that in one day, and in the very place where their divine master had frequently taught and wrought miracles, 3000 persons were convinced of the truth of their testimony, and embraced the new religion; and that within the space of a few years, many of the neighbouring states became proselytes to the faith, and submitted themselves to its requirements.—And, that these men, after having undergone the most fiery trials, and submitted to the most cruel and protracted sufferings, yielded themselves up to violent deaths, to attest, not-be it observed the sincerity of their opinions, but the truth of their statements, in regard to matters of fact.

Now, I ask, if a work containing a narrative so unusual, and so extraordinary as this, stating the events recorded to have happened in the places where it was published and read, and pointing to certain existing observances,* as having been originally prescribed to commemorate some of these very events, while the whole was a gross fabrication, having had no existence but in the mind of its author or authors, can it be con

*As the religious observance of the first day of the week, and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper.

ceived possible, that it should, by any device, be imposed upon the world, and obtain the credit of an authentic history? Would not the common sense of mankind lead them to argue, that if the narrative were true, the events recorded must have been notorious before its appearance; and that although the lapse of several hundred years, and the variation to which traditionary testimony is liable, might induce some discrepancies between the written document and the floating tradition, there would yet be a sufficient conformity to yield a proof of their identity. There is, in fact, no conceivable way in which the supposed production could obtain credit. with any number of persons, as an authentic record of facts. And this was our postulatum.*

In this view of the case, the question at issue between the christian and the unbeliever is brought into a very limited compass. The fact of the bare existence of the New Testament, and of the religious system which it developes,

* For the authenticity of the books of the New Testament, a much stronger case, even upon this ground, might be made out, could we enter into detail. The impossibility of their forgery, however, has been sufficiently shewn, though the argument is capable of confirmation by many additional considerations.

T

is obviously certain and indisputable: the sole question, therefore, is, how they started into existence, and what are their pretensions to be received as divine. The christian assigns to them an origin, not only perfectly reasonable and consistent, in themselves, but which is also supported as we have already seen, and as we shall presently see more fully-by the concurrent testimony of antiquity, in a regular and unbroken series, from the time at which they were introduced, down to the present day. The unbeliever rejects these evidences, which in every other case are held to be sufficient and conclusive, and calls upon us to assign to them some unknown and inconceivable origin, which cannot be done without involving a monstrous tissue of absurdities, and unhinging all historical evidence. Whose conduct is the more reasonable, or worthy a rational creature? the reader determine for himself.

Let

2. Is it possible to assign to the writers of the New Testament any adequate motive for their undertaking, on the supposition that it does not contain an authentic statement of facts?

It may be conceived that this enquiry is superfluous, after it has been shewn, that whatever the motives of the New Testament penmen might

have been, it would have been impossible to have procured any credit for their writings, had they not been supported by adequate proofs of their authenticity. And so, in truth, it is, except in as far as it furnishes an additional argument for demonstrating the unreasonableness and irrationality of infidelity. A suggestion or two, however, is all that can be here submitted: the intelligent reader will find it worth his while to pursue the inquiry into all its details.

There are but, two conceivable motives that could induce the writers of the New Testament -supposing them to have been impostors-to make the attempt of imposing their books upon the world. Either they must have done so, to promote their personal gain, pecuniary or otherwise; or they must have done it from a sincere and disinterested desire to benefit their fellowBut neither of these suppositions

creatures.

will hold good.

(1) The authors of the New Testament could not have proposed in their undertaking either power, pleasure, or any other species of gain; because they could not but know that the religion which they were labouring to establish was, in its very principles, equally opposed to

Judaism and Paganism, and must, of necessity, bring down upon its advocates the vengeance of these two great classes of society. That both Christ and his apostles were fully aware of the consequences which would result to them from their exertions and labours, is evident from every part of the writings under consideration,* and that the event answered to the anticipation is known to every reader of these and other early christian writings. Now, is it reasonable to suppose that any persons of common sense would voluntarily have engaged in an imposture from which they could not hope to derive any thing but the most dreadful sufferings, and even death itself? If these men were mere cheats, they were such without any motive or advantage, and even contrary to every motive and idea of advantage by which men are usually influenced.

With regard to pecuniary gain, or money getting, every thing concurs to shew, that this was no part of the design proposed by the persons whose conduct we are referring to. They had

See Matt. xxiv. 9; Mar. iv. 17; x. 30; Lu. xi. 49; xxi. 12-16; John xv. 20; xvi. 4. 33; Rom. v. 3, 4; viii. 35. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9, 10. 14. 16, 17; 2 Thess. i. 4, 5; Heb. x. 32-36; 1 Pet. iv. 12—19; James v. 10, 11.