reflections. By considering our records in either of the two views in which we have represented them, we shall perceive that we possess a collection of proofs, and not a naked or solitary testimony; and that the written evidence is of such a kind, and comes to us in such a state, as the natural order and progress of things, in the infancy of the institution, might be expected to produce.

Thirdly The genuineness of the historical books of the New Testament is undoubtedly a point of importance, because the strength of their evidence is augmented by our knowledge of the situation of their authors, their relation to the subject, and the part which they sustained in the transaction; and the testimonies which we are able to produce compose a firm ground of persuasion that the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear. Nevertheless, I must be allowed to state, that to the argument which I am endeavouring to maintain, this point is not essential; I mean, so essential as that the fate of the argument depends upon it. The question before us is, whether the Gospels exhibit the story which the Apostles and first emissaries of the religion published, and for which they acted and suffered in the manner in which for some miraculous .story or other, they did act and suffer. Now, let us suppose that we possessed no other infor

mation concerning these books than that they were written by early disciples of Christianity; that they were known and read during the time, or near the time, of the original Apostles of the religion; that by Christians whom the Apostles instructed, by societies of Christians which the Apostles founded, these books were received (by which term "received," I mean that they were believed to contain authentic accounts of the transactions upon which the religion rested, and accounts which were accordingly used, repeated and relied upon); this reception would be valid proof that these books, whoever were the authors of them, must have accorded with what the Apostles taught. A reception by the first race of Christians, is evidence that they agreed with what the first teachers of the religion delivered. In particular, if they had not agreed with what the Apostles themselves preached, how could they have gained credit in churches and societies which the Apostles established?

Now, the fact of their early existence, and not only of their existence, but their reputation, is made out by some ancient testimonies which do not happen to specify the names of the writers; add to which, what hath been already hinted, that two out of the four Gospels contain averments in the body of the history, which, though they do not disclose the name, fix the time and

6

situation of the authors, namely, that one was written by an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ, the other by a contemporary of the Apostles. In the Gospel of Saint John (xix. 35), after describing the crucifixion, with the particular circumstance of piercing Christ's side with a spear, the historian adds, as for himself," and he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." Again, after relating a conversation which passed between Peter and "the disciple," as it is there expressed, "whom Jesus loved," it is added, "this is the disciple which testifieth of these things and wrote these things." This testimony, let it be remarked, is not the less worthy of regard, because it is in one view, imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if a fraudulent purpose had been intended, would have been done. The third of our present Gospels purports to have been written by the person who wrote the Acts of the Apostles; in which latter history, or rather latter part of the same history, the author, by using in various places the first person plural, declares himself to have been a contemporary of all, and a companion of one, of the original preachers of the religion.

John xxi. 24.

CHAPTER IX.

THERE IS SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT MANY, PROFESSING ΤΟ 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.

OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTures.

Nor forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelical 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.1 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 Scriptures were not the production of any modern contrivance. It does away also with the uncertainty which hangs over such publications as the works,

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