of his work is derived from the comments of Cyril and Jerome. He mentions the Gospels of Matthew and Luke by name; objects to a great variety of incidents drawn from our books; and from the extracts remaining, does not seem to have used any others. Nor does he simply express the judgment of the Christian church in his time. He himself allows the early date of these records; and even argues for it; he all along supposes, and no where questions their genuineness.

In the previous century, Porphyry put forth a large and formal treatise against Christianity. From the notices of it in ecclesiastical writers, it would seem that his animadversions were directed exclusively against the contents of our books, and never against their genuineness; nor does it appear that he regarded any histories beside our present Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, as possessing authority among Christians.

Earlier still, that is, about the middle of the second century, Celsus, a heathen philosopher, undertook the first argumentative assault upon Christianity, of which we have any remains. His work was answered by Origen, about fifty years after, and much of it is probably embodied in the reply, for the writer of this professes "to confute every thing proposed by him, not so much observing the natural order of things, as the order which he has taken himself." There are however many avowed extracts, and that these are faithfully given, appears, among other reasons, from the objection, as stated by Celsus, being sometimes stronger than the answer given by Origen. It does not seem that Celsus any where accused the Christians of forging their sacred books; he says, indeed, that he could state things concerning Jesus, different from those written by the disciples of Jesus; "but," he adds "I purposely omit them." A man may assert any thing, but the mere assertion of an adversary has little weight, where not a shadow of proof is brought; and, if proof could have been brought, it is hard to suppose it would have been withheld in this case, when the veracity of the disciples would have been undermined, and the whole Christian system fatally shaken by producing it. But while the objection, thus unsustained by evidence, is futile, it proves that books, allowed to be written by the disciples of Jesus, were then well known,

and that they contained a history of Jesus. Celsus elsewhere refers to their own writings, as furnishing him with arguments for the confutation of the Christians; and that the books he intended were our present Gospels, appears by his allusions to many incidents, precepts, and apparent discrepancies, all which are still found in our books; while he makes no reference to any thing not found therein, and alludes to no other accounts whatever.

Mention is made of a few other works written against the Christians, and some extracts from them have been preserved; but what has been said of the three above recited, will apply to all; they assume the story we now possess, nor are they known to have questioned its authenticity, or insinuated that Christians were mistaken as to those to whom their books were assigned. Porphyry, indeed, did venture to question the authenticity of the book of Daniel, chiefly, on the ground that its prophecies, and their fulfilment, soit cal closely corresponded, that it must have been written after the the event! This is only begging the question; but that there exists no trace even of such a suspicion thrown out against Ch the writings of the New Testament, affords a strong presumption, that, on this point, they were considered unassailable. Nor can it be any serious detriment to the argument thence deduced, that we are only acquainted with the objections of these writers through their opponents. The whole scheme cannot have been a cunning device, on the part of the Christians, to authenticate their books; for they would surely never have thought of building up their system by so dangerous an expedient; and the anticipation of success from so refined a policy, could never have been strong enough to have encouraged the boldest to hazard it; while on the supposition of the genuineness of these quotations all is natural and easy. Nor could the Christians have passed by, for it is not conceivable they would have been permitted to pass by, any objection that was urged; for this would have been at once to confess their weakness, and admit that their religion, on that point, could not be defended. Nothing could have been more to the advantage of a heathen adversary, than to overturn the authority of the Christian books, for then the very foundation of the religion was gone; and nothing could have been more strange, than for Christian writers, replying largely on other points, to pass

M

by this very essential one, had it been made. We may, therefore, fairly infer that it never was made; and if not, it must have been because, with all their learning, industry, opportunities of inquiry, and with every disposition to seize on each vantage ground, the enemies of Christianity were constrained to admit the point, and allow that our books were genuine.

It is difficult to assign a correct position to the concessions of Mahomet with reference to the Christian scheme. He has borrowed from it so largely, that some writers have been disposed to class him among the perverters of Christianity, rather than the originators of new and independent creeds. The hatred and rivalry of his followers has, however, been a feature in his system more broadly marked than his own disposition to imitate; and I shall not greatly err in giving him a place beside the open adversaries of our faith. The incarnation and miraculous conception of Jesus is related in the Koran, in words obviously taken from our Gospels: "When the angels said, O Mary, verily God sendeth thee good tidings, that thou shalt bear THE WORD proceeding from himself; his name shall be CHRIST JESUS, the Son of Mary, honourable in this world and in the world to come; and one of those who approach near to the presence of God, and he shall speak unto men in the cradle, and when he is grown up he shall be one of the righteous: she answered, Lord how shall I have a son, seeing that I know not a man? The angel said, Lo, God createth that which he pleaseth; when he decreeth a thing, he only saith unto it, Be, and it is." Again, "Verily Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the apostle of God, and his Word, which he conveyed to Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him." (cf. Luke i. 30-33. John i. 1, &c.) Mahometans teach that six prophets were commissioned to communicate new dispensations from above; four of these are characters familiar to every reader of our Old Testament Scriptures, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses; the fifth was Jesus, and the last, Mahomet himself. The Pentateuch, Psalms, and Gospels, are acknowledged as among the books given from God; but they accuse the Jews and Christians of altering and corrupting these; and they have themselves added much to the accounts transmitted in the history we receive as genuine. When, however, it is considered that Mahomet

flourished about six hundred years after the time of Christ, and full three hundred after Christianity became the religion of the empire, after hundreds of Christian and heathen writers, the edicts of princes, and the acts of general and provincial councils, had borne the fullest testimony to an opinion of the genuineness and integrity of our books, the detractions of a rival need no refutation; especially when it is considered that the admission of their authenticity, as they exist at present, would have been a suicidal act, fatal to his own pretensions; for, as I have long since observed, no other system of religion can co-exist with Christianity in its genuine form. If it be so, indeed, as the Mussulman maintains, that each of these six dispensations successively abrogated the preceding, the contents of our books, or any others, might seem a cause of less solicitude. But, even in this case, a most formidable objection presents itself, in the consequent inconstancy, and want of consistency, in the purposes and plans of the Almighty; and waiving this, the argument may be shifted to a different ground. If Mahomet were thus authorized to repeal all that had been, by his own admission, commanded before, we ask for competent credentials, by which his mission is supported, and a sound and sufficient proof that he was sent from God. Whether this be given has to be discussed hereafter. If it be not, he occupies but the position of a fallible man, or worse, of an interested impostor; his concessions, as those of other adversaries, possess their value, his misrepresentations, unsubstantiated by proof, can have no demand upon our credit.

I have not thought it necessary to exhibit the testimony either of heretics or adversaries at any length. This is not the place to enter upon the tenets of the one, or answer the objections of the other. The discussion of the former appertains to treatises on doctrinal divinity; the latter, we have just seen, do not extend to the point we are now engaged upon; and many of them have been, or will be, hereafter tacitly met by the observations arising out of the topics successively brought before us. Neither class of writers are leading witnesses, yet many of them go the full length of those that are. Their evidence is not merely negative, in that they do not controvert our story, or the genuineness of our books; it is positive, in that they either name them, or ground their arguments upon what is now found in them; and the testi

mony of a professed enemy must obviously be estimated on two opposite principles, accordingly as it makes for or against the subject under investigation; for, when adverse, due allowances must be made, as well for want of opportunities of correct knowledge, as for partial views, and intended misrepresentation; whereas, if it be favourable, the concession can only be ascribed to an opinion of undeniable truth, and must be free from every suspicion of collusion.

The writers just dismissed were brought, by the design of their treatises, into direct and actual contact with the Christian faith, in all its principal bearings. There remain a few others, who though enemies, were not assailants, and who therefore viewed the subject at a greater distance, and have bestowed upon it still less research, and a more scanty section of their pages. The vicissitudes of empires, the sagacity of statesmen, and the exploits of warriors, present a more attractive material to the historian, than the speculations of the philosopher, or the unobtrusive workings of a peaceable religion. Yet peaceable as is the Christian's faith, it is aggressive in its nature. The weapons of its warfare are not carnal, yet plied by meekness and patient endurance, it is mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds (2 Cor. x. 4.); and hence, not by its violence, but by its silent success, it soon attracted the notice of the rulers of the world, and, as their founder had led them to expect, they were hated of all men for his name's sake, (Matt. x. 22.). Our Scriptures are full of intimation to the same effect; one of the main points, indeed, at which Christ had aimed, in the exercise of his personal ministry, was to prepare his followers for this; a little before the passage above cited he had said, "ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles," (Matt. x. 18.). He himself is represented as having been put to death by the procurator of Judæa; the apostles are said to have been brought before the Jewish Sanhedrim, and the Roman governors of Judæa, and other provinces of the empire; and to have been sent to Rome, to appear before the emperor in person. While, on the other hand, the populace is stated to have arisen in irregular tumults, and proceeded to unauthorized acts of violence, for which the Christians could obtain no redress. To put down