an argument, in some measure to the senses, that the Scriptures anciently, in like manner as at this day, were more read and sought after than any other books, and that also in many different countries.  The greatest part of spurious Christian writings are utterly lost, the rest preserved by some single manuscript.  There is weight also in Dr. Bentley’s observation, that the New Testament has suffered less injury by the errors of transcribers than the works of any profane author of the same size and antiquity; that is, there never was any writing, in the preservation and purity of which the world was so interested or so careful.

_________

* The Alexandrian manuscript, now in the British Museum, was written probably in the fourth or fifth century. _________

II.  An argument of great weight with those who are judges of the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their testimony, of being addressed to every understanding, is that which arises from the style and language of the New Testament.  It is just such a language as might be expected from the apostles, from persons of their age and in their situation, and from no other persons.  It is the style neither of classic authors, nor of the ancient Christian fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, such as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used a language spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect of the country.  This happy peculiarity is a strong proof of the genuineness of these writings:  for who should forge them?  The Christian fathers were for the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were not likely to insert Hebraisms and Syriasms into their writings.  The few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew, as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius, wrote in a language which hears no resemblance to that of the New Testament.  The Nazarenes, who understood Hebrew, used chiefly, perhaps almost entirely, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and therefore cannot be suspected of forging the rest of the sacred writings.  The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity of these books; that they belonged to the age of the apostles; that they could be composed, indeed, in no other.*

_________

* See this argument stated more at large in Michaelis’s Introduction, (Marsh’s translation,) vol. i. c. ii. sect. 10, from which these observations are taken. _________

III.  Why should we question the genuineness of these books?  Is it for that they contain accounts of supernatural events?  I apprehend that this, at the bottom, is the real, though secret, cause of our hesitation about them:  for had the writings inscribed with the names of Matthew and John related nothing but ordinary history, there would have been no more doubt whether these writings were theirs than there is concerning the acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have been no doubt