The divine origin of the Christian religion depends for its proof on the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." As he is the author of this religion, if it be proved that he is that Christ whose coming and work were predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament, and that he is the Son of God miraculously begotten, his religion is proved to be of divine origin, and to be for this reason possessed of divine authority.

But should we succeed in establishing the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and fail to show the authenticity of the writings on which we depend for a knowledge of his religion, the fact established would be of no practical value, seeing that we could not know how to secure to ourselves the blessings which the religion might offer. For this reason it is necessary to the practical value of an inquiry into the evidences of Christianity, that it furnish conclusive proof not only of the claims of Jesus, but of the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures.

Moreover, an authentic account of the Christian religion which should fall short of infallibility, would leave the mind a continual prey to doubt in regard to its exact teaching and requirements. If we have in the Christian Scriptures nothing more than an authentic account, such as wise and good but fallible men could give, we must be content, and not pretend that we have more. But our inquiry will not reach the result that is desirable unless we find proof that the Scriptures are infallible.

The importance of this inquiry, whether to the believer or the unbeliever, can scarcely be overestimated. As respects the unbeliever, it may be estimated in part by the following considerations:

1. The rejection of the Christian religion is the rejection of all religion. The adherents of any other faith may lay aside their own and accept the Christian, and many have done so; but no man who studies the evidences of the Christian religion and fails to find proof of its divine origin, can find such proof in favor of any other. As Richard Watson has well said, "It is universally acknowledged among us, that there is but one book in the world which has claims to divine authority so presumptively substantial as to be worthy of serious examination."1 It is clear, then, that the Christian communities of the earth would be stripped of all the blessings which religion brings to a people should they decide against the religion of Jesus, seeing that the alternative; would be no religion at all.

2. The Christian religion offers to every man who properly accepts it the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, two blessings with which, in our present state, no others conceivable are worthy to be compared. The importance of an inquiry into its truth is proportionate to the value of these blessings.

3. If it is true, every man who disbelieves it will suffer final and eternal condemnation. This its founder repeatedly declared, and in the declaration he assumed that the evidence which would attend the gospel would be such that no man could disbelieve without guilt, and such guilt as requires final condemnation. As surely as the religion is true, disbelief is a fatal sin.

To the believer the inquiry is only less important than to the unbeliever. It is important, first, for his own good. If his faith has not a sure foundation it may fail in the hour of trial; and what foundation is sure except a knowledge of the evidences. It is important, secondly, for the good of others. We are required to give to others, for their good, a reason of the hope that is in us, and this we can not do with satisfaction to them or to ourselves, unless we know the evidence on which our hope is based.

In order that our conclusions on any subject may be safe and satisfying, our investigation of it must be conducted in a proper frame of mind. Inquirers into the evidences of Christianity are exposed to dangers at this point, varying according to their preconceptions on the subject. Unbelievers are in danger of so earnestly wishing that the evidence shall appear inconclusive, as to underestimate the force of every proof, and to overestimate the force of every objection. Such a frame of mind is inimical to the reception of truth. Unfortunately, many persons who are not committed to unbelief, approach this subject more or less affected by this bias; for the Bible condemns all men who are not obedient believers, and thus it arouses a degree of antagonism within them at the very time that they are investigating its claims. He who would avoid an unjust judgment against the Bible must suppress this tendency, and be perfectly willing that the Bible shall prove itself the word of God.

The believer, on the other hand, is in danger of pursuing the inquiry with so fixed a determination that the Bible shall be found true, as to lead him to accept shallow sophisms for sound arguments, and to disregard the force of serious objections. Such an inquirer, should he afterward exercise a calmer judgment, must look back with distrust upon his former conclusions and experience a consequent weakening of his faith.

There is a proper place and work for the zealous polemic on the subject, especially in the field of controversy where bold and often unscrupulous assailants are to be met; but the student and the teacher should assume the spirit of an inquirer or a judge, rather than that of an advocate. By this must not be understood a spirit of indifference.2 The judge before whom it a man of previous good character is being tried under the charge of an infamous crime, would be unfit for his high office, if, while enforcing with impartiality the rules of evidence, he should have no wish to see the man's innocence established. So, in prosecuting an inquiry into the evidences of Christianity, while the student must guard vigilantly against self-deception, he should most earnestly wish that a religion which confers upon men so much good in this life, and promises so much more in the life to come, may prove to be unquestionably true.

Many persons, in studying the claims of Christianity, take up the objections that are urged against it before they learn what it is, or examine the evidences in its favor.3 They hear the negative in the debate before the affirmative; they allow the witnesses for the defendant to testify before they hear the plaintiff state his case; they read books and attend lectures in opposition to the Bible, when they know but little of its contents and still less of its evidences. They often decide the question after hearing only one side, and that the side which should be heard last, not first. This is a reversal of the order established in all courts of justice, in all well conducted discussions, in all scientific investigations. Common sense and the maxims of justice alike demand that we hear first the arguments in favor of a proposition, and afterward those against it. He who reverses this order prejudges the case, and comes to the consideration of the affirmative evidence, in a frame of mind unfavorable to a candid hearing or a just decision. If we hear much evil said of a man before we form his acquaintance, we are prejudiced against him; whereas, had we known him first the evil speech that we heard might seem to be only calumny. Unfortunately for the great majority of unbelievers, they have pursued this improper method, and then after forming their opinions, have either neglected the Bible and its evidences entirely, or have come to the study of them with an unfriendly spirit.

In the investigation of any question which is a subject of controversy, it is desirable to begin with admitted facts, and to take the successive steps of the inquiry in such an order that neither shall in any degree involve its successor. In the present instance we may begin with the undisputed fact that we now have a collection of writings making up the Bible, and that these are said to have been composed many centuries ago by men divinely inspired for this purpose. Should we first inquire as to the divine origin of the Bible as a whole, and then inquire as to the canonicity of its several books, our first inquiry would overlap and involve the second. But should we first inquire as to the uncorrupted preservation of the books; then, as to their authorship; then, as to their authenticity; then, as to the inspiration and infallibility of its writers, we . would have a series of inquiries, every one of which would have an intrinsic value independent of the others, and no one of which would overlap its successor. We would also have in this series of inquiries all that is necessary to the discussion of both the divine origin of the Christian religion and the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. We would then be at liberty to give attention to any other evidences not included in this line of argument, and also to objections not thus far encountered. Such is the plan of the present work. It proposes an inquiry into the following topics, in the order here given:

I. The Integrity of the New Testament Books.

II. Their Genuineness.

III. Their Authenticity.

IV. The Inspiration of Their Writers.

V. Other Evidences of the Divine Origin of Christianity.

VI. The Integrity, Genuineness, Authenticity and Inspiration of the Old Testament Books.

In conducting all of these inquiries it is proposed to state fully and to consider fairly the principal objections and counterarguments of unbelievers.

It is also proposed to collect in this volume, in the form of foot-notes and appendixes, many valuable documents from the pens of both ancient and modern writers, which have important bearings on the subject, but which are now inaccessible except to those who have the use of costly libraries. These documents, it is thought, will add great value to the work, independently of its line of argument.

1 Theological Institutes, Vol. I., 105.

2 "If indifference to the result be an essential qualification for an investigator of the Scriptures, then I must give up all hope of ever being one. To the result I can not he indifferent if I would; for there are all my hopes." (Calvin Stowe, History of the Books of the Bible, 254).

"When I hear some youth telling me. with a simpering face, that he does not know, or pretend to say, whether there he a God or not; or whether, if there he, He takes any interest in human affairs; or whether, if He does, it much imports us to know; or whether, if He has revealed that knowledge, it is possible or impossible for us to ascertain it; when I hear him further saying, that meantime he is disposed to make himself very easy in the midst of these uncertainties, and to await the great revelation of the future with philosophical --that is, being interpreted, idiotic --tranquility, I se that, in point of fact, he has never entered into the question at all; that he has failed to realize the terrible moment of the questions (however they may be decided) of which he speaks with such amazing flippancy." (Henry Rogers. Eclipse of Faith, 31.)

3 We have a striking example of this in the notorious Thomas Paine, who says, in reference to the composition of Part I. of his Age of Reason, which he published in advance of Part II.: "I had neither Bible nor Testament to refer to, though I was writing against both." After this confession, it is not surprising to hear him say, in Part II. : "I have now furnished myself with a Bible and a Testament, and I can say also that I have found them to be much worse books than I had conceived." (Preface to Age of Reason, Part II.) A man so unjust as to assail a book which he had never read, would be expected to read it, if at all, for the purpose of finding it worse than he had represented it.