Joseph Benson: prefaces and supplementary material

Benson's Commentary

BEN_VOL1.PDF, source PDF p. 1

THE OLD TESTAMENT

OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.

(ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT AUTHORIZED VERSION.) With Critical, Explanatory, And Practical Notes: The Marginal Readings Of The Most Approved Printed Copies Of The New Testament With Such Others As Appear To Be Countenanced By The Original Greek: A Copious Collection Of Parallel Texts; Summaries Of Each Book And Chapter; And The Date Of Every Transaction And Event Recorded In This Part Of The Sacred Oracles, Agreeably To The Calculations Of The Most Correct Chronologers.

BY REV. JOSEPH BENSON.

New-York:

Published By T. Carlton & J. Porter,

200 Mulberry-Street.

1857

Preface.

BEN_VOL1.PDF, source PDF p. 4

PREFACE.

IN an age and nation in which the British and Foreign Bible Society has had its origin, an institution which has for its object the giving of the Holy Scriptures to all nations under heaven in their vernacular tongues, and, as far as possible, to every individual in every nation; and an age and nation in which this most pious and benevolent institution has met with the countenance and support of all descriptions of persons, from the princes of the blood to the meanest subjects in the realm; and in which auxiliary societies have been formed in all parts of the empire in support of the parent society, and associations in aid of these — in such an age and nation, to say any thing in commendation of the Scriptures seems perfectly unnecessary; their truth, excellence, and utility being acknowledged by high and low, rich and poor, from one end of the land to the other. Who, indeed, that believes and considers the testimony which the Holy Ghost, speaking by the inspired writers, has given to the excellence of the Scriptures, can call their excellence in question? St. Paul, whom the “Spirit of truth had guided,” as he had the other apostles, “into all truth,” speaking of the privileges and advantages which God had granted his ancient people, says, Romans 3:2, that the “chief of them was, that he had committed unto them his divine oracles.” And another inspired writer, after having enumerated sundry instances of God’s wisdom, power, and goodness, concludes with mentioning it as the greatest act of his goodness that “he had showed his words unto Jacob, and his statutes and judgments unto Israel;” adding, “He has not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the Lord.” Nay, and even that Divine Person, who came “a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on him should not abide in darkness,” bore a still more explicit testimony to the importance of the sacred records, when he said, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think [or rather, are assured, as the words should be translated] that ye have eternal life.” And, to show still further the important light in which these holy writings ought to be viewed, when he had risen from the dead, and received all power in heaven and on earth, the first gift he bestowed on his beloved disciples was, “He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures.” Now it must be remembered, that these and such like commendations of the divine oracles were primarily intended of those of the Old Testament, those of the New not being then written. This is the more necessary to be observed, because many, otherwise well-disposed persons, appear greatly to neglect reading this ancient part of divine revelation; seeming to suppose, but very erroneously, that it was designed only for the Jews, and is of little or no use to Christians. But we are taught quite otherwise in the New Testament. For, besides the testimonies now adduced, in several other places thereof we find the reading and study of these ancient oracles recommended. It is of the Old Testament St. Paul speaks when he says, “Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope;” and, speaking of what happened to the Israelites, he says, “All these things happened to them for examples, and were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” It is of the Old Testament he speaks when he says to Timothy, “From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” And it is of them he adds, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,” namely, to teach what ought to be known and believed, “for reproof,” or conviction, (as ελεγχον seems rather to mean,) of them that are in error, or sin,” for correction,” or amendment of what is amiss, “for instruction in righteousness,” or, for training up the children of God in all piety and virtue; “that the man of God,” the person that is truly reconciled and united to and approved of God, “may be perfect” in an acquaintance with Christian doctrines, in the possession of Christian graces, in the enjoyment of Christian privileges, and in the performance of Christian duties, “and thoroughly furnished” by his knowledge of, and faith in, the Scriptures, “unto all good works” even so as to be able to “teach, reprove, correct,” and “train up” others. Of them St. Peter also is to be understood, when he says, “We have a sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place — knowing that prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

That the New Testament is built on the Old, we have certain proof, by the frequent quotations made by Christ and his apostles, out of the histories, prophecies, and other passages of the Old Testament; and more particularly when Christ, after his resurrection, met the two disciples going to Emmaus, we are told that, (having first reproached them for not having sufficiently attended to the writings of the Old Testament,) “beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself:” and when he afterward appeared to all his disciples together, he said unto them, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.” On the knowledge of what is contained in the Old Testament, depends the perfect understanding of our divine religion. “In these writings we may contemplate all the steps of Providence, relating to the salvation and redemption of mankind, in the several ages of the world; and, by a comparison of all the parts, may discern that ‘Christ was indeed the end of the law,’ and of all the promises made to the fathers: that all the deliverances given by God to his people were but shadows, and, as it were, an earnest of the great deliverance he intended to give by his Son: that all the ceremonials of the law were representations of the substance of the gospel: that the Aaronical sacrifices and priesthood were figures of better things to come.” There are even whole books in the New Testament which no one can rightly understand who has not read the Old with some care and attention; as the epistle to the Hebrews, and some other parts. Moreover, whoever will read and meditate on the prophetical writings of the Old Testament will find an astonishing light arise from them; will discover beauties which he was a stranger to before, and will have a more lively sense of the majesty of God, and a stronger confirmation of the truth and importance of Christianity than he could otherwise have. Nothing can be conceived to be a more convincing proof that He, who made, governs all things, and that the Scriptures are his word, than to see the exact completion of those ancient prophecies which were in the hands of the Jews, such as we now have them, many ages before the coming of our Lord. To sum up all: the writings of the Old Testament teach us that the Omnipotent Being who made this world still preserves and governs all things in it; that his care extends to the minutest particular, and directs all; that he dispenses good and evil; that he is perfectly good and righteous, and will reward every man according to his works. This is shown in the Old Testament by God’s establishing kingdoms and destroying them; making nations to flourish or decay; by his exercising a sovereign power not only over what is outward and visible, but over men’s hearts and minds, turning them as he pleases from one resolution to another, according to his designs; giving all necessary qualities to those he means to favour, and taking away counsel and prudence, strength and courage, from those he intends to destroy; by his calling for famine, the sword, and the pestilence, to punish the ungrateful and destroy the proud. In the Old Testament we meet with rules and models for all ranks and conditions. Rich and poor, parents and children, young and old, all find there most excellent instruction on every branch of their duty; and whatever tends to promote justice, charity, purity, temperance, patience, and other virtues; with the most exalted sentiments of piety, and patterns of devotion. Here we are taught how we ought to revere the power and adore the majesty of the Great Supreme, the “high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,” and fills immensity: with what pleasure and delight we ought to meditate upon his wonderful works of creation and providence; with what gratitude and fervency of devotion we ought to extol his perfections, and praise him for all his mercies; paying the highest regard to all his righteous precepts, precious promises, and awful threatenings, accounting those advantages inestimable which are consequent upon true piety and virtue. Here we learn to trust in God, to call upon him in time of need, to submit with resignation to his divine will, and to have recourse to his mercy, in the way of repentance and faith, if at any time we have offended him. To say thus much of the Old Testament seemed necessary, (because the reading of it at present is too much disused, to the great loss of many pious persons,) without, however, intending to depreciate the New, which has, indeed, perfected the Old, and affords much greater light and more satisfactory information concerning several subjects of the greatest importance than was communicated under the law. Here the true character of God, as the God of mercy and love, the gracious Redeemer and Saviour of fallen man, is fully manifested. Here the person and offices, the love and sufferings, the humiliation and exaltation, the cross and crown of the Mediator between God and man, are fully exhibited; and here man’s sinfulness and guilt, his depravity, weakness, and wretchedness, are set in a true and luminous point of view, and the way of salvation from this state of sin and misery is clearly marked out. Here we are informed of the number, power, subtlety, malice, and diligence of our spiritual enemies, and how we may withstand their attacks: and, what is still of more importance to us, here life and immortality are brought to light, and ensured to all the truly penitent that believe in Jesus “with their hearts unto righteousness.” O heavenly balm for all our woes! O bright hopes to comfort us in all our troubles! O divine light to dispel all our darkness! O welcome deliverance from the bondage of sin and all the horrors of the grave! Nowhere are you to be found but in those sacred writings, which are our noble charter, informing us of all our glorious privileges; namely, that the sting of death is taken away; that the bonds of the grave are broken; that everlasting glory is reserved in store for all who will accept of it upon the terms which infinite wisdom and goodness have prescribed; that consolation, assistance, and support in our way to this glorious end will be granted us by the great Lord of all; that our transient afflictions are only the chastisements of a kind Father, trials of our grace, and purifying fires wherein we are to be refined as gold and silver, that we may be fitted for eternal and unspeakable felicity; and that our life here is no more than a passage to the heavenly Canaan, the blessed region of immortality and glory. After having duly considered what great things these are, and how greatly they tend to increase our hopes and happiness here, let us, with the warmest gratitude, acknowledge the distinguishing grace it has pleased the Father of mercies to bestow on us, on whom the light of the Scriptures hath shone; for nothing is more certain than that people of all ages and countries where this light hath not shined, have “sat in darkness and the shadow of death,” in a state of dreadful doubt and uncertainty, not only having no assurance of any of these glorious things, but absolutely having no hope beyond the grave. For any thing they know to the contrary, the gloomy grave closes upon them for ever; no immortal glories are set in their view; the eye of faith in them pierces not into the heavens, for “how can they believe when they have not heard,” or, how can they know what has not been declared unto them? And can we then, who have the unsearchable riches of God’s grace to man declared to us, who have all these great things revealed to us, who have the assurance of these glorious hopes, look with indifference on those divine writings wherein the declaration of them is made? Rather, ought they not to be our constant meditation and study, our joy and delight all our life long?

It will not be useless to give here some account of the sacred books, and of the translations of them, which are occasionally mentioned in the course of this work. The collecting and publishing of the books of the Old Testament are ascribed, by both Jews and Christians, to Ezra. It is certain that in the reign of Josiah there was no other book of the law extant besides that found in the temple by Hilkiah; from which original, by order of that pious king, copies were immediately written out, and search made for all the other parts of the Scriptures, (2 Kings 22.,) by which means copies of the whole became multiplied among the people, who carried them with them into their captivity. After the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, Ezra got together as many copies as he could of the sacred writings, and out of them all prepared a correct edition; disposing the several books in their proper order, and settling the canon of Scripture for his time. These books he divided into three parts: 1, The Law; 2, The Prophets; 3, The Chetubim, or Hagiographa, that is, The Holy Writings. Josephus mentions this division, when he says, “We have only twenty-two books which we believe to be of divine authority, of which five are the books of Moses. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes king of Persia, the prophets who succeeded Moses have written in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and moral precepts for the conduct of life.” In this division, I. The Law contains, 1, Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy. II. The writings of the prophets are, 1, Joshua; 2, Judges, with Ruth; 3, Samuel; 4, Kings; 5, Isaiah; 6, Jeremiah, with his Lamentations; 7, Ezekiel; 8, Daniel; 9, The twelve minor prophets; 10, Job; 11, Ezra; 12, Nehemiah; 13, Esther. III. And the Hagiographa consist of, 1, The Psalms; 2, The Proverbs; 3, Ecclesiastes: 4, The Song of Solomon. This division was made for the sake of reducing the number of the sacred books to the number of the letters in their alphabet, which amount to twenty-two. At present the Jews reckon twenty-four books in their canon of Scripture; in disposing of which, the Law stands as it did in the former division, and the Prophets are distributed into the former and latter prophets. The former prophets are Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings. The latter prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets. And the Hagiographa consist of the Psalms, the Proverbs, Job, the Song of Solomon, Ruth, the Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther Daniel, Ezra, the Chronicles. Under the name of Ezra, they comprehend Nehemiah. The five books of the Law, in the original, are divided in fifty-four sections. This division many of the Jews hold to have been appointed by Moses himself: but others, with more probability, ascribe it to Ezra. The design of this division was, that one of these sections might be read in their synagogues every sabbath day. The number was fifty-four, because, in their intercalated years, a month being then added, there were fifty-four sabbaths. In other years they reduced them to fifty-two, by twice joining together two short sections. Till the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, they read only the Law, but the reading of it being then prohibited, they substituted in the room of it fifty-four sections out of the prophets; and when the reading of the Law was restored, under the Maccabees, the section which was read every sabbath out of the Law served for their first lesson, and the section read out of the prophets for their second. These sections were divided into verses, of which division, if Ezra was not the author, it was introduced not long after him; and seems to have been designed for the use of the Targumists, or Chaldean interpreters; for after the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, when the Hebrew language had ceased to be in common use, and the Chaldee was used instead of it, the custom was, that the Law should be first read in the original Hebrew, and then interpreted to the people in the Chaldee language, for which purpose these shorter sections or periods were very convenient. The division of the Scriptures into chapters, as we at present have them, except only the Psalms, which were always divided as at present, is of much later date. Some attribute it to Stephen Langton, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reigns of John and Henry III. But others, with more show of probability, believe the true author of the invention was Hugo de Sancto Caro, commonly called Hugo Cardinalis, because he was the first Dominican that was ever raised to the degree of cardinal. This Hugo flourished about the year 1240. He wrote a Comment on the Scriptures, and projected the first Concordance, which is that of the Vulgar Latin Bible. The aim of this work being for the more easily finding out any word or passage in the Scriptures, he found it necessary to divide the book into sections, and the sections into subdivisions; for, till that time, the Vulgar Latin Bibles were without any division at all. These sections are the chapters into which the Bible hath ever since been divided. But the subdivision of the chapters was not then into verses, as it is now. Hugo’s method of subdividing them was by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, placed in the margin at an equal distance from each other, according to the length of the chapters. The subdivision of the chapters into verses, as they now stand in our Bibles, had its original from a famous Jewish rabbi named Mordecai Nathan, about the year 1445. This rabbi, in imitation of Hugo Cardinalis, drew up a Concordance to the Hebrew Bible, for the use of the Jews. But though he followed Hugo in his division of the book into chapters, he refined upon his invention as to the subdivision, and contrived that by verses. This being found to be a much more convenient method, it has been ever since followed. And thus, as the Jews borrowed the division of the books of the Holy Scriptures into chapters from the Christians, in like manner the Christians borrowed that of the chapters into verses from the Jews.

Prideaux is of opinion that Ezra made additions in several parts of the Bible, where any thing appeared necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing the work; in which he appears to have been assisted by the same Spirit in which they were first written. Among such additions are to be reckoned the last chapter of Deuteronomy, wherein Moses seems to give an account of his own death and burial, and the succession of Joshua after him. To the same cause, this learned author thinks, are to be attributed many other insertions in the Bible, which created difficulties and objections to the authenticity of the sacred text. For instance, Genesis 12:6, it is remarked on Abraham’s coming into the land of Canaan, that “the Canaanites were then in the land;” which is not likely to have been said till after the time of Moses, when the Canaanites, being extirpated by Joshua, were then no more in the land. And, Genesis 22:14, we read, “As it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” But mount Moriah (which is the mount here spoken of) was not called the mount of the Lord till the temple was built on it, many hundreds of years after; and this being here quoted as a proverbial saying respecting it, which obtained among the Israelites in after ages, the whole style of the text manifestly points at a time after Moses, when they were in possession of the land in which that mountain stood; and therefore both these particulars prove the words cited to have been an addition by some other hand. Genesis 36:3, we read, “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the land of Israel:” which could not have been said till after there had been a king in Israel, and therefore these cannot be Moses’s words, but must have been inserted afterward. Exodus 16:35, the words of the text are, “And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, till they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna till they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan;” but Moses was dead before the manna ceased, and therefore these, again, cannot be his words, but must have been inserted after his decease. Many more instances of such inserted passages might be given, for throughout the whole Scripture they have been put in by way of parenthesis, where they appeared necessary for explaining, connecting, or illustrating the text, or the supplying what was wanting in it; but those already mentioned are sufficient to prove the point intended; and of these insertions undoubtedly Ezra was the author, in all the books which passed his examination. Ezra changed the names of several places which were grown obsolete, and instead of them put in their new names, by which they are called in the text. Thus it is that Abraham is said to have pursued the kings, who carried Lot away captive, as far as Dan; whereas that place in Moses’s time was called Laish; the name Dan being unknown till the Danites (long after the death of Moses) possessed themselves of it. The Jewish canon was, as appears, settled by Ezra, yet not so but that several variations have been made in it. Malachi, for instance, could not have been put in the Bible by him, since that prophet is by all allowed to have lived after Ezra; nor could Nehemiah have been put in by him, since mention is made, in that book, of Jaddus as high-priest, and of Darius Codomanus as king of Persia, who were at least a hundred years later than Ezra. It may be added, that, in the first book of Chronicles, the genealogy is carried down for so many generations as must necessarily bring it to the time of Alexander, and consequently this book could not be in the canon of Ezra’s days. It is probable the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi, were put into the Bible in the time of Simon the Just, the last of the men of the great synagogue. The celebrated Septuagint, or Greek version of the Old Testament, was made in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, who reigned about 285 years before Christ. Ptolemy, who was a monarch of great liberality, and a munificent patron of learning, having erected a grand library at Alexandria, which he intended to enrich with all the curious and important works of antiquity, procured a translation into Greek of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. This translation was made from the most ancient copies that could be procured, and therefore some learned men have supposed this version to have been made from copies written in the Samaritan or old Hebrew character. It has generally obtained the name of the Septuagint, or version of the Seventy, from a tradition that seventy or seventy-two interpreters were employed in this work, by order of the Jewish high-priest and sanhedrim, or great council of the Jews; and who completed the translation in a singular and miraculous manner. But this traditionary and fabulous account is now exploded; and a more probable account is, that five learned and judicious men only were engaged in the translation, which was afterward examined, approved, and allowed as a faithful version, by the seventy or seventy-two elders, who constituted the Alexandrian sanhedrim. The other books of the Old Testament were translated at different times, by different hands, as the necessity of the case demanded, or the providence of God appointed; and, being added to the books already translated, were comprehended in the general term Septuagint, or Septuagint version. This version was used by the Hellenist Jews, (that is, those who sojourned in the Grecian provinces and spoke the Greek language,) from the time of its formation till about one hundred years after the incarnation of our Lord, when they began to disuse it, and formed another for themselves. For, as this version grew into use among the Christians, it grew out of credit with the Jews, and they being pressed in many particulars, urged against them out of this version by the Christians, resolved to make a new one, that might better serve their purpose. The person who undertook this work was Aquila, a native of Sinope, a city of Pontus. He had been brought up a heathen, but, becoming a Christian, was excommunicated for addicting himself to magic and judicial astrology; he then turned Jew, got himself admitted into the school of Rabbi Akiba, the most celebrated Jewish teacher of his day, and having made considerable proficiency in Hebrew, was thought sufficient for the translation, which he undertook, and published in the year of our Lord 128. This version by Aquila was made so strictly literal, that St. Jerome said it was a good dictionary to give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew words. It was revised by the author, and a second edition of it published some time after the appearance of the first: but only a few fragments of it now remain. This seems to have been owing, partly at least, to the Jews themselves, for, as they ceased to read the Greek version in their synagogues, it was neglected and lost. The reader will observe, that it is the Septuagint version above mentioned, and not the Hebrew original, which our Lord and his apostles in general quote from, and which, in the first ages of Christianity, was held in great esteem. And to this celebrated translation many of the heathen philosophers were indebted for their most correct notions of the being and perfections of God, as well as for their best and purest sentiments of moral duties. The principal editions of it are, 1. The Complutensian, published by Cardinal Ximenes, A.D. 1515. It was altered in a variety of places, to make it correspond with the Hebrew, and so is the best version in Greek, but not the true Septuagint. 2. The Venetian, printed from a MS. It has been often reprinted at Strasburg, Basil, &c., and altered in some places, to bring it nearer the Hebrew. 3. The Vatican, printed at Rome, 1587, from a fine MS. of the pope’s library. This and the various readings of the excellent Alexandrian MS. are inserted in Walton’s Polyglot. 4. Grabe’s Alexandrian copy, at Oxford, 1707, but sometimes altered as he thought fit.

The word Targum is a name given to the Chaldee paraphrases of the books of the Old Testament. They are called paraphrases, or expositions, because they are rather comments and explications than literal translations of the text. They are written in the Chaldee tongue, which became familiar to the Jews after the time of their captivity in Babylon, and was more known to them than the Hebrew itself. So that when the Hebrew text was read in the synagogue, or in the temple, they generally added to it an explication in the Chaldee tongue, for the information of the people, who had but a very imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew tongue. It is probable, that even from the time of Ezra this custom began, since this learned scribe, reading the law to the people in the temple, explained it, with the other priests that were with him, to make it understood by the people, Nehemiah 8:7-9. But though the custom of making these sorts of expositions in the Chaldee language was very ancient among the Hebrews, yet had they no written paraphrases or targums before the era of Onkelos and Jonathan, who lived about the time of our Saviour. Jonathan is placed thirty years before Christ, under the reign of Herod the Great. Onkelos is something more modern. The Targum of Onkelos is the most of all esteemed, and copies are to be found in which it is inserted verse for verse with the Hebrew. It is so short and so simple that it cannot be suspected of being corrupted. This paraphrast wrote only upon the books of Moses, and his style approaches nearly to the purity of the Chaldee, as it is found in Daniel and Ezra. The Targum of Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, is upon the greater and lesser prophets. He is much more diffuse than Onkelos, and especially upon the lesser prophets, where he takes great liberties, and runs on in allegories. His style is pure enough, and approaches pretty nearly to the Chaldee of Onkelos. It is thought that the Jewish doctors, who lived seven hundred years after him, made some additions to him. The Targum of Joseph the Blind is upon the Hagiographa. This author is much more modern, and less esteemed, than those we have now mentioned. He has written upon the Psalms, Job, the Proverbs, the Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, and Esther. His style is a very corrupt Chaldee, with a great mixture of words from foreign languages. The Targum of Jerusalem is only upon the Pentateuch: nor is that entire or perfect. There are whole verses wanting, others transposed, others mutilated; which has made many of opinion, that this is only a fragment of some ancient paraphrase that is now lost. There is no Targum upon Daniel, or upon the books of Ezra or Nehemiah. These Targums are of great use for the better understanding, not only of the Old Testament, on which they were written, but also the New. As to the Old Testament, they serve to vindicate the genuineness of the present Hebrew text, by proving it to be the same that was in use when these Targums were made, contrary to the opinion of those who think the Jews corrupted it after our Saviour’s time. They help to explain many words and phrases in the Hebrew original, and they hand down to us many of the ancient customs of the Jews. And some of them, with the phraseologies, idioms, and peculiar forms of speech which we find in them, do, in many instances, help as much for the better illustration and better understanding of the New Testament as of the Old; the Jerusalem dialect, in which they are written, being the vulgar language of the Jews in our Saviour’s time. They also very much serve the Christian cause against the Jews, by interpreting many of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament in the same manner as the Christians do. Many instances are produced to this purpose by Dr. Prideaux, in his Connection of the History of the Old and New Testaments, vol. 4. p. 777.

The Vulgate which is likewise frequently mentioned in this Commentary, is the name given to the most ancient translation of the Scriptures into Latin. The meaning of this seems to be no more than the vulgar, or common translation; namely, that most generally received and used, and made in the vulgar or common language of those belonging to the Latin Church. The Vulgate of the Old Testament was translated almost word for word from the Greek of the Seventy. The translator is not known, nor so much as guessed at. It was commonly in use before St. Jerome made another translation from the Hebrew. St. Austin preferred the Vulgate before all the other Latin versions, as rendering the words and sense of the sacred text more closely and justly than any of the rest. That now called the Vulgate is corrected from the emendations of St. Jerome.

The Scriptures have likewise been translated into the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic or Egyptian, Persian, Turkish, Armenian, Georgian, Erse or Gaelic, Wallachian, Laponese, Romanese, Lithuanian, Portuguese, Livonian or Lettish, Esthonian, Modern Russian, Malayan, Formosan, the Grisons, the Upper Lusatian, the Manks, Georgian, Tamool, Cingalese, Hindostanee, Bengalee, Chinese, Massachuset, Creole, Mohawk, and Greenlandish languages; and, among the Europeans, into French, Italian, Spanish, German, Flemish, Danish, Sclavonian, Polish, Bohemian, Russian or Muscovite, Anglo-Saxon, English and Irish, and several others. Adelm, bishop of Sherburn, who lived in 709, made an English-Saxon version of the Psalms. Eadrfrid, or Ecbert, bishop of Lindisferne, who lived about the year 730, translated several of the books of Scripture into the same language. Venerable Bede, who died in 735, made a translation of the gospels into Saxon. And there is an old version of several books of the Scriptures made by one Elfric, abbot of Malmesbury. As to the English versions of the Scriptures, the most ancient is that of John de Trevisa, a secular priest, who translated the Old and New Testaments into English, at the request of Thomas Lord Berkeley. He lived in the reign of Richard II., and finished his translation in the year 1357. The second author who undertook this work was the famous Wickliff, who lived in the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. The MS. of his version is in several libraries in England. In the year 1534, an English version of the Bible, done partly by William Tindal, and partly by Miles Coverdale, was brought into England from Antwerp. The bishops found great fault with this translation: upon which a motion was made in convocation for an English translation of the Bible to be set up in all churches. This motion, though opposed by Bishop Gardiner and his party, succeeded at last. The king gave orders for setting about it with all possible haste, and within three years the impression of it was finished. Cromwell procured a general warrant from the king, allowing all his subjects to read it; for which Cranmer wrote his thanks to Cromwell, “rejoicing to see the work of reformation now risen in England, since the word of God did now shine over it all without a cloud.” Cromwell likewise gave out injunctions, requiring the clergy to set up Bibles in all their churches, and to encourage the people to read them. In the reign of Edward VI. Fuller mentions another translation of the Bible, printed in two editions; the first in 1549, the other 1551, but neither of them divided into verses.

In the reign of Queen Elizabeth came out the Bishops’ Bible, so called because several of that order were concerned in that version. The work was divided into several parcels, and assigned to men of learning and character; most of the divisions are marked with great initial letters, signifying either the name or the titles of the persons employed. Archbishop Parker had the principal direction of this affair; he revised the performance, and perhaps put the finishing hand to it. He likewise employed several critics in the Hebrew and Greek languages, to review the old translation, and compare it with the original.

The last English Bible is that called King James’s Bible, now in use by authority, which proceeded from the Hampton Court Conference in 1603, where, many exceptions being made to the Bishops’ Bible, King James gave orders for a new one; not, as the preface expresses it, for a translation altogether new, nor yet to make of a bad one a good, but to make a good one better; or, of many good ones, one best. Fifty-four learned persons were appointed for this office by the king, as appears by his letter to the archbishop, dated in 1604, which being three years before the translation was entered upon, it is probable seven of them were either dead or had declined the task, since Fuller’s list of the translators makes but forty-seven, who, being ranged under six divisions, entered on their province in 1607. It was published in 1610, with a dedication to King James, and a learned preface, and is commonly called King James’s Bible. After this all the other versions dropped, and fell into disuse, except the epistles and gospels in the Common Prayer Book, which were still continued, according to the Bishops’ translation, till the alteration of the Liturgy in 1661, and the Psalms, which are to this day continued as in the old version. The judicious Selden, in his Table Talk, speaking of the Bible, says, “The English translation of the Bible is the best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best, taking in for the English translation the Bishops’ Bible as well as King James’s. The translators in King James’s time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue, (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downs,) and then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on.” Much has been said of late in favour of giving the Holy Scriptures to nations, families, and individuals, without note or comment, and the British and Foreign Bible Society has been highly commended for adopting this plan. The reader will not misapprehend the reason of their adopting it. He will easily understand that it is not because the friends of that institution think it sufficient for men’s salvation that they have Bibles in their possession, and occasionally read them, whether they understand them or not; but entirely in order that every one who has a Bible may be left to his own unbiased and unprejudiced judgment with regard to the true meaning of every part of it, and may be at full liberty to use what helps he judges will be most conducive to that end. Common sense will tell any one, that no book is of any further use than it is understood, and that this is especially true respecting the Scriptures. Hence, as has been observed above, Christ, after his return from the dead, wrought a signal miracle in behalf of his disciples, and by an extraordinary influence of his blessed Spirit on their minds, opened their understandings that they might understand the Scriptures. Nor is it sufficient to understand them, but they must be firmly believed as far as they are understood; and must be marked, learned, and inwardly digested; yea, and reduced to practice, so that we may become doers of the word, and not hearers, or readers only; otherwise our possessing, and even esteeming and admiring this invaluable treasure, will be so far from enriching us with wisdom and grace, with holiness and happiness here, or hereafter, that it will only tend to our poverty and misery, bringing upon us a judicial blindness and hardness of heart from God, such as befell the Jews who would not so hear as to obey Moses and the prophets, and therefore were abandoned of God to a reprobate mind; and, though children of the kingdom, were cast out into outer darkness, even greater darkness in some respects than that in which the heathen world had been involved. Now, with a view to guard against every consequence of this kind, to prevent the abuse and ensure the use, the proper use of the Divine Oracles, the present work was entered upon, and has been so far accomplished. Nor was the author induced to undertake it through an overweening opinion of his own ability for such an arduous service; but he was pressed into it by his brethren in the ministry, at a time when he had not the most distant view or intention of any thing of the kind. Nor, after the desire of his brethren was signified to him, could he, for some time, bring his mind to consent to their wishes; nor would he have consented, had he not supposed that he should have had considerable help from the notes which the Rev. Mr. Wesley had selected and published many years ago; and that short notes would suffice to render the Scriptures in general sufficiently plain and easy to be understood by the generality of readers. Of his mistake in this particular he was soon convinced, finding it absolutely necessary to enlarge his plan, and make his notes much longer than he had at first intended, unless he would lay his readers under the necessity of purchasing one or two more Commentaries in order to their understanding the Scriptures, instead of having all that was necessary for that purpose in one.

Though this work has extended to a much greater length than was at first intended, the author of it is not conscious of having inserted therein one superfluous note or sentence. He has, from time to time, reviewed and re-reviewed what he had written, and continually, after the labour of composing, or selecting and abridging notes and observations, struck out many passages. And if he had the whole to go over again and reprint, although he knows he might shorten the Commentary, he knows it would, by that means, be far less valuable. He has had the most approved commentators and other helps before him for understanding every part, and has always made it his care to give what he judged the true and genuine sense of every passage. He must here repeat, however, that interpreting the Scriptures, and elucidating obscure passages, is not the only, nor even the chief end of this Commentary. Another very principal and still more important end of it is, to illustrate and defend the great doctrines of the everlasting gospel, as revealed under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, and to apply them to practical purposes. If it be here inquired what the author means by those great doctrines, his answer is, That he comprehends therein all those leading articles of the Christian faith which respect the nature and attributes of God; the primeval perfection and subsequent fall of man; the natural depravity, sinfulness, and guilt of the human race; their redemption through the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of God; his Deity and atonement, and the necessity of the influences of the Holy Spirit, in order to repentance, faith, and holiness; the justification of our persons, the renovation of our nature, and such good works as the gospel of Christ lays us under an indispensable obligation of performing. All these doctrines, together with those that respect the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, a final judgment, and the eternal and unchangeable consequences thereof, he considers as being included in what St. Paul calls the analogy, or proportion of faith, and St. Jude, the faith once delivered to the saints; and all these he has already found repeated occasions to illustrate and defend in these notes on the Old Testament, and certainly will find much more occasion of doing it in his Commentary on the New; a work on which he will now immediately enter. The reader, therefore, that attends to this statement of particulars, can be at no loss to judge what he will meet with in these sheets. It is certainly not essays, sermons, or dissertations, on any parts of Scripture; not long and laboured discussions of unessential and unimportant points of doctrine; nor very critical and tedious expositions of less important and less interesting passages of the Sacred Writings themselves; but it is an explanation to the reader’s understanding, and application to his conscience, of such parts of Holy Writ as seemed to the author to require to be so elucidated and applied; and an illustration and vindication of such doctrines as he judged to be essential to, or closely connected with, the edification and salvation of mankind. The marginal references have been found to give extraordinary trouble both to the compiler and the printer; and it is earnestly requested that they may not stand there in vain, but that the reader would occasionally, at least, consult them, for which little labour the increased knowledge of the Scriptures, and the edification he will receive thereby, will amply recompense him. And it is recommended to him, also, carefully to consider the summary of each book, and the contents of each chapter, before he proceeds to the perusal of it; as by this plan he will certainly both read the Sacred Oracles with more understanding and profit, and will retain a more lasting remembrance of the important truths which they contain. Upon the whole, it is hoped that the reader will find this to be at once a cheap and an instructive work, compressing into a small compass the substance of what the piety and learning of ages have advanced to render the Book of God a “lamp to our feet, and a light to our paths,” and “a savour of life unto life,” to such as are sincere and simple hearted, and who, instead of depending on their own wisdom or researches, however laborious, address themselves to the Father of lights, in prayer for “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation,” saying each from the heart, “Give me understanding, and I will keep thy law; yea, I will keep it with my whole heart.” That He “who commanded light to shine out of darkness, may shine into all our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of his glory,” in the person and through the mediation of Christ Jesus, is the sincere prayer of The reader’s servant in Christ,

JOSEPH BENSON.

LONDON, April 4, 1815.

The New Testament

BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 4

Editorial note: Source collation note — paragraph 4: “bible, from the greek βιβλος, biblos, that is, the”. Compared with BEN_VOL6.PDF PDF p. 4. The source-font or layout comparison does not securely establish every letter, mark or local sequence in these passages. The flagged language readings or layout are retained; the original source pages should be consulted for these specific readings. Additional-source investigation: the available separately digitized printed volumes were searched, but the corresponding passage was not securely located. The flagged readings or layout remain uncertain; this search provides no basis for reconstructing or silently normalizing them. BEN_VOL6.PDF, PDF page 4.

THE NEW TESTAMENT

OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST

INTRODUCTION.

As the whole revelation of the will of God to mankind is usually called the BIBLE, from the Greek Βιβλος, Biblos, that is, the BOOK, by way of eminence; so this sacred code with us Christians is usually divided into the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, or rather New Dispensation, Law, or Covenant, as the original expression, η καινη διαθηκη, might be more properly translated. The latter word, indeed, rendered “testament,” originally and primarily signifies “a disposition” or “appointment of things:” and, because among men things are ordered, disposed, or appointed, by a law, or by contract or covenant, or by will and testament, the word has been often used to signify any of these. But, inasmuch as a testament is of no force until the testator be dead, and Christ did not die, nor indeed come into the world, till after the law and the prophets (that is, the writings containing the law of Moses, and what other holy men, termed prophets, delivered by inspiration from God) were finished, it does not appear to be quite proper to call those ancient records by the name of “testament;” especially considering that one part of them, namely, the ceremonial law, was abolished by the testator’s death, and another great part of them fulfilled in his coming and dying. The name of “testament,” however, belongs more properly to the books of the evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, which not only contain the “New Law,” (so far as it is new, either in respect of the full and proper interpretation of the moral law, or in regard of the law concerning the worship of God under the gospel, and the government of the church,) but also the new covenant, or “New Dispensation” of the covenant of grace. For, whereas the covenant of grace was first made with, and revealed to Adam, and in and by him to the following patriarchs, and through them to the ages in which they lived; and was declared and set forth a second time, chiefly in types and shadowy representations, to Israel by Moses; it is much more clearly and fully revealed in these books, which contain a third, and more perfect, and indeed the last dispensation of it, and are also the last will and testament of our blessed Lord and Saviour.

It may be observed further here, nearly in the words of Dr. Campbell, that although the expression, η καινη διαθηκη, by which the religious institution of Christ is frequently denominated, “is almost always in the writings of the apostles and evangelists rendered by our translators, ‘the New Testament;’ yet the word διαθηκη by itself, except in a very few places, is always there rendered, not testament, but covenant; and is the Greek word whereby the LXX. have uniformly translated the Hebrew, ברית, berith, which our translators in the Old Testament have invariably rendered ‘covenant.’ That the Hebrew term corresponds much better to the English word ‘covenant,’ though not in every case perfectly equivalent, than to ‘testament,’ there can be no question; at the same time it must be owned, that the word διαθηκη in classical use, is more frequently rendered ‘testament;’ the proper Greek word for covenant being συνθηκη, which is not found in the New Testament, and occurs only thrice in the Septuagint. But that the Scriptural sense of the Greek word is more fifty expressed by our term ‘covenant,’ will not be doubted by any body who considers the constant application of the Hebrew word, so rendered in the Old Testament, and of the Greek word, in most places at least, where it is used in the New. What has led translators, ancient and modern, [sometimes,] to render it ‘testament,’” seems to be, “the manner wherein the author of the epistle to the Hebrews argues, Hebrews 9:16, 17, in allusion to the classical acceptation of the term. But however much it was necessary to give a different turn to the expression in that passage, in order to make the author’s argument as intelligible to the English, as it is in the original to the Greek reader, this [certainly] was not a sufficient reason for giving a version to the word in other places that neither suits the context, nor is conformable to the established use of the term in the sacred writings. “The term, ‘new,’ is added to distinguish it from the ‘old covenant,’ that is, the dispensation of Moses.” It may be observed here, by the way, “that often the language of theological systems, so far from assisting us to understand the language of holy writ, tends rather to mislead us. The two covenants are always in Scripture the two dispensations, or religious institutions; that under Moses is the ‘old,’ that under the Messiah is the ‘new.’ It is not denied that, in the latitude wherein the term is used in holy writ, the command under the sanction of death, which God gave to Adam in paradise, may, like the ordinance of circumcision, with sufficient propriety be termed a ‘covenant;’ but it is pertinent to observe that it is never so denominated in Scripture; and that when mention is made in the epistles of the two covenants, the ‘old’ and the ‘new,’ or the first and the second, (for there are two so called by way of eminence,) there appears no reference to any thing that related to Adam. In all such places, Moses and Jesus are contrasted, the Jewish economy and the Christian, mount Sinai, in Arabia, whence the law was promulgated, and mount Sion in Jerusalem, where the gospel was first published. It is proper to observe further, that, from signifying the two religious dispensations, they came soon to denote the books wherein what related to these dispensations was contained; the sacred writings, of the Jews being called η παλαια διαθηκη, and the writings superadded by the apostles and evangelists, η καινη διαθηκη. We have one example in Scripture of this use of the former appellation. The apostle says, speaking of his countrymen, ‘Until this day remaineth the veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament,’ 2 Corinthians 3:14, επι τη αναγνωσει της παλαιας διαθηκης. The word, in this

application, is always rendered in our language, ‘testament.’ We have in this followed the Vulgate, as most modern translators also have done. In the Geneva French, the word is rendered both ways in the title, that the one may serve for explaining the other, in which they have copied Beza, who says, Testamentum novum, sive Fœdus novum, ‘the New Testament,’ or ‘the New Covenant.’ That the second rendering of the word is the better version, is

unquestionable; but the title appropriated by custom to a particular book is on the same footing with a proper name, which is hardly considered a subject of criticism. Thus we call Cesar’s Diary, ‘Cesar’s Commentaries,’ from their Latin name, though very different in meaning from the English word.”

The title of this part of the Scriptures, in some of the original or Greek copies is, της καινης διαθηκης απαντα, all the books, or rather, all the things of the New Covenant: a title which, according to Dr. Hammond, refers to “the consent of the catholic church of God, and the tradition which bears testimony to these books as those, and those only, which complete the canon of the New Testament;” or all the books which have been handed down to the church so as to be received into the number of writings confessedly endited by the apostles and disciples of Christ. “I cannot indeed find,” says Dr. Whitby, “that this title is of any considerable antiquity, but the more ancient title of η καινη διαθηκη, the New Covenant, prefixed to these books, doth plainly intimate the full and general persuasion of the ancient church, that in these books was comprised the whole new covenant, of which the blessed Jesus was the Mediator, and the apostles were the ministers and dispensers; and therefore they must surely contain all that is requisite for Christians to believe and do in order to salvation.” It may be proper to observe here, that in this latter dispensation, the divine authority of the former is presupposed and built upon; and “the knowledge of what is contained in that introductory revelation is always presumed in the readers of the New Testament, which claims to be the consummation of an economy of God for the salvation of man; of which economy the Old Testament acquaints us with the occasion, origin, and early progress. Both are, therefore, intimately connected. Accordingly, though the two Testaments are written in different languages, the same idiom prevails in both; and in the historical parts at least, nearly the same character of style.” The books of the New Testament obviously divide themselves into the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John. The evangelists, through whom we have the gospels, are four, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Their histories are termed ευαγγελια, gospels, or good tidings, as the word signifies, because they contain tidings of the appearance of the Messiah, and a circumstantial account of his birth, life, doctrine, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation to God’s right hand, as the Redeemer and Saviour, the Mediator, Advocate, and Forerunner of his people. These sacred writers are therefore not called evangelists in the sense in which the same expression is used Ephesians 4:11, where it signifies a certain class of extraordinary officers in the Christian Church, such as Philip, Acts 8:5-29; and 21:8; Timothy, 2 Timothy 4:5; and many others: but as they were evangelical historians. Of those, however, Matthew and John were apostles, and preachers of the gospel, the other two were only disciples of the apostles; but, nevertheless, they doubtless occasionally laboured “in the word and doctrine.”

That these four persons were the inspired authors of the four narratives which bear their names, we have, as Dr. Whitby shows at large, the clear and decisive testimony of the ancient fathers of the Christian Church. 1. A passage from Polycarp, (who, as Irenæus informs us, was made bishop of Smyrna by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen the Lord,) is cited by Victor Capuanus, in which we have the names of these four gospels, as we at present have them, and the beginning of their several histories. 2. Justin Martyr, who, according to Eusebius, lived, μετ’ ου πολυ των αποστολων, not long after the apostles, shows that these books were then well known by the name of “gospels,” and were read by Christians in their assemblies every Lord’s day. Yea, we learn from him that they were read by Jews, and might be read by heathens; and that we may not doubt that, by the “Memoirs of the Apostles, which,” says he, “we call Gospels,” he meant these four, received then in the church, he cites passages out of every one of them, declaring that they contained the words of Christ. 3. Irenæus, in the same century, not only cites them all by name, but declares that there were neither more nor fewer received by the church, and that they were of such authority that though the heretics of his time complained of their obscurity, depraved them, and endeavoured to lessen their authority, yet they durst not wholly disown them, or deny them to be the writings of those apostles whose names they bore. Moreover, he cites passages from every chapter of St. Matthew and St. Luke, from fourteen chapters of St. Mark, and from twenty chapters of St. John. 4. Clemens of Alexandria, having cited a passage from “the Gospel according to the Egyptians,” informs his readers, “that it was not to be found in the four gospels delivered by the church.” 5. Tatianus, who flourished in the same century, and before Irenæus, wrote συναφειαν τινα και συναγωγην των ευαγγελιων, a chain or harmony of the gospels, which he named, το δια τεσσαρων, the gospel gathered out of the four gospels. And the “apostolical constitutions” name them all, and command “that they be read in the church, the people standing up at the reading of them. 6. Inasmuch as these gospels were “written,” says Irenæus, “by the will of God, to be the pillars and foundation of the Christian faith,” the immediate successors of the apostles, who, says Eusebius, did great miracles by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, and performed the work of evangelists in preaching Christ to those who had not yet heard the word, made it their business, when they had laid the foundation of that faith among them, την των θειων ευαγγελιων παραδιδοναι γραφην, to deliver to them the writing of the holy gospels.

If it be objected here, that other gospels, bearing the names of other apostles, or gospels used by other nations, are mentioned as having existed in the early ages of Christianity, it may be answered, that this is so far from being derogatory from, or tending to diminish, the tradition of the church concerning these four gospels, that it tends highly to establish and confirm it, as will be evident from these considerations: 1. That we find no mention of any of these gospels until the close of the second century, and of few of them till the third or the fourth century; that is, not until long after the general reception of these four gospels by the whole church of Christ. For Justin Martyr and Irenæus, who cite large passages from these four gospels, take not the least notice of any other gospels, mentioned either by the heretics or by the orthodox. 2. They who speak of them in the close of the second, or in the following centuries, do it still with this remark, that “the gospels received by the tradition of the church were only four,” and that the others belonged not to them, nor to the evangelical canon. For authorities the reader must be referred to Dr. Whitby, from whom the two last paragraphs are taken. He sums up the argument as follows: “Seeing, then, 1. That these four gospels were received without any doubt or contradiction by all Christians from the beginning, as the writings of those apostles and evangelists whose names they bear; and that these first Christians both acknowledged and testified that these writings were delivered to them by the apostles as the pillars or fundamental articles of their faith: seeing, 2. That these same gospels were delivered by the immediate successors of the apostles to all the churches which they converted or established, as the rule of their faith: seeing, 3. They were read from the beginning, as Justin Martyr testifies, in all assemblies of Christians, on the Lord’s day, and so must have been early translated into those languages, in which alone they could be understood by some churches; namely, the Syriac and Latin: seeing, 4. They were generally cited in the second century for the confirmation of this faith, and the conviction of heretics, and the presidents of the assemblies exhorted those who heard them to practise and imitate what they heard: seeing, 5. We never hear of any other gospels till the close of the second century, and then hear only of them with a mark of reprobation, or a declaration that they were ψευδεπιγραφα, falsely imposed upon the apostles, that they belonged not to the evangelical canon, or to the gospels delivered to the churches by a succession of ecclesiastical persons, or to those gospels which they approved, or by which they confirmed their doctrines, but were to be rejected as the inventions of manifest heretics: — All these considerations must afford us a sufficient demonstration that all Christians then had unquestionable evidence that these four gospels were the genuine works of those apostles and evangelists whose names they bear, and so were worthy to be received as the records of their faith. What reason, then, can any persons of succeeding ages have to question what was so universally acknowledged by those who lived so near to that very age in which these gospels were endited, and who received them under the character of the holy and divine Scriptures?”

To this general and uncontrolled tradition respecting the authenticity of the gospels, we may add further strength from the following considerations: 1. That since our Jesus was a Prophet or Teacher sent from God, he must have left to his church some records of his doctrines and his Father’s will; since he was a King, and was to reign for ever, he must have left some laws by which his subjects were to be for ever governed; as the Saviour of the world, he must have delivered to the world an account of the terms on which they might obtain the great salvation purchased by him; otherwise, he must have been a Prophet, Priest, and King in vain. Hence we infer that some certain records of those doctrines, laws, and conditions of salvation, must be extant. Now, unless these gospels and other scriptures of the New Testament contain those records, they must be wholly lost, and we must all be left under a manifest impossibility of knowing, and, therefore, of doing the will of God. For to say tradition might supply the want of writing is to contradict experience; since the traditions of the Jews made void that word of God they had received in writing; and how much more would they have done it had no such writing been delivered! Moreover, our blessed Lord spake many things which were not committed to writing. He taught the multitude “by the sea;” Mark 2:13; “beyond Jordan;” Mark 10:1; “in the synagogues of Galilee;” Luke 4:15; “at Nazareth;” Luke 4:22; “Capernaum;” Luke 4:31; “out of Simon’s ship;” Luke 5:3; and very often “in the temple;” John 7:14; 8:2. He interpreted to the two disciples going to “Emmaus, throughout all the Scriptures, the things concerning himself;” Luke 24:27. He discoursed to his disciples, after his resurrection, “touching the things of the kingdom of God;” Acts 1:3; and St. John assures us there were exceeding many miracles which Jesus did that were not written; John 20:30. Now, whereas accounts of all those miracles and sermons which were written are entirely preserved, and firmly believed, tradition hath not preserved an account of one miracle or sermon which was not written; and, therefore, tradition can be no sure record or means of making known the doctrine or the laws of Christ. In a word, it is evident that even the church catholic hath lost a tradition delivered to her by St. Paul; for he says, “I told you these things,” (namely, concerning antichrist,) “when I was with you; and now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time;” 2 Thessalonians 2:5,

6. He also intimates, in the same chapter, at verse 15, where he exhorts them to hold fast these traditions, that they were of great moment to be known and retained; and yet these traditions have neither been retained by the Roman, nor by the catholic church, and it is confessed by Anselm and Esthius on the place, that, “though the Thessalonians knew, yet that we know not what they were;” so that the tradition which the church received touching this matter is wholly lost. How then can the church be relied on as a sure preserver and true teacher of unwritten tradition, since she has confessedly lost one of great moment deposited with the Thessalonians. and the primitive church.

2. That it was necessary that the Christian doctrine or revelation should be preserved in some writing, may be fairly concluded from the Holy Scriptures themselves. For, if St. Paul thought it necessary to write to the church at Rome, “to put them in remembrance of the grace of God given to them,” Romans 15:15, as also to send to his Corinthians in writings “the things they had heard and did acknowledge,” 2 Corinthians 1:13, and to write “the same things” which he had taught to his Philippians; Philippians 3:1; — if St. Peter thought it needful to write to the Jewish converts, “to stir up their sincere minds by way of remembrance, that they might be mindful of the commands of the apostles,” 2 Peter 3:1, 2, though they at present knew them, and were “established in the truth;” 2 Peter 1:12, 13; and St. Jude to write to the same persons, to remind them “of the common salvation;” verse 3; — if the beloved evangelist closes his gospel with these words, “These things were written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and believing ye might have life through his name;” — surely these persons could not but think it necessary that the essential doctrines of Christianity should be recorded in writing; and yet we are sure they have only been so recorded in those gospels and other writings contained in the canon of the New Testament; and, therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt of the authority of these gospels and other writings. Add to this, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit, who influenced them in the inditing of these gospels for the church’s use, would certainly not be wanting in causing them to be transmitted to those Christians for whose use they were intended, because they would not be wanting to pursue the end for which these gospels were written; and they were therefore written, that the disciples “might know the certainty of those things in which they had been instructed,” Luke 1:4, and might be engaged more firmly to believe that Jesus was the Christ.

3. It is evident that the age immediately succeeding could not be ignorant of what was thus delivered to them by the church from the apostles, as the pillar and ground of their faith; nor is it easy to conceive, that either they would have thus received these gospels, had not the apostles given them sufficient authority and indication of their duty so to do; or that these writings would have been esteemed so readily as the charters of the Christian faith, had not the apostles delivered them unto the churches under that character.

And lastly. We have good reason to suppose that the providence of God, which was so highly interested in the propagation of the Christian faith, and making it known to the world, would not permit false records of that faith to be so early and so generally imposed upon the Christian world. From the same consent and suffrage of the primitive church, we may conclude, with the strongest evidence of reason, that these four gospels, and the other Scriptures, received then without doubt or contradiction by the church, were handed down to them uncorrupted in the substantial articles respecting faith and practice. For, 1. These records were generally dispersed through all the Christian churches, though at a great distance from each other, from the beginning of the second century. 2. They were universally acknowledged and consented to by men of great parts and learning, and of different persuasions. 3. They were preserved in the originals in the apostolical churches, among whom, says Tertullian, authenticæ eorum literæ recitantur, “their original letters are recited;” it being not to be doubted that they who received the originals from the apostles, and who had authentic copies of them given to them by their immediate successors, would carefully preserve them to posterity. 4. They were multiplied into divers versions, almost from the beginning, as we may rationally conclude, because the Church of Rome, and other churches which understood not the original Greek, having been founded in the apostles’ days, cannot be reasonably supposed to have been long without a version of those Scriptures which were to be read by them in public and private. 5. They were esteemed by them as digesta nostra, “our law books,” says Tertullian; libri deifici deificæ Scripturæ, “divine books of God’s inditing,” or, “books which instruct men to lead a divine life,” say the martyrs; and believed by all Christians to be qeiai grafai, “divine Scriptures,” says Origen, and, therefore, as the records of their hopes and fears. 6. They were so constantly rehearsed in their assemblies by men whose office it was to read, explain, and enforce them, and exhort to the performance of the duties they enjoined, and so diligently read by the Christians, that they were riveted in the memories of many, and, according to Eusebius, some had them all by heart. 7. They were so frequently referred to in their writings, and passages of them so often cited by Irenæus, Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen, exactly as we now have them; — that it must be certain, from all these considerations, they were handed down to succeeding generations pure and uncorrupt. And, indeed, from these considerations, we may with greater certainty infer, that the Scriptures were preserved entire from any designed corruption, than any person can, that the statutes of the land, or any other writings, histories, or records whatsoever, have been so preserved; because the evidence thereof depends upon more persons, and those more holy, and of consequence more averse to deceive, and more concerned that their writings should not be corrupted, than any men are, or have reason to be, respecting other writings. So that we must renounce all certainty of the authenticity of any record, or grant that it is certain these are the genuine records of the Christian faith. Again: The corruption of the word of God, or the substitution of any other doctrine in the place of that which had been delivered by the apostles, could not have been effected by any part or sect of Christians, without its being soon discovered by those who had embraced the Christian faith, and used the true copies of the word of God, in other churches of the Christian world. And, therefore, this supposed corruption, if it could at all have taken place, must have been the work of the whole body of Christians. But surely it cannot be reasonably supposed that the ages immediately succeeding the apostles should universally conspire to substitute their own inventions in the place of the word of God, and yet continue steadfast in, and suffer so much for, that faith which denounced the severest judgments against them who should corrupt his word: or that so many men should, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes, avouch the gospel to be the truth of God, and yet make such a change even in the frame and constitution of its doctrine, as rendered it ineffectual, both to their own salvation and that of their posterity. Lastly, that these sacred records of the word of God have not been so corrupted as to cease to be an authentic and sufficient rule of faith and practice, may be argued from the providence of God. For nothing seems more inconsistent with his wisdom and goodness, as the Governor of the world and of his church, than to influence his servants to write the Scriptures, to be a rule of faith and manners for all future ages, and to require the belief of the doctrines, and the practice of the duties contained therein, and yet to suffer this divinely-inspired rule to be corrupted in things necessary to faith and practice. Who can imagine that God, who sent his Son into the world to declare this doctrine, and inspired his apostles to indite and preach it, and who by so many miracles confirmed it, should suffer any weak or ill-designing persons to corrupt or alter any of those terms on which the salvation of the world depended? Surely none can think this rational but such as are of opinion that it is not absurd to say that God repented of his goodness and love to mankind in vouchsafing them the gospel; or that he was so unkind to future generations, that he suffered wicked men to rob them of all the benefits intended them by this new declaration of his will. For since those very Scriptures, which have been received as the word of God, and used by the church as such, from its first ages, profess to contain the terms of our salvation; to be Scriptures indited by men commissioned from Christ, and such as avouched themselves “apostles by the will of God, for the delivery of the faith of God’s elect, and for the knowledge of the truth, which is after godliness, in hope of eternal life;” they must either be the word of God in reality, or providence must have permitted such a forgery as renders it impossible for us to perform our duty in order to salvation; for if the Scriptures of the New Testament should be corrupted in any essential requisite of faith or practice, they must cease to be “able to make us wise unto salvation,” and so they must fail of answering the end which God intended they should answer when he indited them. Now the authenticity of the gospels being thus demonstrated, or that they are the genuine and uncorrupted writings of the persons whose names they bear, their truth and divine inspiration follows of course. For, first, with respect to the evangelists Matthew and John, we may observe with Dr. Macknight, as they were apostles, “they were eye-witnesses of most of the things they have related. They attended our Lord during his ministry; they heard him preach all his sermons, and saw him perform the greatest part of his miracles; they were present at his crucifixion; they conversed with him after his resurrection; and they beheld his ascension. Besides, as apostles, they possessed the gifts of illumination and utterance. By the former they were absolutely secured from falling into error, in any point of doctrine, or matter of fact, relating to the Christian scheme. By the latter they were enabled to express themselves clearly and pertinently upon every subject of Christianity which they had occasion to treat of, either in their sermons or writings. These gifts our Lord had expressly promised to all his apostles. See John 14:25, 26.” He also promised that, when they should be brought before governors and kings, it should be given them what they should speak; that he would give them a mouth and wisdom which their adversaries should not be able to gainsay or resist; yea, that the Spirit of their Father should speak in them. Matthew 10:18, 20; Luke 21:15. The whole of these promises were punctually fulfilled. For, about ten days after our Lord’s ascension, the disciples received a glorious effusion of the Holy Ghost, while they tarried in Jerusalem, according to their Master’s order, in expectation of being “endued with power from on high.” See Acts 2:3.

“From that moment forth the Spirit gave clear indications of the reality of his presence with them; for he enabled them, all at once, to speak the various languages under heaven as fluently as if they had been their native tongues, and thereby qualified them to preach the gospel in all countries immediately upon their arrival, without the necessity of submitting to the tedious and irksome labour of learning the languages of those countries. Moreover, he gave them the power of working all manner of miracles; nay, he enabled them to impart unto those whom they converted the power of working them, and the faculty of speaking with tongues, and of prophesying or preaching by inspiration. The apostles of the Lord, having such convincing proofs of their inspiration always abiding with them, did not fail on proper occasions to assert it, that mankind might everywhere receive their doctrine and writings with that submission which is due to the dictates of the Spirit of God. Hence we find them calling the gospel which they preached and wrote, “the word of God, the commandment of God, the wisdom of God, the testimony of God;” also, “the word of Christ, the gospel of Christ, the mind of Christ, the mystery of God the Father, and of Christ.” Wherefore, Matthew and John being apostles, and having received the gifts of the Spirit with the rest of their brethren, there can be no doubt of their inspiration. Their gospels were written under the direction of the Holy Ghost, who resided in them; and upon that account they are venerated by all Christians as the word of God, and have deservedly a place allowed them in the sacred canon.

2. “The characters of Mark and Luke come next to be considered. They were not apostles, it is true, yet they were qualified to write such a history of our Lord’s life as merits a place in the canon of Scripture.” For as they were, in all probability, early disciples, it is not unlikely that they were eye-witnesses of most of the things which they have related; and were even in the apostles’ company on the day of pentecost, and then received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit together with them; consequently they wrote by divine inspiration also. But, if that were not the case, it must be granted that these two evangelists accompanied the apostles in their travels. “The matter is certain with respect to Luke; for, in his history of the Acts, he speaks of himself as Paul’s companion; and, in the preface to his gospel, he expressly mentions the information of the ministers of the word, as distinct from that of the eye-witnesses, to lead us, probably, to think of Paul, with whom he had long travelled, and who had not the knowledge of Christ’s history by personal acquaintance, but by revelation. See Galatians 1:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 11:23. As for Mark, he is generally reported by antiquity, and currently believed, to have been Peter’s assistant. And, in conformity to this opinion, all interpreters, both ancient and modern, suppose that Peter speaks of Mark the evangelist in 1 Peter 5:13: ‘The church that is at Babylon salutes you, and so does Marcus my son.’ This appellation Peter gives to Mark, because of the great intimacy and friendship which subsisted between them, agreeable to the Apostle Paul’s description of Timothy’s affection. See Philippians 2:22. If Mark was Peter’s companion and fellow-labourer in the gospel, although he was neither an apostle nor an eye-witness, he must have been well acquainted with our Lord’s history, because he could not but learn it from the conversation and sermons of Peter, who was both. Wherefore, to use the words of Luke, since these evangelists took in hand to write the history of our Lord’s life, according to the informations which they had received from the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and executed their design while they accompanied the persons from whom they received those informations, we may reasonably suppose they would submit their works to their examination. Accordingly, Clemens Alexandrinus, quoted by Eusebius, 6:14, tells us that Mark’s gospel was revised by Peter. And Mr. Jones, in support of this opinion, has collected eight particulars from the other gospels, all tending to the honour of Peter, which are entirely omitted by Mark, because Peter’s humility, as he supposes, would not allow him to tell these things to that historian. But if it be true that Mark and Luke wrote according to the information of the apostles, and had their gospels revised by them, it is evidently the same as if their gospels had been dictated by the apostles.

“I cannot but observe, however,” proceeds the doctor, “that though none of all the suppositions just now mentioned should be granted, there is one unquestionable matter of fact, which fully establishes the authority of the two gospels under consideration; namely, that they were written by the persons whose names they bear, and while most of the apostles were alive. For, in that case, they must have been perused by the apostles, and approved; as is certain from their being universally received in the early ages, and handed down to posterity as of undoubted authority. The apostolical approbation was the only thing, without the inspiration of the writers, which could give these books the reputation they have obtained. And had it been wanting in any degree, they must have shared the fate of the many accounts which Luke speaks of in his preface; that is, must have been neglected, either as imperfect or spurious, and so have quickly perished. But, if the gospels of Mark and Luke were approved by the apostles immediately upon their publication, and for that reason were received by all Christians, and handed down to posterity as of undoubted authority, it is the same as if they had been dictated by the apostles. Hence they are justly reckoned of equal authority with the other books of Scripture, and admitted into the canon together with them. Such proofs as these, drawn from the sacred writings themselves, are sufficient to make all Christians reverence the gospels as the word of God. And, therefore, they are fitly produced for the confirmation of our faith.”

It must be observed further, here, that while we believe the sacred historians have recorded nothing but what is true, we must not suppose they have related all the things which with truth they might have related. “Each of them, indeed, has delivered as much of Christ’s doctrine and miracles as is necessary to our salvation. Nevertheless, many important sermons and actions are omitted by each, which, if the rest had not preserved, the world must have sustained an unspeakable loss. We have even reason to believe that it is but a small part of our Lord’s history which is preserved among them all;” for John has said expressly, that “there were many other things which Jesus did, which, if they had been written every one,” he supposed “that even the world itself could not contain the books that would have been written.” The other evangelists affirm, in effect, the same thing, in the summaries which they give of such discourses and miracles as they did not think proper to relate particularly. Thus we read, “Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy, and he healed them,” Matthew 4:23, 24. In Luke 7:21 it is said, “And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and to many that were blind he gave sight.” See also Matthew 14:35, 36; 15:30, 31; 19:1, 2; John 2:23; and 3:2; and the passages referred to above in the paragraph respecting the insufficiency of tradition, page 6. And, “as the evangelists did not intend to relate all the sermons and actions of Christ, so it was not their purpose to mention every circumstance of those which they undertook to relate. Each evangelist, directed by the Spirit, makes his own choice. This circumstance is mentioned by one, and that by another, as they judged most proper.” And “we must by no means urge omissions, whether of facts, or circumstances of facts, in such a manner as to fancy that the inspired authors rejected all the things they have omitted, or even that they were ignorant of them. For, from the summaries above mentioned, it is plain they have passed over many particulars with which they were well acquainted.”

But it must be observed, though Jesus performed many miracles, which the evangelists have not recorded, and probably many equal in greatness to those which they have recorded; yet, it is likely “that those recorded were more remarkable than the rest, either for the number of the witnesses who were present at them; or for the character and quality of those witnesses; or for the places where they were performed; or for the consequences which they gave rise to; or for the reports which went out concerning them, and fame which accrued to Jesus from them. This observation, which may be applied likewise to our Lord’s sermons, deserves the rather to be attended to, because it accounts for what would otherwise be very difficult to be understood, namely, how the evangelists, notwithstanding they had such an infinity of sermons and miracles to make a choice from, came all of them, except John, who designed his gospel as a supplement to the rest, to mention, in most instances, the same sermons and miracles; I say, in most instances, because in a few cases each evangelist has departed from this rule, omitting things, which on account of their importance, their notoriety, their consequences, and other reasons, are recorded by the rest; while he has taken notice of particulars which, to appearance, are not so material. Thus, Mark 14:51, the cure which our Lord performed on the high-priest’s slave, whose ear Peter cut off, is omitted; while the young man who followed him with a linen cloth cast round his naked body, is mentioned. In these, and such like instances, the evangelists seem not to have considered how their readers would be affected with the transactions recorded by them. If that had been a matter of care with them, they would in every case, have made choice of those particulars only which might have prejudiced their readers in favour of their Master, or led them to form a high idea of him. Wherefore, as they have not done so, they possess evidently the character of writers who have no distrust of their cause, but who tell the truth as it presented itself, without artifice or disguise. “According to this view of the matter, it appears that the evangelists, in their histories, have given only a faint sketch, as it were, of our Lord’s life, and not a full delineation. However, though the miracles and sermons which they have recorded be few in respect of the whole, it is certain that the miracles mentioned do put Christ’s mission beyond all reasonable possibility of doubt; and the sermons related give a just idea of his doctrine. Nay, such is the importance of the things related, that each evangelist must be acknowledged singly to have comprehended in his gospel as much of the knowledge of Christ as is sufficient to the salvation of the world. At the same time, by confining themselves to the principal miracles which our Lord performed, and to some select sermons which he preached in the course of his ministry, they made their histories such small books, that every Christian had it in his power to purchase some one of them. And although at first sight this may seem but a matter of little moment, it was, in reality, a singular benefit to mankind, especially in those ancient ages, before printing was invented, when a book of any considerable bulk amounted to a large sum. Brandt, in his History of the Reformation in the Low Countries, (vol. 1., p. 23,) tells us, that for one copy of the Bible, tolerably written on vellum, it was usual to pay four or five hundred crowns; and, even after the invention of printing, sixty for a printed copy, till the art grew more common. We may therefore presume, that it was not without the particular direction of the Spirit, that the evangelists, in writing their histories, thus consulted the benefit of the poor; who, if they got any one of the gospels into their own possession, could be at no loss for the knowledge of Christ necessary to eternal life.

“Concerning the words and phrases which the inspired writers have made use of,” it may not be improper to subjoin the following observations from the same judicious author. “If two or more evangelists, on any occasion, ascribe to our Lord the same words, we may safely believe they have preserved the words which he uttered on that occasion. However, when they introduce him speaking, they do not always mean to repeat the precise words, but to give the sense of what he said; nothing more being intended oftentimes by those who undertake to relate what was spoken by another. This, I think, is plain, from Acts 10:4, compared with verse 31. In the former of these passages, the angel says to Cornelius, ‘Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God;’ in the latter, Cornelius, rehearsing the angel’s words to Peter, delivers them thus: ‘Thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.’ Wherefore, both Cornelius and the historian thought the angel’s words were repeated, when the sense of them was delivered. This observation reconciles all those passages in the gospels, wherein our Lord is introduced expressing his sentiments in different words on the same occasion. Nevertheless, where different expressions are found, it is possible that all of them may have been uttered by him, especially if they convey different thoughts, and, when joined together, make a connected discourse. In most cases, however, the former is the more natural solution; because, if the evangelists have given the true meaning of what our Lord said on every occasion, they have certainly delivered what may be called the words of Christ, though the expressions in each gospel should be different, or even to appearance contradictory. A remarkable example of this we have Matthew 10:9, where Jesus is introduced speaking to his apostles thus: ‘Provide — neither shoes nor yet a staff;’ but, in the parallel passage, Mark 6:8, which exhibits the repetition of those instructions, he commanded them, that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; words in sound contradictory to the former, though in sense perfectly the same. Such of the apostles as had staves in their hands might take them, but those who were walking without them were not to provide them; for, as the providence of God was to supply them with all necessaries, to have made the least preparation for their journey would have implied a disbelief of their Master’s promise. In like manner, the words of the voice at Christ’s baptism, Matthew 3:17, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,’ though different as to sound from the words Mark 1:11, ‘Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased;’ yet being the same in sense, they are truly repeated. So likewise are the words of institution in the history of the sacrament, and the words of the title that was affixed to our Lord’s cross.

“By the way, these principles afford an easy solution of the difficulties which arise upon comparing the citations in the New Testament with the passages of the Old, from whence they are taken; for, if the meaning of the passage is truly given, we must allow that the quotation is justly made. Hence, though the words, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene,’ Matthew 2:23, are not to be found in the writings of the prophets, yet, as the thing meant by these words frequently occurs in them, the application is made by the evangelist with sufficient propriety.

“But further, it ought to be considered, that our Lord’s discourses were all delivered, and his conferences managed, in a language different from that wherein they are handed down to posterity, namely, the Syro-Chaldaic, called ‘the Hebrew tongue,’ Acts 21:40, because it was a dialect thereof. For which cause, though all the evangelists had remembered the precise words of every person introduced in their histories, when they related them in a different language, they could hardly avoid making use of different expressions, even on supposition that they wrote by inspiration, unless that inspiration absolutely deprived them of the use of their own faculties; or unless the Holy Spirit, who inspired them, could not suggest different words to each, equally proper for conveying the sentiment he designed to express.

“According to this view of the matter, the four evangelists differ from one another no otherwise than any of them might have differed from himself, had he related the same passage of the history twice. Both narrations would have been the same as to the sense, though different words might have been made use of in each. Wherefore, it can be no good argument against the inspiration of the evangelists, that their accounts are different. Let the reader compare the two histories of our Lord’s ascension, given by Luke, the one in the end of his gospel, the other in the beginning of the Acts; also the three accounts which the same historian gives of Paul’s conversion, the first in the ninth, the second in the twenty-second, the third in the twenty-sixth chapter of the last-mentioned book; and he will acknowledge the truth of what I have been saying.”

In the mean time, let him observe that, while these apparent inconsistencies, thus rightly understood, are easily reconciled, they prove undeniably that the evangelists were in no combination to make up their histories and deceive the world: so far from it, that these inconsistencies are of such a kind, as would lead one to believe the subsequent historians did not so much as compare the accounts of particular transactions, which they were about to publish, with those that were already abroad in the world, but that each evangelist represented the matters which are subjects of his history, as his own memory, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, suggested them to him, without considering how far they might be agreeable to the accounts which his brethren historians had already given. And as this admirably discovers the sober spirit of truth by which those writers were guided in every part of their narrations, so the modesty wherewith they have written their histories is very remarkable. For not only none of them singly has related all the transactions of our Lord’s life, or affected to give a complete history thereof, but, “such things as they have thought fit to mention, though great and wonderful above measure, they have not painted with the gaudy colourings of rhetoric, nor heightened with the magnificence of pompous language, but have told them with a simplicity unexampled in so great a subject. And as they have not studied human eloquence in the composition of their histories, so they have not followed human prudence in the choice of their subjects. For although they must have been sensible that the transactions they were about to relate were not likely to be believed by the generality, being many of them opposite to the established course of nature, it is evident they were at no pains to consider what particulars were least liable to exception, nor so much as to obviate the difficulties which arose from them. This thought a late writer has well expressed. ‘It does not appear,’ says he, ‘that it ever came into the mind of the evangelists to consider how this or that other action would appear to mankind, or what objections might be raised against them. But, without attending at all to this, they lay the facts before you, at no pains to think whether they would appear credible or not. If the reader will not believe their testimony, there is no help for it. They tell the truth, and attend to nothing else.’ To conclude, it is remarkable that through the whole of their histories, the evangelists have not passed one encomium upon Jesus, or upon any of his friends, nor thrown out one reflection against his enemies, although much of both kinds might have been, and no doubt would have been done by them, had they been governed either by a spirit of imposture or enthusiasm. Christ’s life is not praised in the gospels, his death is not lamented, his friends are not commended, his enemies are not reproached, nor even blamed, but every thing is told naked and unadorned, just as it happened; and all who read are left to judge and make reflections for themselves; a manner of writing which the historians never would have fallen into, had not their minds been under the guidance of the most sober reason, and deeply impressed with the dignity, importance, and truth of their subject.”

Upon the whole, by the force of the arguments now advanced, and others of a similar nature, “has the gospel history gained a belief next to universal in ages past, and by these it stands at present firmly established against the manifold violent attacks of its enemies, who, with unwearied application, are assaulting it on all quarters. In a word, founded upon these arguments, it can never be overturned in any age to come; but, while men are capable of discerning truth, will be believed and received to the end of the world.” Observe well, reader, from the undoubted truth of the gospel history, we infer with certainty that the Christian religion is divine.

Preface to the Epistles.

BEN_VOL7.PDF, source PDF p. 643

PREFACE TO THE EPISTLES.

THE Lord Jesus before his death informed his apostles, (John 16:12,) that he had “many things to say to” them which they could not then bear; but that “when the Spirit of truth was come, he would guide them into all truth,” or rather, “into all the truth,” as εις πασαν την αληθειαν properly signifies, namely, the whole truth comprehended in the gospel dispensation. From this it is evident, that Jesus, while he was on earth, did not declare, at least clearly and fully, all the doctrines of the gospel, all that was necessary to be believed and practised by mankind; but left many things to be revealed by the Holy Ghost, to the persons who, after his departure, were to make them known to the world. In this method of revealing the gospel, as Dr. Macknight has justly observed, “there was both dignity and propriety. For the Son of God came from heaven, not [chiefly] to make the gospel revelation, but to be the subject of it, by doing and suffering all that was necessary to procure the salvation of mankind. But although it was not our Lord’s intention to make a complete revelation of the gospel in person, he occasionally delivered many [indeed, most] of its doctrines and precepts in the hearing of his followers, that when the persons commissioned by him to preach the gospel in its full extent, executed their commission, the world, by observing the perfect conformity of their doctrine with his, might entertain no doubt of their authority and inspiration, in those further discoveries which they made concerning the matters of which Christ himself had spoken nothing.”

One of the apostles, namely, Judas, having fallen from his office by transgression, the eleven judged it necessary to supply his place; and for that purpose chose Matthias, by lot. In this, however, some think they acted, not by the direction of the Holy Ghost, for he was not yet given them, but merely by the dictates of human prudence, which, on that occasion, they suppose, carried them too far; no man, nor body of men whatever, having power by their designation to confer an office whose authority was to bind the consciences of all men, and whose duties could not be performed without the gifts of extraordinary inspiration and miracles. To ordain an apostle, they say, belonged to Christ alone, who, with the appointment, could also confer the supernatural powers necessary to the function. Some time, therefore, after the election of Matthias, Jesus himself, they think, superseded it, by appointing another to be his apostle and witness in the place of Judas. “In the choice of this new apostle, Jesus had a view to the conversion of the Gentiles; which, of all the services allotted to the apostles, was the most dangerous and difficult. For the person engaged in that work had to contend with the heathen priests, whose office and gains being annihilated by the spreading of the gospel, it was to be expected that they would oppose its preachers with an extreme rage. He had to contend, likewise, with the unbelieving Jews living in heathen countries, who would not fail to inflame the idolatrous multitude against any one who should preach salvation to the Gentiles without requiring them to obey the law of Moses. The philosophers too were to be encountered, who, no doubt, laboured to destroy it by persecuting its preachers and abetters. The difficulty and danger of preaching to the Gentiles being so great, the person who engaged in it certainly needed an uncommon strength of mind, a great degree of religious zeal, a courage superior to every danger, and a patience of labour and suffering not to be exhausted, together with much prudence, to enable him to avoid giving just offence to unbelievers. Besides these, natural talents, education, and literature were necessary, in the person who endeavoured to convert the Gentiles, that he might acquit himself with propriety when called before kings, and magistrates, and men of learning. All these talents and advantages Saul of Tarsus possessed in an eminent degree; and, having been a violent persecutor of the Christians, his testimony to the resurrection of Jesus would have the greater weight, when he became a preacher of the gospel. Him, therefore, the Lord Jesus determined to make his apostle in the room of Judas; and for that purpose he appeared to him from heaven, as he journeyed to Damascus to persecute his disciples. And having convinced him of the truth of his resurrection, by thus appearing to him in person, he commissioned him to preach it to the Gentiles, together with the doctrines of the gospel, which were to be made known to him afterward by revelation. See Acts 26:16-18. Such was the commission which Jesus, in person, gave to Saul of Tarsus, afterward called Paul; so that, although he had not attended Jesus during his ministry, he was, in respect both of his election to the office and his fitness for it, rightly numbered with the apostles.” — Macknight.

The apostles, having received their commission to preach the gospel to all nations, and being endued with divine inspiration and miraculous powers for that purpose, went forth and published the things which concerned the Lord Jesus, first in Judea, and afterward among the Gentiles; and, by the reasonableness of their doctrine, the holiness of their lives, the greatness of their sufferings, and the miracles which they performed, persuaded great multitudes, both of the Jews and Gentiles, to believe and obey the gospel, and openly to profess themselves Christ’s disciples, notwithstanding, by so doing, they exposed themselves to sufferings and death. In is evident, therefore, that the world is indebted to the apostles, under God, for the complete knowledge of the gospel. Under God, it must be observed; for the praise of enlightening mankind is due only to them as instruments, the Divine Spirit communicating unto them that knowledge of the truths of the gospel wherewith they were to enlighten others, and confirming those truths by signs and wonders, and miracles innumerable.

Because the Author of the Christian religion left nothing in writing for the instruction of the world, the apostles and others, who were witnesses of his holy and benevolent actions, his miracles, his sufferings, his resurrection and ascension, and who heard his divine discourses, besides preaching these things to all nations, have taken care that the knowledge of them should not be left to the uncertainty of a vague tradition, handed down from age to age. Four of these witnesses wrote, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, histories of Christ’s ministry, to which the name of gospels hath been given; being the same which are in our possession at this day. In these excellent writings, every thing relating to the Lord Jesus is set forth in a plain, unadorned narration, which bears the clearest marks of authenticity. In like manner, that the revelation of the gospel doctrines, which was made to the apostles by the Spirit, and which they delivered to the world, in their discourses and conversation, might not be left to the uncertainty of tradition, but be preserved uncorrupted to the end of time, the Holy Ghost moved certain of these divinely-inspired teachers to commit their doctrine to writing, in epistles; some of which they addressed to particular churches, others to particular persons, and others to believers in general; all which are still in our possession.

Inasmuch, then, as in the four gospels and in the Acts, we have the history of our Lord’s ministry and of the spreading of the gospel in the first age, written by inspiration; and, seeing that, in the apostolical epistles, the doctrines and precepts of our religion are set forth by the like inspiration, these writings ought to be highly esteemed by all Christians, as the rule of their faith and practice; and no doctrine ought to be received as an article of faith, nor any precept acknowledged as obligatory, but what is contained in them. With respect, however, to the gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, let it be remarked that, while the greatest regard is due to them, especially to the gospels, because they contain the words of Christ himself, we are not in them to look for a full account of the gospel scheme. Their professed design is to give, not a complete delineation of our religion, but the history of its Founder, and of that illustrious display which he made of his glory, as the Son of God and Saviour of the world, together with an account of the spreading of the gospel after our Lord’s ascension. The gospel doctrine is to be found complete only in the epistles, where it is exhibited with great accuracy by the apostles, to whom the Holy Ghost revealed it, as Christ had promised.

With regard to the authenticity of these epistles, we may observe, with Dr. Whitby, that if we consider all the writings which pass for authentic records in the world, we shall find there is not any reason to conceive them such, which is not, with advantage, applicable to these books. All the arguments which can be offered to prove a book or writing genuine, are only of two kinds; external, from the testimony of persons who lived near to the times of the author; and internal, from the things contained in, and asserted by, those writings, and the firm belief they obtained among them to whom they were directed and committed. The external testimonies have their force partly from the number and eminence of the testators, their nearness to the times when such writings are said to have been composed, or published from the original copies preserved by those to whom they were at first committed; and partly from the general reception and citation of them as the writings and records of such authors. Now, with respect to these external evidences, no writings can compare with these epistles, they having all the circumstances by which any writing can be proved genuine, and many others of great weight, which are peculiar to them, and which no other writings can pretend to.

First. They have all the circumstances by which any writing can be proved genuine. 1. Their originals were preserved in their respective churches till Tertullian’s time, who speaks thus to the heretics of his age, namely, of the third century: “Go to the apostolical churches, where their authentic epistles are still recited, representing the voice and face of each of them.”

2. They were not doubted of, but, as Clement and Origen say, (excepting only the epistle to the Hebrews,) were generally received by all orthodox Christians throughout the world. 3. The writers by whom they were cited lived either in those times when they were written, as Clemens Romanus, or in the very next age, as Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus; who were, therefore, styled apostolical men. 4. Those who cite these writings were eminent, both for their learning, and for their sufferings for the faith contained in them; or for their opposition to it, as Celsus was. Now, surely, we have unquestionable certainty of books which have been handed down to us by the tradition of all ages of the church, inserted in all her catalogues, cited by all her writers, as books of divine authority, and by her very adversaries; preserved so long in their originals, and of the authenticity of which no doubt was ever entertained by any genuine member of the Church of Christ. But, besides this, it must be observed, Secondly. There are many circumstances of great weight, which are peculiar to these writings; as, 1. A general dispersion of them throughout all those places where any were converted to that faith which the apostles preached; for the apostles, says Irenæus, “first preached the gospel, and afterward, by the will of God, in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, delivered it to us in writing, to be hereafter the pillar and foundation of our faith,” lib.

3. cap. 1. Eusebius bears the same testimony, Hist. Ecclesiastes lib. 3. cap.

37. 2. The translation of them into other languages; as into the Syriac, a translation so ancient, that it leaves out the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, and the Revelation, as being books which, for a time, were controverted in some of the eastern churches; and into Latin, styled, in Jerome’s time, “the old translation;” and very probably made when the Latin Church was first planted, it being the custom of all churches to read the Scriptures on the Lord’s day, which certainly they would not do in a language not understood by those that heard 2:3. The constant reading of them, in public and in private, in their assemblies, and in their families and closets. “On Sundays,” saith Justin Martyr, “all the Christians in the city or country meet together, and then we have read unto us the writings of the prophets, τα απομνημονευματα των αποστολων, the monuments of the apostles;” and having read them, they publicly expounded them to the people. They were also read by the most eminent and pious Christians every day, ut discat unusquisque ex Scripturis sanctis officium suum, “that every one may learn his duty from the Holy Scriptures.” — Consti. of Clement, lib. 6. cap. 27. 4. The dreadful torments which the Christians chose to suffer, rather than they would desert the faith contained in these books, or deliver them up to their tormentors, and the infamy of those that did so, they being branded with the odious name of traditores, or “deliverers up,” namely, of the sacred writings. Now, what writings in the world have been so generally dispersed, so much perused by all sorts of persons, friends, foes, asserters of and enemies to the faith of Christians? What laws or writings have been so early translated into other languages? Who were so much concerned to peruse any laws or writings, as all Christians were to peruse the laws of Christ? Who suffered so much for any books, as the Christians did for theirs? Since, then, this early reading of these records, in public and in private, by the Christians, this general dispersion of them through all Christian churches, this quick translation of them into other languages, this constant suffering for them, are all corroborating circumstances of the unquestionable evidence all Christians had obtained that they were genuine and authentic writings, and indeed what they pretended to be; it is also clear that these records are more worthy to be received as genuine, and books of unquestionable truth, than any profane writings in the world.

We come now to speak of the internal arguments which are usually offered to prove other writings genuine. These are taken from the things contained in them; such as that they were proper to the times in which the authors were supposed to write, and free from every thing not well consistent with those times, which are mean and trifling circumstances, compared to those internal arguments which these epistles afford; that they are the authentic records of those apostles whose names they bear; and that those things which they assert, especially respecting the gifts and powerful operations of the Holy Ghost, both exercised by them, and conferred on others, with all the other facts which they attest, were unquestionably true. For,

1. It is not once or twice, it is not by the by; but it is frequently, professedly, and upon all occasions, that they refer to those miraculous powers and spiritual gifts, as yielding a full proof and confirmation of the testimony they bore to Christ; and that “Christ was among them;” and as a demonstration of the truth of their apostleship against all opposers, and of the preference of that faith which was attended with such gifts and powers, above the Mosaic law, which some desired to observe; spending whole chapters in discoursing of these spiritual endowments, distinguishing them somewhat nicely into gifts, administrations, and operations, ranking them under nine several heads, (1 Corinthians 12:8-10,) and specifying the very names of those who did by office exercise them; and showing the necessity there was of this variety of gifts and operations in the body; appealing to the senses, the consciences, and the experience of those to whom they wrote, touching the truth and certainty of what they asserted respecting these spiritual gifts. See especially Romans 15:18, 19; 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2; 12:4, &c.; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Galatians 3:3-5; 1 Thessalonians 1:5.

2. These men, in these very writings, speak confidently of the “testimony of their conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity they had their conversation in the world;” — that they wrote no other thing than what their converts did acknowledge, and they trusted would acknowledge, to the end; — that they were “made manifest” to God, and they “trusted were also made manifest” in the consciences of those to whom they wrote; representing it as a great absurdity that they should be found false witnesses to God, and distinguishing themselves from others, whom they call false apostles and deceitful workers, by this very character of their sincerity. See 2 Corinthians 1:13; 5:11; 1 Corinthians 15:15; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:3-10. Now, with what face could they have asserted these things, if they had known that in these very epistles they had declared (for instance, respecting their miracles) what even the senses and experience of those to whom they wrote must assure them were the greatest falsehoods? Or how could they to whom they wrote give credit to such impudent untruths as these must be, if the relations which they made of these miraculous operations had been mere fictions? This, therefore, is a farther evidence of their sincerity and truth in these relations.

3. Let us observe how the apostle treats those churches of Corinth and Galatia, respecting which he speaks most copiously of these operations of the Holy Ghost, and how they stood affected to him. The Corinthians are represented by him as schismatical; (1 Corinthians 1.;) as carnal; (chap. 3.;) as glorying in an incestuous person; (chap. 5.;) as contentious, to their own shame, and the scandal of Christianity; (chap. 6.;) as murmurers, tempters of Christ, fornicators, idolaters, partakers of the table of devils; (chap. 10.;) as coming to the Lord’s supper, not for the better, but for the worse, offending in it both against the rules of charity and temperance, and also against faith, in not discerning the Lord’s body; (chap. 11.;) as guilty of emulations, schisms, and contentions, touching spiritual persons, and of vain glory in the exercise of their spiritual gifts; (chap. 12., 14.;) and as deniers of that resurrection which was the great foundation of all the future hopes of Christians, chap. 15. In his second epistle he declares his fears that he might find among them debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, back-bitings, whisperings; and that he should find among them many who had not yet repented of the fornication and lasciviousness which they had committed, (2 Corinthians 12:20.) And for these things, if not reformed, he threatens he will use sharpness, and come to them with a rod, chap. 10:6; 13:2. .He charges the Galatians with apostacy; (chap. 1:6;) and represents them as foolish and bewitched in falling from that gospel by which they had received spiritual gifts, to the beggarly elements of the law, (chap. 3:1-16.) Now, how could the Corinthians be guilty of such emulations about spiritual persons, or such disorders in the exercise of their spiritual gifts, provided there were among them no such persons, and they had no such gifts? How could they fear the lashes of his rod, on the account of crimes of which they neither were nor could be guilty? Why should they not be rather for Cephas, or Apollos, than for Paul, if Paul imposed upon them with false stories and sensible untruths? Or why should not the Galatians even quit that gospel, in which he endeavoured to confirm them only by an appeal to that which they must know to be a lie? Moreover, the affections of the members of these churches were not so firm to him, and their esteem of him was not so great, as that he might securely lessen it by venturing on such arts of falsehood; for he found some of these Corinthians puffed up against him, and preferring others much before him; (1 Corinthians 4:18;) charging him with lightness and inconstancy; (2 Corinthians 1:17;) and with walking according to the flesh, (chap. 10:2.) He complains that they were straitened in their bowels of affection toward him, and that the more he loved them, the less he was beloved by them; (chap. 12:15;) that they questioned his apostleship, and even sought a proof of Christ’s speaking in him, (chap. 13:3.) He represents the Galatians as questioning his apostleship and doctrine, or thinking him much inferior in both to others; (chap. 1.;) and as supposing he dissembled with them, and elsewhere preached himself that circumcision he condemned in them, (chap. 2.; 5:11.) Now, under these circumstances, could he hope to repair his credit with them, and to establish the apostleship they questioned, by an appeal to, and relation of, such things as both their senses and experience showed to be manifest untruths? But,

4. If it could be supposed that these churches were so stupid and insensible that they did not, or so partially affected to the apostle that they would not, take notice of these things; these epistles inform us of other subtle and industrious adversaries, men zealous to oppose and adulterate the gospel which he preached, and desirous to find occasion to lessen the promoters of it, and to advance themselves above them; false apostles, and deceitful workers, who transformed themselves into the apostles of Christ, when in truth they were ministers of Satan; men who corrupted the word of God, and sought to corrupt others from the simplicity that is in Christ, (2 Corinthians 2:17; 10:12, &c.; 11:12, 13, 15.) Among the Galatians also there were evil agents, who troubled them, and would pervert the gospel of Christ, false brethren, who came in privily to spy out their liberty, and desired to exclude the apostles, that they might be affected (or loved) by them, chap. 1:7; 2:4; 4:17. Now, if he himself had been a vain talker and deceitful worker, one who endeavoured to impose upon them with false tales, with what face could he object those things to others of which he himself was so guilty? Or how could they, whom he confidently accused as guilty of these things, neglect this obvious reply to such an accusation, that he himself, in his appeal to the miraculous operations of the Holy Ghost for confirmation of his doctrine and apostleship, had done the very thing he laid to their charge? We have no reason to suspect that all, or any, of these adversaries neglected any pains to search into the truth of what Paul thus offered to confirm his doctrine and magnify his office, and to vindicate himself from the aspersions which they cast upon him. Since, then, we never find the truth of these relations questioned by any of those Jews who thirsted for his blood, or by those Judaizing Christians who so vehemently inveighed against his doctrine, his person, and his office; and since we are assured by the event, that if they ever made any such attempts they all proved ineffectual to impair the credit of those writings in the Christian world; it may be certainly concluded that these epistles could not be convicted of falsehood, but contained matter of unquestionable truth in these assertions, touching the powerful operations of the Holy Ghost. Lastly. Let us consider what the apostles suffered for this testimony, and what it cost them to propagate this faith throughout the Christian world, and in what tragical expressions they are set forth in Scripture. “God,” saith Paul, “hath set forth us, the apostles, last, as it were appointed to death; for we are made a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men,” &c., 1 Corinthians 4:9-13. See also 1 Corinthians 15:31; 2 Corinthians 6:4, 5; 1:8. And in the eleventh chapter he gives such a dreadful account of his own afflictions as can scarcely be read without trembling. Now, by what motive could they be actuated in the publication of that faith, for which they suffered all that wit and malice could inflict upon them, but the conviction of the truth of what they published; seeing they actually lost all in this, and could expect no blessings in another world for calling God to witness to a lie? The moralists assure us, that it is impossible for men to act without the appearance of some good to be pursued by that action; that love of life, and a desire of self-preservation, is common to us with brutes; and it is natural both for them and us to endeavour to avoid misery and torments. If, then, the apostles did actually abandon all the enjoyments and expectations both of this and of a better life, and wilfully subject themselves unto the worst of misery and torments, in propagation of a testimony from which they could expect no profit or advantage, they must be even bereft of common sense, renounce the natural instincts of mankind, and be in love with misery and ruin. It is indeed possible for men to lay down their lives for false opinions, provided they believe them true; but if the apostles were guilty of practising any cheat at all in this matter, it must have been of a known imposture, and they must have sacrificed their lives for what they knew to be a falsehood, that is, for a thing from which they could expect no good at all; a conduct which seems so inconsistent with the common principles of reason and self-love that it is quite incredible that any should be guilty of it. And this, it is hoped, may be sufficient to convince any reasonable person that these epistles were the genuine writings of the apostles, and that the truth of what they so copiously assert concerning the miraculous gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, vouchsafed to the believers of these times, cannot be reasonably contested.

Archdeacon Paley, in the conclusion of his “Horæ Paulinæ,” having given a short, but comprehensive view of the evidences by which the authenticity of St. Paul’s epistles is established beyond all possibility of doubt, thus proceeds: “If it be true that we are in possession of the very letters which St. Paul wrote, let us consider what confirmation they afford to the Christian history. In my opinion, they substantiate the whole transaction. The great object of modern research is, to come at the epistolary correspondence of the times. Amidst the obscurities, the silence, or the contradictions of history, if a letter can be found, we regard it as the discovery of a landmark; as that by which we can correct, adjust, or supply the imperfections and uncertainties of other accounts. One cause of the superior credit which is attributed to letters is this; that the facts which they disclose generally come out incidentally, and therefore without design to mislead the public by false or exaggerated accounts. This reason may be applied to St. Paul’s epistles with as much justice as to any letters whatever. Nothing could be farther from the intention of the writer than to record any part of his history. That his history was, in fact, made public by these letters; and has, by the same means, been transmitted to future ages, is a secondary and unthought-of effect. The sincerity, therefore, of the apostle’s declarations, cannot reasonably be disputed. But these letters form a part of the monuments of Christianity, as much to be valued for their contents, as for their originality. A more inestimable treasure the care of antiquity could not have sent down to us. Besides the proof they afford of the general reality of Paul’s history, of the knowledge which the author of the Acts of the Apostles had obtained of that history, and the consequent probability that he was what he professes himself to have been, a companion of the apostles; besides the support they lend to these important inferences, they meet specifically some of the principal objections upon which the adversaries of Christianity have thought proper to rely. In particular, they show,

1. “That Christianity was not a story set on foot amidst the confusion which attended, and immediately preceded, the

destruction of Jerusalem; when many extravagant reports were circulated, when men’s minds were broken by terror and distress, when, amidst the tumults that surrounded them, inquiry was impracticable. These letters show incontestably that the religion had fixed and established itself before this state of things took place.

2. “Whereas it hath been insinuated, that our gospels may have been made up of reports and stories which were current at the time, we may observe that, with respect to the epistles, this is impossible. A man cannot write the history of his own life from reports; nor, what is the same thing, be led by reports to refer to passages and transactions in which he states himself to have been immediately present and active. I do not allow that this insinuation is applied to the historical part of the New Testament with any colour of justice or probability; but I say, that to the epistles it is not applicable at all.

3. “These letters prove that the converts to Christianity were not drawn from the barbarous, the mean, or the ignorant set of men, which the representations of infidelity would sometimes make them. We learn from letters the character not only of the writers, but, in some measure, of the persons to whom they are written. To suppose that these letters were addressed to a rude tribe, incapable of thought or reflection, is just as reasonable as to suppose Locke’s Essay on theHuman Understanding to have been written for the instruction of savages. Whatever may be thought of these letters, in other respects, either of diction or argument, they are certainly removed as far as possible from the habits and comprehension of a barbarous people.

4. “St. Paul’s history, I mean so much of it as may be collected from his letters, is so implicated with that of the other apostles, and with the substance, indeed, of the Christian history itself, that I apprehend it will be found impossible to admit St. Paul’s story (I do not speak of the miraculous part of it) to be true, and yet to reject the rest as fabulous. For instance: Can any one believe that there was such a man as Paul, a preacher of Christianity, in the age which we assign to him, and not believe that there were also at the same time such men as Peter, and James, and other apostles, who had been companions of Christ during his life, and who, after his death, published and avowed the same things concerning him which Paul taught?

5. “St. Paul’s letters furnish evidence (and what better evidence than a man’s own letters can be desired?) of the soundness and sobriety of his judgment. His caution in distinguishing between the occasional suggestions of inspiration, and the ordinary exercise of his natural understanding, is without example in the history of human enthusiasm. His morality is everywhere calm, pure, and rational; adapted to the condition, the activity, and the business of social life, and of its various relations; free from the over-scrupulousness and austerities of superstition, and from (what was more perhaps to be apprehended) the abstractions of quietism, and the soarings or extravagances of fanaticism. His judgment concerning a hesitating conscience; his opinion of the moral indifference of many actions, yet of the prudence and even duty of compliance, where non-compliance would produce evil effects upon the minds of the persons who observed it, is as correct and just as the most liberal and enlightened moralist could form at this day. One thing I allow, that his letters everywhere discover great zeal and earnestness in the cause in which he was engaged; that is to say, he was convinced of the truth of what he taught; he was deeply impressed, but not more so than the occasion merited, with a sense of its importance. This produced a corresponding animation and solicitude in the exercise of his ministry. But would not these considerations, supposing them to be well founded, have holden the same place, and produced the same effect, in a mind the strongest and the most sedate?

6. “These letters are decisive as to the sufferings of the author; also, as to the distressed state of the Christian Church, and the danger which attended the preaching of the gospel. See Colossians 1:24; 1 Corinthians 15:19, 30-32; Romans 8:17, 18, 35, 36; 1 Corinthians 7:25, 26; Philippians 1:29, 30; Galatians 6:14, 17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 1:4. We may seem to have accumulated texts unnecessarily; but, besides that the point which they are brought to prove is of great importance, there is this also to be remarked in every one of the passages cited, that the allusion is drawn from the writer by the argument on the occasion; that the notice which is taken of his sufferings, and of the suffering condition of Christianity, is perfectly incidental, and is dictated by no design of stating the facts themselves, a circumstance which adds greatly to the value and credit of the testimony. In the following quotations, the reference to the author’s sufferings is accompanied with a specification of time and place, and with an appeal for the truth of what he declares, to the knowledge of the persons whom he addresses, 1 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Timothy 3:10, 11. I apprehend, that to this point, as far as the testimony of St. Paul is credited, the evidence from his letters is complete and full. It appears under every form in which it could appear, by occasional allusions and by direct assertions, by general declarations and by specific examples.

7. “St. Paul, in these letters, asserts, in positive and unequivocal terms, his performance of miracles, strictly and properly so called, Galatians 3:5; 1 Corinthians 2:4, 5; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 2:4; Romans 15:15, 18, 19; 2 Corinthians 12:12. ‘Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, by signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.’ These words, ‘signs, wonders, and mighty deeds’ (shmeia kai terata, kai dunameiv,) are the specific, appropriate terms throughout the New Testament, employed when public, sensible miracles are intended to be expressed. And it cannot be shown that they are ever employed to express any thing else. Further: these words not only denote miracles as opposed to natural effects, but they denote visible, and what may be called external miracles; as distinguished, first, from inspiration. If St. Paul had meant to refer only to secret illuminations of his understanding, or secret influences upon his will or affections, he could not with truth have represented them as ‘signs and wonders,’ wrought by him, or ‘signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds’ wrought among them. Secondly, from visions. These would not by any means satisfy the force of the terms, ‘signs, wonders, and mighty deeds;’ still less could they be said to be wrought by him, or wrought among them; nor are these terms and expressions anywhere applied to visions. Upon the whole, the matter admits of no softening qualification or ambiguity whatever. If St. Paul did not work actual, sensible, public miracles, he has, knowingly, in these letters, borne his testimony to a falsehood; and, in some instances, has advanced his assertion in the face of those persons among whom he declares the miracles to have been wrought.

“Here then we have a man of liberal attainments, and, in other points, of sound judgment, who had addicted his life to the service of the gospel. We see him, in the prosecution of his purpose, travelling from country to country, enduring every species of hardship, encountering every extremity of danger, assaulted by the populace, punished by the magistrates, scourged, beaten, stoned, left for dead; expecting, wherever he came, a renewal of the same treatment and the same dangers; yet, when driven from one city, preaching in the next; spending his whole time in the employment, sacrificing to it his pleasures, his ease, his safety; persisting in his course to old age, unaltered by the experience of perverseness, ingratitude, prejudice, desertion; unsubdued by anxiety, want, labour, persecutions; unwearied by long confinement, undismayed by the prospect of death. Such was St. Paul. We have his letters in our hands; we have also a history purporting to be written by one of his fellow-travellers, and appearing, by a comparison with these letters, certainly to have been written by some person well acquainted with the transactions of his life. From the letters, as well as from the history, we gather, not only the account which we have stated of him, but that he was one, out of many, who acted and suffered in the same manner; and that of those who did so, several had been the companions of Christ’s ministry, the ocular witnesses of his miracles, and of his resurrection. We moreover find this same person referring in his letters to his supernatural conversion, the particulars and accompanying circumstances of which are related in the history, and which accompanying circumstances, if all or any of them be true, render it impossible to have been a delusion. We also find him positively, and in appropriate terms, asserting that he himself worked miracles, strictly and properly so called, in support of the mission which he executed; the history meanwhile recording various passages of his ministry which came up to the extent of this assertion. The question is, whether falsehood was ever attested by evidence like this? Falsehoods, we know, have found their way into reports, into tradition, into books; but is an example to be met with of a man voluntarily undertaking a life of want and pain, of incessant fatigue, of continual peril; submitting to the loss of his home and country, to stripes and stoning, to tedious imprisonment, and the constant expectation of a violent death, for the sake of carrying about a story of what was false, and of what, if false, he must have known to be so?” — Horæ Pauline, chap. 16. pp. 405- 426.

Such are some of the incontrovertible arguments which have been urged in proof of the truth of Christianity; arguments which all unprejudiced persons must acknowledge to be perfectly conclusive; and which, at the same time that they evince its truth, demonstrate its infinite importance, and the indispensable obligation which lies upon all to whom it is proposed to receive it in faith, love, and sincere obedience; persuaded that those who do not will assuredly meet with the punishment they have deserved, “when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. For if the Gentiles were given up to “vile affections and a reprobate mind” only for sins committed against the dim and uncertain light of nature; if the Jews received just punishment for “every transgression of the law,” delivered by Moses to them, “how shall we escape if we neglect this great salvation which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed by them that heard him, God bearing them witness with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and distributions of the Holy Ghost?”