diftinct communities exifting in no external connection with each other; notwithstanding these writings were held in profound reverence and diligently ftudied; notwithstanding the oppofite vigilance of heretics and orthodox-if, I fay, the writings of the Apoftles and Evangelifts had been falfified in all the copies of the originals, and of the various translations, without the oppofition of any one community, or of any fingle teacher.

In the beginning, it is true, the Orthodox and Heretics reciprocally accufed each other of having falfified the holy fcriptures. But even these very accufations evince the great attention with which the Chriftians watched over the purity of their facred books, and the abfolute impoffibility of their univerfal corruption. An unknown author, noticed by Eufebius, accufes

Hift. Ecclef. lib. v. cap. xxviii. p. 253-55.

the

the followers of Artemon with having introduced their heterodox fyftem into the divine fcriptures. In fupport of his affertion, he appeals to their own copies, and afferts that they were not only different from the copies of the orthodox, but alfo perfectly at variance with each other; and reproaches them with being unable to fupport thefe alterations by the authority of any ancient Manufcripts. It is by no means certain, that these heretics. had really introduced those fuppofititious alterations into their copies of the New Teftament; fince the accufer feems to mean nothing more than the Greek translation of the Old Teftament, which is called the Septuagint; produces no proofs of any fuch Corruptions; and, in fhort, fpeaks in a tone too declamatory, to be received on this fubject as an accurate relator. But should we we.

See Lardner's Credibility of the G. H. vol. iii.

P. 43-48. 1ft edit.

grant,

grant, that the accufations against Artemon and his followers were juftly preferred, yet even these prove, that in the earlieft ages of Christianity it was impoffible for any one to attempt a corruption of the evangelical and apoftolical writings, without meeting public oppofition, and without being openly branded for a deceiver. That we may perceive how much fuch an alteration of the facred fcriptures was abhorred, I will quote the fame author's fentiments on the fubject. “What a daring crime this is (i. e. the corruption of the facred books) poffibly they themselves (the followers of Artemon) are not ignorant. For they muft either not believe the divine Scriptures to have been infpired by the Holy Ghoft; or elfe they muft imagine themselves wifer than the Holy Ghoft: On the firft fuppofition they are infidels; on the fecond they are out of their fenfes."-The heretics re

taliated,

taliated, and accused the orthodox of a fimilar offence. The Manicheans pretended, that the books of the New Teftament were not written by the Evangelifts and Apoftles, but were falfely attributed to them in latter times, or were at leaft violently mutilated and corrupted by the Chriftians. But the Manicheans adopted this pretence, because the fcriptures of the New Teftament are evidently contradictory to their erroneous tenets concerning the Old Teftament, the human nature of Chrift, the refurrection of the dead, and two eternal principles. They have themfelves refuted their own affertion, by quoting as genuine thofe paffages of the New Teftament which

Fauftus, one of the most learned among the Manicheans, had brought forward this accufation with the greateft fhew of probability in the work, which was refuted by Auguftine; Lib. xxxii. cap. ii. Lib. xxxiii. cap. iii. in Auguftini Opera, vol. viii. p. 320, et p. 329, 330. edit. Benedictin.

• See the paffages from Fauftus quoted above.

treat

treat of the difcourfes and miracles of Jefus, without any other proof than those by which we prove the authenticity of the whole'. Nor have they offered any hiftorical argument as a proof of their affertion. There are abfurdities in the writings of the New [Teftament. The Evangelifts contradict themselves. The author of the Gospel attributed to St. Matthew fpeaks of Matthew in the third perfon"." This was the whole proof which the learned Fauftus could advance in fupport of his fuppofition. Arguments, which in part are vifibly false; and which, even if they were true, could determine nothing in an hiftorical difcuffion, where every thing depends on the atteftation of credible witnesses. In order to have established his affertion, Fauftus ought to have demonftrated, that all the old writers and

Loc. cit.

☐ Loco cit.

manu