of the original here, "Out of Galilee ariseth not the prophet," (meaning the great expected prophet, the Messiah,) or, perhaps," Prophets arise not out of Galilee," that is, it is not usual; we can easily account for the assertion being made by the Jews, on a sudden emergency for an argument. But even if there were no solution of it, the blame for its untruth rests entirely upon the Jew who made it. Still Mr. Taylor is singularly unfortunate in his remark upon it, as it is by no means certain that both Nahum and Jonah came from Galilee. But, admitting that both of them did, they were very far from being "the most distinguished Jewish Prophets." These will do as specimens of Mr. Taylor's objections to the New Testament on the ground of their contents. All of them may be very satisfactorily explained; but it would be useless to introduce them here, as they may be found fully considered in the commentaries, whence, if we mistake not, Mr. Taylor collected them, since we have seen no reason to allow him the honor of having discovered them by his own researches.

We know not, however, but that we have ascribed to Mr. Taylor a trait rather too negative, in being willing to admit, that, in introducing such objections, he was only misled by his own ignorance. True it is, that we might tire the patience of the reader in dwelling upon some of the most glaring misstatements of the language and sense of Scripture, contained in the "Diegesis." It is not only supposable, but highly probable, that Mr. Taylor's readers, whether ignorance makes them his dupes, or their own depravity disposes them to believe what he asserts, would neglect to examine into the truth of his statements, even when the Scriptures would afford the means of refutation. Such readers undoubtedly have a right to suppose, that, let the purpose of the author be what it will, he would not dare to pervert the direct language of the Scriptures. That such a confidence, however, if granted to Mr. Taylor, would be misplaced, instances like the following will show. He would prove (p. 7), that Jesus had no right to the title of "Christ"; and to do this he asserts, that "when one of his immediate disciples applied the title to Jesus, he himself disclaimed it." It is unnecessary to say, that this assertion is a daring falsehood. We can hardly tel whether to wonder most at the audacity of Mr. Taylor in making the assertion,

VOL. XVII. N. S. VOL. XII. NO. III.

47

or at his unparalleled impudence in referring to Luke ix. 21, and Matth. xvi. 29, as if it was there attested. The first of these texts contains merely an injunction to the disciples to refrain from a premature exposure of their Master's claims, till they had been supported by his works, lest his death, which he then predicted, should be hastened. Of his second reference we can say nothing, as neither our own copy of the New Testament, nor any other that we have examined, contains a twenty-ninth verse in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew. We are willing, however, to suppose this reference a mistake for the twentieth verse; but here the same is said as in the passage from Luke just cited, while the seventeenth verse of the same chapter, contains an express commendation of Peter, for the more than human wisdom displayed by him in his application of the title "Christ" to Jesus.

Some of Mr. Taylor's readers might neglect to examine 1 Cor. i. 27, to which he refers, and take it for granted, that, as he says (p. 33), "St. Paul, in the most explicit language, taught and maintained the absolute necessity of extreme ignorance, in order to attain celestial wisdom." Again;St. Peter (1 Peter ii. 2,) inculcates the necessity of the most absolute prostration of understanding, and of a state of mind but little removed from slobbering idiotcy, as necessary to the acquisition of divine knowledge." We think Mr. Taylor could have employed himself much better in studying out the real meaning of the Apostles, as, if we mistake not, he possesses certain qualities which they, in the passages cited, considered it the part of a wise and good man to divest himself of.

In Mark iv. 12, our Saviour, using a proverbial expression, defends his teaching in parables by showing his disciples that all, who like themselves had their hearts prepared for his instructions, might easily understand them, but that whatever obscurity might veil them from their countrymen, was but a proper punishment for their wilful blindness and folly. The beautiful truth contained in the remark, is, however, entirely lost upon Mr. Taylor, who discovers, that Christ is here represented "as inculcating the necessity and setting the example of deceiving and imposing upon the common people." (p. 45.)

We might multiply these instances in which the author of

the " Diegesis," by a most manifest perversion of plain language and wise precepts, would endeavour to blot from the sacred records the indelible marks of their origin. That he does this upon the presumption that his assertions will not be examined into, must be evident, because he might well fear, that if his readers should be so presumptuous as to desire a confirmation of his statements, his credit with them would be of small amount.

We have cited these instances for the double purpose of displaying Mr. Taylor in his proper character, and of attesting one of the reasons which we offered why the publications of Infidels did not deserve a formal notice. That no one, who had for himself examined the Scriptures with the best light he could obtain, would be in danger of being misled by a book containing such specimens as we have just exhibited, will be allowed by all. The most ignorant man is ready to pronounce upon the unworthiness of a cause, which needs or employs such support.

After a display of such bold malignity in his treatment of the Scriptures, we should not indeed be surprised to find that Mr. Taylor acted his pleasure in the interpretation and use of writers who have no claim to peculiar sanctity. Instances of this abound in the "Diegesis "; and though it would not be necessary to adduce them, yet as there is here a wider range for a display of his skill, we will notice a few of the many falsifications and perversions of the sense of authors, of which Mr. Taylor is guilty in his quotations from their works. We do not accuse him so much of neglecting to use their own words, or of not giving correct references to their writings. Indeed his "Diegesis" would lose all its formidable appearance were it not for the number and length of these quotations, the pedantic ornaments of his margin, and the six close octavo columns at the end, containing his list of "Authorities adduced." We accuse Mr. Taylor of a most gross garbling of language in many instances, and in still more of most wanton and unprincipled falsification. By taking from authors those words only which he can strain into his service, and introducing others from his own imagination, he would almost make us believe that the most orthodox writers were unbelievers like himself. He well knows that his "Diegesis" will fall into the hands of many, who, if they desired it, have not the means of examining the

authors whom he cites, and of judging for themselves whether he has given their language and sense fairly. We know of no greater literary crime of which a writer can be guilty, and for which, if clearly proved guilty of it, he should receive a more severe punishment, than that of perverting the sense of authors whom he quotes. That Mr. Taylor is guilty of this to the fullest extent, we are well prepared to prove. Indeed we honestly aver that there is hardly a quotation in his whole book, which does not wear a different appearance there, from what it has in the original.

In his hopeless attempt to prove the Egyptian origin of Christianity, misled as usual by the similarity of letters and names, he labors hard (page 125 et seq.) to make much of a certain document called "The Gospel of the Egyptians." This, he thinks, was the original history of the life and doctrines of the Saviour, "written many years, probably many ages, before the period assigned to the birth of Christ," and that this furnished the groundwork and materials of the canonical Gospels. The book itself had indeed been heard of before, a few short sentences from such a composition being now extant in the works of Clement of Alexandria. Lardner thinks it was a compilation made in the third century after Christ, from our four Gospels, and Mr. Jones thinks it without doubt to have been "the forged composure of some imperfect Christians in Egypt." But Mr. Taylor is determined to prove the contrary, and for this end is guilty of a most dishonest perversion of the language of a Christian writer, M. de Beausobre. As is usual with him in such quotations, which he intends by honest or dishonest means, shall tell to his credit, he prefaces the extract by some fulsome compliment, evidently designed to dupe the ignorance of his readers, and procure him the honor of allowing the merits of an opponent. Thus, "that most eminent, ingenuous, and learned of French divines, Beausobre," says, "At the head of the first class (of Scriptures) are to be placed two Gospels, that according to the Hebrews, and that according to the Egyptians." Beausobre is too eminent, ingenuous, and certainly too learned to say any such thing. Mr. Taylor is at liberty to tell as many falsehoods as he pleases, provided he tells them (if it be permitted us to use the homely, but expressive phrase) "upon his own hook." By his most unwarrantable introduction of the words "of Scriptures," in

his parenthesis, which are not in the original, thus making the phrase "first class " refer to the authority instead of the classification of the books, he would make his readers believe that Beausobre is speaking of the sacred writings of acknowledged authority; nothing can be more false. Beausobre is expressly treating in the essay quoted, not of the Scriptures, but of the Apocryphal writings, "those which, though ancient, were without authority, and those more modern, written to support heretical opinions." The running title is, as plain as print and paper can make it, "DISCOURS SUR LES LIVRES APOCRYPHES," and a marginal note directly opposite the sentence quoted, is, "Deux Classes d'Apocryphes, différens, 1. pour le tems, et 2. pour la matière ;" that is, Two Classes of Apocryphal writings, differing (from each other and from genuine ones), first, in the time of their publication, and, secondly, in the nature of their contents. Thus, he considers the two compositions which he mentions, as belonging to the "first order of spurious writings," not to the "first class of Scriptures. He afterwards gives it as his conclusion, that the Gospel of the Egyptians was written by the Essenes who had believed in Jesus Christ," probably for the purpose of grafting some of their opinions upon pure Christianity.

دو

The theory of Bishop Marsh relative to the origin of the first three Gospels, Mr. Taylor, as might have been expected, tortures into the assistance of his idle fancy of the existence of the Christian Scriptures anterior to Christ. That theory, so satisfactory to many, (though by no means the only one which offers itself in explanation of a presumed difficulty,) accounts for the verbal coincidences in the first three Evangelists by the supposition, that each possessed a copy of an original document containing the miracles and teachings of the Saviour compiled during his life-time, and after his death enlarged by them singly from their own remembrance. Mr. Taylor (p. 121) speaks of this theory as a revival of the "express declaration of Eusebius, that the Therapeute were Christians, and that their sacred writings were our Gospels." He refers to it (p. 117) as "Bishop Marsh's surrender." All this may do very well, if Mr. Taylor wishes it to be taken for granted that his word is

* Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Tom. I. p. 455.