to their (ƒ) narration a title fimilar to that of the authentic pieces. Such hiftories might easily be conformable to the effential facts, fince their authors had them from the mouths of the firft witneffes, or at least from their first disciples (g).

I alfo find, that the different fectaries had their histories (b), which differed more or less from the authentic hiftory; but I find no difficulty in convincing myself, that thefe hiftories,

(f) The apocryphal gospels, known by the names of St. James, St. Thomas, &c.

(g) The life of our Saviour was fo beautiful, his character fo fublime, his doctrine fo excellent, the miracles, by which he confirmed it, fo ftriking and numerous, that it was impoffible that many writers fhould not undertake to compose an account of him; and thus were produced feveral hiftories of our Saviour, more or less exact. St. Luke, in speaking of these narrations and gospels, which preceded his, intimates their imperfection, but does not condemn them as bad or fabulous books.-Beaufobre's Difcourfe on the Authenticity, &c. Hiftory of Manicheifm, vol. i. p. 449.

(b) All the falfe gospels of thefe different fects, were not merely historical writings. There were fome, which were almoft entirely doctrinal, and from which certain fects collected together into a fort of fyftem their par

ticular

hiftories, though malicious forgeries, contained the greater part of the effential facts which had been attefted by the chief wit

neffes (i). Many of thefe fectaries feem greatly

ticular opinions. Such was, for instance, the gospel of Valentine, or of the Valentinians, to which this fect had given the name of the gospel of Truth. Such again was a book, which the oriental philofophers, known by the name of Gnostics, intitled the Gofpel of Perfection. Ibid. 454. See note (b).

(i) I mean, the miracles, the refurrection, and afcenfion of our Saviour. It is true, that there were fects who denied his having a body like ours, and pretended that his death and refurrection were mere appearances; but this ftrange idea, fo directly repugnant to the fpirit and letter of the facred text, is a proof that thefe fects acknowledged the validity of the teftimony given to the refurrection of our Saviour; fince their error did not confift in denying the refurrection, but in explaining it by mere appearances. They agreed, therefore, as to the fact; and, because the incarnation was not confonant to the ideas they had formed to themselves of the perfon of our Saviour, they invented a system of appearances, to reconcile their ideas with the evidence of the fact.

The question, therefore, in the earlier ages, was not, whether our Saviour had wrought miracles, was rifen from the dead, and afcended into heaven: The evidences for these facts were too recent, too numerous, too weigh

ty,

greatly exafperated against the party which was adverse to them; and, fince they inferted in their hiftories the fame effential facts, which that party profeffed to believe, I cannot but confider fo great a conformity between the oppofite parties, as the strongest prefumption in favour of the authenticity and truth of the narrative which I have before my eyes.

I observe still further, that the fociety

ty, and the tradition too certain, to allow of any reasonable doubt. The different fects, therefore, as well as the orthodox, acknowledged thefe facts; and their disputes related folely to certain points of doctrine. In our times, both the doctrine and facts are matters of controverfy; and now, that seventeen centuries are elapfed, objections are heaped on objections, and doubts on doubts, against facts which neither were nor could be contradicted by the contemporaries of all the parties, who were most deeply concerned to afcertain the truth, and best able to come at it. I allow, however, that it is agreeable to the true spirit of an age which bears the pompous name of philofophical, not to credit the miracles of the gofpel till after the most logical and critical examination of them. I only afk, whether it would be truly philofophical to reject them without fuch an examination? And I ask further, whether, after such an examination, it be poffible, on the principles of found philofophy, to reject them?

which is the faithful depofitory of the doctrine, and of the narratives of the witneffes, never failed, as well as its teachers, to remonftrate against the fectaries and their writings, and to appeal conftantly to the authentic writings as the fupreme and common judge of all their controverfies. I learn alfo from the history of that society (k), that they took particular care to read these writings weekly in their affemblies; and that these writings were precifely those which are handed down to this day, as the authentic narrative of the witneffes.

I cannot, therefore, confiftently with found criticism, fuppofe that this fociety was eafily impofed upon concerning the authenticity of the numerous writings published in the midst of it (1). If I have any reafonable

(k) Ecclefiaftical history.

(1) The ancient fathers had three methods of diftinguifhing the apocryphal writings that were spread abroad in the Chriftian church.-The first was, the preaching of the first witneffes, and of their immediate fucceffors, which was preferved and perpetuated in each particular fociety. The fecond was the conftant, perpetual, and

uniform

able doubt remaining on this effential point, a remarkable fact occurs, which will foon clear it up namely, that this fociety, fo far from admitting too lightly as authentic, writings which were not acknowledged to be fuch, fufpected for a long time the authenticity of various books, which, after a long and careful examination, were afterwards received as original compofitions of the witneffes (m).

Another

uniform teftimony, which the whole primitive society had given to the writings of the firft witneffes, and to those of their first disciples; a teftimony which the fathers found delivered in the writings of the rulers of the Chriftian fociety, and which they gathered alfo from tradition. And on this they might fo much the better depend, as the chain of witneffes was very short, and the witnesses themselves of the highest authority.-Laftly, the third method confifted in the comparison, which the fathers never failed to make, of the apocryphal with the authentic writings; the originals of which, or at leaft the most original copies, ftill exifted. What method can be safer to judge of falfe relations, than comparing them with other relations, the authenticity of which is beyond difpute?

(m) This fact is affuredly a ftrong proof, that the fathers did not admit without examination all the writings