by Griesbach, and others.  They also forged certain rhapsodies under the name of “Sybbiline Oracles,” and then adduce them as prophetic proofs of the truth of their religion.  They also interpolated certain clumsy forgeries as prophecies of Jesus into their copies of their Greek version of the Old Testament. 7.  The present canon of the New Testament has never been sanctioned by the general consent of Christians.  The Syrian church rejects some of its books;—­some of its books were not admitted until after long opposition, and not until several hundred years after Jesus.  The lists of what were considered as canonical books, differ in different ages, and some books now acknowledged by all Christians to be forgeries, were in the second and third centuries considered as equally apostolic as those now received, and as such, were publicly read in the churches. 8.  The reason why we have not now extant gospels, different and contradictory to those now received, is, because that the sect or party which finally got the better of its adversaries, and styled itself Catholic, or orthodox, took care to burn and destroy the heretics, and their gospels with them.  They likewise took care to hunt up and burn the books of the pagan adversaries of Christianity, “because they were shockingly offensive to pious ears.” 9.  Semler considered the New Testament as a collection of pious frauds, written for pious purposes, in the latter part of the second century, (the very time assigned for their first appearance by Dodwell.) Evanson adopts, and gives good reasons for a similar opinion with regard to most of the books which go to compose it.  Lastly.  The reason why the New Testament canon has been so long respected, seems to have been purely owing to the credulity of the ignorant, and the laziness, indifference, or fears of the learned.

Douglas, in his famous “Criterion,” gives us, as infallible tests, by which we may distinguish when written accounts of miracles are fabulous, the following marks:—­

1.  “We have reason to suspect (he says) the accounts to be false, when they are not published to the world till after the time when they are said to have been performed.”

2.  “We have reason to suspect them to be false, when they are not published in the place where it is pretended the facts were wrought, but are propagated only at a great distance from the supposed scene of action.”

3.  “Supposing the accounts to have the two fore-mentioned qualifications, we still have reason to suspect them to be false, if in the time when, and at the place where, they took their rise, they might be suffered to pass without examination.”

These are the marks he gives us as infallible tests by which we may distinguish the accounts of miracles in the New Testament to be true; and accounts of miracles in other books (though supported by more testimony than the former,) to be false; with how much justice, may be evident from the following observations:—­