"That these authors could not be deceived themselves in what

they relate;

"That they neither would nor could impose upon others.

"The books of the New Testament were written by the authors to whom they are ascribed.

1. The general Evidence ;

« For this proposition {2. The particular Testimony.

"The general evidence may be thus explained. No one has any doubt but that the Commentaries were Cæsar's, the Orations Cicero's, and the Æneid Virgil's. There is no more reason to doubt but that the Gospels were Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, and John's; the Epistles St. Paul's, St. Peter's, St. James's, &c.

"The foundation of our belief being in all these cases the same, i. e. the universal reception of them as such so far as we can trace. "And this foundation may be depended upon, for it proves that they were acknowledged to belong to those authors, in the age in which they were published, and by the contemporaries of the authors; a thing which might be known almost to a certainty from their bearing the author's name-speaking of him in the first person, his publicly owning them, their being ascribed to him by common reputation, and his acquiescing in it; and that this opinion was delivered by the contemporaries of the author to the generation which immediately followed, and so transmitted through successive generations down to us. I say the universal reception of them proves thus much, this being the only way by which we can account for their being universally received; so if any one forged a book in the pretended author's lifetime, or near it, he must presently be detected, and after considerable time such a forgery would be almost impossible, as no one would receive a book as the work of another which had never been heard of during his life, or long after his death.

"There is no doubt at this time but that the book called Hume's History was written by Hume, nor will there be any doubt one hundred years hence, nor any more one hundred years after that, nor a thousand years hence, if the book all the while continue to be read and in reputation; for we of this age know it to be his from its bearing his name, being universally ascribed to him, and his acquiescing in the reputation. Those of the next age will know it to be his from us, i. e. from finding it so established amongst us as a notorious and undoubted fact, that he was the author, and considering

that this is a point in which we could scarce possibly be deceived. Those of the following age will receive it upon the same principle, and with no diminution of evidence from them, and so on to any distance of time.

"Take it backward.

"There is no doubt to us his contemporaries, that the book called Hume's History was written by Hume in this age. There is as little doubt but that Paradise Lost was written by Milton in the last age, we being as well satisfied with receiving this opinion from his contemporaries as if we had been his contemporaries ourselves.

"Neither can we doubt but that the plays were written by Shakspeare in the age before that, though two generations removed from him; nor will it probably be more dubious five hundred years hence than it is now.

"Nor in like manner ought there to be any doubt but that the Eneid was Virgil's, the Orations Cicero's, the Gospel Matthew's for instance, the Epistles St. Paul's.

"This evidence, from the reception so far as we can trace it, is never in fact disputed; but where it is either contradicted by some opposite testimony, as some ancient writer of credit ascribing it to a different author; by a writer's silence about it, when he might be expected to mention it; or, secondly, something in the book itself inconsistent with those times, or that author.

"If any one says, I allow the Commentaries to be Cæsar's, the Orations to be Cicero's, and the Æneid Virgil's; but I do not see the same reason for allowing the Gospel to be Matthew's, or the Epistles Paul's, because in religious matters people may be induced to forge books in other persons' names, and the names especially of men of such high authority as the Apostles. Now allowing that such attempts have in some few instances been made, I answer in the first place, that most of them were soon detected, that none of them gained the unanimous reception and authority that the Scriptures had. Adrian forged a book in Cicero's name, De Consolatione; no man was ever led by that circumstance to suspect the authenticity of his Orations, Tusculan Questions, and other genuine works. Secondly, that this circumstance is more than balanced by two others, that are in favour of the Scriptures above what can be said for the Æneid, the Commentaries, or Orations. The first is, that these Scriptures are in the nature of laws, and consequently the people who were then living

would take care to be satisfied of their authenticity, before they would think themselves bound to obey them and lay down their lives for the religion they contained.

"You might forge, perhaps, a speech, but would find it the hardest thing in the world to palm upon the public an act of parliament.

"No one ever doubted but that the code of Roman law was Justinian's, though there was but one single copy of it found amongst some rubbish.

"Secondly, that from the very earliest times these Scriptures were publicly read in churches, which effectually secured them from alteration or addition.

"So much for the general evidence.

"The particular testimony consists in their being cited as belonging to these authors by other ancient writers.

"Hume, in his history, cites incidentally a passage from Lord Clarendon's History; this will be a proof to posterity that the book in which this passage was found was witten by Lord Clarendon, and a better proof, perhaps, than if Hume had expressly asserted it; it being less liable to suspicion, as it would be very far-fetched, almost impossible, to suppose that Hume should forge and foist into his own work a spurious quotation for the sake of authenticating a book, when he does not appear ever to have had the authenticity of that book in his thoughts or view, or ever made a question of it.

"Of the same nature is the particular testimony I am now going to produce.

"And here arises a cloud of witnesses, which places the authenticity of the Scriptures beyond all controversy-beyond the authenticity of any other book in the world.

They are quoted, and quoted as genuine records, and as the writings of the persons we ascribe them to, by a succession of authors from near to the very time in which they were first published, through every following age down to the present.

"Here produce the quotations, first exemplifying what is meant by quoting by name.

"Quoting,

"Repeating.

"We have heard a series of testimonies, and conducted it below the year 500; we might have brought it down to our own age; but from this time, and indeed long before, we are absolutely certain that it

was out of the power of even the governors of the church to adulterate, add, or to suppress them. I say, we are certain of it; because by this time many of the popish corruptions were maintained in the church, which these Scriptures either expressly condemned, or afforded no support to. If, for instance, they could have stifled it, they never would have left the passage in St. Paul condemning worship in an unknown tongue, the description of the man of sin, the rebuke of Peter by Christ, and opposition by Paul, the reproof of the Virgin Mary; all of which one would think were providentially preserved to guard against the superstitions they fell into. If they could have altered or added to them, they would have foisted in something to have given a colour at least to Peter's supremacy over the other apostles, under which the Pope claims his authority, to monastic life, celibacy of the clergy, invocation of saints, purgatory, prayers for the dead, which at present have not a foot to stand on.

"It was not likely we should have any history or account of Christ, but either from his followers or those who wrote against them, of which last class Celsus, A.D. 150; Porphyry, 240; Julian, 300; Hierocles, 300; have none of them denied the miracles of Christ, but ascribed them to magic. The Jewish Talmud, also composed about 300, allows his miracles, and mentions some instances."

He then takes the remaining propositions in their course, viz. that these authors could not be deceived in what they relate.

"3. 1st Part. That they would not attempt to impose upon others. "3. 2d Part. That they could not impose upon others.

"1st. To suppose that they would, is to suppose in the first place, that a handful of poor illiterate fishermen, labourers, tax-gatherers, &c. should conceive a scheme of reforming the world, of altering all its customs and opinions, should entertain hopes of accomplishing it, should concert among themselves, and carry it on by themselves.

*

"2d. To suppose that they would, is to suppose in the second place, that they could do all this without any possible end or advantage in it whatever. What had they to get by preaching Christianity, or publishing the history of it? There was nothing to be got, nor did they

attempt to get any thing.

In the first part of this third proposition, we meet with a slight mention of what forms the principal feature in his work on the Evidences.

"3d. To suppose that they would, is to suppose another absurdity greater than all this, viz. that such people should form such a scheme, and face every danger, difficulty, and discouragement in carrying it on, should undergo the greatest fatigues, traverse seas and kingdoms without rest, and without weariness, and at last submit to death itself in support of it.

"Here produce the evidence of these sufferings. Now there is not a single instance where a man has died in defence of his opinions, but the world have done him the justice to allow that he was sincere in it, that he believed what he died for; and what shadow therefore of reason is there contrary to all experience, to our constant way of judging in every other instance, to suspect the veracity of Christ's witnesses when they laid down their lives in support of it?

"I take this argument from the sufferings of the first Christians to be decisive.

"If you say that many have died with a lie in their mouths, and that malefactors do it every day at the place of execution, I answer that it is one thing to die in a falsehood, another thing to die for it; there is not much dependence, for instance, in a man's denying a crime, when he must die whether he denies it or not; but if he denied it when he might save his life by confessing it, I imagine there is not a man in the world but would suppose him innocent."

In the second part of the third proposition, he puts down three principal circumstances which distinguish a true history from a false one, because they make it difficult or next to impossible to palm a false history upon the public; and all three concur in the case of the Christian Scripture and first preaching.

"1. The account being published at or near the time and place in which the thing related is said to have happened

"Were a man at this time of day to publish a history of St. George, few I suppose would regard it, whatever the author's character was— was the same man to publish a history of King George the First or Second, perhaps every one would pay credit to it.

"We learn from Tacitus, that Christianity began in Judea; that it had spread so far as Rome; that there were Christians there in great numbers within thirty years after Christ's crucifixion; it must therefore have been set up and on foot presently after