tiquity with the New Testament, whose genuineness is at all supported by evidence equally abundant and unexceptionable.

SECTION I.

THE question may arise, when a book is not genuine, how may its spuriousness be discovered? To this, Michaelis gives this satisfac-. tory answer, "We have reason to hesitate about the authenticity of a work when well founded doubts have been raised from its first appearance in the world whether it proceeded from the author to whom it is ascribed; when the immediate friends of the alleged author, who were best able to decide upon the subject, denied it to be his; when a long series of years has elapsed after his death in which the book was unknown, and during which it must have been undoubtedly quoted if it had existed; when the style is different from that of his other works, or if none remain, from what might have been reasonably expected; when events are recorded or referred to, which happened later than the time of the supposed author; when opinions are advanced which are contrary to those which he is known to maintain in other works."

None of these marks of spuriousness will apply to the writings of the New Testament. For many centuries after their appearance in the world, no doubts were raised as to whether they were the genuine writings of the persons whose names they bear. The primitive churches, who were the best able to decide upon the subject, affirmed them to be theirs. To set this testimony in a proper light, it may be well here to remark, anciently the publication of books by means of booksellers was unknown, and they could be multiplied only by means of transcripts; when they were thus transcribed, they were beyond the control of the author, and published. Before a book was published it was read aloud; this was sometimes done merely in the presence of a few friends, and at other times with great preparations before many persons, who were invited for that purpose. In this way the author became known as the writer, and through the medium of those present at the reading, the public became previously informed of all which they might expect from the work. If the composition pleased the persons present, the author was requested to permit its transcription, and thus it left his hands and belonged to the public. It sometimes happened that a writer sent his production to some illustrious person as a present; or he prefixed his name to it, for the sake of giving him

a proof of friendship or regard, by means of this express and particular direction of his work. When it was thus presented or sent to him, and he accepted it, he was considered as the person bound to introduce it to the world, or as the patron of the book, who had pledged himself as the patron of the person, to this duty. It now became his office to provide for its publication by means of transcripts, to facilitate its approach to men of influence, and to be its defensor.

Thus, the writings of the New Testament made their appearance before the primitive churches. The epistles were read in those congregations to which they were directed. The historical works were made known by the writers in the congregations of the Christians, by reading aloud; and Luke dedicated his writings to an illustrious person of the name of Theophilus: thus he became the patron and defensor of his gospel, while the congregations before whom the other writings of the New Testament were read, sustained to them the same relations, and in both cases the object and general interest in them procured for them transcribers and readers. * In this way did the primitive churches bear a public testimony to their genuineness and authenticity and all antiquity affords not a solitary vestige of any contradictory testimony. So far from this, the leading facts are admitted by the adversaries themselves.

Trypho, a violent opposer of the Christian religion, was born before the death of the apostle John: he held a public debate with Justin Martyr, according to Page and Basnage, in A. D. 140; according to Massent and Benedictines, about A. D. 150. During that debate, Justin Martyr mentions many of the facts related in the Gospels, and appeals to the miracles. Trypho and his companions admit the facts, (which as a Jew he had every opportunity to have denied, if they had been controvertible,) but ridicule the idea of Jesus being born of a virgin, as absurd. They say, "It is foolish to suppose that Christ is God and became man." Justin quoted Daniel, vii. 13. "I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man come in the clouds of heaven;" and from this he argues. But Trypho replies: "These prophecies constrain us to expect the Messiah to be great and illustrious, but he who is called your Christ, was without reputation and glory, so that he fell under the greatest curse of the law of God: for he was crucified."

Trypho says, that "In the fables of the Greeks, it is said that Perseus was born of Danae, whilst a virgin; he who was by them called Ju

See Watson's Dictionary; Article, Book.

piter, having fallen upon her in the form of gold: you who affirm the same thing ought to be ashamed, and should rather say that this Jesus was man of man." Justin affirms, that the Jews knew that Jesus rose from the dead, and he adds: "The other nations have not proceeded so far in wickedness against Christ, as you, who are even to them the authors of evil suspicions against that holy person, and against us, his disciples; for after you had crucified that only blameless and just person, by whose stripes healing has come to all who approach the Father through him, when you knew that he was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the prophets foretold should happen, you not only did not repent of the evil thing you had committed, but choosing chief men at Jerusalem, you sent them forth into all the earth to publish that the sect of Christians were Atheists." Justin having shown from the Old Testament Scriptures, that another besides the Father is called God-Trypho replies: "You have, my friend, strongly, and by many passages, demonstrated this; it remains that you show that this person, according to the will of the Father, submitted to become man of a virgin, to be crucified, to die, to arise afterwards, and to return to heaven." This, it must be acknowledged, proves that the leading facts recorded by the evangelists were well known, and that although they were ridiculed and defamed, yet they could not be controverted.

Celsus was born some time during the reign of Adrian, which began, A. D. 117, and terminated in A. D. 138. He was an Epicurean philosopher, and one of the most violent enemies of Christianity: also a man of considerable parts and learning. He wrote a book against the Christians, entitled, "The True Word." Against this adversary of Christianity, Origen, at the desire of Ambrose, wrote an answer, which, according to Dupin, is the completest and best written apology for the Christian religion which the ancients have left us." In his reply, Origen states all the objections of Celsus in his own words, and minutely examines them all.

Celsus, in his attack upon Christianity, does not refer to any spurious gospels, but confines himself to the narratives contained in the New Testament. He does not deny the facts contained in the Scriptures, but he reasons on the absurdity of worshiping one as God who was acknowledged to have been a man, and to have suffered death. He objected to Christ's invitation to sinners to enter the kingdom of God, as being inconsistent with his supposed dignity, to save such low and despicable creatures as Jews and Christians. He maintained that Christ spake dishonorably and impiously of God; and that the doc

trines and precepts of religion are better taught by the Greek philosophers than in the Gospels. In conducting his attack he sometimes. personates a Jew, at other times he speaks in his own proper person. Treating of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah, and when personating a Jew, he says, "But my prophet said, formally, at Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come a judge of good men and a punisher of the wicked."

"Upon this," says Lardner, "Origen has divers observations, showing that these words are improperly put into the mouth of the Jew. First, he says, that the Christ was not prophesied of by one, but by many. Secondly, if by my prophet' he meant Moses, here is another absurdity; for the name of Jerusalem was not known in his time. Thirdly, no Jew would say that any prophet foretold the coming of the Son of God;' but the coming of the Christ of God.' Not that we deny, says Origen, that the coming of the Son of God was foretold; but no Jew would allow of this.

There are innumerable, says the Jew in Celsus, who confute Jesus, affirming, that of themselves were said those things which were prophesied of concerning him: that is, concerning the person

who was to come.

But those were impostors, as Theudas, and some others, who affirmed without proof, who neither said nor performed such things as Jesus had done; as Origen well shows.

And, says he, how could we, who had told all men there would come one from God who should punish the wicked, treat him injuriously when he came ?

But the Jew in Celsus says: For what reason could we reject him, whom we had before spoken of? Was it that we might be punished more severely than other men?

The Jew adds: The prophets say, that he who is to come, is great, and a prince and lord of all the earth, and of all nations, and of armies.

He also says: What god ever came to men who did not obtain acceptance, especially if he came to them who expected him? Or, why should he not be acknowledged by them who had long before expected him?

Afterwards the Jew, representing their sentiments, says: For we certainly expect a resurrection of the body, and eternal life, of which he who is to be sent to us is to be a pattern; and thereby to show, that it is not impossible for God to raise up a man with a body. But Origen makes a doubt, whether any Jews would say this of their expected Messiah.

Afterwards Celsus, in his own person, says: That the contention between the Christians and the Jews is very silly; and that all our dispute with one another about Christ, is no better than about the shadow of the ass, according to the proverb; and he thinks the whole question is of no importance; both sides believing that it had been foretold by the Spirit of God, that a Saviour of mankind is to come. But they do not agree whether he who has been prophesied of, is not."

come, or

Speaking of Jesus Christ, he says: "It is but a few years since he delivered this doctrine who is now reckoned by the Christians to be the Son of God." "After this," says Origen, "he brings in his Jew arguing against Jesus in this manner. First, that he pretended he was from a virgin, then he reproacheth him with his birth in a Jewish village, and of a poor woman of that country, who subsisted by the labor of her hands. And he says she was put away by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, he having found that she was guilty of adultery. Then he says, that having been turned out of doors by her husband, she wandered about in a shameful manner, till she brought forth Jesus in an obscure place; and that he being in want, served in Egypt for a livelihood; and having there learned some charms, such as the Egyptians are fond of, he returned home; and then in valuing himself upon those charms he set himself up for a god.

To this, Origen replies, "How should Jesus learn magic in Egypt, when he was yet an infant, and not much more than two years of age? And if he had learned that art in his childhood, how came it to pass that he performed not many wonderful works before he was thirty years of age? To which it might be added, that it is beyond the power of magic to perform such works as were done by Jesus."

Treating of the miraculous conception, he says, "Was the mother of Jesus handsome, that God should be in love with her beauty? It is unworthy of God, to suppose him to be taken with a corruptible body, or to be in love with a woman, whether she be of royal descent or otherwise." He elsewhere says, "But if God would send forth a spirit from himself, what need had he to breathe him into the womb of a woman? For since he knew how to make men, he might have formed a body for this spirit, and not cast his own spirit into such filth.".

"From all which," says Lardner, "we learn, that there then did obtain among Christians such an account of the miraculous conception of Jesus, as we now have in the Gospels; that he was born of a virgin, by the power of the Highest; that her husband was a