nal 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.

Paley begins his argument by supposing that the first and fourth Gospels
were written by the apostles Matthew and John, "from personal knowledge
and recollection" ("Evidences," p. 87), and that they must t