really been sent by St. Paul, and known to be his, by those in whose hands they first appeared. The time also is too limited for deception to have been practised

Mr. B. Tertullian made use of this very argument, and insists upon the fact of the "authentic letters" existing in these cities, which, whatsoever meaning be attached to the words, must imply the fact of there being no doubt in those cities. In the epistles ascribed to the apostolic fathers, addressed to the cities themselves, we have also reference to this fact, which reference could never have been made by any author, if that had not been the case.

Edward. With regard to the Epistles of St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, it does not appear possible certainly to have any doubt as to their genuineness; but with regard to the Gospels, I should like to have had more information.

Mr. B. But if the "Acts of the Apostles" be genuine, the Gospel of St. Luke, of which it is only a continuation, must be so likewise; and from the works of St. Luke and St. Paul we obtain sufficient information by which to try the genuineness of the other authors. We learn from St. Paul, that Peter, and James, and John, were pillars of the church; from St. Luke, the character of St. Matthew; and from both, that of St. Mark. Besides this, we have the authority of those who best knew the truth, for saying that the Gospel of St. Mark was derived from the statements of St. Peter, as that of St. Luke was sanctioned by St. Paul. Those of St. Matthew and St. John stand upon their own independent authority. But the agreement between the various writings ascribed to St. John, fully confirms the fact of their having proceeded from the same author: and when we consider that not the shadow of doubt ever existed as to the Gospel and the First Epistle; and that Irenæus, who derived his information from Polycarp, the disciple of St.

17 What is stated of Tertullian in relation to this matter?-18 What admission does Edward make in relation to the epistles of St. Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles?-19 What do we learn from the works of St. Luke and St. Paul?-20 What is said of the Gospels of St. Mark, St. Matthew, and St. John?-21 And of the writings of St. John in particular?

John, expressly assigns to him the Apocalypse; and that the two short epistles, being private, could not be expected to be universally received at once, but yet when known were received; you cannot doubt of the genuineness of the books ascribed to this apostle.

Maria. He also lived longer than the rest, so that the less chance remained for imposition.

Mr. B. That St. John lived to the end of the first century has been so long acknowledged, that he must be sceptical indeed who would now call it in question; and the works ascribed to him, (particularly the Gospel, which is, in our inquiry, of the greatest importance) contain such abundant internal evidence of genuineness, in addition to external testimony, that there seems no evading the conclusion, that they were written by the "beloved disciple."

Edward. But may we not suppose that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written by some other person about the time, and circumstances generally known and assigned to him, in order to give it authority?

Mr. B. The Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew is supposed to have been written in the year 37; and the Greek translation, which we now have, probably appeared about the year 63. Now if the Gospel of St. Matthew was not written by the apostle, it must either have been done by one believing the events to have occurred, and, through earnest desire to advance the belief of them, induced to do that in itself wrong, for the sake of advancing what he believed to be a great good; or by one who disbelieved the facts, but was desirous, by means of them, to establish his own opinions. Now, in either case, the author would be most anxious to finish his production to the utmost degree, in order that the deception might not be discovered, and, at the same time, be very careful where he first produced it.

Edward. As far as possible, he would put it out of the

22 And of the time when he lived?-23 And of the internal evidence of the genuineness of his writings?-24 What question did Edward ask respecting the Gospel of St. Matthew?-25 What is said of the time of writing St. Matthew's Gospel?-26 What supposition is made by Mr. B. as to the authorship of it?-27 What does Edward say of this supposition?

power of any one to expose the weakness of its claims or the falsity of its contents.

Mr. B. Yet this Gospel unquestionably first appeared in the country where the supposed author was best known, and where the events related had occurred, and at a time when the assigned author, if not alive, could only have been dead a very short time. Would a person capable of such a forgery have been so imprudent, and, when so little scrupulous about the means of promulgating his opinions, so careless in his choice of means? But in what manner would a forger of such a document write, as respected common prejudices and opinions?

Maria. Very carefully, of course; since otherwise he would excite many enemies, at a time when any one enemy would be of serious consequence.

Mr. B. Yet look at the Gospel itself. Can any thing be more bold or decisive? If not genuine, what inducement could there be needlessly to irritate so many powerful parties in Judea, by the strong language put into the mouth of our Lord? There is no quarter given to the follies, the vices, and the prejudices of those of his own nation; no leaning toward any party; no attempt to make any set of men (able to defend him) his friends; no attempt to interest national pride in his defence. He speaks as one having authority, as calling for investigation.

Maria. There must have been motives to attempt detection, as well as means of so doing, in case of forgery.

Mr. B. There must; yet there is no fear of consequences, no careful guarding of his statements, by throwing them into the obscurity of distance of time, or remoteness of situation. There is no endeavour at plausibility, the narrative being given in all the hardihood, all the carelessness commonly accompanying truth; with parts apparently objectionable, unexplained allusions, and every portion bearing the strongest marks of original authorship.

28 What other supposition does Mr. B. make as to the authorship of this gospel?-29 What question does he ask on the presumption that this gospel is not genuine?-30 What facts does he state of it inconsistent with such a presumption?-31 What characteristics of style run through the whole of it?

Edward. It is indeed like any thing rather than the careful compiling and studied arrangement of an impos

tor.

Mr. B. If we had only this one narrative, we could not account for its production on any other supposition than that it was written by a Jew who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem, who was a firm believer in the divine mission of Jesus of Nazareth, and thought it his duty to declare (let the consequences be what they might) the things which he had seen and heard. It is so completely Jewish in language, style, and thought, the author is so wholly absorbed in the things which he is relating, and the whole turn and character of the work is such, that none but a Jew could have written it; and yet there are parts of it so contrary to Judaism, that no Jew ever would have written it, but an apostle of Christ. From St. Paul's Epistles and the Acts we see the great difficulty there was to get over Jewish prejudices; and from the works of the Jews themselves we know these prejudices are not over-rated by the sacred writers. Nothing short of the genuineness of the Gospel can account for its contents; it is so totally at variance with all the wishes, habits of thinking, and prejudices of the Jews. None but an apostle would ever have entertained the idea of preaching Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified, as the Messiah; and, if an apostle, it would be folly to assign any other than St. Matthew.

Maria. It is indeed possible to fancy the author deceiv→ ed: but I think most persons would do violence to their natural feelings in believing the author a deceiver.

Edward. After all, the universal testimony of the church cannot be disregarded for mere conjecture, and particularly when every particle of internal evidence is against that conjecture.

Mr. B. I shall only add a few observations more on these books, viz. that every thing in them confirms the

32 If we had only this one narrative, what does he say of it?-33 Why could a Jew alone have written it?-34 What do we see from St. Paul's epistles and the Acts?-35 What does Maria think possible in relation to this matter?-36 What does Edward say of the universal testimony of the church?-37 For whom were the Gospels severally written?

statements given by the fathers, as to the circumstances under which they were written. St. Matthew is said to have been writer of the first, for the use of the Jewish converts in Palestine; St. Mark, for the converts at Rome; St. Luke, for those in Greece; and St. John's, the last, as supplementary to the rest. Now, on examination, every thing appears in strict accordance with this statement. St. Matthew selects those subjects most interesting to the Jews; St. Luke gives details necessary for the Gentiles; St. Matthew speaks of things as well known and common, of which St. Mark gives explanations, which at Rome were necessary; and St. John seems carefully to have avoided the subjects they had discussed, except where his testimony was necessary to leading facts of great importance, and to have dwelt more at large upon those conversations of our Lord with his disciples and with the Jews, which were most interesting and necessary at the time he wrote. He also gives observations of his own, explanatory of the rejection of our Lord by the Jews, which throw light upon the conduct of our Lord towards them, and through the whole narrative seems to dwell upon the character of our Lord with that interest which we might have expected from "the disciple whom Jesus loved."

Edward. These may not add much to the evidence before considered, but they connect the external with the internal evidence.

Mr. B. Again, if we found the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Mark excelling the others in purity of style and freedom from Orientalisms, we should have some reason to question the accuracy of the statements which have come down to us. If the works of St. Luke were remarkable for the total want of any thing like the style of one who had travelled and resided in Greece, or retained no Hebraisms, we might doubt whether they were the productions of the companion of St. Paul. If the Gospel of St. John were grossly inaccurate, as to its

38 Of the subjects contained in them respectively, what is said?-39 What observations of his own did St. John give?-40 What would lead us to doubt respecting the genuineness of the first three gospels?-41 And respecting the authorship of St. John's Gospel?