not more.* I can easily conceive that the zealous disciples of the chief witnesses may

* The learned Fabricius, in his account of the apocryphal gospels, records to the number of fifty of these false gospels : it is however to be observed, that there are several, which differ only in their title.

Beausobre, in his excellent History of Manicheism, vol. i. p. 453, undertakes to shew, that many of these apocryphal gospels were only the gospel of St. Matthew, more or less altered or changed. Amongst others, those, according to the Hebrews, the Egyptians, the Ebionites, St. Bartholomew, St. Barnabas, &c. come directly under this predicament. That nice critic carefully distinguishes the apocryphal, or unauthentic writings,, which appeared in the first century, from those which appeared in the centuries following: these last, both as to the doctrine and facts, were much less exa&t than the former: the reason is not difficult to be assigned:-the false doctrines began to multiply only after the death of the first witnesses; and it was very natural, that men who receded more or less from the received doctrine, should alter the truth, more or less in their writings. The express testimony, however, of such writers, in support of the most essential facts, is particularly remarkable and convincing.

After all, were it argued that the apocryphal writings destroy the authenticity of the canonical, I should answer, with our judicious critic, p. 462, "It might as well be said, that there "exist no true facts, because there are false ones; no true his"tories, because there are fabulous ones; no true coin, because

counterfeit coin is to be met with." Further, this writer says, "If it be asked in what the apocryphal writers of the first cen"tury differed from the true, it will be seen, that this difference "consisted chiefly in some particulars of the life of our Saviour, "which were either taken from or added to the gospels; in "some words or sentences ascribed to our Saviour, and omitted by our Evangelists, such as, for instance, these words of ou

have been naturally led to write what each had heard his master say, and may have given to their* narration a title similar to that of the authentic pieces. Such histories might easily be conformable to the essential facts, since their authors had them from the mouths of the first witnesses, or at least from their first disciples.†

I also find, that the different sectaries had their histories, which differed more or

"Saviour, It is more blessed to give than to receive. Euthalius "relates, that this sentence was to be met with in the book in

titled, The Doctrine of the Apostles. These sentences were "taken from some books admitted amongst the Christians, or "preserved by tradition. Hence several passages inserted in "the gospels by the transcribers, and which St. Jerome struck "out when he reformed the copies of the most antient MSS."

*The apocryphal gospels, known by the names of St. James, St. Thomas, &c.

The life of our Saviour was so beautiful, his character so sublime, his doctrine so excellent, the miracles, by which he confirmed it, so striking and numerous, that it was impossible that many writers should not undertake to compose an account of him; and thus were produced several histories of our Saviour, more or less exact. St. Luke, in speaking of these narrations and gospels, which preceded his, intimates their imperfection, but does not condemn them as bad or fabulous books.-Beausobre's Discourse on the Authenticity, &c. History of Manicheism,„, vol. i. p. 449.

All the false gospels of these different sects, were not merely historical writings. There were some which were almost en

less from the authentic history; but I find no difficulty in convincing myself, that these histories, though malicious forgeries, contained the greater part of the essential facts which had been attested by the chief witnesses. Many of these sectaries seem

tirely doctrinal, and from which certain sects collected together into a sort of system their particular opinions. Such was, for instance, the gospel of Valentine, or of the Valentinians, to which this sect had given the name of the gospel of Truth. Such again was a book, which the oriental philosophers, known by the name of Gnostics, intitled the Gospel of Perfection, Ibid. 454. See note +:

* I mean, the miracles, the resurrection, and ascension of our Saviour. It is true, that there were sects who denied his having a body like ours, and pretended that his death and resurrection were mere appearances; but this strange idea so directly repugnant to the spirit and letter of the sacred text, is a proof that these sects acknowledged the validity of the testimony given to the resurrection of our Saviour; since their error did not consist in denying the resurrection, but in explaining it by mere appearances. They agreed, therefore, as to the fact; and, because the incarnation was not consonant to the ideas they had formed to themselves of the person of our Saviour, they invented a system of appearances, to reconcile their ideas with the eyi.

dence of the fact.

The question, therefore, in the earlier ages, was not, whether our Saviour had wrought miracles, was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven: The evidences for these facts were too recent, too numerous, too weighty, and the tradition too certain, to allow of any reasonable doubt. The different sects, therefore, as well as the orthodox, acknowledged these facts; and their disputes related solely to certain points of doctrine.

greatly exasperated against the party which was adverse to them; and, since they inserted in their histories the same essential facts, which that party professed to believe, I cannot but consider so great a conformity between the opposite parties, as the strongest presumption in favour of the authenticity and truth of the narrative which I have before my eyes.

I observe still further, that the society which is the faithful depository of the doctrine, and of the narratives of the witnesses, never failed, as well as its teachers, to remonstrate against the sectaries and their writings, and to appeal constantly to the authentic writings as the supreme and

In our times both the doctrine and facts are matters of controversy; and now, that seventeen centuries are elapsed, objections are heaped on objections, and doubts on doubts, against facts which neither were nor could be contradicted by the contemporaries of all the parties, who were most deeply concerned to ascertain the truth, and best able to come at it. I allow, however, that it is agreeable to the true spirit of an age which bears the pompous name of philosophical, not to credit the miracles of the gospel till after the most logical and critical examination of them. I only ask whether it would be truly philosophical tổ reject them without such an examination? And I ask further, whether, after such an examination, it be possible, on the prin ciples of sound philosophy, to reject them?

common judge of all their controversies. I learn also from the history of that society, that they took particular care to read these writings weekly in their assemblies; and that these writings were precisely those which are handed down to this day, as the authentic narrative of the witnesses.

I cannot, therefore, consistently with sound criticism, suppose that this society was easily imposed upon concerning the authenticity of the numerous writings published in the midst of it. If I have any reasonable doubt remaining on this essential point, a remarkable fact occurs, which will soon clear it up: namely, that this society, so far from admitting too lightly as authentic, writings which were not acknowledged to be such, suspected for a long time the authenticity of various books, which after a long and careful ex

* Ecclesiastical history.

The ancient fathers had three methods of distinguishing the apocryphal writings that were spread abroad in the Christian church. The first was, the preaching of the first witnesses, and of their immediate successors, which was preserved and perpetuated in each particular society.-The second was