omission which John's Gospel supplies, any one of the other histories would have appeared, at the present day, hardly credible. For, an obscure peasant claiming to be a messenger from Heaven, yet displaying no miraculous signs, would never have been listened to by any one. But the Evangelists were writing for men among whom it was, and had long been, notorious that Jesus did display such signs. 'For, these things were not done in a corner.'

That any one should reject Christianity, and pronounce its Founder an impostor, and the history a string of fables, this, however irrational, is at least intelligible. But that any one professing Christianity should speak of Jesus (which some have done) as not Himself appealing to his miracles as evidence of his divine mission, is something quite inexplicable.

'These letters were not written to prove the truth of the christian religion.'

The once-notorious Tom Paine says of Paul's Epistles, that 'the author, whoever he was, attempts to prove his religion by arguments.'

If in any other subject besides religion a man were to fall into such absurdities, as in that subject one may often meet with, he would be regarded as an idiot. Suppose for instance an agricultural treatise, giving directions for the best mode of cultivating corn and rearing cattle; and that some reader of it should remark, the author, whoever he was, attempts to prove by arguments that corn and flesh afford nutriment, and will command a price in the markets: this would be a parallel to Paine's remark.

And again, suppose some other reader of the same treatise, should, on perceiving that there is no argument of the kind in it, infer that the author did not know, or did not believe, that bread is fit for food, or that corn and cattle are of any use, this would be a parallel to what has been advanced since Paine's time. For some writers have actually inferred from the absence in Paul's Epistles, of reference to the miracles of Jesus, that he either did not believe them, or else regarded them as furnishing no evidence. A man of plain good sense, untainted with German theories, would draw the opposite conclusion.

He would remember that these Epistles were addressed to Christians;-to men who had embraced the Gospel, and acknowledged Jesus of Nazareth as sent from God, on the strength of the 'mighty works' which alone could have obtained for Him a reception from any one. If then these Epistles had contained assertions of those mighty works, this might have excited a reasonable suspicion that the miraculous facts were not fully admitted, or else that the Epistles were forgeries. But these facts being admitted, in order for these men to have become Christians, any allusion to them in those Epistles would have been unnecessary and unnatural.

The Apostle does sometimes refer to his own miracles (as to something perfectly well known) in addressing those among whom rival teachers had crept in who sought to disparage him. But if he had strongly and frequently dwelt on these his miraculous powers, this would have given some ground for suspecting that they were not universally and fully admitted.

A Lecturer in the higher branches of Mathematics does not occupy an advanced class of pupils with demonstrations of the first Book of Euclid's Elements. And if it should thence be inferred that he did not assent to those demonstrations, we should think this a very strange kind of reasoning.

It has been inferred, in like manner, that Jesus Himself laid no stress on miraculous signs, because, in his conversation with Nicodemus, He does not dwell on them. It would have been strange if He had; considering that this man had just said 'We know that Thou art a teacher sent from God; for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with him.' If Nicodemus had been in any doubt, then Jesus would, we must suppose, have said to him, as He did, to some others, 'The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.' But Nicodemus being already convinced of his divine mission, needed only a correction of his erroneous notions concerning the character of the kingdom of the Messiah; whom he expected (as did all the Jews) to be a great temporal prince and conqueror, founding an empire of which the Jews by birth were to be the subjects.

CHAPTER IX.

There is satisfactory evidence, that many persons, 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 the truth of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.

"Of the Authenticity of the Scriptures.' 1

NOT forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelic

history, supposing even any one of the four gospels to be genuine; what credit is due to the gospels, even supposing nothing to be known concerning them but that they were written by early disciples of the religion, and received with deference by early christian churches; more especially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Testament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to state the proper and distinct proofs, which show not only the general value of these records, but their specific authority, and the high probability there is that they actually came from the persons whose names they bear.

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw up with more regularity to the propositions upon which the close and particular discussion of the subject depends. Of which nature are the following:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, found in many different countries, and in countries widely distant from each other, all of them anterior to the art of printing, some certainly seven or eight hundred years old, and some which have been preserved probably above a thousand years.2 We have also many ancient versions of these books, and some of them into languages which are not at present, nor for many ages have been, spoken in any part of the world. The existence of these manuscripts and versions proves that the

1 On this subject the reader is referred to Mr. Estcott's valuable Work on the Canon of Scripture, containing the results of much curious research.-ED.

2 The Alexandrian manuscript, now in the British Museum, was written probably in the fourth or fifth century.

scriptures were not the production of any modern contrivance. It does away also the uncertainty which hangs over such publications as the works, real or pretended, of Ossian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce their mahuscripts, and to show where they obtained their copies. The number of manuscripts, far exceeding those of any other book, and their wide dispersion, afford an argument, in some measure, to the senses, that the scriptures anciently, in like manner as at this day, were more read and sought after than any other books, and that also in many different countries. The greatest part of spurious christian writings are utterly lost, the rest preserved by some single manuscript. There is weight also in Dr. Bentley's observation, that the New Testament has suffered less injury by the errors of transcribers than the works of any profane author of the same size and antiquity; that is, there never was any writing in the preservation and purity of which the world was so interested or so careful.

II. An argument of great weight with those who are judges of the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their testimony, of being addressed to every understanding, is that which arises from the style and language of the New Testament. It is just such a language as might be expected from the apostles, from persons of their age and in their situation, and from no other persons. It is the style neither of classic authors nor of the ancient christian Fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, such as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used a language spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect of the country. This happy peculiarity is a strong proof of the genuineness of these writings; for who should forge them? The christian Fathers were for the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were not likely to insert Hebraisms and Syriasms into their writings. The few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew, as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius, wrote in a language which bears no resemblance to that of the New Testament. The Nazarenes, who understood Hebrew, used chiefly, perhaps almost entirely, the gospel of St. Matthew, and therefore cannot be suspected. of forging the rest of the sacred writings. The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity of these books; that they be

longed to the age of the apostles; that they could be composed indeed in no other.1

III. Why should we question the genuineness of these books? Is it for that they contain accounts of supernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom, is the rcal, though secret, cause of our hesitation about them; for, had the writings inscribed with the names of Matthew and John related nothing but ordinary history, there would have been no more doubt whether these writings were theirs, than there is concerning the acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have been no doubt at all. Now it ought to be considered that this reason, however it may apply to the credit which is given to a writer's judgment or veracity, affects the question of genuineness very indirectly. The works of Bede exhibit many wonderful relations; but who for that reason doubts that they were written by Bede? The same of a multitude of other authors. To which may be added, that we ask no more for our books than what we allow to other books in some sort similar to ours. We do not deny the genuineness of the Koran. We admit that the history of Apollonius Tyanæus, purporting to be written by Philostratus, was really written by Philostratus.

IV. If it had been an easy thing in the early times of the institution to have forged christian writings, and to have obtained currency and reception to the forgeries, we should have had many appearing in the name of Christ himself. No writings would have been received with so much avidity and respect as these; consequently none afforded so great temptation to forgery. Yet have we heard but of one attempt of this sort deserving of the smallest notice, that in a piece of a very few lines, and so far from succeeding, I mean, from obtaining acceptance and reputation, or an acceptance and reputation in any wise similar to that which can be proved to have attended the books of the New Testament, that it is not so much as mentioned by any writer of the three first centuries. The learned reader need not be informed that I mean the epistle of Christ to Abgarus, King of Edessa, found at present in the work of

1 See this argument stated more at large in Michaelis's Iutroduction (Marsh's translation), vol. i. c. 2, sect. 10, from which these observations are taken.