made in very early times,' some of which remain to this day.

But church-tradition strictly speaking has nothing to do with the matter. We want only fidelity and accuracy in copying, and handing down these writings themselves. in an incorrupt state to the next age, and this a deaf and dumb person could do as well as any one else. It is obviously a very different thing to hand down to posterity certain written documents and to hand down reports of oral teaching. Written records left in the keeping of a Bishop, and handed down by each to his successor (as the Scriptures were in early times) must surely be looked upon in a very different light to oral reports of what this or that former Bishop of the Diocese had preached.

And over and above this we have still stronger testimony in favour of the incorrupt state of these writings in various other ways; viz. in the number and antiquity of the copies and their being found in all parts of the world, all agreeing with each other in all essential points, in the antient versions, in the similarity of their contents to the accounts given of them by the earliest Fathers, and the quotations from them in those Fathers, and also in the testimony borne to them by the great body of the heretics, whose evidence tends to substantiate, some one part, some another, of the sacred volume, and lastly in the quotations and references made by the enemies of Christianity.

But notwithstanding we have all this evidence (of the strength of which we can form no idea without following it out into its details) in favour of the genuineness and incorrupt state of these writings, and that the question as to the preservation of written documents is essentially different to that which respects the preservation of oral teaching, Mr. Newman coolly tells us, that "whatever explanations the Protestant in question makes in behalf of the preservation of the written word will be found ap

Aug. De doctr. Christ. lib. ii. c. 5. ed. Ben. tom. iii. p. 1. col. 21. Chrys. in Joh. hom. ii. (al. 1.) ed. Ben. tom. viii. p. 10. Theodoret. De cur. Græc. affect. lib. v. ed. Schulze, tom. iv. pp. 839, 840.

plicable in the theory to the unwritten." (p. 46.) As well might it be said, that one who heard a report that had passed through a multitude of hands of a discourse orally delivered was as likely to be accurately informed respecting it, as he who had had delivered to him through the same number of hands a written copy of the discourse actually delivered. Even were it true that we depended solely on patristical tradition for the incorrupt state of the sacred books, that would not afford the slightest proof that such tradition was to be depended upon for accurate information as to the oral teaching of the Apostles.

The argument is as usual taken from the Romish armoury. "They," says the Jesuit Fisher," that can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense, why may they not also deliver a false text as received from the Apostles? an argument convincing and unanswerable." To which our learned Bishop White thus replies. "The Jesuit imagineth that this argument is invincible. But let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off

The argument reduced to form will discover its own weakness. If the text of the Scripture may as easily be corrupted as the sense, then all they which can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense may also deliver a false text. But the text of the Scripture may as easily be corrupted as the sense. Ergo, all they which can deliver by uniform tradition a false sense may also deliver a false text.' The assumption of this syllogism, which although it were concealed by the Paralogist, yet it must be added to make the argument perfect, is apparently false, and the contrary is true. The text of the Scripture cannot so easily be corrupted as the sense, and therefore it is not necessary that they which following human tradition or their own invention may deliver a false sense shall likewise deliver a false text. First, the text of the Scripture is contained in records and books which are dispersed throughout the whole Christian world, and preserved in all churches, and the copies and transcripts of them are innumerable. . . . Secondly, when God Almighty would

have the knowledge and memory of things to be perpetual he commanded that they should be committed to writing. Exod. xvii. 14, and xxxiv. 27. Deut. xxxi. 19. . . . Thirdly, experience of all ages testifieth that the text of the Scripture hath been preserved inviolable even among Jews and heretics. Fourthly, whereas the Jesuit compareth unanimous tradition of the sense of Scripture with the written letter and text of the Scripture, unless he equivocate in the name, terming that tradition which is collected from the Scripture, such uniform tradition as he boasteth of is very rare; for it must be such as in all ages and in all orthodoxal churches hath been the same. Now the most undoubted and uniform tradition of all other is concerning the number and integrity of the books of holy Scripture, and yet in this difference hath been between one church and another, and the later Roman church disagreeth with the antient." And so elsewhere he says, "It is not necessary that they which truly deliver the text shall also truly deliver the Apostolical sense, and on the contrary a lying sense may be delivered by them which retain the true and incorrupt letter of the text, as appeareth by the Pharisees, Arians, Donatists, and many other heretics."?

And so Augustine points out, in a passage already quoted, on what a different ground the Holy Scriptures stand in this respect to any other writings, and consequently to the sources whence our opponents' traditive statements and interpretations are derived; the writings of no bishop, however illustrious, being capable of being preserved as the canonical Scripture is preserved, on account of the number of languages in which it is found, and its being constantly rehearsed in the church, which rendered any attempt at corruption or forgery useless.3

It may be well to inquire in the next place, what evidence we have that these writings are authentic; that is,

1 Reply to Jesuit Fisher's Answer to certain questions, pp. 123-5.

2 Ib. pp. 120, 121. Bishop White is one of the divines of the " Catholic Library."

Anglo

3 See pp. 200, 201 above.

that the facts related in them, really took place. A consideration of this evidence will lead the mind more easily to the great point which we have to consider afterwards, the great truth sought to be established.

We have, then, for this truth, first, the internal evidence of these writings themselves. The facts related are not such as men are likely to have feigned; they are frequently injurious to the character of the writers; there was no reasonable motive for such a fiction, for it led the authors only into temporal calamities and death; and many similar weighty considerations conspire to show the truth of the facts stated.

We have next the external evidence; first, that derived from the church. But this is not church-tradition, but merely the fact of the belief of these books by so many, at a time, when, if the events recorded in them had not been true, they would have obtained no credit; secondly, that derived from the witness of heretics, and also from the numerous and direct testimonies afforded by the Jews and heathen, the enemies of Christianity, that the chief events here recorded did really happen.

To these evidences may be added further those considerations which show us the credibility of the statements of Scripture; such, for instance, as prove the credibility of miracles, remove apparent contradictions, and show that there is nothing in these writings contrary to reason; none of which, however, as is evident, can be derived at all from church-tradition.

In all these preliminary points, then, there is one only in which patristical tradition, properly speaking, can aid us; and that is, on the question of the genuineness of the Scriptures; and there, though important and necessary as part of the proof, we have other and still more unexceptionable testimony.

Supposing, then, that the Scriptures we possess are genuine, incorrupt, authentic, and credible, we have next to inquire what evidence we have that they may be reckoned the word of God; which, as we have already ob

served, is tantamount to the inquiry what evidence we have of the divine mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles; or at least a proof of the latter will equally demonstrate the former.

Let us begin with the divine mission of our blessed Lord.

Now to go to church-tradition for any direct proof of this, or of the inspiration of the Apostles, is obviously absurd; for if there were no foundation for these truths, any, even the highest, degree of catholic consent, would have no real weight; for all the value that can be ascribed to it in this case, rests upon the supposition that these are truths. The only weight, therefore, which church-tradition can have in these points, is from its being the representation of the opinion of a vast number of individuals, who, from the time of the appearance of our Lord to this, have held that these are truths, which may reasonably be an introductory motive1 to belief in them, rendering their truth in some degree probable, but nothing more; for the same evidence is afforded to Mohammedism and Paganism.

The truth we are now seeking to establish, rests upon two sorts of evidence, external and internal.

The external consists chiefly of the evidence derived from the four following sources.

(1) The voice from heaven at our Lord's baptism, and at his transfiguration.

(2) The miracles he wrought; especially as connected with the character of his doctrine.

(3) The prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled in him, and his own recorded in the New Testament.

(4) The power and success of the Gospel, notwithstanding its opposition to the feelings and desires of the natural

mind.

To enlarge upon these points, and show the demonstrative nature of the proof derived from them, is not now our object. It has been done over and over again, far more

See Land's Conf. with Fisher, and Stillingfleet's Grounds, &c. pp. 187, 8.