CHAP. I.
There is ſatisfactory evidence that many, pro⯑feſſing to be original witneſſes of the Chriſ⯑tian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers and ſufferings, voluntarily under⯑gone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted from the ſame motives to new rules of conduct.

To ſupport this propoſition two points are neceſſary to be made out: firſt, that the founder of the inſtitution, his aſſociates and immediate followers, acted the part which the propoſition imputes to them: ſecondly, that they did ſo, in atteſtation of the mira⯑culous hiſtory recorded in our ſcriptures, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of this hiſtory.

Before we produce any particular teſtimony [20] to the activity and ſufferings which compoſe the ſubject of our firſt aſſertion, it will be proper to conſider the degree of pro⯑bability which the aſſertion derives from the nature of the caſe, that is, by inferences from thoſe parts of the caſe which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknowledged.

Firſt then, the Chriſtian religion exiſts, and therefore by ſome means or other was eſtabliſhed. Now it either owes the princi⯑ple of its eſtabliſhment, i. e. its firſt publica⯑tion, to the activity of the perſon who was the founder of the inſtitution, and of thoſe who were joined with him in the undertak⯑ing, or we are driven upon the ſtrange ſup⯑poſition, that, although they might lie by, others would take it up; although they were quiet and ſilent, other perſons buſied them⯑ſelves in the ſucceſs and propagation of their ſtory. This is perfectly incredible. To me it appears little leſs than certain, that, if the firſt announcing of the religion by the founder had not been followed up by the zeal and induſtry of his immediate diſciples, [21] the attempt muſt have expired in its birth. Then as to the kind and degree of exertion which was employed, and the mode of life to which theſe perſons ſubmitted, we rea⯑ſonably ſuppoſe it to be like that, which we obſerve in all others who voluntarily be⯑come miſſionaries of a new faith. Frequent, earneſt and laborious preaching, conſtantly converſing with religious perſons upon reli⯑gion, a ſequeſtration from the common pleaſures, engagements and varieties of life, and an addiction to one ſerious object, com⯑poſe the habits of ſuch men. I do not ſay that this mode of life is without enjoy⯑ment, but I ſay that the enjoyment ſprings from ſincerity. With a conſciouſneſs at the bottom of hollowneſs and falſehood, the fatigue and reſtraint would become in⯑ſupportable. I am apt to believe that very few hypocrites engage in theſe undertak⯑ings; or, however, perſiſt in them long. Ordinarily ſpeaking, nothing can overcome the indolence of mankind, the love which is natural to moſt tempers of chearful ſociety and chearful ſcenes, or the deſire, which is [22] common to all, of perſonal eaſe and freedom, but conviction.

Secondly, it is alſo highly probable, from the nature of the caſe, that the propagation of the new religion was attended with diſſi⯑culty and danger. As addreſſed to the Jews it was a ſyſtem, adverſe not only to their habitual opinions, but to thoſe opinions upon which their hopes, their partialities, their pride, their conſolation was founded. This people, with or without reaſon, had worked themſelves into a perſuaſion, that ſome ſignal and greatly advantageous change was to be effected in the condition of their country, by the agency of a long⯑promiſed meſſenger from heaven ^*. The rulers of the Jews, their leading ſect, their [23] prieſthood had been the authors of this per⯑ſuaſion to the common people. So that it was not merely the conjecture of theoretical divines, or the ſecret expectation of a few recluſe devotees, but it was become the popular hope and paſſion, and, like all po⯑pular opinions, undoubting, and impatient of contradiction. They clung to this hope under every misfortune of their country, and with more tenacity as their dangers or calamities increaſed. To find therefore that expectations ſo gratifying were to be worſe than diſappointed; that they were to end in the diffuſion of a mild unambitious reli⯑gion, which, inſtead of victories and tri⯑umphs, inſtead of exalting their nation and inſtitution above the reſt of the world, was to advance thoſe whom they deſpiſed to an equality with themſelves, in thoſe very points of compariſon in which they moſt valued their own diſtinction, could be no very pleaſing diſcovery to a Jewiſh mind; nor could the meſſengers of ſuch intelligence expect to be well received or eaſily credited. The doctrine was equally harſh and novel. [24] The extending of the kingdom of God to thoſe who did not conform to the law of Moſes, was a notion that had never before entered into the thoughts of a Jew.

The character of the new inſtitution was, in other reſpects alſo, ungrateful to Jewiſh habits and principles. Their own religion was in a high degree technical. Even the enlightened Jew placed a great deal of ſtreſs upon the ceremonies of his law, ſaw in them a great deal of virtue and efficacy; the groſs and vulgar had ſcarcely any thing elſe; and the hypocritical and oſtentatious magnified them above meaſure, as being the inſtruments of their own reputation and in⯑fluence. The Chriſtian ſcheme, without formally repealing the Levitical code, low⯑ered its eſtimation extremely. In the place of ſtrictneſs and zeal in performing the ob⯑ſervances which that code preſcribed, or which tradition had added to it, the new ſect preached up faith, well-regulated affections, inward purity and moral rectitude of diſpo⯑ſition, as the true ground, on the part of the [25] worſhlpper, of merit and acceptance with God. This, however rational it may appear, or recommending to us at preſent, did not by any means facilitate the plan then. On the contrary, to diſparage thoſe qualities which the higheſt characters in the country valued themſelves moſt upon, was a ſure way of making powerful enemies. As if the fruſtration of the national hope was not enough, the long-eſteemed merit of ritual zeal and punctuality was to be decried, and that by Jews preaching to Jews.

The ruling party at Jeruſalem had juſt before crucified the founder of the religion. That is a fact which will not be diſputed. They therefore who ſtood forth to preach the religion, muſt neceſſarily reproach theſe rulers with an execution, which they could not but repreſent as an unjuſt and cruel murder. This would not render their office more eaſy, or their ſituation more ſafe.

With regard to the interference of the [26] Roman government which was then eſta⯑bliſhed in Judea, I ſhould not expect, that, deſpiſing, as it did, the religion of the coun⯑try, it would, if left to itſelf, animadvert, either with much vigilance, or much ſeve⯑rity, upon the ſchiſms and controverſies which aroſe within it. Yet there was that in Chriſtianity which might eaſily afford a handle of accuſation with a jealous govern⯑ment. The Chriſtians avowed an unquali⯑fied obedience to a new maſter. They avowed alſo that he was the perſon who had been foretold to the Jews under the ſuſpect⯑ed title of King. The ſpiritual nature of this kingdom, the conſiſtency of this obedi⯑ence with civil ſubjection, were diſtinctions too refined to be entertained by a Roman preſident, who viewed the buſineſs at a great diſtance, or through the medium of very hoſtile repreſentations. Our hiſtories ac⯑cordingly inform us, that this was the turn which the enemies of Jeſus gave to his cha⯑racter and pretenſions in their remonſtrances with Pontius Pilate. And Juſtin Martyr, about a hundred years afterwards, complains [27] that the ſame miſtake prevailed in his time; "ye having heard that we are waiting for a kingdom, ſuppoſe, without diſtinguiſhing, that we mean a human kingdom, when in truth we ſpeak of that which is with God ^*." And it was undoubtedly a natural ſource of calumny and miſconſtruction.

The preachers therefore of Chriſtianity had to contend with prejudice, backed by power. They had to come forward to a diſappointed people, to a prieſthood poſ⯑ſeſſing a conſiderable ſhare of municipal au⯑thority, and actuated by ſtrong motives of oppoſition and reſentment; and they had to do this under a foreign government, to whoſe favour they made no pretenſions, and which was conſtantly ſurrounded by their enemics. The well known, becauſe the experienced, fate of reformers, whenever the reformation ſubverts ſome reigning opinion, and does not proceed upon a change already taken place in the ſentiments of a country, will [28] not allow, much leſs lead us, to ſuppoſe, that the firſt propagators of Chriſtianity at Jeruſalem and in Judea, with the difficulties and the enemies which they had to contend with, and entirely deſtitute, as they were, of force, authority or protection, could exe⯑cute their miſſion with perſonal eaſe and ſafety.

Let us next enquire what might reaſon⯑ably be expected by the preachers of Chriſtianity when they turned themſelves to the heathen public. Now the firſt thing that ſtrikes us is, that the religion they car⯑ried with them was excluſive. It denied without reſerve the truth of every article of heathen mythology, the exiſtence of every object of their worſhip. It accepted no compromiſe: it admitted no comprehenſion. It muſt prevail, if it prevailed at all, by the overthrow of every ſtatue, altar and temple, in the world. It will not eaſily be credited that a deſign, ſo bold as this was, could in any age be attempted to be carried into exe⯑cution with impunity.

[29] For it ought to be conſidered, that this was not ſetting forth, or magnifying the character and worſhip of ſome new com⯑petitor for a place in the Pantheon, whoſe pretenſions might be diſcuſſed or afferted without queſtioning the reality of any others. It was pronouncing all other gods to be falſe, and all other worſhip vain. From the facility with which the Polytheiſm of an⯑cient nations admitted new objects of wor⯑ſhip into the number of their acknowledged divinities, or the patience with which they might entertain propoſals of this kind, we can argue nothing as to their toleration of a ſyſtem, or of the publiſhers and active propagators of a ſyſtem, which ſwept away the very foundation of the exiſting eſtabliſh⯑ment. The one was nothing more than what it would be, in Popiſh countries, to add a ſaint to the calendar; the other was to aboliſh and tread under foot the calendar itſelf.

Secondly, it ought alſo to be conſidered, that this was not the caſe of philoſophers [30] propounding in their books, or in their ſchools, doubts concerning the truth of the popular creed, or even avowing their diſ⯑belief of it. Theſe philoſophers did not go about from place to place to collect proſelytes from amongſt the common-people; to form in the heart of the country ſocieties profeſſ⯑ing their tenets; to provide for the order, inſtruction and permanency of theſe ſocie⯑ties; nor did they enjoin their followers to withdraw themſelves from the public wor⯑ſhip of the temples, or refuſe a compliance with rites inſtituted by the laws ^*. Theſe things are what the Chriſtians did, and what the philoſophers did not: and in theſe con⯑ſiſted the activity and danger of the en⯑terpriſe.

Thirdly, it ought alſo to be conſidered, [31] that this danger proceeded not merely from ſolemn acts and public reſolutions of the ſtate, but from ſudden burſts of violence at particular places, from the licence of the po⯑pulace, the raſhneſs of ſome magiſtrates and the negligence of others, from the influence and inſtigation of intereſted adverſaries, and, in general, from the variety and warmth of opinion which an errand ſo novel and ex⯑traordinary could not fail of exciting. I can conceive that the teachers of Chriſtianity might both fear and ſuſſer much from theſe cauſes, without any general perſecution be⯑ing denouncedag a inſt them by imperial au⯑thority. Some length of time, I ſhould ſup⯑poſe, might paſs, before the vaſt machine of the Roman empire would be put in mo⯑tion, or its attention be obtained to religious controverſy; but, during that time, a great deal of ill uſage might be endured, by a ſet of friendleſs, unprotected travellers, telling men, wherever they came, that the religion of their anceſtors, the religion in which they had been brought up, the religion of [32] the ſtate and of the magiſtrate, the rites which they frequented, the pomp which they admired, was throughout a ſyſtem of folly and deluſion.

Nor do I think that the teachers of Chriſ⯑tianity would ſind protection in that gene⯑ral diſbelief of the popular theology, which is ſuppoſed to have prevailed amongſt the intelligent part of the heathen public. It is by no means true that unbelievers are uſu⯑ally tolerant. They are not diſpoſed (and why ſhould they?) to endanger the preſent ſtate of things, by ſuffering a religion of which they believe nothing, to be diſturbed by another of which they believe as little. They are ready themſelves to conform to any thing; and are, oftentimes, amongſt the foremoſt to procure conformity from others, by any method which they think likely to be eſſicacious. When was ever a change of religion patronized by inſidels? How little, notwithſtanding the reigning ſcepticiſm, and the magnified liberality, of that age, the true [33] principles of toleration were underſtood by the wiſeſt men amongſt them, may be ga⯑thered from two eminent and unconteſted examples. The younger Pliny, poliſhed, as he was, by all the literature of that ſoft and elegant period, could gravely pronounce this monſtroiis judgment: "Thoſe, who perſiſted in declaring themſelves Chriſtians, I ordered to be led away to puniſhment (i. e. to execution), for I DID NOT DOUBT, whatever it was that they confeſſed, that contumacy and inflexible obſtinacy ought to be puniſhed." His maſter, Trajan, a mild and accompliſhed prince, went, nevertheleſs, no farther in his ſentiments of moderation and equity, than what appears in the following reſcript: "The Chriſtians are not to be ſought for; but if any are brought before you, and convicted, they are to be pu⯑niſhed." And this direction he gives, after it had been reported to him by his own preſident, that, by the moſt ſtrict examina⯑tion, nothing could be diſcovered in the principles of theſe perſons, but "a bad and exceſſive ſuperſtition," accompanied, it [34] ſeems, with an oath or mutual federation, "to allow themſelves in no crime or im⯑moral conduct whatever." The truth is, the ancient heathens conſidered religion en⯑tirely as an affair of ſtate, as much under the tuition of the magiſtrate as any other part of the police. The religion of that age was not merely allied to the ſtate: it was incorporated into it. Many of its of⯑fices were adminiſtered by the magiſtrate. Its titles of pontiffs, augurs, and flamens, were borne by ſenators, conſuls and gene⯑rals. Without diſcuſſing therefore the truth of the theology, they reſented every affront put upon the eſtabliſhed worſhip, as a di⯑rect oppoſition to the authority of govern⯑ment.

Add to which, that the religious ſyſtems of thoſe times, however ill ſupported by evidence, had been long eſtabliſhed. The ancient religion of a country has always many votaries, and ſometimes not the fewer becauſe its origin is hidden in remoteneſs and obſcurity. Men have a natural veneration [35] for antiquity, eſpecially in matters of religion. What Tacitus ſays of the Jewiſh, was more applicable to the heathen eſtabliſh⯑ment, "hi ritus, quoquo modo inducti, an⯑tiquitate defenduntur." It was alſo a ſplendid and ſumptuous worſhip. It had its prieſt⯑hood, its endowments, its temples. Statu⯑ary, painting, architecture, and muſic, con⯑tributed their effect to its ornament and magnificence. It abounded in feſtival ſhows and ſolemnities, to which the common peo⯑ple are greatly addicted; and which were of a nature to engage them much more than any thing of that ſort among us. Theſe things would retain great numbers on its ſide by the faſcination of ſpectacle and pomp, as well as intereſt many in its preſer⯑vation by the advantage which they drew from it. "It was moreover interwoven," as Mr. Gibbons rightly repreſ [...]t it, "with every circumſtance of buſineſs or pleaſure, of public or private life, with all the offices and amuſements of ſociety." Upon the due celebration alſo of its rites, the people were taught to believe, and did beli [...]ve, that the [36] proſperity of their country in a great mea⯑ſure depended.

I am willing to accept the account of the matter which is given by Mr. Gibbon: "The various modes of worſhip which pre⯑vailed in the Roman world, were all con⯑ſidered by the people as equally true, by the philoſophers as equally falſe, and by the magiſtrate as equally uſeful:" and I would aſk, from which of theſe three claſſes of men were the Chriſtian miſſionaries to look for protection or impunity? Could they expect it from the people, "whoſe ac⯑knowledged conſidence in the public reli⯑gion" they ſubverted from its foundation? from the philoſopher, who, "conſidering all religions as equally falſe," would of courſe rank theirs amongſt the number, with the addition of regarding them as buſy and troubleſome zealots? or from the magiſtrate, who, ſatisfied with the "utility" of the ſub⯑ſiſting religion, would not be likely to coun⯑tenance a ſpirit of proſelytiſm and innova⯑tion; a ſyſtem, which declared war againſt [37] every other, and which, if it prevailed, muſt end in a total rupture of public opi⯑nion; an upſtart religion, in a word, which was not content with its own authority, but muſt diſgrace all the ſettled religions of the world? It was not to be imagined that he would endure with patience, that the reli⯑gion of the emperor and of the ſtate ſhould be calumniated and borne down, by a com⯑pany of ſuperſtitious and deſpicable Jews.

Laſtly; the nature of the caſe affords a ſtrong proof, that the original teachers of Chriſtianity, in conſequence of their new profeſſion, entered upon a new and ſingular courſe of life. We may be allowed to pre⯑ſume, that the inſtitution which they preach⯑ed to others, they conformed to in their own perſons; becauſe this is no more than what every teacher of a new religion both does, and muſt do, in order to obtain either proſelytes or hearers. The change which this would produce was very conſiderable. It is a change which we do not eaſily eſti⯑mate, becauſe, ourſelves and all about us [38] being habituated to the inſtitution from our infancy, it is what we neither experience nor obſerve. After men became Chriſtians, much of their time was ſpent in prayer and devotion, in religious meetings, in celebrat⯑ing the euchariſt, in conferences, in exhor⯑tations, in preaching, in an affectionate in⯑tercourſe with one another, and correſpond⯑ence with other ſocieties. Perhaps their mode of life in its form and habit was not very unlike the Unitas Fratrum, or of mo⯑dern Methodiſts. Think then what it was to become ſuch at Corinth, at Epheſus, at Antioch, or even at Jeruſalem. How new! How aliene from all their former habits and ideas, and from thoſe of every body about them! What a revolution there muſt have been of opinions and prejudices to bring the matter to this!

We know what the precepts of the reli⯑gion are; how pure, how benevolent, how diſintereſted a conduct they enjoin; and that this purity and benevolence is extended to the very thoughts and affections. We [39] are not perhaps at liberty to take for granted, that the lives of the preachers of Chriſtianity were as perfect as their leſſons: but we are entitled to contend, that the ob⯑ſervable part of their behaviour muſt have agreed in a great meaſure with the duties which they taught. There was therefore, which is all that we aſſert, a courſe of life purſued by them, different from that which they before led. And this is of great im⯑portance. Men are brought to any thing almoſt ſooner than to change their habit of life, eſpecially, when the change is either inconvenient, or made againſt the force of natural inclination, or with the loſs of ac⯑cuſtomed indulgences. "It is the moſt dif⯑ficult of all things to convert men from vi⯑cious habits to virtuous ones, as every one may judge from what he ſeels in himſelf, as well as from what he ſees in others ^*." It is almoſt like making men over again.

Left then to myſelf, and without any [40] more information than a knowledge of the exiſtence of the religion, of the general ſtory upon which it is founded, and that no act of power, force, or authority, was con⯑cerned in its firſt ſucceſs, I ſhould conclude, from the very nature and exigency of the caſe, that the author of the religion during his life, and his immediate diſciples after his death, exerled themſelves in ſpreading and publiſhing the inſtitution throughout the country in which it began, and into which it was firſt carried; that, in the proſecution of this purpoſe, they underwent the labours and troubles, which we obſerve the propa⯑gators of new ſects to undergo: that the at⯑tempt muſt neceſſarily have alſo been in a high degree dangerous; that from the ſubject of the miſſion, compared with the fixed opi⯑nions and prejudices of thoſe to whom the miſſionaries were to addreſs themſelves, they could hardly fail of encountering ſtrong and ſrequent oppoſition; that, by the hand of government, as well as from the ſudden ſury and unbridled licence of the people, they would oftentimes experience injurious [41] and cruel treatment; that, at any rate, they muſt have always had ſo much to fear for their perſonal ſafety, as to have paſſed their lives in a ſtate of conſtant peril and anxi⯑ety; and laſtly, that their mode of life and conduct, viſibly at leaſt, correſponded with the inſtitution which they delivered, and ſo far, was both new, and required continual ſelf-denial.

CHAP. II.
There is ſatisfactory evidence, that many pro⯑feſſing to be original witneſſes of the Chriſ⯑tian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily under⯑gone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of theſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted from the ſame motive to new rules of conduct.

AFTER thus conſidering what was likely to happen, we are next to enquire how the tranſaction is repreſented in the ſeveral ac⯑counts that have come down to us. And this enquiry is properly preceded by the other, foraſmuch as the reception of theſe accounts may depend in part upon the cre⯑dibility of what they contain.

The obſcure and diſtant view of Chriſtianity, [43] which ſome of the heathen writers of that age had gained, and which a few paſ⯑ſages in their remaining works incidentally diſcover to us, offers itſelf to our notice in the firſt place: becauſe, ſo far as this evidence goes, it is the conceſſion of adverſaries; the ſource from which it is drawn is unſuſpected. Under this head a quotation from Tacitus, well known to every ſcholar, muſt be inſert⯑ed as deſerving of particular attention. The Reader will bear in mind that this paſſage was written about ſeventy years after Chriſt's death, and that it relates to tranſactions which took place about thirty years after that event. Speaking of the fire which hap⯑pened at Rome in the time of Nero, and of the ſuſpicions which were entertained that the emperor himſelf was concerned in cauſ⯑ing it, the hiſtorian proceeds in his narrative and obſervations thus:

Our concern with this paſſage at preſent is only ſo far, as it affords a preſumption in ſupport of the propoſition which we main⯑tain, concerning the activity and ſufferings [46] of the firſt teachers of Chriſtianity. Now, conſidered in this view, it proves three things: 1ſt, that the founder of the inſtitution was put to death; 2dly, that, in the ſame country in which he was put to death, the religion, after a ſhort check, broke out again and ſpread; 3dly, that it ſo ſpread, as that, within thirty-four years from the author's death, a very great number of Chriſtians (ingens eorum multitudo) were found at Rome. From which fact, the two follow⯑ing inferences may be fairly drawn: firſt, that, if, in the ſpace of thirty-four years from its commencement, the religion had ſpread throughout Judea, had extended it⯑ſelf to Rome, and there had numbered a great multitude of converts, the original teachers and miſſionaries of the inſtitution could not have been idle; ſecondly, that when the author of the undertaking was put to death as a malefactor for his attempt, the endeavours of his followers to eſtabliſh his religion, in the ſame country, amongſt the ſame people, and in the ſame age, could not but be attended with danger.

[47] Suetonius, a writer contemporary with Tacitus, deſcribing the tranſactions of the ſame reign, uſes theſe words, "Affecti ſuppli⯑ciis Chriſtiani, genus hominum ſuperſtitionis novae et maleſicae ^*." "The Chriſtians, a ſet of men, of a new and miſchievous (or magi⯑cal) ſuperſtition, were puniſhed."

Since it is not mentioned here that the burning of the city was the pretence of the puniſhment of the Chriſtians, or that they were the Chriſtians of Rome who alone ſuffered, it is probable that Suetonius refers to ſome more general perſecution than the ſhort and occaſional one which Tacitus de⯑ſcribes.

Juvenal, a writer of the ſame age with the two former, and intending, as it ſhould ſeem, to commemorate the cruelties exerciſed un⯑der Nero's government, has the following lines ^†:

If this paſſage were conſidered by itſelf, the ſubject of the alluſion might be doubt⯑ful; but when connected with the teſtimony of Suetonius, as to the actual puniſhment of the Chriſtians by Nero; and with the ac⯑count given by Tacitus of the ſpecies of puniſhment which they were made to un⯑dergo; I think it ſufficiently probable, that theſe were the executions to which the poet refers.

Theſe things, as hath already been obſerved, [49] took place within thirty-one years after Chriſt's death, that is, according to the courſe of nature, in the life-time, probably, of ſome of the apoſtles, and certainly in the life-time of thoſe who were converted by the apoſtles, or who were converted in their time. If then the founder of the religion was put to death in the execution of his de⯑ſign; if the firſt race of converts to the reli⯑gion, many of them ſuffered the greateſt extremities for their profeſſion; it is hardly credible, that thoſe who came between the two, who were companions of the author of the inſtitution during his life, and the teachers and propagators of the inſtitution after his death, could go about their undertaking with eaſe and ſafety.

The teſtimony of the younger Pliny be⯑longs to a later period; for although he was contemporary with Tacitus and Suetonius, yet his account does not, like theirs, go back to the tranſactions of Nero's reign, but is confined to the affairs of his own time. His celebrated letter to Trajan was written [50] about ſeventy years after Chriſt's death; and the information to be drawn from it; ſo far as it is connected with our argument, relates principally to two points: firſt, to the number of Chriſtians in Bithynia and Pontus, which was ſo conſiderable as to in⯑duce the governor of theſe provinces to ſpeak of them in the following terms, "Multi, omnis aetatis, utriuſque ſexûs etiam—neque enim civitates tantum, ſed vicos etiam et agros, ſuperſtitionis iſtius contagio pervagata eſt." "There are many of every age and of both ſexes—nor has the contagion of this ſuperſtition ſeized cities only, but ſmaller towns alſo, and the open country." Great exertions muſt have been uſed by the preachers of Chriſtianity to produce this ſtate of things within this time. Se⯑condly, to a point which hath been already noticed, and which I think of importance to be obſerved, namely, the ſufferings to which Chriſtians were expoſed, without any public perſecution being denounced againſt them by ſovereign authority. For, from Pliny's doubt how he was to act, his ſilence [51] concerning any ſubſiſting law upon the ſub⯑ject, his requeſting the emperor's reſcript, and the emperor, agreeably to his requeſt, propounding a rule for his direction, with⯑out reference to any prior rule, it may be inferred, that there was, at that time, no public edict againſt the Chriſtians in force. Yet from this ſame epiſtle of Pliny it ap⯑pears "that accuſations, trials and examina⯑tions were, and had been, going on againſt them, in the provinces over which he pre⯑ſided; that ſchedules were delivered by anonymous informers, containing the names of perſons who were ſuſpected of holding or of favouring the religion; that, in con⯑ſequence of theſe informations, many had been apprehended, of whom ſome boldly avowed their profeſſion, and died in the cauſe; others denied that they were Chriſ⯑tians; others, acknowledging that they had once been Chriſtians, declared that they had long ceaſed to be ſuch." All which demon⯑ſtrates, that the profeſſion of Chriſtianity was at that time (in that country at leaſt) attended with fear and danger: and yet this [52] took place without any edict from the Roman ſovereign, commanding or authoriz⯑ing the perſecution of Chriſtians. This ob⯑ſervation is farther conſirmed by a reſcript of Adrian to Minucius Fundanus, the pro⯑conſul of Aſia ^*: from which reſcript it ap⯑pears that the cuſtom of the people of Aſia was to proceed againſt the Chriſtians with tumult and uproar. This diſorderly practice, I ſay, is recognized in the edict, becauſe the emperor enjoins, that, for the future, if the Chriſtians were guilty they ſhould be legally brought to trial, and not be purſued by im⯑portunity and clamour.

Martial wrote a few years before the younger Pliny; and, as his manner was, made the ſufferings of the Chriſtians the ſubject of his ridicule ^†. Nothing however [53] could ſhew the notoriety of the fact with more certainty than this does. Martial's teſtimony, as well indeed as Pliny's, goes alſo to another point, viz. that the deaths of theſe men were martyrdoms in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, that is to ſay, were ſo voluntary, that it was in their power, at the time of pro⯑nouncing the ſentence, to have averted the execution, by conſenting to join in heathen ſacriſices.

The conſtancy, and by conſequence the ſufferings, of the Chriſtians of this period, is alſo referred to by Epictetus, who imputes their intrepidity to madneſs, or to a kind of faſhion or habit; and about fifty years af⯑terwards, by Marcus Aurelius, who aſcribes it to obſtinacy. "Is it poſſible (Epictetus aſks) that a man may arrive at this temper, and become indifferent to thoſe things, from [54] madneſs or from habit, as the Galileans ^*?" "Let this preparation of the mind (to die) ariſe from its own judgment, and not from obſtinacy like the Chriſtians ^†."

CHAP. III.
There is ſatisfactory evidence, that many pro⯑feſſing to be original witneſſes of the Chriſ⯑tian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily under⯑gone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted from the ſame motive to new rules of conduct.

OF the primitive condition of Chriſtianity, a diſtant only and general view can be ac⯑quired from heathen writers. It is in our own books that the detail and interior of the tranſaction muſt be ſought for. And this is nothing different from what might be ex⯑pected. Who would write a hiſtory of Chriſtianity but a Chriſtian? Who was likely to record the travels, ſufferings, labours, or ſucceſſes of the apoſtles, but one of their own number, or of their followers? Now [56] theſe books come up in their accounts to the full extent of the propoſition which we maintain. We have four hiſtories of Jeſus Chriſt. We have a hiſtory taking up the narrative from his death, and carrying on an account of the propagation of the religion, and of ſome of the moſt eminent perſons en⯑gaged in it, for a ſpace of nearly thirty years. We have, what ſome may think ſtill more original, a collection of letters, written by certain principal agents in the buſineſs, upon the buſineſs, and in the midſt of their con⯑cern and connection with it. And we have theſe writings ſeverally atteſting the point which we contend for, viz. the ſufferings of the witneſſes of the hiſtory, and atteſting it in every variety of form in which it can be conceived to appear; directly and indirect⯑ly, expreſsly and incidentally, by aſſertion, recital, and alluſion, by narratives of facts, and by arguments and diſcourſes built upon theſe facts, either referring to them, or ne⯑ceſſarily preſuppoſing them.

I remark this variety, becauſe in examining [57] ancient records, or indeed any ſpecies of teſtimony, it is, in my opinion, of the greateſt importance to attend to the informa⯑tion or grounds of argument which are caſually and undeſignedly diſcloſed; foraſmuch as this ſpecies of proof is, of all others, the leaſt liable to be corrupted by fraud or miſ⯑repreſentation.

I may be allowed therefore, in the en⯑quiry which is now before us, to ſuggeſt ſome concluſions of this ſort, as preparatory to more direct teſtimony.

1. Our books relate, that Jeſus Chriſt, the founder of the religion, was, in conſequence of his undertaking, put to death, as a male⯑factor, at Jeruſalem. This point at leaſt will be granted, becauſe it is no more than what Tacitus has recorded. They then proceed to tell us, that the religion was, not⯑withſtanding, ſet forth at this ſame city of Jeruſalem, propagated from thence through⯑out Judea, and afterwards preached in other parts of the Roman cmpire. Theſe points alſo [58] are fully confirmed by Tacitus, who informs us that the religion, after a ſhort check, broke out again in the country where it took its riſe; that it not only ſpread throughout Judea, but had reached Rome; and that it had there great multitudes of converts: and all this within thirty years after its com⯑mencement. Now theſe facts afford a ſtrong inference in behalf of the propoſition which we maintain. What could the diſciples of Chriſt expect for themſelves, when they ſaw their maſter put to death? Could they hope to eſcape the dangers, in which he had pe⯑riſhed? If they have perſecuted me, they will alſo perſecute you, was the warning of common ſenſe. With this example before their eyes, they could not be without a full ſenſe of the peril of their future enterpriſe.

2. Secondly, all the hiſtories agree in re⯑preſenting Chriſt as ſoretelling the perſecu⯑tion of his followers.

[60] I am not entitled to argue from theſe paſ⯑ſages, that Chriſt actually did foretell theſe events, and that they did accordingly come to paſs, becauſe that would be at once to aſ⯑ſume the truth of the religion: but I am entitled to contend, that one ſide or other of the following disjunction is true; either that the evangeliſts have delivered what Chriſt really ſpoke, and that the event cor⯑reſponded with the prediction; or that they put the prediction into Chriſt's mouth, be⯑cauſe, at the time of writing the hiſtory, the event had turned out ſo to be: for the only two remaining ſuppoſitions appear in the higheſt degree incredible, which are, either that Chriſt ſilled the minds of his fol⯑lowers with fears and apprehenſions, with⯑out any reaſon or authority for what he ſaid, and contrary to the truth of the caſe; or that, although Chriſt had never foretold any ſuch thing, and the event would have con⯑tradicted him if he had, yet hiſtorians who lived in the age when the event was known, falſely as well as oſſiciouſly, aſcribed theſe words to him.

[61] 3. Thirdly, theſe books abound with ex⯑hortations to patience, and with topics of comfort under diſtreſs.

What could all theſe texts mean, if there was nothing in the circumſtances of the times which required patience, which called for the exerciſe of conſtancy and reſolution? or will it be pretended that theſe exhorta⯑tions (which, let it be obſerved, come not from one author, but from many) were put in, merely to induce a belief in after-ages, that the ſirſt Chriſtians were expoſed to dangers which they were not expoſed to, or underwent ſufferings which they did not undergo? If theſe books belong to the age to which they lay claim, and in which age, whether genuine or ſpurious, they certainly did appear, this ſuppoſition cannot be main⯑tained for a moment; becauſe I think it im⯑poſſible to believe, that paſſages, which muſt [65] be deemed not only unintelligible but falſe, by the perſons into whoſe hands the books upon their publication were to come, ſhould nevertheleſs be inſerted, for the purpoſe of producing an effect upon remote genera⯑tions. In forgeries which do not appear till many ages after that to which they pre⯑tend to belong, it is poſſible that ſome contrivance of that ſort may take place; but in no others can it be attempted.

CHAP. IV.
There is ſatisfactory evidence that many, pro⯑feſſing to be original witneſſes of the Chriſ⯑tian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily under⯑gone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted from the ſame motives to new rules of conduct.

THE account of the treatment of the reli⯑gion and of the exertions of its firſt preach⯑ers, as ſtated in our ſcriptures (not in a pro⯑feſſed hiſtory of perſecutions, or in the con⯑nected manner in which I am about to re⯑cite it, but diſperſedly and occaſionally, in the courſe of a mixed, general, hiſtory, which circumſtance alone negatives the ſuppoſition of any fraudulent deſign), is the following: "That the ſounder of Chriſtianity, ſrom the commencement of his miniſtry to the [67] time of his violent death, employed himſelf wholly in publiſhing the inſtitution in Judea and Galilee; that, in order to aſſiſt him in this purpoſe, he made choice, out of the number of his followers, of twelve perſons, who might accompany him as he travelled from place to place; that, except a ſhort ab⯑ſence upon a journey, in which he ſent them, two by two, to announce his miſſion, and one, of a few days, when they went be⯑fore him to Jeruſalem, theſe perſons were ſtatedly and conſtantly attending upon him; that they were with him at Jeruſalem when he was apprehended and put to death; and that they were commiſſioned by him, when his own miniſtry was concluded, to publiſh his goſpel, and collect diſciples to it from all countries of the world." The account then proceeds to ſtate, "That, a few days after his departure, theſe perſons, with ſome of his relations, and ſome who had regularly frequented their ſociety, aſſembled at Jeruſa⯑lem; that, conſidering the oſſice of preach⯑ing the religion as now devolved upon them, and one of their number having deſerted the [68] cauſe, and, repenting of his perfidy, having deſtroyed himſelf, they proceeded to elect another into his place; and that they were careful to make their election out of the number of thoſe who had accompanied their maſter from the firſt to the laſt, in order, as they alledged, that he might be a witneſs, together with themſelves, of the principal facts which they were about to produce and relate concerning him ^*; that they began their work at Jeruſalem, by publicly aſſerting that this Jeſus, whom the rulers and inhabit⯑ants of that place had ſo lately crucified, was, in truth, the perſon, in whom all their pro⯑phecies and long expectations terminated; that he had been ſent amongſt them by God; and that he was appointed by God the fu⯑ture judge of the human ſpecies; that all, who were ſolicitous to ſecure to themſelves happineſs after death, ought to receive him as ſuch, and to make profeſſion of their be⯑lief, by being baptized in his name ^†." The hiſtory goes on to relate, "that conſiderable [69] numbers accepted this propoſal, and that they who did ſo, formed amongſt themſelves a ſtrict union and ſociety ^*; that, the atten⯑tion of the Jewiſh government being ſoon drawn upon them, two of the principal per⯑ſons of the twelve, and who alſo had lived moſt intimately and conſtantly with the founder of the religion, were ſeized as they were diſcourſing to the people in the tem⯑ple; that, after being kept all night in priſon, they were brought the next day before an aſſembly, compoſed of the chief perſons of the Jewiſh magiſtracy and prieſthood; that this aſſembly, after ſome conſultation, found no⯑thing, at that time, better to be done towards ſuppreſſing the growth of the ſect, than to threaten their priſoners with puniſhment, if they perſiſted; that theſe men, after ex⯑preſſing, in decent but firm language, the obligation under which they conſidered themſelves to be, to declare what they knew, "to ſpeak the things which they had ſeen and heard," returned from the council, and [70] reported what had paſſed to their companions; that this report, whilſt it apprized them of the danger of their ſituation and undertaking, had no other effect upon their conduct, than to produce in them a general reſolution to perſevere, and an earneſt prayer to God to furniſh them with aſſiſtance, and to inſpire them with fortitude, proportioned to the in⯑creaſing exigency of the ſervice ^*." A very ſhort time after this, we read "that all the twelve apoſtles were ſeized and caſt into pri⯑ſon ^†; that being brought a ſecond time before the Jewiſh Sanhedrim, they were upbraided with their diſobedience to the in⯑junction which had been laid upon them, and beaten for their contumacy; that being charged once more to deſiſt, they were ſuf⯑fered to depart; that however they neither quitted Jeruſalem, nor ceaſed from preach⯑ing, both daily in the temple, and from houſe to houſe ^‡; and that the twelve conſidered themſelves as ſo entirely and excluſively de⯑voted to this office, that they now transferred, [71] what may be called the temporal affairs of the ſociety, to other hands ^*."

[72] Hitherto the preachers of the new reli⯑gion ſeem to have had the common people on their ſide; which is aſſigned as the reaſon, why the Jewiſh rulers did not, at this time, think it prudent to proceed to greater ex⯑tremities. It was not long, however, before the enemies of the inſtitution found means to repreſent it to the people as tending to ſubvert their law, degrade their law-giver, and diſhonour their temple ^*. And theſe inſinuations were diſperſed with ſo much ſucceſs, as to induce the people to join with their ſuperiors in the ſtoning of a very active member of the new community.

The death of this man was the ſignal of a general perſecution, the activity of which may be judged of from one anecdote of the time: "As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every houſe, and haling men and women, committed them to pri⯑ſon." This perſecution ^† raged at Jeruſalem [73] with ſo much fury, as to drive moſt ^* of the new converts out of the place, ex⯑cept the twelve apoſtles. The converts, thus "ſcattered abroad," preached the reli⯑gion wherever they came: and their preach⯑ing was, in effect, the preaching of the twelve; for it was ſo far carried on in con⯑cert and correſpondence with them, that, when they heard of the ſucceſs of their emiſ⯑ſaries in a particular country, they ſent two of their number to the place to complete and confirm the miſſion.

An event now took place of great im⯑portance in the future hiſtory of the reli⯑gion. The ^† perſecution which had begun at Jeruſalem, followed the Chriſtians to other cities, in which the authority of the Jewiſh [74] Sanhedrim over thoſe of their own nation was allowed to be exerciſed. A young man, who had ſignalized himſelf by his hoſtility to the profeſſion, and had procured a com⯑miſſion from the council at Jeruſalem to ſeize any converted Jews whom he might ſind at Damaſcus, ſuddenly became a proſelyte to the religion which he was going about to ex⯑tirpate. The new convert not only ſhared, upon this extraordinary change, the ſate of his companions, but brought upon himſelf a double meaſure of enmity from the party which he had left. The Jews at Damaſcus, upon his return to that city, watched the gates night and day with ſo much diligence, that he eſcaped from their hands only by being let down in a baſket by the wall. Nor did he ſind himſelf in greater ſafety at Jeruſalem, whither he immediately repaired. Attempts were there alſo ſoon ſet on foot to deſtroy him, ſrom the danger of which he was preſerved by being ſent away to Cilicia, his native country.

For ſome reaſon, not mentioned, perhaps [75] not known, but probably connected with the civil hiſtory of the Jews, or with ſome danger ^* which engroſſed the public atten⯑tion, an intermiſſion about this time took place in the ſufferings of the Chriſtians. This happened, at the moſt only ſeven or eight, perhaps only three or four, years after Chriſt's death. Within which period, and notwithſtanding that the late perſecution oc⯑cupied part of it, churches, or ſocieties of believers, had been formed in all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria; for we read that the churches in theſe countries "had now reſt, and were ediſied, and, walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghoſt, were multiplied ^†." The original preachers of the religion did not remit their [76] labours or activity during this ſeaſon of quietneſs; for we find one, and he a very principal perſon amongſt them, paſſing throughout all quarters. We find alſo thoſe, who had been before cxpelled from Jeru⯑ſalem by the perſecution which raged there, travelling as far as Phoenice, Cyprus, and Antioch ^*; and laſtly, we find Jeruſalem again the centre of the miſſion, the place whither the preachers returned from their ſeveral excurſions, where they reported the conduct and effects of their miniſtry, where queſtions of public concern were canvaſſed and ſettled, from whence directions were ſought, and teachers ſent forth.

The time of this tranquillity did not, how⯑ever, continue long. Herod Agrippa, who had lately acceded to the government of Judea, "ſtretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church ^†." He began his cruelty by beheading one of the twelve ori⯑ginal apoſtles, a kinſman and conſtant companion [77] of the founder of the religion. Per⯑ceiving that this execution gratified the Jews, he proceeded to ſeize, in order to put to death, another of the number; and him, like the former, aſſociated with Chriſt' during his life, and eminently active in the ſervice ſince his death. This man was, however, deli⯑vered from priſon, as the account ſtates ^*, miraculouſly, and made his eſcape from Jeru⯑ſalem.

Theſe things are related, not in the gene⯑ral terms under which, in giving the outlines of the hiſtory, we have here mentioned them, but with the utmoſt particularity of names, perſons, places, and circumſtances; and, what is deſerving of notice, without the ſmalleſt diſcoverable propenſity in the hiſ⯑torian to magnify the fortitude, or exaggerate the ſufferings, of his party. When they fled for their lives, he tells us. When the churches had reſt, he remarks it. When the people took their part, he does not leave [78] it without notice. When the apoſtles were carried a ſecond time before the S [...]nhedrim, he is careful to obſerve that they were brought without violence. When milder councils were ſuggeſted, he gives us the au⯑thor of the advice, and the ſpeech which contained it. When, in conſequence of this advice, the rulers contented themſelves with threatening the apoſtles, and commanding them to be beaten with ſtripes, without urg⯑ing at that time the perſecution farther, the hiſtorian candidly and diſtinctly records their forbearance. When, therefore, in other inſtances, he ſtates heavier perſecutions, or actual martyrdoms, it is reaſonable to be⯑lieve that he ſtates them becauſe they were true; and not from any wiſh to aggravate, in his account, the ſufferings which Chriſ⯑tians ſuſtained, or to extol, more than it de⯑ſerved, their patience under them.

Our hiſtory now purſues a narrower path. Leaving the reſt of the apoſtles, and the original aſſociates of Chriſt, engaged in the propagation of the new faith (and who, there is not the leaſt reaſon to believe, abated in [79] their diligence or courage), the narrative proceeds with the ſeparate memoirs of that eminent teacher, whoſe extraordinary and ſudden converſion to the religion, and cor⯑reſponding change of conduct, had before been circumſtantially deſcribed. This perſon, in conjunction with another, who appeared amongſt the earlieſt members of the ſociety at Jeruſalem, and amongſt the immediate adherents ^* of the twelve apoſtles, ſet out from Antioch upon the expreſs buſineſs of carrying the new religion through the vari⯑ous provinces of the Leſſer Aſia ^†. During this expedition we find, that, in almoſt every place to which they came, their perſons were inſulted, and their lives endangered. After being expelled from Antioch in Piſidia, they repaired to leonium ^‡. At Iconium an at⯑tempt was made to ſtone them. At Lyſtra, whither they fled from Iconium, one of them actually was ſtoned, and drawn out of the city for dead ^§. Theſe two men, though not themſelves original apoſtles, were acting [80] in connection and conjunction with the ori⯑ginal apoſtles; for, after the completion of their journey, being ſent upon a particular commiſſion to Jeruſalem, they there related to the apoſtles ^* and elders the events and ſucceſs of their miniſtry, and were, in return, recommended by them to the churches, "as men who had hazarded their lives in the cauſe."

The treatment which they had experien⯑ced in their firſt progreſs did not deter them from preparing for a ſecond. Upon a diſ⯑pute, however, ariſing between them, but not connected with the common ſubject of their labours, they acted as wiſe and ſincere men would act; they did not retire in diſ⯑guſt from the ſervice in which they were engaged, but, each devoting his endeavours to the advancement of the religion, they parted from one another, and ſet forwards upon ſeparate routes. The hiſtory goes along with one of them; and the ſecond enterpriſe to him was attended with the [81] ſame dangers and perſecutions as both had met with in the firſt. The apoſtle's travels hitherto had been conſined to Aſia. He now croſſes, for the firſt time, the Aegean Sea, and carries with him, amongſt others, the perſon whoſe accounts ſupply the infor⯑mation we are ſtating ^*. The firſt place in Greece at which he appears to have ſtopped was Philippi in Macedonia. Here himſelf and one of his companions were cruelly whipped, caſt into priſon, and kept there under the moſt rigorous cuſtody, being thruſt, whilſt yet ſmarting with their wounds, into the inner dungeon, and their feſt made faſt in the ſtocks ^†. Notwithſtanding this unequivocal ſpecimen of the uſage which they had to look for in that country, they went forward in the execution of their er⯑rand. After paſſing through Amphipolis and Appollonia, they came to Theſſalonica; in which city the houſe in which they lodged was aſſailed by a party of their ene⯑mies, in order to bring them out to the [82] populace. And when, fortunately for their preſervation, they were not found at home, the maſter of the houſe was dragged before the magiſtrate for admitting them within his doors ^*. Their reception at the next city was ſomething better: but neither here had they continued long before their turbu⯑lent adverſaries, the Jews, excited againſt them ſuch commotions amongſt the inha⯑bitants, as obliged the apoſtle to make his eſcape by a private journey to Athens ^†. The extremity of the progreſs was Corinth. His abode in this city, for ſome time, ſeems to have been without moleſtation. At length, however, the Jews found means to ſtir up an inſurrection againſt him, and to bring him before the tribunal of the Roman preſident ^‡. It was to the contempt which that magiſtrate entertained for the Jews and their controverſies, of which he accounted Chriſtianity to be one, that our apoſtle owed his deliverance ^§.

[83] This indefatigable teacher, after leaving Corinth, returned by Epheſus into Syria; and again viſited Jeruſalem, and the ſociety of Chriſtians in that city, which, as hath been repeatedly obſerved, ſtill continued the cen⯑ter of the miſſion ^*. It ſuited not, however, with the activity of his zeal to remain long at Jeruſalem. We find him going from thence to Antioch, and, after ſome ſtay there, traverſing once more the northern provinces of Aſia Minor ^†. This progreſs ended at Epheſus; in which city the apoſtle continued in the daily exerciſe of his miniſtry two years, and until his ſucceſs, at length, excited the apprehenſions of thoſe who were inter⯑eſted in the ſupport of the national worſhip. Their clamour produced a tumult, in which he had nearly loſt his life ^‡. Undiſmayed, however, by the dangers to which he ſaw himſelf expoſed, he was driven from Ephe⯑ſus only to renew his labours in Greece ^§. After paſſing over Macedonia, he thence [84] proceeded to his former ſtation at Corinth ^*. When he had formed his deſign of return⯑ing by a direct courſe from Corinth into Syria, he was compelled by a conſpiracy of the Jews, who were prepared to intercept him on his way, to trace back his ſteps through Macedonia to Philippi, and from thence to take ſhipping into Aſia. Along the coaſt of Aſia he purſued his voyage with all the expedition he could command, in or⯑der to reach Jeruſalem againſt the feaſt of Pentecoſt ^†. His reception at Jeruſalem was of a piece with the uſage he had expe⯑rienced from the Jews in other places. He had been only a few days in that city when the populace, inſtigated by ſome of his old opponents in Aſia, who attended this feaſt, ſeized him in the temple, forced him out of it, and were ready immediately to have de⯑ſtroyed him, had not the ſudden preſence of the Roman guard reſcued him out of their hands ^‡. The officer, however, who had thus ſeaſonably interpoſed, acted from his [85] care of the public peace, with the preſerva⯑tion of which he was charged, and not from any favour to the apoſtle, or indeed any diſ⯑poſition to exerciſe either juſtice or humanity towards him; for he had no ſooner ſecured his perſon in the fortreſs, than he was pro⯑ceeding to examine him by torture ^*.

From this time to the concluſion of the hiſ⯑tory, the apoſtle remains in public cuſtody of the Roman government. After eſcaping aſſaſſination by a fortunate diſcovery of the plot, and delivering himſelf from the influ⯑ence of his enemies by an appeal to the au⯑dience of the emperor ^†, he was ſent, but not until he had ſuffered two years impriſon⯑ment, to Rome ^‡. He reached Italy after a tedious voyage, and after encountering in his paſſage the perils of a deſperate ſhip⯑wreck ^§. But although ſtill a priſoner, and his fate ſtill depending, neither the various and long-continued ſufferings which he had [86] undergone, nor the danger of his preſent ſituation, deterred him from perſiſting in preaching the religion; for the hiſtorian cloſes the account by telling us, that, for two years, he received all that came unto him in his own hired houſe, where he was permitted to dwell with a ſoldier that guard⯑ed him, "preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching thoſe things which concern the Lord Jeſus Chriſt with all confidence."

Now the hiſtorian, from whom we have drawn this account, in the part of his nar⯑rative which relates to St. Paul, is ſupported by the ſtrongeſt corroborating teſtimony that a hiſtory can receive. We are in poſſeſſion of letters written by St. Paul himſelf upon the ſubject of his miniſtry, and either writ⯑ten during the period which the hiſtory com⯑priſes, or, if written afterwards, reciting and referring to the tranſactions of that period. Theſe letters, without borrowing from the hiſtory, or the hiſtory from them, uninten⯑tionally confirm the account which the hiſ⯑tory delivers in a great variety of particulars. [87] What belongs to our preſent purpoſe is the deſcription exhibited of the apoſtle's ſuffer⯑ings: and the repreſentation, given in the hiſtory, of the dangers and diſtreſſes which he underwent, not only agrees, in general, with the language which he himſelf uſes, whenever he ſpeaks of his life or miniſtry, but is alſo, in many inſtances, atteſted by a ſpecific cor⯑reſpondency of time, place, and order of events. If the hiſtorian puts down in his narrative that at Philippi the apoſtle "was beaten with many ſtripes, caſt into priſon, and there treated with rigour and indignity ^*," we find him, in a letter ^† to a neighbouring church, reminding his converts, that, "after he had ſuffered before, and was ſhamefully intreated at Philippi, he was bold, neverthe⯑leſs, to ſpeak unto them (to whoſe city he next came) the Goſpel of God." If the hiſ⯑tory relate ^‡, that, at Theſſalonica, the houſe in which the apoſtle was lodged, when he firſt came to that place, was aſſaulted by the populace, and the maſter of it dragged before [88] the magiſtrate for admitting ſuch a gueſt within his doors, the apoſtle, in his letters to the Chriſtians of Theſſalonica, calls to their remembrance "how they had received the Goſpel in much affliction." If the hiſtory deliver an account of an inſurrection at Epheſus, which had nearly coſt the apoſtle his l fe, we have the apoſtle himſelf, in a letter written a ſhort time after his depar⯑ture from that city, deſcribing his deſpair, and returning thanks for his deliverance ^†. If the hiſtory inform us, that the apoſtle was expelled from Antioch in Piſidia, attempted to be ſtoned at Iconium, and actually ſtoned at Lyſtra, there is preſerved a letter from him to a favorite convert, whom, as the ſame hiſ⯑tory tells us, he firſt met with in theſe parts; in which letter he appeals to that diſciple's knowledge "of the perſecutions which befell him at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lyſtra ^‡." If the hiſtory make the apoſtle, in his ſpeech to the Epheſian elders, remind them, as one ⁶⁸ [89] proof of the diſintereſtedneſs of his views, that, to their knowledge, he had ſupplied his own and the neceſſities of his companions by perſonal labour ^*, we find the ſame apo⯑ſtle, in a letter written during his reſidence at Epheſus, aſſerting of himſelf, "that even to that hour he laboured, working with his own hands ^†."

Theſe coincidences, together with many relative to other parts of the apoſtle's hiſtory, and all drawn from independent ſources, not only confirm the truth of the account, in the particular points as to which they are obſerved, but add much to the credit of the narrative in all its parts; and ſupport the author's profeſſion of being a contemporary of the perſon whoſe hiſtory he writes, and, throughout a material portion of his narra⯑tive, a companion.

What the epiſtles of the apoſtles declare of the ſuffering ſtate of Chriſtianity, the writings [90] which remain of their companions, and immediate followers, expreſsly confirm.

Clement, who is honourably mentioned by St. Paul in his Epiſtle to the Philippians ^*, hath left us his atteſtation to this point in the following words: "Let us take (ſays he) the examples of our own age. Through zeal and envy the moſt faithful and righteous pillars of the church have been perſecuted even to the moſt grievous deaths. Let us ſet before our eyes the holy apoſtles. Peter, by unjuſt envy, underwent, not one or two, but many ſufferings; till at laſt being mar⯑tyred, he went to the place of glory that was due unto him. For the ſame cauſe did Paul, in like manner, receive the reward of his patience. Seven times he was in bonds; he was whipped, was ſtoned; he preached both in the eaſt and in the weſt, leaving behind him the glorious report of his faith: and ſo having taught the whole world righ⯑teouſneſs, and for that end travelled even [91] unto the utmoſt bounds of the weſt, he at laſt ſuffered martyrdom by the command of the governors, and departed out of the world, and went unto his holy place, being become a moſt eminent pattern of patience unto all ages. To theſe holy apoſtles were joined a very great number of others, who, having through envy undergone, in like manner, many pains and torments, have left a glorious example to us. For this, not only men, but women, have been perſecuted; and having ſuffered very grievous and cruel puniſhments, have finiſhed the courſe of their faith with firmneſs ^*."

Hermas, ſaluted by St. Paul in his Epiſtle to the Romans, in a piece very little con⯑nected with hiſtorical recitals, thus ſpeaks—"Such as have believed and ſuffered death for the name of Chriſt, and have endured with a ready mind, and have given up their lives with all their hearts ^†."

[92] Polycarp, the diſciple of John, though all that remains of his works be a very ſhort epiſtle, has not left this ſubject unnoticed.—"I exhort (ſays he) all of you, that ye obey the word of righteouſneſs, and exerciſe all patience, which ye have ſeen ſet forth before your eyes, not only in the bleſſed Ignatius, and Lorimus and Rufus, but in others among yourſelves, and in Paul himſelf and the reſt of the apoſtles; being confident in this, that all theſe have not run in vain, but in faith and righteouſneſs; and are gone to the place that was due to them from the Lord, with whom alſo they ſuffered. For they loved not this preſent world, but him who died and was raiſed again by God for us ^*."

Ignatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, recognizes the ſame topic, briefly indeed, but poſitively and preciſely. "For this cauſe (i.e. for having felt and handled Chriſt's body after his reſurrection, and being con⯑vinced, as Ignatius expreſſes it, both by his [93] fleſh and ſpirit), they (i. e. Peter, and thoſe who were preſent with Peter at Chriſt's ap⯑pearance) deſpiſed death, and were found to be above it ^*."

Would the reader know what a perſecu⯑tion in theſe days was, I would refer him to a circular letter, written by the church of Smyrna ſoon after the death of Polycarp, who, it will be remembered, had lived with St. John; and which letter is entitled a rela⯑tion of that biſhop's martyrdom. "The ſufferings (ſay they) of all the other martyrs were bleſſed and generous, which they un⯑derwent according to the will of God. For ſo it becomes us, who are more religious than others, to aſcribe the power and order⯑ing of all things unto him. And indeed who can chooſe but admire the greatneſs of their minds, and that admirable patience and love of their maſter, which then appeared in them? who, when they were ſo flayed with whipping, that the frame and ſtructure of [94] their bodies were laid open to their very in⯑ward veins and arteries, nevertheleſs endured it. In like manner, thoſe who were con⯑demned to the beaſts, and kept a long time in priſon, underwent many cruel torments, being forced to lie upon ſharp ſpikes laid under their bodies, and tormented with divers other ſorts of puniſhments; that ſo, if it were poſſible, the tyrant, by the length of their ſufferings, might have brought them to deny Chriſt ^*."

CHAP. V.
There is ſatisfactory evidence, that many, pro⯑feſſing to have been original witneſſes of the Chriſtian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted, from the ſame motives, to new rules of conduct.

UPON the hiſtory, of which the laſt chap⯑ter contains an abſtract, there are a few ob⯑ſervations which it may be proper to make, by way of applying its teſtimony to the par⯑ticular propoſitions for which we contend.

I. Although our ſcripture hiſtory leaves the general account of the apoſtles in an early part of the narrative, and proceeds with the ſeparate account of one particular [96] apoſtle, yet the information which it delivers ſo far extends to the reſt, as it ſhews the na⯑ture of the ſervice. When we ſee one apoſtle ſuffering perſecution in the diſcharge of his commiſſion, we ſhall not believe, without evidence, that the ſame office could, at the ſame time, be attended with eaſe and ſafety to others. And this fair and reaſonable infer⯑ence is confirmed by the direct atteſtation of the letters, to which we have ſo often refer⯑red. The writer of theſe letters not only alludes, in numerous paſſages, to his own ſufferings, but ſpeaks of the reſt of the apo⯑ſtles as enduring like ſufferings with himſelf. "I think that God hath ſet forth us the apo⯑ſtles laſt, as it were, appointed to death; for we are made a ſpectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men—even unto this pre⯑ſent hour, we both hunger and thirſt, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bleſs; being perſecuted, we ſuffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and as the offscouring of all things [97] unto this day ^*." Add to which, that in the ſhort account that is given of the other apoſtles, in the former part of the hiſtory, and within the ſhort period which that ac⯑count compriſes, we find, firſt, two of them ſeized, impriſoned, brought before the San⯑hedrim, and threatened with further puniſh⯑ment ^†; then, the whole number impriſon⯑ed and beaten ^‡: ſoon afterwards, one of their adherents ſtoned to death, and ſo hot a perſecution raiſed againſt the ſect, as to drive moſt of them out of the place; a ſhort time only ſucceeding, before one of the twelve was beheaded, and another ſentenced to the ſame fate; and all this paſſing in the ſingle city of Jeruſalem, and within ten years after the founder's death, and the commence⯑ment of the inſtitution.

II. Secondly; We take no credit at pre⯑ſent for the miraculous part of the narrative, nor do we inſiſt upon the correctneſs of ſin⯑gle paſſages of it. If the whole ſtory be not a novel, a romance; the whole action a dream; if Peter, and James and Paul, and [98] the reſt of the apoſtles, mentioned in the ac⯑count, be not all imaginary perſons; if their letters be not all forgeries, and, what is more, forgeries of names and characters which never exiſted; then is there evi⯑dence in our hands ſufficient to ſupport the only fact we contend for (and which, I repeat again, is, in itſelf, highly probable), that the original followers of Jeſus Chriſt exerted great endeavours to propagate his religion, and underwent great labours, dan⯑gers, and ſufferings, in conſequence of their undertaking.

III. The general reality of the apoſtolic hiſtory is ſtrongly confirmed by the conſi⯑deration, that it, in truth, does no more than aſſign adequate cauſes for effects which cer⯑tainly were produced, and deſcribe conſe⯑quences naturally reſulting from ſituations which certainly exiſted. The effects were certainly there, of which this hiſtory ſets forth the cauſe, and origin, and progreſs. It is acknowledged on all hands, becauſe it is recorded by other teſtimony than that of the Chriſtians themſelves, that the religion [99] began to prevail at that time, and in that country. It is very difficult to conceive how it could begin, or prevail at all, with⯑out the exertions of the founder and his followers in propagating the new perſua⯑ſion. The hiſtory now in our hands deſcribes theſe exertions, the perſons em⯑ployed, the means and endeavours made uſe of, and the labours undertaken in the proſecution of this purpoſe. Again, the treatment which the hiſtory repreſents the firſt propagators of the religion to have experienced, was no other than what natu⯑rally reſulted from the ſituation in which they were confeſſedly placed. It is admit⯑ted that the religion was adverſe, in a great degree, to the reigning opinions, and to the hopes and wiſhes of the nation to which it was firſt introduced; and that it overthrew, ſo far as it was received, the eſtabliſhed theo⯑logy and worſhip of every other country. We cannot feel much reluctance in believing that, when the meſſengers of ſuch a ſyſtem went about not only publiſhing their opini⯑ons, but collecting proſelytes, and forming [100] regular ſocieties of proſelytes, they ſhould meet with oppoſition in their attempts, or that this oppoſition ſhould ſometimes pro⯑ceed to fatal extremities. Our hiſtory de⯑tails examples of this oppoſition, and of the ſufferings and dangers which the emiſſaries of the religion underwent, perfectly agree⯑able to what might reaſonably be expected, from the nature of their undertaking, com⯑pared with the character of the age and country in which it was carried on.

IV. Fourthly; The records before us ſupply evidence of what formed another member of our general propoſition, and what, as hath already been obſerved, is highly probable, and almoſt a neceſſary con⯑ſequence of their new profeſſion, viz. that, together with activity and courage in propa⯑gating the religion, the primitive followers of Jeſus aſſumed, upon their converſion, a new and peculiar courſe of private life. Im⯑mediately after their maſter was withdrawn from them, we hear of their "continuing with one accord in prayer and ſupplication [101] ^*," of their "continuing daily with one accord in the temple ^†," of "many being gathered together praying ^‡." We know what ſtrict injunctions were laid upon the converts by their teachers. Wherever they came, the firſt word of their preaching was, "Repent!" We know that theſe injunctions obliged them to refrain from many ſpecies of licentiouſneſs, which were not, at that time, reputed criminal. We know the rules of purity, and the maxims of benevolence, which Chriſtians read in their books; con⯑cerning which rules, it is enough to obſerve, that, if they were, I will not ſay, completely obeyed, but in any degree regarded, they would produce a ſyſtem of conduct, and, what is more difficult to preſerve, a diſpoſi⯑tion of mind, and a regulation of affections, different from any thing to which they had hitherto been accuſtomed, and different from what they would ſee in others. The change and diſtinction of manners, which reſulted [102] from their new character, is perpetually re⯑ferred to in the letters of their teachers. "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in treſpaſſes and ſins, wherein in times paſt ye walked, according to the courſe of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the ſpirit that now work⯑eth in the children of diſobedience; among whom alſo we had our converſation in times paſt, in the luſts of our fleſh, fulfilling the deſires of the fleſh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others ^*."—"For the time paſt of our life may ſuffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in laſciviouſ⯑neſs, luſt, exceſs of wine, revellings, banquet⯑ings, and abominable idolatries, wherein they think it ſtrange that ye run not with them to the ſame exceſs of riot ^†." St. Paul, in his firſt letter to the Corinthians, after enume⯑rating, as his manner was, a catalogue of vi⯑cious characters, adds, "Such were ſome [103] of you, but ye are waſhed, but ye are ſancti⯑fied ^*." In like manner, and alluding to the ſame change of practices and ſentiment, he aſks the Roman Chriſtians "what fruit they had in thoſe things whereof they are now aſhamed ^†?" The phraſes which the ſame writer employs to deſcribe the moral condition of Chriſtians, compared with their condition before they became Chriſtians, ſuch as "newneſs of life," being "freed from ſin," being "dead to ſin;" "the de⯑ſtruction of the body of ſin, that, for the fu⯑ture, they ſhould not ſerve ſin;" "children of light and of the day," as oppoſed to "chil⯑dren of darkneſs and of the night," "not ſleeping as others," imply, at leaſt, a new ſyſtem of obligation, and, probably, a new ſeries of conduct, commencing with their converſion.

The teſtimony which Pliny bears to the behaviour of the new ſect in his time, and [104] which teſtimony comes not more than fifty years after that of St. Paul, is very applicable to the ſubject under conſideration. The character which this writer gives of the Chriſtians of that age, and which was drawn from a pretty accurate enquiry, becauſe he conſidered their moral principles as the point in which the magiſtrate was intereſted, is as follows:—He tells the emperor, "that ſome of thoſe who had relinquiſhed the ſociety, or who, to ſave themſelves, pretended that they had relinquiſhed it, affirmed that they were wont to meet together, on a ſtated day, before it was light, and ſung among them⯑ſelves alternately a hymn to Chriſt as a God; and to bind themſelves, by an oath, not to the commiſſion of any wickedneſs, but that they would not be guilty of theft or robbery, or adultery; that they would never falſify their word, nor deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to return it." This proves that a morality, more pure and ſtrict than was ordinary, pre⯑vailed at that time in Chriſtian ſocieties. [105] And to me it appears, that we are authoriſed to carry this teſtimony back to the age of the apoſtles; becauſe it is not probable that the immediate hearers and diſciples of Chriſt were more relaxed than their ſucceſſors in Pliny's time, or the miſſionaries of the reli⯑gion than thoſe whom they taught.

CHAP. VI.
There is ſatisfactory evidence that many, pro⯑feſſing to have been original witneſſes of the Chriſtian miracles, paſſed their lives in la⯑bours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted, from the ſame motives, to new rules of conduct.

WHEN we conſider, firſt, the prevalency of the religion at this hour; ſecondly, the only credible account which can be given of its origin, viz. the activity of the founder and his aſſociates; thirdly, the oppoſition which that activity muſt naturally have excited; fourthly, the fate of the founder of the reli⯑gion, atteſted by heathen writers as well as our own; fifthly, the teſtimony of the ſame writers to the ſufferings of Chriſtians, either contemporary with, or immediately ſucceeding, [107] the original ſettlers of the inſtitution; ſixthly, predictions of the ſufferings of his followers aſcribed to the founder of the re⯑ligion, which aſcription alone proves, either that ſuch predictions were delivered and ful⯑filled, or that the writers of Chriſt's life were induced by the event to attribute ſuch pre⯑dictions to him; ſeventhly, letters now in our poſſeſſion, written by ſome of the prin⯑cipal agents in the tranſaction, referring ex⯑preſsly to extreme labours, dangers, and ſuf⯑ferings, ſuſtained by themſelves and their companions; laſtly, a hiſtory, purporting to be written by a fellow traveller of one of the new teachers, and, by its unſophiſticated correſpondency with letters of that perſon ſtill extant, proving itſelf to be written by ſome one well acquainted with the ſubject of the narrative, which hiſtory contains accounts of travels, perſecutions, and martyrdoms, anſwering to what the former reaſons lead us to expect: when we lay together theſe conſiderations, which, taken ſeparately, are, I think, correctly ſuch as I have ſtated them in the preceding chapters, there cannot much [108] doubt remain upon our minds, but that a number of perſons at that time appeared in the world, publicly advancing an extraor⯑dinary ſtory, and, for the ſake of propagat⯑ing the belief of that ſtory, voluntarily in⯑curring great perſonal dangers, traverſing ſeas and kingdoms, exerting great induſtry, and ſuſtaining great extremities of ill uſage and perſecution. It is alſo proved that the ſame perſons, in conſequence of their per⯑ſuaſion, or pretended perſuaſion of the truth of what they aſſerted, entered upon a courſe of life in many reſpects new and ſingular.

From the clear and acknowledged parts of the caſe, I think it to be likewiſe in the higheſt degree probable, that the ſtory, for which theſe perſons voluntarily expoſed themſelves to the fatigues and hardſhips which they endured, was a miraculous ſtory; I mean, that they pretended to miraculous evidence of ſome kind or other. They had nothing elſe to ſtand upon. The deſignation of the perſon, that is to ſay, that Jeſus of Nazareth, rather than any other perſon, was [109] the Meſſiah, and, as ſuch, the ſubject of their miniſtry, could only be founded upon ſuper⯑natural tokens attributed to him. Here were no victories, no conqueſts, no revolu⯑tions, no ſurpriſing elevation of fortune, no achievements of valour, of ſtrength, or of policy, to appeal to; no diſcoveries in any art or ſcience, no great efforts of genius or learning to produce. A Galilean peaſant was announced to the world as a divine law⯑giver. A young man of mean condition, of a private and ſimple life, and who had wrought no deliverance for the Jewiſh na⯑tion, was declared to be their Meſſiah. This, without aſcribing to him at the ſame time ſome proofs of his miſſion, (and what other but ſupernatural proofs could there be?) was too abſurd a claim to be either imagined, or attempted, or credited. In whatever degree, or in whatever part, the religion was argu⯑mentative, when it came to the queſtion, "is the carpenter's ſon of Nazareth the perſon whom we are to receive and obey?" there was nothing but the miracles attributed to him, by which his pretenſions could be [110] maintained for a moment. Every contro⯑verſy and every queſtion muſt preſuppoſe theſe; for, however ſuch controverſies, when they did ariſe, might, and naturally would, be diſcuſſed upon their own grounds of ar⯑gumentation, without citing the miraculous evidence which had been aſſerted to attend the founder of the religion (which would have been to enter upon another, and a more general, queſtion), yet we are to bear in mind, that, without previouſly ſuppoſing the exiſtence or the pretence of ſuch evi⯑dence, there could have been no place for the diſcuſſion or the argument at all. Thus, for example, whether the prophecies, which the Jews interpreted to belong to the Meſ⯑ſiah, were, or were not, applicable to the hiſtory of Jeſus of Na [...]areth, was a natural ſubject of debate in thoſe times: and the de⯑bate would proceed, without recurring at every turn to his miracles, becauſe it ſet out with ſuppoſing theſe; inaſmuch as without miraculous marks and tokens (real or pre⯑tended), or without ſome ſuch great change effected by his means in the public condition [111] of the country, as might have ſatisfied the then received interpretation of theſe pro⯑phecies, I do not ſee how the queſtion could ever have been entertained. Apollos, we read, "mightily convinced the Jews, ſhow⯑ing by the ſcriptures that Jeſus was Chriſt ^*;" but unleſs Jeſus had exhibited ſome diſtinc⯑tion of his perſon, ſome proof of ſuperna⯑tural power, the argument from the old ſcrip⯑tures could have had no place. It had no⯑thing to attach upon. A young man, calling himſelf the Son of God, gathering a crowd about him, and delivering to them lectures of morality, could not have excited ſo much as a doubt amongſt the Jews whether he was the object in whom a long ſeries of ancient prophecies terminated, from the completion of which they had formed ſuch magnificent expectations, and expectations of a nature ſo oppoſite to what appeared: I mean, no ſuch doubt could exiſt when they had the whole caſe before them, when they ſaw him put to death for his officiouſneſs, and when by [112] his death the evidence concerning him was cloſed. Again, the effect of the Meſſiah's coming, ſuppoſing Jeſus to have been him, upon Jews, upon Gentiles, upon their rela⯑tion to each other, upon their acceptance with God, upon their duties and their ex⯑pectations; his nature, authority, office, and agency; were likely to become ſubjects of much conſideration with the early votaries of the religion, and to occupy their attention and writings. I ſhould not, however, expect, that in theſe diſquiſitions, whether preſerved in the form of letters, ſpeeches, or ſet trea⯑tiſes, frequent or very direct mention of his miracles would occur. Still miraculous evi⯑dence lay at the bottom of the argument. In the primary queſtion, miraculous preten⯑ſions, and miraculous pretenſions alone, were what they had to rely upon.

That the original ſtory was miraculous, is very fairly alſo inferred from the miracu⯑lous powers which were laid claim to by the Chriſtians of ſucceeding ages. If the ac⯑counts of theſe miracles be true, it was a [113] continuation of the ſame powers; if they be falſe, it was an imitation, I will not ſay, of what had been wrought, but of what had been reported to have been wrought, by thoſe who preceded them. That imitation ſhould follow reality; fiction be grafted upon truth; that if miracles were performed at firſt, miracles ſhould be pretended after⯑wards, agrees ſo well with the ordinary courſe of human affairs, that we can have no great difficulty in believing it. The con⯑trary ſuppoſition is very improbable, namely, that miracles ſhould be pretended to by the followers of the apoſtles and firſt emiſſaries of the religion, when none were pretended to, either in their own perſons or that of their maſter, by theſe apoſtles and emiſſaries them⯑ſelves.

CHAP. VII.
There is ſatisfactory evidence, that many, pro⯑feſſing to have been original witneſſes of the Chriſtian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted, from the ſame motives, to new rules of conduct.

IT once then being proved, that the firſt propagators of the Chriſtian inſtitution did exert great activity, and ſubject themſelves to great dangers and ſufferings, in conſe⯑quence, and for the ſake of an extraordinary, and I think we may ſay, of a miraculous ſtory of ſome kind or other; the next great queſtion is, Whether the account, which our ſcriptures contain, be that ſtory; that which theſe men delivered, and for which they acted and ſuffered as they did?

[115] This queſtion is, in effect, no other than, whether the ſtory which Chriſtians have now, be the ſtory which Chriſtians had then? and of this the following proofs may be deduced from general conſiderations, and from conſiderations prior to any enquiry into the particular reaſons and teſtimonies by which the authority of our hiſtories is ſupported.

In the firſt place, there exiſts no trace or veſtige of any other ſtory. It is not, like the death of Cyrus the Great, a competition between oppoſite accounts, or between the credit of different hiſtorians. There is not a document, or ſcrap of account, either con⯑temporary with the commencement of Chriſ⯑tianity, or extant within many ages after that commencement, which aſſigns a hiſtory ſub⯑ſtantially different from ours. The remote, brief, and incidental notices of the affair, which are found in heathen writers, ſo far as they do go, go along with us. They bear teſtimony to theſe facts; that the in⯑ſtitution originated from Jeſus; that the [116] founder was put to death, as a malefactor, at Jeruſalem, by the authority of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate; that the religion nevertheleſs ſpread in that city, and through⯑out Judea; and that it was propagated from thence to diſtant countries; that the con⯑verts were numerous; that they ſuffered great hardſhips and injuries for their pro⯑feſſion; and that all this took place in the age of the world which our books have aſſigned. They go on further, to deſcribe the manners of Chriſtians in terms perfectly conformable to the accounts extant in our books; that they were wont to aſſemble on a certain day; that they ſung hymns to Chriſt as to a god; that they bound themſelves by an oath not to commit any crime, but to ab⯑ſtain from theft and adultery, to adhere ſtrict⯑ly to their promiſes, and not to deny money depoſited in their hands ^*; that they wor⯑ſhipped him who was crucified in Paleſtine; that this, their firſt law-giver, had taught [117] them that they were all brethren; that they had a great contempt for the things of this world, and looked upon them as common; that they flew to one another's relief; that they cheriſhed ſtrong hopes of immortality; that they deſpiſed death, and ſurrendered themſelves to ſufferings ^*." This is the ac⯑count of writers who viewed the ſubject at a great diſtance; who were uninformed and unintereſted about it. It bears the characters [118] of ſuch an account upon the face of it, becauſe it deſcribes effects, namely, the ap⯑pearance in the world of a new religion, and the converſion of great multitudes to it, without deſcending, in the ſmalleſt degree, to the detail of the tranſaction upon which it was founded, the interior of the inſtitu⯑tion, the evidence or arguments offered by thoſe who drew over others to it. Yet ſtill here is no contradiction of our ſtory; no other or different ſtory ſet up againſt it; but ſo far a confirmation of it, as that, in the general points upon which the heathen ac⯑count touches, it agrees with that which we find in our own books.

The ſame may be obſerved of the very few Jewiſh writers, of that and the adjoin⯑ing period, which have come down to us. Whatever they omit, or whatever difficulties we may find in explaining the omiſſion, they advance no other hiſtory of the tranſ⯑action than that which we acknowledge. Joſephus, who wrote his antiquities, or hiſ⯑tory of the Jews, about ſixty years after the [119] commencement of Chriſtianity, in a paſſage generally admitted as genuine, makes men⯑tion of John under the name of John the Baptiſt; that he was a preacher of virtue; that he baptized his proſelytes; that he was well received by the people; that he was impriſoned and put to death by Herod; and that Herod lived in a criminal cohabitation with Herodias, his brother's wife ^*. In an⯑other paſſage, allowed by many, although not without conſiderable queſtion being moved about it, we hear of "James, the brother of him who was called Jeſus, and of his being put to death ^†." In a third paſ⯑ſage, extant in every copy that remains of Joſephus's hiſtory, but the authenticity of which has nevertheleſs been long diſputed, we have an explicit teſtimony to the ſub⯑ſtance of our hiſtory in theſe words:—"At that time lived Jeſus, a wiſe man, if he may be called a man, for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of ſuch [120] men as received the truth with pleaſure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gen⯑tiles. This was the Chriſt; and when Pi⯑late, at the inſtigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the croſs, they, who before had conceived an affection for him, did not ceaſe to adhere to him; for on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold theſe and many wonderful things concern⯑ing him. And the ſect of the Chriſtians, ſo called from him, ſubſiſts to this time ^*." Whatever become of the controverſy con⯑cerning the genuineneſs of this paſſage; whether Joſephus go the whole length of our hiſtory, which, if the paſſage be ſincere, he does; or whether he proceed only a very little way with us, which, if the paſſage be rejected, we confeſs to be the caſe; ſtill what we aſſerted is true, that he gives no other or different hiſtory of the ſubject from ours, no other or different account of the origin of the inſtitution. And I think alſo [121] that it may with great reaſon be contended, either that the paſſage is genuine, or that the ſilence of Joſephus was deſigned. For, al⯑though we ſhould lay aſide the authority of our own books entirely, yet when Tacitus, who wrote not twenty, perhaps not ten, years after Joſephus, in his account of a pe⯑riod in which Joſephus was near thirty years of age, tells us, that a vaſt multitude of Chriſtians were condemned at Rome; that they derived their denomination from Chriſt, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death, as a criminal, by the procurator Pon⯑tius Pilate; that the ſuperſtition had ſpread not only over Judea, the ſource of the evil, but had reached Rome alſo: — when Sueto⯑nius, an hiſtorian contemporary with Tacitus, relates, that, in the time of Claudius, the Jews were making diſturbances at Rome, Chreſtus being their leader; and that, dur⯑ing the reign of Nero, the Chriſtians were puniſhed; under both which emperors Jo⯑ſephus lived:—when Pliny, who wrote his celebrated epiſtle not more than thirty years after the publication of Joſephus's [122] hiſtory, found the Chriſtians in ſuch numbers in the province of Bithynia as to draw from him a complaint, that the contagion had ſeized cities, towns, and villages, and had ſo ſeized them as to produce a general deſer⯑tion of the public rites; and when, as hath already been obſerved, there is no reaſon for imagining that the Chriſtians were more numerous in Bithynia than in many other parts of the Roman empire: it cannot, I ſhould ſuppoſe, after this, be believed, that the religion, and the tranſaction upon which it was founded, were too obſcure to engage the attention of Joſephus, or to obtain a place in his hiſtory. Perhaps he did not know how to repreſent the buſineſs, and diſpoſed of his difficulties by paſſing it over in ſilence. Euſebius wrote the life of Con⯑ſtantine, yet omits entirely the moſt remark⯑able circumſtance in that life, the death of his ſon Criſpus; undoubtedly for the reaſon here given. The reſerve of Joſephus upon the ſubject of Chriſtianity appears alſo in his paſſing over the baniſhment of the Jews by Claudius, which Suetonius, we have ſeen, [123] has recorded with an expreſs reference to Chriſt. This is at leaſt as remarkable as his ſilence about the infants of Bethlehem ^*. Be, however, the fact, or the cauſe of the omiſſion in Joſephus ^†, what it may, no other or different hiſtory of the ſubject has been given by him, or is pretended to have been given.

But farther; the whole ſeries of Chriſtian [124] writers, from the firſt age of the inſtitution down to the preſent, in their diſcuſſions, apologies, arguments, and controverſies, pro⯑ceed upon the general ſtory which our ſcrip⯑tures contain, and upon no other. The main facts, the principal agents, are alike in all. This argument will appear to be of great force, when it is known that we are able to trace back the ſeries of writers to a contact with the hiſtorical books of the New Teſtament, and to the age of the firſt emiſ⯑ſaries of the religion, and to deduce it, by an unbroken continuation, from that end of the train to the preſent.

The remaining letters of the apoſtles (and what more original than their letters can we have), though written without the remoteſt deſign of tranſmitting the hiſtory of Chriſt, or of Chriſtianity, to future ages, or even of making it known to their contemporaries, incidentally diſcloſe to us the following cir⯑cumſtances: "Chriſt's deſcent and family, his innocence, the meekneſs and gentleneſs of his character (a recognition which goes [125] to the whole goſpel hiſtory), his exalted na⯑ture, his circumciſion, transfiguration, his life of oppoſition and ſuffering, his patience and reſignation, the appointment of the eu⯑chariſt and the manner of it, his agony, his confeſſion before Pontius Pilate, his ſtripes, crucifixion, burial, reſurrection, his appear⯑ance after it, firſt to Peter, then to the reſt of the apoſtles, his aſcenſion into heaven, and his deſignation to be the future judge of mankind: the ſtated reſidence of the apoſ⯑tles at Jeruſalem, the working of miracles by the firſt preachers of the goſpel, who were alſo the hearers of Chriſt ^*: the ſucceſsful [126] propagation of the religion, the perſecu⯑tion of its followers, the miraculous conver⯑ſion of Paul, miracles wrought by himſelf, and alledged in his controverſies with his adverſaries, and in letters to the perſons amongſt whom they were wrought; final⯑ly, that MIRACLES were the ſigns of an apoſtle ^*."

In an epiſtle bearing the name of Barnabas the companion of Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have the ſufferings of Chriſt, his choice of apoſtles and their number, his paſſion, the ſcarlet robe, the vinegar and gall, the mocking and piercing, the caſting lots for his coat ^†, his [127] reſurrection on the eighth (i. e. the firſt day of the week ^*) and the commemorative diſtinction of that day, his manifeſtation after his reſurrection, and laſtly, his aſcenſion. We have alſo his miracles generally but po⯑ſitively referred to in the following words: "finally teaching the people of Iſrael, and doing many wonders and ſigns among them, he preached to them, and ſhowed the exceeding great love which he bare towards them ^†."

In an epiſtle of Clement, a hearer of St. Paul, although written for a purpoſe re⯑motely connected with the Chriſtian hiſtory, we have the reſurrection of Chriſt, and the ſubſequent miſſion of the apoſtles, recorded in theſe ſatisfactory terms: "The apoſtles have preached to us from our Lord Jeſus Chriſt from God—For having received their command, and being thoroughly aſſured by the reſurrection of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, they went abroad, publiſhing that the kingdom of God was at hand ^‡." We find noticed alſo, [128] the humility, yet the power of Chriſt ^*, his deſcent from Abraham, his crucifixion. We have Peter and Paul repreſented as faithful and righteous pillars of the church, the nu⯑merous ſufferings of Peter, the bonds, ſtripes, and ſtoning of Paul, and more particularly his extenſive and unwearied travels.

In an epiſtle of Polycarp, a diſciple of St. John, though only a brief hortatory letter, we have the humility, patience, ſufferings, reſurrection, and aſcenſion of Chriſt, toge⯑ther with the apoſtolic character of St. Paul, diſtinctly recognized ^†. Of this ſame father we are alſo aſſured by Irenaeus, that he (Ire⯑naeus) had heard him relate, "what he had received from eye-witneſſes concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine ^‡."

In the remaining works of Ignatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, larger than thoſe [129] of Polycarp (yet, like thoſe of Polycarp, treating of ſubjects in no wiſe leading to any recital of the Chriſtian hiſtory), the occaſional alluſions are proportionably more numerous. The deſcent of Chriſt from David, his mo⯑ther Mary, his miraculous conception, the ſtar at his birth, his baptiſm by John, the reaſon aſſigned for it, his appeal to the pro⯑phets, the ointment poured on his head, his ſufferings under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, his reſurrection, the Lord's day called and kept in commemoration of it, and the Euchariſt, in both its parts, are une⯑quivocally referred to. Upon the reſurrec⯑tion this writer is even circumſtantial. He mentions the apoſtles eating and drinking with Chriſt after he was riſen, their feeling and their handling him; from which laſt cir⯑cumſtance Ignatius raiſes this juſt reflection—"They believed, being convinced both by his fleſh and ſpirit; for this cauſe they de⯑ſpiſed death, and were found to be above it ^*."

[130] Quadratus, of the ſame age with Ignatius, has left us the following noble teſtimony:—"The works of our Saviour were always conſpicuous, for they were real: both they that were healed, and they that were raiſed from the dead: who were ſeen not only when they were healed or raiſed, but for a long time afterwards. Not only whilſt he dwelled on this earth, but alſo after his de⯑parture, and for a good while after it, inſo⯑much that ſome of them have reached to our times ^*."

Juſtin Martyr came little more than thirty years after Quadratus. From Juſtin's works, which are ſtill extant, might be collected a tolerably complete account of Chriſt's life, in all points agreeing with that which is de⯑livered in our ſcriptures; taken indeed, in a great meaſure, from thoſe ſcriptures, but ſtill proving that this account, and no other, was the account known and extant in that age. The miracles in particular, which [131] form the part of Chriſt's hiſtory moſt mate⯑rial to be traced, ſtand fully and diſtinctly recognized in the following paſſage:—"He healed thoſe who had been blind, and deaf, and lame, from their birth, cauſing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and a third to ſee; and by raiſing the dead, and making them to live, he induced, by his works, the men of that age to know him ^*."

It is unneceſſary to carry theſe citations lower, becauſe the hiſtory, after this time, occurs in ancient Chriſtian writings as fa⯑miliarly as it is wont to do in modern ſer⯑mons; occurs always the ſame in ſubſtance, and always that which our evangeliſts repre⯑ſent.

This is not only true of thoſe writings of Chriſtians which are genuine, and of acknow⯑ledged authority, but it is, in a great meaſure, true of all their ancient writings which re⯑main; although ſome of theſe may have been erroneouſly aſcribed to authors to [132] whom they did not belong, or may contain falſe accounts, or may appear to be unde⯑ſerving of credit, or never indeed to have obtained any. Whatever fables they have mixed with the narrative, they preſerve the material parts, the leading facts, as we have them; and, ſo far as they do this, although they be evidence of nothing elſe, they are evidence that theſe points were fixed, were received and acknowledged by all Chriſtians in the ages in which the books were written. At leaſt it may be aſſerted, that, in the places where we were moſt likely to meet with ſuch things, if ſuch things had exiſted, no reliques appear of any ſtory ſubſtantially different from the preſent, as the cauſe, or as the pre⯑tence, of the inſtitution.

Now that the original ſtory, the ſtory delivered by the firſt preachers of the inſtitu⯑tion, ſhould have died away ſo entirely as to have left no record or memorial of its exiſt⯑ence, although ſo many records and memo⯑rials of the time and tranſaction remain; and that another ſtory ſhould have ſtepped into [133] its place, and gained excluſive poſſeſſion of the belief of all who profeſſed themſelves diſciples of the inſtitution, is beyond any example of the corruption of even oral tra⯑dition, and ſtill leſs conſiſtent with the expe⯑rience of written hiſtory: and this improba⯑bility, which is very great, is rendered ſtill greater by the reflection, that no ſuch change, as the oblivion of one ſtory and the ſubſtitu⯑tion of another, took place in any future period of the Chriſtian aera. Chriſtianity hath travelled through dark and turbulent ages; nevertheleſs it came out of the cloud and the ſtorm, ſuch, in ſubſtance, as it en⯑tered in. Many additions were made to the primitive hiſtory, and theſe entitled to dif⯑ferent degrees of credit; many doctrinal errors alſo were from time to time grafted into the public creed, but ſtill the original ſtory remained, and remained the ſame. In all its principal parts it has been fixed from the beginning.

Thirdly, The religious rites and uſages that prevailed amongſt the early diſciples of [134] Chriſtianity, were ſuch as belonged to, and ſprung out of, the narrative now in our hands; which accordancy ſhews, that it was the narrative upon which theſe perſons acted, and which they had received from their teachers. Our account makes the founder of the religion direct that his diſciples ſhould be baptized: we know that the firſt Chriſ⯑tians were baptized. Our account makes him direct that they ſhould hold religious aſſemblies: we find that they did hold religi⯑ous aſſemblies. Our accounts make the apo⯑ſtles aſſemble upon a ſtated day in the week: we find, and that from information perfectly independent of our accounts, that the Chriſ⯑tians of the firſt century did obſerve ſtated days of aſſembling. Our hiſtories record the inſtitution of the rite which we call the Lord's Supper, and a command to repeat it in perpetual ſucceſſion: we find, amongſt the early Chriſtians, the celebration of this rite univerſal. And indeed we find concur⯑ring in all the above-mentioned obſervances, Chriſtian ſocieties of many different nations and languages, removed from one another [135] by great diſtance of place and diſſimilitude of ſituation. It is alſo extremely material to remark, that there is no room for inſinu⯑ating that our books were fabricated with a ſtudious accommodation to the uſages which obtained at the time they were written; that the authors of the books found the uſages eſtabliſhed, and framed the ſtory to account for their original. The ſcripture accounts, eſpecially of the Lord's Supper, are too ſhort and curſory, not to ſay too obſcure, and, in this view, deficient, to al⯑low a place for any ſuch ſuſpicion ^*.

Amongſt the proofs of the truth of our propoſition, viz. that the ſtory, which we have now, is, in ſubſtance, the ſtory which the Chriſtians had then, or, in other words, that the accounts in our goſpels are, as to [136] their principal parts at leaſt, the accounts which the apoſtles and original teachers of the religion delivered, one ariſes from ob⯑ſerving, that it appears by the goſpels them⯑ſelves, that the ſtory was public at the time; that the Chriſtian community was already in poſſeſſion of the ſubſtance and principal parts of the narrative. The goſpels were not the original cauſe of the Chriſtian hiſ⯑tory being believed, but were themſelves among the conſequences of that belief. This is expreſsly affirmed by St. Luke in his brief, but, as I think, very important and in⯑ſtructive preface. "Foraſmuch (ſays the evangeliſt) as many have taken in hand to ſet forth in order a declaration of thoſe things which are moſt ſurely believed amongſt us, even as they aelivered them unto us, which, from the beginning, were eye-witneſſes and miniſters of the word; it ſeemed good to me alſo, having had perfect underſtanding of all things from the very firſt, to write unto thee in order, moſt excellent Theophilus, that thou mighteſt know the certainty of thoſe things wherein thou haſt been inſtructed." [137] This ſhort introduction teſtifies, that the ſub⯑ſtance of the hiſtory, which the evangeliſt was about to write, was already believed by Chriſtians; that it was believed upon the declarations of eye-witneſſes and miniſters of the word; that it formed the account of their religion, in which Chriſtians were in⯑ſtructed; that the office which the hiſtorian propoſed to himſelf, was to trace each parti⯑cular to its origin, and to fix the certainty of many things which the reader had before heard of. In St. John's Goſpel, the ſame point appears from hence, that there are ſome principal facts, to which the hiſtorian refers, but which he does not relate. A remarkable inſtance of this kind is the aſcenſion, which is not mentioned by St. John in its place, at the concluſion of his hiſtory, but which is plainly referred to in the following words of the ſixth chapter ^*: "What and if ye ſhall ſee the Son of man aſcend up where he was before." And ſtill more poſitively in the words which Chriſt, according to our evangeliſt, [138] ſpoke to Mary after his reſurrection, "Touch me not, for I am not yet aſcended to my Father; but go unto my brethren, and ſay unto them, I aſcend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God ^*." This can only be accounted for by the ſup⯑poſition, that St. John wrote under a ſenſe of the notoriety of Chriſt's aſcenſion, amongſt thoſe by whom his book was likely to be read. The ſame account muſt alſo be given of St. Matthew's omiſſion of the ſame im⯑portant fact. The thing was very well known, and it did not occur to the hiſtorian, that it was neceſſary to add any particulars concerning it. It agrees alſo with this ſolu⯑tion, and with no other, that neither Mat⯑thew nor John diſpoſe of the perſon of our Lord in any manner whatever. Other inti⯑mations in St. John's Goſpel of the then general notoriety of the ſtory are the follow⯑ing: His manner of introducing his narra⯑tive, (ch. i. v. 15.) "John bare witneſs of him, and cried, ſaying," evidently preſuppoſes [139] that his readers knew who John was. His rapid parenthetical reference to John's im⯑priſonment, "for John was not yet caſt into priſon ^*," could only come from a writer whoſe mind was in the habit of conſidering John's impriſonment as perfectly notorious. The deſcription of Andrew by the addition "Simon Peter's brother ^†," takes it for granted that Simon Peter was well known. His name had not been mentioned before. The evangeliſt's noticing ‡ the prevailing miſconſtruction of a diſcourſe, which Chriſt held with the beloved diſciple, proves that the characters and the diſcourſe were already public. And the obſervation which theſe inſtances afford, is of equal validity for the purpoſe of the preſent argument, whoever were the authors of the hiſtories.

THESE four circumſtances, firſt, the recog⯑nition of the account in its principal parts by a ſeries of ſucceeding writers; ſecondly, the total abſence of any account of the origin of [140] the religion ſubſtantially different from ours; thirdly, the early and extenſive prevalence of rites and inſtitutions, which reſult from our account; fourthly, our account bearing, in its conſtruction, proof that it is an account of facts, which were known and believed at the time; are ſufficient, I conceive, to ſupport an aſſurance, that the ſtory, which we have now, is, in general, the ſtory which Chriſtians had at the beginning. I ſay in general; by which term I mean, that it is the ſame in its texture, and in its principal facts. For inſtance, I make no doubt, for the reaſons above ſtated, but that the reſur⯑rection of the founder of the religion was always a part of the Chriſtian ſtory. Nor can a doubt of this remain upon the mind of any one, who reflects that the reſurrection is, in ſome form or other, aſſerted, referred to, or aſſumed, in every Chriſtian writing, of every deſcription, which hath come down to us.

And if our evidence ſtopped here, we ſhould have a ſtrong caſe to offer: for we ſhould [141] have to alledge, that, in the reign of Tiberius Caeſar, a certain number of perſons ſet about an attempt of eſtabliſhing a new religion in the world; in the proſecution of which pur⯑poſe, they voluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labours, ſuſtained great ſufferings, all for a miraculous ſtory which they publiſhed wherever they came; and that the reſurrection of a dead man, whom, during his life, they had followed and accompanied, was a conſtant part of this ſtory. I know nothing in the above ſtate⯑ment which can, with any appearance of reaſon, be diſputed; and I know nothing in the hiſtory of the human ſpecies ſimilar to it.

CHAP. VIII.
There is ſatisfactory evidence, that many per⯑ſons, profeſſing to have been original witneſſes of the Chriſtian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted, from the ſame motives, to new rules of conduct.

THAT the ſtory which we have now is, in the main, the ſtory which the apoſtles pub⯑liſhed, is, I think, nearly certain from the conſiderations which have been propoſed. But whether, when we come to the particu⯑lars and the detail of the narrative, the hiſ⯑torical books of the New Teſtament be de⯑ſerving of credit as hiſtories, ſo that a fact ought to be accounted true becauſe it is found in them; or whether they are entitled to be conſidered as repreſenting the accounts, [143] which, true or ſalſe, the apoſtles publiſhed; whether their authority, in either of theſe views, can be truſted to, is a point which neceſſarily depends upon what we know of the books, and of their authors.

Now, in treating of this part of our argu⯑ment, the firſt, and a moſt material, obſer⯑vation upon the ſubject is, that, ſuch was the ſituation of the authors to whom the four goſpels are aſcribed, that, if any one of the four be genuine, it is ſufficient for our pur⯑poſe. The received author of the firſt was an original apoſtle and emiſſary of the reli⯑gion. The received author of the ſecond was an inhabitant of Jeruſalem at the time, to whoſe houſe the apoſtles were wont to reſort, and himſelf an attendant upon one of the moſt eminent of that number. The received author of the third was a ſtated companion and fellow traveller of the moſt active of all the teachers of the religion, and in the courſe of his travels frequently in the ſociety of the original apoſtles. The received author of the fourth, as well as of the firſt, [144] was one of theſe apoſtles. No ſtronger evi⯑dence of the truth of a hiſtory can ariſe from the ſituation of the hiſtorian than what is here offered. The authors of all the hiſtories lived at the time and upon the ſpot. The authors of two of the hiſtories were preſent at many of the ſcenes which they deſcribe; eye-witneſſes of the facts, ear-witneſſes of the diſcourſes; writing from perſonal know⯑ledge and recollection, and, what ſtrengthens their teſtimony, writing upon a ſubject in which their minds were deeply engaged, and in which, as they muſt have been very fre⯑quently repeating the accounts to others, the paſſages of the hiſtory would be kept conti⯑nually alive in their memory. Whoever reads the goſpels (and they ought to be read for this particular purpoſe) will find in them not merely a general affirmation of miracu⯑lous powers, but detailed circumſtantial ac⯑counts of miracles, with ſpecifications of time, place, and perſons; and theſe accounts many and various. In the Goſpels, there⯑fore, which bear the names of Matthew and John, theſe narratives, if they really proceeded [145] from theſe men, muſt either be true, as far as the ſidelity of human recollection is uſually to be depended upon, that is, muſt be true in ſubſtance, and in their prin⯑cipal parts (which is ſufficient for the pur⯑poſe of proving a ſupernatural agency), or they muſt be wilful and meditated falſe⯑hoods. Yet the writers who fabricated and uttered theſe falſehoods, if they be ſuch are of the number of thoſe who, unleſs the whole contexture of the Chriſtian ſtory be a dream, ſacrificed their eaſe and ſafety in the cauſe, and for a purpoſe the moſt inconſiſt⯑ent that is poſſible with diſhoneſt intentions. They were villains for no end but to teach honeſty, and martyrs without the leaſt pro⯑ſpect of honour or advantage.

The goſpels which bear the name of Mark and Luke, although not the narratives of eye-witneſſes, are, if genuine, removed from that only by one degree. They are the narratives of contemporary writers, of wri⯑ters themſelves mixing with the buſineſs, one of the two probably living in the place [146] which was the principal ſcene of action, both living in habits of ſociety and correſpond⯑ence with thoſe who had been preſent at the tranſactions which they relate. The lat⯑ter of them accordingly tells us (and with apparent ſincerity, becauſe he tells it without pretending to perſonal knowledge, and with⯑out claiming for his work greater authority than belonged to it), that the things, which were believed amongſt Chriſtians, came from thoſe who from the beginning were eye-witneſſes and miniſters of the word; that he had traced up accounts to their ſource; and that he was prepared to inſtruct his reader in the certainty of the things which he related ^*. Very few hiſtories lie ſo cloſe to their facts; very few hiſtorians are ſo nearly connected with the ſubject of their narrative, [147] or poſſeſs ſuch means of authentic informa⯑tion, as theſe.

The ſituation of the writers applies to the truth of the facts which they record. But at preſent we uſe their teſtimony to a point ſomewhat ſhort of this, namely, that the facts recorded in the goſpels, whether true or falſe, are the facts, and the ſort of facts, which the original preachers of the religion alledged. Strictly ſpeaking, I am concerned only to ſhew, that what the go⯑ſpels contain is the ſame as what the apoſtles preached. Now how ſtands the proof of this point? A ſet of men went about the world publiſhing a ſtory compoſed of mira⯑culous accounts (for miraculous from the very nature and exigency of the caſe they muſt have been), and, upon the ſtrength of theſe accounts, called upon mankind to quit the religions in which they had been educat⯑ed, and to take up, from thenceforth, a new ſyſtem of opinions, and new rules of action. What is more, in atteſtation of theſe accounts, that is, in ſupport of an inſtitution of which [148] theſe accounts were the foundation, the ſame men voluntarily expoſed themſelves to ha⯑raſſing and perpetual labours, dangers, and ſufferings. We want to know what theſe accounts were. We have the particulars, i. e. many particulars, from two of their own number. We have them from an attendant of one of the number, and who there is rea⯑ſon to believe was an inhabitant of Jeruſalem at the time. We have them from a fourth writer, who accompanied the moſt laborious miſſionary of the inſtitution in his travels; who, in the courſe of theſe travels, was fre⯑quently brought into the ſociety of the reſt; and who, let it be obſerved, begins his narra⯑tive by telling us, that he is about to relate the things which had been delivered by thoſe who were miniſters of the word and eye-witneſſes of the fact. I do not know what information can be more ſatisfactory than this. We may, perhaps, perceive the force and value of it more ſenſibly, if we reflect how requiring we ſhould have been if we had wanted it. Suppoſing it to be ſufficiently proved, that the religion, now [149] profeſſed amongſt us, owed its original to the preaching and miniſtry of a number of men, who, about eighteen centuries ago, ſet forth in the world a new ſyſtem of religious opinions, founded upon certain extraordi⯑nary things which they related of a wonder⯑ful perſon who had appeared in Judea: ſuppoſe it to be alſo ſufficiently proved, that, in the courſe and proſecution of their mini⯑ſtry, theſe men had ſubjected themſelves to extreme hardſhips, fatigue, and peril; but ſup⯑poſe the accounts which they publiſhed had not been committed to writing till ſome ages after their times, or at leaſt that no hiſtories, but what had been compoſed ſome ages af⯑terwards, had reached our hands; we ſhould have ſaid, and with reaſon, that we were willing to believe theſe men under the cir⯑cumſtances in which they delivered their teſtimony, but that we did not, at this day, know with ſufficient evidence what their teſtimony was. Had we received the parti⯑culars of it from any of their own number, from any of thoſe who lived and converſed with them, from any of their hearers, or even [150] from any of their contemporaries, we ſhould have had ſomething to rely upon. Now, if our books be genuine, we have all theſe. We have the very ſpecies of information which, as it appears to me, our imagination would have carved out for us, if it had been wanting.

But I have ſaid, that, if any one of the four goſpels be genuine, we have not only direct hiſtorical teſtimony to the point we contend for, but teſtimony which, ſo far as that point is concerned, cannot reaſonably be rejected. If the firſt goſpel was really written by Matthew, we have the narrative of one of the number from which to judge what were the miracles, and the kind of miracles, which the apoſtles attributed to Jeſus. Although, for argument's ſake, and only for argument's ſake, we ſhould allow that this goſpel had been erroneouſly aſcribed to Matthew, yet if the goſpel of St. John be genuine, the obſervation holds with no leſs ſtrength. Again, although the goſpels both of Matthew and John could be ſup⯑poſed to be ſpurious, yet, if the goſpel of St. [151] Luke was truly the compoſition of that perſon, or of any perſon, be his name what it might, who was actually in the ſituation in which the author of that goſpel profeſſes himſelf to have been; or if the goſpel which bears the name of Mark really proceeded from him; we ſtill, even upon the loweſt ſup⯑poſition, poſſeſs the accounts of one writer at leaſt, who was not only contemporary with the apoſtles, but aſſociated with them in their miniſtry; which authority ſeems ſufficient, when the queſtion is ſimply what it was which theſe apoſtles advanced.

I think it material to have this well no⯑ticed. The New Teſtament contains a great number of diſtinct writings, the genuineneſs of any one of which is almoſt ſufficient to prove the truth of the religion: it contains, however, four diſtinct hiſtories, the genuine⯑neſs of any one of which is perfectly ſuf⯑ficient. If, therefore, we muſt be conſider⯑ed as encountering the riſk of error in aſſign⯑ing the authors of our books, we are enti⯑tled to the advantage of ſo many ſeparate [150] [...] [151] [...] [152] probabilities. And although it ſhould ap⯑pear that ſome of the evangeliſts had ſeen and uſed each other's works, this diſcovery, whilſt it ſubtracts indeed from their charac⯑ter as teſtimonies ſtrictly independent, dimi⯑niſhes, I conceive, little, either their ſepa⯑rate authority, by which I mean the autho⯑rity of any one that is genuine, or their mu⯑tual confirmation. For let the moſt diſad⯑vantageous ſuppoſition poſſible be made con⯑cerning them; let it be allowed, what I ſhould have no great difficulty in admitting, that Mark compiled his hiſtory almoſt en⯑tirely from thoſe of Matthew and Luke; and let it alſo, for a moment, be ſuppoſed, that theſe hiſtories were not, in fact, written by Matthew and Luke; yet if it be true that Mark, a contemporary of the apoſtles, liv⯑ing in habits of ſociety with the apoſtles, a fellow-traveller and fellow-labourer with ſome of them; if, I ſay, it be true that this perſon made the compilation, it follows, that the writings from which he made it exiſted in the ti [...]es of the apoſtles, and not only ſo, but that they were then in ſuch eſteem and [153] credit that a companion of the apoſtles form⯑ed a hiſtory out of them. Let the goſpel of Mark be called an epitome of that of Mat⯑thew; if a perſon, in the ſituation in which Mark is deſcribed to have been, actually made the epitome, it affords the ſtrongeſt poſſible atteſtation to the character of the original.

Again, paralleliſms in ſentences, in words, and in the order of words, have been traced out between the goſpel of Mat⯑thew and that of Luke; which concur⯑rence cannot eaſily be explained otherwiſe than by ſuppoſing, either that Luke had con⯑ſulted Matthew's hiſtory, or, what appears to me in no wiſe incredible, that minutes of ſome of Chriſt's diſcourſes, as well as brief memoirs of ſome paſſages of his life, had been committed to writing at the time, and that ſuch written accounts had by both authors been occaſionally admitted into their hiſtories. Either ſuppoſition is perfectly conſiſtent with the acknowledged formation of St. Luke's narrative, who profeſſes not to write as an eye-witneſs, but to have inveſtigated [154] the original of every account which he delivers; in other words, to have col⯑lected them from ſuch documents and teſti⯑monics, as he, who had the beſt opportuni⯑ties of making enquiries, judged to be authentic. Therefore, allowing that this writer alſo, in ſome inſtances, borrowed from the goſpel which we call Matthew's, and once more allowing, for the ſake of ſtat⯑ing the argument, that that goſpel was not the production of the author to whom we aſcribe it, yet ſtill we have, in St. Luke's goſpel, a hiſtory given by a writer immedi⯑ately connected with the tranſaction, with the witneſſes of it, with the perſons engaged in it, and compoſed from materials which that perſon, thus ſituated, deemed to be ſafe ſources of intelligence: in other words, whatever ſuppoſition be made concerning any or all the other goſpels, if St. Luke's goſpel be genuine, we have in it a credible evidence of the point which we maintain.

The goſpel according to St. John appears to be, and is on all hands allowed to be, an [155] independent teſtimony, ſtrictly and properly ſo called. Notwithſtanding, therefore, any connection, or ſuppoſed connection, between ſome of the goſpels, I again repeat, what I before ſaid, that, if any one of the four be genuine, we have in that one, ſtrong reaſon from the character and ſituation of the wri⯑ter to believe, that we poſſeſs the accounts which the original emiſſaries of the religion delivered.

II. In treating of the written evidences of Chriſtianity, next to their ſeparate, we are to conſider their aggregate authority. Now there is in the evangelic hiſtory a cumulation of teſtimony which belongs hardly to any other hiſtory, but which our habitual mode of reading the ſcriptures ſometimes cauſes us to overlook. When a paſſage, in any wiſe relating to the hiſtory of Chriſt, is read to us out of the epiſtle of Clemens Roma⯑nus, the epiſtles of Ignatius, of Polycarp, or from any other writing of that age, we are immediately ſenſible of the conſirmation which it affords to the ſcripture account. [156] Here is a new witneſs. Now if we had been accuſtomed to read the goſpel of Mat⯑thew alone, and had known that of Luke only as the generality of Chriſtians know the writings of the apoſtolical fathers, that is, had known that ſuch a writing was extant and acknowledged; when we came, for the firſt time, to look into what it contained, and found many of the facts which Matthew re⯑corded, recorded alſo there, many other facts of a ſimilar nature added, and throughout the whole work the ſame general ſeries of tranſactions ſtated, and the ſame general cha⯑racter of the perſon who was the ſubject of the hiſtory preſerved, I apprehend that we ſhould ſeel our minds ſtrongly impreſſed by this diſcovery of freſh evidence. We ſhould feel a renewal of the ſame ſentiment in firſt reading the goſpel of St. John. That of St. Mark perhaps would ſtrike us as an abridgement of the hiſtory with which we were already acquainted; but we ſhould na⯑turally reflect, that, if that hiſtory was abridged by ſuch a perſon as Mark, or by any perſon of ſo early an age, it afforded one [157] of the higheſt poſſible atteſtations to the va⯑lue of the work. This ſucceſſive diſcloſure of proof would leave us aſſured, that there muſt have been at leaſt ſome reality in a ſtory which, not one, but many, had taken in hand to commit to writing. The very exiſtence of four ſeparate hiſtories would ſa⯑tisfy us that the ſubject had a foundation; and when, amidſt the variety which the different information of the different writ⯑ers had ſupplied to their accounts, or which their different choice and judgement in ſelect⯑ing their materials had produced, we obſerv⯑ed many facts to ſtand the ſame in all; of theſe facts, at leaſt, we ſhould conclude, that they were fixed in their credit and publicity. If, after this, we ſhould come to the know⯑ledge of a diſtinct hiſtory, and that alſo of the ſame age with the reſt, taking up the ſubject where the others had left it, and car⯑rying on a narrative of the effects produced in the world by the extraordinary cauſes of which we had already been informed, and which effects ſubſiſt at this day, we ſhould think the reality of the original ſtory in no [158] little degree eſtabliſhed by this ſupplement. If ſubſequent enquiries ſhould bring to our knowledge, one after another, letters writ⯑ten by ſome of the principal agents in the buſineſs, upon the buſineſs, and during the time of their activity and concern in it, aſ⯑ſuming all along and recognizing the origi⯑nal ſtory, agitating the queſtions that aroſe out of it, preſſing the obligations which re⯑ſulted from it, giving advice and directions to thoſe who acted upon it, I conceive that we ſhould find, in every one of theſe, a ſtill further ſupport to the concluſion we had formed. At preſent the weight of this ſuc⯑ceſſive confirmation is, in a great meaſure, unperceived by us. The evidence does not appear to us what it is; for, being from our infancy accuſtomed to regard the New Teſ⯑tament as one book, we ſee in it only one teſtimony. The whole occurs to us as a ſingle evidence; and its different parts, not as diſtinct atteſtations, but as different por⯑tions only of the ſame. Yet in this concep⯑tion of the ſubject we are certainly miſ⯑taken; for the very diſcrepancies amongſt [159] the ſeveral documents which form our vo⯑lume, prove, if all other proof was wanting, that in their original compoſition they were ſeparate, and moſt of them independent pro⯑ductions.

If we diſpoſe our ideas in a different or⯑der, the matter ſtands thus:—Whilſt the tranſaction was recent, and the original wit⯑neſſes were at hand to relate it; and whilſt the apoſtles were buſied in preaching and travelling, in collecting diſciples, in forming and regulating ſocieties of converts, in ſup⯑porting themſelves againſt oppoſition; whilſt they exerciſed their miniſtry under the ha⯑raſſings of frequent perſecution, and in a ſtate of almoſt continual alarm, it is not pro⯑bable that, in this engaged, anxicus, and unſettled condition of life, they would think immediately of writing hiſtories for the in⯑formation of the public or of poſterity ^*. [160] But it is very probable, that emergencies might draw from ſome of them, occaſional letters upon the ſubject of their miſſion, to converts, or to ſocieties of converts, with which they were connected; or that they might addreſs written diſcourſes and exhor⯑tations to the diſciples of the inſtitution at large, which would be received and read with a reſpect proportioned to the character of the writer. Accounts in the mean time would get abroad, of the extraordinary things that had been paſſing, written with different degrees of information and correctneſs. The extenſion of the Chriſtian ſociety, which could no longer be inſtructed by a perſonal intercourſe with the apoſtles, and the poſ⯑ſible circulation of imperfect or erroneous narratives, would ſoon teach ſome amongſt them the expediency of ſending forth au⯑thentic memoirs of the life and doctrine of their maſter. When accounts appeared, authorized [161] by the name, and credit, and ſitua⯑tion of the writers, recommended or recog⯑nized by the apoſtles and firſt preachers of the religion, or found to coincide with what the apoſtles and firſt preachers of the religion had taught, other accounts would fall into diſuſe and neglect; whilſt theſe, maintain⯑ing their reputation (as, if genuine and well founded, they would do) under the teſt of time, enquiry, and contradiction, might be expected to make their way into the hands of Chriſtians of all countries of the world.

This ſeems the natural progreſs of the bu⯑ſineſs; and with this the records in our poſ⯑ſeſſion, and the evidence concerning them, correſpond. We have remaining, in the firſt place, many letters of the kind above deſcribed, which have been preſerved with a care and fidelity anſwering to the reſpect with which we may ſuppoſe that ſuch letters would be received. But as theſe letters were not written to prove the truth of the Chriſ⯑tian religion, in the ſenſe in which we re⯑gard that queſtion; nor to convey information [162] of facts, of which thoſe to whom the letters were written had been previouſly in⯑formed; we are not to look in them for any thing more than incidental alluſions to the Chriſtian hiſtory. We are able, however, to gather from theſe documents various particu⯑lar atteſtations which have been already enu⯑merated; and this is a ſpecies of written evi⯑dence, as far as it goes, in the higheſt degree ſatisfactory, and in point of time perhaps the firſt. But for our more circumſtantial in⯑formation we have, in the next place, five direct biſtories, bearing the names of perſons acquainted, by their ſituation, with the truth of what they relate, and three of them pur⯑porting, in the very body of the narrative, to be written by ſuch perſons: of which books we know that ſome were in the hands of thoſe who were contemporaries of the apoſtles, and that, in the age immediately poſterior to that, they were in the hands, we may ſay, of every one, and received by Chriſtians with ſo much reſpect and defe⯑rence, as to be conſtantly quoted and refer⯑red to by them without any doubt of the [163] truth of their accounts. They were treated as ſuch hiſtories, proceeding from ſuch au⯑thorities, might expect to be treated. In the preface to one of our hiſtories we have inti⯑mations left us of the exiſtence of ſome an⯑cient accounts which are now loſt. There is nothing in this circumſtance that can ſur⯑priſe us. It was to be expected from the magnitude and novelty of the occaſion that ſuch accounts would ſwarm. When better accounts came forth, theſe died away. Our preſent hiſtories ſuperſeded others. They ſoon acquired a character and eſtabliſhed a reputation which does not appear to have belonged to any other: that, at leaſt, can be proved concerning them, which cannot be proved concerning any other.

But to return to the point which led to theſe reflections. By conſidering our re⯑cords in either of the two views in which we have repreſented them, we ſhall perceive that we poſſeſs a collection of proofs, and not a naked or ſolitary teſtimony; and that the written evidence is of ſuch a kind, and comes [164] to us in ſuch a ſtate, as the natural order and progreſs of things, in the infancy of the in⯑ſtitution, might be expected to produce.

Thirdly; The genuineneſs of the hiſtori⯑cal books of the New Teſtament is undoubt⯑edly a point of importance, becauſe the ſtrength of their evidence is augmented by our knowledge of the ſituation of their au⯑thors, their relation to the ſubject, and the part which they ſuſtained in the tranſaction; and the teſtimonies which we are able to produce, compoſe a ſirm ground of perſua⯑ſion that the goſpels were written by the per⯑ſons whoſe names they bear. Nevertheleſs, I muſt be allowed to ſtate, that, to the argu⯑ment which I am endeavouring to main⯑tain, this point is not eſſential; I mean, ſo eſſential as that the fate of the argument de⯑pends upon it. The queſtion before us is, whether the goſpels exhibit the ſtory which the apoſtles and firſt emiſſaries of the religion publiſhed, and for which they acted and ſuffered, in the manner in which, for ſome miraculous ſtory or other, they did act and [165] ſuffer. Now let us ſuppoſe that we poſſeſſed no other information concerning theſe books than that they were written by early diſci⯑ples of Chriſtianity; that they were known and read during the time, or near the time, of the original apoſtles of the religion; that by Chriſtians whom the apoſtles inſtructed, by ſocieties of Chriſtians which the apoſtles ſounded, theſe books were received (by which term "received" I mean that they were believed to contain authentic accounts of the tranſaction upon which the religion reſted, and accounts which were accordingly uſed, repeated, and relied upon), this recep⯑tion would be a valid proof that theſe books, whoever were the authors of them, muſt have accorded with what the apoſtles taught. A reception by the firſt race of Chriſtians is evidence that they agreed with what the firſt teachers of the religion delivered. In par⯑ticular, if they had not agreed with what the apoſtles themſelves preached, how could they have gained credit in churches and ſocieties which the apoſtles eſtabliſhed?

[166] Now the fact of their early exiſtence, and not only of their exiſtence but their reputa⯑tion, is made out by ſome ancient teſtimo⯑nies which do not happen to ſpecify the names of the writers: add to which, what hath been already hinted, that two out of the four goſpels contain averments in the body of the hiſtory, which, though they do not diſcloſe the names, fix the time and ſi⯑tuation of the authors, viz. that one was written by an eye-witneſs of the ſufferings of Chriſt, the other by a contemporary of the apoſtles. In the goſpel of St. John, (xix. 35.) after deſcribing the crucifixion, with the particular circumſtance of piercing Chriſt's ſide with a ſpear, the hiſtorian adds, as for himſelf, "and he that ſaw it bare re⯑cord, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he faith true. that ye might believe." Again, (xxi. 24.) after relating a converſa⯑tion which paſſed between Peter and the diſciple, as it is there expreſſed, whom Jeſus loved, it is added, "this is the diſciple which teſtiſieth of theſe things and wrote theſe things." This teſtimony, let it be remarked, [167] is not the leſs worthy of regard, becauſe it is in one view imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if a fraudulent pur⯑poſe had been intended, would have been done. The third of our preſent goſpels purports to have been written by the perſon who wrote the Acts of the Apoſtles; in which latter hiſtory, or rather latter part of the ſame hiſtory, the author, by uſing in va⯑rious places the firſt perſon plural, declares himſelf to have been a contemporary of all, and a companion of one of the original preachers of the religion.

CHAP. IX.
There is ſatisfactory evidence, that many per⯑ſons, profeſſing to be original witneſſes of the Chriſtian miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily undergone in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted, from the ſame motives, to new rules of conduct.
"Of the Authenticity of the Scriptures."

NOT forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelie hiſtory, ſuppoſing even any one of the four goſpels to be genuine; what credit is due to the goſpels, even ſup⯑poſing nothing to be known concerning them but that they were written by early diſ⯑ciples of the religion, and received with de⯑ference by early Chriſtian churches; more eſpecially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Teſtament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to [169] ſtate the proper and diſtinct proofs, which ſhow not only the general value of theſe records, but their ſpecific authority, and the high probability there is that they actually came from the perſons whoſe names they bear.

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw up with more regularity to the propoſitions, upon which the cloſe and particular diſcuſſion of the ſubject depends. Of which nature are the following:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuſcripts, found in many dif⯑ferent countries, and in countries widely diſ⯑tant from each other, all of them anterior to the art of printing, ſome certainly ſeven or eight hundred years old, and ſome which have been preſerved probably above a thou⯑ſand years ^*. We have alſo many ancient [170] verſions of theſe books, and ſome of them into languages which are not at preſent, nor for many ages have been, ſpoken in any part of the world. The exiſtence of theſe manuſcripts and verſions proves that the ſcriptures were not the production of any modern contrivance. It does away alſo the uncertainty which hangs over ſuch publica⯑tions as the works, real or pretended, of Oſſian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce their manuſcripts, and to ſhow where they obtained their copies. The number of manuſcripts, far exceeding thoſe of any other book, and their wide dis⯑perſion, affords an argument, in ſome mea⯑ſure, to the ſenſes, that the ſcriptures, anci⯑ently, in like manner as at this day, were more read and ſought after than any other books, and that alſo in many different coun⯑tries. The greateſt part of ſpurious Chriſ⯑tian writings are utterly loſt, the reſt pre⯑ſerved by ſome ſingle manuſcript. There is weight alſo in Dr. Bentley's obſervation, that the New Teſtament has ſuffered leſs injury by the errors of tranſcribers than the [171] works of any profane author of the ſame ſize and antiquity; that is, there never was any writing in the preſervation and purity of which the world was ſo intereſted or ſo careful.

II. An argument of great weight with thoſe who are judges of the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their teſti⯑mony, of being addreſſed to every under⯑ſtanding, is that which ariſes from the ſtyle and language of the New Teſtament. It is juſt ſuch a language as might be expected from the apoſtles, from perſons of their age and in their ſituation, and from no other perſons. It is the ſtyle neither of claſſic authors, nor of the ancient Chriſtian fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, ſuch as would naturally be found in the writings of men who uſed a language ſpoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect of the country. This happy peculiarity is a ſtrong proof of the genuineneſs of theſe writings; for who [172] ſhould forge them? The Chriſtian fathers were for the moſt part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were not likely to inſert Hebraiſms and Syriaſms into their writings. The few who had a knowledge of the He⯑brew, as Juſtin Martyr, Origen, and Epi⯑phanius, wrote in a language which bears no reſemblance to that of the New Teſtament. The Nazarenes, who underſtood Hebrew, uſed chieſly, perhaps almoſt entirely, the goſpel of St. Matthew, and therefore cannot be ſuſpected of forging the reſt of the ſacred writings. The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity of theſe books; that they be⯑longed to the age of the apoſtles; that they could be compoſed indeed in no other ^*.

III. Why ſhould we queſtion the genuine⯑neſs of theſe books? Is it for that they con⯑tain accounts of ſupernatural events? I apprehend that this, at the bottom, is the [173] real, though ſecret, cauſe of our heſitation about them; for had the writings inſcribed with the name of Matthew and John related nothing but ordinary hiſtory, there would have been no more doubt whether theſe writings were theirs, than there is concern⯑ing the acknowledged works of Joſephus or Philo, that is, there would have been no doubt at all. Now it ought to be conſidered that this reaſon, however it may apply to the credit which is given to a writer's judg⯑ment or veracity, affects the queſtion of genuineneſs very indirectly. The works of Bede exhibit many wonderful relations; but who for that reaſon doubts that they were written by Bede? The ſame of a multitude of other authors. To which may be added, that we aſk no more for our books than what we allow to other books in ſome ſort ſimilar to ours. We do not deny the genuineneſs of the Koran. We admit that the hiſtory of Appollonius Tyanaeus, purporting to be written by Philoſtratus, was really written by Philoſtratus.

[174] IV. If it had been an eaſy thing in the early times of the inſtitution to have forged Chriſtian writings, and to have obtained cur⯑rency and reception to the forgeries, we ſhould have had many appearing in the name of Chriſt himſelf. No writings would have been received with ſo much avidity and re⯑ſpect as theſe; conſequently none afforded ſo great temptation to forgery. Yet have we heard but of one attempt of this ſort deſerv⯑ing of the ſmalleſt notice, that in a piece of a very few lines, and ſo far from ſucceed⯑ing, I mean, from obtaining acceptance and reputation, or an acceptance and reputation in any wiſe ſimilar to that which can be proved to have attended the books of the New Teſtament, that it is not ſo much as mentioned by any writer of the three firſt centuries. The learned reader need not be informed that I mean the epiſtle of Chriſt to Abgarus, king of Edeſſa, found at preſent in the work of Euſebius ^*, as a piece ac⯑knowledged by him, though not without con⯑ſiderable doubt whether the whole paſſage [175] be not an interpolation, as it is moſt certain, that, after the publication of Euſebius's work, this epiſtle was univerſally rejected ^*.

V. If the aſcription of the goſpels to their reſpective authors had been arbitrary or con⯑jectural, they would have been aſcribed to more eminent men. This obſervation holds concerning the three firſt goſpels, the reputed authors of which were enabled, by their ſituation, to obtain true intelligence, and were likely to deliver an honeſt account of [176] what they knew; but were perſons not diſ⯑tinguiſhed in the hiſtory by extraordinary marks of notice or commendation. Of the apoſtles, I hardly know any one of whom leſs is ſaid than of Matthew; or of whom the little that is ſaid, is leſs calculated to mag⯑nify his character. Of Mark nothing is ſaid in the Goſpels; and what is ſaid of any per⯑ſon of that name in the Acts, and in the Epiſtles, in no part beſtows praiſe or emi⯑nence upon him. The name of Luke is mentioned only in St. Paul's Epiſtles ^*, and that very tranſiently. The judgement, there⯑fore, which aſſigned theſe writings to theſe authors, proceeded, it may be preſumed, upon proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice of names.

VI. Chriſtian writers and Chriſtian churches appear to have ſoon arrived at a very general agreement upon the ſubject, and that without the interpoſition of any public authority. When the diverſity of opinion, which prevailed and prevails among Chriſtians [177] in other points, is conſidered, their concurrence in the canon of ſcripture is re⯑markable, and of great weight, eſpecially as it ſeems to have been the reſult of private and free enquiry. We have no knowledge of any interference of authority in the queſ⯑tion before the council of Laodicea in the year 363. Probably the decree of this coun⯑cil rather declared than regulated the public judgement, or, more properly ſpeaking, the judgement of ſome neighbouring churches; the council itſelf conſiſting of no more than thirty or forty biſhops of Lydia and the ad⯑joining countries ^*. Nor does its authority ſeem to have extended farther; for we find numerous Chriſtian writers, after this time, diſcuſſing the queſtion, "what books were entitled to be received as ſcripture," with great freedom, upon proper grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the deciſion at Laodicea.

CHAP. X.
Of the Authenticity of the Scriptures.

THESE conſiderations are not to be ne⯑glected: but of an argument concerning the genuineneſs of ancient writings, the ſubſtance undoubtedly and ſtrength is ancient teſti⯑mony.

This teſtimony it is neceſſary to exhibit ſomewhat in detail; for when Chriſtian advo⯑cates merely tell us, that we have the ſame reaſon for believing the Goſpels to be written by the evangeliſts, whoſe names they bear, as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Ceſar's, the Aeneid Virgil's, or the Orations Cicero's, they content themſelves with an imperfect repreſentation. They ſtate nothing more than what is true, but they do not ſtate the truth correctly. In the number, variety, and early date of our [179] teſtimonies, we far exceed all other ancient books. For one, which the moſt celebrated work of the moſt celebrated Greek or Ro⯑man writer can alledge, we produce many. But then it is more requiſite in our books, than in theirs, to ſeparate and diſtinguiſh them from ſpurious competitors. The reſult, I am convinced, will be ſatisfactory to every fair enquirer; but this circumſtance renders an enquiry neceſſary.

In a work, however, like the preſent, there is a difficulty in finding a place for evi⯑dence of this kind. To purſue the detail of proofs throughout, would be to tranſcribe a great part of Dr. Lardner's eleven octavo volumes; to leave the argument without proofs, is to leave it without effect; for the perſuaſion produced by this ſpecies of evi⯑dence depends upon a view and induction of the particulars which compoſe it.

The method which I propoſe to myſelf is, firſt, to place before the reader, in one view, the propoſitions which compriſe the [180] ſeveral heads of our teſtimony, and after⯑wards, to repeat the ſame propoſitions in ſo many diſtinct ſections, with the neceſſary authorities ſubjoined to each ^*.

The following, then, are the allegations upon the ſubject, which are capable of being eſtabliſhed by proof:

I. That the hiſtorical books of the New Teſtament, meaning thereby the four Goſ⯑pels and the Acts of the Apoſtles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a ſeries of Chriſtian writers, beginning with thoſe who were contempo⯑rary with the apoſtles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in cloſe and regular ſucceſſion from their time to the preſent.

II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alluded to with pe⯑culiar reſpect, as books ſui generis; as poſſeſſing [181] an authority which belonged to no other books, and as concluſive in all queſ⯑tions and controverſies amongſt Chriſtians.

III. That they were, in very early times, collected into a diſtinct volume.

IV. That they were diſtinguiſhed by ap⯑propriate names and titles of reſpect.

V. That they were publicly read and ex⯑pounded in the religious aſſemblies of the early Chriſtians.

VI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of them, different copies carefully collated, and ver⯑ſions of them made into different languages.

VII. That they were received by Chriſ⯑tians of different ſects, by many heretics as well as catholics, and uſually appealed to by both ſides in the controverſies which aroſe in thoſe days.

[182] VIII. That the four Goſpels, the Acts of the Apoſtles, thirteen Epiſtles of St. Paul, the firſt Epiſtle of John, and the firſt of Peter, were received, without doubt, by thoſe who doubted concerning the other books which are included in our preſent canon.

IX. That the Goſpels were attacked by the early adverſaries of Chriſtianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion was founded.

X. That formal catalogues of authentic ſcriptures were publiſhed; in all which our preſent ſacred hiſtories were included.

XI. That theſe propoſitions cannot be affirmed of any other books, claiming to be books of ſcripture; by which are meant thoſe books, which are commonly called apocry⯑phal books of the New Teſtament.

CHAP. X.

THE reader will now be pleaſed to re⯑collect, that the two points which form the ſubject of our preſent diſcuſſion, are, firſt, that the founder of Chriſtianity, his aſſo⯑ciates, and immediate followers, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings; ſe⯑condly, that they did ſo, in atteſtation of the miraculous hiſtory recorded in our ſcrip⯑tures, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of that hiſtory.

The argument, by which theſe two pro⯑poſitions have been maintained by us, ſtands thus:

No hiſtorical fact, I apprehend, is more certain, than that the original propagators of Chriſtianity voluntarily ſubjected themſelves to lives of fatigue, danger, and ſuffering, in the proſecution of their undertaking. The [321] nature of the undertaking; the character of the perſons employed in it; the oppoſition of their tenets to the fixed opinions and ex⯑pectations of the country, in which they firſt advanced them; their undiſſembled con⯑demnation of the religion of all other coun⯑tries; their total want of power, authority, or force, render it in the higheſt degree pro⯑bable that this muſt have been the caſe. The probability is increaſed, by what we know of the fate of the founder of the inſti⯑tution, who was put to death for his attempt; and by what we alſo know of the cruel treatment of the converts to the inſtitution, within thirty years after its commencement: both which points are atteſted by heathen writers, and being once admitted, leave it very incredible, that the primitive emiſſaries of the religion, who exerciſed their miniſtry, firſt, amongſt the people who had deſtroyed their maſter, and, afterwards, amongſt thoſe who perſecuted their converts, ſhould them⯑ſelves eſcape with impunity, or purſue their purpoſe in eaſe and ſafety. This probability, [322] thus ſuſtained by foreign teſtimony, is advanced, I think, to hiſtorical certainty, by the evidence of our own books; by the ac⯑counts of a writer, who was the companion of the perſons whoſe ſufferings he relates; by the letters of the perſons themſelves; by predictions of perſecutions aſcribed to the founder of the religion, which predictions would not have been inſerted in his hiſtory, much leſs have been ſtudiouſly dwelt upon, if they had not accorded with the event, and which, even if falſely aſcribed to him, could only have been ſo aſcribed, becauſe the event ſuggeſted them; laſtly, by inceſ⯑ſant exhortations to fortitude and patience, and by an earneſtneſs, repetition, and ur⯑gency upon the ſubject, which were unlikely to have appeared, if there had not been, at the time, ſome extraordinary call for the exerciſe of theſe virtues.

It is made out alſo, I think, with ſuffi⯑cient evidence, that both the teachers and converts of the religion, in conſequence of [323] their new profeſſion, took up a new courſe of life and behaviour.

The next great queſtion is, what they did this FOR. That it was for a miraculous ſtory of ſome kind or other, is to my appre⯑henſion extremely manifeſt; becauſe, as to the fundamental article, the deſignation of the perſon, viz. that this particular perſon, Jeſus of Nazareth, ought to be received as the Meſſiah, or as a meſſenger from God, they neither had, nor could have, any thing but miracles to ſtand upon. That the exer⯑tions and ſufferings of the apoſtles were for the ſtory which we have now, is proved by the conſideration, that this ſtory is tranſ⯑mitted to us by two of their own number, and by two others perſonally connected with them; that the particularity of the narratives proves, that the writers claimed to poſſeſs circumſtantial information, that from their ſituation they had full opportunity of acquiring ſuch information, that they cer⯑tainly, at leaſt, knew, what their colleagues, [324] their companions, their maſters taught; 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 ſuf⯑ficient; that the genuineneſs however of all of them is made out, as well by the general arguments which evince the genuineneſs of the moſt undiſputed remains of antiquity, as alſo by peculiar and ſpecific proofs, viz. by citations from them in writings belonging to a period immediately contiguous to that in which they were publiſhed; by the diſ⯑tinguiſhed regard paid by early Chriſtians to the authority of theſe books, (which re⯑gard was manifeſted by their collecting of them into a volume, appropriating to that volume titles of peculiar reſpect, tranſlating them into various languages, digeſting them into harmonies, writing commentaries upon them, and, ſtill more conſpicuouſly, by the reading of them in their public aſſemblies in all parts of the world); by an univerſal agreement with reſpect to theſe books, whilſt doubts were entertained concerning ſome [325] others; by contending ſects appealing to them; by the early adverſaries of the reli⯑gion not diſputing their genuineneſs, but, on the contrary, treating them as the de⯑poſitaries of the hiſtory upon which the religion was founded; by many formal ca⯑talogues of theſe, as of certain and autho⯑ritative writings, publiſhed in different and diſtant parts of the Chriſtian world; laſtly, by the abſence or defect of the above-cited topics of evidence, when applied to any other hiſtories of the ſame ſubject.

Theſe are ſtrong arguments to prove, that the books actually proceeded from the authors whoſe names they bear, (and have always borne, for there is not a particle of evidence to ſhew that they ever went under any other); but the ſtrict genuineneſs of the books is perhaps more than is neceſſary to the ſupport of our propoſition. For even ſuppoſing that, by reaſon of the ſilence of antiquity, or the loſs of records, we knew not who were the writers of the four Goſpels, [326] yet the fact, that they were received as authentic accounts of the tranſaction upon which the religion reſted, and were received as ſuch by Chriſtians at or near the age of the apoſtles, by thoſe whom the apoſtles had taught, and by ſocieties which the apoſtles had founded; this fact, I ſay, con⯑nected with the conſideration, that they are corroborative of each other's teſtimony, and that they are further corroborated by an⯑other contemporary hiſtory, taking up the ſtory where they had left it, and, in a nar⯑rative built upon that ſtory, accounting for the riſe and production of changes in the world, the effects of which ſubſiſt at this day; connected, moreover, with the con⯑firmation which they receive, from letters written by the apoſtles themſelves, which both aſſume the ſame general ſtory, and, as often as occaſions lead them to do ſo, allude to particular parts of it; and connected alſo with the reflection, that if the apoſtles de⯑livered any different ſtory, it is loſt, (the preſent and no other being referred to by a [327] ſeries of Chriſtian writers, down from their age to our own; being likewiſe recognized in a variety of inſtitutions, which prevailed, early and univerſally, amongſt the diſciples of the religion); and that ſo great a change, as the oblivion of one ſtory and the ſubſti⯑tution of another, under ſuch circumſtances, could not have taken place; this evidence would be deemed, I apprehend, ſufficient to prove concerning theſe books, that, who⯑ever were the authors of them, they exhi⯑bit the ſtory which the apoſtles told, and for which, conſequently, they acted, and they ſuffered.

If it be ſo, the religion muſt be true. Theſe men could not be deceivers. By only not bearing teſtimony, they might have avoided all their ſufferings, and have lived quietly. Would men in ſuch circumſtances pretend to have ſeen what they never ſaw; aſſert facts which they had no knowledge of; go about lying, to teach virtue; and, though not only convinced of Chriſt's being [328] an impoſtor, but having ſeen the ſuc⯑ceſs of his impoſture in his crucifixion, yet perſiſt in carrying it on; and ſo perſiſt, as to bring upon themſelves, for nothing, and with a full knowledge of the conſequence, enmity and hatred, danger and death?

CHAP. I.
Our firſt propoſition was, "That there is ſatisfactory evidence, that many, pretending to be original witneſſes of the Chriſtian mi⯑racles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers, and ſufferings, voluntarily undertaken and undergone, in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſe⯑quence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts; and that they alſo ſubmitted, from the ſame motive, to new rules of conduct."
[330] Our ſecond propoſition, and which now re⯑mains to be treated of, is, "That there is NOT ſatisfactory evidence, that perſons pre⯑tending to be original witneſſes of any other ſimilar miracles, have acted in the ſame manner, in atteſtation of the accounts which they delivered, and ſolely in conſequence of their belief of the truth of thoſe accounts."

I ENTER upon this part of my argu⯑ment, by declaring how far my belief in miraculous accounts goes. If the reformers in the time of Wickliff, or of Luther; or thoſe of England, in the time of Henry the Eighth, or of Queen Mary; or the founders of our religious fects ſince, ſuch as were Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Weſley in our own times; had undergone the life of toil and exertion, of danger and ſufferings, which we know that many of them did un⯑dergo, for a miraculous ſtory; that is to ſay, if they had founded their public miniſ⯑try upon the allegation of miracles wrought within their own knowledge, and upon narratives [331] which could not be reſolved into de⯑luſion or miſtake; and iſ it had appeared, that their conduct really had its origin in theſe accounts, I ſhould have believed them. Or, to borrow an inſtance which will be fa⯑miliar to every one of my readers, if the late Mr. Howard had undertaken his la⯑bours and journies in atteſtation, and in conſequence of a clear and ſenſible miracle, I ſhould have believed him alſo. Or, to repreſent the ſame thing under a third ſup⯑poſition; if Socrates had profeſſed to per⯑form public miracles at Athens; if the friends of Socrates, Phaedo, Cebes, Crito, and Simmias, together with Plato, and many of his followers, relying upon the atteſta⯑tion which theſe miracles afforded to his pretenſions, had, at the hazard of their lives, and the certain expence of their eaſe and tranquillity, gone about Greece, after his death, to publiſh and propagate his doc⯑trines; and if theſe things had come to our knowledge, in the ſame way as that in which the life of Socrates is now tranſmitted to us, through the hands of his companions [332] and diſciples, that is, by writings received without doubt as theirs, from the age in which they were publiſhed to the preſent, I ſhould have believed this likewiſe. And my belief would, in each caſe, be much ſtrengthened, if the ſubject of the miſſion were of importance to the conduct and hap⯑pineſs of human life; if it teſtified any thing which it behoved mankind to know from ſuch authority; if the nature of what it delivered, required the ſort of proof which it alledged; if the occaſion was adequate to the interpoſition, the end worthy of the means. In the laſt caſe my faith would be much confirmed, if the effects of the tranſ⯑action remained; more eſpecially, if a change had been wrought, at the time, in the opi⯑nion and conduct of ſuch numbers, as to lay the foundation of an inſtitution, and of a ſyſtem of doctrines, which had ſince overſpread the greateſt part of the civilized world. I ſhould have believed, I ſay, the teſtimony, in theſe caſes; yet none of them do more than come up to the apo⯑ſtolic hiſtory.

[333] If any one chooſe to call aſſent to this evidence credulity, it is at leaſt incumbent upon him to produce examples, in which the ſame evidence hath turned out to be fal⯑lacious. And this contains the preciſe que⯑ſtion which we are now to agitate.

In ſtating the compariſon between our evidence, and what our adverſaries may bring into competition with ours, we will divide the diſtinctions which we wiſh to propoſe into two kinds, thoſe which relate to the proof, and thoſe which relate to the miracles. Under the former head we may lay out of the caſe,

I. Such accounts of ſupernatural events as are found only in hiſtories by ſome ages poſterior to the tranſaction, and of which it is evident that the hiſtorian could know little more than his reader. Ours is con⯑temporary hiſtory. This difference alone removes out of our way, the miraculous hiſtory of Pythagoras, who lived five hun⯑dred years before the Chriſtian aera, written by Porphyry and Jamblicus, who lived [334] three hundred years after that aera; the pro⯑digies of Livy's hiſtory; the fables of the heroic ages; the whole of the Greek and Roman, as well as of the Gothic mytho⯑logy; a great part of the legendary hiſtory of Popiſh ſaints, the very beſt atteſted of which is extracted from the certificates that are exhibited during the proceſs of their ca⯑nonization, a ceremony which ſeldom takes place till a century after their deaths. It applies alſo with conſiderable force to the miracles of Apollonius Tyaneus, which are contained in a ſolitary hiſtory of his life, publiſhed by Philoſtratus, above a hundred years after his death; and, in which, whe⯑ther Philoſtratus had any prior account to guide him, depends upon his ſingle unſup⯑ported aſſertion. Alſo to ſome of the mi⯑racles of the third century, eſpecially to one extraordinary inſtance, the account of Gre⯑gory, biſhop of Neoceſarea, called Thauma⯑turgus, delivered in the writings of Gregory of Nyſſen, who lived one hundred and thirty years after the ſubject of his panegyric.

[335] The value of this circumſtance is ſhewn to have been accurately exempliſied in the hiſtory of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the order of Jeſuits ^*. His life, written by a companion of his, and by one of the or⯑der, was publiſhed about fifteen years after his death. In which life, the author, ſo far from aſcribing any miracles to Ignatius, in⯑duſtriouſly ſtates the reaſons why he was not inveſted with any ſuch power. The life was re-publiſhed fifteen years afterwards, with the addition of many circumſtances, which were the fruit, the author ſays, of further enquiry, and of diligent examina⯑tion; but ſtill with a total ſilence about mi⯑racles. When Ignatius had been dead near ſixty years, the Jeſuits, conceiving a wiſh to have the founder of their order placed in the Roman calendar, began, as it ſhould ſeem, for the firſt time, to attribute to him a catalogue of miracles, which could not then be diſtinctly diſproved; and which, there was in thoſe who governed the church, a ſtrong diſpoſition to admit upon the ſlen⯑dereſt proofs.

[336] II. We may lay out of the caſe, accounts publiſhed in one country, of what paſſed in a diſtant country, without any proof that ſuch accounts were known or received at home. In the caſe of Chriſtianity, Judea, which was the ſcene of the tranſaction, was the center of the miſſion. The ſtory was publiſhed in the place in which it was act⯑ed. The church of Chriſt was firſt planted at Jeruſalem itſelf. With that church others correſponded. From thence the primitive teachers of the inſtitution went forth; thi⯑ther they aſſembled. The church of Jeru⯑ſalem, and the ſeveral churches of Judea, ſubſiſted from the beginning, and for many ages ^*; received alſo the ſame books, and the ſame accounts, as other churches did.

This diſtinction diſpoſes, amongſt others, of the above-mentioned miracles of Apollo⯑nius Tyaneus, moſt of which are related to have been performed in India, no evidence remaining that either the miracles aſcribed [337] to him, or the hiſtory of thoſe miracles, were ever heard of in India. Thoſe of Francis Xavier, the Indian miſſionary, with many others of the Romiſh breviary, are liable to the ſame objection, viz. that the accounts of them were publiſhed at a vaſt diſtance from the ſuppoſed ſcene of the wonders ^*.

III. We lay out of the caſe tranſient rumours. Upon the firſt publication of an extraordinary account, or even of an ar⯑ticle of ordinary intelligence, no one, who is not perſonally acquainted with the tranſ⯑action, can know whether it be true or falſe, becauſe any man may publiſh any ſtory. It is in the future confirmation, or contra⯑diction of the account; in its permanency, or its diſappearance; its dying away into ſilence, or its increaſing in notoriety; its being followed up by ſubſequent accounts, and being repeated in different and inde⯑pendent accounts, that ſolid truth is diſtin⯑guiſhed from fugitive lies. This diſtinction [338] is altogether on the ſide of Chriſtianity. The ſtory did not drop. On the contrary, it was ſucceeded by a train of action and events dependent upon it. The accounts, which we have in our hands, were compoſed after the firſt reports muſt have ſubſided. They were followed by a train of writings upon the ſubject. The hiſtorical teſtimonies of the tranſaction were many and various, and connected with letters, diſcourſes, con⯑troverſies, apologies, ſucceſſively produced by the ſame tranſaction.

IV. We may lay out of the caſe what I call naked hiſtory. It has been ſaid, that if the prodigies of the Jewiſh hiſtory had been found only in fragments of Manetho, or Beroſus, we ſhould have paid no regard to them: and I am willing to admit this. If we knew nothing of the fact, but from the fragment; if we poſſeſſed no proof that theſe accounts had been credited and acted upon, from times, probably, as ancient as the ac⯑counts themſelves; if we had no viſible effects connected with the hiſtory, no ſubſequent [339] or collateral teſtimony to confirm it; under theſe circumſtances, I think that it would be undeſerving of credit. But this certainly is not our caſe. In appreciating the evidence of Chriſtianity, the books are to be combined with the inſtitution; with the prevalency of the religion at this day; with the time and place of its origin, which are acknowledged points; with the circum⯑ſtances of its riſe and progreſs, as collected from external hiſtory; with the fact of our preſent books being received by the votaries of the inſtitution from the beginning; with that of other books coming after theſe, filled with accounts of effects and conſequences reſulting from the tranſaction, or referring to the tranſaction, or built upon it; laſtly, with the conſideration of the number and variety of the books themſelves, the different writers from which they proceed, the dif⯑ferent views with which they were written, ſo diſagreeing as to repel the ſuſpicion of confederacy, ſo agreeing as to ſhew that they were founded in a common original, i. e. in a ſtory ſubſtantially the ſame. Whether [340] this proof be ſatisfactory or not, it is properly a cumulation of evidence, by no means a naked or ſolitary record.

V. A mark of hiſtorical truth, although only in a certain way, and to a certain de⯑gree, is particularity, in names, dates, places, circumſtances, and in the order of events preceding or following the tranſaction: of which kind, for inſtance, is the particularity in the deſcription of St. Paul's voyage and ſhipwreck, in the 27th chapter of the Acts, which no man, I think, can read without being convinced that the writer was there; and alſo in the account of the cure and exa⯑mination of the blind man, in the ninth chapter of St. John's Goſpel, which bears every mark of perſonal knowledge on the part of the hiſtorian ^*. I do not deny that fiction has often the particularity of truth; but then it is of ſtudied and elaborate fiction, or of a formal attempt to deceive, that we obſerve this. Since, however, experience [341] proves that particularity is not conſined to truth, I have ſtated that it is a proof of truth only to a certain extent, i. e. it reduces the queſtion to this, whether we can depend or not upon the probity of the relator; which is a conſiderable advance in our preſent argu⯑ment, for an expreſs attempt to deceive, in which caſe alone particularity can appear without truth, is charged upon the evange⯑liſts by few. If the hiſtorian acknowledge himſelf to have received his intelligence from others, the particularity of the nar⯑rative ſhews, primâ facie, the accuracy of his enquiries, and the fulneſs of his informa⯑tion. This remark belongs to St. Luke's hiſtory. Of the particularity which we alledge many examples may be found in all the Goſpels. And it is very difficult to con⯑ceive, that ſuch numerous particularities, as are almoſt every where to be met with in the ſcriptures, ſhould be raiſed out of no⯑thing, or be ſpun out of the imagination without any fact to go upon ^*.

[342] It is to be remarked, however, that this particularity is only to be looked for in direct hiſtory. It is not natural in references or alluſions, which yet, in other reſpects, often afford, as far as they go, the moſt unſuſpi⯑cious evidence.

VI. We lay out of the caſe ſuch ſtories of ſupernatural events, as require, on the part of the hearer, nothing more than an otioſe aſſent; ſtories upon which nothing depends, in which no intereſt is involved, nothing is to be done or changed in conſe⯑quence of believing them. Such ſtories are [343] credited, if the careleſs aſſent that is given to them deſerve that name, more by the indolence of the hearer, than by his judg⯑ment; or, though not much credited, are paſſed from one to another without enquiry or reſiſtance. To this caſe, and to this caſe alone, belongs what is called the love of the marvellous. I have never known it carry men further. Men do not ſuffer perſecution from the love of the marvellous. Of the indifferent nature we are ſpeaking of, are moſt vulgar errors and popular ſuperſtitions; moſt, for inſtance, of the current reports of apparitions. Nothing depends upon their being true or falſe. But not, ſurely, of this kind were the alledged miracles of Chriſt and his apoſtles. They decided, if true, the moſt important queſtion, upon which the human mind can ſix its anxiety. They claimed to regulate the opinions of man⯑kind, upon ſubjects in which they are not only deeply concerned, but uſually refractory and obſtinate. Men could not be utterly careleſs in ſuch a caſe as this. If a Jew took up the ſtory, he found his darling partiality [344] to his own nation and law wounded; if a Gentile, he found his idolatry and po⯑lytheiſm reprobated and condemned. Who⯑ever entertained the account, whether Jew or Gentile, could not avoid the following reflection:—"If theſe things be true, I muſt give up the opinions and principles in which I have been brought up, the religion in which my fathers lived and died." It is not con⯑ceivable that a man ſhould do this upon any idle report or frivolous account, or, in⯑deed, without being fully ſatisfied and con⯑vinced of the truth and credibility of the narrative to which he truſted. But it did not ſtop at opinions. They who believed Chriſtianity, acted upon it. Many made it the expreſs buſineſs of their lives to publiſh the intelligence. It was required of thoſe, who admitted that intelligence, to change forthwith their conduct and their principles, to take up a different courſe of life, to part with their habits and gratifications, and begin a new ſet of rules and ſyſtem of be⯑haviour. The apoſtles, at leaſt, were inter⯑eſted not to ſacrifice their eaſe, their fortunes, [345] and their lives, for an idle tale; multitudes beſide them were induced, by the ſame tale, to encounter oppoſition, danger, and ſuffer⯑ings.

If it be ſaid, that the mere promiſe of a future ſtate would do all this; I anſwer, that the mere promiſe of a future ſtate, without any evidence to give credit or aſſurance to it, would do nothing. A few wandering fiſhermen talking of a reſurrection of the dead could produce no effect. If it be fur⯑ther ſaid, that men eaſily believe what they anxiouſly deſire, I again anſwer that, in my opinion, the very contrary of this is nearer to the truth. Anxiety of deſire, earneſtneſs of expectation, the vaſtneſs of an event, rather cauſes men to diſbelieve, to doubt, to dread a fallacy, to diſtruſt, and to examine. When our Lord's reſurrection was firſt reported to the apoſtles, they did not believe, we are told, for joy. This was natural, and is agreeable to experience.

VII. We have laid out of the caſe thoſe [346] accounts, which require no more than a ſimple aſſent; and we now alſo lay out of the caſe thoſe which come merely in affirm⯑ance of opinions already formed. This laſt circumſtance is of the utmoſt importance to notice well. It has long been obſerved, that Popiſh miracles happen in Popiſh coun⯑tries; that they make no converts: which proves that ſtories are accepted, when they fall in with principles already fixed, with the public ſentiments, or with the ſentiments of a party already engaged on the ſide the miracle ſupports, which would not be at⯑tempted to be produced in the face of ene⯑mies, in oppoſition to reigning tenets or favourite prejudices, or when, if they be believed, the belief muſt draw men away from their preconceived and habitual opinions, from their modes of life and rules of action. In the former caſe, men may not only re⯑ceive a miraculous account, but may both act and ſuffer on the ſide, and in the cauſe, which the miracle ſupports, yet not act or ſuffer for the miracle, but in purſuance of a prior perſuaſion. The miracle, like any other [347] argument which only confirms what was before believed, is admitted with little exa⯑mination. In the moral, as in the natural world, it is change which requires a cauſe. Men are eaſily fortified in their old opinions, driven from them with great difficulty. Now, how does this apply to the Chriſtian hiſtory? The miracles, there recorded, were wrought in the midſt of enemies, under a government, a prieſthood, and a magiſtracy, decidedly and vehemently adverſe to them, and to the pretenſions which they ſupported. They were Proteſtant miracles in a Popiſh country: they were Popiſh miracles in the midſt of Proteſtants. They produced a change; they eſtabliſhed a ſociety upon the ſpot, adhering to the belief of them; they made converts, and thoſe who were converted, gave up to the teſtimony, their moſt fixed opinions, and moſt favourite prejudices. They who acted and ſuffered in the cauſe, acted and ſuffered for the miracles; for there was no anterior perſuaſion to induce them, no prior reverence, prejudice, or partiality, to take hold of. Jeſus had not one follower when [348] he ſet up his claim. His miracles gave birth to his ſect. No part of this deſcription belongs to the ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popiſh miracles. Even moſt of the mira⯑cles alledged to have been performed by Chriſtians, in the ſecond and third century of its aera, want this confirmation. It con⯑ſtitutes indeed a line of partition between the origin and the progreſs of Chriſtianity. Frauds and fallacies might mix themſelves with the progreſs, which could not poſſibly take place in the commencement of the religion; at leaſt according to any laws of human conduct that we are acquainted with. What ſhould ſuggeſt to the firſt propagators of Chriſtianity, eſpecially to fiſhermen, tax⯑gatherers, and huſbandmen, ſuch a thought as that of changing the religion of the world; what could bear them through the difficul⯑ties, in which the attempt engaged them; what could procure any degree of ſuc⯑ceſs to the attempt; are queſtions which apply, with great force, to the ſetting out of the inſtitution, with leſs, to every future ſtage of it.

[349] To hear ſome men talk, one would ſup⯑poſe the ſetting up of a religion by miracles to be a thing of every day's experience; whereas the whole current of hiſtory is againſt it. Hath any founder of a new ſect amongſt Chriſtians pretended to miraculous powers, and ſucceeded by his pretenſions? "Were theſe powers claimed or exerciſed by the founders of the ſects of the Waldenſes and Albigenſes? Did Wickliff in England pretend to it? Did Huſs or Jerome in Bohemia? Did Luther in Germany, Zuinglius in Swit⯑zerland, Calvin in France, or any of the reformers advance this plea ^*?" The French prophets, in the beginning of the preſent century, ventured to alledge miraculous evi⯑dence, and immediately ruined their cauſe by their temerity. "Concerning the reli⯑gion of Ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, of China, a ſingle miracle cannot be named, that was ever offered as a teſt of any of thoſe religions before their eſtabliſhment ^†."

[350] We may add to what has been obſerved, of the diſtinction which we are conſidering, that, where miracles are alledged merely in affirmance of a prior opinion, they who be⯑lieve the doctrine may ſometimes propagate a belief of the miracles which they do not themſelves entertain. This is the caſe of what are called pious frauds; but it is a caſe, I apprehend, which takes place, ſolely in ſupport of a perſuaſion already eſtabliſhed. At leaſt it does not hold of the apoſtolical hiſtory. If the apoſtles did not believe the miracles, they did not believe the religion; and, without this belief, where was the piety, what place was there for any thing, which could bear the name or colour of piety, in publiſhing and atteſting miracles in its be⯑half? If it be ſaid that many promote the belief of revelation, and of any accounts which favour that belief, becauſe they think them, whether well or ill founded, of public and political utility, I anſwer, that if a cha⯑racter exiſt, which can with leſs juſtice than another be aſcribed to the founders of the Chriſtian religion, it is that of politicians, or [351] of men capable of entertaining political views. The truth is, that there is no aſſign⯑able character, which will account for the conduct of the apoſtles, ſuppoſing their ſtory to be falſe. If bad men, what could have induced them to take ſuch pains to promote virtue? If good men, they would not have gone about the country with a ſtring of lies in their mouths?

IN APPRECIATING the credit of any miraculous ſtory, theſe are diſtinctions which relate to the evidence. There are other diſtinctions, of great moment in the queſ⯑tion, which relate to the miracles themſelves. Of which latter kind the following ought carefully to be retained.

I. It is not neceſſary to admit as a miracle, what can be reſolved into a falſe perception. Of this nature was the demon of Socrates; the viſions of St. Anthony, and of many others; the viſion which Lord Herbert of Cherbury deſcribes himſelf to have ſeen; Colonel Gar⯑diner's viſion, as related in his life, written [352] by Dr. Doddridge. All theſe may be ac⯑counted for by a momentary inſanity; for the characteriſtic ſymptom of human mad⯑neſs is the riſing up in the mind of images not diſtinguiſhable by the patient from im⯑preſſions upon the ſenſes ^*. The caſes, how⯑ever, in which the poſſibility of this deluſion exiſts, are divided from the caſes in which it does not exiſt, by many, and thoſe not obſcure marks. They are, for the moſt part, caſes of viſions or voices. The ob⯑ject is hardly ever touched. The viſion ſubmits not to be handled. One ſenſe does not confirm another. They are likewiſe almoſt always caſes of a ſolitary witneſs. It is in the higheſt degree improbable, and I know not, indeed, whether it hath ever been the fact, that the ſame derangement of the mental organs ſhould ſeize different perſons at the ſame time; a derangement, I mean, ſo much the ſame, as to repreſent to their imagination the ſame objects. Laſtly, theſe are always caſes of momentary miracles; [353] by which term I mean to denote miracles, of which the whole exiſtence is of ſhort duration, in contradiſtinction to miracles which are attended with permanent effects. The appearance of a ſpectre, the hearing of a ſupernatural ſound, is a momentary mira⯑cle. The ſenſible proof is gone, when the apparition or ſound is over. But if a perſon born blind be reſtored to ſight, a notorious cripple to the uſe of his limbs, or a dead man to life, here is a permanent effect pro⯑duced by ſupernatural means. The change indeed was inſtantaneous, but the proof con⯑tinues. The ſubject of the miracle remains. The man cured or reſtored is there: his former condition was known, and his pre⯑ſent condition may be examined. This can by no poſſibility be reſolved into falſe per⯑ception: and of this kind are by far the greater part of the miracles recorded in the New Teſtament. When Lazarus was raiſed from the dead, he did not merely move, and ſpeak, and die again; or come out of the grave, and vaniſh away. He returned to his home and his family, and there continued; [354] for we find him, ſome time after⯑wards, in the ſame town, ſitting at table with Jeſus and his ſiſters; viſited by great mul⯑titudes of the Jews, as a ſubject of curioſity; giving, by his preſence, ſo much uneaſineſs to the Jewiſh rulers, as to beget in them a deſign of deſtroying him ^*. No deluſion can account for this. The French prophets in England, ſome time ſince, gave out that one of their teachers would come to life again, but their enthuſiaſm never made them believe that they actually ſaw him alive. The blind man, whoſe reſtoration to ſight at Jeruſalem is recorded in the ninth chapter of St. John's goſpel, did not quit the place, or conceal himſelf from enquiry. On the contrary, he was forthcoming, to anſwer the call, to ſatisfy the ſcrutiny, and to ſuſ⯑tain the brow-beating of Chriſt's angry and powerful enemies. When the cripple at the gate of the temple was ſuddenly cured by Peter ^†, he did not immediately relapſe into his former lameneſs, or diſappear out of the [355] city; but boldly and honeſtly produced himſelf along with the apoſtles, when they were brought the next day before the Jew⯑iſh council ^*. Here, though the miracle was ſudden, the proof was permanent. The lameneſs had been notorious, the cure con⯑tinued. This, therefore, could not be the effect of any momentary delirium, either in the ſubject or in the witneſſes of the tranſaction. It is the ſame with the greateſt number of the ſcripture miracles. There are other caſes of a mixed nature, in which, although the principal miracle be momen⯑tary, ſome circumſtance combined with it is permanent. Of this kind is the hiſtory of St. Paul's converſion ^†. The ſudden light and ſound, the viſion and the voice, upon the road to Damaſcus, were momentary: but Paul's blindneſs for three days in con⯑ſequence of what had happened; the com⯑munication made to Ananias in another place, and by a viſion independent of the former; Ananias finding out Paul in conſequence [356] of intelligence ſo received, and find⯑ing him in the condition deſcribed, and Paul's recovery of his ſight upon Ananias laying his hands upon him; are circumſtances, which take the tranſaction, and the principal miracle as included in it, entirely out of the caſe of momentary miracles, or of ſuch as may be accounted for by falſe perceptions. Exactly the ſame thing may be obſerved of Peter's viſion preparatory to the call of Cor⯑nelius, and of its connection with what was imparted in a diſtant place to Cornelius him⯑ſelf, and with the meſſage diſpatched by Cornelius to Peter. The viſion might be a dream; the meſſage could not. Either communication, taken ſeparately, might be a deluſion; the concurrence of the two was impoſſible to happen without a ſupernatural cauſe.

Beſide the riſk of deluſion, which attaches upon momentary miracles, there is alſo much more room for impoſture. The account can⯑not be examined at the moment. And, when that is alſo a moment of hurry and [357] confuſion, it may not be difficult for men of influence to gain credit to any ſtory, which they may wiſh to have believed. This is preciſely the caſe of one of the beſt atteſted of the miracles of old Rome, the appearance of Caſtor and Pollux in the battle fought by Poſthumius with the Latins at the lake Re⯑gillus. There is no doubt but that Poſthu⯑mius, after the battle, ſpread the report of ſuch an appearance. No perſon could deny it, whilſt it was ſaid to laſt. No perſon, perhaps, had any inclination to diſpute it afterwards; or, if they had, could ſay with poſitiveneſs, what was, or what was not ſeen, by ſome or other of the army, in the diſmay, and amidſt the tumult of a battle.

In aſſigning falſe perceptions, as the origin to which ſome miraculous accounts may be referred, I have not mentioned claims to in⯑ſpiration, illuminations, ſecret notices or directions, internal ſenſations, or conſciouſ⯑neſſes of being acted upon by ſpiritual influ⯑ences, good or bad, becauſe, theſe appealing to no external proof, however convincing [358] they may be to the perſons themſelves, form no part of what can be accounted miraculous evidence. Their own credibility ſtands upon their alliance with other miracles. The diſ⯑cuſſion, therefore, of all ſuch pretenſions may be omitted.

II. It is not neceſſary to bring into the compariſon what may be called tentative miracles; that is, where, out of a great num⯑ber of trials, ſome ſucceed; and in the ac⯑counts of which, although the narrative of the ſucceſsful caſes be alone preſerved, and that of the unſucceſsful caſes ſunk, yet enough is ſtated to ſhew that the caſes produced are only a few out of many in which the ſame means have been employed. This obſerva⯑tion bears, with conſiderable force, upon the ancient oracles and auguries, in which a ſin⯑gle coincidence of the event with the pre⯑diction is talked of and magnified, whilſt failures are forgotten, or ſuppreſſed, or ac⯑counted for. It is alſo applicable to the cures wrought by relies, and at the tombs of faints. The boaſted eſſicacy of the king's [359] touch, upon which Mr. Hume lays ſome ſtreſs, falls under the ſame deſcription. Nothing is alledged concerning it, which is not alledged of various noſtrums, namely, out of many thouſands who have uſed them, certified proofs of a few who have recovered after them. No ſolution of this ſort is ap⯑plicable to the miracles of the goſpel. There is nothing in the narrative which can induce, or even allow, us to believe, that Chriſt attempted cures in many inſtances, and ſuc⯑ceeded in a few; or that he ever made the attempt in vain. He did not profeſs to heal every where all that were ſick; on the con⯑trary, he told the Jews, evidently meaning to repreſent his own caſe, that, "although many widows were in Iſrael in the days of Elias, when the heaven was ſhut up three years and ſix months, when great famine was throughout all the land, yet unto none of them was Elias ſent, ſave unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a wi⯑dow:" and that "many lepers were in Iſrael in the time of Eliſeus the prophet, and none of them was cleanſed ſaving Naaman [360] the Syrian ^*." By which examples he gave them to underſtand, that it was not the na⯑ture of a divine interpoſition, or neceſſary to its purpoſe, to be general; ſtill leſs, to an⯑ſwer every challenge that might be made, which would teach men to put their faith upon theſe experiments. Chriſt never pro⯑nounced the word, but the effect followed ^†. It was not a thouſand ſick that received his benediction, and a few that were benefited: a ſingle paralytic is let down in his bed at Jeſus' feet, in the midſt of a ſurrounding multitude; Jeſus bid him walk, and he did [361] ſo ^*. A man with a withered hand is in the ſynagogue; Jeſus bid him ſtretch forth his hand, in the preſence of the aſſembly, and it was "reſtored whole like the other ^†." There was nothing tentative in theſe cures; nothing that can be explained by the power of accident.

We may obſerve alſo, that many of the cures which Chriſt wrought, ſuch as that of a perſon blind from his birth, alſo many miracles beſide cures, as raiſing the dead, walking upon the ſea, feeding a great mul⯑titude with a few loaves and fiſhes, are of a nature which does not in any wife admit of the ſuppoſition of a fortunate experiment.

III. We may diſmiſs from the queſtion all accounts in which, allowing the pheno⯑menon to be real, the fact to be true, it ſtill remains doubtful whether a miracle were wrought. This is the caſe with the ancient hiſtory of what is called the thundering [362] legion, of the extraordinary circumſtances which obſtructed the rebuilding of the tem⯑ple at Jeruſalem by Julian, the circling of the flames and fragrant ſmell at the martyr⯑dom of Polycarp, the ſudden ſhower that extinguiſhed the fire into which the ſcriptures were thrown in the Diocletian perſecution; Conſtantine's dream, his inſcribing in con⯑ſequence of it the croſs upon his ſtandard and the ſhields of his ſoldiers; his victory, and the eſcape of the ſtandard bearer; per⯑haps alſo the imagined appearance of the croſs in the heavens, though this laſt cir⯑cumſtance is very deficient in hiſtorical evi⯑dence. It is alſo the caſe with the modern annual exhibition of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples. It is a doubt likewiſe, which ought to be excluded by very ſpecial circumſtances, from theſe narratives which relate to the ſupernatural cure of hypochondriacal and nervous com⯑plaints, and of all diſeaſes which are much affected by the imagination. The miracles of the ſecond and third century are, uſually, healing the ſick, and caſting out evil ſpirits, [363] miracles in which there is room for ſome error and deception. We hear nothing of cauſing the blind to ſee, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to be cleanſed ^*. There are alſo inſtances in Chriſtian-writers, of reputed miracles, which were natural operations, though not known to be ſuch at the time, as that of articulate ſpeech after the loſs of a great part of the tongue.

IV. To the ſame head of objection nearly, may alſo be referred accounts, in which the variation of a ſmall circumſtance may have transformed ſome extraordinary appearance, or ſome critical coincidence of events, into a miracle; ſtories, in a word, which may be reſolved into exaggeration. The miracles of the goſpel can by no poſſibility be ex⯑plained away in this manner. Total fiction will account for any thing; but no ſtretch of exaggeration that has any parallel in other hiſtories, no force of fancy upon real cir⯑cumſtances, could produce the narratives which we now have. The feeding of the [364] five thouſand with a few loaves and fiſhes ſurpaſſes all bounds of exaggeration. The raiſing of Lazarus, of the widow's ſon at Nain, as well as many of the cures which Chriſt wrought, come not within the com⯑paſs of miſrepreſentation. I mean, that it is impoſſible to aſſign any poſition of circum⯑ſtances however peculiar, any accidental ef⯑fects however extraordinary, any natural ſingularity, which could ſupply an origin or foundation to theſe accounts.

Having thus enumerated ſeveral excep⯑tions, which may juſtly be taken to relations of miracles, it is neceſſary, when we read the ſcriptures, to bear in our minds this ge⯑neral remark, that, although there be mira⯑cles recorded in the New Teſtament, which fall within ſome or other of the exceptions here aſſigned, yet that they are united with others, to which none of the ſame exceptions extend, and that their credibility ſtands upon this union. Thus the viſions and re⯑velations, which St. Paul aſſerts to have been imparted to him, may not, in their ſeparate evidence, be diſtinguiſhable from the viſions [365] and revelations which many others have alledged. But here is the difference. St. Paul's pretenſions were atteſted by external miracles wrought by himſelf, and by mira⯑cles wrought in the cauſe to which theſe vi⯑ſions relate; or, to ſpeak more properly, the ſame hiſtorical authority, which informs us of one, informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the viſions of en⯑thuſiaſts, or even of the accounts in which they are contained. Again, ſome of Chriſt's own miracles were momentary; as the transfiguration, the appearance and voice from Heaven at his baptiſm, a voice from the clouds upon one occaſion afterwards, (John xii. 30.) and ſome others. It is not denied, that the diſtinction which we have propoſed concerning miracles of this ſpecies, applies, in diminution of the force of the evi⯑dence, as much to theſe inſtances as to others. But this is the caſe, not with all the miracles aſcribed to Chriſt, nor with the greateſt part, nor with many. Whatever force therefore there may be in the objection, we have numerous miracles which are free [366] from it; and even theſe to which it is appli⯑cable, are little affected by it in their credit, becauſe there are few, who, admitting the reſt, will reject them. If there be miracles of the New Teſtament, which come within any of the other heads into which we have diſtributed the objections, the ſame remark muſt be repeated. And this is one way, in which the unexampled number and variety of the miracles aſcribed to Chriſt, ſtrengthens the credibility of Chriſtianity. For it pre⯑cludes any ſolution, or conjecture about a ſolution, which imagination, or even which experience might ſuggeſt concerning ſome particular miracles, if conſidered independ⯑ently of others. The miracles of Chriſt were of various kinds ^*, and performed in great varieties of ſituation, form and man⯑ner; at Jeruſalem, the metropolis of the Jew⯑iſh nation and religion; in different parts of [367] Judea and Galilee; in cities, in villages; in ſynagogues, in private houſes; in the ſtreet, in highways; with preparation, as in the caſe of Lazarus, by accident, as in the caſe of the widow's ſon at Nain; when attended by multitudes, and when alone with the pa⯑tient; in the midſt of his diſciples, and in the preſence of his enemies; with the common people around him, and before Scribes and Phariſees, and rulers of the ſynagogues.

I apprehend that, when we remove from the compariſon, the caſes which are fairly diſpoſed of by the obſervations that have been ſtated, many caſes will not remain. To thoſe which do remain, we apply this final diſtinction; "that there is not ſatisfac⯑tory evidence, that perſons, pretending to [368] be original witneſſes of the miracles, paſſed their lives in labours, dangers and ſufferings, voluntarily undertaken and undergone in at⯑teſtation of the accounts which they deliver⯑ed, and properly in conſequence of their be⯑lief of the truth of thoſe accounts."

CHAP. II.

BUT they, with whom we argue, have undoubtedly a right to elect their own ex⯑amples. The inſtances with which Mr. Hume hath choſen to confront the miracles of the New Teſtament, and which, therefore, we are intitled to regard, as the ſtrongeſt which the hiſtory of the world could ſupply to the enquiries of a very acute and learned adverſary, are the three following:

1. The cure of a blind and of a lame man at Alexandria, by the Emperor Veſpaſian, as related by Tacitus;

2. The reſtoration of the limb of an attend⯑ant in a Spaniſh church, as told by Cardinal de Retz; and

3. The cures ſaid to be performed at the [370] tomb of the Abbé Paris, in the early part of the preſent century.

1. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in theſe terms: "One of the common peo⯑ple of Alexandria, known to be diſeaſed in his eyes, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that ſuperſtitious nation wor⯑ſhip above all other gods, proſtrated himſelf before the emperor, earneſtly imploring from him a remedy for his blindneſs, and entreating, that he would deign to anoint with his ſpittle his cheeks and the balls of his eyes. Another, diſeaſed in his hand, re⯑queſted, by the admonition of the ſame god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Veſpaſian at firſt derided and de⯑ſpiſed their application; afterwards, when they continued to urge their petitions, he, ſometimes, appeared to dread the imputation of vanity; at other times, by the earneſt ſupplication of the patients, and the perſua⯑ſion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope for ſucceſs. At length he commanded an enquiry to be made by phyſicians, whether [371] ſuch a blindneſs and debility were vincible by human aid. The report of the phyſi⯑cians contained various points; that in the one, the power of viſion was not deſtroyed, but would return, if the obſtacles were re⯑moved; that, in the other, the diſeaſed joints might be reſtored, if a healing power were applied; that it was, perhaps, agreeable to the gods to do this; that the emperor was elected by divine aſſiſtance; laſtly, that the credit of the ſucceſs would be the emperor's, the ridicule of the diſappointment would fall upon the patients. Veſpaſian, believing that every thing was in the power of his fortune, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilſt the multitude, which ſtood by, eagerly expected the event, with a coun⯑tenance expreſſive of joy executed what he was deſired to do. Immediately the hand was reſtored to its uſe, and light returned to the blind man. They, who were preſent, relate both theſe cures, even at this time, when there is nothing to be gained by lying ^*."

[372] Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-ſeven years after the miracle is ſaid to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what paſſed at Alexandria, and wrote alſo from report; and although it does not ap⯑pear that he had examined the ſtory, or that he believed it (but rather the contrary), yet I think his teſtimony ſufficient to prove, that ſuch a tranſaction took place: by which I mean, that the two men in queſtion did apply to Veſpaſian, that Veſpaſian did touch the diſeaſed in the manner related, and that a cure was reported to have followed the operation. But the affair labours under a ſtrong and juſt ſuſpicion, that the whole of it was a concerted impoſture brought about by colluſion, between the patients, the phyſi⯑cian, and the emperor. This ſolution is probable, becauſe there was every thing to ſuggeſt, and every thing to facilitate ſuch a ſcheme. The miracle was calcu⯑lated to confer honour upon the empe⯑ror, and upon the god Serapis. It was achieved in the midſt of the emperor's flat⯑terers and followers; in a city, and amongſt [373] a populace, beforehand devoted to his in⯑tereſt, and to the worſhip of the god; where it would have been treaſon and blaſphemy together, to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have queſtioned it. And what is very obſervable in the account is, that the report of the phyſicians is juſt ſuch a report as would have been made of a caſe, in which no external marks of the diſeaſe exiſted, and which, conſequently, was capable of being eaſily counterfeited, viz. that, in the firſt of the patients, the organs of viſion were not deſtroyed, that the weak⯑neſs of the ſecond was in his joints. The ſtrongeſt circumſtance in Tacitus's narration is, that the firſt patient was "notus tabe ocu⯑lorum," remarked or notorious for the diſ⯑eaſe in his eyes. But this was a circum⯑ſtance which might have found its way into the ſtory in its progreſs from a diſtant coun⯑try, and during an interval of thirty years; or it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet that the nature and degree of the diſeaſe had never been aſcer⯑tained: a caſe by no means uncommon. [374] The emperor's reſerve was eaſily affected; or it is poſſible he might not be in the ſecret. There does not ſeem to be much weight in the obſervation of Tacitus, that they who were preſent continued even then to relate the ſtory, when there was nothing to be gained by the lie. It only proves that thoſe who had told the ſtory for many years, per⯑ſiſted in it. The ſtate of mind of the wit⯑neſſes and ſpectators at the time, is the point to be attended to. Still leſs is there of per⯑tinency in Mr. Hume's eulogium upon the cautious and penetrating genius of the hiſ⯑torian; for it does not appear that the hiſ⯑torian believed it. The terms in which he ſpeaks of Serapis, the deity to whoſe inter⯑poſition the miracle was attributed, ſcarcely ſuffer us to ſuppoſe that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real, "by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that ſuperſtitious na⯑tion (dedita ſuperſtitionibus gens) worſhip above all other gods." To have brought this ſuppoſed miracle within the limits of compariſon with the miracles of Chriſt, it ought to have appeared, that a perſon of a [375] low and private ſtation, in the midſt of ene⯑mies, with the whole power of the country oppoſing him, with every one around him prejudiced or intereſted againſt his claims and character, pretended to perform theſe cures; and required the ſpectators, upon the ſtrength of what they ſaw, to give up their firmeſt hopes and opinions, and follow him through a life of trial and danger; that many were ſo moved, as to obey his call, at the expence, both of every notion in which they had been brought up, and of their eaſe, ſafety and reputation; and that by theſe be⯑ginnings a change was produced in the world, the effects of which remain to this day: a caſe, both in its circumſtances and conſequences, very unlike any thing we ſind in Tacitus's relation.

2. The ſtory taken from the memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, which is the ſecond ex⯑ample alledged by Mr. Hume, is this: "In the church of Saragoſſa in Spain, the canons ſhewed me a man whoſe buſineſs it was to [376] light the lamps, telling me that he had been ſeveral years at the gate, with one leg only. I ſaw him with two ^*."

It is ſtated by Mr. Hume, that the Car⯑dinal who relates this ſtory, did not believe it; and it no where appears, that he either examined the limb, or aſked the patient, or indeed any one, a ſingle queſtion about the matter. An artificial leg wrought with art, would be ſufficient, in a place where no ſuch contrivance had ever before been heard of, to give origin and currency to the report. The eccleſiaſtics of the place would, it is probable, favour the ſtory, inaſmuch as it advanced the honour of their image and church. And if they patronized it, no other perſon at Saragoſſa, in the middle of the laſt century, would care to diſpute it. The ſtory likewiſe coincided, not leſs with the wiſhes and preconceptions of the people, than with the intereſts of their eccleſiaſtical rulers; ſo that there was prejudice backed [377] by authority, and both operating upon ex⯑treme ignorance, to account for the ſucceſs of the impoſture. If, as I have ſuggeſted, the contrivance of an artificial limb was then new, it would not occur to the Cardinal himſelf to ſuſpect it; eſpecially under the careleſſneſs of mind with which he heard the tale, and the little inclination he felt to ſcru⯑tinize or expoſe its fallacy.

3. The miracles related to have been wrought at the tomb of the Abbé Paris, ad⯑mit in general of this ſolution. The patients who frequented the tomb, were ſo affected by their devotion, their expectation, the place, the ſolemnity, and, above all, by the ſympathy of the ſurrounding multitude, that many of them were thrown into violent con⯑vulſions, which convulſions, in certain in⯑ſtances, produced a removal of diſorders de⯑pending upon obſtruction. We ſhall, at this day, have the leſs difficulty in admitting the above account, becauſe it is the very ſame thing, as hath lately been experienced in the operations of animal magnetiſm; and [378] the report of the French phyſicians upon that myſterious remedy is very applicable to the preſent conſideration, viz. that the pretenders to the art, by working upon the imaginations of their patients, were fre⯑quently able to produce convulſions; that convulſions ſo produced are amongſt the moſt powerful, but, at the ſame time, moſt uncertain and unmanageable applications to the human frame, which can be employed.

Circumſtances, which indicate this expli⯑cation in the caſe of the Pariſian miracles, are the following:

1. They were tentative. Out of many thouſand ſick, infirm, and diſeaſed perſons, who reſorted to the tomb, the profeſſed hiſtory of the miracles contains only nine cures.

2. The convulſions at the tomb are ad⯑mitted.

3. The diſeaſes were, for the moſt part, [379] of that ſort, which depends upon inaction and obſtruction, as dropſies, palſies, and ſome tumours.

4. The cures were gradual; ſome patients attending many days, ſome ſeveral weeks, and ſome ſeveral months.

5. The cures were many of them incom⯑plete.

6. Others were temporary ^*.

So that all the wonder we are called upon to account for is, that, out of an almoſt in⯑numerable multitude which reſorted to the tomb for the cure of their complaints, and many of whom were there agitated by ſtrong convulſions, a very ſmall proportion expe⯑rienced a beneficial change in their conſti⯑tution, eſpccially in the action of the nerves and glands.

[380] Some of the caſes alledged do not require that we ſhould have recourſe to this ſolution. The firſt caſe in the catalogue is ſcarcely diſtinguiſhable from the progreſs of a natural recovery. It was that of a young man, who laboured under an inflammation of one eye, and had loſt the ſight of the other. The inflamed eye was relieved, but the blindneſs of the other remained. The inflammation had before been abated by medicine; and the young man, at the time of his attend⯑ance at the tomb, was uſing a lotion of lau⯑danum. And, what is a ſtill more material part of the caſe, the inflammation after ſome interval returned. Another caſe was that of a young man who had loſt his ſight by the puncture of an awl, and the diſcharge of the aqueous humour through the wound. The ſight, which had been gradually return⯑ing, was much improved during his viſit to the tomb, that is, probably in the ſame de⯑gree in which the diſcharged humour was replaced by freſh ſecretions. And it is ob⯑ſervable, that theſe two are the only caſes, which, from their nature, ſhould ſeem un⯑likely to be affected by convulſions.

[381] In one material reſpect I allow, that the Pariſian miracles were different from thoſe related by Tacitus, and from the Spaniſh miracle of the Cardinal de Retz. They had not, like them, all the power and all the prejudice of the country on their ſide to begin with. They were alledged by one party againſt another, by the Janſeniſts againſt the Jeſuits. Theſe were of courſe oppoſed and examined by their adverſaries. The conſequence of which examination was, that many falſehoods were detected, that with ſomething really extraordinary much fraud appeared to be mixed. And if ſome of the caſes, upon which deſigned miſ⯑repreſentation could not be charged, were not at the time ſatisfactorily accounted for, it was becauſe the eſſicacy of ſtrong ſpaſ⯑modic affections was not then ſufficiently known. Finally, the cauſe of Janſeniſm did not riſe by the miracles, but ſunk, although the miracles had the anterior per⯑ſuaſion of all the numerous adherents of that cauſe to ſet out with.

[382] Theſe, let us remember, are the ſtrongeſt examples, which the hiſtory of ages ſupplies. In none of them was the miracle unequi⯑vocal; by none of them were eſtabliſhed prejudices and perſuaſions overthrown; of none of them did the credit make its way, in oppoſition to authority and power; by none of them were many induced to com⯑mit themſelves. and that in contradiction to prior opinions, to a life of mortification, danger, and ſufferings: none were called upon to atteſt them, at the expence of their fortunes and ſafety ^*.