reference to its inspiration. This simple fact, which is assumed, not as a petitio principii, but merely to see what will follow from it when it is proved, immediately suggests the following question. Is it possible, that St. Paul should have written to the Corinthians in the manner and in the words, which have been just quoted, if, during his residence among them, he had neither given proofs of his own power of working miracles, nor imparted, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, that power to others. An impostor may boast in one place of the wonders which he has done in another and, if the places are distant, he may possibly escape detection. But that the same persons should be reminded of miracles performed among them, if no miracles had been wrought, is too much either for knavery to attempt, or for credulity to admit. If then the Corinthians, among whom St. Paul, at his first visit, resided more than eighteen months (Acts xviii.) had never witnessed either miracles performed by the Apostle himself, or supernatural gifts imparted to others, and yet after his departure to Ephesus, had received an Epistle, as coming from St. Paul, and referring to miracles, which they knew had never been performed, they could not have believed that the Epistle was written by St. Paul, and they would have rejected it as an attempt to

impose on them. But they did not reject this Epistle they accepted and held it in honour. They accepted and held in honour a second Epistle from the same author, in which he likewise claims divine authority (ch. x. 8.): they received with veneration St. Paul himself, a second, and a third time. They admitted therefore the miracles to which St. Paul alluded, by admitting the Epistle, which contained the reference.

Having thus shewn the importance of our present inquiry, I will next consider the kind of evidence to be produced, and the mode, in which such evidence should be arranged. As we are now concerned with an historical question, for which historical evidence can be produced, the production of that historical evidence is the first thing, we should undertake. In cases, where we have no records, as evidence for historical facts, their existence must be established by the process of induction, or by shewing that certain effects, which are acknowledged, could not have been produced but by the operation of certain assigned causes. And such indirect proof may be strong enough for the purpose. But where historical evidence can be alleged, it is always adviseable to begin with it. Now the historical evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament is no other than the

external evidence, consisting of the testimony of ancient writers, and the existence of certain early translations. The internal evidence, which is drawn from the contents of the books, will then properly follow in confirmation of the external evidence. It is true, that this order is frequently inverted, and that the internal evidence is first produced as a preparation for the reception of the external. But where external evidence is so decisive as in the present case, and where no preparation is wanted for its reception, we should place it in the foremost rank.

In the disposition of the several parts, of which external evidence consists, I have ventured to depart from the general practice and for this departure it is necessary, that I should offer a particular explanation and apology. In quoting ecclesiastical writers, as evidence for the authenticity of the New Testament, it has been usual to begin with the Apostolic Fathers, or the Fathers, who were contemporary with the Apostles; and thence to proceed to the Fathers of the second, third, fourth, and as many following centuries, as appeared expedient for the purpose. But there is a disadvantage attending this chronological arrangement, inasmuch as it exposes the proof of authenticity to various objections at the

very outset.

Barnabas and Hermas do not afford the testimony for which they are quoted. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp were certainly acquainted with some books of the New Testament; but they have been alleged as evidence for other books, where the quotations produced for that purpose are really insufficient. We cannot indeed expect to find in their writings such ample testimony to the books of the New Testament, as we find in the works of later writers. is not so much their silence, that is injurious to the proof, because that silence may be easily explained it is the desire of making them say more, than the circumstances, under which they wrote, could allow them to say.

And it

The silence of the Apostolic Fathers in regard to many, or even most of the books, which compose the New Testament, may be explained in such a manner, as to obviate the inference, that such books did not exist in the first century, because the Apostolic Fathers have not quoted from them. In the first place, the collection of all those various books, which compose the New Testament, and the formation of them into a single work, was an operation, which required a much longer period, than is commonly supposed. The four Gospels, though ultimately

designed for general use, were written in such different and distant places, that many years must have elapsed before the possessors of one Gospel became generally possessed of the other three. The Epistles of St. Paul were addressed to various communities scattered throughout Asia, Greece, and Italy and it could not have been the work of a few years to collect all these Epistles into a single volume. But beside the difficulties arising from the distance between the places where the originals were preserved, the multiplication of copies, even when the books were once collected, was much less practicable, than it has been since rendered by the art of printing. The purchase of manuscripts was attended with expence and the primitive Christians were in general poor. Under all these circumstances it was not to be expected, that copies of all the various books, which compose the New Testament, should have been already in the hands of the Apostolic Fathers. And there is an additional consideration, which will account for their silence, even in regard to books, which they probably did possess. The most voluminous writers are commonly in possession of many books, which they never quote, because it is both unnecessary and unusual to quote a work, unless the subject, on which the author is writing, affords occasion for it. We