AUTHENTICITY OF THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE. THE PROPHECIES. I PROCEED in my inquiries: I have not examined every fide of the question;' there are many others; I muft, however, confine myself to the principal points. What method muft I follow, to be fatiffied of the authenticity of the various and most important parts of the evidence? Firft, I must be cautious not to confound the authenticity of the narrative with the truth of it. I fix the fenfe of the terms, to avoid ambiguity. By the authenticity of any part of the nar rative, I understand that degree of certainty which ascertains to me, that this part is indubitably L dubitably the compofition of the author whofe name it bears. The truth of a portion of the depofition, will depend upon its conformity with the facts. From this logical diftinction I therefore am taught, that historical truth does not depend on the authenticity of history; for I eafily conceive, that an history may be conformable to fact, although it may bear an improper name, or even no name at all. But if I be well affured of the authenticity of the history, and if the veracity of the hif torian be well known to me, the authenticity of the history will, in fome measure, convince me of the truth of it, or at least will render it very probable. The book which I have under examination did not fall from heaven. As well as every book which I have read, this book has been written by men; I therefore am warranted in judging. of the authenticity of this book, by the fame rules which direct my judgment of others. How am I to be fatisfied that Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus, are truly the authors of those hiftories which bear their names? It is from tradition that I learn it: I go back from century to century; I confult the monuments of thofe different ages; I compare them with the hiftories themselves; and the general refult of my inquiries is, that thofe hiftories have been ever attributed to those authors whofe names they bear: I cannot, agreeably to reafon, fufpect the fidelity of this tradition; it is too ancient, too conftant, too uniform, and it has never been called in question. I follow, therefore, the fame method in my inquiries concerning the authenticity of the narrative in question; and I have the fame general and effential results. But because the hiftory of Peloponnefus was not of fo much importance to the Greeks, as that of the Great Delegate to his firft difciples, I cannot doubt but that these laft have employed much more care to afcertain the authenticity of this hiftory, than the Greeks have taken to afcertain that of Thucydides. A fociety which was ftrongly perfuaded that the book I am fpeaking of contained the affurances of an eternal life; a society afflicted, defpifed, perfecuted, and whofe fole comfort and support in their trials was to be found in that book; would fuch a society have fuffered themselves to have been imposed upon as to the authenticity of a narrative which every day became more and more precious to them? A fociety, in the midst of which the very authors themselves of the narrative had lived, and which they themselves had governed for the space of many years, would it have want-⚫ed means to afcertain the authenticity of their writings? Would there have exifted a perfect indifference as to making use of these means? Was it more difficult for this fociety to be convinced of the authenticity of these writings, than for any other fociety whatever to afcertain the authenticity of a writing attributed to any well-known perfon, or to one who fhould affume his name? Could particular and numerous focieties (a), (a) The churches founded by the apostles. to to whom the firft witnesses had addreffed feveral epiftolary compofitions, could they be impofed upon concerning the authenticity of fuch writings? Could they entertain the least doubt whether or not thefe witneffes had written to them, whether they had answered the many questions put to them, whether thefe witneffes had lived in the midst of them, &c.? the I bring myself as near as poffible to the firft age of that great society founded by the WITNESSES; I confult the most ancient monuments; and I difcover that, almoft at very birth of that fociety, its members were divided on several points of doctrine. I enquire what was then agitated among the different parties, and I fee that those who were called innovators (b) appealed, as well as (b) They were alfo called heretics: but it is to be observed, that the name of heretics was frequently given to oriental philofophers, who were not born within the pale of the church, and who, properly speaking, were not Chriftians. These philofophers affociated divers dogmas of Chriftianity with those of oriental philofophy, or of that philofophy of which Zoroafter was fuppofed to be the author, The L 3 |