fuch a falfe account.

None at least appears,

and there is very strong reason, for believing the contrary. Because,

First, they could not expect to fucceed in fuch an attempt :

And, fecondly, if they had fucceeded, there was nothing to be gained by it, fufficient to encourage them in fuch an imposture.

The ancient Chriftian writers are unanimous, I think, in this, that the four evangelifts wrote at different times, and in different countries; and yet, as to every thing material, they all agree: Yes, fays the unbeliever, they agree too well; they were all in a confederacy: But then this confederacy was one of a new kind, carried on by men, who were disjoined both by time and place, a point, which, as I faid, antiquity teftifies, and unbelievers can never difprove. Let it, however, be admitted for argument's fake, though against all probability, that the four evangelifts lived together, and if you will, that they wrote together; so far together as to agree all in telling the fame ftory, though with a little variation of fome circumftances, the better to make all the four accounts appear feparate and distinct. Yet,

admittin

admitting this, which unbelief has no right to claim, we Christians must affirm that there is no likelihood of their accounts being falfe; because the miracles which they ascribe to Christ in all their gofpels, were things of fuch a public and notorious nature, that the falsehood of them, if they were not true miracles, might have been detected by thousands, and would have been probably detected by some of that number. They who appealed to fo very many wonderful facts, done in the face of the fun, and before multitudes, done upon fo many perfons, whofe names are mentioned, and fome of whom, it is more than probable were then alive, must have had no room to expect, hardly any to hope, that their accounts. would not have been immediately confuted, if falfe, and they have been immediately made infamous to that, and all future generations.

Thus ftands the cafe with regard to any fuccefs which impoftors could hope for in this

matter.

But if they had fucceeded, yet what, we may ask, were they to gain, fufficient to encourage them in fuch an impofture?

Their gofpels are one continued leflon against the love of pleasures, honours and riches. Could they hope to get any larger fhare of these than they enjoyed, by decrying them? This cannot be faid seriously, I fuppofe, even by unbelievers. No thirst of honour and power could be an inducement to them for imposing a false account upon the world; for they fairly tell us, that their great Master's fense of these things was very different from that of worldly men. Whofoever, faid he, will be great among you, let him be the minister ; and whofoever will be chief among you, let him be your fervant: This hard faying they would moft furely have left out of their gospels, if honour and power had been the darling motive to their design; and men, who meant to rife in the world, would never in their writings have placed themfelves fo low; and have taught a doctrine fo vifibly contrary to their views and intentions. Again, their Mafter, they own, was poor, and often had not where to lay his head, and his doctrine was, that his difciples fhould not fet their hearts upon

a Matt. xx. 26, 27.

earthly

earthly things, but upon heavenly ones. Strange doctrine, if it came from men who wrote from worldly motives! Their doctrine would be ftranger ftill, if their behaviour had for its aim, that very thing of which their writings exprefs fo much contempt. Such of their converts, as received their writings for the good leffons contained in them, would foon have relapsed, when they faw their practice; and would have cried out, who can believe that the Mafter was heavenly, when the historian's mind is of fuch an earthly turn?

Vanity and fingularity have been said by fome, to be a motive fufficient to fet men at work upon fuch a falfehood. It may, indeed, have its weight with many, and, perhaps, with those very perfons who make this objection. But here it has no place, for this plain reafon, because the doctrine which these evangelists attempted to establish, is not reprefented by them as their own. It was that of Jefus Chrift; they were only his gofpelwriters. If they got it believed in the world, as they did, no glory did, or could poffibly redound to them from thence; it was all to go to their Master, who was dead and gone; and,

if a meer man, had it not then in his power to give them any reward for all their attempts in his favour.

Befides, we meet with no inftance in hiftory, nor is it likely it ever happened, that four men should fet themselves up for heads, all content with an equal fhare of the reputation, and no one of them, as is common in fuch cafes, affecting eminence above the reft, and to be the ringleader in the imposture. So many tame sharers in glory are never to be feen; men naturally aiming at walking one before another, not all abreaft, in the path of fame. These things being laid together, and well confidered, we may pronounce it to be morally certain, that the writers of the four gofpels were neither deceived themselves, nor endeavoured to deceive their readers; but that, on the contrary, their accounts ought to be received by all men as originally true and faithful ones. I come now to enquire, in the

Third place, whether what we now receive for theirs, and is tranflated into English in our book called the New Teftament, is the fame with what they wrote?

We