That this dissension did not break the bond of friendship between Paul and Barnabas is evident from what is said, 1 Cor. ix. 6. Moreover, afterwards, Paul received Mark to his cordial friendship, as the reader may see by consulting Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 2, and Philemon 23.

Paul says, (1 Cor. i. 23.) "We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness."

Mr. Taylor, with his usual hardihood, attempts to cheat his readers into the belief, that others preached a Christ who was NOT crucified. He says: "Why should Paul so emphatically say, that when he and his party preached Jesus Christ, they preached HIM crucified; if there were none who, at the same time, were preaching a directly contrary doctrine, namely, Jesus Christ not crucified?"

No man in his senses can believe, that this passage implies there were preachers of Christianity, who preached a "Christ not crucified."

The meaning obviously is, that to the bigoted Jews, who expected the Messiah to be a mighty temporal prince, the meek, lowly, impoverished, and crucified Jesus was an object of offence; and to the philosophising Greeks, it seemed most unreasonable to proclaim happiness through a man who in Judea had died a malefactor. But the apostles gloried in knowing the importance and value of the death of Christ as a malefactor.

Paul says, (2. Cor. xi. 13.) "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers-transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ." He also says: (Phil. iii. 2.) "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers; beware of the concision." Mr. Taylor on these passages asserts, that"Paul calls the other apostles, false apostles and dogs." Paul in these passages, does not refer to the other apostles, but to certain false teachers, who labored to bring the Gentile churches under subjugation to the cremonial law. In those days the term dog did not sound so harshly and rudely in men's ears, as it does in ours. The Jews termed the heathen nations dogs. The Greeks were so far from viewing it an insulting epithet, that Diogenes the philosopher took it as his own title, to express that bluntness of manners on which he prided himself. And his disciples gloried in the designation of Cynics, or the doggish. The apostle evidently uses it to describe those whose moral character was bad, contentious, reviling, ferocious and selfish.

Paul says, (1 Cor. xvi. 22.) "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha." Upon this passage Mr. Tay

lor, with his usual audacity, asserts that Paul curses the other apostles "with the most bitter execrations." He also says, (Gal. v. 12.) “I would that they were even cut off which trouble you." This pas sage, Mr. T. construes into a recommendation that the other apostles should be privately assassinated.

With respect to the first passage, so far from its referring to the other apostles, it evidently referred to unbelieving Jews, who, as appears from chap. xii. 3., pretending to be under the Spirit and teaching of God, called Jesus accursed, that is, one who should be devoted to destruction. Therefore these men were enemies of Christianity, and of all goodness. But Paul does not curse them with bitter execrations; on the contrary he refers them to HIM who cannot err. He declares that such persons should not be continued in membership with the Corinthian church; and to exclude such an one is doing no injury, for he has already declared practically that he is alienated and disaffected. The meaning of the passage is thus given by some: "If any person prove himself by his wicked conduct to be an enemy to the doctrine and authority of Christ, let him not remain in communion with the church, which ought to consist of none but the sincere and upright; but let not human vengeance visit in causes purely religious; leave them to HIM whose judgment cannot err; "THE LORD COMETH."

Dr. Clarke, in his comment on the passage, says: "It is generally allowed that the apostle refers here, to some of the modes of excommunication among the Jews, of which there were three.

1. Niddui, which signified a simple separation or exclusion of a man from the synagogue and from his wife and family for thirty days. 2. Cherem, which was inflicted on him who had borne the Niddui, and who had not in the thirty days made proper compensation in order to be reconciled to the synagogue. This was inflicted with dire execrations, which he was informed must all come upon him, if he did not repent. But the cherem always supposed place for repent

ance.

3. Schammatha. This was the direst of all, and cut off all hope of reconciliation and repentance; after which the man was neither reconcilable to the synagogue, nor acknowledged as belonging to the Jewish nation."*

With respect to Gal. v. 12. "I would that they were even cut off which trouble you." The meaning evidently is, that they might be

* Clarke in lo

cut off, or excommunicated from the church. The whole passage is parallel to that of 1 Cor. v. 6, 7., where speaking of the incestuous person, Paul says to the church at Corinth, "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump as ye are unleavened."

Eusebius, (who as we have seen, flourished during the fourth century,) from a description given by Philo the Jew, of the Therapeutæ, who dwelt chiefly in the neighborhood of Alexandria, very absurdly supposed them to have been a sect of Christians. Taylor, as his last refuge, seizes on this groundless supposition, and impudently asserts that Christianity had its origin among this people; while other Infidels pretend to believe that the Essenees were the originators of Christianity. All that is necessary to expose the unreasonableness of both of these suppositions, is to lay before the reader the following description of those sects as given by Mr. Watson in his Theological Dictionary.

manners.

"ESSENES, or ESSENIANS, one of the three ancient sects of the Jews. They appear to have been an enthusiastic sect, never numerous, and but little known; directly opposite to the Pharisees with respect to their reliance upon tradition, and their scrupulous regard to the ceremonial law, but pretending, like them, to superior sanctity of They existed in the time of our Saviour; and though they are not mentioned in the New Testament, they are supposed to be alluded to by St. Paul in his Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, and in his first Epistle to Timothy. From the account given of the doctrines and institutions of this sect by Philo and Josephus, we learn that they believed in the immortality of the soul; that they were absolute predestinarians; that they observed the seventh day with peculiar strictness; that they held the Scriptures in the highest reverence, but considered them as mystic writings, and expounded them allegorically; that they sent gifts to the temple, but offered no sacrifices; that they admitted no one into their society till after a probation of three years; that they lived in a state of perfect equality, except that they paid respect to the aged, and to their priests; that they considered all secular employment as unlawful, except that of agriculture; that they had all things in common, and were industrious, quiet, and free from every species of vice; that they held celibacy and solitude in high esteem; that they allowed no change of raiment till necessity required it; that they abstained from wine; that they were not permitted to eat but with their own sect; and that a certain por

tion of food was allotted to each person, of which they partook together, after solemn ablutions. The austere and retired life of the Essenes is supposed to have given rise to monkish superstition.

The Therapeute were a distinct branch of the Essenes. Jahn has thus described the difference between them: The principal ground of difference between the Essenes or Essaëi and Therapeutæ, consisted in this; the former were Jews, who spake the Aramean; the latter were Greek Jews, as the names themselves intimate, namely, Nos and Θεραπευταὶ. The Essenes lived chiefly in Palestine; the Therapeutæ, in Egypt. The Therapeute were more rigid than the Essenes, since the latter, although they made it a practice to keep at a distance from large cities, lived, nevertheless, in towns and villages, and practised agriculture and the arts, with the exception of those arts which were made more directly subservient to the purposes of war. The Therapeutæ, on the contrary, fled from all inhabited places, dwelt in fields and deserts and gardens, and gave themselves up to contemplation. Both the Essenes and the Therapeuta held their property in common, and those things which they stood in need of for the support and the comforts of life, were distributed to them from the common stock. The candidates for admission among the Essenes gave their property to the society; but those who were destined for a membership with the Therapeutæ, left theirs to their friends; and both, after a number of years of probation, made a profession which bound them to the exercise of the strictest uprightness. The Romanists pretend, as Dr. Prideaux observes, without any foundation, that the Essenes were Christian monks, formed into a society by St. Mark, who founded the first church at Alexandria. But it is evident, from the accounts of Josephus and Philo, that the Essenes were not Christians, but Jews."

CHAPTER VI.

DIVINE AUTHORITY AND INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

HAVING examined the claims of the Old and New Testament Scriptures to genuineness, authenticity, and credibility, by the strictest rules of testimony, both historical and moral; and having thereby proved that we can open them with the fullest confidence; that they were written by the persons whose names they bear; and that they are entitled beyond all other writings to credit, on the ground of veracity, and trust-worthiness: it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the religion taught in them is of divine origin.

But as honest men may err, not indeed in facts which they relate from their own knowledge, but in inferences from them, in precepts and doctrines. Therefore, however fully we may be convinced of the general truth of the religion taught in the Scriptures, could we urge nothing more in behalf of the writers, in the examination of the nature of that religion, its doctrines, precepts, and promises, perfect confidence could not be exercised in the detailed accounts, for the testimony would only be human.

Therefore we now proceed to the last branch of our great argument, which is, to show that the writers of the books were divinely inspired.

As the proofs by which the inspiration of the writers of the Old and New Testament, are exceedingly clear and of great force, and the most of the objections urged by Infidels being grounded upon the supposition that the books are forgeries, the fallacy of which has been most clearly shown, it will not be necessary on this branch of the argument, to dwell so lengthily as has been done on the other topics which have been under discussion. We will not detain the reader to shew from the reasonableness and necessity of the thing itself, that the writers of the Scriptures were inspired; but we will proceed at once to state what is to be understood by the term inspiration, as applied to the writers, and also to the Scriptures themselves, and then adduce the proofs by which the inspiration of the Scriptures are supported. By the inspiration of the writers, we understand a miraculous operation of the Spirit of God, by which certain extraordinary notices or thoughts are communicated to the minds of those who are its subjects. As the Scriptures have not presented to