thing else, which can give validity to the written history of past times, there is a weight and a splendour of evidence, which the testimony of Tacitus cannot confirm, and which the absence of that testimony could not have diminished.

24. If it were necessary, in a court of justice, to ascertain the circumstances of a certain transaction, which happened in a particular neighbourhood, the obvious expedient would be to examine the agents and the eye-witnesses of that transaction. If six or eight concurred in giving the same testimony-if there was no appearance of collusion amongst them-if they had the manner and aspect of creditable men-above all, if this testimony were made public, and not a single individual, from the numerous spectators of the transaction alluded to, stept forward to falsify it, then, we apprehend, the proof would be looked upon as complete. Other witnesses might be summoned from a distance to give in their testimony, not of what they saw, but of what they heard upon the subject; but their concurrence, though a happy enough circumstance, would never be looked upon as any material addition to the evidence already brought forward. Another court of justice might be held in a distant country; and, years after the death of the original witnesses, it might have occasion to verify the same transaction, and for this purpose might call in the only evidence which it was capable of collecting-the testimony of men who lived after the transaction in question, and at a great distance from the place where it happened. There would be no hesitation, in ordinary cases, about the relative value of the two

testimonies; and the records of the first court would be appealed to by posterity as by far the more valuable document, and far more decisive of the point in controversy. Now, what we complain of is, that in the instance before us this principle is reversed. The report of hearsay witnesses is held in higher estimation than the report of the original agents and spectators. The most implicit credit is given to the testimony of the distant and later historians; and the testimony of the original witnesses is received with as much distrust, as if they carried the marks of villany and imposture upon their foreheads. The authenticity of the first record can be established by a much greater weight and variety of evidence, than the authenticity of the second. Yet all the suspicion that we feel upon this subject annexes to the former; and the Apostles and Evangelists, with every evidence in their favour which it is in the power of testimony it is i to furnish, are, in fact, degraded from the place which they ought to occupy among the accredited historians of past times.

25. The above observations may help to prepare the inquirer for forming a just and impartial estimate of the merits of the christian testimony. His great object should be to guard against every bias of the understanding. The general idea is, that a predilection in favour of Christianity may lead him to overrate the argument. We believe, that if every unfair tendency of the mind could be subjected to a rigorous computation, it would be found, that the combined operation of them all has the effect of impressing a bias in a contrary direction.

All we wish for is, that the arguments which are held decisive in other historical questions, should not be looked upon as nugatory when applied to the investigation of those facts which are connected with the truth and establishment of the christian religion; that every prepossession should be swept away, and room left for the understanding, to expatiate without fear, and without encumbrance.

CHAPTER II.

On the Genuineness of the different Books of the New Testament.

1. THERE is a confusion in the language of writers on the Evidences of Christianity, in regard to the terms genuineness and authenticity and integrity, as applied to the books of the New Testament, which it were desirable should be rectified and adjusted. At all events a consistent phraseology should be maintained upon these subjects. Doubtless this is an affair of definition rather than of doctrine. But it saves the misconception of doctrines, when, after that definitions are settled, they should, though not altogether invulnerable to verbal criticism, be held as settled conclusively.

2. Even Dr. Paley is not free of all ambiguity in the use of these terms. In one chapter of his Evidences, he evidently understands by the genuineness of any book in the New Testament, that it is the production of the author whose name

it bears. In another chapter, he seems to regard this as one of the particulars belonging to the authenticity of the book, and not to its genuineness. It is an awkward thing that there should be any interchange of meaning between these two terms; and more especially, as some of our best authors have come forth with formal definitions of them which are contradictory to each other. According to Dr. Hill the authenticity of a book signifies that it is the production of its professed author; and its genuineness signifies the incorruptness of its received text. In this he is followed by Dr. John Cook, author of an inquiry published some years ago into the books of the New Testament. The English writers in general, however, notwithstanding the vacillation on this matter now instanced in Dr. Paley, understand by the genuineness of the book its being the production of the author whose name it bears, and by its authenticity the truth of its contents and informations. For example Horne does so; and that very estimable author Isaac Taylor, who has contributed so much of late to the illustration of the historical evidences.*

* 66 "Now, in treating of this part of our argument, the first, and a most material, observation upon the subject is, that, such was the situation of the authors to whom the four gospels were ascribed, that, if any one of the four gospels be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose. The received author of the first was an original apostle and emissary of the religion. The received author of the second was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the time, to whose house the apostles were wont to resort, and himself an attendant upon one of the most eminent of that number. The received author of the third was a stated companion and fellow traveller of the most active of all the teachers of the religion, and in the course of his travels frequently

3. This confusion in the application of the term authentic, might be accounted for in this way: Authentic with all the writers is tantamount to true. But this characteristic of trueness has been applied by them to different things. The first class, in their application of the term authentic, meant to express that the book is true-the second class meant the same term to convey that this book contains a true history. The former had respect to the history of the book; the latter to the history in the book. The most remarkable circumstance in the history of the book is the origination of it—and, more especially, the author who framed it; and so then, by the term authentic, the former would signify that the author to whom it was commonly ascribed was its real author. But the latter, looking to the history in the book, and not to the external history of the book itself, would signify by the term authentic that the history which it contained was a real history. On this subject we feel inclined to abandon that sense of the term

in the society of the original apostles. The received author of the fourth, as well as of the first, was one of these apostles."Paley's Evidence, Part I. chap. viii.

In his next chapter, "Of the Authenticity of the Scriptures," he proceeds to state among other things, "the high probability there is that they actually come from the persons whose names they bear."

Taylor in his " Transmission of ancient Books to modern Times," p. 7, says, "Satisfactory evidence in support of the first proposition (the genuineness of the books) will prove that the works in question are not forgeries; and of the second (their authenticity) will show that they are not fictions."

66

Both the book now quoted, and another by the samé author on The Process of historical Proof," are most important accessions to the literature of the argumentative evidence for Christianity. Few writers have exhibited in such bold relief the strength and solidity of the cause.