I am as certain, then, of the naked historical fact of the authenticity of the New Testament, that is, that the books of it were the writings of their respective authors, as I am of that of the common Liturgy of the English Church, or of the Doomsday Book, or the Institutes of Justinian, or the works of Seneca, or any other ancient writer, of whom no serious doubt was ever entertained in the world. I appeal to historical testimony on this historical question, just as, in a question of natural philosophy, I should appeal to experiment; or in matters of reasoning to conclusive arguments, leading up to primary and universally admitted truths.

In fact, there are but three ways of receiving knowledge according to the subject matter of the thing inquired into. Does it relate to things material and sensible? I appeal to the report of the senses; as that the magnet attracts iron, Does it relate to intellectual things, founded on invariable relations? I arrive at it by just reasoning; as that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles. Does it relate to matters of fact, as the publication of a certain book, by a certain author, in a certain age? I appeal to testimony.

Such is my first general observation. We prove the authenticity of the New Testament by the same kind of arguments (though much stronger) as those by which men are uniformly governed in all like cases.

But it may be said, books are sometimes spurious or unauthentic; what then is the manner in which a fictitious work may be discovered? This leads me to a

II. General consideration. NOT ONE OF THE MARKS BY WHICH CRITICS ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DETECT SPURIOUS WRITINGS, APPLIES TO OUR SACRED BOOKS.

We think we have reason, says Michaelis, to hesitate about the authenticity of a work, when well-founded doubts have been raised, from its first appearance in the world, whether it proceeded from the author to whom it is ascribed. When the immediate friends of the alleged author, who were best able to decide upon the subject, denied it to be his. When a long series of years has elapsed after his death, in which the book was unknown, and in which it must have been unavoidably quoted, if it had existed. When the style is different from that of his other works, or, if none remain, from what might have been reasonably expected. When events are recorded or referred to which happened later than the time of the sup

posed author. When opinions are advanced which are contrary to those which he is known to maintain in his other works.

Now, not one of these marks of spuriousness applies to the New Testament. From the first appearance of it in the world, no doubts were raised whether it proceeded from the apostles and evangelists.-The friends and followers of those authors, who were best able to decide upon the subject, affirm it to be theirs. No series of years elapsed, after the death of the apostles, in which the books of it were unknown or were not quoted and referred to.-The style is exactly what might reasonably be expected. The events referred to are precisely those, and none other, which occurred at the time when they were professedly written.-The opinions advanced in each book are in unison with all other writings of each author.

But this is not all. The marks of suspicion laid down by lawyers as to legal deeds, may serve to strengthen by contrast our argument for the genuineness of our sacred books. A French writer, in publishing lately the manuscript of an English author, by no means favorable to Christianity,* lays down nearly the same indications of spuriousness with those enumerated in the literary question by Michaelis. So that not one criterion of fiction would be proved, even in the technical proceedings of a court of judicature, on our sacred books. The same author adds, "In a question relating to the authenticity of a deed, the general presumption is in its favor we may even say, on a consideration of the recorded cases, that false ones are of rare occurrence."+

If, therefore, the presumption is in favor of authenticity, and instances of spuriousness, even in the documents employed in legal affairs, are rare, we have the strongest reason for assuming, that in the large Book of the New Testament, consisting of many different writings, composed during a period of sixty years, and circulated throughout the world, the record is authentic. And this presumption amounts to a certainty, when, upon applying all the marks for detecting false deeds, not one sign nor vestige of spuriousness appears.

In fact, it may be shown, that THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF * Mr. Jeremy Bentham.

+ Preuves Judiciaires, tom. 1. 308.

THE CASE BEFORE us make it not only improbable, but morally impossible, that our sacred books should be forgeries. For this, you will observe, is now the alternative. There is no middle course. Either the New Testament is authentic, or it is a base imposition, a vile and wicked fabrication on the most solemn of all subjects. There could be no venial mistake, no unintentional error. There must have been the most express design to deceive mankind. Distressing to the candid and humble mind as the very hearing of such a statement must be, it is necessary to put it. Nay, the very putting of it affords no slight additional presumption in favor of the authenticity of the New Testament to those who know any thing of the sublime discoveries, the holy precepts, the divine doctrines which constitute the gospel of our Saviour and Lord. It is impossible such writings should be impudent and daring forgeries. But this touches on another topic.

The state of the question now before us is this. The sacred books are either the productions of the apostles and evangelists, or they are a direct and bare-faced fabrication, composed by impostors of the apostolic or a succeeding age. Now, I affirm that it is morally impossible, from the circumstances of the case, that they could be false productions imposed upon the Christian church. For, take what age you please, and tell me when such an attempt could have been made.

Could it have been made during the lives of the apostles? What! twenty-seven books, the production of eight distinct authors, palmed upon the very converts of those authors, with whom they were in constant intercourse, during the very period of that intercourse! The supposition refutes itself.

But, could it have been in a subsequent age? Certainly not after the commencement of the third century, when the books were actually in circulation over the world, (as we shall see in the next Lecture,) were read in the churches, transmitted by versions into new languages, and preserved as the most precious deposit in the Christian archives! Could false books have been imposed, under such circumstances, upon the wakeful minds of Christians, in every part of the world; and imposed on them, not only as inspired writings, but as the works of the apostles and evangelists, which had been received by their immediate parents and forefathers, as their sacred books, and had been handed down to them from the apostles, from age to age? Incredible absurd-morally impossible! Ten thousand voices would instantly have cried

out that they had never heard of such books previous to their production by the supposed impostor.

Then the only time when a forgery of such magnitude appears even possible, is between the death of the apostles and the period of the universal diffusion of the books. But St. John lived till quite the close of the first century-his own disciple, Polycarp,* till beyond the middle of the secondand Irenæus,† the disciple of Polycarp, to the commencement of the third; when Tertullian and a host of witnesses put the supposition of forgery quite out of the question. Can any one imagine, that during this brief period a daring falsification, such as we are considering, could have been made-a falsification which must at least have demanded a long series of ages-much obscurity-many favorable opportunities, to have been attempted even as to a single book out of the twentyseven, in a single community, out of the thousands which overspread, according to all testimony, the Roman empire, by the beginning of the second century?

But not only so. Christianity was planted in the midst of enemies and persecutors-Christianity raised its head amidst Judaism and heathen idolatry-Christianity was assaulted for three hundred years by a succession of violent and cruel and unjust persecutions. Christianity was never without some false disciples in its own bosom, watchful to seize every advantage. It was morally impossible to give currency to false writings in the face of an angry, a malicious, and obstinate hostility from every quarter. It was morally impossible that any fraud should have escaped, not only discovery, but that public exposure and disgraceful defeat from all parties, which attend on a detected imposition.

But we have specimens remaining of what false, or, rather, of what unauthentic works would be, and of the treatment they would meet with. We have productions of uninspired men, forgeries in the names of the apostles and their companions, professing to be narratives of the acts of our Lord and his disciples. But what are they?-weak, puerile, impertinent, inconsistent, absurd, contradictory; with those very marks of spuriousness about them, from which our sacred writings are entirely free. And how were they received? With the scorn and neglect, when piously designed; and with the abhorrence and detestation, when of a worse character, with which such fabrications would be received now.

But more than this. Even the works of instruction composed by the apostolical fathers, for the use of the churches, sufficiently prove, how utterly incapable they were of producing the inspired Scriptures. Not merely the purity of their principles and their faith in our sacred books, but the capacity of their minds and their faculty of judgment, forbid such a supposition. Their simplicity of character and cast of intellect make them invaluable, as witnesses to the broad historical facts of Christianity, for which they suffered the loss of all things; but at the same time prove them to be the last persons who could compose sacred books, or frame long and artful documents, or prepare and support and propagate a lie.

Here I pause, and ask any candid hearer, whether, on this first historical and naked fact of the Christian books being the real productions of their professed authors, any doubt can remain. Let an objector be governed by historical testimony and the nature of the case, in this, as he uniformly is in all like instances; and let him transfer his objections, if he entertain any, from the authenticity, to the credibility or divine authority of the sacred writings; that is, from the mere external question of, who are the authors of them, to, whether their contents be true.

This is the fair and only fair course. It is thus Christians do as to the Koran of Mahomet. We quarrel not about its authenticity; but we maintain, that the work, though the genuine production of its professed author-just as the Morals of Seneca are genuine-yet affords no sufficient proofs of its being a divine revelation; we say, there are no evidences to be derived from the contents of the Koran, or from the facts accompanying its publication, of a revelation from God; we say it is a mere compilation from the Christian Scriptures, and apocryphal gospels, mixed up with Jewish legends and popular superstitions of Arabia, adapted to the ignorance and vices of the people for whom it was designed. This is a legitimate line of argument. We dispute not against the authenticity, but object to the other pretensions of the Mahometan record. We say the matter condemns itself.

But this leads me to make a

III. General observation, that MEN PRACTICALLY ACT ON THE SLIGHTEST GROUNDS as to the mere authenticity of writings, where the contents commend themselves to their judg

ment or taste.