"deserving of credit as histories," and that such is "the situation of
the authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed that, if any one of
the four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose." This brings us,
indeed, to the crucial point of our investigation, for, as we can gain
so little information from external 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.