far distant Roman provinces, forsook ancient religions, and embraced the new. These multitudes must therefore have had what they supposed to be very strong evidence in support of the gospel. What evidence this was, and what opportunities they had of canvassing it, will be matter of inquiry in the next lecture.

LECTURE XIX.

EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

It was shown, in the last lecture, that Jews and Gentiles were so far from being predisposed to embrace Christianity, that the prejudices of both against it, must have been numerous and violent.

We proceed to show, 1. That Jesus of Nazareth, and his apostles professed to give the evidence of miracles in proof of the religion which they taught. 2. That all who received this religion, must have believed that such miracles were wrought. 3. I shall endeavor to show, that the miracles thus pretended, and thus believed, were in fact, wrought.

In discoursing on the subject before us, I consider it as of little importance to define the term miracle; as it would, at the present day, be allowed by those who doubt, or reject Christianity, that the works attributed to Christ and his apostles, such as the curing of the blind and deaf, and the raising of the dead, whether we express those works by the term miracle, or any other, were sufficient, if in fact they occurred, to establish the divine commission of those who performed them. It is generally, I believe universally, conceded, that if the accounts which the evangelists give of the resurrection of Lazarus and of Jesus Christ, be true, the religion connected with these accounts, can no longer be denied. The stand taken by infidels, is to deny that the works which the evangelists relate were ever wrought.

Having made these few remarks, we proceed, as was proposed, to show, 1. That Jesus Christ and his apostles professed

to give the evidence of miracles or mighty works, such as curing diseases, and raising the dead, etc., in proof of that religion which they taught.

As Christ professed to come in the character of him whom the prophets called Messiah, it was absolutely necessary, that he should profess to perform the works which the prophets. attributed to Messiah. Now, the prophecies attribute to Messiah miraculous powers; particularly specifying the works which this illustrious personage should perform. It follows of course, that Jesus of Nazareth must have professed the power of performing these works.

As we have shown the prejudices of the Jews against Christianity to have been strong and numerous, we have inferred, that the evidence in support of it must have been of a very peculiar kind, to procure their assent. We cannot conceive any evidence of this peculiar nature, unless it arose from miracles or prophecy; the former of which, would have been at any particular time, more striking than the latter; and at least, as credible in the view of sceptics.

Celsus, who wrote against the Christian religion about a century after the gospels were published, attributes the miracles of Jesus to magic. Certainly he would not have made this concession, as to the fact, unless claims to a miraculous power had been set up by the author and propagators of this religion. That an enemy of Christianity should allow that miracles were wrought in its favor, when its friends pretended no such thing, is certainly incredible.

Having exhibited this evidence, which is independent of the truth of revealed religion, to prove that Christ and his apostles professed to establish their religion on the ground of miracles, it cannot be improper to show how well those addresses, attributed to them by the writers of the New Testament, correspond with this account. If they did profess miraculous powers, as the nature of the case and the concession of Celsus unite in showing, it is reasonable to presume, that the mighty works, performed either by their master or themselves, would VOL. I.

37

be appealed to, whenever they addressed the people on the subject of the new religion.

That Christ himself professed to work miracles is asserted in a passage already quoted: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Again: The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. Peter is reported to have begun his address, on the day of Pentecost, in the following words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you. In another address, attributed to the same person, we find this language: Ye have killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we all are witnesses. Here, you see, the miraculous event of Christ's resurrection is asserted, and the person speaking professes to be a witness of it. The same apostle, in preaching to Cornelius and his company, is further represented as declaring: How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and at Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly.

Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, places the whole truth of the gospel on the event of Christ's resurrection: If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God, that he raised up Christ.

2. It requires little effort to prove our next proposition; viz. that all who received this religion, must have believed that the miracles asserted, were in fact wrought.

Miracles, we have seen, constituted a kind of evidence, to which Christ and his apostles continually appealed. They did not desire that men should receive them as teachers sent from God, if they performed not such miracles as none could perform merely by human power. That any person should have believed them divinely sent, at the same time believing that

they failed in that very evidence, on which they rested their whole claim to a divine mission, is a supposition palpably absurd. How could they have been viewed as messengers of divine truth, by those who knew that they pretended to work miracles, but failed in the attempt? When Jesus said: If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not, surely he would have been taken at his word; and all who were not convinced of his mighty works, must have rejected his religion. When Paul consented expressly to be taken for a false witness of God, if his Master were not risen from the dead, do you believe that any person, rejecting the fact of our Saviour's resurrection, could have regarded Paul, as a true witness; and could have been willing to forego his pleasures, counteract his prejudices, and meet the world in opposition, from a regard to the doctrines of Paul? No. If, after making such appeals, they wrought no miracles, they ought in conscience to have been treated, either as men the most depraved, or the most bewildered.

3. The next object of this lecture is to show that the miracles, which Christ and his apostles professed to work, and on the ground of which, the gospel was believed, were indeed wrought.

This gospel was first proclaimed at the place where, and at the time when, these mighty works were said to have been wrought. These facts are of great consequence. If the new religion had been first preached in some place far distant from that in which its author was said to have performed his miracles, especially on supposition of there being little intercourse between the two places, deception would have been much less improbable than it could be, as circumstances actually were. Were we informed of an uncommon event now occurring in some place on the western coast of America, it is evident that our opportunities of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the report would be far less than theirs, in whose village the extraordinary occurrence is said to have happened. If the gospel had not been first preached in Judea, but in Asia Minor, or Greece, by persons who did not themselves perform supernatural works, it would have been a very natural inquiry, Why this new religion