan- 
 " guage of Reftitutus, the fubdeacon ; one of thefe glo- 
 " rious fufferers, who is now lodged in the palace of th& 
 " Emperor Zenp, and is refpefted by the devout Emprefs, 
 This Viftor " publiftied a hiftory of the perfecution 
 " within two years after the event." «^neas of Gaza, 
 an eyewitnefs, fays, " I faw them myfelf ; I heard them 
 " fjpeak ; I diligently enquired by what means fuch an 
 " articulate voice could be formed without any organ of 
 
 •^ Cod. lib. i. tit. 27. 'I Gibbon, toI. vi p. 294. 
 
 ' Gibbon, vol. vi. p. 394. 
 
APPENDIX. 333 
 
 "Jpeech: — I opened their mouth, and faw that the whole 
 " tongue had been completely torn away by the roots ; 
 " an operation, which the phyficians generally fuppofe 
 *' to lie mortal." After all, this is not one f " of the fpe- 
 " cioias miracles by which the African Catholics have 
 " defended the truth and juftice of their caufe," and 
 which is to be " afcribed with more reafon to their own 
 " induftry,:thaLn to the vifible proteftion of heaven." The 
 only queftion was, whether the tongue is the only organ 
 ■of fpeech ; and it is not furpriiing, that it was determined 
 in the fifth century, even by the moft fcientific enquirers, 
 in the affirmative. They only afcertained, that the fa- 
 culty of fpeech was not deftroyed by a partial or entire 
 excifion of the tongue, as they regarded it. But they 
 did not commit any fraud. They did not pretend that 
 thefe victims fpoke by any power committed to them- 
 felves. They did not concert any fictitious occurrences; 
 -and from the ftate of phyfical knowledge they did not 
 conclude irrationally, nor aver difhoneftly, that this was 
 an example of a miracle. But they did not affume the 
 credit of the event to themfelves, as the inftruments by 
 whom it was performed. This excludes the odious infi- 
 nuation of induftry aiid fraud, and refolves itfelf into 
 opinion and judgment. 
 
 II. s " Yet, Sir," proceeds Mr. E, " the evidence of 
 " teftimony to the truth of the miracle of Balaam's afs 
 "is far lefs fatisfaftory. For, from the circumftances 
 "'of the flory, it does not appear that any ferfon was 
 "fenfille of the fa&, except Balaam and the afs herfelf ; 
 " or, if the ' prophet's fervants, and *he meflengers of 
 " Balak, were alfo earwitneffes of the wonderful hSi, 
 " they were very few indeed in comparifon of thofe who 
 
 <■ Gibbon, vol. vi. p. 293. 
 s Letter to Dr. Prieftley'-s Young Man,. p.S. 
 Y % 
 
334 APPENDIX. 
 
 " attefted the African miracle. Befides, they were aHL 
 " Midianites, or Moabites, who at that time were hoftile 
 " to, and had no communication with the Jews, Yet 
 " it is a Jewifli hiftory alone in which that finguldr mi* 
 " racle is recorded." To thefe cavils it may be briefly 
 ftated, I. That, whether the number of witneflTes were as 
 great in one cafe as in another is not any part of the 
 queftion, where credibility does not depend upon a num- 
 ber of witnefles, nor lefs than a given number. 2,. That 
 Balaam's two fervants were with him, which is a fuffi- 
 eient provifion of evidence, and not to be confounded 
 with the abfolute want of evidence. 3. That the place 
 where it happened was " a path of the vineyards ;" a 
 public road lying between two walls. The " vineyard 
 " of the man void of underftanding" is defcribed by So- 
 lomon, Prov. xxiv, 30. as having " the ftone wall thereof 
 " broken down;" of which kind, we have a right to fup- 
 pofe, was the hedge alluded to by the Pfalmift, Pf. Ixxx. 
 18. " Why haft thou then broken down her hedge, that 
 " all they that go ly pluck off her grapes ?" The fcene 
 therefore of this occurrence was a common track of tra- 
 vellers and paflengers. 4. That the princes of Balak do 
 not feem by the hiftory to have been prefent when the 
 angel met Balak, as the expoftulation of the angel con- 
 cludes with his faying, " Go with the men." 5. That it is 
 of no ufe to furmife what would have been the teftimony 
 of perfons, if they had witnefled a certain tranfaftion. 
 6. That although it is recorded in a Jewifti hiftory, yet 
 we do not perceive that any Jewifti intereft could be pro- 
 moted by fuch a fiftion. 7. That the occafion, as far 
 as we may prefume to judge, was worthy of the inter- 
 pofition. 8. That we are no judges whatever of the ap- 
 parently inferior circumftances which the Almighty com- 
 bines with the greater means that his wifdom thinks fit 
 to employ. 9. That the narrative has np moral incon- 
 
APPENDIX. 325 
 
 gruities or contradiftions. 10- That, if it had been re- 
 corded by a writer of any other nation, it is probable 
 that it would have been derived from the Jewiih records. 
 And laftly, that we could not have authority for the au" 
 thenticity of other books of the fame date, equal to that 
 which we have for the authenticity of thofe of the Jews. 
 
 II. " Alk him," fays Mr. E. " as a philofopher, whe^ 
 " ther he really believes that the fun and moon flood 
 " ftill at the command of Joftiua?" the object of which 
 he ftates to be " only to gratify the Jewifli general with 
 " the pleafure of butchering his flying enemies twelve 
 " hours longer than daylight would have otherwife per- 
 " mitted him to enjoy." p. 9. I refer with pleafure to a 
 very ingenious, and at the fame time the moft correft 
 explanation of the object of this miracle, inferted in the 
 Gentleman's Magazine for the month of January 1800. 
 p. 35, 36. with the lignature C. D. Mr. E. did not re- 
 member, that miracles of the Almighty were not de»- 
 figned for the conviftion of the Jewifti nation only, but 
 alfo for warnings and proofs of his power and prefence 
 to neighbouring idolaters, worlhippers poflibly of thofe 
 planets. 
 
 III. " Amongft the miraculous fafts recorded in the 
 " Scriptures, there are fome which a wary, reflefting, 
 " and unprejudiced mind might not unreafonably con- 
 " fider as only uncommon effe6ts of human fliill, or the 
 " mere illufions of what the ancients denominated the 
 " magic art, cunning artifice, and a kind of dexterous 
 " legerdemain. For the very fame evidence of teftimony 
 " which affures us of the miracles wrought by Mofes 
 " to prevail upon Pharaoh to difmifs the Ifraelites, af- 
 'f fures us likewife, that in the three firft inftances the 
 " Egyptian magicians performed the fame ; and there- 
 " fore it is highly probable, that their king fuppofed 
 ^^ Mofes and Aaron to be only magicians of fuperip.r 
 
 Y3 
 
3*6 APPEND IX. 
 
 cc 
 
 flcill." As I wifli to abridge the difcuffion of thefe 
 topics, and to avoid the repetition of the arguments of 
 other writers, I fhall briefly obferve, i. that, in candour, 
 the fame evidence of teflimony fhould have received its 
 proper appellation, the fame hiftory, and it fhould have 
 been remarked, that the apparent fuccefs of the magi- 
 cians in their attempts is recorded, as well as the mira- 
 cles of Aaron. 3. Whatever might be the opinion of 
 Pharaoh we cannot tell ; but we know what the magi- 
 cians themfelves thought of the power by which Aaron 
 performed thofe wonderful 'works, and they declared them 
 to be done by the finger of God. 3. Thefe miracles have 
 the condition of credibility, and authenticity, and reality, 
 which Mr. E. eifewbere afTumes as neceflary to eftablifh 
 the general authority of miracles j namely, a previous 
 prophetic promife and fpecification. 
 
 Out of refpeft to Bifliop Horfley's memory, as a fcho- 
 lar, it may be proper to notice, although with a view to 
 controvert, his opinion of thefe miracles performed by 
 the magicians. He confiders it (p. 238. vol. i.) " as an 
 " exprefs trial of Ikill, if we may be allowed the expref- 
 " fion, between Mofes and the magicians of Egypt, in 
 " the exercife of miraculous powers, in which the magi- 
 " cians- were completely foiled. They performed Jbme 
 " miracles, but Mofes performed many more and much 
 " greater. — Now whoever will allow that thefe things, 
 " done by the magicians, were miraculous, i. e. beyond 
 " the natural powers of man, muft dillow that they were 
 " done by fome familiarity of thefe magicians with the 
 " devil, for they were done in exprefs defiance of God's 
 ^' power, they were done to difcredit his meflenger and 
 " to encourage the King of jEgypt to difregard the mef- 
 " fage." pp. 239,340. I diffent altogether from this, view 
 of thefe traafafitions. A trial of flcill implies an indepen- 
 dence of each of the contending powers:} nor do I fee 
 
APPENDIX. 3«7 
 
 how any fatisfetSiion is to refult from the confideration of 
 Mofes having performed *' more and greater miracles," 
 while we are required to admit that, " by their familiarity 
 " with the devil," the magicians were able to perform any 
 " in exprefs defiance of God's power." Befides, Pharaoh 
 does not apply to his own magicians, but to Mofes and 
 Aaron, for the removal of the frogs, which had been 
 produced equally by the former. What is done in de- 
 fiance of a certain power is feldom the fame thing wliich 
 that power efFefts and intends, and particularly when 
 fuecefs woul(i only aggravate the injury already inflifted 
 by the adverfe competitor. In fuch a cafe then the na- 
 tural inference feems to be, that one agency controlled 
 the other, and the magicians appear to have been com- 
 pelled to be joint authors of the fame miraculous calami- 
 ties with which the Almighty had refolved to vindicate 
 his omnipotence. A trial of (kill fuggefts a very degrad- 
 ing notion of the ways of the Almighty, and tends, as I 
 obferved before, to elevate the power of the devil to that 
 of an independent being, which is neceflarily implied in 
 a real competition. 
 
 IV. *» " There are others, which might be fufpeSed of 
 " being only the accidental effeSs of natural caufes faga- 
 " cioufly obferved, and artfully mifreprefented as the im- 
 " mediate interpofition of divine power, to anfwer the 
 " purpofes of the chief acftor of the hiftory. Of this 
 " kind are the extraordinary flight of quails, the fupply 
 " of manna, the deftruftion of Korah and his faftious 
 " party, a.nd Jbme others." 
 
 This reafonjng would be more fpecious, if the fupply 
 of manna had been temporary; but the children of Ifrael 
 eat it during " forty years," a period rather too long for 
 the continued and accideptal operation of natural caufes. 
 
 * hetter to J3v, Prieftley's Young Man, p. 9, 10. • 
 Y4 
 
3*8 APPENDIX. 
 
 In a fimilar manner, when the Ifraelites demanded 
 again flefh to eat, the quails were again fent to fatisfy 
 their defire ; and we may be allowed perhaps to argue 
 from the affemblage of thefe animals in fuch vaft bodies, 
 that it was not an accidental effe<9; of a natural caufe : 
 " Shall the flocks and the herds be flain for them," fays 
 Mofes, « to fuffice them ? or fhall all the fiOi of the fea 
 '^ be gathered together for them, to fuffice them ?" Num. 
 xi. 33. The repetition of one miracle, and the continua- 
 tion of the other, not to mention how the prophetic par- 
 ticulars afcertained that the manna was the promifed 
 bread, obviate the cavil at once. The deftruftion of Ko- 
 rah was not an accidental earthquake, for Mofes prediSied 
 this particular mode of deftruftion, and therefore the 
 hiftory is credible according to Mr. E's own criterion. 
 
 V. " Nay Jofephus, though a Jew, labours to account 
 " for the palTage of the Ifraelites through the Red fea by 
 " the favourable concurrence of natural circumftances, 
 f which happened at that time to occafion a temporary 
 f dry path in that part of the channel; and intimates that 
 " fimilar circumftances have been known repeatedly to 
 " produce fimilar effefts, in other places, fince' the time 
 ^' of Mofes." p. ID. ' It is a matter of curiofity to ex- 
 amine how Jofephus '.' labours" to get rid of this miracle, 
 and I willingly produce his mode of labouring for this 
 purpofe. 'f As foon therefore as ever the whole ^gyp- 
 " tian army was within it, the fea flowed to its own 
 f' place, and carne down with a torrent, raifed by florms 
 " of wind, and encompaffed the -Egyptians, Showers 
 " of rain alfo came down from the (ky, and dreadfiil 
 " thunders and lightnings, with ilafhes of fire. Thunder- 
 " bolts alfo were darted upon them. Nor vvas there any 
 f thing which is ufually fent ly God upon men, as indin 
 " cations of his wrath, which did not happen at this timej 
 f' for a dark ^.nd difmal night opprelTed therp." Novs' 
 
APPENDIX. 339 
 
 after fome expeftation we prepare ourfelves to analyze 
 the circumftances, " which have been known repeatedly to 
 " produce fimilar effefts, in other places, fince the time 
 " of Mofes/' " As for myfelf," fays Jofephus, « I have 
 " delivered every part of this hiftory as I found it in the 
 " facred books : nor let any one wonder at the ftrange- 
 " nefs of the narration, if a way were difcovered to thofe 
 " men of old time, who were free from the wickednefs 
 " of modern ages, whether it happened by the will of 
 " God, or whether it happened of its own accord ; while 
 " for the fake of thofe that accompanied Alexander 
 " King of Macedonia, who yet lived, comparatively, but 
 " a little while ago, the Pamphylia retired and afforded 
 " them a paffage through itfelf, when they had no other 
 " way to go ; I mean when it was the will of God to de- 
 "Jiroy the monarchy of the Perfans : and this is confeffed 
 " to be tru« by all that have written about the aftions of 
 " Alexander. But as to thefe events, let every one deter- 
 " mine as he pleafes." There is an effential difference be- 
 tween the paffage of the Ifraelites through the Red fea 
 from one fide to the other, and the march of Alexander 
 along the coafl of the fea of Pamphylia. I may add from 
 Whifton's note the account of the topography of this 
 march according to Strabo : " Now about Phafelis is 
 *' that narrow paffage ly the fea fide, through which Alex- 
 " ander led his army. There is a mountain called Cli- 
 " max, which adjoins to the fea of Pamphylia, leaving a 
 " narrow paffage on the fliore, which in calm weather is 
 " bare, fo as to be paffable by travellers ; but when the 
 " fea overflows, it is covered to a great degree by the 
 " waves. Now then, the afcent by the mountains being 
 ^' round about and fteep, in ftill weather they make ufe of 
 " the road along the coaft. But Alexander fell into the 
 " winter feafon, and committing himfelf chiefly to for- 
 " tune, he marched on before the waves retired, and fo it 
 
536 APPENDIX. 
 
 " baipp^iwd tbg,t they were a whple day in journeying 
 " aver it, an^ were under water up to the navel." Lib, 
 xiv. p. 666. Arrian's account is this; b., i. p. 72, 73. 
 " When Alexander removed from Phafelis, he fent foni6 
 " part of his army over the mountains to Perga, which 
 " road the Tbracians fliewed, him. A difficult w^ay it 
 " w$s, but fhort. However, he bimfelf conducted thofe 
 " that were with him hy thefeajhore- This road is im- 
 " paflable at any other time than when the north wind 
 " blows; but if the fouth wind prevail, there is no pafp-ng 
 " hy the Jhore. Now at this time, after flrong fouth 
 *' winds, a north wind blew, and that not witliout the 
 "> Divine Providence, (as both he and they that were 
 " with him fuppofed,) and afforded him an eafy- and 
 " quick paffage." Thus it feems that the word " repeat- 
 " edly" defignates the fingle inftance adduced by Jofe- 
 phus ; and fo far is he from recurring to natural caufes, 
 that be confiders Alexa,nder as the agent of the Al- 
 mighty, and affifted by Him in this particular difficulty ; 
 and thus endeavours, contrary to Mr. E's fuppofition, to 
 affimilate the cafe of Alexander to that of the Ifraelites, 
 and not that of the Ifraelites to the tranfit of Alexander's 
 army. 
 
 V. The following objeftion I fliall confider in a general 
 view, and not in its application. " ' Why, fir, young as 
 " you are, you muft have learned from the four evange- 
 " lical hiftories themfelves, that to fome of the mir^cu- 
 " lous fafts they relate, the Apoftles alone could be 
 " witnefles ; that the moft public of them could be feen 
 " only by part of the inhabitants of Paleftine, chiefly 
 " in Galilee, or in the neighbourhopd of Jerufalem : and 
 " that of thofe crowds who followed our Saviovur, and 
 " were witnefles to many of his wpnderful afts, whether 
 
 i Letter to Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p. 11. 
 
APPENDIX. 331 
 
 " they confifted of thoufands or of myriads, fo very few 
 " were effeftually convinced by them of the ' divine 
 " power and authority of liis commiffion, that after his 
 " death the whole number of thofe who believed in him 
 " amounted only to one hundred and twenty, and of that 
 " fmall number many were dead before the year fixty- 
 " two, the date which Dr. P. allots for the publication of 
 " the earlieft of thofe hiftories." i. Thofe miracles, which 
 our Lord performed in the prefence of the Apoftles alone, 
 were not performed for their advantage, nor had any 
 other objefl:, than«the miracles of greater publicity^ 
 
 2. The duration of our Saviour's miniftry for three, or 
 three years and a half, allowed a fufficient fpace for the 
 repetition of all his wondrous works, particularly if we 
 confider that his whole employment confided either of 
 teaching, or working miracles. The evidence of the di- 
 vinity of our Lord's miffion would not have been incom- 
 plete, even if his moft public miracles could have been 
 feen only by a part of the inhabitants of Paleftine, chiefly 
 in Galilee, or in the neighbourhood of Jerufalem. But 
 how are we to learn, which were his moji public miracles, 
 when fo fmall a part of them is preferved in defcription ? 
 Or, can we fuppofe that tliere was fuch a gradation of 
 publicity as would affeft the fufficiency or validity of this 
 evidence ? 
 
 3. We are not any where informed, what nixmbers of 
 people believed in our Lord's miffion. To fay that there 
 were only one hundred and twenty that were to be found 
 after his death, is not warranted by the paflage in the 
 Afis, i. 15. where the number of difciples is faid to 
 be " about an hundred and twenty names." Are we to 
 infer, that this was the amount of all the believers 
 throughout all the tra£l of country, where our Lord had 
 been teaching ; or, can we again fuppofe, that all who 
 beUeved every where had immediately after the death of 
 
33a APPENDIX. 
 
 our Saviour repaired to Jerufalem, and joined themfelves 
 to the Apoftles ? Yet thefe aflumptions are all neceffary 
 for Mr. E's argument. 
 
 4. Mr. E. proceeds to ftate, ^ " that the moft impor- 
 " tant of all the miracles of the Gofpel, the refurreftion 
 " of our Lord Jefus from the dead, we are exprefsly told 
 " by an Apoftle himfelf, was not manifefted to the peo- 
 " pie in general, but only to a few ehofen witnefles, 
 " who eat and drank, and converfed with him for many 
 " days after his refurredlion to life." The witnefles were 
 " ehofen" indeed, but not " few." Our Lprd did not 
 appear " to all the people," but " he 'appeared to five 
 " hundred brethren at once," which ought to make fome 
 difference in Mr. E's computation of the numbers of be- 
 lievers after our Lord's death. I am ready to allow, that 
 Mr. E. has received the miracles above referred to, which 
 might be explained away by " reflefting, and wary, and 
 " unprejudiced minds," on the authority of preceding pre- 
 diftions. But was Pharaoh, who might have had a mind 
 of this defcription, acquainted with thefe prediftions ? It 
 does not appear that he was, nor is his criminal obduracy 
 laid in Scripture to- be aggravated by refilling the evi- 
 dence of prophecy as well as of miracles ; indeed his ob- 
 ftinacy would not be accounted as criminal in any degree, 
 unlefs the neceflary knowledge of the previous predic- 
 tion had been communicated to him. I argued in a pre- 
 ceding note on the credibility of the miracles without pro- 
 phecy. 
 
 P. 79. had been acquainted. I had inadvertently adopted 
 the fenfe of this paffage of Tertullian as given by Dr. 
 Prieftley. I believe Mr. E's to be more correft, but it 
 does not amount to " the writer's perfonal knowledge." 
 
 ^ Letter (;o Dr. Prieftley's Young Man, p. 1?, 
 
APPENDIX. 333 
 
 1 fliall ttanfcribe not merely the ftory, but the reafoning 
 likewife of TertuUian. " Dividetur autem Triors, fi et ani- 
 " ma, fuperfluo fcilicet animse quandoque morituro : ita 
 " portio mortis cum animee portione remanehit. Nee igno- 
 " ro aliquod ejfe vefligium opinionis iftius. De meo didici. 
 " Scio feminam quandam vernaculam Ecclefise, forma et 
 " setate Integra fundlam, poft unicum et breve matrinio- 
 " nium, cum in pace dormiffet, et morante adhuc fepul- 
 " tura, interim oratione prefbyteri componeretur, ad pri- 
 " mum halitum orationis manus a lateribus dimotas in 
 " habitum fupplicem conformafle, rurfumque condita 
 " pace, fitui fuo reddidifle. Eft et alia relatio apud nof- 
 " tros," which {hews that the other was a current anec- 
 dote alfo. " In caemeterio corpus corpori jufta collo- 
 " cando fpatium receflu communicafle." This is the 
 whole of Mr. E's extra£t. I fhall reft the queftion of 
 TertuUian 's credulity on the reafoning which he imme- 
 diately fubjoins. " Si et apud ethnicos tale quid tradi- 
 " tur, ubique Deus poteftatis fuae figna proponit, fuis in 
 " folatium, extraneis in teftimonium. Magis enim cre- 
 " dam ex Deo fa£tum, quam ex uUis animae reliquiis : 
 " quse fi ineffent, alia quoque membra moviffent, et fi 
 " manus tantum, Jed non in caufam orationis. Corpus 
 " etiam illud non modo fratri ceffiffet, verum et alias, 
 " mutatione fitus fibimet ipfi refrigeraflet." This laft ex- 
 planation, it ftiould be remembered, is founded on the 
 notion, that all life was not extinguiftied, and therefore 
 not fenfation. He is however diflatisfied with what he 
 had faid. " Certe unde unde funt ifla, fignis potius et por- 
 " tentis deputanda, naturam facere non pojfiint : mors, fi 
 " non femel tota eft, non eft : fi quid vitae remanferit, vita 
 " eft : non magis vitae mifcebitur mors, quam diei nox." 
 De Anima, 51. 
 
 P. 95. Clement of Alexandria. " Poflfemus," fays Le 
 
334 APPENDIX. 
 
 Clerc in his third Diflertation fubjoined to his Harmony, 
 " hie fubjicere exempla Clementis Alexandritn utentis 
 *' llbris apoCryphis, non aliter ac Apoftolicis^ iis tempori- 
 " bus, qiaibus lat not-um erat utrorumque difcrimen, nee 
 " sequalis auAoritas." p. 543, I tliink I have fliewn, that 
 he has not unduly raifed the one, nor depreffed the other. 
 
 P. 125. Could not have leen difiinguyhed. Mr. E. feems 
 to exult in " the conceffions which Le Clerc himfelf was 
 " forced to make concerning the great number of undif- 
 " tinguifliable fiftitious books, falfdy attributed to the 
 " Apoftles and their followers in the very firft age •." 
 I had fome curiofity to examine thefe conceffions. Dod- 
 •well obferves, as cited by Le Clerc, p. 541. that before 
 the time of Trajan the canon of the facred books was not 
 yet determined, nor any certain number of books re- 
 ceived in the Catholic churcli. Le Clerc concedes, " that 
 " no f5'-nod confilling of members either of all or many 
 *' Chriftian churches had, at this period, made any deci- 
 " fion on this fubje(£t." And I have elfewhere fuggefled 
 fome reafons for regarding this filence, as advantageous 
 to Chriltianity. Dodwell alfo argues, that the true apo- 
 ftolic writings were fo bound up together, in the fame 
 volumes, with apocryphal works, that it did not appear 
 -by any mark or public cenfure of the church, which of 
 them were to be preferred. Le Clerc concedes, that 
 fornetimes the writings of Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, 
 and others were conjoined with the books of the Apo- 
 ■ftles ; but it is not yet clear to him, that this was done in 
 the apoftolic age : and of this combination he again thus 
 expreffes himfelf; I am unwilling to fuppofe this of the 
 difciples of the Apoftles, who had received the Gofpel 
 from their mouth and their writings. 
 
 ' Lettser to Dr. Briefiley's Young Man,- p. 42. 
 
A ^ P E N B I X. 335 
 
 Another conceffion of Le ClercS, but Imperfedly made, 
 iliay be produced. If I fliould concede, that Clement 
 (of Rome) had not read all the Gofpels, nothing cOuld be 
 inferred agatnft my opinion, if that epiftle were written 
 fometime before the deftruftion of Jerufaletn, as many 
 fuppofe, or a fhort time after the appearance of the Gof- 
 pfels. For then he could not have feen any GoQjel, ex- 
 cept that of St. Luke, which he commends. The moft 
 important of all the conceflions is that where he fays he 
 could produce inftancCs of citations by Clement of Alex- 
 andria from apocryphal books, of which he mkde the 
 fatne ufe as thofe of the Apoftles ; " utentis libtis apO(ity- 
 " phis, non aliter ac Apoftolicis :" but he does not ^dmit 
 that this was done becaufe the diftinftion was not known, 
 or acknowledged, becaufe he adds, " iis temporibus, qui- 
 " bus fat notum erat utrorumtjue difcrimen, nee aequalis 
 " aufitoritas." The ufe therefore which Le Clerc fays 
 that Clement made of thefe hooks, muft be hiterpreted 
 with a reference to the above cohcltdion of the femtence. 
 Such then are the conceffions of Le Clerc, which might 
 be defcribed in lefs fanguine expreffions by Mr. E. than as 
 ■fiich as he " was forced to make concerning the great 
 " tiumber of undi/iingui/hable fi£titious books, falfely 'at- 
 " tribnted to the ApoMes and their followers in the very 
 « firft age." 
 
 P. 177. St. Matthew's Go/pel. It was my originalin- 
 tention to examine fuch paits of " The DiffonanCe" in 
 iJiefe notes, as could not be reduced under the general 
 topics, which I had felefiled for examination In the Lec- 
 tntes, or would have enlatged eabh difcoiirfe to an incon- 
 venient length for delivery. I therefore take l!his oppor- 
 tunity of introducing feme of thefe fapplfementary Te- 
 marks on the objections of Mr. E- to the Gofpels in ge- 
 
33^ APPENDIX. 
 
 neral. With regard to the demoniac of Gadara, men- 
 tioned by St. Luke, " there appear to occur ftill ftronger 
 " objeftions againft it from the hiftory itfdf : and fuch as 
 " may well warrant a conclufion that the whole paflage 
 " was interpolated in the fecond century. For in the 
 " preceding part of Luke's narrative we find our Lord 
 " was at Capernaum, on the weftern fide of the lake or 
 " fea of Galilee, and in the eighth chapter he takes fliip 
 " with his difciples to go unto the other fide of the lake, 
 " without doubt to preach the Gofpel to thofe parts of 
 " Paleftine which were fituated on the eaftern fide : but, 
 " according to this mod extraordinary ftory of the demo- 
 " niac and the herd of fwine, alnioft as foon as he was 
 " landed on the eaftern fliore, the Gadarenes, terrified and 
 " alarmed by the injurious though miraculous dettruftion 
 " of their fwine, entreated him to leave their coafts ; and 
 " he accordingly went up into the fhip, and returned back 
 " again to Capernaum. In Galilee therefore, on the weft- 
 " em fide of the lake, he ought to be found in the following 
 " part of the hiftory : yet in the very next chapter we 
 " are plainly told, without the flighteft infinuation of his 
 " having crofled the lake again, that he was on the eaft- 
 " em fide of the lake ; for from thence he fent out his 
 " twelve Apoftles, and thither they returned to him 
 " again, becaufe, immediately on their return, he took 
 *' them afide into a defert place belonging to the city 
 " Bethfaida, which, we learn from Jofephus, who, having 
 " had the command of the forces of the Jews in that dif- 
 " trift, muft have been perfefilly acquainted with the 
 " fituation of every town upon the lake, was on the 
 " eaftern fide of the fea of Galilee. If then this very ex- 
 " ceptionable miracle be an interpolation, and not part of 
 " the original writing of St. Luke, the narrative proceeds 
 " confiftently and regularly : but, if it be taken as au- 
 
'APPENDIX. 337 
 
 ** thentic, there is fuch a geographical confufion and dif- 
 *' order in this part of the hiftory, as occurs no \yhere elfe 
 *' in this author's works ">." Cellarius confidcrs this as 
 one of the moft difficult queflions in facred geography ; 
 'and his doubts induced Reland to examine what mode 
 could be adopted of reconciling the Evangelifts with Jo- 
 fephus. Reland apologizes for having recourfe to the 
 fuppofition, that there were two places of the name qi 
 'Bethfaida, on different fides of the lake of Gennefaret^ 
 Ijecaufe it is one of the moft trite folutions of fimilar cafes 
 among geograpjjical writers. Macknight, in the Com- 
 mentary on his Harmony, p. 2,^6, fays, that " this city 
 *' therefore, being in Philip's jurifdiftion, muft have flood 
 " fomewhere to the eaft of Jordan. Jofephus has marked 
 *' its fituation di(tin£tly. Bell. iii. 18. where he tells us, 
 ** that the river Jordan falls into the lake Gennefar behind 
 ■" the city Julias," or Bethfaida, the name by which it 
 Was dignified by Philip the tetrarch. " AH the circum- 
 *' fiances mentioned in the Gofpels, which have any rela- 
 " tion to Bethfaida, quadrate exaftly wirh this fituation 
 " of it." It is rieceflary to obferve, that Galilee on this 
 fide the river Jordan, the lower Gaulonitis, and Per£ea 
 on the other, however various places in thefe trafts might 
 be afligned to various perfons in the fluftuating diftribu- 
 lion of tetrarchies or toparchies under the Roman em- 
 perors, did not undergo any change with refpeft to theif 
 Teveral boundaries, St. John calls Bethfaida, Bethfaid4 
 of Galilee, as if it were to diftinguifli it from another in 
 a different diftrift. The Bethfaida of Jofephus was in 
 Gaulonitis, on the other fide of the river Jordan. Mack- 
 night wifhes to reconcile the two by fuggefting, " tha^ 
 " Bethfaida being fituated hard by the Jordan which 
 *' according to Jofephus divided Galilee from Gaulonitis, 
 
 * ■ .» Diffon. pp.;4r, 48. ■ . 
 
 2 
 
33«" APPENDIX. 
 
 " it might be called a town of either country. Perhaps 
 " it belonged fometimes to the one, and fometiroe? to the 
 " other." Of this there is no evidence. Nor is the fub- 
 fequent reafon to be admitted. " Farther; although wheO 
 " Jofephus wrote Galilee did not extend beyond Jordan, 
 *' the boundary of Herpd's dominions, the Scriptures give 
 " the name of Galilee to the whole region lying north of 
 *'the fea, (Matth. iv. 13 — 15.) and particularly to the 
 " traft which Jofephus names Gaulonitis ; for. Acts y. 37. 
 " Gamaliel calls him Judas of Galilee, whom Jofephus 
 " names Judas Gaulonitis. Nay 1(be latter calls, hiui 
 " fometimes Judas of Galilee.*' All that can be i^fexred 
 from the coincidence of the two writers is, that they had 
 the fame reafon for calling him Judas of Galilee, no,t that 
 the facred writers give the name of Galilee to the traft 
 which Jofephus diftinguiftes by the name Gaulonitis* 
 Hudfpn ingenioufly intimates in a note, page 79.2, that 
 Judas might receive a double appellaition, one from the 
 place of his birth, and the other from the place, of his. 
 education, or refidence. Aldrich, Hift. Jofeph, p. xo6o. 
 is perfuaded, that the firft paflage is corrupt in which 
 Judas is defcribed as a Gaulonite from the city Gamals, 
 and remarks, that there was a Gamala in Galilee as well 
 as in Gaulonitis ; but this qorreftion is furely unneceffary. 
 There is no necefiity for difturbing the geography of Jo^ 
 fephus to fuch an extent, when a man, who changes his 
 abode, may naturally derive a. local defignation from the 
 place where he either pafled the greatefl. part of his life, 
 or where he nioft diftinguiftied himfelf by certain anions, 
 without any reference to the length 6f the period during 
 which he remaitied there. Since however Maoknight 
 has affirmed, that the collocation of Bethfaida upon the 
 eaftern fide of the lake of Galilee quadrates exaftly " with 
 " all the circumftances mentioned in the Gofpels which 
 " have any relation to it," it is proper to examine the 
 
APPENDIX. 339 
 
 paffages fcom which its true fituation can be collefted.- 
 Our Saviour pafTed twice from the eaftem fide of the lake 
 to Bethfkida, direftly. It is worthy of attention to ob- 
 ferve by what track, upon another occafi&n, he arrived on 
 that fide of the lake. ». He firft departed into the coaftft 
 of Tyre and Sidon, and then directed his courfe to the 
 lea of Galilee ; but St. Mark informs us, that it was 
 " through the midft of the coafts of Decapolis." He 
 theii.took fhip and came into the " coafts of Magdala," 
 or, according to St. Mark, " into the parts of Dalma- 
 •' nuitha," on the weftern border of the fea of Galilee. 
 He then returned with his difciples to the eaftern fide, 
 and repeated the miracle of the provifion of food for the 
 multitude. St. Mark is the only Evangelift that notices 
 his fubfequent removal to Bethfaida : " And he cometh 
 " to Bethfaida." I fliall purfue the line of our Saviour's 
 journeying from this point, although it is a digreffion 
 from the argument. We next find our Saviour, in the 
 accounts both of St. Matthew and St. Mark, in the 
 coafts of Csefarea Philippi, which will accord very well 
 with the return to Bethfaida. At this time it was that 
 he "abode" with his difciples « in Galilee j" that "they 
 " pafifed through Galilee," or traverfed a large trad of 
 that country, and " would not that any man fliould 
 *' know it," as St. Mark adds j and St. John (ch. vii. i.) 
 relates, that " after thefe things Jefus walked in Galilee 
 " for he would not walk in Jewry, becaufe the Jews; 
 « fought to kill him." It is on his return to the fouth 
 from the upper parts of Galilee that we find him again at 
 Capernaum, which place he left, and "departed from 
 « Galilee, and came into the coafts of Judea beyond Jor- 
 ** dan," the Peraea. After fome flay in this diflrift, he 
 afterwards, as his time approached, journeyed towards 
 
 ' See the map of Paleftine in D'AnviUe. 
 Z » 
 
340 APPENDIXi, 
 
 Jerufalem. The brief expreffions of St. Mark, " and li« 
 " Cometh to Bethfaida," may be beft explained by a pre-' 
 vious account of our Saviour's croffing the lake to ther 
 fame -place. ■ St. Matthew (ch. xiv/ aa.) has not given 
 all the particulars ) and it may be ufefiil to compare the" 
 lefs full with the more enlarged detail. " And ftraight-- 
 " way Jefus conftrained his difciples to get into a fhip,- 
 " and to go before him unto the other fide, while he" 
 " fent the multitudes away. And when they were genes 
 " over, they came into the land of Gennefaret." St.- 
 Mark inferts fome material information, " to go to tha 
 " other fide before unto Bethfaida/' " And when theyi 
 " had pafled over, they came into the land of Gennefaret,; 
 " and drew to fliore." This feftim6ny places Bethfaida; 
 not only in Galilee, but in the land of Gennefaret, the 
 ager Gennefaretkus. Macknight therefore feems to be' 
 incorreft in his ch orography, when he refers every tranf-i 
 aftion connefled with Bethfaida to the eaftern fide of the 
 lake ; and the Evangelifts had as much reafon to fpeafe 
 of Bethfaida of Galilee, as Jofephus had to notice that in 
 
 Gaulonitis. 
 
 s 
 
 p. .147. copyifis, Mr. E< pi'oceeds to obferve°, that" 
 " if the plain exprefs dictates of the Lord Jefus himfelS 
 *f could not efcape free from material alterations and ad-' 
 " ditions, by the pens of copyifts of thefe books iii the 
 '^' third, fourth, or fifth centuries, what other parts of 
 " them can we fuppofe fecure from their daring interpo-' 
 " Jations, whenever they hoped to ferve by them th«; 
 ♦f caufe of their particular j-eligious fyftem ?" The prayer' 
 diftated by our, Lord to his difciples, as preferved by' 
 St. Luke, is faid to be ". interpolated out of the Gofpel" 
 'f; called; Matthew's ;" and the authority of Griefbach isi 
 
 ° DiiTonance,!). $3. 
 
adduced for this affertion. I think the word interpolation 
 is a very harlh one ; and it is ufed by Grielbach, as well 
 ^s by Mr. E. They are not additions flowing from the 
 imagination of the copyifl:, and fhould therefore be dif^ 
 tinguiflied from the produce of human invention, directed 
 to a certain objeft and purpofe. I do not underftand 
 how " the caufe of their particular religious fyftem" 
 could be ferved by transferripg to St. Luke 'the words 
 •which ^< affign a local habitation to God in h^ven," of 
 thofe which contain the petition for deliverance from the 
 ■evil one. It is'not remarked by Mr. E. that " the learned 
 " and diligent" Griefbach did not difcover any reafon fdr 
 Tejefting thefe fame claufes from the prayer, as recorded 
 •by St. Mattheiw. Mr. E. reje6ts> on the ground of " the 
 " evangelical hiftory of St. Luke being made more con- 
 *' formable to that attributed to Matthew by the fame 
 ■" copyifts," the baptifm of Jefus, " his forty days faft- 
 ^' ing, his temptation, arid the transfiguration." I hope I 
 may be excufed, it^ having obferved that the arbitrary 
 - affighment of motives to thefe unknown copyifts is not 
 fupported by any proof, I merely ftiew how Mr. E. would 
 have proceeded, had he belonged to this aflbciation of 
 ancient tranfcribers. " It well deferves our notice," fays 
 Mr. E. (Diflbnance, p. 55.) " that if we pafs from the 
 ^^ account of John's imprifonment by Herod, Luke iii. 
 •*' ao. to iv. 14. and read, '■ Then came Jefus,' iniftead of 
 f And Jefus returned,' the hiftories both of John and Je- 
 :" fus proceed regularly, and' in order."- This admirer of 
 Xjrriefbach will not find any- various reading in this paf- 
 fage. The word imefpt^^ev is written '< with an iron pen 
 "and lead, in the rock, for ever."^ Mr. E. has explained 
 his own fyftem, and we f?e how he can audacioufly dif- 
 (figure by mutilation, in the face of that lame criticifni., 
 whofe affiftance he can fo complacently nfe, when in his 
 jown favQur, the latter periods of the hiftory of the ohofeij 
 
 Z3 
 
542 APPENDIX. 
 
 people of Godj and of the divine Audjor and F&iflier rf 
 a new difpenfation, under the inipogng objeftion of want 
 of probability, or confiftent conneaion; but in reality, 
 becaufe it is irreducible, when entire, to his views of or- 
 thodox Socinianifm. It is not however intended to fub- 
 ftitute this remark in the place of an examination of the 
 reafons for rejefting the hiftory of the baptifm of our 
 Saviour. " With what propriety," it is afked, p. 56^- 
 " could he, who knew no fin, recrive fuch a baptifm ? 
 *' or, the deftined Meffiah attend the preaching of his 
 " own precurfor, to be prepared by him for the coming 
 «of himfelf?" The Baptift himfelf, well knowing that 
 his own was a baptifm unto repentance, hefitated in com- 
 plying with the intention of oiir Lord, who came in or- 
 der to be baptized by him ; " I have need to be bap- 
 *' tized of thee, and comeft thou to me ?" Our Lord did 
 not explain himfelf further than by replying, " Suffef 
 " it to be fo now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all 
 " righteoufriefs." This is all the fatisfa6lioji which Mr. 
 E's queflion can receive. In what Gofpel did Mr. E. 
 learn that our Lord " attended the preaching of bis own 
 " precurfor ?" It is fufficient to expofe this interpolation 
 of the fcofFer himfelf, nor is it neceflary to repel other- 
 wife the deiftical mockery with which the obje£l of that 
 attendance is exprefled. " And what probability," con- 
 tinues he, " is there, that our Lord would have ftudi- 
 " oufly avoided calling himfelf ' the Son of God' during 
 " his whole miniftry, and forbidden his difciples before 
 " his death to announce him as fuch to the Jews, if God 
 " had miraculoufly declared him to be fo by a voice from 
 " heaven, in the audieftce of fo great a multitude ?" I 
 was prepared to fpeak harflily of the aflertion, that our 
 Lord was baptized in the prefence of a great multitude, 
 and that a great multitude heard the voice from heaven ; 
 tut I refl;rained my diflent within other limits, when I 
 
Append 13^: 543 
 
 otferved tlrat the able author of « Illuftrations of the 
 " GoJ^eh," Mr. Jones, has fpoken twice of the pre* 
 fence of a multitude upon this pccafion, p. 38. and 359, 
 The language of the Evangelift does not feem to au- 
 thorize fuch an interpretation. St. Luke fays, iii. 31. 
 *' Now when all the people were baptized, it came to 
 " pafs, that Jefus alfo, being baptized, and praying, &d." 
 The original is, h tm (Sawlio-Siivfti inaana, tov \aov : but 
 thefe expreflions do not imply that this multitude was 
 prdent when our Saviour prayed. My objeftions to the 
 above fuppofitiorf are thefe : i. It weakens the teftimony 
 of the Baptift, " Arid I faw and bare record that this 
 " is the Son of God." a. St. John alone was prepared 
 by prophecy to recognize our Lord ; " He that fent 
 ** me to baptize with water, the fame faid unto me, 
 ** Upon whom thou flialt fee the Spirit defcending and 
 " remaining on him, the Ikme is he which baptizeth 
 "with the Holy Ghoft." 3. Would our Saviour have 
 prayed, contrary to his fnbfequent praftice and injunc- 
 tions, not in fecret, but before a great multitude ? 
 4, But even fuppofing that a multitude were prefent, 
 fhey were probably ignorant of the charafter of the per- 
 fon who was baptized. " I baptize with water," faid 
 the Baptift to the enquiring Pharifees; " but there ftand- 
 " eth one among you, whom ye know not ;" and he re- 
 peats it of himfelf, fo as to attract attention, " and I knew 
 ** hun not/' And with a reference to this circumftance 
 I imagine thefe words are to be explained : " but that he 
 " fhould bb made manifeft unto Ifrael, therefore am I 
 " come baptizing with water." The manifeftation to If- 
 rael did not confift in receiving the rite of baptifm pub- 
 licly, but in the record of John refpeSing the nature of 
 the perfon who was baptized, which had been pre- 
 vioufly declared to him by the Spirit, and had been con- 
 
 Z4 
 
344 A P P E N D IX. 
 
 jfirmed by the voice from heaven. - Mr. E. continucs> 
 that our Lord forbade his difciples, before his death, 
 to announce him as the Son of jGod to the Jews. St. 
 Luke has given this as a reafon of the injunftion of 
 filence at this time, which our opponent would extend 
 %o every fubfequent period. " He ftraitly charged and 
 'i' commanded them to tell no man that thing, fayingy 
 " The Son of man muft fuffer many things, &c." 
 He knew what effeft fuch a communication would have^ 
 as the period of his death approached, and, at the: 
 time of this converfation with his difciples, he was on 
 his way to the north of Galilee, in or.der that he might, 
 avoid thofe who fought to kill him, before all things, 
 were accompliflied. He did not enjoin filence on this 
 fubjeft as relative to particulars that were not true,, 
 or indiiFerent, but the declaration of which, at this junc- 
 ture would have accelerated an event, which had its ap- 
 propriate feafon. There is an exception to the remaining' 
 aflertion, that our Lord " ftudioufly avoided calling him- 
 ',' felf the Son of God during his whole miniftry" in the? 
 miraculous reftoration of fight to the man who was born 
 blind. " DoILthou believe on the Son of God ?" was our 
 Saviour's queftion. " Who is he, Lord, that I might be- 
 " lieve on him ? Thou hafl: both feen him, and it is he> 
 " that talketh with thee," was the unambiguous Ian-' 
 guage in which he aflerted the union of both natures. 
 The " account of the transfiguration is fo- diredlly con- 
 " tradiftory to the repeated doftrine of the Gofpel, that 
 " Jefus was the firft man whom God raifed from the. 
 "dead, that it cannot he a true autlientic .Jlory. For,' 
 " whatever may be thought of Elias, Modes, we are ex- 
 " prefsly aflured, died and was buried : if therefore he, 
 " was alive in the reign of Tiberius, and vifited our Sarr 
 " viour on the mount, Mofes, and not Jefus, muft hav©^ 
 
APPENDIX. 345 
 
 •' been the firft ■fr;mts from the. dead K" This Is not any 
 inftance of a refmreftion from the dead, Mofes indeed 
 died, and was buried: but is there any reafon tc» coui 
 elude from this vifion, as it is called, that this appearanee 
 at the transfiguration was either in the place of a re-j 
 furrefliion, or the confequence of it ? Mr. E. next objeft? 
 to the whole of the two firft chapters of St. Luke!? 
 Gofpel. One improbability iii his opinion is, that " an-, 
 " gels, like men, fhould be diftinguiftied from each other 
 " by proper names." To this it certainly is not eafy tq 
 give a direft anfww, except indeed that no one perfoij 
 is furniflied with any peculiar information refpefting the 
 nature of this order of beings. It is however not re^ 
 pugnant to our conceptions to fupppfe, that as the an- 
 gels are not perfe£l, their allotted places .and funftions, 
 as minifters of the Almighty, may neceflarily be denoted 
 relatively to their own capacities by certain names ; a| 
 leaft thefe names may have a relation to ^e perfons to 
 whom they have been occafionally directed, to commu- 
 nicate the will of God. I muft alfo obferve, that aU 
 though the angel predift a miracle, which was accom? 
 pliflied, yet this conformity to the criterion of credibly 
 jniracles has not reftrained Mr. E. from rejefting the 
 account as a forgery. I willingly tranfcribe the reafouT 
 ing on this miracle from a very able letter to Mr. Stone, 
 by the Rev. E. Nares, p. 26. " But, Sir, if. you dqubt 
 *' the veracity of Mary and Jofeph, from the extreme 
 " privacy of the tranfa£lions, why doubt the vifion of 
 'J Zacharias, fo immediately connefted with thein in all 
 f' its circuraftances ? This, if it happened in private, was, 
 " yet attended with circuraftances of confiderable pvib^ 
 " licity. For though, indeed, it was in tlie inner part 
 " of the fynagogue that the angel appeared to Zacha- 
 
 i » Diffonance, p, 57.. ... 
 
545 APPfeNOIX. 
 
 ** rias, yet * the whole intiitittiide of the febplfe' ■Wrai 
 ** praying juft whhoiit; and, after an iitipatifent expefta- 
 " tion of hrs appearance, the itiftant hfe came forth, it 
 « Was the pieopie ifl •\>i^aiti«g who difcovered, by his 
 « lobks and ttiatlMer, that he had feen a vifion. What 
 *' fay you. Sir, to this annunciation ? Kemeffiher the 
 *' two vifionS (Dt miracles, if yOu pleafe, for the truth 
 " of the latter depends ott the former) are clofely fcon- 
 ** ttfe(£bedj and cannot indeed be feparated : and mark 
 ** the 'chafaAer of Zach'arias ; he was not oYily a good 
 ** ftiafl, and righteotis before God, but he was by n* 
 '* toeahS a credulous man ; the reverfe indeed to $. fault, 
 *« V. io." It may be added, that he Was to remain ju- 
 dicially dumb " until the day that thefe things" werfe 
 " performed;" fo that the coTitlhuance of the mir&cle ve* 
 rified the antebedeney and reality of the prediftion to 
 Others, v^ho were not fpedators of the effeft, as foOn as 
 it was produced. T>t. Prieftley, in his Letter to a 
 Young Man, p. 47. lays, that Mr. E. has « fuggefted 
 '* fever^l new and valuable argumehts againll the mira- 
 *' CtiloUs conception, for which I and others think our- 
 ** feives gtfeatly obliged to him." Softie of thefe we arft 
 next to examine. Mr. E. obje^s to the defignaiion ot 
 Elizabeth as " not only of the tribe of Levi, but of the 
 " datlghters of Aaron," becaufe " it is in the higheji de- 
 ** gree hnprohalle" that the Levites, and " more efpe- 
 " cially the family of Aaron, who were feparated from 
 " all the othfer tribes and families, and peculiarly fanfiti- 
 ** fied and appropriated to the rites and offices of their 
 " religion," fliould " intermarry with any other tribe." 
 The faft, even without much conlideration, appears to 
 be this; that a female defcendant of a Levite married 
 into aiiother Levke family, for Elizabeth certainly did 
 npt marry into another tribe^ becaufe Zacharias, as a 
 
APPENDIX. S4> 
 
 prieft, mull have been pf that of Levi. But " the family 
 *' of Aaron" was " feparated from all other tribes and 
 *' families." Zacharias is exprefsly faid to be of " the 
 *' courfe of Abia ;" and how did it happen that he wak 
 of this courfe, unlefs he alfo had been a fon of Aaron ? 
 The fons of Aaron were divided into the four and 
 twenty courfe*. " Thefe were tlie orderings of them in 
 " their fervioe to come into the houfe of the Lord, ac*- 
 « cording to their manner, under Aaron their father, as 
 " the Lord God of Ifrael had commanded him, i Chrort. 
 *'xxiv. jg." It will*be faid, that no mention is mad6 
 of the return of the family of Abia from captivity* 
 That may be ; but ftill there was lefs danger 6( confufioA 
 among the facerdotal families, than among any others. 
 Since however St. Luke fpeciHes the courfe of Abia, th6 
 courfes of the fervices of the priefts muft have been re^ 
 flored after the captivity; and if ZachariaS had his place 
 in that of Abia, we may prefume that there was a* 
 valid a reafon for fuppofing that h6 was one of the de- 
 fcendants of Aaron, to whom thefe courfes were pecu- 
 liarly affigned, as there was for aflerting that Elizabeth'* 
 defcent was from the head of the fame family. If I 
 may not be permitted to fuppofe this part of the chapter 
 to be genuine, its want of authority does not afife at 
 leaft from the inconfiftency imputed by Mr. E. There 
 is another improbability of Mr. E's, which I fhall leave 
 with nearly an unreferved acknowledgment of my ig- 
 norance. " Neither is it at all probable," fays he, " that 
 " the providence of the Almighty fhould deftine the 
 " Jewifli prophecies refpefting the Mefliah And his prti* 
 " curfor to be accomplished in two perfons, related 
 ** by confanguinity to each other." As brevity is my 
 objefl:, I wifli merely to obferve, that there is one 
 decifive circumftance to which we may appeal, that 
 was fubveriiv^ of any benefits to be expected froia 
 
54« APPENDIX 
 
 <ach a petty aflbclatibn of confederate relatives. The 
 ^niniftry of the Baptift terminated before any utility 
 jcould refult from fuch an union of interefts, and before 
 any private or fecular objefts of the individuals them-^ 
 felves, if it were poffible for fuoh to have exifted, could 
 ^ae promoted. We have next an inftance of the facility 
 jwith which Mr. E. rejefts his own canons of fuffioient 
 jOr infufficient evidence of the credibility of miracles, in 
 impugning tte account of St. John, in which he xe-' 
 cords the teftimony of the Baptift refpefting our Sa-» 
 ^iou?. Mr. E. avers, and argues at fome length, that the 
 JBaptift kne)y our Saviour by traditions and anecdotes 
 preferved in his o\yn family, while the Scriptures declare' 
 that he was prophetically inftruSed how to diftinguiflj 
 l\im from other perfons, who reforted to his baptifm, 
 I , pafs on to another incqnfiftency alledged ; by Mr. E. 
 Jjetwcen the caufe afligned in the account of the annun- 
 ciation of the birth of our Saviour, why he fhould " be 
 5' called the Son of God," and that which the Apoftles 
 adduce, who, he fays, do not refer to any ciircumftances 
 of his carnal birth, but to his being raifed from the dead 
 5f to a nevv and fpiritual life, by the immediate power 
 ." of the Almighty;" and he adds, that ". St. Luke, as if 
 " he meant direftly to contradi£t the heavenly annun- 
 £' ciator, except in the acclamations offomie lunatics, never 
 5' once mentions him by any other appellation than the, 
 I' Son of Man, or Son of David, till after his refurreftion.- 
 ^' Then indeed he /peaks of him as leing comtnonly and 
 f puhliclt/ called the Son of God." I only remark, that 
 the queftion is here artfully examined, as if it related" 
 pnly to the date of the acquifition of a name, and not' 
 to _ that of the affumption of a certain nature. It is" 
 fomeyvhat remarkable, that thefe lunatics fliould, acci-i 
 dentally have anticipated the application of a title ta 
 pur Saviour, wWcli, a(?CQrding to this theQry, originated 
 
AlPPENblX; ^49'- 
 
 ili the fublecjuent event of the refurreftlori. Did there' 
 IhnatiCs forefee this event, and the introduftion of a new 
 defignation of our Saviour ? The teftimony of thefe luna- 
 tics, as they are called j id tocf fingukf a fiftion for ordl-^ ' 
 nary fabricatorsi The more frequent ufe of this namei 
 by the Apoftles after the ref-irredtion is to be afcribed to- 
 another caufe* The teftimony to' our Lord's nature was 
 then perfefted, and the exclamations both of the' de-" 
 moniacsj and of St. Peter, Were anticipations of the con- 
 clufion, which would indeed natvitally follow, ft^om' the" 
 view of the whole of our Saviour's life, but which' 
 was premature at tlie periods of his miniftry, when' 
 thefe declarations were made, and before all the Scrip-' 
 tures concerning him could be fiilfilledi The inten-' 
 tion of the paffages which fUcceed, relative to " out'' 
 " Lord's examination before the Jewifli council," has' 
 been fo ably examined in a work, entitled, " An lUuftra-' 
 " tion of the Method of explaining the New TtiftamenC' 
 ♦f by the early opinions of Jews and Chriftiahs concern-' 
 « ing Chrift, by W. Wilfon, B. D. Fellow of St. John's' 
 « ©ollege, Cambridge, 1797," that I could only repeat" 
 what I find there, and this repetition is contrary to my' 
 defign. Dr. Horfley's book in reply to Dr. Prieftley-' 
 has been termed a model of controverfy. I think that' 
 it has only a third place ; the two former may be juftly' 
 afligned to Dr. Burgh and Mr. Wilfon. Faffing for-' 
 wards to another objeftion of Mr. E's, which^ from its 
 brevity and portable form, rather than from its import- 
 ance, merits notice, we fee it ferioufly advanced, though' 
 not profelTedly infifted upon, that there is an incon-' 
 liftency in the ftories the two firft chapters of St. Luke' 
 contain " of the Prophet Simeon and the Prophetefs' 
 '* Anna, with the well known hiftoric truth, thsit th'ei-e' 
 *' never was a prophet amongft the Jews- frOm thb tiniei 
 *('of tl^eir, return frons their captivity to the preaehifag 
 
35t> APPENDIX. 
 
 " of John the Baptift." There was no prophet, whofe 
 prediaions were faid to be committed to writing, rOf 
 perhaps whofe office it was to utter predi£tions, if any 
 fucU there were, which were not recorded j but the 
 nanae of prophet muft have belonged to many in tlie 
 Jewifli polity, to whom the events of futurity -were never 
 revealed. Still however, when the Almighty vouchfafed 
 to make known his purpofes, they were ufually, as occa- 
 fion required, communicated to his people through per- 
 fons of this clafs. To thefe remarks may be fubjoined 
 ^n extra^ from Dr. Horfley's firft fermon on the fubjefl: 
 of prophecy. « Under this name," he obferves, " is not 
 " to be included every thing that might be uttered by a 
 *' prophet, even under the divine impulfe j but the word 
 " is to be taken ftridly for that which was the higheft 
 " part of the prophetic office, the predifition of the 
 " events of diftant ages. The prophets Ipake under the 
 " influence of the Spirit upon various occafions, when 
 " they had no fuch predicSions to deliver. They were, 
 ". in the J.ewifh church, the ordinary preachej-s of right- 
 *' eoufnefs ; and their leffons of morality and reUgiam, 
 *f though often conveyed in the figured ftrains of poetry, 
 '* were abundantly perfpicuous. They were occafionally 
 *' fent to advife public meafures in certain critical fitua- 
 ** tions of the Jewifli ftate. Sometimes they gave warn^ 
 " ing of impending judgments, or notice of approachiijg 
 " mercies, and fometimes they were employed to re- 
 *' buke the vices, and to declare the defliny, of indivi- 
 " duals. What they had to utter upon thefe occafiops 
 *f had fonjetime?, perhaps, no immediate connexion wijth 
 " prophecy, properly fo called ; and the mind of the 
 " prophet feems to have been very differently affefited 
 •< with thefe fubjefts, and with the vifions of futurity." 
 P. 18, 19. vol. ii. : 
 
 Jtis a curious, although not an agreeable, employoment. 
 
APPENDIX. $$1 
 
 to follow Mr. E. in his application of certaitt propheoiea 
 in St. Luke refpefting the church. He remarks, that yj^ 
 the fifth chapter, verfe 35. the humiliated, fuffering,. and. 
 afflifted ftate of the Chriftian church is delineated by 
 the fafting of our Saviour's difciples after the bride- 
 groom was taken away; but that the orthodox cimrcb. 
 eftabliflied by Conftantine " hath experienced none o£ 
 " thefe prophetic marks of the true difciples of ChrJft* 
 •* that {he hath wantoned in the enjoyment of temjporal 
 " honours, opulence, and power ;" and " that flie hath, 
 *' been the chief means of accomplifliing thefe propUe- 
 " cies upon the cSnfcientious difciples of Jefits and his 
 " Apoftles by the confifcation of their property, the im- 
 *' prifonment and punifliment of their bodies., the dopri- 
 *' vation, in numberlefs cafes^ of their lives, and, in all,, 
 ** of their natural rights as men, and denizens of thw 
 *' native countries ;" and that " the predifted period of 
 ♦' her prefumptuous triumph, and of their own ftate of 
 " degradation and oppreflion, haftens faft to its ponolu-?, 
 *' fion." My reader will be fatisfied with one additional 
 lpecime.n of the interpretation of prophecy. The pro- 
 grefs of the Gofpel is compared in the thirteenth chapter 
 *f Luke to a fmall feed gradually becoming a large tree,, 
 and to a fmall portion of leaven pervading the kneaded 
 mafs. Hence Mr. E. reafons, that as the tree cannot 
 deoreafe in magnitude, nor the mafs become unleayenedj, 
 fo the Gofpel, when once eftabliflied, cannot be fup- 
 planted. " On the credit of thefe prophetic firoilitudes,'' 
 he fays, " we may pronounce, with certainty,, that tb.«? 
 " religion, which fpread fo rapidly in the third ajfidl 
 " fourth centuries, was not the religion of the Gofpel, 
 " of .Chrift, becaufe it was fuperfeded by the Mahom- 
 " medan fuperftition." We are alfo informed, that there, 
 is fufficient " reafon for God's fo confpicuoufly declaring 
 <* his preferen9e of the MfthoniHisjdiin to the orthodox 
 
appendix; 
 
 " fuperftition." The caufes of this preference are* fiatea, 
 to be, the prevention of idolatry by inculcating the 
 unity of the Deity, and the improvement of morality 
 by prohibiting in the Korin the ufe of ftrong drink;' 
 " whereas in Chriftendom the conftant copious ufe, and 
 " very frequent, intemperate, and exceffive abiife of 
 " fermefited liquors," nowf mark the new cbnclufion," 
 " has effefts fatally perhicious to the bodily health 
 " and morkls of its inhabitants." This effeft is as 
 ftrongly admomtoiry of the impropriety of this indul- 
 gence, as any precept in the Koran. But what is the 
 reafon, why the fuperflitious drunken believer of the 
 church of Conftantine drinks On vvithout any attention 
 to thefe effefts on his health and morals ? It is, gentle 
 leader, becaufe he believes in the dbSrine of the Atone- 
 ment ; ftnd obferve, whether we do not corr^ftly draw our 
 conclufion frOm this extraft. " It is true, the orthodox 
 " churdh preaches the pure ethics of the Gofpel, and 
 " the virtue hf temper ante amongji the reji : but Jhe has, 
 " at thefavie time, ingenioufly and impioufly contrived to 
 " render her own, and. What is flill wo'rfe, all the prealch-" 
 " ing of the Gofpfel of hone effect, by her doftrine of the'' 
 " death of Jefus, confidered as a propitiatory facrifice of 
 " infinite efficacy, and an univerfSil atonement for fin ^." 
 I do riot think it neceflTary to examine all the reafon- 
 ing on prophecy, but fhall content myfelf with making 
 a few remarks on Mr. E.'s objeftion to the fign of the 
 Prophet Jonas, and to the firft two chapters of the book 
 infcribed with his name. " Whofoever," he fays, " com-' 
 *' pares the geographical fituation of NineVeh with re- 
 '* fpeft to the Mediterranean fea, vi^ill be convinced, that 
 '^ nothing tranfafted upon that fea could fall u^jder the 
 « notice of the inhabitants of Nineveh, nor, confequently, 
 
 i- - ■ » Diffonance, p. 109. '• '■ ' : 
 
APPENDIX. S5S 
 
 " be any fign to them at all." That the Inhabitants of 
 Nineveh could not fee from their city to the Mediterra- 
 rean, does not require abundance of geographical proof. 
 The miracle was of a perfonal nature, and intended as a 
 judicial punifhment of the Prophet's difobedience. He 
 -was commanded to repair to Nineveh, and he defigned 
 to avoid the miffion by embarking at Joppa in a veffel 
 bound to Tarlhifli. In their courfe to this place, but at 
 what diftance from Joppa the hiftory does not inform us, 
 the tempeft arofe, which was appeafed by the fuppofed 
 death of the Prophet. If by any accident the NineviteS 
 could have quefftoned the idolatrous mariners refpefting 
 the ftory of Jonas, they could only have related, " that 
 " they took on board at Joppa a ftranger j that a ftorm 
 *' arofe, which, after their cuftOm, they proceeded to ap- 
 " peafe by a trial of lots, which among their number 
 " fhould be caft into the water ; that the lot fell upon 
 *' this ftranger, who, as he .told them, was a Hebrew ; 
 " that he acknowledged how juftly it was thus deter- 
 " mined that he ftiould die, but that they afterwards con- 
 " tinued to attempt to reach the land by rowing, but to 
 " no purpofe ; that they at length caft the Hebrew into 
 " the fea, and faw him no more." Can we imagine that 
 the Ninevites were lefs curious than the mariners, who 
 enquired of Jonas, " What is thine occupation, and 
 " whence comeft thou ? What is thy country, and of 
 " what people art thou ?" Would Jonas have waited for 
 ■fuch an enquiry? Would he, have been received with- 
 out any other credentials of his authoritative warning 
 than the mere fubjefb of his preaching ? Would he for- 
 bear to tell them the confequence to himfelf of his firft 
 refufal to come to their city ? The hiftory is moft beauti- 
 fully related, and has every charafler of credibility which 
 nature can give to itj and her teftimony in this, as in 
 
 A a 
 
354 APPENDIX. 
 
 many other inftances, affords a fufEcient preponderance 
 againft all the reafon contained in the argument of the 
 Deifi. 
 
 P. 171. note. « the ftudy of geometry." I requeft the 
 reader to eftimate the candour of the Author of the Free 
 Enquiry into the authenticity of the firft and Tecond 
 Chapter of St. Matthew's Gofpel, when he affirms, "what 
 " is worthy of remark, they will find, that it was not 
 " unufual in thofe days, i. e. iii the fecond century, to 
 " call any man a heretic, who excelled in, or Jiudied philor 
 "Jhphy, logic, geometry." P. 33. firft edit. 
 
 P. 177. « Two firft chapters of St. Matthew's Gofpel." 
 Michaelis remarks : " But were the objeftlon unanfwer- 
 " able, it would affefl:, not the New Teftament in general. 
 '' but merely the tivo firft chapters of St. Matthew, which 
 " may be feparated ffom the reft of the Gofpel ; becaufe 
 " it is Jtill a queftjon, whether they belong to it or not." 
 P. 50. vol. i. The reafons why fuch a faft fliould yet 
 remain queftionable may be, either that our information 
 refpefting it is very fcanty, or that the whole of it has 
 not hitherto been colle£led, or that it is fo obfcure that 
 it will not admit an. uniformity of conclufion. The fafls 
 are few and fimple, and relate, as we may divide them_, 
 to the genealogy, or either to the two firft chapters of St, 
 Matthew. We have the teftimony of Epiphanius, that 
 the Hebrew Gofpel of St. Matthew contained the ge- 
 nealogy, and it is at prefent found in all the Greek MSS. 
 with the exception of one, which is iroperfeftf We have 
 the teftimony of Epiphanius likewife, that the Hebrew 
 ftemmata according to Matthew were either the genea- 
 logy detached, or a name for the whole Gofpel, but more 
 
APPENJDI-X^ 355 
 
 probably the former. To trace the formation of argu- 
 ments is foBietimes to refute them ; and I fliall try this 
 experiment i^on fome of thofe in the Free Enquiry, as 
 I am' not acquainted with any reply to that book. " It 
 ''was neceflary," fays the Author, " to give fome ac- 
 " count of the particular' fentiments held by thefe an- 
 ^' cient fe6ts of Chriftians, becaufe they received a copy 
 I' of St. Matthew's Gofpel which had not the genea- 
 f^ logy, or indeed, by all that appears, either the firft 
 " or fecond chapters." p. '33. The Cerinthians- re- 
 ceived that part of the Gofpel of St. Matthew which 
 contained the gfenealogy, and they received it for that 
 very reafon, as Lardner has proved by comparing the 
 words of Epiphanius in this p'aflage with vvhat he relates 
 of Carpocrates. The portion which they rejefted is not: 
 fpecified. The Ebionites ." ufed a gofpel," it is alledged, 
 " which began with thefe words : ' It came to pafs in the 
 *' days of Herod, King of Judaea, &c.' From hence it 
 " appears, that the Gofpel of St. Matthew, which they 
 " received, began at what now is "called the third chap- 
 ^« ter." p. 37. Free Enquiry. « EpiphaniUs," fays Lard- 
 ner, ?' inforixis us that the gofpel of the Ebionites begins 
 "thus : ' It came to pafs, &c.' And he there fays ex- 
 "prefsly, that their gofpel called according to Matthew 
 f is ' defe6Hve and corrupted." It is true indeed that 
 Epiphanius does fay this : 'Opa is^—mm; ■mamx. x"^^) ^<if«i 
 ■i^ shfilav ogdoTrjra b^ovto., but he fays mofe. Carpocra- 
 tes and Cerinthus, he fays, ufed the fame gofpel as the 
 Ebionites, and " wifli to (hew from the leginnvhg of the 
 " Gojpel according to St. Matthew, ly means of the ge- 
 " nealogy, that Chrift fprung from the feed of Jofeph 
 "and Mary. But thefe perfons (the Ebionites) h^ye 
 'Mother opinions; fori having cut away the defeents ia 
 "Matthew, they begin as I have before' mentioned;" 
 K/i^ovTOH- T^v Apx^v ■wo(ei(&«i is the language of the origi- 
 
 ji a 2 
 
356 APPENDIX, 
 
 nal. This teftimony refpefiling the practices Of the Ebi-; 
 onites will not juftify any writer in merely declaring 
 that their Gofpel began in fuch a manner, becaufe the 
 qneftion is, in what flate the feft received it from- others, 
 not what particulars they themfelves erafed or inferted. 
 It is ufeful indeed to know the date of thefe alterations, 
 hut we might on the fame principle take the Gofpel of 
 the Evanfonians, confifting of one mutilated book, as 
 authority for an ancient Gofpel exifting in the 19th cen- 
 tury. The author of the Free Enquiry aflerts, that " we 
 " have undoubted evidence that they (the defcents) were 
 *' wanting in fome very ancient copies of St. Matthew, 
 " which were reckoned of confiderable authority, Mr. 
 *' Toland in his Nazarenus mentions an Irifli copy of this 
 " Gofpel that he had feen, which had not the genealogy, 
 " for it began at verfe 18." Upon referring to Toland's 
 Nazarenus, which I had not an opportunity of exsmihing 
 till I wrote this note, I obferve, that his language and 
 his conclufion are in conformity with thofe of the author 
 of the Free Enquiry. " In an Irifli MS. of the four Gof-^ 
 "pels, of which I fliall give you an account in my next 
 " letter, the genealogy of Jefus is inferted apart, among 
 " certain preliminary pieces; and the firft chapter of 
 " Matthew begins at thefe words, * Now the birth of 
 " Jefus was on this wife." p. 18. In his fecond letter, 
 Mr. Toland defcribes this MS. more minutely: "It is 
 " not only very remarkable and valuable for being a re- 
 " llque of the ancient; Irifli church, but moreover for 
 " being one of the correfteft copies I have ever feeiiy and 
 " finely written in Irifli chatafters ; as alfo for various 
 "readings of fome- importance,; for fome very lingular 
 " obfervations, and for a Catena Patrum on the Gofpel 
 "of- St. Matthew, (interfperfl: with a few notes in the 
 " Irifli tongue,) that deftfoys the credit of certain cor- 
 " rupt editions of the Fathers, > wherein fOme - of ■ thof* 
 
APPEND IX. 357 
 
 ** paffages being manifeftly depraved, it probably follows, 
 " that many more are fo. There is an interlineary glofs 
 " of little worth in another hand, and forte odd feparate 
 " pieces, among whom the genealogy of Chrift, which I 
 " told you in my laft letter did not begin the firft chap- 
 " ter of Matthew." p. 3. In a third paflage he dates 
 the circumftances in this manner, after obferving that 
 " Tatian left the genealogy out of his gofpel, — fo that 
 " the want of this genealogy in the Irifli copy of Mat- 
 " thew is not fo ftrange a thing as it may feem at firft 
 " fight." p. 19.* In " a moft venerable exemplar of the 
 " four Grbfpels of St. Jerom's verfion with the prefaces 
 *' and canons of Eufebius," '* the genealogy of our 
 ** bleffed Saviour appears to be diftinft and leparated 
 " from St. Matthew's Gofpel. The following words in 
 *' two independent lines occurring after the 17th verfe 
 *' of that chapter, Geneahgin Hucufque. tncip. Evangl. 
 "Seed. Matth." There is the fame diftinftion in the 
 *' famous copy of the four Gofpels, formerly belonging 
 « to King jEthelftan," and alfo " in the Latin Gofpels 
 *' written with red ink, about the beginning of the nth 
 *' century, ain,d in the Anglo-Normanic character." The 
 Irifli MS. is " a Latin MS. copy." Nazaren. p. i. lett. ii. 
 As the author of the Free Enquiry has argued from th& 
 mode of placing the genealogy in various MSS. I think 
 myfelf at liberty to confider likewife the manner of tran- 
 fcribing it, which may afford as much light at leaft as 
 the preceding circumftance refpefling its authority ; and 
 the preface to the fecond edition of the Enquiry will 
 furnifli, I prefume, the neceflary information. Among the 
 fame Harlelan MSS, is found, N°. 1,803, " Genealogik 
 *' D. N. I. C. five initium Evangelii fecijnduni Matthasum. 
 " cum notis, fol. 3. b." *■' This," fays Mr. Wanley, " is 
 " written feparately from, the reft of the Gofpel, and, 
 ** amongjl otiier prefaces, as being looked upon as a pre- 
 
 Aa3 
 
358 APPENDJ'X'. 
 
 "face.' IhaOefeen other anHent copies of the Evangeliftsji 
 " written in Ireland, or coming from looks written ly Irifh 
 " men, wherein this facred genealogy was not rejeSled, hut 
 " mifplaced. There would neyerthelefs appear a great 
 " diftinftion betweeh it, and what followed. The words 
 " Xpi autem generatio being illuminated again, as if the 
 " Gofpel began there." Pref. p. 17. The genealogy, it 
 feems, participated equally in the fame honorary embel- 
 liflinients of the artift. Another MS. N°. 2795. of the 
 Harleian colledtion ' contains the four Gofpels. " In this 
 "MS. the genealogy is in gold capitals,, till generatio/- 
 " fie erat, which words are alfo in gold capitals -: the reft , 
 " is written in red letters." This MS. is fuppofed to be • 
 bf the nth century. Is there any indication here that 
 the tranfcriber, or his employers, wiflied " to get rid" 
 of the genealogy ? " Among the Cottonian MSS. in the 
 " Britifli Mufeuni there is a quarto volume marked Tibi • 
 "A. II. finely illuminated at the beginning of St. Mat~ ■ 
 " thew's genealogy, written in gold letters on a blue ground , 
 " till omnes ergo gen'erationes ah Abraham, and afterwards • 
 '' it is written in plain letters of that age, that is, towards 
 " the beginning of the tenth century." Pref. p. 30. " Iri 
 " that ancient MS. (the Dublin MS.) part of the genea- 
 " logy is wanting ; but it is evidently owing to the tearing 
 " or wearing of the vellum, becaufe the laft part of it is 
 " ftill legible. I think it begins about the 13 th verfe, 
 •' but there are marks of the vellum being torn off." 
 Pref. p. 31. The Author here obferves, " that no infor- 
 " matibn concerning our enquiry can be derived from 
 f' this manufcript." I am not of this opinion. The in- 
 formation is of this extent. Part of the genealogy ftill 
 remains legible ; and if all the vellum had been preferved, 
 we fliould have had all the genealogy. But if the cpm-^ 
 mencement were never written, I do not know how to 
 account for the objeftion to its appearance ceafing at the 
 
appendix". fsi 
 
 13th verfe. The inference of the Enquirer "is mofl: bold. 
 " The account of MSS. above given is intended only to' 
 " fliew, that the genealogy of St. Matthew leems to have 
 " been of dubious authority for many centuries. In- 
 " deed it feems to have been fufpefted in very early ages." 
 Pref. pag. xxii. What external proof of fulpicion exifts? 
 '^ The Harleian MS. No. i8oa. feems plainly to' fhew, 
 '' that St. Matthew's genealogy was not held in much' 
 " eftimation in 1139, for it is feparated from the reft of 
 " the Gofpel by prologues, notes, and old poems." It 
 may indeed be feparated, but it ftill has reference to the 
 place which it occupied, and had engaged the attention' 
 of fome perfon fo much as to induce him to comment 
 upon it. " Genealogia D. N. I. CJive initium Evangelii 
 " fecundum Matthseum cum notis." Or is it pretended,' 
 that the objeft of thefe notes is to caution the reader 
 againft its reception, by denionftrating its want of authen- 
 ticity ? 
 
 With refpeft to the two firft chapters "of St. Matthew, 
 Dr. Marfli obferves, " Epiphanius exprefsly fays (Adv. 
 " Haeref. xxx. 13.) that the Hebrew Gofpel ufed by the 
 " Ebionites legan with the wqrds, 'Eys'veTo h Tcilg iifjispai; 
 *.' 'HpwSs tS j3a<riA.e«)j. Their Gofpel therefore contained no 
 " part of Matth. i. ii." Vol. iii.. part. ii. p. 136. Epiphanius 
 accufes them of having cut away the genealogies. But 
 this is not evidence againft, but in favour of, the exiftenee 
 of this introductory portion of St. Matthew's Gofpel in 
 the Hebrew. It is clear that the Gofpel was not deli- 
 vered into their hands with this deficiency, and therefore 
 their praftice affords a period to afcertain the ufual ftate 
 in which this book had been tranfmitted. Dr. Marfli's 
 ftatement is, to fay the leaft of it, incautious. Cerinthus 
 retained the genealogy; whence appears the difference 
 between the original of the Cerinthians, and arbitrary 
 mutilation by the Ebionites. 
 
 A a4 
 
i6<y APPENDIX. 
 
 Pag. i8i. « Tatian's Diateflaron." Dr. Williams, In 
 his Free Enquiry, is not at a lofs to convert either the 
 fury or the forbearance of the orthodox Chriftians to his 
 own advantage. Theodoret fays of the two hundred co- 
 pies of Tatian's Diateflaron, " all which I took away, and 
 " laid afide, in a parcel." On which words there is this 
 note ; " Others, moft probably, did the fame, which will 
 " very naturally account for Tatian's genuine works being 
 " foon loft." But who are thefe others ? and what influ- 
 enced them ? The reader however will fee, that if a book 
 were burnt, it was not orthodox ; and if it were merely 
 nejglefted, it contained nothing fo contrary to general 
 opinion as to be efleemed dangerous. " But if this Har- 
 " mony was a dangerous work, one might rather expeft 
 " that the whole two hundred would have been com- 
 " mitted to the flames." Thus is the Father's moderation 
 changed into a teftiniony in favour of the book, although 
 he fays, that the perfons who ufed it did not perceive 
 " the fraud of the compofition." Dr. W. is offended 
 that the Father fhould have only configned to fome obli- 
 vious recefs what he condemned as a fraud, and therefore 
 the fentence of the Father refpefiling the contents of this ' 
 " parcel" is thought to be at variance with the execution 
 of it. 
 
 Page 184. " wiflied to get rid of it." " Confequently," 
 adds Dr. Marfti, " it is highly uncritical to take their 
 " manufcripts even into confideration." But can it be 
 fhewn, that the writers of thefe " few Latin MSS." were 
 embarrafl[ed in reconciling the two genealogies, and that 
 the writers of the Greek MSS. were able to reconcile them, 
 and therefore inferted that of St. Matthew as the com- 
 mencement of his Gofpel? The reafon here afligned for the 
 difference between fome of the Latin MSS. and thofe of 
 the Greek tranfcribers, would have produced an explana-. 
 
(C 
 
 APPENDIX. 3(5i 
 
 tion. The difficulty In queftion was not fo recent as thefe 
 Latin MSS. 
 
 P. 1 86. " Hebrew ftemmata." I was firft ftruck with 
 Jones's tranflation of the word (purov, and turned to the 
 paflage in Epiphanius, but did not confult the annotators, 
 as the paflage did not feem to be obfcure. I have fince 
 feen Toland's Nazarenus, in which he remarks, " Nay, 
 
 he (Epiphanius) farther acquaints us, how in the fourth 
 " century, while Conftantine the Great reigned, this ge- 
 " nealogy, with other curious pieces in Hebrew, was 
 " found by a certain Jofeph in a cell of the treafury at 
 " Tiberias, which he honeftly broke open to fteal fome 
 " money ; and that this odd accident was the chief reafon 
 " of his becoming a Chriftian. But whether the word 
 " there fignifies the Genealogy by itfelf according to Pe- 
 " tavius, or the whole Gofpel of Matthew according to 
 " Fabricius, it is certain that Tatian left the Genealogy 
 " out of his Gofpel." I did not copy my own opinion 
 from Petavius or Fabricius, for I had not feen their notes. 
 The expreflions of Theodoret, that the Chriftians ufed the 
 Diateflaron of Tatian (imply as a compendious work, 
 make it probable, that thefe Chrifliians knew that there 
 exifted other more minute Gofpel hiftories, of which either 
 fliey had then no copies, or very few in comparifon of 
 thofe of Tatian's work. We are to confider, that two 
 hundred MSS., even when MSS. were fo commonly dif- 
 perfed, would confiitute a large proportion, if not the 
 whole of the means of their religious inftruftion. The con- 
 duft of the Father was highly commendable. The entire 
 Gofpels were properly placed in the hands of Chriftians, 
 that they might know and examine to what parts the op- 
 pofitlon of adverfaries was direfted, and that their faith 
 might be expofed to all the trials of the times. 
 
 ■ P. 187. « This gofpel." Toland is of x)pinion,, but I 
 
3^3 ApPENDI3^. 
 
 am not difpofed to agree with hiroj that Epiphamus has 
 confounded the Gofpel according to the Hebrews with 
 that of St, Matthew. . ",.But yet/' fays he, p. 19. Naza- 
 renus, '? Epiphanius, who confounds every thing, (as par- 
 " ticularly this Gofpel of the Hebrews with that of Mat- 
 " thew,) tells us, &c." Epiphanius fpeaks of this Gofpel 
 of Matthew ufed by the Ebionites as alfo denominated 
 " according to the Hebrews, the Hebrew Gofpel," Adv. 
 Hasref. t. i. p. 127. et 137. I have faid, that it had 
 one name from the " Jewifli party who received it." I 
 might have faid, from the perfons to whom it was par- 
 ticularly addrefled. 
 
 P. 188. " evidence of the ancient Father." Epipha- 
 nius has been feverely cenfured by Dr. Horfley ; but if 
 his authority be really impugned by the arguments of 
 that learned Prelate, it is ufelefs to produce it in any cafe 
 whatever. " Epiphanius," fays Dr. Horfley, " exprefles 
 " a doubt of their heterodoxy (the . Nazarenes) upon the 
 " article of our Lord's divinity, in fuch terms as ought to ■ 
 " leave no doubt upon the mind of his reader of their or- 
 " thodoxy in that particular." p. 145. I do not difcern 
 the caufe of this animadverfion. Dr. H. allows that the 
 words . of Epiphanius are, " I am not informed to fay, 
 " whether they too, carried away with the impiety of the 
 " afore-mentioned Cerinthus and Merinthus, think him 
 " a~ mere man." Nor was he acquainted with the ftate 
 of the Gofpel which they ufed. The Father, however, al- 
 ludes to the'fe Nazarenes in another paflage, and perhaps 
 Dr. H.'s affertion may appear to be rafti. Epiphanius is 
 fpeaking of the caufes which induced St. John to write 
 his Gofpel. Aio xa) 6 'lojawijf sKdwv 6 fjuMiipios, xa) evpdiv 
 TSf avbpcmas ij(r^o\Yii/.i]ia; Ttsp) tyjv xiria XpifS irapaa-'iuv, xa) rm 
 {/.h 'ESicuvaioiv 'srXavYidevTcev 8(a tyjv IViragKOV Xpig-S yeveuKoylav 
 kvl' ASQaufi. xaTayo/j.evriv xa) AsxSi fivuvoiifivnv ar/pi t5 'Aloiu., 
 
APPENDIX. ^83 
 
 yovTas av«( ^piXov uvdpamov, xai tbj NAZilPAIOTS xa5 aXXaj ' 
 itohXuf a'lpsarsis, k. t. X. pi. 745. Adv. Haeref. I have not con- ' 
 founded the Nafareans with the Nazoreans, who. Dr. H. ' 
 fays, were the Chriftian Nazarenes, Na^copaloi. p. 13a. It' 
 is not to my purpofe to purfue this argument. I have 
 proved all I wilhed to prove, that Dr. H. might have 
 here ufed with propriety lefs violent terms in fpeaking of 
 the Father,, and perhaps too of Dr. Prieftley, on the fub- 
 jeft of the opinions of the Nazarenes. I do not appre- 
 hend, though I fpealf with diffidence, that Epiphatiius in- 
 tended to mention any others befides thofe who profeffed 
 heretical tenets. 
 
 P. 207. « St Matthew's Gofpel." Mr. Evanfon has al- 
 ledged another inflance of ignorance of the geography of 
 Paleftine in this Gofpel, which I fliall give at full length, 
 becaufe the anfwer to it is very fliort and decifive. " In 
 " the account he has thought fit to give us of the caufe 
 " of his dwelling at Nazareth in Galilee, he has betrayed 
 " an ignorance of the geography of Paleftine, which can- 
 " not be attributed to Matthew, nor to any other native 
 " of that country. He tells us, that Jofeph, on his return 
 " out of -^gypt, after the death of Herod, finding that 
 " his fon reigned in his ftead, was afraid to go into Judea, 
 " and therefore, by divine admonition, ' turned afide into 
 " the parts of Galilee.' Here the reader is requefted to 
 " remark, firft, that Galilee having been as much under 
 " Herod's jurifdiftion as Judea, and his kingdom having 
 " been divided amongft his fons after ~his death, it was a 
 " fon of Herod who reigned in his ftead in Galilee, as 
 " well as in Judea ; confequently the child Jefus could 
 " be no fecurer in one province, than in the other. He is 
 " next defired to caft his eyes upon the map of Paleftine, 
 
3<54^ A P P E N D I X, 
 
 " and obfefvfe, how impoffible it was for Jofeph to hav*" 
 " gone from -^gypt to Nazareth without travelling; 
 " through the whole extent of Archelaus's kingdom, un- 
 " lefs he undertook a long peregrination through the de- 
 " ferts, on the north and eaft of the lake Afphaltites, and 
 " the country of Moab, and then either crofled the Jor- 
 " dan into Samaria, or the lake of Gennefareth into Ga- 
 " lilee, and from thence went to the city Nazareth ; and 
 " if it were at all credible that the latter were the cafe, 
 " with what propriety could fuch a tedious journey have 
 " been denominated, ' turning qfide into the parts of Ga- 
 " lilee." Diff. p. i6o. To the firft remark it may be fuffi- 
 cient to reply, that however unw«illing Jofeph might be 
 to return to Judea, yet he was commanded in a dream to 
 go within the limits of the jurifdi£lion of a new governor, 
 although he were a fon of Herod. The word " turned 
 " afide" is a mere inaccuracy of our verfion, and Mr. E. 
 has not argued from the original word dvextopria-BV. In 
 examining Schleufner, I found a reference to Herodian ; 
 a;nd the paffage is fo much to the purpofe, that I ftiall 
 produce it. 'Ha-av SI tivs;, o* SiaSpavrsj Trpoj to irapov avaxs- 
 ^mgrixea'ctv Sesi Tijf ■jra.govo'la.s TOiara ficKriXea;. Lib. i. c. 3. 
 §. 13. I add apart of Irmifch's note; " Conf. Thuc. Ind. 
 " negligente P. hie, ubi, ut et 7, 3, 6, et 10. de iifdem 
 " Germanis fignificat, receffifle in terras fuas interiores, et 
 " maxime in filvas, turn ibi commodius pugnaturos, turn 
 'f falutis caufa, ut tutius laterent ; ut dvux- dicitur proprie 
 « de iis, qui fecedunt fecuritatis et incolumitatis ergo. 
 " Conf. Lcefner." The term will denote the mode of 
 paffing unobferved from ^gypt to Galilee through Judea, 
 which cannot be better defcribed than in the language of 
 Ijoly writ. Judges v. 6. " In the days of Shamgar the 
 " fort of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were 
 " unoccupied, apidthe travellers walked through by-ways," 
 
APPENDIX. 565 
 
 When Jofeph had arrived at Nazareth, the contempt in 
 which that place was proverbially held might be the. 
 fecurity of the infant Jefus. 
 
 Mr. E. is fond of this fpecies of objeftionj for he ad- 
 duces another. " In verfes 13, 14, 15, we have anothet 
 •' remarkable inftance,*' he fays, " of the author's very 
 "imperfeift knowledge of the geography of Paleftine,- 
 " which cannot be fuppofed of any native of the coun- 
 *' try ; as well as another direft contradi£lion to the 
 " much more probable account given us by Luke. As 
 " if he imagined the city of Nazareth was not as pro- 
 ♦' perly in Galilee as Capernaum was," (which indeed 
 feems implied alfo in the fecond chapter, where he tells 
 us, Jofeph went afide, not into Galilee, but into the parts 
 or coafts of Galilee) " he informs us, that, after John's- 
 " imprifonment, our Saviour departed into Galilee, and, 
 " leaving Nazareth, came and dwelt at Capernaum in or- 
 " der to fulfil a faying of Ifaiah's refpefting the country- 
 " beyond Jordan in Galilee of the Gentiles. Now to- 
 " Ifaiah, or any inhabitant of Judea, the country beyond 
 '• muft be the country eaft of the Jordan, as Gaulonitis, or 
 " Galilee of the Gentiles, is well known to have been j 
 " whereas Capernaum was a city on the wejiern fide of 
 " the lake of Gennefareth, through which the Jordan- 
 " flows." Diir. p. 164. It is here affumed as " well, 
 " known," that Gaulonitis was on the eaftern fide of the 
 Jordan, and it may be admitted ; but it was not fynony-v 
 mous with " Galilee of the Gentiles," for no part of Ga- 
 lilee was on the eaftern fide of the Jordan. Neither do 
 we know whether Ifaiah denominated Galilee of the 
 Gentiles with refpeft to his own fituation in Judea. All 
 the principal part of Canaan was called the country be- 
 yond Jordan, before it was occupied by the Ifraelites. 
 It might have the appellation relatively to thofe nations 
 who had hitherto fat in darknefs and in the (hadow of 
 
3<56 APPENDIX. 
 
 death. But how fball we be able to difpofe of the tribes of 
 , Zebulon and Naphthali, the hmits of whofe territories never 
 extended to the eaft of Jordan. To this place maybe re- 
 ferred an objeftlon of Mr. E's to the authenticity of the 
 Epiftle to the Romans, fince an anfwer to this objeftion is 
 furnifhed by an appeal to a geographical writer. " I cannot 
 " forbear remarking farther the inconfiftency of this wri- 
 " ter," fays Mr. E. p. 310. Diff. (which indeed muft gene- 
 rally be difcernible in all falfifiers,) " in making Paul per- 
 'f fonally acquainted with fo long a lift of members of the 
 " church at Rome, where he had never beea; amongft' 
 'f whoin we find Aquila and Prifcilla, and even his own mo- 
 " ther, to whom he fends faluta:tion in the laft chapter, 
 " V. 13. Of the two firft Luke tells us, that, about, or rather 
 " before, the pretended date of this epiftle, they had left 
 " Rome, being Jews, in obedience to an edi6t of Clau- 
 " dius. And if there is any reafon to believe that Paul's 
 '* mother was then living, is it credible that an old wo- 
 " man of Tarfus in Cilicia, whofe fon was fo wonderfully 
 " appointed to preach the Gofpel, and who was occupied 
 ** in that commiffion in Afia and Greece, fliould leave her 
 'f native country, and fuch a fon, and ramble after other 
 " preachers of the Gofpel, at fo advanced an age, to the far' 
 " diftant metropolis of Italy ?" We may invalidate fome 
 of this conjefture by ancient fa£is. Rome was the great re- 
 fort of the natives of Tarfus and Alexandria; for Strabo in- 
 forms us, MaXij-a S" i) 'Pco'j«.)] Swarai dtlaa-xsiv to TrXijflof rmv Ix 
 T^irSe r^f voKsaii (^tXoXofoov Tapcrecuv y«g xu) ' AKs^a.vips<ov Ifi fJ-efrj. 
 Lib. xiv. p. 675, or 962^ But it was not Rome only which 
 they -vifited. They had a turn for general rambling to 
 places where they could improve themfelves, and they 
 were all (ptKoKoyoi. OiS" kutoi, fays Strabo, lisvsa-iv auTo'dt, 
 
 xaTspp^ovTai 8' oxlyoi. Lib. xiv. p. 674, or 961. Hence it 
 -is not improbable that Prifcilla and Aquila might have- 
 
APPENDIX. 3^7 
 
 been known to St., Paul before they were- at Rome; and 
 the affeftionate term of mother, which he applies, to fome 
 matron at Rome, confirms the fuppofition, that;{he might 
 be a native of Tarfus, and had been not merely ufeful, but 
 had fhewn a tender regard for him in fome of his fuf- 
 ferings, or during his abode at Tarfus. Nothing contra- 
 di<Ss the fuppofition, that many of the perfons at Rome 
 may have been perfonally acquainted with him before 
 their refidence there ; and many arguments make it pro- 
 bable, that there were many natives of Tarfus at Rome, 
 who, whether known or unknown to him, would befriend 
 him, as a fellow citizen, in his appeal to Csefar. It is not 
 unpleafant to be able to reprefs the licentioufnefs of in- 
 fidel conjedture. 
 
 P. 309. It is neceflary to explain the caufes of the de- 
 fefts of this difcourfe, which however originate in th^, 
 want of materials. The want of direct information, an4 
 the fmall proportion even of that which is collateral, muft 
 be my defence againfl; any imputation of incoherence and 
 defultory obfervation. Mr. E. is recurring unceafingly 
 to his abufe of the Church as eftablifhed by Conftantine. 
 It may be fnfficient to extraft the following paflages 
 from Moflieim's work, De Reb. Chrift. ante Conft. Magn. 
 •' Qui Conftantini religionem oppugnant oftendere volunt 
 " dominandi cupiditatem tantum apud animum ejus po- 
 " tuifle, ut fe Chriftianum fimularet, aut yiam eum fibi ad 
 " fupremum imperium per fi£tam religionis Chriftianse 
 " profeiTionem munire voluifle. Ego quidem, ut de me 
 « aliquid prsedicem, Hiftoriam illorum temporum, qua 
 " fieri ^otuit diligentia infpexi ac confideravi, neque ta-r 
 " men perfpicere potui Chrifiianam religionem defide- 
 ,*' rium ejus fine focio regnandi, qup eum flagralTe infitiari 
 " nolo, vel juvifle, vel juvare ac promovere potuifle. Fe-: 
 " liciter ille ac cum gloria regnaverat nondum Chriftianusj 
 
368 APPENDIX. 
 
 " et nuUi religion! addidus ; et eadem felicitate ad fupre- 
 " mum imperium pervenire, atque magnas res gerere po- 
 *' tuiflet, fi vel in magorum religione perfeverafletj atque 
 " Diis fervire perrexiflet." p. 969, 970. " Conftantinum poll 
 " viiftoriam de Maxentio non Chriftianam religionem fu- 
 " pra reliquas omnes evexiffe, atque unice veram judi- 
 *' cafle, verum Chriftianis tantum poteftatem conceffiffe, 
 " religionem fuam profitendi, pacem vera facultatem om- 
 " nilus, nulla prorfus excepta, feSiis et religionilus tri- 
 " buiffe ; neque etiam idem perpendit multitiidini ac nu- 
 *' mero Deorum cultores illo tempore Chriftianis longe 
 *' fuperiores fuiffe, licet ubique Chriftiani verfarentur." 
 p. 676. 
 
 P. 2,6^. note. A doubt was fuggefted to me by a 
 learned friend, the accuracy and extent of whofe know- 
 ledge on any point of ancient erudition I do not intend 
 to queftion, whether .Greeds Uteris denoted more than 
 the Greek charafters. Davies, the editor of Cicero's phi- 
 lofophical works, contends, that this is the meaning of 
 the words. Csefar fays, " In caftris Helvetiorum tabulae 
 <' repertse funt litteris Graecis confefilse, et ad Caefarem per- 
 " latae ; quibus in tabulis nominatim ratio confefta erat, 
 *' qui numerus domo exiflet eorum, qui arma ferre poflent ; 
 " et item feparatim pueri, fenes, mulierefque." Caef. de 
 Bello Gallico, lib. i. In the |fe.Hage relating to the Druids 
 the fame words are ufed ; which, it is afferted, fignify the 
 ufe of the Greek letters only, and not of the Greek lan- 
 guage. " Neque fas efle exiftimant ea Uteris mandare, 
 " quum in reliquis fere rebus, publicis privatifque rationi- 
 " bus Greecis literis utuntur." In confirmation of this opi- 
 nion, (having previoufly admitted that the word GrtBcis 
 is to be found in all the MSS.) Pliny's teilimony is pro- 
 duced : " Gentium confenfus tacitus primus omnium con- 
 ♦' fpirarit, ut lonuih literis uterentur." Nat. Hift. lib. vii. 
 
APPENDIX. 35$ 
 
 c. 57. This relates to the ancient form only of their let- 
 ters. We ftiall examine how this fenfe of mere charac- 
 ters will agree with the tenor of Caefar's letter to Q. Ci- 
 cero. " Turn cuidam ex equitibus Gallis magnis praemiis 
 " perfuadet, uti ad Ciceronem epiftolam deferat. Hanc 
 *' Graecis confcriptam Uteris mittit, ne, intercepta epiftola, 
 " noftra ab hoftibus confilia cognofcantur." Now if the pre- 
 ceding paffage of Pliny is well applied, it may be fhewn 
 that the objeft of concealment would not have been at- 
 tained by the ufe of the Latin language and Greek cha- 
 rafters ; " Veteres Graecas fuifle eafdem pene qua nunc funt 
 " Latinse, indicio erlt Delphica tabula antiqui seris." This 
 is a continuation of the fame fubjeft ; and although the 
 extraft is diftinguiflied as another, but ftill a fubfequent 
 chapter or fe6lion, yet it is evidently feparated only ac- 
 cidentally from the preceding, a. Caefar reprefents the 
 Druids as familiarly acquainted with the Greek lan- 
 guage J and yet Davies obferves, tliat Divitiacus, one of 
 the Druids, addreflfed Caefar in an interview through an 
 interpreter, which was unneceflary, if he himfelf had un- 
 derftood Greek. Perhaps this may be explained. Cae- 
 far had remonftrated with the Mdvi before a convention 
 of their chiefs, that he could not obtain fupplies for his 
 army. Lifcus, who preiided over the political magif- 
 tracy, intimated, that this difficulty arofe from Dumno- 
 rix, the brother of Divitiacus ; " Caefar hac oratione Lifci 
 " Dumnorigem Divitiaci fratrem defignari fentiebat ; fed, 
 " <\aod pluribus prcefentibus eas resjaSiari nolelat, celeriter 
 " concilium dimittit ; Lifcum retinet. Quaerit exjolo ea, 
 " quae in conventu dixerat. Dicit liberius atque audacius. 
 " ^Aemfecreto ab aliis reperit efle vera," He afterwards 
 wiftied to obtain farther information from Divitiacus him- 
 felf : " Itaque, prius quam quidquam conarefur, Divitiacum 
 ** *d fe vocari jubet, et, quotidianis interpretihus remotis, per 
 
 Bb 
 
370 APPENDIX, 
 
 " C. Valeriura Procillum, principem Galliae provinciae^ fa^ 
 " railiarem fuum, cui fummam rerum omnium fidem habe- 
 " bat, cum eo colloquitur ; fimu] commonefacit, quae, ipfo 
 " praefente, de Dumnorige fint difta, et oftendit, quas fepa- 
 " ratim quifque de eo apud fe dixerit." It is evident that 
 Csefar commenced the conference, and f^lefted the lan- 
 guage in which it Aould be condu&ed; and. we are not 
 to be furprifed that he fliould prefer the native language 
 of a perfon who was to be examined refpefting affairs 
 in which he might be induced to mifreprefent his own 
 conduft, and that of his brother. Strabo defcribes the 
 Gauls as <piX£>Ar)vas. We might therefore argue, that, if 
 the account of Strabo be correfit, Csefar fliould not have 
 had either his ordinary or extraordinary interpreters of 
 the Celtic, fince it may be prefumed that the Greek 
 language prevailed extenfively at leaft among thofe with 
 whom Caefar might be obliged to communicate. There 
 were ocpalions, when it was more proper to ufe one 
 language than the other j although either could have 
 been employed, and certainly the native language would 
 be preferred, where we can fuppofe it to have been a 
 matter either of political ceremony, or of political pre- 
 caution. It muft be remarked, that the inftance of the 
 Helvetii might have been erafed without any injury to 
 the argument of the difcourfe ; but every example was 
 impugned where the words literee Grcecee were ufcd 
 to defcribe the fafl:. The philological part of the quef- 
 tion without doubt favours my deduftions, and the fame 
 phrafeology is found in the Greek language. The con- 
 peftion of Gaul with Afia Minor by a migration and fet- 
 dement of a colony is well known. 
 
 P. a7i. " vernacular tongue." Francifc. Burmann. Ex. 
 ercit. Acadein. b. ii, difp. 4. Immo ipfos Judaeos pro 
 
■a. r r i:j iM u 1. -rt.. y/ 1 
 
 vernacula linguam Graecam apud fe, fere in ipfa etiam 
 Judsea, agnovifle adduftis e Judseorum magiftris tefti- 
 moniis confirmat Rumpseus. 
 
 I much wiftied to have conlidered the origin and ap- 
 plication of the apocryphal gofpels, and the hiftory of 
 the latter Platonifts : but thefe topics muft be referved 
 for another opportunity, if another fliould ever occur. 
 
 nh 2, 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Page 89. " Adapting the Gofpel of St. Luke." Mr. 
 Evanfon, Diflbn. p. 140, 141. has taken a moft unwar- 
 rantable liberty with a paflage of Chillingworth, in order 
 to vindicate his own affumption of one Gofpel, as fuffi- 
 cient for the ufe of Chriftians. The conclufion of the 
 quotation from Chillingworth is this ; " When you have 
 " well confidered thefe propofals, I believe you will be 
 " very apt to think (if St. Luke be of credit with you) 
 ^' that alj things neceffary to falvation are certainly con- 
 " tained in his writings alone." Then comes Mr. Evan- 
 fon, and cuts off what he does not like, for fuch reafons 
 as leave no authority for the remainder, which he ex- 
 empts from profcription, and tells us, that St. Luke's 
 Gofpel is fufBcient: for Chriftians } as if Mr. E's Gofpel of 
 St. Luke and Mr. C's were the fame books. 
 
 P. 95. " The martyr Juftin." Le Clerc has cenfured 
 Juftin Martyr for aflerting, that at Rome capital punifli- 
 ment was ordered to be inflifted upon thofe who read 
 the books of the Prophets, Hydafpes, and the Sibylls. 
 But it is iiot improbable that this might have been the 
 cafe, although po other writer has recorded the faft. 
 We have no complete colleftion of the edifts of the Prm- 
 tors. Befides, the Prophets, Hydafpes, and the Sibyll, 
 would all fall under the clafs of lilri vaticini. Livy has 
 recorded : " Quoties hoc patrum avorumque »tate ne- 
 " gotium eft magiftritibus datum, ut facra externa fieri 
 
« 
 
 APPENDIX. 373 
 
 vetarent ? — vaticinos lilros conquirerent eomlurerent- 
 que?" We may furely believe tliat they would pro- 
 hibit the reading of fuch books, fince in the perfecution 
 of Dioclefian they burnt the books of the Chriftians, or 
 in their place, or tojgether with them, the refraftory pof- 
 feflbrs themfelves ; and, as Bifliop Watfon has well re- 
 marked, " the very expedient of forcing the Chriftians 
 " to deliver up their religious books, which was prac- 
 " tifed in this perfecution, and which Moftieim attributes 
 " to the advice of Hierocles, and you (Mr. Gibbon) to 
 " that of the phWofophers of thofe times, feems clear to 
 " me, from the places in Livy before quoted, to have 
 " been nothing but an old piece of ftate policy, to which 
 " the Romans had recourfp as often as they apprehended 
 " their eftablifhed religion to be in any danger." Apo- 
 logy for Chriftianity, p. i68, 169. ed. la""". The quef-' 
 tion, whether thefe books were alike genuine, or alike 
 fpurious, was not difcuffed by the Roman politician; but 
 he read them, and anticipated the ufe to v^hich they 
 might be applied. 
 
 P. 114. "St. Paul." This Apoftle fays to Timothy, 
 " The things that thou, haft heard of me among many 
 " witneflTes, the fame commit thou to faithful men, who 
 " (hall be able to teach others alfo." The efifea of oral 
 teaching was meant to be the fame, in both thefe in- 
 ftances ; and we have the beft defence of the want of a 
 declaration, that St. Matthew's Gofpel was written by 
 the perfon whofe name it bears, in the example of Galen> 
 referred to by Wetftein. The true caufe of the omif- 
 fion of the name of the virriter was this ; it was unne- 
 ceflary. Galenus de libris fuis : ^/Am; ,y«ep ^ jtiaSijTaij idl- 
 80TO x^pis eviyfaf^Si *S "" *"®^ ""^P^i exSor^v, «AX' auToij Ixs/- 
 KBij yeyovirci, h^el<rtv, mi ^xeirav, e^eiv tentfi.vrifi^a.TOL'^^iyai 
 If «jrA«5j hlii fol; fMi^rali ouSev iiriypu^a, Wetftein. That 
 
 B b 3 
 
374 APPENDIX. 
 
 which was written had previoufly been fpoken in both 
 cafes before many witneffes. 
 
 P. 120. I fhall here reprint my remarks ufion St. 
 Luke's preface to bis Gofpel, which were not recom- 
 mended to Dr. Marfh's perafal by any patron of mine, 
 but which I refolved^ to republifti in confequenoe of that 
 important recommendation. The cautions to the readers 
 of the Introduction of Michaelis were abfolutely ne- 
 ceflary. I would a(k, whether thofe, who have perufed 
 that work, have not fometimes forgotten that the fubjeA 
 of it was any thing efteemed f^cred. I have fuperftition 
 enough, if it fhould pleafe any perfon to call the feeling 
 by that name, to be offended with the familiarity and 
 confidence of critics, in fpeaking of the books of holy 
 
 . writ ; and I am difpofed to think that critical habits may 
 in many inftances be regarded as the true fource of pre- 
 judices againft the opinion of infpiration, or fupernatural 
 aid, being afforded in the compofition of our holy bopks. 
 The licentious employment of probabilities is peculiarly 
 unfavourable to the belief, that man has accomplifhed 
 with divine affiftance, and according to divine promife, 
 that which the critic flatters himfelf he can place by 
 the help of his art within the fphere of mere human 
 ability. 
 
 Since the preface of St. Luke is the only evidence of 
 the exiftence of narratives of the life and afitjons of 
 Ghrift, prior to his own, it is the foundation of the 
 vyhole of Dr. Marfli's hypotbetioal fyftem of documents^ 
 and therefore I wi(h to fee whether it be "rock," or 
 « fand." 
 
 According to Dr. Marfli's bypothefis, a Hebrew do- 
 cument exjfted, which was the bafis of the feveral Gof- 
 pels of St. Matthew, St. Mark,, and St., Luke; that it 
 
 was copied hy the former Evangelift, and trapflated by 
 
APPENDIX. 375 
 
 the two latter. I fliould be induced to infer from this 
 charafter of the document, that its authority was greater 
 than that of the writings of the perfon who copied it, 
 and of thofe who tranflated it; and therefore ought to 
 have been, from fuch pretenfions, acknowledged, by the 
 conduct of the Apoftle Matthew, the original GofpeL 
 It was, however, " drawn up from communications made 
 " by the Apoftles," p. 197 ; " a fhort narrative contain" 
 " ing the principal tranfeftions of Jefus Chrift from his 
 " baptifm to his death," p. 196. 
 
 " The perfon,^ or perfons, who drew it up, might en- 
 " title it ' A narrative of thofe things, which are moft 
 ' furely believed among us, even as they delivered them 
 ' unto us, which from the beginning were eye-wit- 
 
 * nefles and minifters of the word,' " a title, which St. 
 " Luke himfelf has quoted in the preface to his Gof- 
 « pel," p. 197. 
 
 This title I ftiall confider in another place. 
 
 We muft obferve, that the conjediure of the title of 
 the fuppofed document is returned in the next fentence to 
 its owner Leffing, after Dr. M. has ufed it ; and he de- 
 fires the reader to notice, that the application is the in- 
 tereft which he has in it ; and that neither Lefling, nor 
 Storr, who approved the conjefture, thought of this ap- 
 plication of it— an aiibrtion, which I fuppofe the reader 
 will immediately believe. 
 
 That this conjefture is not ill founded. Dr. M. main- 
 tains by thefe arguments. 
 
 I. "After St. Luke bad written," '\f'orafmucb as many 
 
 * have undertaken to fet forth in order,' " he would have 
 " ufed the word narrative," (decliaratron in our verfion) 
 " not in the lingular, but in the plural number ; if by 
 " this word he had meant, as it is commonly fuppofed, 
 " to exprefs narratives written by thefe ' many." The 
 queftion in this place does not relate to an idiom, to any 
 
 B b 4 
 
376 APPENDIX. 
 
 pecuKar conftruftion of words, or to any mode of phra- 
 feology of the Greek language ; but to a form of fpeech, 
 which muft be examined by the principles of grammar, 
 common to all languages } and therefore we may be al- 
 lowed to feek for an analogy in our own. I did not 
 defpair of difcovering an example in the firft hiftorical 
 work which lay upon my table. The following paflage 
 from Hampton's Polybius, p. 32, vol. i. 8vo. will ihew 
 that St. Luke might have ufed fuch an expreffion, with- 
 out intending to denote what Dr. M. and the German 
 theologians fuppofe, and without occafioning any ambi- 
 guity. The word was currently ufed for feventeen cen- 
 turies, and fuggefted nothing of the kind. It was not 
 fufpefted that any hidden meaning, was involved in fo 
 plain- a phrafe j or that any one could hefitate about the 
 number of authors, and the number of their narratives. 
 Hampton fays, " There are many indeed who have 
 ** written an account of particular wars, and among them 
 " fome, perhaps, have added a few coincident events." 
 I do not imagine that any other perfon would infer firom 
 St. Luke's words, that the narrative was the joint com- 
 pofition of the ' many j nor from thofe of Hampton, 
 that the ' many," who wrote different accounts of par- 
 ticular wars, neverthelefs compofed one account only 
 amongft them. The critic that (hould cenfure the tranfla- 
 tor's accuracy, and accufe him of confounding the mean- 
 ing, would be thought to have very faftidious and finical 
 notions of propriety. St. Luke, indeed, has been more 
 precife ; for. he is fpeaking of accounts ©f the lame 
 fa£ls. 
 
 3. " The word ' fet forth in order' is not fynonymous 
 
 " in the original to write a narrative ; for it does not 
 
 " fignify to write a new narrative, but to arrange a nar- 
 
 " rative already written." 
 
 Againft Dr. M.'s interpretation are Grotius, Cafau- 
 
APPENDIX. 377 
 
 bonj Rapheliusj Wolfius, Alex. Moms, and Dr. Town- 
 fon, who refers to thefe writers ; but let us try Dr. M.'s 
 ligniiication. 
 
 ' Forafmuch as many have undertaken to re-arrange 
 
 * a narrative of thpfe things, which are moft furely be- 
 
 * lieved among us, even as they delivered them unto us, 
 ' which from the beginning were eye-witneffes and mi- 
 ' nifters of the word.' We muft obferve, that Dr. M. 
 fays, p. 197. that this narrative was " drawn up from 
 " communications made by the Apoftles," and therefor© 
 that it was not<only " a work of good authority, but a 
 " work which was worthy of furnifliing materials to any 
 " one of the Apoftles, who had formed a refolution of 
 " writing a more complete hiftory," " a fliort narrative, 
 " containing the principal tranfaftions of Jefus Chrlft, 
 " from his baptifm to his death ;" " not a finifhed hif- 
 " tory, but a document containing only materials for 
 " a hiftory." 
 
 Firft, then, many of the Apoftles contributed to this 
 *' fliort narrative ;" fecondly, it was thje work of many 
 perfons (whether Apoftles or not, or infpired, Dr. M. 
 entirely forgot to fuppofe) to " re-arrange" it. Who 
 was fit to undertake to re-arrange the communications 
 of the Apoftles ? But we muft proceed yet further. This 
 document was very defeftive, it feems. " In procefs of 
 " time, as new communications from the Apoftles, and 
 " other eye-witneffes, brought to light either additional 
 " circumftances, relative to tranfaftions already recorded 
 " in the firft Hebrew document, or tranfaftions which 
 " had been left wholly unnoticed ;" thefe were added in 
 the MS. by the poffeffors of the firft Hebrew document, 
 " and thefe additions in fubfequent copies were ihferted 
 " in the text," page aoo. 
 
 The work, then, to which St. Luke is thought to 
 refer, was firft written by no body knows whom, and 
 
378 APPENDIX. 
 
 yet poffefled fuch a claim to aatfaority, as to induce St. 
 Matthe>y to copy it; but yet written irregularly and 
 without any method, fo that it required a new arrange- 
 ment. It muft appear very ftrange that the Apoftles 
 fliould furnifh their materials by piece-meal, in fuch a 
 defukory and capricious manner, at various tirnes, and 
 in detached portions. I fhould maintain that a work fo 
 framed was not " worthy of furnifliing materials to any 
 " one" (much lefs to any) " of the Apoftles." The nar- 
 rative was drawn up by an unknown perfon or perfons 
 (their names are not mentioined, but Dr. M. fuppofes 
 them to be Apoftles ; yet as we are not informed of their 
 names, we cannot judge of the fuppofition) from, the com- 
 munications of the Apoftles, then re-arranged by an- 
 other fet of unknown perfons. 
 
 The bufinefe which Dr. M. afligns to St. Luke was 
 to tranflate this Hebrew document, " enriched by addi- 
 " tions," " and to adhere to it throughout in the arrange- 
 " ment of the fafts, becaufe he was not an Apoftle and 
 " eye-witnefs," p. 205. 
 
 But what does " write" mean in St. Luke's Preface ? 
 I fhould think it meant " a new narrative." The 
 *' many" re-arranged an old narrative. What did St. 
 Xufce do as diftinguiftiing his labour from theirs ? He 
 •' wrote ;" and fo fimple a vrord cannot, I maintain, by 
 all the fophiftry and utmoft torture of perverfion, b» 
 brought tq fignify all that Dr. M. defcribesi without 
 imputing to St. Luke unworthy motives and corrupt 
 views. 
 
 I adopt then, with the great authorities before men- 
 fioned, the plain and obvious meaning " compofe ;" and 
 at any rate it was not a proper term to exprefs his fliare 
 in the narrative, (if he did no more than Dr. M.. fuppofes,) 
 as contrafted with the work of the "many." 
 5. " If thefe had been St. Luke's own words, be muft. 
 
APPENDIX. 379 
 
 " have faid " as they delivered them unto them/ " and 
 " not as they ' delivered them unto us j' for " although 
 " we may fay of other perfons/ that they have uiider- 
 " taken to write a hiftory, as eye-witnefles have related 
 f* the fafts to them, we cannot well fay that they have 
 " undertaken to write a hiftory, as eye-witnefles have re- 
 " lated the fafts to us," p, 198. 
 
 Dr. M. is proud of this thought. " No commentator, 
 " as far as I know, has made this remark, although it 
 " appears to be a very obvious one." 
 
 This is not tfie only inftance, I apprehend, where Dr. 
 M. has the imaginary advantage of appearing alone 
 amongft the commentators. But to proceed : vjhen 
 writers compofe narratives of events contfemporary with 
 themfelves, is it not ufual for readers to compare the 
 written relation with the account of eye-witnefles j and 
 what greater commendation can a work of that kind 
 receive, than that it is confirmed by fuch teftitnony ? 
 . 4. •' If fo many perfons had written narratives of 
 " Chrift's traniafitions, and had written only what eye- 
 " witnefles to thefe tranfaftions had related, there was 
 " the lefs lieeeffity for St. Luke to write a Gofpel ; 
 " and Theophilus might have known the certainty of 
 " thefe things, if St. Luke had not written." 
 
 I cannot accede to this argument : the number of ac- 
 counts is little to the purpofe. All the perfons, who re- 
 ceived thefe various narratives, were not acquainted, pro- 
 bably, with the circumftance, that they agreed with the 
 evidence of eye-witnefles. St. Luke could not promife 
 greater certainty \npon this ground than the **many." 
 He could only relate what he knew himfelf ; and I am 
 difpofed to believe he was an eye^witnefs of all he 
 relates. But, let us admit, that he only related what 
 he received from eye-witnefles.. What then diftinguilhed 
 his narrative from thofe of the " many ?" I conclude 
 
3*0 APPENDIX, 
 
 that there was a defeft in the authority of the writers!! 
 Their ftory turned out to be true upon enquiry, but it 
 wanted confirmation. St. Luke's charafter was a fuffi- 
 cient fecurity for the reception of his Gofpel : " It feemfed 
 " good to me alfo." If I might be allowed to indulge 
 in a conjefture, I fhould fay, that he oppofes his own 
 well known charafter and hiftgry to the uncertain quali- 
 fications of the " many." 
 
 I have been lefs , ftruck with the' verbal hat'mony of 
 the Evangelifts, than with another coincidence — that out 
 of the exuberance of matter which the life of Chrift muft 
 have fupplied, and where we cannot fuppofe for a mo- 
 ment that any feleftion was made upon the ground of 
 one event, or one miracle, or one parable, or one pre- 
 cept, being more worthy of infertion than another ; 
 where what was omitted could be omitted for no other 
 reafon but that God thought what was recorded was 
 fufficient for his high purpofes ; that fo many fafls are 
 mentioned in common by the Evangelifts, than that fo 
 little matter has been added. * 
 
 I folemnly prbteft againft the application of the critic's 
 laws refpefting biography and hiftory to the life of 
 Chrift, as related by the Evangelifts. It is not fimply a 
 piece of biography. The life of Chrift was the Gofpel 
 itfelf, the glad tidings of falvation ; and Dr. M. obferves, 
 that the " good tidings," or Gofpel, was ufed, after the 
 firft century, as fynonymous with the " Life of Chrift," 
 p. 197, note. The life of Chrift was a new religious dif- 
 penfation. The death and refurreftion of Chrift were 
 not only fafts, but likewife points of do£lrine. Shall I 
 prefume thus to decide upon the defefts or excellence of 
 compofitions which I never faw, of which nothing re- 
 mains ; or upon the merits of writings, which were de- 
 figned to introduce into the world a new fyftem of re- 
 ligion ? I dare not. 
 
APPENDIX. 381 
 
 5. " All the objeaions are removed by the fuppofition, 
 *' that the words from * a declaration to ' minifters of 
 * the word' are " nothing more than a Greek tranflation 
 " of a Hebrew title, which had been adopted by the 
 *' writer or writers of the Hebrew document." 
 
 Long titles^ if any, are not charafteriftic of other an- 
 cient Oriental writings, and therefore I fliould appre- 
 hend Dr. M. and his German aflbciates have not imi- 
 tated in this fuppofition the ancient Hebrew coftume. 
 I am not provided with the means of profecuting this 
 enquiry, but I believe my aflertion is not groundlefs. 
 " In the interval', which elapfed between the compofition 
 " of this document and that of St. Luke's Gofpel, many 
 " perfons had attempted to re-arrange and new model 
 " the Hebrew narrative, by making in it additions, tranf- 
 " pofitions, &c. in fliort, re-arranging * the narrative ; 
 " and that as not all the additions which had been made 
 " by thefe many writers were drawn from the beft 
 " fources, St. Luke, who had accurately traced every 
 •' tranfaftion from the beginning, refolved to compofe a 
 " narrative, of which he made (as others had done) the au- 
 " thentic document the bafis, but introduced only fuch ad- 
 " ditions as he knew were confident with the truth ; that 
 " Theophilus, for whofe immediate ufe he wrote, might 
 " know the cerfa,inty of thofe things in which he had been 
 " inftrufted." Saint Luke then, it feems, ufed a docu- 
 ment, which was fo corrupted, by the time it came to 
 his hands, that it contained falfehoods ; for if St. Luke 
 introduced only fuch additions as were confiflent with 
 truth, the many muft have inferted whdt was not con- 
 fiflent with truth. Dr. M. indeed foftens the obvious in- 
 ■f 
 * Here Dr. M. ufes the Greek word, which he fays fignifies re- 
 arrange, although he extends the meaning far beyond what the pri- 
 mitive fenfe rearrange will juftify. Arrangement relates only to qrder, 
 but addition relates to defe£is and omilTiqns. 
 
38a APPENDIX. 
 
 ference, by faying, « they had undefignedly blended ac- 
 " curate with inaccurate accounts •" that is, confounded 
 the true and the falfe together, did not know how to dif- 
 tinguifh one from the other ; and yet they were Apoftles, 
 or eye-witneflesj as we fliall fee. But how came thefe 
 additions not to be " drawn from the beft fources ?" 
 The fuppofed firft Hebrew document with the fuppofed 
 additions is otherwife defcribed by Dr. M. p. 300. " In 
 " procefs of time, as new communications from the Apo- 
 " ftles and other eye-witneffes brought to light either ad- 
 " ditional circumflances relative to tranfaftions already 
 " recorded in it, or tranfaftions which had beep left 
 " wholly unnoticed, thofe perfons who poflefled copies 
 " of it added in their MSS. fuch additional circum- 
 " {lances and tranfa6lions ; and thefe additions, in fubfe- 
 " quent copies, were inferted in the text." If I am mif- 
 taken, the reader of Dr. M.'s work will decide ,• but if 
 there are any better fources than Apoftles and eye-wit- 
 neffes, our Saviour has left the momentous and awfiil 
 fcenes of his death and refurreftion to be recorded by 
 perfons ill qualified for the talk, or we have not the beft 
 evidence of thefe fafts ; and our Saviour could not, aS 
 he declared, " bear witnefs of himfelf." Thefe bettet 
 fources would be likewife a lingular difcovery, even in 
 this difcovering age. 
 
 Dr. M. has not attributed to the Evangelift any extra- 
 ordinary merit in faying that he introduced nothing but 
 what was confiftent with truth. To fay that an infpired 
 writer tells truth, is not the moft extravagant flattery ; 
 nor is it the higheft officfe of infpiration to prevent the 
 infertion of falfehood, or to watch over a perfon who 
 tnight ignorantly or wilfully relate it for truth, unlefs he 
 was thus watched. I do not ufually build arguments 
 upon the fignifications of words, but I may remark, that 
 the term curifixuctv does not relate to truth as oppofed to 
 
APPENDIX. 383 
 
 falfehood, but as certainty oppofed to doubt ; and St. 
 Luke's Gofpel appears to poffefs the advantage of truth ■ 
 combined with the authority of the writer. The ac- 
 counts of the ' taany' had truth on their fide, but the 
 writers appear to have wanted authority. 
 
 Dr. M, appears to have expofed Chriftianity to many 
 ferious objeftions, in his attempt to folve a few and un- 
 important difficulties, which do not afFeft its truth. I 
 can believe the accounts of the Evangelifts, upon tha 
 old grounds of belief ; but if I did or, could think that 
 Dr. Marfh's hypothefis had any foundation whatever, I 
 would not cuB an extraft or two from St. Luke with 
 Marcion, but I would rejefl: the entire hiftories of the 
 
 Evangelifts. I conclude with the fentiments, which !> 
 
 had, in faft, anticipated, of the author of the pamphlet 
 
 to which I have referred — 
 
 " I admit, then, of a common document, but that do- 
 
 " cument was no other than the preaching of our blefled 
 
 « Lord himfelf," p. 34. 
 
NOTES 
 
 TO 
 
 THE PROBATIONARY DISCOURSE. 
 
 To many readers the following notes will appear tedious ; 
 and by thofe who hold the opinions of Dr. Milner, they 
 will he thought to he Jkfficiently brief. The argument 
 indeed might have been included in a few deduSliofis 
 
 from the' Trials of the Confpirators ; but I was willing 
 to follow Dr. Milner through the Jirange confufion of 
 hyiory and hypothefis, of hiftory perverted or mifunder- 
 
 flood, and of hypothefis licentious and contradi6iory. 
 There are oceafions, when the enquiry might have ah-r 
 ruptly concluded in the language of ju/iifialle indigna- 
 tion ; yet, to an adverfary, I might have appeared to 
 conceal ignorance in contempt, while on the other hand 
 exprejfians of refpeSi, where none can be felt, argue an 
 ivfincere or a timid opponent. I may obferve, that, as 
 the objeSiions chiefly relate to fa6is, the fubjoined reply 
 frequently confifls fimply of a citation, and the reader 
 himfelf is left in mofl cafes to examine and to infer. 
 
 Note (A), p. a8i. 
 
 XHIS is an old acqufation revived. It appears, but 
 probably not for the firfl: time, in the Calendarium Ca- 
 tholicum, publiftied in the year 1663. See the Pref. to 
 
APPENDIX. 385 
 
 the book entitled " The Gunpowder Treafon," repub- 
 Kflied by Bp. Barlow in 1679. Dr. Milner fays, " I have 
 " proved, that this was an exprefs contrivance of the Se- 
 " cretary of State." p. 346, See alfo pp. 367, 271, 278, 
 383, 30a, of " Letters to a Prebendary." 1807. " This 
 " account of the Powder Plot, which places it in fo dif- 
 "ferent a light from that in which Dr. S. with the ge- 
 " nerality of other writers exhibit it, this gentleman has 
 " not thought proper to conteft in a fingle particular." 
 p. 347. It is not my intention to permit an adverfary to 
 deduce a ftirrender from filence on any particulars which 
 I have the means of examining. 
 
 I wifh to apprize the reader, that I had not an oppor- 
 tunity of referring to Foulis's Hiftory of Romifti Trea- 
 foijsj or to the works entitled " The Gunpowder Trea- 
 " fon," and « The Hiftory of the Gunpowder Treafon/' 
 till the Difcourfe was compofed and delivered. 
 
 Note (B), p. 38a. 
 
 Dr. Milner profeffes to colle£t various proofs of the 
 friendly difpofition of James towards the Catholics at 
 the time of his acceffion, in order to fliew how much Ms 
 opinions were fubfequendy influenced by his minifter 
 Cecil; But it muft be obferved, that thefe proofs are 
 taken from political circumfiances of various d^tes. 
 
 I. The firft is, the conference with the French Envoy, 
 the Archbifliop of Ambrun. The Englifli Catholics had 
 been treated with great feverity by James, and had ap- 
 plied to the French Monarch io intercede in their fa- 
 vour. The King of France, apprehending that they 
 might prevent the Pope from granting the dilpenfation 
 neceflary for the marriage of his daughter with a Pro- 
 teftant pripce, difpatched the Archbifliop of Ambrun as 
 the mediator. Whatever fentiments James might ex- 
 prefs in this conference with the Archbifliop, we may 
 
 6 « 
 
386 APPENDIX, 
 
 reafonably refef to the fame appreherlfion, which the 
 King of France entertained refpe£ting the obftruftion of 
 the marriage. At any rate, they admit the fame inter- 
 pretation as tbofe articles, fo highly favourable to the 
 Catholics, which were inferted in the treaty of ^marriage 
 itfelf, and they were explained in the following manner, 
 when the Marquis de Blainville remonftrated, and de- 
 manded tlieir execution. " Mais qu'il plaife auffi an 
 " Roy Trefchreftien, et k fes Miniftres, de fe reffouvenir 
 " que les plus obligeans et exadles termes et mots, com- 
 " pris es diftes articles, furent propofez de la part du 
 " Roy Trefchreftien, feulement aux fins de donner au 
 " Pape telle fatisfaftion que la Difpenfation s'en puit en- 
 " fuivre," Rymer, torn, xviii. p. 334. We muft in the 
 next place note that this conference took place in 1624! 
 
 a. The letter of James to Clement VIII. was a forgery 
 of Sir Edward Drummond, coufin of the Secretary El- 
 phinfton Lord Balmerinoch, who was tried and con- 
 demned upon his own confeffion, and afterwards par- 
 doned. He was not charged with this offence till the 
 year 1608. " The Secretary was brought before the 
 " council, and charged with the fault ; which the Lords 
 " did aggravate in fuch manner, as they made the fame 
 " to be the ground of all the confpiracies devifed againft 
 " the King fince his coming into England, efpeciaUy of 
 " the Powder Treafon. For the Papifts, faid they, find- 
 " ing themfelves difappointed of the hopes which that 
 '* letter did give them, had taken the defperate courfe, 
 " which they followed to the endangering of his Ma- 
 " jefty's perfon, pofterity, and whole eftates." P. 508. 
 Spotfwood. It appears however what James's fentiments 
 were at this period, when the letter was fent. " The 
 ** treatife" (Bellarmine's, in which he charged James 
 with inconftancy, objecting the letter to Clement) "com- 
 " ing to the King's hands, and he falling upon that paf> 
 
APPEJ^DIX. 387 
 
 ■" fage did prefently conceive that he had been abufed by 
 '• his Secretary, which he remembered had moved, on a 
 " time for fuch a letter" P. 507. Spotfwood. The Se- 
 cretary in his confeffion faid, " As he wiihed God to be 
 " merciful to his foul in that great day, his Majefty was 
 " moft falfely and wrongfully charged with the writing 
 " of that letter to the Pope, and that he never could move 
 " him to confent thereto^' P. 511. Spotfwood. 
 
 3. " The Secretary of State, Cecil," fays Dr. Milner> 
 " repeatedly aflured the Catholics, that the King would 
 " fulfil hfs promifes of granting them liberty of con- 
 " fcience. He gave affurances of the fame nature to the 
 " Spanifti ambaffador. The fubfequent event fliews, that 
 " his intention in thus raifing their hopes was to provoke 
 " their indignation, when they fhould find themfelves 
 " difappointed." P. 265. I do not wifh to prefs the au- 
 thor in this obfcure allufion to an hiftorical faft ', but I 
 muft enquire, when did Cecil give thefe affurances to the 
 Spanifli ambaffador? I cannot difcover on what other 
 occalion than the projected marriage of Prince Henry 
 with the Infanta, that he had any opportunity to intro- 
 duce thefe affurances, in his conferences with the Spanifh 
 ambaffador. " Cecil Earl of Salisbury, the great ftatef- 
 " man of that time, purfued and drove the matter to that 
 " point, that the Duke of Lerma finding no evafion, dif- 
 " claimed the being of a marriage treaty. Neverthelefs 
 " the Spanifh ambaffador, to acquit himfelf to this ftate, 
 " and to clear his own honefty, at a full council pro- 
 " duced his commiffion, together with his letters of in- 
 " ftruftion given under the Duke's hand." Rufliworth, 
 vol. i. p. I . Cecil's name is affixed to the treaty of peace 
 concluded with Spain in 1604, but no mention is made 
 of the Catholics in any of the articles. I cannot conneft 
 thefe afliirances of Cecil refpefting the Catholics with a 
 " fwbfequent event" peculiarly unfavourable to them, 
 
 G c 2 
 
388 A P P E Jsr D I X. 
 
 without fomc violent derangement of the chronology of 
 the hiftory. Dr. M. is not therefore entitled to conclude 
 in this manner his review of James's early opinions, 
 " Such were the genuine fentiments and inclinations of 
 " this King, parti<Ailarly when he jkfi fucceeded to tite 
 *' Englijh crown." P. 366. The perfon who raifed the 
 hopes of the Catholics was not Cecil, but the prieft Wat- 
 fon. " Touching the firft, (Watfon,) no man can fpeak 
 " more foundly to the point than myfelf ; for being fent 
 " into the prifon by the King 'to charge him with this 
 " falfe alarm only two days before his death, and upon 
 " his foul to prefs him in the prefence of God, and as he 
 " would anfwer it at another bar, to confefs direftly, 
 " whether at either or both thefe times he had accefs 
 " unto his Majefty at Edinborough, his Majefty did give 
 " him any promife, hope, or comfort of encouragement 
 " to Catholics concerning toleration ; he did there pro- 
 " teft, that he could never win one inch of ground, or 
 " draw the fmalleft comfort from the King in thofe de- 
 " grees ; nor further than that he would have them ap- 
 " prehend, that as he was a ftranger to this ftate, fo till 
 " he underftood in all points how thofe matters flood, 
 " he would not promife favour any way. He did con- 
 " fefs, that in very deed, to keep up the hearts of Ca- 
 " tholics in love and duty to the King, he had imparted 
 " the Ring's words to many in a better tune and a higher 
 " kind of defcaiit, than his book of plain fong did di- 
 « reft." 
 
 " For this he craved pardon of the King in humble 
 " maimer,— and feemed penitent as well for the horror 
 *' of his crime, as for the falfehoods of his whilperings." 
 State Tria;ls, vol. i. p. 203, 
 
 No*fi (C), p.' 289, 
 I (hall in this' place examine Dr. Milner's defence of 
 
APPENDIX. 38^ 
 
 the Jefuits who were concerned in this conlpiracy. Tef- 
 mond, or " Greenway," or Greenwell, ^s he is alfo 
 called, " efcaped abroad ; but his cafe was exafilly the 
 " fame with that of F. Garnet, who fuffered on this occa,- 
 " fion, and was peculiarly hard, Thefe men were both 
 " fucceffively confulted as divines, and under confcientious 
 f* fecrficy, concerning the lawfulnefs of the plot, and they 
 " both ftrongly condemned it, intreating that infatuated 
 " wretch to lay afide the thought of it." P. 369. Note 
 
 1. If ..Greenwell were firft acquainted with the confpi- 
 racy by. the confeffion of Catelby, he maintained after- 
 wards more intercourfe with the confpirators than can 
 be reconciled with any original difapprobation of the 
 defign. 
 
 2. " They both ftrongly condemned it, intreating that 
 " infatuated wretch to lay afide the thought of it," Green.- 
 well did not however copdemn the plot, when it was a 
 fecond time revealed to him in confidence by Catefhy's 
 man. Bates, who ^' went to confeffion to the faid Tefmond 
 ." the Jefuit, and in confeffion told him, that he was to 
 " conceal a very dangerous piece of work that his mafter , 
 ff Catefby, and Thomas Winter, had iitaparted unto him, 
 *' and faid he much feared the matter to be utterly un-r 
 /' lawful, and therefore therein defired the counfel of the 
 " Jefuit, and revealed unto him the whole intent apd pur- 
 '^ pofe of blowing up the Parliament-houfe upon the firft 
 f' day of the aflembly, But the Jefuit, being a confedcj. 
 f rate therein before, refolved and encouraged him in the 
 " aSion, and faid that he fhpuld be fecret in that whiph 
 *' his mafter had imparted unto him, for that it was a 
 " good caufe. Adding moreover, that it was not dap- 
 f gerous unto him, nor any offence to conceal jt 5 anjT 
 " thereupon the Jefuit g^ve him abfolution, and Bates 
 ^' ri^ceived the fa^rament of him in the company of his 
 
 PC3 
 
390 APPENDIX. 
 
 " njafter Robert Catefby, and Thomas Winter." State 
 Trials, vol. i. p. 196. 
 
 3. Nor was Garnet informed of the confpiracy through 
 the means of confeffion alone. " For the main plot, he 
 " confefled, that he was therewithal acquainted by Green- 
 " well particularly ; and that Greenwell came perplexed 
 " unto him to open fomething, which Mr. Catefby with 
 " divers others intended : to whom he faid, he was content- 
 " ed to hear by him what it was, fo as he would not be 
 " acknown to Mr. Catefby, or to any other, that he was 
 •' made privy to it. Whereupon Father Greenwell told 
 f' him the whole plot, and all the particulars thereof; 
 " with which he protefted, that he was very much dif- 
 " tempered, and could never fleep quietly afterwards, but 
 <* fometimes prayed to God that it fliould not take effect." 
 State Trials, vol. i. p. ai^. It is evident that the know- 
 ledge of the confpiracy was not communicated under the 
 feal of confeffion to Garnet ; " nay himfelf (Greenwell) 
 " hath clearly delivered under his hand, that the powder 
 " treafon was told him (Garnet) not as a fault, but by 
 " way of confultation and advice." Vol. i. p. 317. So 
 little reafon is there for Dr. Milner's affertion, that " nei- 
 " ther from the declarations of the conlpirators, nor from 
 " his own at his trial or his execution, could any evidence 
 *' be procured of his having any knowledge of the plot, 
 " except in the way of confeffion." P. 273. note (i). The 
 above declaration of Tefmond was cited at Garnet's trial. 
 
 4. If Garnet condemned the plot to Catefby, and dif- 
 fuaded him from the profecution of it, he changed his 
 opinion, for " he had confejfed to the Lords, that he had 
 " offered facrifice to God for flay of that plot, unlefs it 
 " were for the good of the Catholic oaufe." State Trials, 
 vol. i. p. 215. '' Then Garnet began to ufe fome fpeeches, 
 f' that he was not confenting to the powder treafon. 
 « Whereupon the Earl of Salifbury faid, Mr, Garnet, give 
 
APPENDIX. 39-1 
 
 ** me but one argument that you were not confenting to 
 " it, that can hold in any indifferent man's ear or feijfe, 
 " befides your bare negative. But Garnet replyed not." 
 State Trials, vol. i. p. 317. 
 
 5. " Garnet, when he found that his arguments were 
 " ineffeftual, by way of gaining time, and in the end 
 " defeating the villainy, begged of Catefby to fend a 
 " meffeng^r to confult the Pope concerning it ; knowing 
 " well that the latter would never give his confent to fo 
 " diabolical annindertaking." Milner, p. 275. note (i). 
 
 " The Earl of Salifbury replyed to Garnet, I muft now 
 " remember you, how little any of your anfwers can 
 " make for your purpofe, when you would feek to co- 
 " lour your dealing with Baynham, by profeffing to write 
 " to Rome to procure a countermand of confpiracies, 
 " and yet you know when he took his journey towards 
 " Rome the blow muft have been paffed, before the time 
 " that he could have arrived to the Pope's prefence, (fuch 
 " being yout hade and his zeal for any fuch prevention,) 
 " as it was about the 20th of our Oftober, when he 
 " paffed by Florence towards Rome. To which Garnet 
 " made no great anfwer and let it pafs." State Trials, 
 vol. i. p. 215. 
 
 5. " Father Garnet, whofe guilt was fuppofed to b« 
 " the deepeft in this bufinefs, was not indiSied mid exe- 
 " cuted for having taken any pari in the treafon, but 
 " barely for having concealed his knowledge of it." 
 Milner, p. 273. The indiftment is as follows : " The 
 " faid Henry Garnet, Ofwald Tefmond, John Gerard and 
 " other Jefuits, did malicioufly, falfly, and traitoroufly 
 " move and perfuade as well the faid Thomas Winter, 
 " &c. &c. That our Sovereign Lord the King, the No- 
 " bility. Clergy, and whole Commonalty of the Realm 
 *' of England (Papifts excepted) were heretics, and that 
 " all heretics were accurfed and excommunicate, &g, 
 
 c c 4 
 
59* APPENDIX^ 
 
 " To which traitorous perfuafions the faid Thomas Win- 
 " ter, &G. traitoroufly did yield their aflent. And that 
 " thereupoUi the faid Henry Garnet (here follows the lift 
 " of the Confpirators) traitoroufly aniongft themfelves did 
 f' conclude and agree with gunpowder, as it were with 
 " one, blaft, fuddenly, traitoroufly, and barbaroufly to 
 « blow up &c." 
 
 7. It is faid that he was " feverely and repeatedly tor- 
 f tured on the rack," p. 273. and that "to make him 
 " appear diftrafted at his trial, he was kept without fleep 
 ." fix nights and days previous to it." Milner, p. 374. 
 ," We are told by a late confident author of their own, 
 " that Garnet was kept waking fix days and nights toge- 
 " ther, and that Hall was put to extreme torture for fif- 
 'f tpen hours fpace together in the Tower." Hift. Miff. 
 Apglic. p. 315, 334. But a greater than he, (Thuanus) 
 one of their own perfuafion doth affare us, that " the 
 " King to avoid calumny did purpofely forbear any thing 
 " of that kind of rigour." Hiftory of the- Gunpowder 
 Plot. This account is well fupported by the State Trials. 
 " Of which impudent calumnies the fl;ate is fo tender, as 
 " you do beft know, Mr. Garnet, that fince your .appre- 
 " henfion, even till this day, you have been as chriftiarily, 
 " as courteoufly, and as carefully ufed, as ever man could 
 " be of any quality, or any profeffion : yea, it may truly 
 " be faid, that you have been as well attended for health 
 « or otherwfife as a nurfe-child. Is it true, or no ? faid 
 -" the Earl {of Salijhury). It is mqft true, my Lord, faid 
 <f Garnet, I confefs it." State Trials, vol. i. p. ai6. « Let 
 " it not be forgotten, that this interlocution of your's 
 " with Hall, overheard by others, appears to be digitus 
 « Dei : for thereby had the Lords fome light and proof of 
 " matter againft you, which muft have been difcovered 
 " otherwife by violence and coercion, a matter ordinary in 
 «' other kingdoms, jhough now forborn here; but it is 
 
APPENDIX. 393 
 
 " better as it is for the honour of the ftate." " His Ma- 
 " jefty and my Lords were well contented to draw all from 
 " you without racking, or any fuch bitter torments." 
 State Trials, vol. i. p. ai6. I fhall here clofe this examinav 
 tion with the teftimony of Lord Stafford, the vi£tini of fac- 
 don, whofe trial no one can read without the deepeft for- 
 row, and fcarcely without tears. " My Lords, I have heard 
 " very much of a thing that was named by thefe gentle- 
 " men of the Houfe of Commons, and that very pro- 
 *' perly too, to wit, of the Gunpowder Treafon. My 
 " Lords, I was not born then, but fome years after I 
 " heard very much difcourfe about it, and very, various 
 " reports; and I made a particular enquiry, perhaps more 
 " than any one perfon did elfe, both of my father, wh® 
 " was alive then, and my uncle, and others ; and I am 
 " fatisfied, and do clearly believe, by the evidence I have , 
 , f received, that that thing called the Gunpowder Treafon 
 " was a wicked and horrid defign (among the reft) of 
 ", the Jefuits." " Befides, nay Lords, I was acquainted 
 " with one of them that was concerned in it, who had 
 " his pardon, and lived -many years after. I difcourfed 
 " with him about it, and he confeffed it, and faid he was 
 " forry for it then : and I here declare to your Lord'- 
 " ihips, that I never heard any one of the Church of 
 "Rome fpeak a good word of it; it was fo horrid a thing, 
 " that it cannot be expreffed or excufed." State Trials, 
 vol. ii. p. 6ao. We thus afcertain the reality of the plot, 
 who were the authors of it, and what were the fentiments 
 which it excited in the honeft and worthy among the 
 Catholips themfelves. 
 
 Note (D), p. 289. 
 ' " I fhall only obferve to you, that after the difcovery 
 " of this plot, the authors of it were not convinced of th* 
 " evil, but forry ft)r the jnifcarriage of it. Sir EveranS 
 
394 APPENDIX. 
 
 " Digby, whofe very original papers and letters are now in 
 
 " my hands, after he was in prifon and knew hd muft 
 
 " fuffer, calls it the beft caufe ; and was extremely trou- 
 
 " bled to hear it cenfured by Catholics and priefts, con- 
 
 " trary to his expedlation, for a great fin : ' Let me tell 
 
 " you/ fays he, ' what a grief it is to hear that fo much 
 
 " condemned, which I did believe would have been other- 
 
 " wife thought of by Catholics.' And yet he concludes 
 
 " that letter with thefe words : ' In how full joy Ihould 
 
 " I die, if I could do any thing for the caufe, which I 
 
 " love more than my life.' And in another letter he 
 
 " fays, ' he eould have faid fomething to have mitigated 
 
 " the odium of this bufinefs, as to that point of involving 
 
 " thofe of his own religion in the common ruin : ' I dare 
 
 " not,' fays he, ' take that courfe that I could, to make 
 
 " it appear lefs odious ; for divers were to have been 
 
 " brought out of danger, who now would rather hurt 
 
 " than otherwife. I do not think there would have been 
 
 " three worth the faving, that Ihould ha,ve been loft.' And 
 
 " as to the reft, that were to have been fwallowed up, in 
 
 " that deftruftion, he feems not to have the leaft relenting 
 
 " in his mind about them. All doubts he feems to have 
 
 " looked upon as temptations ; and entreats his friends, 
 
 " to pray for the pardoning of his not fufficient ftriving 
 
 " againft temptations, fince this bufinefs was undertook." 
 
 Tillotfon's Sermon on the fifth of November, 1678. 
 
 I fliall contraft this extraft with one from Dr. Milner, 
 Letter to a Prebendary, p. 368, 369. " Amongft thefe 
 *' (the fixteen perfons accufed) it does not appear, that 
 '' more than feven individuals were acquainted with the 
 «' worft part of it ; the reft being only concerned in the 
 " fcheme of an infurreftion, or barely knowing it, as a 
 " confcientious fecret, which they ufed every means in their 
 " power to difcourage and prevent." Of thefe feven. Sir 
 iEverard Digby is faid by Dr. M. on the authority of 
 
APPENDIX. 395 
 
 Stow's Continual, and PatinfoHj " to have pleaded guilty 
 " to his indlAment, and to have fufFered death with great 
 " compunftion ; declaring at the fame time, that he was 
 " not let into the whole foulnefs of the plot; which if he 
 " had known, he would not have concealed it to gain the 
 " whole world." 
 
 Note (E), p. 295. 
 
 We are to return to the evidence that Cecil waS the 
 principal perfon concerned in the invention and direftion 
 of this plot. • 
 
 I. " Cecil did not carry on his fchemes fo fecretly, but 
 " that fome of his own domeftics got a general notion of 
 " them. Accordingly, one of them advifed a Catholic 
 " friend of his, of the name of Buck, to be upon his 
 " guard, as fome great mifchief was in the forge againft 
 " thofe of his religion. This was faid two months beforfe 
 " the difclofure of the powder plot." Milner, p. 275. I 
 can confider this merely as an indication of a want of 
 other evidence, and ftiall not think it neceflary to fay 
 more of it, than that " the general notion" of the do- 
 meftic muft have been more minute than Dr. Milner's 
 hypothefis allows ; which implies, that as fome great 
 mifchief was in the forge, he muft have defcribed by its 
 magnitude the Powder Plot ; that although it was often- 
 fibly direfted againft the Proteftants, yet that his mafter 
 was able to controul the aftors in this confpiracy ; that 
 he did not intend that it fliould take effeft, and that it 
 was folely a pretext for fome fevere treatment of the Ca- 
 tholics, and that therefore this perfon was to be upon his 
 guard. If he referred to the Powder Plot in his advice, 
 he muft have known all this. Thefe are two many par- 
 ticulars to conftitute " a general notion," whilft the cold- 
 nefs of the caution T^etrays the want of precife infor- 
 mation. The faft is, he alluded to other circumftances. 
 
39<5 APPENDIX. 
 
 a. " Certain it is, that thefe reafons have had equal 
 " weight with many intelligent ProteftantSj as with Ca- 
 " tholics. One of them calls it ' a neat device of the Se- 
 ' cretary." Ofborne's Memoirs of James I. p. 375. I am 
 of opinion that the writer here cited fays no fuch thing. 
 He is fpeaking of the difcovery of the plot. " The dif- 
 " covery appeared no lefs admirable than the treafon, to 
 " fuch as took the printed account for authentic, that a 
 " letter was fent to the Lord Morley, and from him to 
 " his Majefty, &c. A neat device of the Treafurer's to 
 " fetch him in, to whofe eftate, or perfon, >if not both,' he 
 " had a quarrel. He bein§ very plentiful in fuch plots, 
 " writing a book, a little after, wherein to raagnifie his 
 " zeal to religion and the ftate, he piibliflied a libel, 
 " where they threaten to kill him, with a well penn'd 
 " anfwer, both thought to fmell of the fame ink," Of- 
 borne's Memoirs of James I. vol. ii. p. 117. 
 
 3. The Earl of Salifbury is fufpefted of having written 
 the letter to Lord Monteagle, becaufe " he had been 
 .*' trained up by his fatlier Lord Burghley and his c.ol- 
 " leagues in the arts of counterfeiting letters, and pri- 
 " vately conveying them to Cadiolics, and of employing 
 " fecret emiffaries to draw them into dangerous prac- 
 " tifes ;" and we are required to " obferve that Babington 
 *' was firft drawn into the plot, for which he fuffered, by 
 *' fuch a letter delivered to- him by an unknown perfon," 
 Milner, p. 376. note 3. 
 
 I. The author of the letter to Lord Monteagle was 
 concealed. 3. The hand writing was unknown. 3. Its 
 purport was to declare the fudden approach of the cata^ 
 ftrophe of a confpiracy, and does, not feem to be calculated 
 to enfnare others for this reafon ; that as the plot was fo 
 faf advanced, it was implied, tljat a fufficient numbRT of 
 perfons was already employed to execute it. 4. The au- 
 thor of ■^he letter to Babingtoq was tjie Queen of Scots, 
 
APPENDIX. 397 
 
 5. It was written in a cypher familiar to^ Babington. 
 
 6. The objeft of it was to engage Babington to efpoufe 
 her party, and to manage a private correfpondence to ad- 
 vance her interefls. 7. The two cafes agree in this cir- 
 oumftance only, that the letters were delivered by an un- 
 known perfon. 8. Babington afcribed, in his confeffion, 
 the origin of his confpiracy not to the letter above men- 
 tioned, but to Ballard the prieft. State Trials, vol. i. 
 p. 106. 
 
 4. There ftill remains another fuppofition not lefs licen- 
 tious than tlie reft, ta try the patience without exercifing 
 the mind. " He (Treftiam) was well acquainted with 
 " Cecil, and is known to have had fome communicatipnfi 
 " with him concerning the affairs of Catholics. Trefhara 
 " was upon fuch terms with Cecil, that he had accefs to 
 " him at all hours, not only of the day, but alfo of the 
 " night. Goodman Biftiop of Gloucefter, quoted by Fou- 
 " lis in his Popifli Treafons, exprefsly fays, that Trelham 
 " wrote the letter to Lord Monteagle. If fo, it cannot 
 "be queftioned, who diftated it." Note to p. 278. As 
 Dr. Milner afliimes, that this obfcure letter was of fuch a 
 kind as to inveigle other Catholics to join the Confpi- 
 tators, it is of importance to conjefture, who might have 
 been the author of it. But how it wis to produce this 
 effeft, is ftill more difficult to conceive. It is deficient iti 
 every charafteriftic of an invitatory nature. It neither 
 allures, nor folicits, nor exhorts, nor convenes the votaries 
 of Catholicifffl. If the objeft of Cecil were to " en- 
 " tangle" " perfons of that rank, as he Inight find it expe- 
 " dieot," p. 279. this letter is a Angular inftance of a ftatef.. 
 man having fo fer mifunderftood the means of effefting 
 this, as not to fuggeft any topic, which could influence 
 Remind in that manner. This contrariety between the 
 fiippofed objeft of the writer, and the letter itfelf, muft,' 
 where we have no fedts, fiitisfy an enquirer of the futility 
 
398 APPENDIX, 
 
 of the hypothefis. That Cecil fhould delay the develop-" 
 ment of the plot that k might " run to full ripenefs," and 
 to fee whether any other nobleman would receive fimilar 
 advertifement, was conduct both prudent and natural ; 
 but to interpret Cecil's words, as if it were " to allow 
 " him time to fend frejh letters to perfons of that rank 
 " (whom moft of all he wiftied to entangle) if he found it 
 " expedient," p. 279. is quite unneceffary, unlefs the " frefti 
 " letters" were very different from the fpecimen fent to 
 Lord Monteagle. 
 
 5. " Trefliam it feems died of poifon," Dr. Milner fays, 
 " before any trial or examination of him took place." 
 Wood's account is this ; " He was taken and committed 
 " prifoner to the Tower of London, where he died of the 
 " ftrangury, fay fome, others, that he murthered himfelf : 
 *' yet a venerable author tells us, that he being fick in the 
 " Tower, Dr. Will. Butler, the great Phyfician of Cam- 
 " bridge, coming to vifit him as his fafhion was, gave 
 " him a piece of very pure gold to put in his mouth; and 
 ^' upon taking out of that gold, Butler faid he was poi- 
 "foned." Athen. Oxon. vol. i. p. 283. 
 
 Was it incumbent upon Cecil to procure Trefliam to 
 be poifoned, in order to conceal the author of the letter 
 to Lord Monteagle ? 
 
 Note (F), p. 298. 
 
 " I have alfo a fufficiently high opinion of the fincerity 
 " of the King of England in the profeffion, which he 
 " makes of the Catholic Religion, to induce me to believe 
 " he will employ all his authority to eftablifli its free ex- 
 " ercife, without it being neceflary to excite him to it by 
 " a premature advance of money, and which ought not to 
 " be employed if the Parliament grant him the revenues 
 *' enjoyed by the late King, and confent alfo to the eftablifli- 
 " ment of the free exercife of our religion." P. 67. The- 
 
APPENDIX. 399 
 
 King to Barjllon. Speaking of a certain fum of money, 
 " which I wifh you to preferve only to be difpofed of in 
 " the event of the King of England not being able to ob- 
 " tain from his Parliament a continuation of the revenues, 
 " or on his finding fuch obftacles to the eftabliflunent of 
 " the Catholic Religion, as may compel him to diffolve it, 
 " and employ his authority and arms to bring his fubjefts 
 " to reafon." P. 67, 68. The King to Barillon. " He (the 
 " Earl of Sunderland) will in future enjoy a large fhare 
 " of his mafter's confidence, fhould his union with your 
 " Majefty continue, and he perfevere in his defigA of 
 " eftablifliing the Catholic Religion." P. 71. Barillon to- 
 the King. " So that, after having given proofs of my zeal 
 " for the re-e/iahli/hment of the Catholic Religion in 
 " England, and of my friendfhip towards this Prince, by 
 " the fuccours I am at this time tranfmitting to you, I 
 " may not, in the event of his entertaining finifter inten- 
 " tions, contribute further towards placing him in a con- 
 " dition to aft contrary to whatever I could defire." 
 P. 84. Extraft of a letter from the King to Barillon. " As 
 " I find with pleafure, that the Englifti Parliament con- 
 " tributes liberally to all his Majefly's wants, and that he 
 " will meet with no obflacles to the re-ejlablifliment of 
 " the Catholic Religion, when he fliall undertake it after 
 " the dilperfion of the remains of the rebels ; I have 
 *' thought proper to recall the fums, which have been 
 " tranfmitted to you for the purpofe of fupporting, in 
 " cafe of need, the defigns this prince might have in fa- 
 " vour of our religion." P. 98. The King to Barillon. 
 " This minifter (Lord Sunderland) faid to me, ' I know 
 " not whether things are feen in France as they are here j 
 " but I defy any one, who views them clbfely, not to 
 " know, that the King my matter has nothing more at 
 "heart, than a defire to eftablifli the Catholic Reli- 
 " gion.' 
 
400 APPENDIX. 
 
 (C 
 
 I fee clearly the apprehenfion entertained by many 
 " people of a connexion with France, and the efforts that 
 " will be made to weaken it : but no one will be able to 
 " do it, unlefs there be a wifli for it in France : this is a 
 " matter upon which you muft diftinftly explain yourfelf, 
 " and fhew that the King your matter wiihes fincerely to 
 *' afSft the King of England in permanently eftablifhing 
 " the Roman Catholic Religion." p. 104. Barillon to the 
 King, and p. 106, 107, 114, 
 
 I would only remark, that much more than even an 
 univerfal toleration was intimated by the expreffions of 
 the King to Barillon, who does not ufe the fimple term 
 eftablifhment, but the re-eftablifliment of the Catholic Re- 
 ligion — retabliflement de la Religion Catholique. See 
 p. 88, and loa. of the French Appendix. This word can- 
 not be reduced tp the meaning of a toleration of any ex- 
 tent. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 ERRATA AND CORRECTIONS. 
 
 Page 153. line ig.for "initiation" read "imitation" 
 Page 191. line. 10. fir " fcriptural" reaJ " critical" 
 Page 137. line 1, dele from " and" to " Chrift," 
 Page 24.0. line 24. dele " and irregular" 
 Page 276. line ^i-fir " fuis" read " fuis" 
 Page 304. line j. dtle " a."