Encyclopaedia Britannica, or, a Dictionary of arts, sciences, and miscellaneous literature : enlarged and improved. Illustrated with nearly six hundred engravings > Volume 19, Scripture-SUG

SCR [ i
,Scripture, authenllc. He faid, that the gofpel according to St
^ Matthew, the epiitle to the Hebrews, with thofe of St
Peter and St James, as well as the Old Teflament in ge¬
neral, were writings not for Chriilians but for Jews.
He publilhed a-new edition of the gofpel according to
Luke, and the firft ten epiitles of Paul; in which it has
been affirmed by Epiphanius, that he altered every paf-
fage that contradicted his own opinions: but as many
ot thefe alterations are what modern critics call various
readings, though we receive the teftimony of Epipha¬
nius, we mult not rely upon his opinion (x). Hence it
is evident that the books ot the New Teftament above
mentioned did then exiil, and were acknowledged to be
the works of the authors whofe names they bear.
Hr Lardner in his General Review, fums up this
head of evidence in the following words : “ Noetus,
Paul of Samofata, Sabellius, Mareellus, Photinus, the
Novatians, Donatilts, Manicheans (y), Prifoillaniits,
befide Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers
others, all received moft or all the fame books of the
New Teftament which the Catholics received ; and
agreed in a like refpedt for them as writ by apoftles or
10g their difciples and companions.”
Teftimo- Celfus and Porphyry, both enemies of the Chriftian
mes of religion, are powerful witneffes for the antiquity of the
catiens, j'eftament. Celfus, who lived towards the end of
the fecond century, not only mentions by name, but
quotes paffages from the books of the New Teftament :
and that the books to which he refers were no other
109 than our prefent gofpels, is evident from the allufions to
Of Celfus. various pailages flill found in them. Celfus takes notice
of the genealogies, which fixes two of thefe gofpels ; of
the precepts, Refift not him that injures you, and, If a
man ftrike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other
alfo; of the woes denounced by Chrift ; of his predic¬
tions •, of his faying, that it is impoffible to ferve two
mafters ; of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and
the reed which was put into the hand of Jefus ; of the
blood that flowed from his body upon the crofs, a cir-
oumftance which is recorded only by John •, and (what
is injiar omnium for the purpofe for which we produce it)
of the difference in the accounts given of the refurreflion
by the evangelifts, fome mentioning two angels at the
fepulchre, others only one.
- 'It is extremely material to remark, that Celfus not
only perpetually referred to the accounts of Chrift con¬
tained in the four gofpels, but that he referred to no
other accounts; that he founded none of his objedtions
to Chriftianity on any thing delivered in fpurious gof-
110 Pels*
Of Porphy- The teftimony of Porphyry is ftill more important
*7- than that of Celfus. He was born in the year 2x3, of
Tyrian origin. Unfortunately for the prefent age,
fays Michaelis, the miftaken zeal of the Chriftian em¬
perors has baniffied his writings from the world ; and
every real friend of our religion -would gladN give the
works of one of the pious fathers to refeue thofe of Por¬
phyry from the flames. But Mr Marffi, the learned
and judicious tranflator of Michaelis, relates, that, ac¬
cording to the accounts of Ifaac Voffius, a manufeript
6 ] SCR
of the works of Porphyry is preferved in the Medicean Scripture,
library at Florence, but kept fo fecret that no one is 1 1
permitted to fee it. It is univerfally allowed, that Por¬
phyry is the moft fenfible, as well as the moft fevere,
adverfary ot the Chriftian religion that antiquity can
produce. He was verfed not only in hiftory, but alfo
in philofophy and politics. His acquaintance with the
Chriftians was not confined to a tingle country ; for he
had converfed with them in Tyre, in Sicily, and in
Rome. Enabled by his birth to ftudy the Syriac as
w'ell as the Greek authors, he was of all the adveffaries
to the Chriftian religion the belt qualified to inquire in¬
to the authenticity of the facred writings. Fie pofieffed
therefore every advantage which natural abilities or a
fcientific education could afford to difeover w hethcr the
New Teftament was a genuine work of the apoftles and
evangelifts, or whether it was impofed upon the world
after the deceafe of its pretended authors. But no trace
of this fufpicion is anywhere to be found in his writings.
In the fragments which ftill remain, mention is made of
the gofpels of St Matthew, St Mark, and St John, the
A&s of the Apoftles, and the epiftle to the Galatians ;
and it clearly appears from the very obje&ions of Por¬
phyry, that the books to which he alludes were the fame
which we poffefs at prefent. Thus he objtfts to the
repetition of a generation in St Matthew’s genealogy ;
to Matthew’s call 5 to the quotation of a text from
Ifaiah, which is found in a pfalm aferibed to Afaph ; to
the calling of the lake of Tiberias a fea ; to the expref-
fion in St Matthew, “ the abomination of defolation j”
to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text
“ the voice of one crying in the wildernefs,” Matthew
citing it from Ifaias, Mark from the prophets j to John’s
application of the term Word; to Chrift’s change of in¬
tention about going up to the feaft of tabernacles (John
vii. 8.) ; to the judgment denounced by St Peter upon
Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of
death.
The inftances here alleged ferve in fome meafure to
fhow the nature of Porphyry’s objeftions, and prove
that Porphyry had read the gofpels with that fort of
attention which a writer would employ who regarded
them as the depofitaries of the religion which lie at¬
tacked. Befide thefe fpecifications, there exifts in the
writings of ancient Chriftians general evidence, that the
places of Scripture, upon which Porphyry had made re¬
marks, were very numerous. t
The internal evidence to prove the authenticity of Authenti-
the New Teftament'confifts of two parts : The nature city of the
of the ftyle, and the coincidence of the New Teftament ^ew le*
with the hiftory of the times.
1 he ftyle of the New Teftament is Angular, and fto°m inter-
differs very widely from the ftyle of claffical authors. It nal evi¬
ls lull of Hebraifms and Syriafms; a eircumftance which ^^ce-
pious ignorance has confidered as a fault, and which, F
even fo late as the prefent century, it has attempted *
to remove; not knowing that thefe very deviations
from Grecian purity afford the ftrongeft prefumption in
its favour : for they prove that the Neiv Tejlament was
written by men of Hebrew origin, and is therefore a pro-
dutlion
(x) Dr Loeffer has written a learned differtation to prove that Marcion did not corrupt the facred writings.
(y) This mull be with an exception, however, of Fauftus, who lived-fo late as the year 384.