It is not a little strange that none of the books cited by the authors of the Bible as their authority form any part of our canonical Scriptures. Thus Joshua (x., 13) and the prophet Samuel (2 bk., i., 18) refer to the “Book of Jasher;” Moses (Nos. xxi., 14) refers to the “Book of the Wars;” the Chronicles refer to the “Book of Nathan the Prophet,” the “Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” the “Vision of Isaiah,” the “Vision of Iddo the Seer,” the “Book of Shemaiah the Prophet,” the “Book of Iddo concerning Genealogies,” the “Lamentations of Jeremiah for king Josiah,” and the “Story [history] of Iddo” (2 Chron., ix., 29; xii., 15; xiii., 22; xxxii., 32; xxxv., 25); the writer of the first book of Kings (xiv., 19, 29) to the “Diary of the Kings of Judah,” and to another of the “Kings of Israel;” {20a} in 1 Kings iv., 29–33, we have mention of several works of Solomon unknown to us; in Acts, vii., 42, allusion is made to the “Book of the Prophets;” Paul refers more than once to his “own Gospel” (Rom., ii., 16; xvi., 25); {20b} and Jude (14) to the “Book of Enoch,” none of which form any part of our Bible. In regard to the New Testament the number of books professing to set forth the words and deeds of Christ was very numerous, even when the Gospel of Luke was compiled, and when the canon was fixed by “uninspired” authority, the claimants were legion. The present selection was made by persons wholly incompetent to weigh evidence, and their only rule was what they arbitrarily judged to be orthodox, which, of course, means in agreement with their own religious opinions. This being the case, on what does the testimony of miracles rest? certainly not on eye-witnesses, not even on the authority of contemporaries. Paley says the men suffered persecution and even death in proof of their belief, but Paley has no ground for this assertion: first, because he knows nothing about any of the four Evangelists, and cannot tell whether they suffered persecution or not; and, secondly, he cannot know whether the names attached to these evangelists are real names or not. But allowing Paley’s assertion to be true, what is gained by it? It is by no means true that a willingness to suffer is a proof of truth. It may be a proof of obstinacy, of conviction, or even of cowardice, but can be no proof of truth. A boy who has stolen from a schoolfellow will often suffer greatly to maintain a lie; indeed the expression, “it was worthy a better cause,” is a proverbial proof that men suffer and labour for the wrong as well as for the right. Allowing, therefore, that the early disciples did suffer, it proves nothing, and certainly it will not prove the truth of the gospel narratives. It is now admitted by all biblical scholars that large parts of our Gospels are interpolations, some of the epistles are known to be spurious, and probably the only part of the New Testament at all worthy of credit is that taken from the “Logia,” or sayings of Christ. But we