flowed from the same source, or that they were copies of each other? And would not this natural and legitimate suspicion have weakened, in my opinion, the validity of the account?

It is highly satisfactory to find one of the authors thus begin his recital:

1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-wit nesses, and ministers of the word;

3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee, in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

My satisfaction increases, when I read in the chief publication of one of the first wit

nesses-And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that be saith true, that ye might believe. Or when I find, in the narrative of anotherThat which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, that we declare unto you.

BOOK IV.

CHA P. I.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE WRITTEN EVIDENCE.THE PROPHECIES.

PROCEED in my inquiries: I have

I not examined every side of the question;

there are many others; I must, however, confine myself to the principal points.

What method must I follow, to be satisfied of the authenticity of the various and most important parts of the evidence?

First, I must be cautious not to confound the authenticity of the narrative with the truth of it. I fix the sense of the terms, to avoid ambiguity.

P

By the authenticity of any part of the narrative, I understand that degree of certainty which ascertains to me, that this part is indubitably the composition of the author whose name it bears.

The truth of a portion of the deposition, will depend upon its conformity with the facts.

From this logical distinction I therefore am taught, that historical truth does not depend on the authenticity of history; for I easily 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 assured of the authenticity of the history, and if the veracity of the historian be well known to me, the authenticity of the history will, in some 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 same rules which direct my judgment of others.

How am I to be satisfied that Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus, are truly the authors of those histories which bear their names? It is from tradition that I learn it: I go back from century to century; I consult the monuments of those different ages; I compare them with the histories themselves; and the general result of my inquiries is, that those histories have been ever attributed to those authors whose names they bear.

I cannot agreeably to reason, suspect the fidelity of this tradition; it is too ancient, too constant, too uniform, and it has never been called in question..

I follow, therefore, the same method in my inquiries concerning the authenticity of the narrative in question; and I have the same general and essential results..

But because the history of Peloponnesus was not of so much importance to the Greeks, as that of the Great Delegate to his