lii theological ^cmiuavjj, PRINCETON, N. J. No. Case, /^ J^ aA BR 45 .B35 1810 Bampton lectures / Certain Principles in Evanson s ^^ Dissonance of the " Four generally received Evangelistsl'' Decapoli Syriae perquam parvae (olivae foil.) came tamen conimendantur ; quam ob caufam Italicis tranf- inarinae praeferuntur in cibis, quum oleo vincantur. Plin. Nat. Hift. lib. xv. c. 3. <^ Gaza was not one ; Gadara and Hippos were the others. SERMON VI. 205 in whatever fenfe we take it, could not have had exiftence when St. Matthew is faid to have written his Gofpel. If this annexation of thefe cities to Syria were the foundation of the dif- tincftion of the Decapolis, the name could not have been given till the whole decad were in- cluded within the province. But Pliny ex- prefsly fays, that the tetrarchies furrounded fome, and were intermixed with others of the conflituent cities. We may therefore be per- mitted to conjedure, without refining upon flight intimations, that as the Decapolitan re- gion retained its defignation, notwithllanding its '^ interfe(ftion 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 fome bond of union, the memory of which re- mained, but its exad: nature w^as not exprefled in the denomination of Decapolis. We may alfo appeal to a ^ Palmyrene infcription for the ^ " Intercurfant, cinguntque has urhes tetrarchice, re- *' gnorum iri/iar, Jingulce, et in regna contribuuntur." Plin. Nat. Hift. lib. v. c. i8. And in another paflage ; " Poft eum introrfus Decapolitana regio, prcediSiceque cum " ea tetrarchice." Lib. v. c. 20. « Nee alia eft Abila, quae Decapoli attribuitur in in- 2o6 SERMON YL duration of the name, to whatever age the an- tiquarian enquirer may affign this monument. It is neceflary alfo to remark, that the tefti- mony of Pliny is not the tellimony of writers of his own times only, but alfo of more an- cient hillorians and geographers, who had either themfelves ftGn 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 objection. He alferts, that the author of the Gofpel fpeaks of it as a country ^ " which did not lie eallward of Jordan, be- ** caufe he exprefsly diftinguiflies it from the *' country beyond Jordan." But he cannot think of any diitindions which may reconcile an apparent contradiction. The multitudes who aflembled to hear our Saviour came from every quarter ; and the Evangelift, by fpecify- ing the Decapolis, included but a part of the country beyond Jordan. Tlie sJevvifli hillo- rian has dillinguiftied the tetrarchy of Gaulo- fcriptione vetcri, quae extat n.3. inter monumenta Palmy- rena, quae cum Icholiis Edvardi Beniardi et Thomae Smith prodierunt ubi legitur ArA0ANrEAO2 ABIAH- N02 AEKAnOAEOS. Reland. Pal. p. 525. f Diflbnancc, p. 165. S Jpfeph. Antiq. lib, xvii. c. 13. ct de Bell. lib. iii. q. a,. SERMON VI. 207 nitis from the country beyond Jordan, not becaufe they were (ituated on different fides 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 w ill only invalidate the pro- bable affumption of fome writers on the ca- non of the New Teftament. It will not afFedl the veracity of any hiflorian whatever. And why fhould not fbme latitude be allowed in determining a point of much obfcurity, which again relis upon fuch circumflances as thefe ; at what precife year a written Gofpel became neceffary, was then undertaken, and at laft completed and divulged ? SERMON Vn. 3 Pet. i. i5. IVe have not followed cunningly devifed fables, JL HE eftabliihment of the church of Con- ftantine is faid by the author of '* The Dillb- " nance" to be fignified by ** the apoftafy from " the truths of the Gofpel, predidled in dif- " ferent fcriptures of the New Teftament." The queftion will not be mifreprefented, if we underftand the eftabliftiment of the church of Conftantine to be equivalent, in the mean- ing of our opponent, to the eftablifhment of Chriilianity as the religion of the Hate. 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 p 210 SERMON VII. Scripture, to which this apoftafy is attributed, is faid in '' The Diflbnance" to have been effected in the latter part of the fecond cen- tury. From this period, then, downwards to the age of Contlantine, the obnoxious opinions muft have been fpreading among thofe who ufed the adulterated volumes ; that is, for the fjpace of more than a century and a half: and yet the failure of the true faith is not fup- pofed to have become general, till it can be invidioufly reprefented, that it then corre- fponded with the terms of the predictions, when it had acquired the fandlion of the civil magillrate. It does not appear that the Hate of the books of the Chriftians was ever examined by Conftantine, or that he decreed that certain books, and no others, fliould be received as the llandard of the ChrilHan faith throughout the Roman empire. We can only alledge, that the ecclefiallical annals do not furnifli a dire6l reply to the pofition, that the corrup- tions of the books, which had been admitted or fuggelled before, were eftablillied, as far as the influence of political power extended, un- der the adminillration of Conllantine. We mud therefore attempt by fome circuitous en- quiry to difcover fads, which may invalidate SERMON VII. 211 objections that originate folely in the lilence of hillory ; and which, it fliould be remarked, is lilent only, and not defedive. The edi6t of Milan, whether we adopt the words of the ^ hiftorian of the Dechne and Fall of the Ro- man Empire, in fpeaking of its tendency, or extract a portion of the edi6t itfelf, granted fuch abfolute permiffion to perfons of every religious denomination to follow their own tenets, that they could not be rellrided to any particular fource, or to the ufe of certain books, from which they were expeded to de- rive them. '^ The indulgence which we have " granted in matters of religion," fay Conftan- tine and Licinius in their edid;, *' is ample *' and unconditional; and that you might per- " ceive, at the fame time, that the open and " free exercife of their refpedive 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 Chriflians, or to whatever " other religion his mind direAed him to." That Licinius did not adhere to the terms of this declaration, is not denied; but his col* » Gibbon, vol. iii. p. 244, 245. edit. 8vo. De Mort. Perfec. tranflated by Sir D. Dalrymple, p. 114. P 2 212 SERMON VII. league, when he polTelled 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 conlider fome of its provilions as having the fame au- thority with •' the maxims of the civil law." But Conftantine afterwards violated, rather than retraced, the privileges which this edidl conferred. Heretics were diflinguilhed from other believers, and not merely excluded from a participation with the orthodox in their civil diftindiions. By the confeflion of Eufebius, the places of their religious afTemblies were deftroyed, and perfons were confidered as he- retics when they were difcovered to have in their poflellion certain books. From thefe circumllances we may infer what was the operation of the edi6t of Milan in thofe parts of the empire more immediately fubjed; to the government of Conftantine. The mere efta- blifhment of Chriftianity by the ftate, without b « The edift of Milan (de Mort. Perf. c. 48.) acknovv- " ledges, by reciting that there exifted a fpecies of landed ** property * ad jus corporis eorum, id eft, ecclefiarum, * non hominum (ingulorum pertinentia.' Such a folemn " declaration of the fuprcme magiftrate muft have been " received in all the tribunals as a maxim of civil law." Gibbon, vol. iii. p. 3o5. edit. 8vo. SERMON VII. 213 a toleration of all the fubdivifions of its fedls, would not have been favourable to the in- terells 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 to Conliantine 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 ftrength which the different bodies of the heretical Chriftians had acquired at the time of the publication of the edicft. They had their refpe^live buildings for the celebration of public worfliip. Their oppofition does not feem to have been obvioufly connected 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 ecclefiafl:ical honours of the empire. All the fecfts, however, were not indifcriminately ex- pofed to the perfecution of the magiftrate. The opinions of the Novatians were examined and tolerated. But this fe6l received, we may prefume, the fame books of Scripture as their founder adopted in the third century ; and it is admitted that Novatian did not rejedl the facred canon received in his own times, and p 3 214 SERMON VII. that he does not mention any fpurious apo- cryphal Chriftian writings. The manners of the ecclefiailics 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 interells of the Itate could be promoted by the adoption of the fuppofed old corruptions of the records of their religion, it is difficult to conceive. According to the hypothelis 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 ellablifhed when Chrillianity became the religion of a powerful and extenfive empire. But what are the grounds of this bold con- jedure? Conilantine himfelf did not deter- mine, nor authorize others to determine, what books were to be regarded as authentic, and what to be rejected as fpurious. This queftion w^as not difcuifed during his reign. Whatever was afcertained refpe6ting this fubjed: had been previoufly examined by the council of Laodicea. Not that any other authority is to be attributed to the decifion of this allembly, than what may be derived from its antiquity, SERMON VII. 215 and the nature of the enquiry in which that allembly was engaged. It had likewife fome advantage in being only a provincial council ; a circumftance which, if it fubtra6ls 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 required, 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 controverfy 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 fad; of fuch importance, which accorded fo well with his purpofe of degrading the charader of Conftantine, and impugning Chriftianity as an impofture ? The wiflied-for difcovery, however, mud eafily have been made at the time of the Arian con- troverfy, if the impolition had then exifted ; and it is not a little fufpicious, that the author of " The Diflbnance" fliould have effeded a p 4 216 SERMON YII. difcovery, without any intimation or affiftance from ancient authors, after an interval of four- teen hundred years, and that he fliould have fuggefted corruptions and interpolations, v^hich did not occur to the difputants, nor are re- corded by the hiftorians, of that dillant 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 fhould afterwards be fo exactly accommodated to the future interefts of Chrif- tians, the eftablifhment of whofe religious {y{- tem, as the religion of the liate, 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- tection of the Emperor ? If it were the reiult of fome acft 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 fuch tranf- acftions ; and we are juftified in concluding, that no fuch ever exifted. SERMON VII. 217 If this mode of reply Ihould be regarded as unfatisfaAory, it muft 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 fome anfwer, de- duced from probability, which may fatisfy common enquiry, and be applicable to ordi- nary doubts. But when objections relate to periods of time, of which hiftories are pre- ferved, and the hiftorians do not fpeak of events, which are ftated in the objedions to have occurred, we can only fhew, that the objectors allume more than the annals of hif- tory furnilh, and argue upon fuppolititious and prefumptive data. We are next to confider the effects of the alledged corruptions upon the Gofpel in ge- neral. The author of '^ The DilTonance" af- firms, that the prefent Gofpel ^" is totally " unlike the Gofpel originally preached by " Jefus and his Apottles." This boldly af- ferted diverlity he attempts to eltablifli by an hypothetical comparifon of the prefent and former intelligibility of the intent and pur- pofes of the Gofpel, and of the evidences of « Diffonance, Pref. p. v. 218 SERMON VII. its truth. He ftates it to be indifpenfable, that ^ " fatisfaclory proofs of the truth and " divine authority of the Gofpel, and a com- *' plete knowledge of its intents and doArines, *' fliould be really attainable to the ordinary *' faculties of the human mind, and eafy to be *' comprehended by children, and the mofl '* illiterate of the people." In the firft place, the ordinary faculties of the human mind are incorredlly oppofed " to children, and the '' moft illiterate of the people;" whofe facul- ties are the ordinary faculties of the fpecies. The ftate of intelledual powers not yet ma- tured, or left uncultivated, cannot be taken for the iiandard of the intelligibility or fatif- fadlory 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 diftincl objects to be confidered ; the Gofpel which was preached, its intent and purpofe, and the proofs of its truth and divine autho- rity. The Gofpel which our Saviour preached confided, in its moral part, of purity of thought and intentions, and univerfal benevolence ; in its religious fyftem, it inculcated the refur- *J Diflbnance, Pref. p. v. SERMON VII. 219 rec^ion from the dead, a ftate of future re- wards and punilhments, an atonement for fin, through the blood of the divine Teacher of thefe dodlrines. Its intent and purpole was rcprelented bj the Jews to be, to deftroy the law of Mofes, inftead of being the fulfilment of one dilpenfation, and the introduction of another. The proofs of its truth and divine authority were, miracles, 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 confifi:, 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 confi;itutes a part of the literary refearch of modern ages. The Gofpel itfelf was intelli- gible to the poor, or the reply to the Baptifl:'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 rellored, and devils were cafi: out. But thefe were not " fatif- " factory 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 fufpe6led that he had not been bhnd from his birth ; devils were cafi: out, but it was churl- ilhly alledged that it was by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. The fad; is, fomething elfe is intimated to be wanting to produce convidion befides plenary and intelligible evidence ; befides being contempo- raries of our Saviour, hearers of his wifdom, and witnelTes of his power. Proofs may be fufficient, although not fatisfadlory in the event of their influence ; although they do not produce convidion ; becaufe it may be objected at any time, that fads were deficient, as proofs : either that the miracles were not performed at all, or not at a convenient fea- Ibn, or not by the inherent power of the vi- Hble agent ; for wherever a doubt can be fug- gefted, or a difpute is intended, objedions to the befl received truths may be invented ; in- genious, perhaps, but not fubflantial; plaufible, but vifionary ; learned, but irrational and in- conclulive. With regard to tlie full compre- henfion of the intent of the Gofpel, a degree of prejudice prevailed at its firll publication, which is no reproach to the revelation itfelf. It required repeated afTurances from our Lord himfelf to fatisfy his followers, that he did not SERMON VII. 221 come to deftroy, but to fulfil the law of Mo- fes; and the fame prejudices fubfifted to a diilant period. The circumftance, therefore, of living at the time did not in this refpedt 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 poflelfed in fucceeding times, and had no reference to the intellectual qualifications of thofe, to whom it was afford- ed : this was, the advantage of a perfonal communication, and in hearing the doctrines promulgated, and in being eye-witnefles of thofe tranfaclions 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 f* 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 c Diflbnance, Pref. p. v. 222 SERMON Vir. records of the early centuries, it docs not ap- pear that the civil magillrate interpofed to adapt the teftimony of the authenticity of the Scriptures to any object of his own ; but the Chriftians received fome as genuine, and re- jected others as fpurious, upon the proper evi- dence and examination, w^ithout arrogating to themfelves any exclulive authority to de- termine for others, and certainly w^ithout the fandion of the civil magilirate. For it is well known, that the canon of the New Teltament was formed and eftabliflied, 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 fhould confift of fuch books, and no others. If we feek for this majority of fuf- frages in the proceedings of the council of Laodicea, or that of Nice, the refult will be in contradiction to the allertions of the author of " The Diflbnance." If our accounts on this fubjedl are true, we do not difcover that any difference of opinion divided the allembly at Laodicea j fo that, for any thing we know, they were unanimous in their decilions. Their SERMON VII. 223 condudl, as far as it is to be collected from hif- torj, was candid and unexceptionable. They examined what books were received by the churches in former times, and, as the conclu- lion of that enquiry, determined which were, or were not, the canonical books. But their catalogue is to be regarded rather as an aflu- rance that the enquir}^ was duly and carefully conducted, than as an authoritative fanAion of a colledlion 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 polTefs fources of information which are not now in exill- ence. If we refer to the meafures of the council of Nice, at which Conllantine himfelf is faid to have prefided, the queliion refpedl- ing the canon of Scripture was not difculTed. It is faid to have been attended by an incre- dible number of eccleliaftics of inferior rank, as well as billiops. 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 afFedlation of fin- f I allude to Jortin's Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. 224 SERMON VII. gularity, the pride of diftinclion, or the per- verfenels of jealoufy, might not have led to diflent from the majority of their allbciates ? But where are we informed of the amount of the numbers on each fide, which determined the authenticity of the evangeUcal writings ? The independent conftitution of the primitive churches had a tendency to leave to the dif- cretion of each fociety of Chriftians refpedl- 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 rafhly 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 charadter, like the reft. We cannot indeed difcover any mode of corrupting the facred Scriptures, or of efta- blilhing the authority of fuch as are fuppofed to have been corrupted, that nccellarily re- fulted from the eftablilhment of Chriftianity as the imperial rule of faith. We are not in- formed what reafons induced Conftantine to SERMON VII. 225 adopt the faith of the majoritj, nor whether any intrigue was employed to attach him to that party ; and no poUtical reafon can be afligned why he might not have apoftatized after his converfion. We mtift therefore fup- pofe, that the ordinary motives of conviction operated upon Ms 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 pro- bably the fame caufe which has always pro- duced diversity of opinion, and will continue to produce it, under all modes of government whatfoever. It is remarked by g Mofheim, in anfwer to thofe who would refer the profelTion of Chrif- tianity by Conftantine to motives of ambition, that upon attentive refled:ion, and after a di- ligent examination of the hiftory of that pe^ riod, he could not perceive that the profeffion of the Chriftian faith either did or could pro- mote the attainment of his wilh to reign with- out a colleague ; an objedl which, he does not deny, he ardently purfued* His government g Mofheim de Reb. Chrift. ante Conft. Magn. p. 969, 970. Q 226 SERMON VII. was profperous before he was a Chriftian, and not a difciple of any religious lyftem what- ever. The ^heretics of that age were feverely treated, and the various edidls againft their followers fhew that they were numerous and powerful bodies of men, and able in their turn to impofe confiderable reflraint upon the more favoured profelTors of orthodoxy ; and their proceedings continued to excite the jealoufy of the prince, and ultimately provoked his co- ercion. They would aiTuredly at this time have reproached the orthodox, if there had been any foundation for it, with having fubfti- tuted a forged and interpolated canon of Scrip- ture inllead of the genuine writings, when the fufFerings, which the fupreme authority inflicted, confifted of the demolition of their places of public worlliip, and the plunder and dellruclion of their books. But we do not hear of any complaints of this kind ; nor does it appear, that the public reading of the Scrip- 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 mud have taken place, we may ^ See Bingham. SERMON VII. 221 conclude, had the ruling party been confcious that they had by fraud and impofition obtain- ed the fancftion of the civil authority for the reception and acknowledgment of forged Scriptures. The very exigence of the heretics fuppofes, that there v^as in their poiTeffion a liandard of fcriptures of the Nev7 Teftament, by which the deviations of the orthodox, if any, might have been afcertained. One of the effects of the corruption of the Gofpel is faid to be, the alteration of its ori- ginal charader of perfpicuity. J " Its moft " important, becaufe its fundamental doc- " trines, are to be interpreted only by the fa- " gacity of the learned refpedling 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 refponlible; nor do we know how the difficulty would be lelTened, if the Gofpel had been preferved in any other language than the Greek. The fagacity of the learned would Hill have been necelTary, and perhaps lefs fuccefsful, becaufe it mufi: have been lludied under much greater difadvan- tages. The Gofpel indeed, if it had been the ^ Diflbnance, Pref. p. v, Q3 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 actions. They were not performed in fome obfcure and remote diftrid:, nor is the language of the Gofpel the ancient dialed: of fome barbarous or ilUterate tribe of Afia. It fubjedted the facred hiftory and doctrine to the examination of the whole civihzed world. We can have the Gofpel only in two ways ; with or without writing. Would the fuppo- fition 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 firll apollolical teacher, who underftood the language of the converts by fpecial revelation ? As the language in which the Gofpel is written was the bell un- derftood, the moll widely diiFufed, 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 pofition of our opponent is, that to underlland the dodrines of the Gofpel re- quires critical learning and fagacity ; but this may be applied with more force to any other ancient language. The objedion, however, comprizes feveral particulars ; as, what are to be conlidered as the fundamental dodlrines of Chrillianity, and in what fentences of Greek or Hebrew are they contained ? We are not favoured, however, with any direction to dif- cover what thofe fundamental doctrines may be which are charadlerized or alluded to by the author of " The Dillbnance," no other- wife than that they are " contained in a few " words or fentences of Greek or Hebrew." Is it meant that we fhould colleA briefly, that the fundamental were the intelligible doctrines ? Thefe doctrines, however, were preached intelligibly to the bulk of mankind by Jefus and his Apollles. But it will not detract from the authority or authenticity of any part of the New Tellament to fuppofe, that thofe palTages, which are now interpreted by the afliftance of the critical fagacity of the learned, were the fame, that were ealily un» derllood by the generality of the hearers who Q 3 230 SERMON VIL were at the time addrelTed by our Saviour and his Apoftles. If thefe paiTages were not the fame. Hill more fagacity and more critical knowledge would be neceflaiy to eftablifti the difference, or the interpolation. That the con- temporaries of the Apoftles and Jefus Chrift: underftood many alluftons, many parts of the hiftory, the metaphorical language, and other circumftances, more perfectly 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 Gofpel 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 correftly the plainer parts, for the inftru6tion of Chriltians in general, as to fupport a difcuftion 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 fcholar. It is not a myftic language, confined to the priefts of our religion ; it is not the hieroglyphic lore of the hierophant. If the SERMON VII. 231 fubje(3: indeed has difficulties which perplex the underftanding, and which, without fome labour, 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 extincft dialect 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 profelled Chriftians of the " fecond and third centuries, whom they have " thought fit to denominate orthodox ; and " who, rejedling all thofe numerous evange- " lical hiftories, which, Luke informs us, were " written in his time, admitted and preferved " thefe four alone, and attributed them to the " authors, under whole names they now ap- " pear." It is here aflumed, without evidence, that the hiilories, 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 becaufe they were in oppolition to the accounts in the other Gofpels. But who has ^ Diflbnance, p. 19. Q 4 232 SERMON VII. related any of thefe circumllances, the facls of the hiftories of which St. Luke fpeaks, the names of the authors, the names of the pro- feffed Chriftians who adopted or rejected them, in what manner the rejection 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 DiiTonance" has himfelf fet the ex- ample of interpolation in his own perfon by audacioufly prefuming to fupply the alledged defeds of hiftory by fubllituting his own un- founded conjedlures and aflumptions in the place of the records of truth. But it is not eafy to conceive how thefe Chrillians could admit and prcferve four Gofpels only, without expofing themfelves, not merely to the notice, but to the refentment of thofe perfons, whole facred books were anterior to that of St. Luke. It is ditficult to imagine that a mere ftratagem of party, in favour of four fpurious narratives, could at once annihilate the credit, or even deliroy the exillence, of all the other more ancient and more authentic accounts of the fame fubjed: ; and it is llill more difficult to imairine by what means the contents of thefe loll writings have been fo well afcertained, as to jullify the affirmation, that they contra- SERMON VIL 233 didled the accounts contained in the Gofpels which we now receive. But as the general prefervation of any particular writing is not eafily acconiplilhed by intereft or favour, fo neither is the annihilation of oppofite accounts of fads 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 intelledual a nature to be tangible by any of thefe human con- trivances. How could the Chriftians controul and dired, 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 refpedively preferved copies of their own books, in oppofition to the fame fpecies of political force ; the former in the reign of Diocletian, and the latter un- der that of Conrtantine. The author of " The DilTonance," however, does not wholly attribute the reception of what he confiders a fabulous and fpurious Gofpel to the influence of a great worldly ru- ler. He is perfuaded, that it has been ad- mitted, according to a prediction of St. Paul, that men would believe " a flrong delufion," 234 SERMON YII. becauie they took " pleafure in unrighteouf- *' nefs." He has " no doubt" " that the doc- *' trine of Chrift's death being a full fatis- " faction to the divine juftice for all the fins " and unrighteoufnefs of men, which is found- " ed principally upon this fabulous and Ipu- " rious Gofpel called Matthew's, is particu- " larly alluded to by the Chrijiian prophet in " this prediBioii ; and that this has always *' been the grand inducement with the mem- " bers of the orthodox church of Conllantine, '' next to compuhion and temporal allure- '' ments of the civil magiftrate, to attach them " to its fabulous, idolatrous fuperll:ition." The true hiftory is fuppofed to be that in which are omitted the words " for the remillion of fins," which St. Matthew has recorded in his ac- count of the inftitution of the laft fupper. As it has not been my object to difcufs the doc- trines contained in the feveral books, the au- thenticity of which this writer has endea- voured to invalidate, I fhall here only obferve, that the rejection of the words, " for the re- *' million of fins," will not be fufficient for the purpofe of the objector. For although he willies to reduce the infiitution 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. 235 retains as genuine other words, which cannot be referred to the notion of a merely comme- morative rite. St. Luke, whofe narrative is alTerted by the objedlor to be more correct than that of St. Matthew, relates, that our Saviour's words were, " This cup is the New " Teftament in my blood, which is Ihed for ** you." We cannot fo far fimplify the mean- ing of this expreffion as to fuppofe, that its whole force is employed to fignify, that our Saviour Ihed his blood merely to imprefs the memory of his death upon the recolledion 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 flefh, after the promulga- tion of the Gofpel, was his death ; apd 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 fad:, and did not denote its nature and de- fign, the words " my blood, which was Ihed " for you," would exprefs, that the memory of his mere appearance would not have been preferved without this fhedding of his blood. It is remarkable, that this dodlrine of atone- ment is faid to have been received by the mem- bers of the church of Conftantine, upon its 236 SERMON VII. own intrinfic tendency, next to the compulsion and temporal allurements *' of the civil magif- " trate." Among fo many powerful motives it is not eafy to difcriminate the feparate ope- ration of each, and to ailign to it the appro- priate efFedt. A doArine, which is reprefented as being fo favourable to the vicious and im- moral propenfities of our corrupt nature, could not fail of alluring numerous profelytes. This indeed would defervedly claim a place among the fecondary caufes in the propagation of Chriftianity. Temporal allurements and poli- tical compulfion were unnecelTary, and could not be compared in influence with the agency of the other caufe. But the doclrine is re- prefented as acting only in fubordination to qompulfion and allurement. This indeed is an inftance of metaphylical 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 furnifhes a moll extra- ordinary picture of the ftate of the Chriflian community at that period. They are fuppofed to have been aduatcd by fevcral interelled confiderations in receiving one of the funda- mental dodrines of their religion ; by the dread SERMON VII. 237 of force, by the allurement of temporal com- penfation, and by the ab folate atonement for the lins of the wicked by the death of Chrift. For what period are we to fuppofe that thefe principles of condud: continued to operate on the minds of men ? The delulion is fuppofed to have been lirong, yet it might have been diffipated. It required only the interpolition of fome innovating enthuliaft, 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 obllacle to prevent the difclofure of fuch an impollure, if fuch an impofture had exilted. The fame fpirit, which reformed the weftern churches in fubfequent ages, would have burll 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 Dilfonance" has employ- ed. The Gofpel of St. Luke was as open to their examination, as it has been fince to his. They might have allumed it as the llandard of the truth of the other narratives, or, from 238 SERMON VII. the frequent perufal of it, they might have obferved that difcrepancy with the other Gof- pels, which might have led to a iimilar con- cluiion of want of accuracy in the reft. But of fuch proceedings there is not the flighteft intimation any where. It is indeed acknow- ledged by the obje and a-iiA^iKivB-ict where the manners and habits of the people did not furnilli the things themfelves ? And yet it is upon the authority of thefe, and limilar words, that we are to pronounce to be forgeries any books which contain them before the time of Trajan. This is an unreafonable llandard of authenticity, becaufe it fuppofes that every word was lirll ufed in writing before it was employed in converfation and general inter- courfe. It may happen that terms of this kind are not to be found elfe where ; 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. Belides, it may not fall within the view of a writer to mention fadls relative to fuch ob- jects ; 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 mull fuppofe, that we poflefs all the writings in which it had ever been in- troduced* 270 SERMON VIIL By this view of the extenfive difFufion of the Greek language we fliall be able to judge of an obfervation refpecling the language in which the Epillle to the Hebrews was written. It is remarked, that >' " if this Epiftle had " been fent 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 time of CralTus the Greek language was well underftood in Par- thia ; nor are we to limit the ufe of the Sep- tuagint verfion of the Jewifli Scriptures to the country where it was executed. If the early eftablifhment of Chrillianity in the countries near the Euphrates were a reafon why any Hebrew writing fliould be preferv^ed, the fame caufe fhould have operated llill more power- fully in the prefervation of the Hebrew ori- ginal of St. Matthew's Gofpel in Judea and Jerufalem, where Chriflianity was firft pro- mulgated. It is an all'ertion not well fupported, that '* the greatelt part of the inhabitants of Jeru- y Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 194. SERMON VIII. 271 ** falem 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 llrangers, but each ftranger recognifcd the other as a member of the fame great family; and therefore the ufual caufes which create diftruft, referve, and jcaloufy, and a dilin- clination 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 charader almoft in Judea itfelf. ^ Jo- fephus compofed his work on the wars of his countrymen in Hebrew, which is now loft ; but the Greek verfion of it is preferved. He has however informed us, that he himfelf tranilated it, and that he ftudied the Greek ^ Rumpseus, p. 93. a In Praefat. ad lib. de Bell. Jud, 272 SERMON VIII. language at Rome in order to qualify himfelf to write with more correAnefs, as we may fuppofe ; not that he acquired it there from its very elements. He defigned his verlion 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 leail: known : and he could have no in- tereft to wTite an account of the wars of his countrymen more intelligibly for the ufe of the Greeks, than for that of the Romans. I am not fenlible that this enquiry into the general prevalence of the Greek language is defective in the proof of an important cir- cumllance ; namely, that it was fo gene- rally fpoken, that the Gofpels, when written in that tongue, would be ealily underllood by perfons of almoll every condition. It would otherwife have feemed to be repug- nant to propriety, to the apoftolical pra6lice and directions, and to the delign of the Au- tlior of Chriltianity, that the Gofpel Ihould be preached in the native language of each people, but publillied in writing in a language known to one nation only. On the other hand, the extent of its ditiulion, or the length of time during which it continued in ufe. SERMON VIII. 273 would not prevent the introduction of ver- lions, wherever they were necelTary. But it is worthy of remark, that the language of the originals was fo well underllood at that time> that it was a fecurity for a faithful interpre- tation ; that 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 infifl upon the adoption of the Greek language as a fuggeftion of infpiration. It was necelTary to ufe it even if the writers had adled only in conformity with prudence and duty, as it was their object to difFufe Chrillianity as widely as poffible 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 in which it is communicated, fo as to deduce a proof of its divine origin from the univerfality of the language. But we may be allowed to » Michaelis, vol. i. p. 99. T 271 SERMON VIII. admire the concurrence of this faA with the time and feafon fixed by Providence for the promulgation of the Gofpel to the world. It heightened the pubUcity of the revelation by enlarging the field of examination, and imme- diately fubjedled a religion, whofe efTential chara6leriftic was, its adaptation to all per- fons, to the curious fcrutiny of a larger por- tion of mankind, and indeed to the whole civilized world, which would not have taken place had it been conveyed in a language ufed by any other of the communities of the earth. ^ " No language," it is faid, " is fo widely ex- " tended as to be underllood by a tenth part *' of the inhabitants of the globe." When the Gofpel was firfl: preached, and afterwards publiflied in writing, the Greek language had acquired an afcendancy which was not di- vided with any other. The queftion is, to what extent is the language known in which a certain revelation is firli communicated. The facility of fuch an examination, at the firfi appearance of a divine revelation, will deter- mine its pretenfions to credibility. It is in vain to urge that " a language may ceafe to be '' a living language in a thoufand years." A much fmaller period would fufEcc for every " Michaelis. SERMON VIII. 275 purpoie of examination, and for the execution of exad: verfions of the alledged revelation. The language fhould indeed afford as large a fphere as poffible for the examination of the fadls and documents on their firll appearance and publication, and the Greek above all other languages afforded the opportunity of exten- five inveftigation. It might have feemed, ac- cording to a paradoxical foreigner, *' not un- *' worthy 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 felecfted conliftently with the comprehenfive delign of infinite wifdom, or with the Gofpel, the character of which is, that nothing was taught or done in fecret. If we adopt the trite citation from Cicero re- Ipediing the language of his country, com- pared with the Greek by the fiandard of ex- ten (ive ufe, we fhall find, that the former would have been a defective infl:rument for fpreading a knowledge of the Gofpel, becaufe it would have limited that indifpenfable fearch and enquiry, to which every recent revelation fhould be fullv fubmitted, while the latter correfponds with almoft a providential preci- T 2 21^ SERMON VIII. iion 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 difcuflion to its deftined clofe. I have avoided any re- capitulation of the topics and reafoning, be- caufe it might appear rather as an obtrulive difplay of refearch, than as necelTary to the elucidation of the general argument ; becaufe, too, the difputant feems to award to himfelf the advantage in the controverfy ; and, laftly, becaufe I remember that there are limits to the indulgence of the moft candid. I cannot characterize the fpirit of '' The Diilbnance" in more accurate terms, nor conclude with a more juft reprehenlion of the private and public condiid of tJwfe, ivho injidioufly endea- vour to invalidate the hefl evidence of ivhich the thing in quejlion of any kind is ftifceptible, than is contained in the practical and admoni- tory dogma of the Council of Chalcedon; " Qui " poll: femel inventam veritatem aliud quaerit. *' mendacium quaerit, non veritatem." ^ Cic, pro Arch. Poet. THE PROBATIONARY DISCOURSE, PREACHED NOVEMBER 5, 1808. T 3 Daniel li. 21. He removeth kings, and fetteih up kings. ^Although a fuperintending Providence be acknowledged to prelide over the whole courfe of affairs, both of particular perfons, and thofe of nations, yet we are difpofed to think, from a vain wifh to difcover its imme- diate operation, that this controul is more confpicuouflj difplayed in the convullions and fall of kingdoms, than in the ordinary changes of the condition of the individual. The Deity feems to approach nearer to us in infliAing his judgments, than in difpenling his mer- cies ; and his powxr is apparently rendered more diftinguifhable from the efforts and wif- dom of man in the deflrudion, than in the ^ I had not at this time feen an able difcourfe 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 fearched in vain the Bodleian and other catalogues for the book which Dr. Milner has cited 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 poHtical or rehgious fadions, they in- cur fome danger of perpetuating a vindiclive fpirit of animofity agamlt thufe, v\ho tranfmit the name, and profefs the opinions of the an- cient aggreiibrs. It is painful, by the acknow^- ledgment of mercies Ihewn to ourfelves, to remind others of the delinquency of their pre- decelTors ; and this facrifice of thankfgiving may perhaps engage on the lide of devotion thofe feelings, which 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 fellival was intended to preferve, have, at different periods, excited different degrees of interell in this country ; and 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 curiolity, and of Simulating en- quiry. The necelTity of reviewing a large part of the hiltory of this event in particular has pro- ceeded from the public ailertions of a modern A DISCOURSE, &c. 281 adveriary of no mean name and rank among his own people. It ^has been confidently averred, that this fanguinary ftratagem was in reality the invention of a Protetlant Mi- nifter of ftate, to make an oppofite religious party odious in the eyes of the nation ; fo that, if this fa6t 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 diflurbed the government of the firll James at an early pe- riod by frequent confpiracies, yet they had been treated with a lenity, during his feparate reign in Scotland, which roufed the fufpicions of Elizabeth, and the jealouiy of his Proteflant fubjecls. If the fovereign Pontiff had been exafperated, although he might not have been able to prevent by his hoftile interpofition, yet he might have obll:ru(fted by many difficukies the accelTion 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 more aAive, than thofe of the fame perfuafion in Scotland. As the ^ See note (A) at the end. 282 A DISCOURSE, &c. time approached, when it was probable that he would foon be the fucceflbr of Elizabeth, his communications with the court of Rome, chiefly relating to his right to the Englifh crown, were frequent and fecret. Of the reality of thefe communications the proof is clear and full ; and, if w^e w ere to add to them the celebrated letter to Clement VIII. without intimating that the authenticity of this inflru- ment has not been acknowledged by hiflorians in general. Hill ^ the attachment of James to the Catholic religion would fcarcely appear to be Wronger than before. That he might " de- " clare in ^ open parliament, that he conli- *' 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 well: ;" that " the " King's difpofition was for peace and recon- '' ciliation with Rome at the beginning ;" are circumftances, all of which may be conceded to our adverfary, w^ithout diminifliing the ftrength of the argument. Such confiderations do not indicate any inclination in the King to ^ Sec note (B) at the end. ^ But in the fame fpeech he very uncourteoufly terms the Pope, " that three-crowned monarch, or rather mon- " fter." Rapin, vol. ii. p. 166. A DISCOURSE, &c. 283 grant liberty of confcience to the Catholics, nor is the acknowledgment of '^ fome degree " of eccleliaftical fupremacy belonging to the '' Pontiff," to be adduced as a neceflliry preli- minary, or a pledge of that indulgence. If then the zeal of James for the fupport of the Catholic caufe does not, even according to the refearches of an acute adverfary, much exceed this fcanty meafure, why Ihould the Minifter be accufed of alienating the regard of his Maf- ter, or of diverting the current of his benevo- lence ? If however this accufation comprifed all the odious interference of the Minifter, we Ihould not be furprifed, nor think it neceflary to vindicate his ardour. But, when we are further required to believe, that he was the author of a plot, by means of which he chiefly intended to remove a perfon, whofe offence confilled in being a witnefs to the King's ftrong promifes " to fhew indulgence to the *' Catholics of England, whenever he fliould '* mount the throne of his country," we anxi- oufly examine the evidence of fuch guilt. Yet how does indignation fupplant every other emotion, when we difcover in a contemporary document, that this man could not be the depofitary of promifes, which, by his own un- biased confeflion, were never made. He de- 284 A DISCOURSE, &c. clared in efFecl 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 Raleidi's con- fpiracy, 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 helitated, 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 fad however is, that Cecil was exculpated from any participation in this enterprife by the con- feffion 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 objeA) of dillblv- '' ing the ties by which the King was united ^ State Trials, vol. i. p. 203. A DISCOURSE, &c. 285 " to them." It does not appear from any hif- torical facfts of what kind thofe ties were by which James was fo firmly attached to the Catholics. But whatever they might be, they Hill continued unaltered and unbroken, even after the difcovery of this atrocious confpiracy. He acquainted his parliament, that he was willing to confine the guilt of it to the indi- viduals who were detedted in its execution, and not to involve in a general fufpicion and cenfure the majority of that perfuafion. Thus imperfedlly was the vengeance of the Minifi:er wreaked upon his devoted vi6lims, 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, wh}^ we fliould not attribute this barbarous project to the Catholics at large. 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 jufi:ify 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 fe6t confifi:s. 286 A DISCOURSE, &c. in order to afcertain the proportion which one might bear to the other. We are rather to refer the number of agents to the nature of the deed, to its compatibiUty with the necef- fary degree of fecrecy, and to the manner in which they were to put it into execution. We do not altogether rejed: the confideration of an allemblage of perfons numerically, becaufe it may be compofed of fo few, that they would not be employed to efFeA any political pur- pofe whatever. It is however admitted, that in the prefent inllance there was another part of the confpi- racy, the execution of which depended upon the fuccefs of the firll. It may be lightly de- fcribed in this manner, that fome of the trai- tors were " only concerned in the fcheme of " an infurreclion ;" but a plot and an infur- re^lion require a very different force to enfure the defired iflue of each. Will not therefore the propofed infurredlion, in conjunction with the plot, extend the knowledge and the guilt of this execrable device to a larger proportion of the Catholics, than the plot alone ? We may enquire, in what manner has our adver- fary computed their number ? By what he terms ^' the adl of attainder." By thus re- ftriding our enquiry, we may abridge the A DISCOURSE, &c. 287 enumeration of the agents, and perhaps con- tract the fphere of their projeCl : but why Ihould we fuppofe 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 punifhment was here commenfurate with criminality ? They were, it is alfo faid, not only few in number, but deficient '^ in weight and cha- " ra6ler." But what degree of confequence is it expected that confpirators fhould polTefs ? If we regard the part which they were to a6t, we are, on the contrary, furprifed tliat fo few of them fhould want the perfonal requifites to make their treachery to be the effort of mean and defperate, and unfupported adventurers ? Some of them were perfons of family and opulence, none of them were deftitute of edu- cation, and others polTefled amiable qualities and conciliatory manners. If we add to this favourable but accurate delineation of their origin, and habits in general, the counteract- ing defeats, which are formally afcribed to one or more of them, youth and temerity, we fhall add all that hiltorical truth can require ; and yet we add nothing that, with the exception of their cooperation in this 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 objection, that they were ^ " apollates and outcafts from the body of the " Catholics j" 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 inconfillency of thefe fuppoHtions, that the private religious opinions of thefe perfons mufi: be inferred from their adlions, where we cannot obtain any precife and regular declaration of their belief. But we cannot conclude that they were apollates from the Catholic body, and at the fame time recent and unfteady converts from Protefiant- ifm. The cafuiftical doubt, which feemed to perplex one of the chief adtors in this enor- mity, and which related to a difficulty only in the execution, and not to the principle of the ' Milner, p. 270. note (i). g 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 Treafon^ A DISCOURSE, &c. 289 deed, was refolved ultimately by the fuperior of the Englilh jefuits ; and this oracular deci- fion was confidently appealed to as having fufficient authority to difpel the fame fceptical uncertainty that arofe in the minds of fome of his nefarious colleagues. ^^ The counfellors then, to whom he repaired, were Jefuits, who did not hefitate to communicate ther refponfes to an enquiring *' outcall; and apoftate." We may Hill further alk, from what religious party are converts in general to derive their charac- teriliic denomination ; from the one which they relinquilli, or from that by which they are received ? To which is to belong the dif- tind;ion, and to which the diigrace of their choice ? To which are the laft virtues, or the lalt vices of their lives to be afcribed ? '' The " dying behaviour," as it is called, of thefe apoftates is adduced as a proof that *^ they did " not a(ft in conformity with the principles of *' their religion, even as they conceived it, and " that they did not think the horrible attempt, " in which they were engaged, lawful and " meritorious." ^Admitting that they clofed their lives with penitence worthy of the pured h See note (C) at the end. * See note (D) at the end. 290 A DISCOURSE, &c. fyftem of religious opinions, we mud ftill con- fider whether the principles of their religion, or the original feelings of human nature, ope- rated moll llrongly in producing their dubious concern. Their compuncftion came too late. Their fentiments mull have been very differ- ent on the profpe6l 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 counfel which they folicited ? They prepared their plan without any interruption from their own confciences, or thofe of their advifers. Reli- gion did not alarm them with its terrors till they had firll tried what they could effeS:. The contemplation of the attempt was not attended with any doubts or remorfe which were creditable to their principles, and their end was the fame as that of other balfled af- faflins. — ''It is to be further remarked, that k " Thomas Winter was fent into Spain, by the joint " advice of Henry Garnet, and Ofwald Tefmond, jefuit, " and of Robert Catefby, and Francis Trelham, gentlemen, " ^f g'X'd qvallty and reputationy to try what could be " done for their afliftance, that were ready to facrificc ** their lives and fortunes for the catholic caufe." Hiftory of the Gunpowder Treafon, colledled from approved Au- thors as well Popifti as Proteftant, 1678. A DISCOURSE, &c. 291 fome of the principal agents in this plot were the ilime perfons who had, in the name of the Englifli CathoFics in general, fecretly applied to the court of Spain for alTiftance in the time of Elizabeth. The Popilh Plot has therefore been regarded bj hillorians as a continua- tion of the former ; and can we fuppofe that it was calculated to gratify the inclinations of a fmaller number of perfons than the fcheme of 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- vour the intentions of the confpirators ; and it is affirmed, not by any irritated Proteftant, but by a Jefuit, that the '' Pontiff was ac- *- quainted with the defign, and had proper ** bulls ready to be iflued upon the fuccefs of ** it^." Such then are the grounds, upon - 1 "It is affirmed by the voluntary confeffion of a Je- " fuit, That at this time there were two bulls procured " from the Pope, and ready upon this occalion, and *-' Ihould have been publifhed, had the powder done the U 2 2t)2 A DISCOURSE, &c. which we continue to think that this plot has been appropriately defignated by its common epithet, as indicatory of the agents, and of the particular interefts, which it was their objedt to promote. We are now to examine briefly the means which the minifter Cecil is faid to have ufed either to fupprefs or to pervert the evidence, by which his agency in this affair might have been detected. — That he permitted four of the traitors to be deftroyed, whofe perfons he might have lecured without facrificing their lives, from the confcioufnefs that they could have expofed his participation in their projecft, is a fuppofition which will not influence the moft credulous mind, as it requires the pre- vious, or rather the fimultancous belief of fe- veral inconfiftent particulars. Is it probable that this participation fhould be known to thofe four perfons only ? Why did not the murderous hireling, who efcaped with wounds only from the arm of the magiftrate, betray their lurking employer ? It "* is urged as an *' intended execution ; but, that failing, they were fup- *' preft." Foulls's Romifli Treaf. Vid. Bp. Andrews, Re- fponf. ad Apolog. Bellarmine, c. v. p. 113. "» *^ Sir R. Walfli having gotten fure trial of their tak- ^ ing harbour at the houfe above named, he did fend A DISCOURSE, &c. 293 article of crimination, that no diredions were given for employing the milder expedient of apprehenfion, when a delay fufficient for that purpofe had intervened ; and that it as long as life is fpared, they polTefs all that reafonable men and peaceable citizens can re- quire ? This is, as is well known, to eltimate mere exiftence, and the tenure of it, under fuch circumftances, erroneoufly. The value, which is here let upon it, is too great ; but thofe who love their lives fo well, mull alfo be content to have their days numbered at the will of an earthly fuperior. — We are alfo fur- ther apprized, that the authors of the Revolu- tion did not talk of the rights of men, but of the rights of Engliflimen. That we fliould hear more of the rights of Engliflimen than of the rights of men, cannot be a matter of admiration. Their rights in general were, not for the lirfl: time, afl'erted. The artificial are alfo more extenfive than the natural rights ; and although the former may be agreeable to the fpirit 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 Eng- lifliman 5 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 natural rights. They are not fo ea- lily nor fo perfedly underllood, and do not A DISCOURSE, &c. 303 addrefs themfelves fo much to our feelings. — -Thefe might be perhaps fome of the reafons of the filence refpedling the rights of men. By this memorable tranfa6lion 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 likewife, that the regal authority has its li- mits, but that its hmits are identified wdth thofe duties. In the cafe of any attempt to fubvert the government, or, in other words, to violate thefe fundamental principles of juf- tice, they rather revived than eflablilhed the doctrine of refiftance, which is diftind:ly re- 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- fiflance, the polleffion of the property of the Sovereign, till their wrongs were redrefled, we cannot but admire the delicacy, the gene- rofity, and the jullice, which didated a re- verence for the perfon of the King, and thofe s See ArticuU Carte Reg. Johann. p. ix, Blackftone's Law Tra6ts, ed. 410. 304 A DISCOURSE, &c. of all the royal houfe, in the midft of thofe refolute provilions, which they framed to fe- cure the fulfilment of the political contradl, and whilft they ftill retained their fwords in their hands. To revert to firli principles is a language frequently ufed to denote a recur- rence to fome natural right, when thofe rights, which are derived from the fociety in which we are placed, are no longer regarded. But we here fee, that it will either fignify this, or a recurrence to the ancient forms of the con- llitution, where the refiftance of the people under the calamity 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 monarch a large proportion of perfonal refpon- libility, lince violent and unjufi; public pro- ceedings were immediately referred to him- felf as the author ; and this is not obfcurely intimated in the precedent of the Revolution, where, if the deluded James could have trans- ferred his guilt and its punifliment to his ad- vifers, he would have been mod eager to have availed himfelf of any fpeculative fid:ion, by which he himfelf could have been de- clared innocent, and could have obtained a formal immunity from the efFeds 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, leemed at one period to depend on the refult of an enquiry into the prefent Hate of their religious opinions. But it is not eafy 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 noty than what they do believe, whilft they will not dire6t us to purer or more genuine fources of information, the charge of mifreprefenta- tion on our lide will be converted into that of fubtle and interelled concealment on theirs. If we appeal to a canon of a council, they reply, that its effeds were local, and its au- thority temporary ; if we fpecify a dodlrine, they intimate, that it is obfolete ; if we objed: the inllitution of the Inquilition, we are af- fured, that its fires are extinguiflied, and its prifons clofed ; and as to the Papal power, its harmlelTnefs and its limits are at once illuf- trated by its reftridtion to fpiritual 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 3o6 A DISCOURSE, &c. the proof of it is to be colleded from the de^ clarations of liberal and enlightened indivi- duals, and from the decilions of academical bodies. But liberal and enlightened indivi- duals do not perhaps conltitute a competent tribunal to determine this queftion. If it be to their liberality and illumination that we are to refer their rejedlion of what were for- merly erteemed fome of the moll momentous articles of their creed, as the Supremacy and Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, it is pro- bable that the other parts of a religion, which is founded lb 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, whilft we feem to have the opinion of the fcientific and literate, we have perhaps miftaken for it the levity and relaxed condu6l of a band of fceptics and fcoffers. If we examine the characters of the academical bodies whofe decilions w^e are to refpedt, fome of them relide in a country where a great part of their learning confifts of fuch branches as have been rejeded 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 thirfting multitude ^' to A DISCOURSE, &c. 307 " 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 impofed by others from without, that a feeming change has been produced in this extraordinary polity. How far a fyftem, which has for its balls the fubjugation of the mind and judgment, can be improved from the ac- tion of principles in its own conftitution, is not eafy to conjediure. 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 refpejTa»5 ooSev i%iypa'\>a.. Wetftein. That B b3 374 APPENDIX. which was written had previoufly been fpoken in both cafes before many witneffes. P. I20. I Ihall here reprint my remarks upon St. Luke's preface to his Gofpel, which were not recom- mended to Dr. Marfh's perufal by any patron of mine, but which I refolved to repubhfli in confequence of that important reconmiendation. The cautions to the readers of the Introduftion of Michaelis were abfolutely ne- cefTary. I would afk, whether thofe, who have perufed that work, have not fometimes forgotten that the fubjeft of it was any thing efteemed facred. I have fuperftition enough, if it fliould 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 books. 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 a6lions of Chrirt, prior to his own, it is the foundation of the whole of Dr. Marfli's hypothetical fyftem of documents, and therefore I wifii to fee whether it be " rock," or " fand." According to Dr. Marfli's hypothefis, a Hebrew do- cument exifted, which was the bafis of the feveral Gof- pels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke ; that it was copied by the former Evangelift, and tranflated by APPENDIX. 37S the two latter. I fliould be induced to infer Trom this charafter of the document, that its authority was greater than that of the writings of the perfon v^ ho copied it, and of thofe who tranflated it; and therefore ought to have been, from fuch pretenfions, acknowledged, by the conduft of the Apoftle Matthew, the original GofpeL It was, however, " drawn up from communications made " by the Apoftles," p. 197 ; "a iliort narrative contain- " ing the principal tranfacSlions 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 ' iurely believed among us, even as they delivered them ' unto us, which from the beginning were eye-wit- ' neffes and minifters of the word,' *' a title, \\'hich St. " Luke himfelf has quoted in the preface to his Gof- " pel," p. 197. This title I fhall confider in another place. We muft obferve, that the conjecture 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 conjec^lure, thought of this ap- plication of it — an aflertion, which I fuppofe the reader will immediately believe. That this conjefture is not ill founded. Dr. M. main- tains by thefe arguments. 1 . *' After St. Luke had written," * Forafmuch as many < have undertaken to fet forth in order,' " he would have " ufed the word narrative," (declaration in our verfion) " not in the fingular, 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 37^ APPENDIX. peculiar coii(lru(Slion 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, connnon 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 fhew that St. Luke might have ufed fuch an expreffion, with- out intending to denote what Dr. M. and the German theologians fuppofe, and without occalioning 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 ; 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 perlon would infer from St. Luke's words, that the narrative was the joint com- pofition of the * n)any ;' 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 ihould 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 of the fame fafts. 2. " 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- " irative already written." Againft Dr. M.'s interpretation are Grotius, Cafau- APPENDIX. 377 bon, Raphelius, Wolfius, Alex. Moms, and Dr. Town- fon, who refers to thefe writers; but let us try Dr. M.'s fignification. * Forafmuch as many have undertaken to re-arrange * a narrative of thofe things, which are moft furely be- * lieved among us, even as they delivered them unto us, ' which from the begitfViing were eye-witnefTes and mi- * nifters of the word.' We mufl: obferve, that Dr. M. fays, p. 197. that this narrative was " drawn up from " communications made by the Apoftles," and therefore that it v/as not only " a work of good authority, but a " work which was worthy of furnidiing materials to any " one of the Apoftles, who had formed a refolution of " writing a more complete hiftory," " a fhort narrative, ** containing the principal tranfa6lions of Jefus Chrift, " 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 " ftiort narrative ;" fecondly, it was the 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-witneflfes, brought to light either additional " circumftances, relative to tranfafilions already recorded " in the firft Hebrew document, or tranfaftions which " had been left wholly unnoticed ;" thefe were added in the MS. by the pofleflbrs of the firft Hebrew document, " and thefe additions in fubfequent copies were inferted " in the text," page 200. The work, then, to which St. Luke is thought to refer, was firft written by no body knows whom, and 378 APPENDIX. yet poflefled fuch a claim to authority, as to induce St. Matthew to copy it ; but yet written irregularly and without any method, fo that it required a new arrange- n)ent. It mull appear very ftrange that the Apoflles fhouJd furnifli their materials by piece-meal, in fuch a defultory and capricious manner, at various times, and in detached portions. I lliould liiaintain that a work fo framed was vot " 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 (iheir names are not mentioned, 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-arrangcd by an- other fet of unknown perfons. The bufinefs which Dr. M. affigns to St. Luke was to tranftate this Hebrew document, " enriched by addi-- " tions," " and to adhere to it throughout in the arrange- " ment of the fails, 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. Luke do as diftinguiftiing his labour from theirs ? He " wrote ;" and (b fimple a word cannot, I maintain, by all the fophiftry and utmoft torture of perverfion, be brought to fignify all that Dr. M. defcribes, without imputing to St. Luke unworthy motives and corrupt views. I adopt then, with the great authorities before men- tioned, the plain and obvious meaning " compofe ;" and at any rate it was not a proper term to exprefs his ftiare in the narrative, (if he did no more than Dr. M.. fuppofes,) as contrafted with the work of the " many." 3. " If thefe had been St. Luke's own words, he muft APPENDIX. 379 " have faid ^ as they delivered them unto them/ " and " npt as they * dehvered them unto us ;' for " although " we may fay of other perfons, that they have under- *' taken to write a hiftory, as eye-witnefTes have related " the fa6ls to them, we cannot well fay that they have " undertaken to write a hiftory, as eye-witnefTes have re- " lated the fads 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 the only inftance, I apprehend, where Dr. M. has the imaginary advantage of appearing alone amongft the commentators. But to proceed : when writers compofe narratives of events contemporary wath themfelves, is it not ufual for readers to compare the written relation with the account of eye-witnefles ; and what greater commendation can a work of that kind receive, than that it is confirmed by fuch teftimony ? 4. " If fo many perfons had written narratives of ** Chrift's tranfaftions, and had written only what eye- ** witnefles to thefe tranfa6lions had related, there was " the lefs neceflity 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-witnelTes. St. Luke could not promife greater certainty upon 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-witneffes. What then diftinguifhed his narrative from thofe of the " many ?" I conclude 38o APPENDIX. that there was a defe6l in the authority of the writers. Their ftory turned out to be true upon enquiry, but it wanted confirmation. St. Luke's chara6ter was a fuffi- cient fecurity for the reception of his Gofpel : " It feemed "good to me alfo." If I might be allowed to indulge in a conjefture, I fliould fay, that he oppofes his own well known chara6ler and hiftory to the uncertain quali- fications of the " many." I have been lefs (Iruck with the verbal harmony of the Evangelifls, than with another coincidence — that out of the exuberance of matter which the life of Chrift muft have fupplied, and wliere we cannot fuppolc for a mo- ment that any fele6lion 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 fadls are mentioned in common by the Evangelifts, than that fo little matter has been added. * I folemnly proteft againft tiie a[)plication of the critic's laws refpefting biography and hiftory to the life of Chrift, as related by the Evangelills. 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 fa6ls, but likewife points of do«Slrine. 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 fyflem of re- ligion ? I dare not. APPENDIX. 381 5. " All the objeiSlions are removed by the fuppofition, " that the words from ' a declaration to minifters of ' the word' are " nothing more than a Greek tranilation " 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 coflume. 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, 8cc. in fhort, re-arranging* the narrative; " and that as not all the additions which had been made " by tliefe many writers were drawn from the befl " 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 certainty 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 confident with truth, the many muft have inferted what was not con- fident with truth. Dr. M. indeed foftens the obvious in- * Here Dr. M. ufes tlie Greek word, which he fays figuifies re- arrange, although he extends the meaning far beyond what the pri- mitive fenfe re-arrange will juftify. Arrangement relates only to order, but addition relates to defeats and omiiTions. J 82 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 hov/ to dil- tinguifli one from the other ; and yet they were Apoftles, or eye-witncfles, as v/e 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. 200. " In " procefs of time, as new communications from the Apo- " ftles and other eye-witneffes brought to hght either ad- " ditional circumltances relative to tranfaftions already ** recorded in it, or tranfaftions which had been left " wholly unnoticed, thofe perfons who poflefTed copies " of it added in their MSS. fuch additional circum- " fiances and tranfaftions ; 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- nefles, our Saviour has left the momentous and awful fcenes of his death and refurreftion to be recorded by perfons ill qualified for the tafk, or we have not the befl evidence of thefe fails ; and our Saviour could not, as he declared, " bear witnefs of himfelf." Thefe better fources would be likewife a fingular difcovery, even in this difcovering age. Dr. M. has not attributed to the Evangelifl 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 mofl extravagant flattery ; nor is it the highefl office of infpiration to prevent the infertion of falfehood, or to watch over a perfbn who might ignorantly or wnlfuUy 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 «o-faX£iav does not relate to truth as oppofed to APPENDIX. 383 falfehood, but as certainty oppofed to doubt ; and St. Luke's Gofpel appears to poflefs the advantage of truth combined with the authority of the writer. The ac- counts of the ^ many' 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 affe6l its truth. I can beheve the accounts of the Evangelifis, upon the old grounds of belief; but if I did or could think that Dr. Marfli's hypothefis had any foundation whatever, I ^vould not cull an extract or two from St. Luke with Marcion, but I would reject the entire hifi;ories of the Evangelifts. I conclude with the fentiments, which I 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- " cunient was no other than the preaching of our blelled " Lord himlelf," p. 34. NOTES TO THE PROBATIONARY DISCOURSE 2o many readers the following 7iotes will appear tedious ; and by thofe ivho hold the opinions of Dr. Milner, they will be thought to be fufficiently brief. The argument indeed might have been included in a few deduSlions from the Trials of the Conjpiraiors ; but I was willing to follow Dr. Milner through the Jirange confufion of hi/iory and hypothe/is, of hijiory perverted or mifunder- Jiood, and of hypot he/is licentious and contradidlory. There are occafions, ivhen the enquiry might have ab- ruptly concluded in the language of jift'fable indigna- tion ; yet, to an adverfary, I might have appeared to conceal ignorance in contempt, while on the other hand expreffions of refpeSt, ivhere none can be felt, argue an infiucere or a timid opponent. I may obferve, that, as the objeSions chiefly relate to faSis, the fubjoified reply frequently conffts fmply of a citation, and the reader himfelf is left in moji cafes to examine and to infer. NoTK (A), p. 281. JL ins is an old accufatioii revived. It appears, but probably not ibr tlic lirll time, in the Calendarium Ca- tholicuiu, publilheJ in the year 1662. Sec the Prcf. to APPENDIX. 385 the book entitled "• The Gunpowder Treafon/' repub- lilhed by Bp. Barlow in 1679. ^^' Milner fays, " I have *' proved, that this was an exprefs contrivance of the Se- " cretary of State." p. 346. See alfo pp. 267, 271, 378, 283, 302, 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 thouglit proper to conteft in a fingle particular." p. 347. It is not my intention to permit an adverfary to deduce a furrender 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 Hidory of Romifli Trea- fons, or to the works entitled " The Gunpowder Trea- " fon," and " The Iliftory of the Gunpowder Treafon," till the Difcourfe was compofed and delivered. Note (B), p. 282. Dr. Mihier profefles to colleft various proofs of the friendly difpofition of James towards the Catholics at the time of his accejjion, in order to fhew how much his opinions were fubfequently influenced by his minifter Cecil. But It mufl: be obfcrved, that thefe proofs are taken from political circumftances of various dates. ■ I. The firft is, the conference with the French Envoy, the Archbifhop of Ambrun. The Englifli Catholics had been treated with great feverity by James, and had ap- plied to the French Monarch to intercede in their fa- vour. The King of France, apprehending that they might prevent the Pope from granting the difpenfation neceflfary for the marriage of his daughter with a Pro- teftant prince, difpatched the Archbifhop of Ambrun as the mediator. Whatever fentiments James might ex- prefs in this conference with the Archbifhop, we may c c 386 APPENDIX. reafonably refer to the fame apprehcnfion, which the King of France entertained refpetSting the obrtru