amination, were afterwards received as original compositions of the witnesses.*

the constant, perpetual, and uniform testimony, which the whole primitive society had given to the writings of the first witnesses, and to those of their first disciples; a testimony which the fathers found delivered in the writings of the rulers of the Christian society, and which they gathered also from tradition. And on this they might so much the better depend, as the chain of witnesses was very far short, and the witnesses themselves of the highest authortiy.-Lastly, the third method consisted in the comparison, which the fathers never failed to make, of the apocryphal with the authentic writings; the originals of which, or at least the most original copies, still existed. What method can be safer to judge of false relations, than comparing them with other relations, the authenticity of which is beyond dispute?

*This fact is assuredly a strong proof, that the fathers did not admit without examination all the writings which were handed about in the churches. And the great care which they took to distribute them into different classes, according to their degree of authenticity, is an additional proof. The indefatigable and profound Origen,' who lived in the third century, distributed them into three classes; in the first, he placed the truly authenticated writings; the apocryphal, in the second; and the mixed or doubtful, composed the third. Amongst others, it was in this last class he placed the second epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, the epistle of St. Jude, &c. The judicious and learned Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history, who flourished in the following century, made almost a similar division.-The excellent discourse of Mr. de Beausobre, on the authenticity of the Evangelical Writings (History of Manicheism, vol. 1. p. 438) may be consulted on this subject. Men therefore capable of making such logical and critical distinctions, did not receive indiscriminately all the writings, which fell into their hands.

Another still more remarkable fact occurs, in support of this. I read in the history of the times, that the members of the society of which I am speaking, exposed themselves to the greatest punishments, rather than give up to their persecutors those books which they reputed sacred and authentic, and which those violent persecutors committed to to the flames.* Can I presume that the most zealous advocates for the glory of Greece, would have thus sacrificed themselves, to save the writings either of Thucydides or Polybius ?

If I afterwards direct my attention towards the accounts given of the manuscripts

* I should be ill understood, were it imagined that I exhibit this remarkable fact as a proof of the authenticity and truth of those books; a Turk might expose himself to be burnt for the Koran; but a Turk, who should expose himself to the faggot, for the Koran, would not be a proof of the authenticity or truth of the Koran. This may be easily conceived, without being a very nice critic. But, on the other hand, it would be very unreasonable not to allow, that a Turk could not exhibit a stronger proof of the sincerity of his faith, and adherence to that faith, than by exposing himself to be burnt for the Koran. It would then remain, to compare the proofs which the Turk would exhibit, in support of his opinion, with those which the primitive Christians had of the authenticity and truth of their sacred books; and these are the proofs which I have endeavoured to collect, in an abridged manner, n these inquiries.

containing the narrative, I shall not find it difficult to convince myself, that the principal parts of that narrative have, in those manuscripts, the names of the same authors to whom the society of which I speak had always ascribed them; and this proof will be the more convincing, in proportion to the early date of some of these manuscripts, which may be traced up to the highest antiquity.*

In support, therefore, of the authenticity of the narrations, I have the most ancient, the most constant and uniform testimony of the society which is the depository of them; and, besides this, I have the testimony of the most ancient innovators, and of the earliest adversaries of Christianity, and the authority of the more original manuscripts. What can I then oppose to so many united testimonies, of so great weight and notoriety? Am I better qualified than were the first innovators, or the first adversaries of the gospel, to contradict the invariable and unanimous testimony of the primitive so

* Amongst others, the Vatican manuscript; and that of Alexandria, supposed to be of the fourth or fifth century.

ciety? And is there any book of the same date, the authenticity of which rests on so many solid, extraordinary, and striking proofs, and of so many different kinds ?

Q2

CHA P. II.

WHETHER THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE HAS BEEN ALTERED OR FORGED IN ITS ESSENTIAL PARTS!

I

CANNOT lay much stress on the possibility of the authentic text having been altered: neither can I admit that this text may have been forged. At first sight,. it appears very improbable it should have happened during the life of the authors (the Apostles); their opposition and authority would presently have confounded the forgers.

It appears equally improbable, that such. forgeries should have taken place immediately after the death of the authors; their instructions and their writings were too reeent, and already in too many hands..