hardly be suspected of such a fabrication. And the only Christians who remained there in the second century were the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. But the Nazarenes and the Ebionites used only one Gospel, and that Gospel was in Hebrew. They will hardly be suspected therefore of having forged Greek Gospels. Nor can they be suspected of having forged Greek Epistles, especially as the Epistles of St. Paul were rejected by the Ebionites, not indeed as spurious, but as containing docrines at variance with their peculiar tenets. But if Judea could not have produced in the second century such writings as we find in the New Testament, no other country could have produced them. For the Christians of the second century, who lived where Greek was the vernacular language, though their dialect might differ from the dialect of Athens, never used a dialect, in which oriental phraseology was so mingled with Greek words, as we find in the New Testament. The language therefore clearly shews, that it could not have been written in any other age, than in the first century, nor by any other persons, than by persons in the situation of the Apostles and Evangelists. We must not indeed forget, that two books of the New Testament were originally written in Hebrew, namely, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But if the arguments, which have been used in regard to language, do not apply to them immediately, those arguments apply to them indirectly, and with no inconsiderable force. If those arguments shew that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Gospel is a translation, it follows a fortiori, that the original was written before that period. And if those arguments further shew, that the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew was written by a person similarly situated with St. Matthew, we must conclude, either that the translation was made by St. Matthew himself (and there are instances of the same author writing the same work in two different languages) or that the translator was so connected with the author, as to give to the translation the value of an original. The Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew was retained by the Hebrew Christians of Palestine, and still existed though with various interpolations, in the fourth century. But the Greek Gospel was necessarily adopted by the Greek Christians: it was so adopted from the earliest ages: and it is no less the Gospel of St. Matthew, than the Gospel, which St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew. Similar remarks apply to the Epistle, which was written by St. Paul to the Hebrews. Let us now consider the language of the Greek Testament in another relation than that of dialect. Let us consider it in reference to the style or the manner of writing, which is different in different books. In the historical books of the New Testament we find the simplicity of writers, who were more intent upon things, than upon words: we find men of plain education, honestly relating what they knew, without attempting to adorn their narratives by any elegance or grace of diction. And this is precisely the kind of writing, which we should expect from the persons, to whom those books are ascribed. In the Epistles of St. Paul we find a totally different manner; but again it is precisely such as we should expect from St. Paul. His arguments, though irresistible, are frequently devoid of method in the strength of the reasoning the regularity of the form is overlooked. Though occasional reference is made to Greek poets, we trace in none of his Epistles the characters of Greek philosophy. The erudition there displayed is the erudition of a learned Jew; the argumentation there displayed, is the argumentation of a Jewish convert to Christianity confuting his brethren on their own ground. Who is there, that does not recognise in this description the Apostle, who was born at Tarsus, but educated at the feet of Gamaliel ? If we further compare the language of the New Testament with the temper and disposition of the writers, to whom the several books of it are ascribed, we shall again find a correspondence, which implies, that those books are justly ascribed to them. The character of the disciple, whom Jesus loved, is every where impressed on the writings of St. John. Widely different is the character impressed on the writings of St. Paul: but it is equally accordant with the character of the writer. Gentleness and kindness were characteristic of St. John and these qualities characterize his writings. Zeal and animation marked every where the conduct of St. Paul: and these are the qualities, which are every where discernible in the writings ascribed to him. It is now unnecessary to allege any further arguments, to prove the authenticity of the New Testament. The internal marks of authenticity, which have been described in the progress of this Lecture, are so numerous, so various, and some of them so extraordinary, that they never could |