external institutions peculiar to Christianity, which we must suppose to be coeval with the formation of the society, for they are the badges of the Christian profession, and constitute a part of their worship. I reter to baptism and the eucharist. To suppose that in some way Christianity first existed, and after wards received these articles of faith and these institutions of worship, is too improbable to be admitted by any impartial man. It would be to suppose that a religious society existed without any principles, or that they rejected their original principles and adopted new ones; and that they who imposed these upon them, had the address to persuade them, that they had always belonged to their system;-than which it is not easy to conceive any thing more improbable. Let us for a moment attempt to imagine, that previously to the publication of the gospels, the Christian church had among them no report of the miracles, and no account of the institutions, recorded in these books. When they opened them, they would read that their society was founded on the belief of the resurrection of Jesus, and that baptism and the eucharist were instituted by him before he left the world, and had existed among them ever since. Nothing can be more evident than that the substance of what is contained in the gospels, was believed and practised by Christians from the commencement of the society.

As these books have come down to us under the names of certain apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, so they were ascribed to the same persons from the earliest mention of them. It is by the

ancient Fathers spoken of as a fact universally believed among Christians, and contradicted by nobody. And we must not suppose that in the first ages of Christianity there was little care or discrimination exercised, in ascertaining the true authors and genuine character of the books in circulation. The very

reverse is the fact. The most diligent inquiries were instituted into matters of this kind. Other books were published in the name of the apostles, profess

ing to give an account of Jesus Christ, which were not genuine. The distinction between the books of the New Testament and all others of every class, was as clearly marked in the earliest ages as it has ever been since. The writings of the apostles were held in great veneration, were received by the churches all over the world, as the rule of their faith and direc tory of their lives, and publicly read at their meetings for the instruction of the people. When any controversy arose they were appealed to as an authoritative standard. As soon as published, they were so widely scattered and so carefully guarded, that no persons had it in their power to make any alteration

in them.

The

The style and dialect in which these books are written furnishes an evidence of their authenticity, of a peculiar kind. It does not indeed ascertain the persons of the writers, but proves that they must have been exactly in the circumstances of those to whom these books have been uniformly ascribed. words are Greek but the idiom is in Hebrew, or rather Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular tongue of Judea in the time of Christ and his apostles. This is a peculiarity which none could counterfeit, and which demonstrates that the New Testament was not composed by men of a different country and age from those in which the apostles lived.

In the New Testament there are numerous references to rivers, mountains, seas, cities, and countries, which none but a person well acquainted with the geography of Judea and the neighbouring countries could have made, without falling into innumerable errors. There is moreover incidental mention of persons and facts known from other authorities to have existed, and frequent allusions to manners and customs peculiar to the Jews.

From all these considerations, it ought to be admitted without dispute, that these are indeed the writings of the apostles, and of those particular persons o whom they are ascribed. It would not however estroy their credibility even if other persons had

written them, since they were certainly composed in that age and were received by the whole body of Christians. But what imaginable reason is there for doubting the genuineness of these books? What persons were so likely to write books to guide the faith of the church as the apostles? If they did not write them who would? And why would they give the credit of them to others? But their universal reception without opposition or contradiction should silence every cavil. The persons who lived at this time knew the apostles, and were deeply interested in the subject, and they are the proper judges of this question. They have decided it unanimously, as it relates to the historical books of the New Testament. From them the testimony has come down, through all succeeding ages, without chasm. Even heathen writers and heretics are witnesses that the gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear.*

How

In other cases we usually possess no other evidence of the genuineness of the most valued writings of antiquity, except the opinion of contemporaries handed down by uncontradicted tradition. soon would Homer be deprived of his glory, if such evidence was insisted on as is required for the genuineness of the New Testament? Certainly, as it respects evidences of genuineness, no books of antiquity stand upon a level with the books of the New Testament. The works of the Greek and Latin historians and poets have no such evidence of being the writings of the persons whose names they bear, as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For we have the testimony, not merely of individu.. als, but of numerous societies, widely scattered over the world. We have internal evidence of a kind which cannot be counterfeited. We have, in short, every species of evidence of which the case admits. It may therefore be considered as an established fact, that the books of the New Testament are the genuine productions of the apostles, and consequently contain

*See Lardner's Heathen Testimonies.

their testimony to the miracles of Jesus Christ, and also to those miracles which in his name they per formed after his ascension.

It is also certain that the books of the New Testa ment have not undergone any material change since they were written; for there is a general agreement in all copies, in all the versions, and in all the quotations. There are, it is true, small discrepancies, which have occurred through the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers, but not more than might naturally be expected. There is no ancient book which has come down to us so entire as the Scriptures, and which is accompanied by so many means of correcting an erroneous reading where it has occurred. This representation may appear surprising to those who have heard of the vast multitude of various readings which learned critics have collected from a collation of the manuscripts; but it ought to be understood by all who have ever heard of these discrepancies, that not one in a thousand is of the least consequence; that a great majority of them are merely differences in orthography, in the collocation of words, or in the use of words perfectly synonymous, by which the sense is not in the least affected. A cursory reader would find as little difference in the various manuscripts of the New Testament, as in the different printed editions of the English version.

Having established the authenticity of the record which contains the testimony, we shall next proceed to consider its credibility.

I. Many of the facts related in the gospel are undoubtedly of a miraculous nature. It is declared that Jesus Christ, in several instances, raised the dead. In one case the person had been dead four days, so that the body began to be offensive to the smell. In every case, this miracle was wrought in stantly and without any other means than speaking a word. It is declared that he healed multitudes of the most inveterate and incurable diseases; that he gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, and active limbs to the withered and

the maimed; that he delivered those who were furi ous and unmanageable by reason of the possession of demons; that on different occasions he fed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes until they were satisfied, and that the fragments which were gathered up were much greater in quantity than the original materials; that he walked upon the sea and with a word allayed the raging storm and produced a great calm. And finally, it is repeatedly and solemnly declared by all the witnesses, that Jesus Christ, after being crucified and after having continued in the sepulchre three days, rose from the dead, and after showing himself frequently to his disciples, ascended to heaven in their presence.

That all these were real miracles, none can for a moment doubt. It is true, we do not know all the powers of nature; but we do know, as certainly as we know any thing, that such works as these could not be performed but by the immediate power of God. The same remark may be extended to the miracles wrought by the apostles in the name of the Lord Jesus, and especially to that stupendous miracle on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on the apostles in visible form, and conferred on them the gift of tongues and other extraordinary endowments. All must admit, that if these events ever occurred, then there have existed undoubted miracles.

II. The miracles of Jesus were performed, for the most part, in an open and public manner, in the presence of multitudes of witnesses, under the inspection of learned and malignant enemies, in a great variety of circumstances, and for several years in succession. There was here no room for trick, sleight of hand, illusion of the senses, or any thing else which could impose on the spectators. This circumstance is important, because it proves to a certainty, that the apostles themselves could not be deluded and deceived in the testimony which they have given. To suppose that they could think that they saw such miracles every day for years, and yet be deceived, would be