to us in fuch a state, as the natural order and progrefs of things, in the infancy of the inftitution, might be expected to produce.

Thirdly; The genuineness of the hiftorical books of the New Teftament is undoubtedly a point of importance, because the ftrength of their evidence is augmented by our knowledge of the fituation of their authors, their relation to the fubject, and the part which they fuftained in the transaction; and the teftimonies which we are able to produce, compose a firm ground of perfuasion that the gospels were written by the perfons whose names they bear. Nevertheless, I must be allowed to ftate, that, to the argument which I am endeavouring to maintain, this point is not effential; I mean, fo effential as that the fate of the argument depends upon it. The queftion before us is, whether the gospels exhibit the story which the apoftles and firft emiffaries of the religion published, and for which they acted and fuffered, in the manner in which, for fome miraculous story or other, they did act and fuffer.

fuffer. Now let us fuppofe that we poffeffed no other information concerning these books than that they were written by early disciples of Chriftianity; that they were known and read during the time, or near the time, of the original apoftles of the religion; that by Christians whom the apoftles inftructed, by focieties of Chriftians which the apoftles founded, these books were received (by which term "received" I mean that they were believed to contain authentic accounts of the tranfaction upon which the religion. rested, and accounts which were accordingly ufed, repeated, and relied upon), this reception would be a valid proof that these books, whoever were the authors of them, muft have accorded with what the apoftles taught. A reception by the firft race of Chriftians is evidence that they agreed with what the firft 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 focieties. which the apoftles established?

Now the fact of their early existence, and not only of their existence but their reputation, is made out by fome ancient teftimonies 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 gofpels contain averments in the body of the hiftory, which, though they do not disclose the names, fix the time and fituation of the authors, viz. that one was written by an eye-witness of the fufferings of Chrift, the other by a contemporary of the apoftles. In the gofpel of St. John, (xix. 35.) after defcribing the crucifixion, with the particular circumftance of piercing Chrift's fide with a fpear, the hiftorian adds, as for himself, "and he that faw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he faith true, that ye might believe." Again, (xxi 24.) after relating a converfation which paffed between Peter and the difciple, as it is there expreffed, whom Jefus loved, it is added, "this is the difciple which teftifieth of these things and wrote these things." This teftimony, let it be remark

ed,

ed, 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 prefent gofpels purports to have been written by the person who wrote the Acts of the Apostles; in which latter hiftory, or rather latter part of the fame hiftory, the author, by using in various places the firft perfon plural, declares himself to have been a contemporary of all, and a companion of one of the original preachers of the religion.

CHAP. IX.

There is fatisfactory evidence, that many perfons, profeffing to be original witnesses of the Chriflian miracles, paffed their lives in labours, dangers, and fufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteftation of the accounts which they delivered, and folely in confequence of their belief of the truth of thofe accounts; and that they alfo fubmitted, from the fame motives, to new rules of conduct.

"Of the Authenticity of the Scriptures."

NOT forgetting, therefore, what credit is

due to the evangelic hiftory, fuppofing even any one of the four gofpels to be genuine ; what credit is due to the gospels, even suppofing nothing to be known concerning them but that they were written by early difciples of the religion, and received with deference by early Chriftian churches; more especially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Testament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to

ftate