assertion that a Galilean peasant of mean condition was the Messiah, would have been thought too absurd to be worthy of debate. In all controversies, whether miraculous evidence was mentioned or not, it must have been presupposed as the primary ground of argument.

That the story was miraculous may also be inferred from the claims which Christians of after ages laid to miraculous powers; for it is improbable that miracles would have been pretended to by their followers, if none were by the founders.

7th. The story which we have now, is the same which they had then.

This is proved by indirect considerations. There is no other story different; and the incidental testimony from profane writers, as far as it goes, unequivocally corroborates it. Josephus mentions John the Baptist, with all the particulars of his life ; and there is a celebrated passage in his history which explicitly substantiates the truth of our Gospel account. If this passage be not genuine (as some assert,) then his silence on a subject so notorious, and which other contemporary writers had mentioned, must have been designed; not knowing how to represent the affair he passed it over without notice.

The whole series of Christian writers, from the first age of the institution, in all their various works proceed on the general story of our Scriptures, and no other; and their letters contain numberless allusions to all the principal facts recorded in it. Its leading features were also preserved through all the dark ages; additions, indeed, were made, and errors erept in, but the original story remained the same.

There are rites and ceremonies instituted in the first ages, and yet in force, manifestly arising out of the account, as of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, &c.

There is evidence in its very constitution, that the writers of the New Testament wrote it as an account of facts well known and believed at the time. For instance, neither Matthew nor John mention the ascension: but it is plainly referred to in their writings; a proof of the notoriety of the matter. Luke also, in the preface to his Gospel, shews that the substance of the history he was about to write was already believed by Christians.

8th. The same proved by direct testimony.

The authors of all the histories lived at the time and upon the spot. Two of them were eye and earwitnesses of what they record; and wrote upon a subject in which their hearts and minds were deeply

perience only, and not contradiction of experience, that can be alleged against their probability. But miracles were not necessary after the establishment of Christianity; and they would cease to be miracles were they objects of general experience. At the same time it is not impossible or improbable, that the Supreme Being should interrupt the general course of nature, or (more properly speaking) that He should suspend His own laws, on special occasions, for some particularly good purpose.

The accounts of miracles do not assign effects to inadequate causes; for the words or actions represented as made use of, in their performance, are merely signs to connect the miracle with its end; the effect is produced by the volition of the Deity.

If twelve men of probity and good sense relate an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which they could not be deceived; if it were proposed to them, both altogether and separately, to confess the falsehood of their story or submit to a gibbet; if they unanimously denied that there was any imposture in it; and submitted to every species of torture and death, rather than give up its truth; then their testimony is a phenomenon which only the truth of the fact can solve.

FIRST PROPOSITION.

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted from the same motives to new rules of conduct.

1st. This is probable from the nature of the case. The Christian religion exists; and could only have been established by the exertions and labours of the Founder and his immediate followers: and this must have been a work of danger, Christianity being opposed to all the fixed opinions and habitual national prejudices of those to whom it was addressed; and being moreover peculiarly exclusive and completely decrying every other religious system. Its propagators, therefore, whether they addressed themselves to Jews or heathens, could not have pursued their object of overthrowing the popular creeds whereever they went, without considerable mo,estation and personal danger, as well from the anger of the populace, as of their respective rulers.

engaged :—if their accounts were false, they were villains for no end but to teach honesty, and martyrs without any prospect of honour or advantage. The other two lived in habits of intimacy with those who were eye and ear-witnesses of their accounts, from whom they had diligently inquired concerning them.

If any one of the Gospels be genuine it is sufficient to prove the point;-if Mark's Gospel be an epitome of Matthew's; or if Luke consulted it before he wrote; these circumstances at least corroborate the truth of Matthew's Gospel.

In the four separate Gospel histories, mutually confirming each other, we have an accumulation of evidence, which is sometimes overlooked, by considering the New Testament as one book.

Even were none of the Gospels genuine, yet the very reception of these books among the earliest Christians, proves at least that they accorded with the primitive belief and original story which the first teachers delivered.

9th. The authenticity of the books of the New Testament considered in a few preliminary observations.

There are many very ancient manuscripts of these books, some one thousand years old; and versions of