I set out with, namely, that there is but one point at issue-but one question to be tried-whether this circumstantial completion of the prophecies, and in so many particulars, could or could not merely happen by accident. If you think it might, why then the argument must be given up. If you think it could not, or that it is not probable it could, then you have one reason at least for the faith that is in you-a solid and satisfactory proof of the truth of our religion.

XLI.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

(PART I.)

JOHN XX. 31.

But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through his name.

THE direct historical evidence of Christianity is contained in three propositions; which, if they can each be made out satisfactorily, amount together to a demonstration of the truth of our religion. However, when I call them the direct historical evidence, you are not to suppose that it is the only evidence-there are abundance of circumstances, both external and internal, which corroborate this evidence, which, however, I cannot enter upon now; because, in a subject so various and comprehensive, we must be content to consider one part at one time.

The three points are these :

First that the books of the New Testament were actually written by the persons whose names they bear. Secondly: that those persons could not be themselves deceived in what they give an account of.

Thirdly that they could have no reason, nor can it be conceived that they should attempt, to deceive or impose upon others.

VOL. VII.

I I

The first of these propositions will be enough for one discourse; namely-The books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors whose names they bear; the Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, by Luke; the Epistles by Paul, Peter, John, &c.

Now, as to this point, there is, first, the general evidence, and there is, secondly, the particular testi

mony.

By the general evidence, I mean, that by which we believe and are assured, on reading any book, that it was written by the author to whom it is ascribed, and which is no other than its being ascribed to such an author so far back as we are able to trace; which circumstance is sufficient, when no opposite evidence appears, nor any thing in the writing itself contradicts it, to convince any man. Upon this ground we believe (and no one, that I know of, doubts it or contradicts it) that the last great poem which bears his name was Milton's; the History Lord Clarendon's; and many years ago, that the Commentaries were Cæsar's, the Orations Cicero's, the Æneid Virgil's. Now, to say the least, there is the same reason for believing that the Gospel was Matthew's or John's; the Epistle, Paul's or Peter's: and the reason upon which the belief of mankind proceeds in these cases is very satisfactory, and will seldom deceive them: which reason is this-that a book could hardly have gotten the reputation of belonging to any author, unless it was acknowledged as such (namely, as the work of this author,) by his contemporaries in the age in which he lived; and that the same contemporaries in the age in which the author lived could hardly be deceived in ascribing it to him. But this matter is best supported by instances. We of this age and

country know that such a particular History of England was written by Hume: we know it, because it bears his name, or because he mentions himself as the author in the ending of the work, or without these, it is universally imputed to him, and he sits quiet under the imputation of it. Now the generation which comes next, after we and he are all dead and gone, will believe and know that it is Hume's History; for they will know that we, the predecessors, who were contemporaries of the author, believed it to be written by him, and that this belief of ours, for the reasons above-mentioned, could hardly be mistaken. Their opinion is founded upon what they know to have been ours, and the next generation upon theirs and this point-who is the author of the books?—when it is once public, and notorious, and agreed upon, is not much altered or diminished in its evidence by length of time. So far as I can see, it will be as certain, or nearly so, three hundred years hence, that Milton was the author of the poem, as it is now; that Cicero was the author of the Orations will be just as evident to the next generation as to this, and to a thousand generations after the next. And this is the general evidence, supposing there was nothing but credit and general reputation to go upon-which tradition and reputation, as to the authors of books, do not often deceive us and we desire no other credit upon this point to the books of Scripture than to any other.

par

But besides the general evidence, founded upon the general tradition, there is also a vast quantity of ticular testimony, that is, the certainty of other very ancient books existing, especially asserting the books of Scripture to be authenticated and of undoubted authority, and quoting passages from them as such.

We have a great many books written, some fourteen or fifteen, some sixteen hundred years ago; some by disciples of the apostles; others by their disciples; which speak of four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles, not only as credible and excellent, but as never disputed, and such as never had been disputed; as equal to the oracles of the Old Testament, as divinely inspired, as the words of the Spirit, the law and the oracles of God; the rule of faith, which cannot be contradicted without great guilt; with many other expressions of the like kind. This is direct testimony. But there is a species of testimony which is not direct, but quite as satisfactory, if not more so: it is this:when ancient writers quote texts and passages of the Scripture either noting the author, or the book without the author, or neither-but borrowing the expression as being that of authors applicable to the argument :now such quotations prove to an absolute certainty, both that the books so used and so borrowed existed at the time, and were attributed to the author at the time, whenever the author is mentioned, and were received as books of authority, at least, in the opinion of the person who makes the quotation. If Hume, in his History, quotes a passage from Scripture, or Lord Clarendon's History, it is as full a demonstration a thousand years hence, if both histories live so long, that Clarendon's History was written at the time, and was acknowledged to be Clarendon's History, and was as such acknowledged, and believed, and received as a history of authority :and this is the very sort of demonstration in which we abound; for there are more quotations of the single Gospel of Saint Matthew, in old books written within 150 years after the resurrection of Christ, than there