MR. B. There must be reference occasionally to it; but you will not have any great difficulty, I trust, in comprehending the nature of the arguments thence adduced, even if you do not see their whole force. CONVERSATION IX. BEATRICE. WHAT is the precise meaning of the word genuine, as applied to the subject before us? MR. B. A book is genuine when written by the author whose name it bears; a book may, in some cases, be canonical where there is some degree of uncertainty as to the author; and a book may be genuine where it cannot be admitted as canonical. It has been a question, for instance, by whom the Epistle of St. James was written, some assigning it to the son of Zebedee and brother of St. John, and others to the bishop of Jerusalem, who is said to have been a near relation of our Lord. In either case the book would be canonical, as the production of an apostle, and a difference of opinion may safely be allowed in a matter where certainty cannot be obtained. Again, we have an Epistle to the Corinthians, by the Clement mentioned in St. Paul's Epistles, the genuineness of which appears fully established, but which, though very valuable as an ancient record, never was held canonical, not being the production of one of those immediately designated by the Founder of the religion as its authorised teachers and governors. EDWARD. But with regard to the books of the New Testament, it is asserted that they are canonical because they are genuine. The proof, however, of the former does not to us necessarily demonstrate the latter. MR. B. It does not; for the first Christians might possibly have been mistaken in believing them genuine, and therefore have erred in constituting them canonical: but since they were unquestionably the best judges in every thing relative to these books, their decision ought to be sufficient proof to us, in case no positive proof can be established against the genuineness of these writings; and this we can only obtain from the internal evidence derived from an examination of the books themselves, there being no external evidence against it. BEATRICE. Do none of the ancient adversaries controvert the genuineness of these writings? MR. B. Not one; and their conduct in this respect proves that they could not overthrow it. How so? BEATRICE. MR. B. Because it would have afforded the readiest way of overthrowing the whole: it is evident that they were grievously embarrassed by the statements of the New Testament; and had any grounds for it existed, a sufficient length of time elapsed to have presented this method of attack to them: but Julian admits the fact of their genuineness as undeniable, and argues from thence; he speaks of the greater number of the writers of the New Testament by name; and indeed his attack upon Christianity is to us invaluable, as from the learning, the talents, and the rancorous hatred to Christianity of this opponent, we are certain that he would never have regarded these records as genuine, had there been the least ground for opposition. Porphyry, in like manner, at an earlier period, mentions, in the few fragments which yet remain, the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to the Galatians; and from his conduct we may draw a similar inference. BEATRICE. This is certainly very much in their favour; but did Celsus do the same? MR. B. Celsus does not quote by name; and therefore only establishes the existence of the words of the New Testament at the period in which he wrote. Now consider, in addition to this, the vast force of the argument derived from these books having been constituted canonical because believed to be genuine, towards establishing the fact of their genuineness. Admitting that possibly the adversaries of Christianity had not the means of proving them spurious, had any means of so doing existed, the Christians could not have been destitute of those means. BEATRICE. But they had no wish to prove them spurious, and therefore if the means were in their hands they would not use it, perhaps not perceive it. MR. B. But why should they wish to prove these records genuine, had they never existed? I know not how the Christian assertions, as to their religion and its Founder, could have been disproved; Christianity did not so necessarily depend upon these documents that it must have fallen with them. They were, most probably, disposed to wish Christianity true; and if, indeed, they continued in the church, they must have been aware, that if it were not true, they were of all men the most miserable. They also had in their hands these records, but it does not follow that they should feel an equal zeal to prove these true; for the great stimulus in those times was the hope of a joyful |