ably than we could hope to do it. But we have to point out upon what testimony this external evidence rests, and to show how little church-tradition has to do with it.

For the first, then, we have the testimony of the Apostles in their writings (already shown to be genuine and authentic) recognized by Celsus, the great enemy of Christianity. This affords at least some probable evidence of the divine mission of our Lord.

For the second, that is, our Lord's miracles, we have the testimony, not only of the Apostles, but what is more, of his great enemies, the Jews; and that not merely as recorded by the Apostles, but by their own writers, and also of heathen writers.

For the third, we have for the existence of the prophecies fulfilled in him, long previous to his incarnation, the irrefutable evidence of the books of the Old Testament, then and still in the keeping of his great enemies, the Jews; and for those uttered by him, the testimony (already proved to be authentic) of his Apostles, and for their fulfilment, as regards the Jews, the universally-received attestations of history, as well as the evidence of their pre

sent state.

For the fourth, we have the testimony, both of friends and enemies, and of our own senses.

The reader may at once see, then, how far we have to depend upon church-tradition for this evidence.

The internal evidence is derived from the excellent nature and effects of the doctrine which our Lord taught. The appeal here is to the hearts and consciences of mankind; and however those who have been accustomed from infancy to enjoy its light, may slight the evidence which its brilliancy affords of its divine origin, it was looked upon at its advent, by those who could appreciate it, in a very different light. By the early teachers of Christianity, this was the great evidence put forward in proof of its divine origin; an evidence, of which time cannot weaken the force, and which, as it appears to me, still remains the most powerful inducement to men to embrace the

Christian faith, the most convincing argument of its divine origin. It is quite true that the prepossessions of the natural mind may often lead it into error, when so judging; but that is due, not to the character of the evidence from which the judgment is formed, but to the corruption of our fallen nature. It is no more a proof that Christianity does not show its origin by the internal evidence it carries with it, than heretical misallegations of Scripture show that Scripture does not bear a clear testimony in favour of the orthodox faith.

So.

There is one observation, however, I would make respecting it; and that is, that it appears to me to be applicable only in proof of the divine mission of the Founder of our religion; because that religion, when once introduced, might be preached by many who were entirely destitute both of inspiration and divine commission to do. The evidence of the internal witness of Scripture to its divine inspiration, is, I conceive, of this kind; viz., that the revelation made, taken as a whole, is so excellent in its nature and effects, as to bear a powerful witness to its divine origin, and consequently to the divine mission of Him who first delivered it to mankind; not that the internal evidence can be a sure criterion as to any particular book to establish its inspiration; though it may, in some cases, be sufficient to negative it.

Thus, then, do we establish the divine mission of our Lord; and consequently the truth that what he delivered was the word of God.

But then it becomes necessary to inquire what were the qualifications of those who have delivered his doctrine

Though we may suppose that they were honest and faithful narrators of events, have we any assurance that they were preserved from error in delivering that doctrine to us, and still more in enlarging upon, and explaining, and adding to that doctrine? If, indeed, we agreed with the Romanists and our opponents, that fallible men could convey to us a "practically infallible" report of doctrinal truths, we need not, as far as our

Lord's teaching was concerned, have made any further inquiry; but (and I shall leave to our opponents to give the reason) it certainly appears that even as to this, we have not been left to the teaching of mere fallible men.

We have proof that the Apostles were inspired; and this fact, which may be proved by their miracles connected with the character of their teaching, may show that when we assumed in the proof of the divine mission of our Lord that their writings were authentic, we had not merely the proof of it already given, but a stronger in their inspi

ration.

Assuming, however, that the evidence adduced on the former points has been conclusive, we ground the doctrine of their inspiration, on the following evidence.

(1) The promises of our Lord.

(2) The affirmations of the Apostles in their writings. (3) The miracles they wrought, especially as connected with the character of the doctrine they preached, showing that they were to be depended upon.

(4) The prophecies they delivered.

In the first of these, I refer to such promises as that recorded in John xvi. 13, that the Spirit should guide them into all truth, and see John xx. 21, 22; in the second, to such declarations as that of St. Paul, when he says to the Thessalonians, "When ye received the word of God, which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh, also, in you that believe;” (1 Thess. ii. 13.) and those of St. Peter, where he says to the Christians of his day, that the gospel had been preached unto them with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, (1 Pet. i. 12,) and exhorts them to be "mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour," (2 Pet. iii. 2,) and ranks St. Paul's writings with the "other Scriptures," (2 Pet. iii. 16;) and generally to the tone of authority in which they speak, as infallible expositors of the doctrines of Christianity.

To give weight to the evidence derived from these two sources, we must, of course, assume the divine mission of our Lord, and also that the Apostles were not impostors ; for which we must refer back to the proof of the authenticity of their writings; or we may ground it upon that which we have now to notice as

The third, and an independent and still stronger testimony to their character, viz., the miracles they wrought, especially when we consider the nature of the doctrine they preached. These may not perhaps be a direct proof of the inspiration of all which they delivered on the subject of religion, but they certainly show their true character, and are a divine attestation to the truth of their claim to be considered divinely-appointed teachers of mankind. By these God bare witness to them. (Heb. ii. 4.)

Now the testimony upon which we believe these miracles to have been wrought, is derived-first, from the account left us in writing by one of the followers of the Apostles; I mean the book of the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, of which the genuineness, authenticity, &c. may be established, as in the case of the Apostolical Scriptures; and secondly, from the admissions of Jews and heathens, who were compelled to resort to the charge of magical practices against them, to account for the miracles they performed.

The fourth ground is that afforded us by the prophetical spirit vouchsafed to them, the evidence of which we see not only in the Scriptures, but in events confessedly subsequent to their times.

On these grounds, then, we believe that the Apostles were inspired, and being thus divinely preserved from error, and instructed in the truth, were both infallible witnesses of the doctrine taught by our Lord, and infallible instructors of mankind in religion.

We thus establish, then, the truth in question, viz. the divine mission of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, and consequently that the Scriptures of the Apostles are the word of God. And whenever a strict

proof of this truth is sought, it must be of this kind and nature. And, as is evident, the sole use of church-tradition in it is to bear witness to us, who live at a considerable distance of time from the period in which Christianity was first promulgated, of certain facts cognizable by the senses of mankind, matters which in the first instance were not objects of faith but of knowledge, not revelations of doctrine in which fallible men are so likely to make mistakes, but facts such as neither friend nor foe, if honest, could make any mistake about; and further, the tradition of the church is only a part, and not the strongest part, of the proof of those facts and events having taken place.

There now remains, then, for consideration, the case of those three books, the authors of which were not Apostles, viz. the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles by Luke. 1

And here I wish to draw attention to a fact which appears to me to have almost if not quite escaped observation, but which the general language of the Fathers on the subject, and particularly a passage of Tertullian, seem clearly to prove, namely, that the rule by which the canon of the New Testament was formed was this, that such works only should be admitted into it as were either written by Apostles or directly commended to the Church by them for its guidance and instruction. The passage of Tertullian to which I allude is one in his 4th book against Marcion, where being about to prove that the Gospel received by Marcion was spurious and of no authority, he says, "We lay it down in the first place that the volume containing the authoritative records of the Gospel, (evangelicum instrumentum) has the Apostles for its authors, upon whom this office of publishing the Gospel was imposed by our Lord himself; if besides these it admits Apostolical writers, it admits not such in their own character alone, but as associated with the Apostles, and as

If the Epistle to the Hebrews is not allowed to be St. Paul's, (though there is as appears to me satisfactory evidence that it is,) it must be added to the above.