́can only be accounted for by the supposition, that St. John wrote under a sense of the notoriety of Christ's ascension, amongst those by whom his book was likely to be read. The same account must also be given of St. Matthew's omission of the same important fact. The thing was very well known, and it did not occur to the historian, that it was necessary to add any particulars concerning it. It agrees also with this solution, and with no other, that neither Matthew nor John dispose of the person of our Lord in any manner whatever. Other intimations in St. John's gospel of the then general notoriety of the story, are the following: His manner of introducing his narrative, (ch. i. 15.) "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying," evidently presupposes that his readers knew who John was. His rapid parenthetical reference to John's imprisonment, "for John was not yet cast into prison,”* could only come from a writer whose mind was in the habit of considering John's imprisonment as perfectly notorious. The description of Andrew by the addition "Si mon Peter's brother," takes it for granted that Simon Peter was well known: his name had not been mentioned before. The evangelist's noticing the prevailing misconstruction of a discourse, which Christ held with the beloved disciple, proves that the characters and the discourse were already public. And the observation which these instances afford, is of equal validity for the purpose of the present argument, whoever was the author of the histories.

These four circumstances-first, the recognition of the account in its principal parts by a series of succeeding writers; secondly, the total absence of any account of the origin of the religion substantially different from ours; thirdly, the early and extensive prevalence of rites and institutions, which result from our account; fourthly, our account bearing in its construction proof that it is an account of facts, which were known and believed at the time; are sufficient, I conceive, to support an assurance, that the story, which we have now, is, in general, the story which Christians had at the beginning. I say in general, by which term I mean, that it is the same in its texture, and in its principal facts. For instance, I make no doubt, for the reasons above stated, but that the resurrection of the founder of the religion was always a part of the Christian story. Nor can a doubt of this remain upon the mind of any one, who reflects that the resurrection is, in some form †John i. 40. John xxi. 24.

*John iii, 24.

F

or other, asserted, referred to, or assumed, in every Christian writing, of every description, which hath come down to us.

And if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case to offer: For we should have to allege, that in the reign of Teberius Cæsar, a certain number of persons set about an attempt of establishing a new religion in the world; in the prosecution of which purpose, they voluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labours, sustained great sufferings, all for a miraculous story which they published wherever they came; and that the resurrection of a dead man, whom during his life they had followed and accompanied, was a constant part of this story. I know nothing in the above statement which with can, any appearance of reason, be disputed; and I know nothing in the history of the human species similar to it.

CHAP. VIII.

There is satisfactory evidence, that many persons, professing to have been 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.

1

THAT the story, which we have now, is, in the main, the story which the apostles published, is, I think, nearly certain from the considerations which have been proposed. But whether, when we come to the particulars and the detail of the narrative, the historical books of the New Testament be deserving of credit as histories, so that a fact ought to be accounted true because it is found in them; or whether they are entitled to be considered as representing the accounts, which, true or false, the apostles published; whether their authority, in either of these views, can be trusted to, is a point which necessarily depends upon what we know of the books, and of their authors.

Now, in treating of this part of our argument, the first, and a most material observation upon the subject is, that, such was the situation of the authors to whom the four gospels are ascribed, that, if any one of the four be genuine,

it is sufficient for our purpose. The received author of the first was an original apostle and emissary of the religion. The received author of the second was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the time, to whose house the apostles were wont to resort, and himself an attendant upon one of the most eminent of that number. The received author of the third was a stated companion and fellow-traveller of the most active of all the teachers of the religion, and in the course of his travels frequently in the society of the original apostles. The received author of the fourth, as well as of the first, was one of these apostles. No stronger evidence of the truth of a history can arise from the situation of the historian than what is here offered. The authors of all the histories lived at the time and upon the spot. The authors of two of the histories were present at many of the scenes which they describe; eye-witnesses of the facts, ear-witnesses of the discourses; writing from personal knowledge and recollection, and what strengthens their testimony, writing upon a subject in which their minds were deeply engaged, and in which, as they must have been very frequently repeating the accounts to others, the passages of the history would be kept continually alive in their memory. Whoever reads the gospels (and they ought to be read for this particular purpose) will find in them not merely a general affirmation of miraculous powers, but detailed circumstantial accounts of miracles, with specifications of time, place, and persons; and these accounts many and various. In the gospels, therefore, which bear the names of Matthew and John, these narratives, if they really proceeded from these men, must either be true, as far as the fidelity of human recollection is usually to be depended upon, that is, must be true in substance, and in their principal parts, (which is sufficient for the purpose of proving a supernatural agency) or they must be wilful and meditated falsehoods. Yet the writers who fabricated and uttered these falsehoods, if they be such, are of the number of those who, unless the whole contexture of the Christian story be a dream, sacrificed their ease and safety in the cause, and for a purpose the most inconsistent that is possible with dishonest intentions. They were villians for no end but to teach honesty, and martyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage.

The gospels which bear the names of Mark and Luke, although not the narratives of eye-witnesses, are, if genuine, removed from that only one degree. They are the narra

tives of contemporary writers, of writers themselves mixing with the business, one of the two probably living in the place which was the principal scene of action, both living in habits of society and correspondence with those who had been present at the transactions which they relate. The latter of them accordingly tells us, (and with apparent sincerity, because he tells it without pretending to personal knowledge, and without claiming for his work greater authority than belonged to it) that the things, which were believed amongst Christians, came from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; that he had traced up accounts to their source; and that he was prepared to instruct his reader in the certainty of the things which he related.* Very few histories lie so close to their facts; very few historians are so nearly connected with the subject of their narrative, 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 somewhat short of this, namely, that the facts recorded in the gospels, whether true or false, are the facts and the sort of facts, which the original preachers of the religion alledged. Strictly speaking, I am concerned only to show that what the gospels contain is the same 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 case they must have been) and upon the strengt 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 support of an institution of which these accounts were the foundation, the same men voluntarily exposed themselves to harrassing 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 number. We have them from an attendant of one of the number, and who, there is reason to believe, was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the time. We have them from a fourth writer, who accompa

Why should not the candid and modest preface of this historian be believed, as well as that which Dion Cassius prefixes to his life of Commodus. "These things and the following I write not from the report of others, but from my own knowledge and obser vation." I see no reason to doubt but that both passages describe truly enough the sit uation of the authors.

nied the most laborious missionary of the institution in his travels; who, in the course of these travels, was frequently brought into the society of the rest; 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 satisfactory 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 sufficiently proved, that the religion, now 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 i 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 suppose the accounts which they published had not been committed to writing till some 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 said, 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 those who lived and conversed with them, from any of their hearers, or even from any of their contemporaries, we should have had something to rely upon. Now, if our books be genuine, we have all these. We have the very species of information which, as it appears to me, our imagination would have carved out for us, if it had been wanting.

But I have said, that, if any one of the four gospels be genuine, we have not only direct historical testimony to the point we contend for, but testimony which, so far as the 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 Jesus. Although, for argument's sake, and only for argument's sake, we should allow, that this gospel had been erroneously ascribed to Matthew, yet if the gospel of St. John be genuine, the observation holds