164

first disciples, I cannot doubt but that these last have employed much more care to ascertain the authenticity of this history, than the Greeks have taken to ascertain that of Thucydides.

A society which was strongly persuaded that the book I am speaking of contained the assurances of an eternal life; a society afflicted, despised, persecuted, and whose sole comfort and support in their trials was to be found in that book; would such a society have suffered themselves to have been imposed upon as to the authenticity of a narrative which every day became more and more precious to them?

A society, 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 wanted means to ascertain the authenticity of their writings? Would there have existed a perfect indifference as to making use of these means? Was it more difficult for this society to be convinced of the authenticity of these writings, than for any other society whatever to ascertain the au

thenticity of a writing attributed to any wellknown person, or to one who should assume his name? Could particular and numerous societies, to whom the first witnesses had addressed several epistolary compositions, could they be imposed upon concerning the authenticity of such writings? Could they entertain the least doubt whether or not these witnesses had written to them, whether they had answered the many questions put to them, whether these witnesses had lived in the midst of them, &c. ?

I bring myself as near as possible to the first age of that great society founded by the WITNESSES; I consult the most ancient monuments; and I discover that, almost at the very birth of that society, its members. were divided on several points of doctrine. I enquire what was then agitated among the different parties, and I see that those who were called innovators † appealed, as well

* The Churches founded by the Apostles.

†They were also called beretics: but it is to be observed, that the name of beretics was frequently given to oriental philosophers, who were not born within the pale of the church, and who, properly speaking, were not Christians. These philosophers asso

as the others, to the narrative of the first witnesses, and that they acknowledged the authenticity of it.

I further discover, that the adversaries * of these sects (enlightened adversaries, and almost contemporaries with the primitive disciples), did not contest the authenticity of the chief parts of the narrative.

I meet with this narrative frequently ci ted by writers † of the greatest authenticity,

ciated divers dogmas of Christianity with those of oriental philosophy, or of that philosophy of which Zoroaster was supposed to be the author. The famous sect of Gnostics, divided into so many different branches, was not in the least a Christian sect i. it was a philosophical sect, which, to the dogmas of the magi, joined those of Christ more or less altered: proofs of this may be seen in the last volume of the excellent treatise on the Truth of the Christian Religion, written by my countryman, Mr. Vernet..

*The Pagan authors of the first ages, Celsus, Porphyrus, Julian, &c.

I

The apostolic fathers, and their immediate successors. might here quote passages of Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyprian, &c. which would prove, that all these fathers acknowledged as authentic no other gospels, but those four which at this time compose our sacred code. But such details are foreign to the design of my work, and such a display of erudition would be misplaced in inquiries of this nature. I wish only to present to my reader the most essential and striking circumstances. It is enough that I am ready to exhibit the

who lived very near this first age, and who professed to acknowledge the authenticity of its principal parts. I compare these quotations with the narrative which I have before me, and I cannot but assent to their conformity.

In the continuation of my inquiries, I find that a short time after the society I am speaking of was formed, a number of forged narratives were published to the world, some of which were quoted as true, by respectable teachers of that society. I am therefore very much inclined to conclude, that it was not so difficult a thing to impose on that society and its leaders, as I at first imagined. This excites equally my atten tion and suspicion, and I undertake a

proofs, if called for.-In this note I shall therefore confine my. self to Origen alone, who thus expresses himself:-I know, by a constant tradition, that the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the only ones which have been acknowledged without any dispute by all the church of God that is under heaven. Those of my readers who wish for further particulars on the authenticity of the gospels, may consult the well-written and learned discourse of Mr. Beausobre, History of Manicheism, vol. i. and the excellent work of Mr. Bergier, intitled, The Certainty of the Proofs of Christianity; many interesting things, on this important subje&, are also to be met with in the learned notes of Mr. Seigneux, on Addison.

closer examination on this delicate point. I soon perceive that this is the proper place to employ my logical distinction, between the authenticity of a writing, and the truth of it. If a writing may be true, although not authentic; the suppositious narratives in question might be true, although they were not in the least authentic. Those contemporary teachers who quoted them, undoubtedly well knew whether they were conformable to the essential facts, and I am satisfied that proofs are not wanting to ascertain that conformity. They were therefore rather unauthentic histories, than false histories, or romances.

I further discover that the teachers, of whom I have spoken, very seldom quoted these unauthentic histories, whilst they very frequently quoted those which we account authentic. I perceive further, that there were unauthentic histories, which were no other than the authentic history itself, occasionally modified or interpolated.

I am not at all surprized at the great number of unauthentic histories which then appeared; the wonder is, that there were