THOUGH Christianity be a divine religion, it may be possible, in the lapse of ages, that the record which discloses its leading doctrines and facts has undergone some serious mutilation. Is this or is it not the case? This is an important inquiry, and it admits of an easy and satisfactory reply-a reply which must carry conviction to every candid mind as to the genuineness, authenticity, and incorruptness of the Sacred Books.

That they were written by the men whose names they bear is a thing quite as well established as that the Eneid was composed by Virgil, the Iliad by Homer, and the Cyropædia by Xenophon. The very literary character of the Old and New Testament Scriptures would go far to prove that they are genuine productions. They exhibit a diversity of style, which shews that they were written by various authors, and they display an idiomatic peculiarity correspond

ing to the ages and circumstances in which they were written. Thus, in the Pentateuch we meet with a slight mixture of Egyptian words, as might be expected if Moses was the writer; while in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, there is a considerable infusion of Chaldee and Persian, connecting them beyond all reasonable doubt with a period in Jewish history subsequent to the Babylonish captivity. If, moreover, we turn to the New Testament, we find its several parts written in a species of Greek partaking largely of Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Latin words and phrases,-a circumstance exactly answering to all that might have been anticipated upon the supposition that men in the precise condition of the Evangelists and Apostles had furnished their contents.

Nor is it within the range of probability to imagine for a moment that the sacred books are forgeries. If they are, then they must have been palmed upon the world by persons whose imposture could not be detected. But how could this occur in the matter of giving currency to the records of a public faith? Take, for instance,

the Books of the Old Testament Scriptures.

If

they are not genuine productions, I ask who were the parties concerned in the iniquitous forgery? It could not be the men of heathen antiquity, for they were imperfectly acquainted with the national peculiarities and rites of the Hebrews; and were not likely, moreover, to stamp the seal of their approbation upon records which accredited the posterity of Abraham as God's peculiar people, and condemned the whole Gentile world as sunk in a state of idolatry and crime. It could not be the followers of Christ, for it is matter of undoubted historical certainty that the Scriptures of the Jews existed many centuries before the Christian name was ever heard of. It could not be the Jews themselves, for never was there a more uncompromising exposure of the crimes, idolatries, and righteous chastisements of a rebellious and guilty nation than that which they contain.

If we look at the New Testament, it is equally unreasonable to suppose that it is not a genuine production, and that it was not actually written by the men to whom it is attributed. Unbe

lieving Jews and Gentiles were happily, in this instance, the guardians of revelation; for as they were equally opposed to the doctrine of Him whom they had combined to crucify, and as they were both zealous in persecuting all who ranked themselves as his humble and devoted followers, it stands to reason, that if the records of the Christian faith had not been genuine narratives of facts, furnished by the very men who assume to be the writers, the dishonest effort would have been detected and exposed, and the whole world, and all succeeding generations, would have been warned against the iniquitous attempt to originate a history not founded in fact.

The genuineness of the Books of Scripture was never called in question by friends or enemies. From the earliest periods of the Jewish history downwards, the Hebrews regarded their sacred Books as their peculiar treasure, and associated them all with their several authors and ages; and, in like manner, the Christians, from the apostolic age to the present moment, have had a regular succession of writers, who have

quoted and authenticated, in various ways, the Books which compose the New Testament canon. It is an interesting fact that Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian, and an endless race of heretics, combine with the apostolic and Christian fathers, Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius, in accrediting the Books of Scripture as genuine productions. The most inveterate opponents of revelation have been compelled to admit the fact that the Bible is no forgery.

Nor is there the slightest reason to suspect that the Scriptures have undergone any material alteration, or that they are not now in the same condition in which they were when they came from Moses and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles. To say that the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible, or that the ancient versions and translations, had not been deviated from in a single particular, would be to assume a position too lofty. In the process of transcribing some thousands of copies, before the art of printing was discovered, letters and syllables, and even words, without the intervention