HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS ARE GENUINE?

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3638, 24 August 1880, Page 2

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS ARE GENUINE?

A SxbhoK delivered by'&e Sev. R. Laishlej inAhe Congregational Church, on Sunday, : thi22ndinstant. Two Sabbaths since, in some introductory remarks upon the Gospel by the Evangelist Mark, I endeavored to give an answer to the enquiry—" How do we know that the New Testament writings are genuine ''—that is, that they were written at. the time and by the persons currently believed PI reduced the enquiry to the books of the New Testament for the sake of brevity, and as I am expected to give a more particular account of the grounds of our confidence in this matter I shall be compelled, after the very earliest part of my address; and for the same reason; to limit my remarks to the gospels only, and upon these specially because they form to a great extent the foundation upon which, the other New Testament scriptures rest. A very brief recapitulation of the chief points of evidence, which were already adduced, may prepare all, and especially those who were not present on the occasion referred to, to follow me with greater advantage in the subsequent allusions and. proofs. ,It was v observed that the question of .the guinuineness. of the scriptures was. much, simplified by tbe invention of printing. There are extant printed copies of the New Testa meat in Greek, dated 1514 and. 1516, which upon being compared with cash other, and with modern editions closely agree. They therefore prove by a single step the existence of these Scriptures, we may say at the close of the 15th century; and they also prove that the text of modern editions has not been materially impaired during: 360 years. ■ Indeed. these two editions form the basis of the Beceived Text. But at the time these volumes were printed there . were manuscript copies in most of the public libraries of Europe; and upwards of 600 MSB have been examined' for recent editions of the Greek Testament. Thus the number of MSS has afforded ample provision «r restoring the text to its original purity, id at the same time gives absolute security against extensive corruptions. The MSS of the New Testament in some few instances are of great age; one copy of the Old and New Testaments in Greek, now in «lie British Museum, is believed to have been written before the close of the stu century, and a Vatican copy, and the remains of another in the British Museum, belong to: the 4th century. A few other copies are also very ancient. But as we reach the time of the earliest existing MSS of the the New Testament Scriptures* another kind of evidence prenenis itself, no less impressive, namely, the quotations of these Scriptures, and references to them which are found in the writings of the early Fathers. These quotations are generally made with the utmost care, the very words of the sacred writers being introduced* forming ibe subject of lengthened discussion, and of important practical teaching. Thus we have in the 6th century the writings of Theodoret of Cyprus, ou the epistles of Paul, and on most of the Old Testament. In the 4th century, Chrysos torn wrote commentaries on the whole of tie New Testament. of Nyssa wrote ia the same century. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries we have the writings of Origen and Theophilus of Antioch; and in the second century also those ot Ireiiseus,. and of Ciement of Alexandria. These are only a few of the authors of the early age of the Christian Church In not less than 180 ecclesiastical writers, : whose works are still extant, art* quotations from the New Testament found. How important these writings are may be illustrated by the circumstance that Lord Hailes discovered the whole of the New Testament, except 11 verses, in the writers of the first three centuries; and bis remarks upon the circumstance were these:'r-" Now," said he, "here was a way in which God concealed, or hid the treasure of his word, that Julian, the apostate emperor, and other enemies of Christ who wished to extirpate the gospel from the world, never would have thought of; and though they had, they never could have effected their destruction." Three of the most eminent of the Fathers were living within the last Suarter of the 2ad century, or in le year ad. 175. Their names were Tertullian, Irenaus and Clement of Alexandria; and all these distinctly ascribe the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Tertullian in his extant writings quottfs from every chapter of Matthew, Luke and John; and makes ,2500 references to the New Testament. Hesays, "Among the Apostles, John and Matthew teach us the faith, among the apostolic men Lake and Mark refresh it," and again h# speaks of " That Gospel of

Luke received from its first publication, which we so zealously maintain," and presently adds, " The same authority of the Apostolic Church will support the other Gospels, which we have from them and according to them, I mean John's and Matthew's ; although that likewise which Mark published may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Murk was." And Ireurous writes upon the same subject. Ironseus in his youth had been a disciple of Polycarp,-who bad been a disciple of the Apostle John. In the time in which he (Ireuaus) lived, he was distant not. much more than a century from the publication of the Gospels; in his instruction only one step separated from the person of the Apostles. What does he say about the four Gospels ? " We have not received," he says, " the knowledge of l the way of salvation by any others than those by whom the Gospel has been taught to us, which Gospel they 'first preached and afterwards by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the fouudation and pillar of our faith. Soon after that pur Lord rose from the dead, and they (the Apostles) were endowed from above with the power ef the Holy Ghost coming down upon them— they received a perfect knowledge of all things. „ They then went forth to all the ends of the earth declaring to men the blessing of heavenly peace, having all of them and everyone alike the Gospel of God. Matthew, then amone the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own language. Mark, also the disciple an^ interpreter to Peter, delivered to us m writing the things that had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon; his breast, he likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia." Clement, of Alexandria (who followed Irenseuß at a distance of 16 years), was a very voluminous writer. In his works the four Gospels are repeatedly quoted by the names of their authors, and the Acts of the Apostles is expressly ascribed to Luke. We tee then with what reason men of all opinions, whether sceptical or Christians, admit that the four Gospels were in the possession of the Christian Churches at this time (175 ▲ D.) in the Greek tongue, and that they contained the tame accounts of miracles, parables, journeys and other transactions and circumstances of the life of Jesus which our Gospels contain at the present day, and that they were held by the«Chx|s^an Churches at that time to be the authentic, genuine, and veritable memoirs of their Master. But at this point sceptical writers ask for proof that these scriptures were written by those whose names they bear, and for circumstantial evidence when, where,- and by whom were they written. . They themselves cannot suggest the'names of any other writers, but they say, give us evidence that the names which the gosepls bear are correct. You naturally ask perhaps, why do these writers doubt the genuineness of the four gospels even at the early days the Church's history P I believe that the purpose for which the genuineness is called in question is that the miraculous Clementio,^ them msy be rejected' The writers who call in question their genuine* ness would wi»h too prove, if possible, that the earliest records of the history of the Lord Jesus could not hare contained any, or any considerable references to miracles, which they suggest and contend were subsequently introduced into the narratives, and attributed' to Him. They refuse to believe in miracles; they do not seem to remember, or perhaps do nqt «are to remember that if they could succeed in destroying the authority of the present reicordt,; no ptoert could have authority in the Christian church. But I have now*; to give tome reply to the question, vWhy vdo; i;w belive that the four gospels werejwritteß by 'those whoise names they bear,<and what circumstantial evidence exists to show when, where, and by whom they ; were written P" On a former occasion I replied thuo—^'How are wo aceastomed to judge and believe respecting the authorship of other ancient booksbooks written as early or even earlier than; tht> Gospels P How do we know that Caesar wrote ibe " Commentaries on the GaUiower/' or that Virgil wrote the jEneid P: How :do we know that Casar and Virgil are the true names of the authors of these books ? How P Because the:e are the names which the books have •borne ever since they .were s hoard of. They have never been called by any other names. Then why is my confidence to be less in the accoraoy of. the names attached to the Gospels? These are:the names they have ever borne in the Church even in that early period of its history, when if other writera hsid been cpn» cerned id them their names would have, been certainly known. This seems to me a reasonable though a brief reply; but those who differ from us say, "Not so j we desire some other and more conclusive reasons." I will therefore give—firsts-tome.; reasons in a more general form, which sustain this conclusion ; and subsequently such circumstantial evidence as will lead to the same result—l..l reply that at etery period of the Church's history, from the -close of the 2nd century looking backward to its establishment or formation, there were not a few men of eminent piety (and some of these men of superior ability also) who formed an unbrrften series, although dispersed* among the churches in many lands, who with unslumbering vigilance, foi'titude, and patience, "fitood as sentinels 'to discover and make kcown any approaching danger, whether temporal or spiritual. Such were Tertulliani PautOßaus, IreHssus, Clement of Alexandria, Miltiades, Tbeophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Hegisippus, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius, Herrnas, contemporary with St. Paul and Clement, Bishop of Kome, of whom the Apostle -Paul speaks in his epistle to the Philippiant and others; all these we may say were stars of the\ first magnitude in the churches. But at the same" period there were- others not less devoted and scarcely less gifted; and besides these, at first, scores and subsequently hundreds of faithful pastors presiding ; over the numerous Churches formed; which, with their people, constituted a permanent and vast vigilance committee, whioh rendered any considerable corruption of the Gospels impossible. And in this; connection we must bear in mind the character of the period itself, and remember what an earnest period the earliest centuries of the Church constituted—and must it not have been so when every Christian was compelled to regard it as among the possibilities, and even the probabilities of hit existence that he might be called to lay down his life for his faith in Christ, Not • period oertainly to permit of trifling

with the word which was the Chritiian't richest earthly treasure. C To be concluded in our next itnu.)