instructed him to regard the Bible, may lead him rather to shrink from such a proposal. He may think it more natural and satisfactory to go at once to the divine inspiration of the New Testament, without entering on the historical question of, what has been so often proved, its authenticity.

And, undoubtedly, this is the shortest, and, in some respects, the easiest course. We should then only have to prove the inspiration of the scriptures from the impress of the divine hand which is upon them, from the numerous arguments employed by our Lord and his apostles in support of their mission, and from the divine effects which Christianity produces. This is what we incidentally do in almost every sermon, and in common cases it is sufficient. But such a plan will not answer my present design, which is to lead the young, step by step, over the primary grounds of their faith, and thus to bring them to a full persuasion of the nature and obligation of the Christian religion.

Nor, indeed, need we fear the consideration, in their proper place, of any of those previous historical evidences which the goodness of God has furnished us with, as the first steppingstones to our faith. It is in this way we act every day in all those grammatical, geographical and chronological inquiries, which are connected with the just interpretation of the language of the scriptures. Considered with an humble and teachable mind, and for their proper uses, they directly subserve the most practical purposes of revelation. It is thus that the Christian church, from the very days of the apostles, as we observed in our introductory discourse, has been accustomed to act as to the external evidences. At first, indeed, the authenticity of the sacred books did not come into question. Even heathen and Jewish adversaries, during the early centuries, admitted and argued upon their authenticity. This is to us, at the distance of eighteen hundred years, a capital point-a point which places the whole Christian argument beyond dispute. Still, in each age, as it carried the church further from the origin of the religion, the authenticity required proof, and the series of testimony to this and other historical facts, demanded more care to collect and arrange. But this was always done with the utmost cheerfulness, for the purpose of passing on securely (as we design to do in the present course) to the proofs arising from the actual beneficial effects of Christianity on the hearts and lives of men.

Let us then consider how the question of the authenticity

of the New Testament, difficult as it may seem at first, really stands.

The apostle Paul, in the words of my text, clearly refers to a test of authenticity, and calls on the first disciples to receive his letter on the footing of this test and none other"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." He adds a similar attestation to his Epistle to the Corinthians, "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand." And so to that to the Colossians, "The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds." Also in that to the Galatians," Ye see how large a letter I have written to you with mine own hand."

We find, also, in the close of the Epistle to the Romans, the amanuensis or secretary of the apostle distinguishing himself from the sacred author, "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord."

The apostle also, on one occasion, expressly cautions his converts against receiving any unauthenticated writing in his name: "Now we beseech you, brethren, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, neither by spirit nor by word, nor by letter as from us."

The question of authenticity is, therefore, considered most important by the sacred writer himself, and admitted to be a separate question from the proof afforded by the divine contents of the writing, or the holy effects which it produced.

Then I conclude there must be a propriety, and even necessity, on fit occasions, of considering this first branch of the Christian argument, as well as the succeeding ones; and that, till this first point is settled, nothing else can be considered in an orderly and legitimate manner.

I think we may also conclude, that if there be ordinary human means of ascertaining the authenticity of ancient writings, upon which men are constantly acting in their most important concerns, it is probable that the Almighty would leave the authenticity of the New Testament to rest upon the same grounds. For it appears a constant part of the divine conduct not to interpose in an extraordinary way, when the ordinary course of his providence furnishes sufficient means of guidance; but rather to leave men to care and inquiry and diligence, accompanied with that humble temper of heart which will guard against pride and obstinacy, and lead them to use the divine revelation, when ascertained, for the practical purposes of faith and obedience.

The question, then, of authenticity_or genuineness,* now before us, is a purely historical one. I postpone, for the present, credibility, divine authority, inspiration, internal excellency-these, in themselves much more important, will be considered in their place, and will derive tenfold force from this previous inquiry. All I now have to do, is to show that THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ARE AUTHENTIC; that they were written by their professed authors, and published, as they are stated to have been, in the first century of the Christian era.

On this question I shall offer, on the present occasion, only some GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS, reserving more particular proofs for the next lecture.

I. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament may be proved in the same way in which OTHER ANCIENT

WORKS ARE ASCERTAINED TO BE THE PRODUCTIONS OF THEIR

RESPECTIVE AUTHORS, and to have been published at the time when they profess to have been.

I take, as an example, our venerable Book of Common Prayer. How do I know that it was compiled by the martyrs and confessors of the English church three hundred years since, at the period of the reformation in the sixteenth century? I answer, because we received it, without contradiction, from our immediate forefathers as the works of these writers, and they from their ancestors, till we come up to the date of publication. I answer, because it was a matter of history at the time; because contemporary authors quote and refer to it; and because adversaries and opponents, though warmly contending against some of its doctrines or rites, never called in question its authenticity, that is, (which is all we are now considering,) its really being the production of the professed writers. Add, also, that there is a succession of editions which may be traced back to the first. Thus I am as certain, for all practical purposes, of this historical fact, as if I had been contemporary with the English reformation. The general obscurity, resting on ancient works, begins, you see, to be dispelled.

I go back seven or eight hundred years from the present

*I use the words authenticity and genuineness (after Bishop Marsh and most foreign divines) for the truth of authorship; and I use credibility, for the trust which may be reposed in the matters which an author relates the trustworthiness of his book.

time, and ask, How do I know that the survey of England, called Doomsday Book, was written in the reign of William the Conqueror in the eleventh century? I apply the like arguments. We received, by the same distinct transmission, the historical fact. It was a matter of record. The original manuscript is now amongst our national records, a fac-simile of which was published by order of parliament in the reign of George III.* It has been referred to by contemporary and all succeeding historians. It has been appealed to in our courts of law from the reign of the first Henry (A. D. 1100) to the present time. I am, therefore, just as certain of the authenticity of this celebrated document, as if I had lived at the period when it was first compiled. Thus the case clears up yet more. You perceive that the genuineness of works published in remote times may be proved.

I go back six hundred years further, and ask, How do I know that the Institutes of the emperor Justinian were pub lished in the sixth century?† The proof is the same, only longer in the series of witnesses. I answer, because the present generation received it from the preceding, and that from the one before it, as the work of that monarch; because it has been a matter of history from his time to the present in all authentic memoirs; because it has formed ever since, and now forms, the code of civil law by which almost all European nations are governed; because it was an era in legislation, and the distinguishing glory of the reign of Justinian. I ask no more; I could not be better satisfied if I had been a contemporary. We begin to see our way in such inquiries the ground is firm.

I

go back again five hundred years more to the Augustan age, the period of our own sacred books, and I inquire how I know the authenticity of any of the most celebrated works of the philosophers of that time, the writings of Seneca for example, born a few years before Christ, and put to death by the command of the monster Nero about A. D. 68? I answer, on the same principle as before, because I can trace up the book from the present age, in successive reference or quotation through each preceding age to the time in which he lived the Augustan. I turn to Tacitus, the celebrated contemporary historian, whose writings have been in every

* In the year 1767.

+ About the year 534-about 1300 years since.

one's hand ever since, and read the account of Seneca. I turn to Quintilian, who flourished within twenty years of Seneca's death, and read a criticism on his works. From that day to the present, I see those works referred to, quoted, commended, blamed, by men of different classes and different ages and different nations and different opinions; in opposition to each other in almost every respect, but agreeing as to the authenticity of these books. I have all the evidence I could desire. I am as certain of the historical fact concerning the writings of Seneca, as I should have been if I had lived at the time. Thus all the difficulty which we felt before we began the inquiry is gone. The impossibility of proving the authenticity of ancient works was a mistake. We see that the case admits of a satisfactory determination. The lapse of years makes no difference in our conviction, so long as we can distinctly trace up, by decisive and uninterrupted testimonies, the fact we are in search of.

I come now to the question of the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, and if I am asked why I believe them to be the undoubted productions of the apostles and evangelists of our Lord; I answer, just on the same historical principles as in all the like cases-because I received these books, as a most sacred deposit, and the undoubted writings of their respective authors, from my immediate parents and teachers, and they from theirs; and so each preceding generation from the one before it; till I ascend, without interruption, from the present day to the very time of the apostles, tracing the distinct proofs and testimonies in each period. I answer, because not only I, but all Christians in all nations, of all languages and all ages, have done and do the same. I answer, because it is a matter of history, attested by contemporary authors, Jewish, Christian, profane, that these were the writings of the apostles and evangelists. I answer, because, amidst the sharpest opposition of heretics within the church, and of Jews and heathens without, these books were never denied to be the authentic documents of the Christian religion, but were taken for granted, and argued upon as such. I answer, because hundreds of ancient manuscripts now exist, some of a date within a few centuries of the birth of Christ. I answer,

because institutions have arisen, national usages been established, and sacred festivals kept, in consequence of the belief of the facts recorded in these books, and on the footing of that belief, and no other, from the apostles' days to the present.