Mr. Horne says all that is necessary in few words: "The gospels were written at various periods, and published for very different classes of believers; while the epistles were addressed, as occasion required, to those various Christian communities, which, by the successful labors of the apostles had been spread over the then known world, and also to a few private individuals. Different churches received different books, according to their situation and circumstances. Their canons were gradually enlarged; and at no very great distance of time from the age of the apostles, with a view to secure to future ages a divine and perpetual standard of faith and practice, their writings were collected together into one volume under the title of the • New Testament,' or the 'Canon of the New Testament.' Neither the names of the persons that were concerned in making this collection, nor the exact time when it was undertaken, can at present be ascertained with any degree of certainty; nor is it at all necessary that we should be precisely informed concerning the particulars. It is sufficient for us to know that the principal parts of the New Testament were collected before the death of the apostle John, or at least, not long after that event.' That they were collected and circulated among the churches about the time specified by Mr. Horne, as every candid reader who has perused the preceding pages must concede, has been abundantly proved, and that not only by the testimony of the friends of Christianity, but by the concessions of its most violent enemies.

* Horne's Introduction, vol. i.

CHAPTER II.

GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTA

MENT SCRIPTURES.

AN investigation of the style of the New Testament Scriptures would bring out a positive evidence in favor of their genuineness, well calculated to make a salutary impression upon the mind of the honest enquirer. But as this subject has been treated of by many learned men, such as Horne and others, to whose works the reader is referred, and evidence of this sort, however weighty in itself, not being so well calculated to arrest the attention of the Infidel, we will pass on to consider what Mr. Taylor presents as proofs to support the two first propositions of his manifesto; the falsehood of which propositions we have fully proven. But that every weapon may be taken from the hands of this reckless blasphemer, we will again state his proofs, and answer them in consecutive order.

In support of his first proposition, viz: "That the Scriptures of the New Testament, were not written by the persons whose names they bear," Mr. Taylor pretends to give the following proofs: "Because it cannot be shown by any evidence, that they were written by the persons whose names they bear; and because it can be shown by evidence, both external and internal, that they were written by other persons. By evidence external; in the formal acts and edicts of Christian emperors, bishops, and councils, issued from time to time, for the general alteration, or total renovation of these Scriptures, according to their own caprice. [Note.-Such were those of the emperors Constantine and Theodosius, and this of the emperor Anastasius: When Messala was consul (that is in the year of Christ, 506,) at Constantinople, by order of the emperor Anastasius, the Holy Gospels, as being written by illiterate evangelists, are censured and corrected.' Victor Tununensis, an African bishop, quoted by Lardner, vol. iii. page 67. See also an account of a general alteration of these Scriptures, to accommodate them to the faith of the orthodox,' by Lanfranc, arcbhishop of Canterbury, as recorded by Beausobre, Historie de Manichee, vol. i. p. 343.] And in the admissions of the most learned critics and divines, as to the alterations which these Scriptures have from time to time undergone. [Note-(1st.) There were in the MSS. of the New Testament one hundred and thirty thousand various readings.' Unitar. New Ver., p. 22. (2nd.) The

manuscript from which the received text was taken, were stolen by the librarian, and sold to a skyrocket maker, in the year 1749.' Herbert Marsh, bishop of Peterborough, vol. ii. p. 441. (3rd.) For the book of Revelation there was no original Greek at all, but Erasmus wrote it himself in Switzerland, in the year 1516.'-Bishop Marsh, vol. i. p. 320.] By evidence internal: in the immoral, vicious, and wicked tendency of many passages therein remaining; and by the insertion of others, whose only drift is to enhance the power of kings and priests. [Note.-See Rom. iii. 7; 1 John ii. 10; Heb. xii. 29; Rom. xiii.; 1 Peter ii. 13.; Luke xiv. 26; &c.]

That they (the Scriptures of the New Testament) did not appear in the times to which they refer, is demonstrable, By evidence external-In the express admissions of ecclesiastical historians, of their utter inability to shew when, or where, or by whom this collection of writings was first made. [See Mosheim's Eccles. Hist.-Jones on the Canon, &c., passim.] And in the admissions of the most learned critics, as to the infinitely suspicious origination of the present Received Text. [The Received Texts rests upon the authority of no more than twenty or thirty manuscripts, most of which are of little note.'-Unitar. Ver. Introd. p. 10. It was completed by the Elzevir edition of 1624;' ib. Mark well! the retaining therein, and circulating as the word of God, with consent or connivance of all parties, several passages, known and admitted by all to be forgeries and lies. 1 John v. 7.; 1 Tim. iii. 16. Excellent morality this!"]

Mr. Taylor speaks of acts and edicts for the general alteration, or total renovation of the Scriptures, with a confidence which is well calculated to make a false impression upon the minds of those who are not acquainted with ecclesiastical history, and are not informed concerning the true character of the man who makes the statement. The assertion is a gross falsehood: nothing of the kind is to be found in any history whatever. With respect to those attributed by him to Constantine and Theodosius, the reader will observe that, most dishonorably, he mentions neither the time when they were passed, nor the book in which they are to be found. To support his allegation of an alteration of the Scriptures in the reign of Anastasius, he quotes a passage from Victor, an obscure author, who wrote a chronicle of about twelve pages: and the sentence cited appears in Dr. Lardner's work. But this dishonest manifesto writer, while he quotes the passage which makes for his purpose, says not a word of the evidence which was before him on the same page, of the total falsehood of the statement, as it is understood by some modern Infidels.

But that the reader may judge for himself, the whole of Dr. Lardner's article is here presented: " Victor Tununensis, an African bishop, who flourished about the middle of the sixth century, and wrote a chronicle, ending at the year 566, says: "When Messala was consul, (that is, in the year of Christ, 506,) at Constantinople, by order of the emperor Anastasius, the holy Gospels, being written by illiterate evangelists, are censured and corrected."

Some have hence argued, that the copies of the New Testament, of the Gospels at least, have not come down to us, as they were originally written, they having been altered in the time of the emperor Anastasius, who began his reign in the year 491, and died in 518.

It was impossible to attempt, in the sixth century, an alteration in the sense, or in the words of the Gospels, or any other books of the New Testament without great offence to Christians in general: forasmuch as there were at that time in every part of the known world, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, numerous copies of the books of the New Testament in the original Greek, and in the Syriac, Latin, and other languages, into which they had been translated.

That no alterations were made in the gospels, or other sacred books, is apparent hence, that our present copies agree with the quotations in ancient Greek and Latin authors, and with the translations made before the time of Anastasius.

This story of Victor deserves no regard, because he is singular; as is observed by Mill in the place above cited, and by others. There is no other writer mentions it, beside Isidore of Seville, who transcribed Victor; whereas, if ever such an attempt had been made by Anastasius, and any books had been published with alterations, it would have made a great noise in the world, and would have occasioned a general outery. The emperor Anastasius was far from being popular in his government; and there are extant writings of contemporaries, as well as others, in which he is freely and grievously reproached; nevertheless, there is no notice taken of this affair, which would have given greater and more general offence to Christians than any other.

These considerations, as seems to me, are sufficient to show, that learned men have, with good reason, generally looked upon this story of Victor as fabulous. I therefore content myself with what has been already observed, without proceeding farther."*

Dr. John Pye Smith, of England, who wrote an able refutation of

⚫ Lardner, vol. v. 124, 125.

the allegations of Mr. Taylor, sets this subject at rest. After shewing that Anastasius was exceeeding unpopular during the greater part of his reign, and that he was involved in the most distressing tumults and sanguinary wars, and that his enemies, both on political and religious accounts, were very numerous, active and powerful, presents the absurdity of the allegation in a strong light. He says: "On the supposition that he, (Anastasius,) or any other person, had attempted an alteration of the received text of the Gospels, or any part of the Scriptures whatever, the following considerations present themselves.

1. Anastasius would have brought upon himself the outcry of censure and indignation, from all parties and classes of men professing Christianity. These parties were considerable in both numbers and influence, and they were full of jealousy and vigilance towards each other. If the partizans, on any one side, had been dishonest and daring enough to make alterations in the public copies of the sacred books, or any parts of them, they would have been immediately detected by their opponents, and ignominy would have followed the exposure. A circumstance quite in point occurred to this very emperor. He directed what he looked upon as an amendment to be made, by the omission of only a little clause of four words, in an anthem which was used in public worship. The innovation was resisted with so much violence by the people of Constantinople, that many lives were lost. Anastasius was obliged to take refuge on board a ship, and it was with extreme difficulty and the most humiliating concessions that he escaped dethronement. Who can believe that he could have succeeded in an enterprise, infinitely more hazardous, and which all parties would have regarded as most criminal, that of altering the text of the Holy Gospels?

2. It is fair and proper to enquire by what conceivable means any mortal could have made such an attempt. The art of printing not being invented till nearly a thousand years after, books were at that time multiplied only by hand writing. Anastasius might, therefore, have employed transcribers to write a certain number of copies of the four Gospels, with his alterations; and then he might have given them away, or sold them, or ordered them to be read in the churches. But how could he prevail upon all persons and families, all communities, sects and parties, to destroy their own old copies, and sit down quietly with adulterated ones? Was it possible that the man, who could not obtain the alteration of a hymn in his own metropolis, would be able to effect this astonishing enterprise, not only there, but