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,a 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 æra.

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

I. I ask then, in the first place, in what way are OTHER

ANCIENT WORKS ASCERTAINED TO BE THE PRODUCTIONS OF

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

(a) 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.

I take as an example, our venerable Book of Common Prayer. How do I know that it was composed by the Martyrs and Confessors of the English Church 300 years since, at the period of the reformation in the 16th 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. 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 time, and ask, how do I know that the survey of England, called Doomsday Book, was written in the 11th century, in the reign of William the Conqueror? 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 facsimile of which was published by order of parliament in the last reign. 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. 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 published in the sixth century? The proof is the same, only

(b) In the year 1767. (c) About the year 534-nearly 1300 years since.

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 æra 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 still 500 years 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 the year 68? I answer, on the same principle as before, because I can trace up the books from the present age, through each preceding one, in the public documents and memorials of the European and other nations, till I come to the Augustan. I turn to Tacitus, the celebrated contemporary historian, whose writings. have been in every one's hand ever since, and read the account of Seneca. I turn to Quintillian, 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 all classes and all ages and all nations and all opinions, differing from 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 an 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.

I am as certain, then, of the naked historical fact of the authenticity of the New Testament, that is, 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 supposed 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.