sources, we are perforce driven to the Christian writings themselves.  If they break down under criticism as completely as the external evidences have done, then Christianity becomes hopelessly discredited as to its historical basis, and must simply take rank with the other mythologies of the world.  But before we can accept the writings as historical, we are bound to investigate their authenticity and credibility.  Does the external evidence suffice to prove their authenticity?  Do the contents of the books themselves commend them as credible to our intelligence?  It is possible that, although the historical evidence authenticating them be somewhat defective, yet the thorough coherency and reasonableness of the books may induce us to consider them as reliable; or, if the latter points be lacking from the supernatural character of the occurrences related, yet the evidence of authenticity may be so overwhelming as to place the accuracy of the accounts beyond cavil.  But if external evidence be wanting, and internal evidence be fatal to the truthfulness of the writings, then it will become our duty to remove them from the temple of history, and to place them in the fairy gardens of fancy and of myth, where they may amuse and instruct the student, without misleading him as to questions of fact.

The positions which we here lay down are:—­

a.  That forgeries bearing the names of Christ, and of the apostles, and of the early Fathers, were very common in the primitive Church.

b.  That there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the apocryphal writings.

c.  That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings were selected.

d.  That before about A.D. 180 there is no trace of four Gospels among the Christians.

e.  That before that date Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not selected as the four evangelists.

f.  That there is no evidence that the four Gospels mentioned about that date were the same as those we have now.

g.  That there is evidence that two of them were not the same.

h.  That there is evidence that the earlier records were not the Gospels now esteemed canonical.

i.  That the books themselves show marks of their later origin.

j.  That the language in which they are written is presumptive evidence against their authenticity.

k.  That they are in themselves utterly unworthy of credit, from (1) the miracles with which they abound, (2) the numerous contradictions of each by the others, (3) the fact that the story of the hero, the doctrines, the miracles, were current long before the supposed dates of the Gospels; so that these Gospels are simply a patchwork composed of older materials.