Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

If the term 'authenticity' is taken in a sense, which distinguishes it from that of credibility, why, it may be asked, have both of these subjects been referred to the same branch of Divinity? The answer is, that though they are distinct in themselves, and each of them requires a separate proof, they are so connected, when the question relates to the sacred writings, that they may justly be considered as parts of the same division, and forming together only one branch of Divinity.

The first inquiry must of course be directed to the authenticity of the sacred writings: for till this point has been determined, we cannot enter on the inquiry about their credibility. If they were forgeries, the ground on which we assent to them, would not exist. We must likewise separate the proof of authenticity in reference to the Old Testament, from the proof of authenticity in reference to the New: for the evidence and the arguments, which are applicable to the former, are different from the evidence and the arguments, which are applicable to the latter. The Old Testament, from the priority of its composition, would on that account take precedence of the New. But there are other reasons, which in the present instance make it adviseable to depart from the order of time. For not only is the authenticity of the

New Testament a matter of primary importance to every Christian, but the proof of it may be conducted independently of the Old Testament, whereas the authenticity of the Old Testament derives at least a part of its support from the authenticity of the New. The authenticity therefore of the New Testament shall be the subject of our investigation at the present season.

In the conduct of this inquiry we must always bear in mind, that we are concerned with a question, which is purely historical. The inquiry is, whether the books of the New Testament were written in the first century, and by the authors, to whom they are ascribed, or whether (as many have asserted) those books are the fabrications of a later age, and destitute of claim to the authorship assigned to them. This question must be examined on the same principles, and in the same manner, as we would examine the claims of any other ancient writings. To those, who question the fact, that the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul were written by that Apostle, we must apply the same kind of reasoning, which we would apply to those, who might choose to doubt whether Cicero or Pliny were the authors of the Epistles ascribed to them. That the Epistles of St. Paul were written by inspiration, which those of Cicero

and Pliny were not, makes no difference in the inquiry, which is now before us. We must prove their authenticity, before we can prove their inspiration. Their authenticity is the ground-work, on which alone we can rest our arguments for inspiration till the former question is determined, the latter cannot be entertained. If the Epistles, ascribed to St. Paul, were forgeries in his name, all claim to inspiration would at once be destroyed. Though it is certain therefore, as will be shewn hereafter, that St. Paul was divinely inspired, we should argue in a circle, if while the question was pending, whether the Epistles ascribed to St. Paul, were written by him or not, we took for granted that they were written by inspiration, and thence inferred that they were authentic. We must be careful in our defences of Christianity to admit no proposition as a link in the chain of our reasoning, if that proposition is itself dependent on the proposition, which we are endeavouring to maintain. We must remember, that such defences are conducted, not merely for the purpose of confirming the faith of those who have never doubted, but for the purpose of confuting unbelievers. If therefore we at any time betray a flaw in our reasoning, if we are ever guilty of a petitio principii, if we attempt to prove premises by inferences, as well as inferences by premises,

our adversaries will not fail to detect our want of precision, and will argue from the weakness of the defence to the instability of the thing defended. Thus the cause of Christianity may be injured by the endeavours, which are made for its support.

On the other hand, if, when the question relates to authenticity, we consider the sacred writers in the same light, in which we should consider any other writers, we not only lose nothing in the strength of our arguments, but in the end are considerable gainers. If we treat them in the first instance merely as human writers, we do not therefore abandon their claim to be considered as divine. We merely defer the use which we would make of it, and defer it for the purpose of rendering the future use of it more

secure.

That the proof of authenticity, conducted on these principles, will produce all the advantages, which we can desire to obtain, may be shewn by a single example. In the second chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, the author of it writes as follows (ver. 4.), "My speech and my preaching was not with the enticing words of "man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit

[ocr errors]

"and of power." And in what manner he afforded this demonstration of the spirit and of power, appears from what he further says to the Corinthians in the twelfth chapter of the same Epistle. He there describes the diversities of gifts, which the Holy Spirit had conferred on the Church of Corinth. There are diversities of 'gifts (says the author of this Epistle) but the 'same Spirit.'-To one is given by the Spirit the ' word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the 'the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing

6

[ocr errors]

by the same Spirit; to another the working of 'miracles.'--Now, whatever attempts may be made to explain the other qualities imparted to the Corinthians by ascribing them to the ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to explain in that manner the power of working miracles. The laws of nature cannot be suspended, as they must be at the working of a miracle, without the special interference of that Being, who gave those laws, and who alone can controul them. Now let us suppose, for the sake of argument, though the proof of it is yet to come, that this Epistle was written by St. Paul; and let the supposition be made merely as we would make it of an Epistle ascribed to Cicero or to Pliny, without any

« ÎnapoiContinuă »