with their fubject, but unverfed in letters, might be fupposed to write. Elegant writing is matter of taste. It is directed to the imagination. Their writings are directed to the heart.

To put this matter, however, out of all difpute, the apoftles themselves repudiated every idea of elegance and refinement of style. Their conftant language is, "We come not with the excellency of fpeech, or of wifdom. We determine not to know any thing among you but Jesus Chrift, and him crucified. Our fpeech and our preaching is not with the enticing words of man's wifdom: but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power; that your faith fhould not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."Here is a reason given to fhew even the impropriety of any attention to these matters.

In St. Paul's writings, indeed, we are fometimes pleased with the arrangement of his subject, as well as his manner of treating it and though they are constructed in a pecu→ liar manner, figurative, vehement, defultory, and by no means agreeable to the accurate forms of modern compo, fition; yet the author always appears the man of letters, and writes like one. His companion alfo, St. Luke, is fupposed to have had a liberal education; the effect of which we difcover in his writings. An elegant, pleafing fimplicity is their characteristic. But each of thefe modes of writing was the natural vehicle of the writer's thoughts. They lay no ftrefs on any of these human accomplishments. St. Paul, we have feen, utterly rejects them. In works therefore which have fuperior claims to our regard, they are of no consequence. Elegance would be no addition to their value; and the want of it therefore can be no detraction from their merit.

It will readily be fuppofed, that writings of fuch celebrity as thefe gofpels and epiftles, would give birth to

many fpurious compofitions in imitation of them. In fact, there were many fuch. Gofpels and epiftles were written; fome with good defigns, others with bad; fome in the true spirit of Christianity, others in a legendary and fabulous ftrain. Of these fpurious productions we have many traces in antiquity. As they multiplied, it became neceffary to distinguish them from fuch as were of genuine origin. At what time the canon of the Holy Scriptures was settled cannot eafily be ascertained; certainly long before it was recognised, about the year 365, by the council of Laodicea. It is the moft general opinion, however, that it was fettled nearly in the form in which we now have it, before the middle of the fecond century; for in that early period, we have reason to believe, it was received in all Chriftian churches as a confirmed rule of faith and manners.

In this felection nothing was allowed but what was known (and then it might be well known) to be derived from apoftolic times. Though many of these spurious writings were intrinsically good, yet, as they could not bring the testimony of antiquity, they were rejected. The epiftle of Clement to the Corinthians, for inftance, was in great esteem, and long read publicly in churches; but it could never get admiffion into the facred canon. Eufebius expressly affirms, that the three first gospels were authorised by St. John, who lived to an extreme old age; and that he added his own as a fupplement. This, however, does not feem entirely fupported by internal evidence. That the fame apostle collected the other books of the facred canon, is matter also of supposition: indeed it is most probable, that as it was well known from the earliest ages which of these facred books were authentic, no formal felection was neceffary.

Of the authenticity therefore of these books, the candid inquirer can entertain no doubt. Every one knows how

difficult

difficult it is to afcribe the works of an author, whose name they bear, to any other perfon. No combination of men could ever give the works of Livy to Tacitus, or of Tacitus; to Livy. But with regard to the authenticity of the scriptures, we argue on ftill firmer ground. They have been regularly traced. Dr. Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History, hath adduced a series of quotations from the feveral books of the New Teftament, in writings ftill exifting, even as far as to the very times of the apoftles; which is, I think, a proof of the authenticity of scripture, short only of abfolute demonftration.

True it is, that the epiftle to the Hebrews-the epiftle of James-the second epistle of Peter-the two laft of John -the epistle of Jude-and the Revelations, were all received later into the facred canon than the other books of fcripture. The cafe was, most of those writings were addreffed to Christian churches in general; which sometimes might occafion a lefs certain proof of their authenticity, as they were not delegated to the care of any particular body of Chriftians. However, as all these writings were foon received, and universally acknowledged; we should confider this caution, as a convincing argument in their favour.

About the dates* of many of these facred writings there are different opinions still among learned men: but there are very

The reader may here fee two chronological tables of the epiftles, widely different from each other; and yet both fupported by men of diftinguished reputation.

Chronological order of the Epiftles by Michaelis.

I. Peter from Jerufalem

A. D.

49

51

52

II. Theff

very

few circumstances in which the fettlement of a date is of any conféquence: in general it may rather be confidered as a matter of curiofity.

95 or 96

In a book, written, as the Holy Scriptures were, under the direction of God on a fubject of fuch importance →→ and addreffed to all mankind, one fhould not reasonably expect to find any difficulties. Nor is it probable there were any on its first publication: and indeed in all material points the same perspicuity ftill exifts. It is plain to every one, who reads it seriously, that it is an address to the heart-that it is meant to call the minds of men from the world to establish the belief of a future ftate; and to prepare mankind for it by purified affections.

But though the great end and intention of it be perfectly plain and perfpicuous, yet in matters of less moment a variety of caufes have concurred to introduce obfcurity. Nor could it have been otherwife without the interpofition of a ftanding miracle.

In the first place, mistakes in transcribing have had this effect. The collations of MSS. fhew the variations among them. We may reasonably suppose, there hath not existed one MS. perfectly correct; and may as reasonably conclude, that many mistakes have crept into the Greek text which have never yet been completely rectified. A A very candid expofitor, fpeaking of fome of the difficulties of the New Teftament, fays, he knows not how to account for them but by fuppofing, that here and there our received reading hath varied from the original *.

Tranflations also have occafioned obfcurity. Ours is confeffedly a good one. But in the best tranflations many words and expreffions muft lose their force. The idiom of a language so different from our own, will certainly, without care, create difficulty. When a tranflator, instead of giving what is acknowledged on all fides to be the un

Doddridge's pref. to the 3d vol. of his Fam. Expof.

VOL. I.

doubted