truth of the case may be useful to many, who, hearing that spurious Gospels existed in ancient times, may conceive that the present selection was rather an arbitrary or accidental choice, than founded in any certain cause of preference. I observe, therefore,

I. That beside our Gospels and the Acts, no Christian history, claiming apostolic origin, is quoted by any known writer in the first three centuries; or, if quoted, it is with marks of censure and rejection. If there seem to be any exception to this observation, it is a Hebrew Gospel, circulated under the various titles of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, of the Ebionites, sometimes called of the Twelve, by some ascribed to St. Matthew. This Gospel is once, and only once, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, in the latter part of the second century it is also twice mentioned by Origen with marks of discredit; and on this ground the exception stands. But what is more material is, that this Gospel, in the main, agreed with our present Gospel of St. Matthew.

II. Of histories denominated apocryphal, as being of uncertain or no authority, two only are noticed by any author of the first three centuries, without terms of condemnation; the one, a book entitled 'the Preaching of Peter,' quoted repeatedly by Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 196; the other, called the Revelation of Peter,' on which work the above-mentioned author is said by Eusebius to have written notes. We further add,-1. That there is no evidence that any spurious or apocryphal books existed in the first century, in which all our historical books are proved to have been extant; 2. that these writings were not read in the Christian churches; 3. were not admitted into their volume; 4. do not appear in their catalogues; 5. were not noticed by their adversaries; 6. were not alleged by different parties as of authority in their controversies; 7. were not the subjects, Paley Erid.

F

amongst them, of commentaries, versions, collations, expositions; and, finally, were reprobated by Christian writers of succeeding ages, with a consent nearly universal.

Although it may be made out by these observations that the books in question never obtained the degree of credit, that can place them in competition with our Scriptures, yet it appears that many such existed in the third and fourth centuries. It is difficult to account for their origin. Perhaps the most probable explication is, that they were in general composed with a view to profit by the sale, and that hence many were adapted to the opinions of particular sects. After all, they were probably more obscure than we imagine. Except the Gospel according to the Hebrews, there is none, of which we hear more than the Gospel of the Egyptians; yet there is reason to believe that Clement of Alexandria, a man of almost universal reading, had never seen it.

It is observable of all the apocryphal Christian writings, that they proceed on the same fundamental history of Christ and his apostles, as that in our Scriptures.

CHAPTER X.

Recapitulation of the preceding Arguments.

The two points which form the subject of our present discussion, are, 1. that the Founder of Christianity, and his immediate followers, passed their lives in labors and sufferings; 2. that they did so in attestation of the miraculous history recorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief in them.

The argument by which the first proposition has been maintained, arises from the nature of the undertaking; the character of the persons employed; the opposition of their tenets to the fixed expectations of

their countrymen; their condemnation of all other religions; and their total want of authority or power. This probability is increased by our knowlege of the fate of the Founder, and the cruel treatment of the first converts; both which points are attested by heathen writers, and leave it very incredible that the primitive emissaries, who exercised their ministry amongst those who had destroyed their Master and persecuted their converts, should themselves escape with impunity. The probability however amounts to historical certainty, by the evidence of our own books; by the accounts of one who was the companion of persons whose sufferings he relates; by the letters of the teachers themselves; by predictions of persecutions ascribed to the Founder of the religion, which would not have been inserted in the history, had they not accorded with the event, and which, if false, could only have been so ascribed, because suggested by the event; lastly, by incessant exhortations to fortitude and patience, with an earnestness which must have been suggested by an extraordinary call for their exercise. It is probable also, that both the teachers and converts, in consequence of their profession, took up a new course of life and behavior.

That

The next great question is, what they did this for. That it was for a miraculous story of some kind seems manifest; because, as to the fundamental article, viz. that Jesus was to be received as the Messiah, they could have nothing but miracles to stand on. the exertions and sufferings of the apostles were for the story we have now is proved by the consideration, that this story is transmitted to us by two of their own number, and by two others personally connected with them, with a particularity and circumstantial information arising from their situation; that each of these books contains enough to prove the truth of the religion; that if any one of them, therefore, be genuine, it is sufficient; that the genuineness, however, of all

is made out, as well by general arguments as by peculiar and specific proofs, viz. by citations from them in writings contiguous to their date; by the regard paid to them by early Christians; by a universal agreement respecting these books, though doubts were entertained concerning others; by contending sects appealing to them; by the admission of their genuineness by the early opponents of the religion; by many formal catalogues published in distant parts of the world; and, lastly, by the absence or defect of these topics of evidence, when applied to other histories of the same subject.

These are strong arguments to prove that the books proceeded from the authors whose names they bear and have always borne. But even supposing that we knew not the writers of the four Gospels; still the fact, that they were received as authentic by the earliest Christians, that they corroborate each other's testimony, and are further confirmed by another contemporary history, which takes up the story where they left it, and which accounts for the rise of changes in the world, the effects of which are felt at this day, and connected with a body of letters written by the apostles themselves, assuming the same general story, and alluding to particular parts of it; with the reflection, that if the apostles delivered any different story, it is lost, and that this oblivion and substitution could not have taken place under such circumstances; -this evidence would suffice to prove, that whoever were the authors of these books, they exhibit the story which the apostles told, and for which they acted and suffered.

If this be so, the religion must be true. These men could not be deceivers. By keeping silence they might have avoided all their sufferings. Would men, in such circumstances, pretend to see what they never saw; assert facts, of which they had no knowlege; go about lying, to teach virtue; and

though convinced of Christ's being an impostor, and witnessing his crucifixion, still persist in carrying on the fraud, and so persist, as to expose themselves, knowingly and for nothing, to danger and death?

PROPOSITION II.

There is not satisfactory evidence, that persons professing to be original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain as these are, have passed their lives in dangers and difficulties, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief in such ac

counts.

CHAPTER I.

Consideration of the Question generally.

I enter on this part of my argument by declaring how far my belief in miracles goes. If the early reformers of the popish church, such as Wickliffe and Luther, or the more recent reformers of the episcopal church, such as Whitfield and Wesley, had undergone a life of dangers and difficulties for the propagation of their tenets, founded, as they alleged, on miracles which these knew had been wrought, and which could not be resolved into a deception on the part of the performer of the miracle, nor a delusion on the part of the witness to it; and if their conduct really had its origin in such accounts, I should have believed them. Or if Howard, the philanthropist, had undertaken his labors and journeys in attestation, and in consequence of a miracle clearly wrought, I should have believed him also. Or if Socrates had professed to perform miracles publicly at Athens; or if his followers had, in attestation of such miracles, hazarded their lives in propagating his doctrines; and

L