from whatever source they may be derived, or in whatever form they may present themselves.

In pursuing this design, we must begin with entirely setting aside one essential misapprehension concerning the intrinsic character of the Gospels. The traditionary doctrine has been, that they are not, properly speaking, the works of their reputed authors, but works written by the inspiration of God, or under his immediate suggestion and superintendence. On the one hand, this doctrine is an insuperable obstacle to all just appreciation of that vast amount of evidence for their truth which the Gospels carry with them when properly regarded and understood; and, on the other, it is from this doctrine that the objections with which their genuineness and authenticity have been assailed derive their chief strength.

It having been assumed that they are infallible books, free from the imperfections and mistakes that belong to the works of merely human narrators, and especially to those of writers so uneducated as the Evangelists, when such imperfections and mistakes have been discovered in them, the unbeliever has thought himself to have found an argument against the reality of God's revela

tion by Christ, while in fact he had found only an argument against a false doctrine.

* It is true, that in a book not expressly intended for the confutation of merely popular errors, -in a work of reasoning addressed to intelligent men, who may be supposed to be so far interested in its subjects as to have exercised some serious thought upon them, and to have made themselves in some degree acquainted with the facts necessary to be attended to in order to form a correct judgment concerning them, — it may seem incongruous and out of place to enter into a confutation of this doctrine as applied to the Gospels. But the assumption that it is necessary for a defender of their trustworthiness to defend their infallibility has afforded the main opportunity for the most plausible attacks which have been made on their credit; while, at the same time, many Christians have

* [The preceding "Introduction" was left unfinished by the author. The following fragment found among his papers, relating to the topic with which it breaks off, was apparently to have been used as a portion of the intended conclusion. It is therefore here printed, but it should be understood that it did not receive the author's final revision.]

joined with the adversaries of our religion in insisting on the truth of this assumption, and in regarding the doctrine that the Gospels are properly to be referred to God as their author, and are consequently free from error, as essential to Christianity, and the main point to be defended in a controversy concerning its truth. The objections to it - all which it is worth while to urge, since, if these are not considered as decisive, all others must be unavailing-may be stated in a few words. It supposes a miracle of which no proof can be afforded through the evidence of ocular witnesses. It is a miracle the first step in the proof of which is wanting; for the first step in proving such a miracle is to show that the supposed subject of it claims to write by the authority and under the guidance of God; and the Evangelists put forward no such pretension. There can, it would seem, be no rational ground for ascribing inspiration to a writer who himself does not claim to be inspired. But though the Evangelists do not claim it for themselves, it may be said that they are affirmed to have been inspired by an authority that cannot be questioned; for St. Paul says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy iii. 16.) This passage

is the main argument for the supposition; and it affords a very striking example of the manner in which a few misunderstood but easily remembered words are often detached from the Bible and employed in support of irrational doctrines, in opposition to all else that may be learned from it, and to the plainest dictates of common sense. In regard to those words, it is unnecessary to urge the considerations, that, before an argument in proof of a miracle can be founded upon them, it must be proved that St. Paul was inspired to write them; and that it must be further proved that the Gospels were in existence when he wrote them, which is very doubtful; or even the consideration, that, were they in existence, he could not have had them in mind, since it is clear from the context that he referred only to the books of the Old Testament. The words have their whole force, great as it has been upon the minds of English readers, only from the improper use of the word "inspiration" in our common English version, and the consequent false meaning which has been put upon them. Their true meaning may be thus expressed: "The spirit of God is breathed into every book"; that is, of the Old Testament; and the only purpose of the Apostle was to assert gen

erally, what no Christian will deny, that a religious spirit pervades the books of the Old Testament. Hence they are, and were especially to the early converts to our faith, "profitable," &c. I say especially to the early converts, because at the time when St. Paul wrote there was no collection of the books of the New Testament, there was no Christian literature, and certainly nothing in heathen literature, supposing them to have had any familiarity with it, which could supply the place of the books of the Old Testament as a source of religious instruction and religious feelings.

But the Gospels themselves afford evidence the most decisive of the question whether they bear the stamp of God's infallibility, or the impress of human minds.

B