of eminence, are styled Evangelists. Great pains have indeed been taken to endeavor to prove that some spurious pieces were published under the names of the apostles, containing the history of these things. But all these have been confuted, and the vile assertors stigmatized with that contempt their false asseverations justly deserved. And we are sure he must be very little acquainted with the ancient ecclesiastical writers who does not know that the primitive. Christians made a great difference between those writings, which we call the canonical books of the New Testament, and others; which plainly shews that they did not judge of writings merely by the names of their pretended authors, but inquired with an accuracy becoming the importance of these pretences. The result of this inquiry was, that the four Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul, one of St. Peter, and one of St. John, were received upon such evidence, that Eusebius, a most accurate and early critic in these things, could not learn that they had ever been disputed. And afterwards the remaining books of the New Testament, namely, Hebrews,-James,-the second of Peter,-the second and third of John, Jude,-and the Revelations, were admitted as genuine, and added to the rest. On the whole it is sufficiently plain, that the primitive Christians were so thoroughly satisfied of the authority of the sacred books; that they speak of them, not only as credible and authentic, but as equal to the oracles of the Old Testament, as divinely inspired, as the word of the Spirit, as the law and organ of God, and as the rule of faith, which cannot be contradicted without the greatest guilt; with many other expressions of the same kind, which often occur in their discourses. To which we may add, that in some of their councils the New Testament was placed on a throne, to signify their desire that all their controversies might be determined, and their actions regulated by it.

From the whole, therefore it is plain, that the primitive church did receive certain pieces which bore the same titles with the books of our New Testament. Now we think it is evident, that they were as capable of judging whether a book was written by Matthew, John, or Paul, as the ancient Romans could be of determining whether Horace, Tully, or Livy, wrote those which go under their names. And certainly the interest of the former was much more concerned in the writings of the apostles, than that of the latter in the compositions of their poets, orators, or even their historians; and there is reason to believe they would take much greater care to inform themselves fully in the merits of the cause, and to avoid being imposed upon by artifice and fiction. Let us now proceed to shew,

4. That the books of the New Testament have been preserved in the main uncorrupted to the present time, in the original language in which they were written.

This is a matter of the last importance; and, blessed be God, we have a proportional evidence: an evidence in which the hand of Providence has indeed been remarkably seen; for it is certain there is no other ancient book in the world, which may so certainly and so easily be proved to be authentic.

And here we will not argue merely from the piety of the primitive Christians, and the heroic actions and resolutions with which they chose to endure the greatest extremities, rather than deliver up their Bibles, though that consideration is evidently of the greatest weight; but shall entreat our readers to consider the utter improbability of altering them. From the first ages they were received and read in churches, as a part of their public worship, just as Moses and the prophets were in the Jewish synagogues; they were presently spread far and near, as the boundaries of the church were increased; they were early translated into other languages, of which translations some remain to this very day. Now, when this was the case, how could they be adulterated? Is it a thing to be supposed and imagined, that thousands and millions of people should have come together from distant countries; and that with all the diversities of language and customs, and, it may be added, of sentiments, too, they should have agreed on corrupting a book, which they all acknowledged to be the rule of their faith and their manners, and the great charter by which they held their eternal hopes? It would be madness to believe it, especially when we consider what numbers of heretics appeared in the very infancy of the church, who all pretended to build their notions on Scripture, and most of them appealed to it as the final judge of controversies. Now it is certain, that these different sects of Christians were a perpetual guard upon each other, and rendered it impossible for one party to practise thus grossly on the sacred books, without the discovery and clamor of the rest.

Nor must we omit to observe, that in every age, from the apostles' time to our own, there have been numberless quotations made from the books of the New Testament; and a multitude of commentaries in various languages, and some of very ancient date, have been written upon them; so that if the books themselves were lost, they might, in a great measure, if not entirely, be recovered from the writings of others. And we may venture to say, that if all the quotations ever made from all the ancient writings now in Europe were gathered together, the bulk of them would by no means be comparable to that of the quotations taken from the New Testament alone. So that any

man might with much better reason dispute whether the writings ascribed to Homer, Demothenes, Virgil, or Cæsar, be in the main such as they left them, than he could question it concerning those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, and Paul.

It may be said in the main, because we readily allow, that the hand of a printer, or of a transcriber, might chance, in some places, to insert one letter or word for another; and the various readings of this, as well as all other ancient books; prove that this has sometimes been the case. But those various readings are generally of such little importance, that he who can urge them as an objection against the assertion we are now maintaining, must have little judgment, or little integrity; and, indeed, after those excellent things which have been said on the subject by many defenders of Christianity, he must, if he has read their writings, have little modesty too.

Since then it appears that the books in the New Testament, as they now stand in the original, are, without any material alteration, such as they were when they came from the hands of the sacred authors, nothing remains to complete this part of the argument, but to shew,

5. That the translation of them now in common use may be depended upon, as, in all particulars, agreeable to the original.

This is a fact of which the generality of readers are not able to judge immediately, though it is of the last importance; it is, therefore, with great pleasure we reflect, how ample evidence they may have another way, to make their mind easy on this head. We mean by the concurrent testimony of others, in circumstances in which it cannot be imagined they would unite to deceive them.

There are few who preach the Gospel of the Son of God, but have examined this matter with the greatest care, and are able to judge in so easy a case; and who will all unanimously declare, that the common English translation is in the main faithful and judicious. We do not, indeed, scruple, on some occasions, to animadvert upon it; but these remarks never affect the fundamentals of religion, and seldom reach any further than the beauty of a figure, or the connexion of an argument.

But the argument does not wholly rest on the unanimous suffrages of the teachers of the Gospel. The different sects of protestants in this kingdom bear witness to this truth. For it is certain, that where a body of men dissent from the public establishment, and yet agree with the church from which they dissent, in using the same translation, though they are capable of examining and judging of it, it is as great evidence as can be desired, that such a translation is right in the main. But the dissenters unanimously unite with us in bearing testimony to

the oracle of God, as delivered in our own language: and consequently our translation may be depended upon.

Thus have I finished the first part of my argument, and shewn that the Christian religion is certainly true, and that the New Testament is genuine. I shall next proceed to shew,

II. That from allowing the New Testament to be genuine, it will undeniably follow, that Christianity is a divine revela

tion.

And here a person is at first ready to be lost in the multiplicity of arguments which surround him. It is very easy to find proofs, but difficult to range and dispose them in such an order as best to illustrate and confirm each other. We shall therefore offer them in the following natural series.

The authors of the books contained in the New Testament were certainly capable of judging concerning the truth of the facts they asserted: their characters, so far as we can judge of them by their writings, render them worthy of regard; and they were under no temptation to attempt imposing on the world by such relations as they have given us, if they had been false. Nevertheless, it is certain in fact, they did gain credit, and succeeded in a most amazing manner, against all opposition. It is therefore certain, that the facts which they asserted were true; and if they were true, then it was reasonable for their contemporaries, and it is reasonable for us, to receive the Gospel as a divine revelation; especially if we consider what has happened to the world for the confirmation of it, since first propagated by them. This is the conclusion to which we must attend; and therefore let us seriously consider each of the steps by which we arrive at it.

It is exceedingly evident, that the writers of the New Testament certainly knew the facts they asserted were true.

senses.

And this they must have known, for this plain reason: because they inform us, they did not trust merely to the report even of persons whom they thought most credible, but were present themselves when several of the most important facts happened; and so received them on the testimony of their own On this St. John, in his first epistle, ch. i. ver. 1-3, lays a very great and reasonable stress: "That which we have seen with our eyes;" and that not only by a sudden glance but "which we have attentively looked upon, and which even our hands have handled, of the word of life :" i. e. of Christ and his Gospel, declare we unto you.

Let the common sense of mankind judge here. Did not Matthew and John certainly know whether they had personally, and familiarly, conversed with Jesus of Nazareth or not? Whether he had chosen them for his constant attendants and apostles? Whether they had seen him heal the sick, dispossess

devils, and raise the dead? And whether they themselves had received from him such miraculous endowments as they declare he bestowed upon them? Did they not know whether he fell into the hands of his enemies, and was publicly put to death or not? Did not John know whether he saw him expiring on the cross or not? and whether he received from him a dying charge, which he records, ch. xix. ver. 27? Did he not know whether he saw him wounded in the side with a spear or not? and whether he did, or did not see the effusion of blood and water, which was an infallible argument of his being really dead? Concerning which, it being so material a circumstance, he adds, "He that saw it bare record; and he knoweth that he saith true; i. e. that it was a case in which he could not possibly be deceived. And with regard to Christ's resurrection, did he not certainly know whether he saw our Lord again and again; and whether he handled his body, that he might be sure it was not a mere phantom? What one circumstance of his life could he certainly know if he were mistaken in this?

Did not Luke know whether he was in the ship with Paul when that extraordinary wreck happened, by which they were thrown ashore on the island of Malta? Did he not know whether, while they were lodged together in the governor's house, Paul miraculously healed one of the family, and many other diseased persons in the island, as he positively asserts that he did in Acts xxviii.?

Did not Paul certainly know whether Christ appeared to him on the way to Damascus or not? whether he was blind; and afterwards, on the prayer of a fellow disciple, received his sight? or was that a circumstance in which there could be room for mistake? Did he not know whether he received such extraordiary revelations and extraordinary powers, as to be able, by the laying on of his hands, or by the words of his mouth, to work miracles?

To add no more: Did not Peter know whether he saw the glory of Christ's transfiguration, and heard that voice to which he so expressly refers, when he says, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty, when there came such a voice to him; and this voice we heard?" 2 Peter, i. 16-18.

Now Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter, are by far the most considerable writers of the New Testament; and surely when we reflect on these particulars, we must own that there are few historians, ancient or modern, that could so certainly judge of the truth of the facts which they have related. The reason why we have enlarged in stating so clear a case is, that it is the foundation of the whole argument; and that this branch of it alone, cuts off infidels from that refuge which they would