they could not have done if they had not known them to be deferving of credit. We believe the facts recorded in the New Teftament, he fays, not on the evidence of four persons, but on that of thousands who were well acquainted with these facts, and by whom, it cannot be denied, the contents of thefe books were credited. The books called the Gospels, he farther remarks, were not the cause but the effect of the belief of Chriftianity in the firft ages; and they were received by the primitive Chriftians because they knew beforehand that the contents of them were true. Confequently, adds our author, the leading facts of Christianity will always remain deserving of credit, whatever may be found to be the truth concerning the authenticity of any particular books.

Treating more directly on the authenticity of the gofpels, in reply to Mr. Evanfon's general charge of a want of competency and veracity in the first witness of this authenticity, in the fecond century, Dr. P. makes the following judicious obferv

ations :

If this be the cafe, no regard is due to any of the Gofpels, or to any of the books of the New Teftament. But the circumftances of the Chriftian church, which received these books, and transmitted them to us, were fuch, as there cannot be a doubt with respect to the competency of their evidence, because they were published in the lifetime of thousands, and myriads, who were as competent witnesses of the facts as the writers themfelves; and there cannot be any question of their veracity, unless we fuppofe that they all combined to tell, and to propagate, a falfehood, to their own prejudice, and merely to impofe upon all pofterity; which would be a greater miracle, as being more contrary to what we know of human nature, than any thing recorded in those books.

Mr. Evanfon evidently argues upon the idea, that the writers who first mention the Gofpels are the only witneffes of their authenticity; and he thinks they were too remote, and too prejudiced, to be depended upon. But befides that no motive can be imagined for fuch conduct, let them be fuppofed to have been ever fo liable to prejudice, it was not in their power to impose upon the world with respect to these books. For though there were few writers between the time in which the Gofpels were written and Juftin Martyr; and admitting, what there is no occafion to do, that all the intervening writers are fpurious, it was only an interval of about seventy years, and in this there was no interruption of christian churches. In all this time the scriptures of the New Teftament, as well as thofe of the Old, were conftantly and publicly read; fo that the books which had been received as authentic, by those who were themselves judges of their authenticity, could not be unknown; and there never was any doubt with respect to any of the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the far greater part of the Epiftles.

We find in Eufebius, that Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was acquainted with the daughters of that Philip who baptized the eunuch

of

of the queen of Ethiopia, and who wrote A. D. 116, only about fifty years after the writing of the Gofpels, mentions the Gofpel of Matthew, and in fuch a manner, as that it appears there was not then any difputé about it; fo that there cannot be any reason to doubt, that the Gospel which bears his name, was the fame that we now have, and as it was originally published.

As there had not, at that time, been any general perfecution of Chriftians, it is probable that the originals of the books, which they held in the higheft efteem, and efpecially the epiftles of Paul to particular churches, were preferved till fo many copies had been taken, and so many translations made of them, as would put it out of the power of fraud to impofe upon the world with refpect to them. The intereft that all Chriftians certainly took in those books would enfure this. As thefe books were, no doubt, then, as they are now, publicly read in all Chriftian churches, the authenticity of any other books is not to be compared with that of these.

The fuperior evidence of the authenticity of the books of the New Teftament, may be illuftrated by that of books known to have been ufed in fchools from the time of their firft compofition, and that of books which only fall into the hands of men of leisure. Of the former, every school, and many of the scholars, would, of course, have copies; fo that the difficulty of making any material alteration in them would foon become infuperable: whereas the other would only be copied now and then, according to the cafual demand for them. The books of the New Teftament had a fimilar advantage, by being read in all Chriftian churches, as well as in private families, with the additional one, of the infinitely greater intereft that Chriftians conceived themselves to have in their contents.

The antient verfions of the books of the New Teftament afford a decifive proof of their antiquity. For though none that are now extant can be proved to have existed fo early as Mr. Evanfon requires, there is evidence that there were tranflations of them, probably the ground-work of those that we now have, in an earlier period. There were Syriac verfions, and feveral Latin ones, in the very first century. See Michaelis's Introduction to the New Teftament, vol. i. p. 44. And this is highly probable in itself. For if there were converts to Chriftianity in Syria, which was contiguous to Judea, and among the Romans, as no doubt there were, they would get copies of all the writings that were held in esteem by Christians, as foon as they heard of them.

'Mr. Evanfon feems not to have been aware of the difficulty of forging books, especially fuch as thofe of the New Teftament, on account of the peculiarity of their style, which is fo unlike that of any other writings whatever, more especially for the Hebraisms that occur in them. On this account the writers must have been Jews; whereas Mr. Evanfon fuppofes them to have been written in fo late a period, that it is almost certain there were few, if any, Jewish writers. And no Jewish Chriftian, if we know any thing of their fentiments, would have concurred in fuch an impofition; because they oppofed those corrupt do&rines and practices, which Mr. Evanfon fuppofes they were written to promote. He will hardly fuppofe that any Jewish Chriftian would have forged the epiftles afcribed to Paul.

As to writers properly Greek forging these books, it would have been abfolutely impoffible. Befides the many infuperable difficulties. arifing from an attention to geography, chronology, and history, the mode of writing is wholly unlike that of any Greek. The earliest Greek Chriftians, who favoured the opinions that Mr. Evanfon will deem corrupt, were Juftin Martyr, and his disciple Tatian. But how unlike is their ftile to that of the New Teftament, and how incapable (though the former of them lived in Palestine) mufl they have been of forging fuch books as thefe ? Befides, they were both too honest to think of any fuch thing.

There were, no doubt, in pretty early times, other Gospels written in imitation of the genuine ones, though not perhaps with a view to impose upon the world, with refpect to any thing of importance, for that was manifeftly impoffible. But learned Chriftians were, from the beginning, fo attentive to this bufinefs, that the attempts could never fucceed.

Serapion, bishop of Antioch, A. D. 200, in an epiftle to fome who had too much refpect for a work, entitled The Gospel of Peter, faid, "We, brethren, receive Peter, and the other apoftles, as "Chriftians; but, as skilful men, we reject those writings which are

falfely afcribed to them, well knowing that we have received no "fuch." Lardner's works, vol. vi. p. 29. Austin says, "We "know the writings of the apoftles, as we know the works of Plato, "Ariftotle, Cicero, Varro, and others, and as we know the writings "of several ecclefiaftical authors; forafmuch as they have the teftimony of cotemporaries, and of thofe who lived in fucceeding "times." Ib. p. 31.

Accordingly, learned men (and Chriftian churches were never without fuch men) as Serapion, Origen, Eufebius, Jerom, and Austin, had it in their power to ascertain the genuineness of all the books ufed by Chriftians; and it appears from their writings, that it was done to general, if not univerfal fatisfaction, before there was any interruption of learning, civilization, or Chriftianity, in that part of the world in which the gofpel originated. Dr. Lardner obferves, that" from the quotations of Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and other writers of the fecond century, of Origen in the "third, and of Eufebius in the fourth century, it appears, that the greatest part of the books which are now received by us, and are "called canonical, were univerfally acknowledged in their times, and "had been fo acknowledged by the elders and churches of former times. And the reft now received by us, though they were then " doubted of, or contradicted, were well known, and approved by "many." vol. vi. p. 26.

The books, concerning which doubts were entertained in the time of Eufebius (it not being agreed by all, that they were written by the perfons to whom they are afcribed) were only the epille to the Hebrews, that of James, the fecond of Peter, the fecond and third of John, and the Revelation, which Mr. Evanfon, depending upon the evidence of completed prophecy, rather than that of hiflorical teftimony, confiders as one of the moft authentic of all the books of the New Testament.

That

That doubts were entertained concerning the books above-mentioned, is the lefs to be wondered at, as they were not epiftles addreffed to particular churches, where provifion would naturally be made for preferving them, but either treatifes, or epistles addreffed to whole defcriptions of men, or to private perfons, in whofe hands they would be more liable to accidents.'

Dr. Priestley proceeds to defend the veracity of the Chriftian writers of the second and third centuries, and to adduce the teftimony of heretics and heathens refpecting the gofpels. In order to fhew that the preference given by Mr. Evanfon to the gofpel of Luke is ill-founded, Dr. P. remarks that Origen afferts Matthew's to have been the gofpel firft written; that the preference was always given by antient Chriftians to the gofpels of Matthew and John, as written by eye-witneffes; that the fuppofition that Luke and Silas were the fame perfon is ill fupported; and that, had Mr. Evanfon been equally dif posed to have made either of the other gofpels his ftandard, he would have found as little difficulty as in that of Luke.

Dr. Prieftley is of opinion, with Dr. Lardner, that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek; and not, as many maintain, in Hebrew. He accounts for the Latin terms found in it, from the intercourfe which the Jews had with the Romans before the time in which Matthew wrote. The groffeft of the mifapplications of fcripture prophecies, with which Mr. Evanfon charges Matthew, he obferves, are to be found in the first two chapters; which, containing the narrative of the miraculous conception, he allows to have been interpolated." -The impartial reader will not here overlook the facility with which Dr. Prieftley admits Mr. Evanfon's objections against these chapters, and the complacency with which he acknowleges his obligation to Mr. Evanfon for feveral new and valuable arguments which he has fuggefted against the miraculous conception. How readily does every difputant listen to arguments which favour his own fyftem!

Though it is wholly impracticable for us to go through the feveral articles of Dr. Prieftley's defence of the Evangelifts from Mr. Evanson's charge of diffonancy, yet, as it may be expected that we should give a fpecimen, we fhall copy his reply to the critical objection which we quoted, in our review of Mr. Evanfon's work, (New Series, vol x. p. 295.) on the use which Matthew makes of the name Decapolis.

It is a fufficient justification of Matthew's diftinguishing Decapolis, from the country beyond, or contiguous to, Jordan, that the greatest part of this district was not near Jordan, but to the Eaft of the Sea of Galilee. That the term Decapolis was not known at the time in which Matthew and Mark wrote, viz. A. D. 64, is a mere conjecture of Mr. Evanfon's from a circumftance that affords no foundation for it. And

C 2

And if Jofephus gives this diftrict this appropriate name, in treating of the Jewish war, which immediately fucceeded the writing of the Gofpels, which he does in feveral paffages, where can be the improbability of its having that name in their time? The term may not occur in any general divifion of the country by the Romans, because it was but a small territory, comprehended in one of the larger ones. Befides, if the Romans did remove thefe ten cities from one jurifdiction to another, (for which Mr. Evanfon produces no authority at all, it is rather probable that they had before this time, for fome reafon or other, been claffed together, and had obtained this common appellation.

That this was the cafe feems evident from a paffage in the life of Jofephus, written by himfelf. Addreffing himself to one Juftus, who had accufed him and the Galileans of being the authors of the war, he fays, Section 65, "For before I was appointed governor of Galilee, both thou, and all the people of Tiberias, had not only taken up arms, but had made war with Decapolis of Syria. Nor is it I "only who fay this, but fo it is written in the Commentaries of Vefpafian the emperor, as alfo how the inhabitants of Decapolis "came clamouring to Vefpafian at Ptolemais." Is it not natural to infer from this, that Decapolis was no new term in Geography, but rather one of long standing?

The term Decapolis being ufed by Jofephus without any expla nation, fhews that, in his time, it was well known, and needed no explaration, which otherwife he would naturally have added, and have faid the ten cities fituated fo and fo."

On the Epiftles, Dr. P. offers feveral judicious obfervations, in order to remove the difficulty which Mr. E. had started concerning them, and thus clofes his letter on this part of the fubject:

I cannot conclude thefe remarks without obferving, that had Mr. Evanfon read that truly masterly piece of criticifm, the Hora Paulina of Mr. Paley, he would have faved himself the trouble of writing his treatife, and me that of anfwering it. The epiftles that he objects to contain more, and more various, internal marks of genuineness than perhaps any other antient writings whatever. And the genuineness of Paul's epiftles furnishes as ftrong a proof of the truth of Christianity, as that of Cicero's does of the general facts in the Roman history of his times. The only thing that is wanting is a due attention to the circumftances.'

On the whole, thefe letters, notwithstanding the difadvantage already mentioned under which they were written, are a fair, candid, and, we think, in the main, a fatisfactory refutation of Mr. Evanfon's objections; for which the Chriftian world is much indebted to the author; and which, with other defences of revelation, ought to be accepted by the orthodox fects as an atonement for the bold attacks which he has at various times made on eftablished fyftems.

ART.