or possess such means of authentic information, as these.

The situation of the writers applies to the truth of the facts which they record. But at present we use their testimony to a point fomewhat short of this, namely, that the facts recorded in the gospels, whether true or false, are the facts, and the fort of facts, which the original preachers of the religion alledged. Strictly speaking, I am concerned only to shew, that what the gospels contain is the fame as what the apostles preached. Now how stands the proof of this point? A set of men went about the world publishing a story composed of miraculous accounts (for miraculous from the very nature and exigency of the cafe they must have been), and, upon the strength of these accounts, called upon mankind to quit the religions in which they had been educated, and to take up, from thenceforth, a new system of opinions, and new rules of action. What is more, in attestation of these accounts, that is, in fupport of an institution of which thefe

L2

these accounts were the foundation, the fame men voluntarily expofed themselves to haraffing and perpetual labours, dangers, and sufferings. We want to know what these accounts were. We have the particulars, i. e. *many particulars, from two of their own number. We have them from an attendant of one of the number, and who there is reafon to believe was an inhabitant of Jerufalem at the time. We have them from a fourth writer, who accompanied the most laborious miffionary of the institution in his travels; who, in the course of these travels, was frequently brought into the society of the reft; and who, let it be observed, begins his narrative by telling us, that he is about to relate the things which had been delivered by those who were ministers of the word and eye-witnesses of the fact. I do not know what information can be more fatisfactory than this. We may, perhaps, perceive the force and value of it more sensibly, if we reflect how requiring we should have been if we had wanted it. Supposing it to be fufficiently proved, that the religion, now professed

5

professed amongst us, owed its original to the preaching and ministry of a number of men, who, about eighteen centuries ago, set forth in the world a new system of religious opinions, founded upon certain extraordinary things which they related of a wonderful person who had appeared in Judea : suppose it to be also sufficiently proved, that, in the course and prosecution of their ministry, these men had subjected themselves to extreme hardships, fatigue, and peril; but fuppose the accounts which they published had not been committed to writing till fome ages after their times, or at least that no histories, but what had been composed some ages afterwards, had reached our hands; we should have faid, and with reason, that we were willing to believe these men under the circumstances in which they delivered their testimony, but that we did not, at this day, know with sufficient evidence what their testimony was. Had we received the particulars of it from any of their own number, from any of those who lived and conversed with them, from any of their hearers, or even L3 from from any of their contemporaries, we should have had fomething to rely upon. Now, if our books be genuine, we have all these. We have the very fpecies of information which, as it appears to me, our imagination would have carved out for us, if it had been wanting.

But I have faid, that, if any one of the four gospels be genuine, we have not only direct hiftorical testimony to the point we contend for, but teftimony which, fo far as that point is concerned, cannot reasonably be rejected. If the first gospel was really written by Matthew, we have the narrative of one of the number from which to judge what were the miracles, and the kind of miracles, which the apostles attributed to Jefus. Although, for argument's fake, and only for argument's fake, we should allow that this gospel had been erroneoufly afcribed to Matthew, yet if the gospel of St. John be genuine, the observation holds with no less strength. Again, although the gospels both of Matthew and John could be fupposed to be fpurious, yet, if the gospel of St.

Luke

Luke was truly the composition of that person, or of any perfon, be his name what it might, who was actually in the situation in which the author of that gospel professes himself to have been; or if the gospel which bears the name of Mark really proceeded from him; we still, even upon the lowest suppofition, possess the accounts of one writer at least, who was not only contemporary with the apostles, but associated with them in their ministry; which authority seems sufficient, when the question is simply what it was which these apostles advanced.

I think it material to have this well noticed. The New Testament contains a great number of distinct writings, the genuineness of any one of which is almost sufficient to prove the truth of the religion: it contains, however, four distinct histories, the genuineness of any one of which is perfectly fufficient. If, therefore, we must be confidered as encountering the risk of error in afsigning the authors of our books, we are entitled to the advantage of so many sepaL4