or when they inform us, that the statue of Jupiter fpoke and perfpired; that it rained blood; that the Emperour Vefpafian, by a mere touch, gave fight to a blind man; in fuch cafes we claim the privilege of refufing our belief, or at least of entirely paffing them over as doubtful.

There are no other rules enabling us to judge of the writings of the New Teftament, than thofe by which we judge of any other hiftorical work. Now we are accustomed to establish the credibility of a book in the following manner: We firft prove the authenticity of the book itself, and then the credibility of its author. Two things belong to the proof of the authenticity; firft, that the book was really written by the pretended author; and fecondly, that it is come down to us perfectly uncorrupted as it left the hands of its author. In this maaner we decide on all hiftorical writings; and men are unani

B 3

unanimously agreed, that it is as unreasonable to receive an evidence which cannot be proved in this way, as to reject that which has endured these proofs. A man of accuracy and integrity will never attempt to prove the truth of an event, which is pretended to have happened in the firft century, from what are called the writings of Dionyfius the Areopagite; for the name of Dionyfius, which they bear, is forged, and they were not compofed until the fifth or fixth century, Nor will he, like Whifton, believe any thing on the authority of the larger epistles of Ignatius. Ignatius did indeed write epiftles; but whatever exifts in the larger, that is not found in the smaller, (and even thefe appear to be not abfolutely free from all interpolation) is the addition of a more modern hand. Orofius is no credible evidence for the truth of events, which are pretended to have taken place at the birth of Jefus;

nor

nor will a critic affert any thing on the credit of Simeon Metaphraftes. The former did not write until the fifth century; and the latter is extremely credulous and much to be fufpected: neither of them therefore deferves to be esteemed a credible evidence.

Can, then, the three following propofitions be proved:-Firft, that the New Teftament was really written by the pretended contemporaries of Jefus;-Secondly, that it is come down to us uncorrupted;—and, Thirdly, that the authors of it are evidences of credibility; -ftill we cannot, on their credit alone, prove the truth of the miracles they relate;—but thus much will be evident, that Jefus did really preach the doctrine acknowledged by Chriftians; that he was really born at Bethlehem, taught publicly in Judea, in the reign of Tiberius: in a word, all the events which are natural, and not miraculous, muft be confidered as inconteftibly true,

B 4

true, on the authority of thefe evidences

alone.

CHAP. II,

Of the internal Traces of Authenticity in the New Teftament.

WHEN Lord Bolingbroke, in his Letters on Hiftory, is pointing out the neceffity of this study to a Theologian, he reproaches the defenders of Chriftianity, that they are accustomed to transcribe from each other, and thereby perpetuate the errors which have been inadvertently admitted, or the fallacies. which have been purpofely contrived, -"Abbadie," thefe are his own words,

fays, in his famous book, that the Gospel of St. Matthew is cited by Clemens, Bishop of Rome, a difciple of the apoftles; that Barnabas cites it

a Letter V.-vol. ii. p. 349-351. of the 4to edit.

in his epiftle; that Ignatius and Po lycarpe receive it; and that the fame fathers, that give teftimony for Matthew, give it likewife for Mark.-If the fathers of the first century do mention fome paffages, that are agreeable to what we read in our Evangelifts, will it follow that thefe fathers had the fame gofpels before them? To fay fo is a manifeft abuse of Hiftory, and quite inexcufable in writers that knew, or fhould have known, that these fathers made use of other gofpels, wherein fuch paffages might be contained, or they might be preferved in unwritten tradition. Befides which I could almoft venture to affirm, that these fathers of the firft century do not exprefsly name the gofpels we have of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." Thefe affertions, which in fome refpects are well founded, render it of the greatest importance to every enlightened Chriftian, carefully to examine the evidences

of