Religion, which was of old the true religion, and affords no small
testimony to the Christian religion, it is not foreign to our purpose,
to see upon what foundation the credibility of these is built. That
these books are theirs, to whom they are ascribed, appears in the same
manner as we have proved of our books. And they, whose names they
bear, were either Prophets, or men worthy to be credited; such as
_Esdras_, who is supposed to have collected them into one volume, at
that time, when the Prophets _Haggai_, _Malachi_, and _Zacharias_,
were yet alive. I will not here repeat what was said before, in
commendation of _Moses_. And not only that first part, delivered by
_Moses_, as we have shewn in the first book, but the latter history is
confirmed by many _Pagans_. [21]Thus the _Phœnician_ annals mention
the names of _David_ and _Solomon_, and the league they made with the
_Tyrians_. And _Berosus_, as well as the _Hebrew_ books, mention
_Nabuchadonosor_, and other _Chaldæans_. _Vaphres_, the king of
_Egypt_ in _Jeremiah_ is the same with _Apries_ in _Herodotus_. And
the _Greek_ books are filled with _Cyrus_ and his successors down to
_Darius_; and _Josephus_ in his book against _Appion_, quotes many
other things relating to the _Jewish_ nation: To which may be added,
that we above took out of _Strabo_ and _Trogus_. But there is no
reason for us Christians to doubt of the credibility of these books,
because there are testimonies in our books, out of almost every one of
them, the same as they are found in the _Hebrew_. Nor did Christ when
he blamed many things in the teachers of the law, and in the
_Pharisees_ of his time, ever accuse them of falsifying the books of
_Moses_ and the Prophets, or of using supposititious or altered books.
And it can never be proved or made credible, that after Christ’s time,
the scripture should be corrupted in any thing of moment; if we do but
consider how far and wide the _Jewish_ nation, who every where kept
those books, was dispersed over the whole world. For first, the ten
tribes were carried into _Media_ by the _Assyrians_, and afterwards
the other two. And many of these fixed themselves in foreign
countries, after they had a permission from _Cyrus_ to return: the
_Macedonians_ invited them into _Alexandria_ with great advantages;
the cruelty of _Antiochus_, the civil war of the _Asmonæi_, and the
foreign wars of _Pompey_ and _Sossius_, scattered a great many; the
country of _Cyrene_ was filled with _Jews_; the cities of _Asia_,
_Macedonia_, _Lycaonia_, and the Isles of _Cyprus_, and _Crete_, and
others, were full of them; and that there was a vast number of them in
Rome, we learn from _Horace_, _Juvenal_, and _Martial_. It is
impossible that such distant bodies of men should be imposed upon by
any art whatsoever, or that they should agree in a falsity. We may add
further that almost three hundred years before Christ, by the care of
the _Egyptian_ kings, the Hebrew books were translated into Greek by
those who are called the _Seventy_; that the Greeks might have them in
another language, but the sense the same in the main; upon which
account they were the less liable to be altered: And the same books
were translated into _Chaldee_, and into the _Jerusalem_ language;
that is, half _Syriac_; partly a little before, and partly a little
after Christ’s time. After which followed other _Greek_ versions, that
of _Aquila_, _Symmachus_, and _Theodotion_; which _Origen_, and others
after him, compared with the seventy Interpreters, and found no
difference in the history; or in any weighty matters. _Philo_
flourished in _Caligula’s_ time, and Josephus lived till
_Vespasian’s_. Each of them quote out of the _Hebrew_ books the same
things that we find at this day. By this time the Christian religion
began to be more and more spread, and many of its professors were
_Hebrews_: Many had studied the _Hebrew_ learning, who could very
easily have perceived and discovered it, if the _Jews_ had received
any thing that was false, in any remarkable subject, I mean, by
comparing it with more ancient books. But they not only do this, but
they bring very many testimonies out of the Old Testament, plainly in
that sense in which they are received amongst the _Hebrews_, which
_Hebrews_ may be convicted of any crime, sooner than (I will not say
of falsity, but) of negligence, in relation to these books; because
they used to transcribe and compare them so very scrupulously, that
they could tell how often every letter came over. We may add, in the
first place, an argument, and that no mean one, why the _Jews_ did not
alter the scripture designedly; because the Christians prove, and as
they think very strongly, that their Master Jesus was that very
Messiah who was of old promised to the forefathers of the _Jews_; and
this from those very books, which were read by the _Jews_. Which the
_Jews_ would have taken the greatest care should never have been,
after there arose a controversy between them and the Christians; if it
had ever been in their power to have altered what they would.”
GROTIUS.
Footnote 21:
(_Thus the_ Phoenician _Annals_, &c.) See what _Josephus_ cites out of
them, Book VIII. Chap. 2. of his Ancient History; where he adds, “that
if any one would see the Copies of those Epistles which _Solomon_ and
_Hirom_ wrote to each other, they may be procured of the public
Keepers of the Records at _Tyrus_.” (We must be cautions how we
believe this; however, see what I have said upon 1 _Kings_ v. 3.)
There is a remarkable place concerning _David_, quoted by _Josephus_,
Book VII. Ch. 6. of his Ancient History, out of the IVth of
_Damascenus’s_ History.
Footnote 22:
“The enquiries of learned men, and, above all of the excellent
Lardner, who never overstates a point of evidence, and whose fidelity
in citing his authorities has in no one instance been impeached, have
established, concerning these writings, the following propositions:
“I. That in the age immediately posterior to that in which St. Paul
lived, his letters were publicly read and acknowledged.
“Some of them are quoted or alluded to by almost every Christian
writer that followed, by Clement of Rome, by Hermas, by Ignatius, by
Polycarp, disciples or cotemporaries of the apostles; by Justin
Martyr, by the churches of Gaul, by Irenæus, by Athenagoras, by
Theophilus, by Clement of Alexandria, by Hermias, by Tertullian, who
occupied the succeeding age. Now when we find a book quoted or
referred to by an ancient author, we are entitled to conclude, that it
was read and received in the age and country in which that author
lived. And this conclusion does not, in any degree, rest upon the
judgment or character of the author making such reference. Proceeding
by this rule, we have, concerning the First Epistle to the Corinthians
in particular, within forty years after the epistle was written,
evidence, not only of its being extant at Corinth, but of its being
known and read at Rome. Clement, bishop of that city, writing to the
church of Corinth, uses these words: ‘Take into your hands the Epistle
of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he at first write unto you
in the beginning of the gospel? Verily he did by the Spirit admonish
you concerning himself and Cephas, and Apollos, because that even then
you did form parties[23].’ This was written at a time when probably
some must have been living at Corinth, who remembered St. Paul’s
ministry there and the receipt of the epistle. The testimony is still
more valuable, as it shows that the epistles were preserved in the
churches to which they were sent, and that they were spread and
propagated from them to the rest of the Christian community. Agreeably
to which natural mode and order of their publication, Tertullian, a
century afterwards, for proof of the integrity and genuineness of the
apostolic writings, bids ‘any one, who is willing to exercise his
curiosity profitably in the business of their salvation, to visit the
apostolical churches, in which their very authentic letters are
recited, ipsæ authenticæ literæ eorum recitantur.’ Then he goes on:
‘Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from
Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to
Asia, you have Ephesus; but if you are near to Italy, you have
Rome[24].’ I adduce this passage to show, that the distinct churches
or Christian societies, to which St. Paul’s Epistles were sent,
subsisted for some ages afterwards; that his several epistles were all
along respectively read in those churches; that Christians at large
received them from those churches, and appealed to those churches for
their originality and authenticity.
“Arguing in like manner from citations and allusions, we have, within
the space of a hundred and fifty years from the time that the first of
St. Paul’s Epistles was written, proofs of almost all of them being
read, in Palestine, Syria, the countries of Asia Minor, in Egypt, in
that part of Africa which used the Latin tongue, in Greece, Italy, and
Gaul[25]. I do not mean simply to assert, that, within the space of a
hundred and fifty years, St. Paul’s Epistles were read in those
countries, for I believe that they were read and circulated from the
beginning; but that proofs of their being so read occur within that
period. And when it is considered how few of the primitive Christians
wrote, and of what was written how much is lost, we are to account it
extraordinary, or rather as a sure proof of the extensiveness of the
reputation of these writings, and of the general respect in which they
were held, that so many testimonies, and of such antiquity, are still
extant. ‘In the remaining works of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and
Tertullian, there are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small
volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero, in the
writings of all characters for several ages[26].’ We must add, that
the Epistles of Paul come in for their full share of this observation;
and that all the thirteen epistles, except that to Philemon, which is
not quoted by Irenæus or Clement, and which probably escaped notice
merely by its brevity, are severally cited, and expressly recognized
as St. Paul’s by each of these Christian writers. The Ebionites, an
early, though inconsiderable Christian sect, rejected St. Paul and his
epistles[27]; that is, they rejected these epistles, not because they
were not, but because they were St. Paul’s; and because, adhering to
the obligation of the Jewish law, they chose to dispute his doctrine
and authority. Their suffrage as to the genuineness of the epistles
does not contradict that of other Christians. Marcion, an heretical
writer in the former part of the second century, is said by Tertullian
to have rejected three of the epistles which we now receive, _viz._
the two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus. It appears to me
not improbable, that Marcion might make some such distinction as this,
that no apostolic epistle was to be admitted which was not read or
attested by the church to which it was sent; for it is remarkable
that, together with these epistles to private persons, he rejected
also the catholic epistles. Now the catholic epistles and the epistles
to private persons agree in the circumstance of wanting this
particular species of attestation. Marcion, it seems, acknowledged the
Epistle to Philemon, and is upbraided for his inconsistency in doing
so by Tertullian[28], who asks ‘why, when he received a letter written
to a single person, he should refuse two to Timothy and one to Titus
composed upon the affairs of the church?’ This passage so far favours
our account of Marcion’s objection, as it shows that the objection was
supposed by Tertullian to have been founded in something, which
belonged to the nature of a private letter.
“Nothing of the works of Marcion remains. Probably he was, after all,
a rash, arbitrary, licentious critic (if he deserved indeed the name
of critic,) and who offered no reason for his determination. What St.
Jerome says of him intimates this, and is beside founded in good
sense: speaking of him and Basilides, ‘If they had assigned any
reasons,’ says he, ‘why they did not reckon these epistles,’ _viz._
the first and second to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, ‘to be the
apostle’s, we would have endeavoured to have answered them, and
perhaps might have satisfied the reader: but when they take upon them,
by their own authority, to pronounce one epistle to be Paul’s, and
another not, they can only be replied to in the same manner[29].’ Let
it be remembered, however, that Marcion received ten of these
epistles. His authority therefore, even if his credit had been better
than it is, forms a very small exception to the uniformity of the
evidence. Of Basilides we know still less than we do of Marcion. The
same observation however belongs to him, _viz._ that his objection, as
far as appears from this passage of St. Jerome, was confined to the
three private epistles. Yet is this the only opinion which can be said
to disturb the consent of the two first centuries of the Christian
æra; for as to Tatian, who is reported by Jerome alone to have
rejected some of St. Paul’s Epistles, the extravagant or rather
delirious notions into which he fell, take away all weight and credit
from his judgment. If, indeed, Jerome’s account of this circumstance
be correct; for it appears from much older writers than Jerome, that
Tatian owned and used many of these epistles[30].
“II. They, who in those ages disputed about so many other points,
agreed in acknowledging the Scriptures now before us. Contending sects
appealed to them in their controversies with equal and unreserved
submission. When they were urged by one side, however they might be
interpreted or misinterpreted by the other, their authority was not
questioned. ‘Reliqui omnes,’ says Irenæus, speaking of Marcion, ‘falso
scientiæ nomine inflati, scripturas quidem confitentur,
interpretationes vero convertunt[31].’
“III. When the genuineness of some other writings which were in
circulation, and even of a few which are now received into the canon,
was contested, these were never called into dispute. Whatever was the
objection, or whether, in truth, there ever was any real objection to
the authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third
of John, the Epistle of James, or that of Jude, or to the book of the
Revelations of St. John, the doubts that appear to have been
entertained concerning them, exceedingly strengthen the force of the
testimony as to those writings, about which there was no doubt;
because it shows, that the matter was a subject, amongst the early
Christians, of examination and discussion; and that, where there was
any room to doubt, they did doubt.
“What Eusebius hath left upon the subject is directly to the purpose
of this observation. Eusebius, it is well known, divided the
ecclesiastical writings which were extant in his time into three
classes; the ‘αγαγτιρῥητα, uncontradicted,’ as he calls them in one
chapter; or ‘scriptures universally acknowledged,’ as he calls them in
another; the ‘controverted, yet well known and approved by many;’ and
‘the spurious.’ What were the shades of difference in the books of the
second, or in those of the third class; or what it was precisely that
he meant by the term _spurious_, it is not necessary in this place to
enquire. It is sufficient for us to find, that the thirteen epistles
of St. Paul are placed by him in the first class without any sort of
hesitation or doubt.
“It is further also to be collected from the chapter in which this
distinction is laid down, that the method made use of by Eusebius, and
by the Christians of his time, _viz._ the close of the third century,
in judging concerning the sacred authority of any books, was to
enquire after and consider the testimony of those who lived near the
age of the apostles[32].
“IV. That no ancient writing, which is attested as these epistles are,
hath had its authenticity disproved, or is in fact questioned. The
controversies which have been moved concerning suspected writings, as
the epistles, for instance, of Phalaris, or the eighteen epistles of
Cicero, begin by showing that this attestation is wanting. That being
proved, the question is thrown back upon internal marks of
spuriousness or authenticity; and in these the dispute is occupied. In
which disputes it is to be observed, that the contested writings are
commonly attacked by arguments drawn from some opposition which they
betray to ‘authentic history,’ to ‘true epistles,’ to ‘the real
sentiments or circumstances of the author whom they personate[33];’
which authentic history, which true epistles, which real sentiments
themselves, are no other than ancient documents, whose early existence
and reception can be proved, in the manner in which the writings
before us are traced up to the age of their reputed author, or to ages
near to his. A modern who sits down to compose the history of some
ancient period, has no stronger evidence to appeal to for the most
confident assertion, or the most undisputed fact, that he delivers,
than writings, whose genuineness is proved by the same medium through
which we evince the authenticity of ours. Nor, whilst he can have
recourse to such authorities as these, does he apprehend any
uncertainty in his accounts, from the suspicion of spuriousness or
imposture in his materials.
“V. It cannot be shown that any forgeries, properly so called[34],
that is, writings published under the name of the person who did not
compose them, made their appearance in the first century of the
Christian æra, in which century these epistles undoubtedly existed. I
shall set down under this proposition the guarded words of Lardner
himself: ‘There are no quotations of any books of them (spurious and
apocryphal books) in the apostolical fathers, by whom I mean Barnabas,
Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose writings reach
from the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108. _I say this confidently,
because I think it has been proved._’ Lardner, vol. xii. p. 158.
“Nor when they did appear were they much used by the primitive
Christians. ‘Irenæus quotes not any of these books. He mentions some
of them, but he never quotes them. The same may be said of Tertullian:
he has mentioned a book called “Acts of Paul and Thecla:” but it is
only to condemn it. Clement of Alexandria and Origen have mentioned
and quoted several such books, but never as authority, and sometimes
with express marks of dislike. Eusebius quotes no such books in any of
his works. He has mentioned them indeed, but how? Not by way of
approbation, but to show that they were of little or no value; and
that they never were received by the sounder part of Christians.’ Now,
if with this, which is advanced after the most minute and diligent
examination, we compare what the same cautious writer had before said
of our received scriptures, ‘that in the works of three only of the
above-mentioned fathers, there are more and larger quotations of the
small volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero in
the writers of all characters for several ages;’ and if, with the
marks of obscurity or condemnation, which accompanied the mention of
the several apocryphal Christian writings, when they happened to be
mentioned at all, we contrast what Dr. Lardner’s work completely and
in detail makes out concerning the writings which we defend, and what,
having so made out, he thought himself authorized in his conclusion to
assert, that these books were not only received from the beginning,
but received with the greatest respect; have been publicly and
solemnly read in the assemblies of Christians throughout the world, in
every age from that time to this; early translated into the languages
of divers countries and people; commentaries writ to explain and
illustrate them; quoted by way of proof in all arguments of a
religious nature; recommended to the perusal of unbelievers, as
containing the authentic account of the Christian doctrine; when we
attend, I say, to this representation, we perceive in it, not only
full proof of the early notoriety of these books, but a clear and
sensible line of discrimination, which separates these from the
pretensions of any others.
“The Epistles of St. Paul stand particularly free of any doubt or
confusion that might arise from this source. Until the conclusion of
the fourth century, no intimation appears of any attempt whatever
being made to counterfeit these writings; and then it appears only of
a single and obscure instance. Jerome, who flourished in the year 392,
has this expression: ‘Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses; sed ab omnibus
exploditur;’ there is also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is
rejected by every body[35]. Theodoret, who wrote in the year 423,
speaks of this epistle in the same terms[36]. Beside these, I know not
whether any ancient writer mentions it. It was certainly unnoticed
during the three first centuries of the Church; and when it came
afterwards to be mentioned, it was mentioned only to show, that,
though such a writing did exist, it obtained no credit. It is probable
that the forgery to which Jerome alludes, is the epistle which we now
have under that title. If so, as hath been already observed, it is
nothing more than a collection of sentences from the genuine Epistles;
and was perhaps, at first, rather the exercise of some idle pen, than
any serious attempt to impose a forgery upon the public. Of an Epistle
to the Corinthians under St. Paul’s name, which was brought into
Europe in the present century, antiquity is entirely silent. It was
unheard of for sixteen centuries; and at this day, though it be
extant, and was first found in the Armenian language, it is not, by
the Christians of that country, received into their scriptures. I
hope, after this, that there is no reader who will think there is any
competition of credit, or of external proof, between these and the
received Epistles: or rather, who will not acknowledge the evidence of
authenticity to be confirmed by the want of success which attended
imposture.
“When we take into our hands the letters which the suffrage and
consent of antiquity hath thus transmitted to us, the first thing that
strikes our attention is the air of reality and business, as well as
of seriousness and conviction, which pervades the whole. Let the
sceptic read them. If he be not sensible of these qualities in them,
the argument can have no weight with him. If he be; if he perceive in
almost every page the language of a mind actuated by real occasions,
and operating upon real circumstances, I would wish it to be observed,
that the proof which arises from this perception is not to be deemed
occult or imaginary, because it is incapable of being drawn out in
words, or of being conveyed to the apprehension of the reader in any
other way, than by sending him to the books themselves.”——
“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 land mark; 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 further 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;
at least we are sure that it was not vitiated by any desire of setting
himself off to the public at large. But these letters form a part of
the muniments 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. Beside the proof
they afford of the general reality of St. 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 apostle’s; beside
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,
“I. That Christianity was not a story set on foot amidst the
confusions 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 enquiry was impracticable. These letters show
incontestably that the religion had fixed and established itself
before this state of things took place.
“II. 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.
“III. 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 writer, 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 the
Human 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.