must be given of its origin; fome cause affigned for its rife. All the accounts of this origin, all the explications of this caufe, whether taken from the writings of the early followers of the religion (in which, and in which perhaps alone, it could be expected that they should be diftinctly unfolded) or from occafional notices in other writings of that or the adjoining age, either exprefsly alledge the facts above ftated as the means by which the religion was fet up, or advert to its commencement in a manner which

agrees with the fuppofition of these facts being true, and which testifies their operation and effects.

Thefe propofitions alone lay a foundation for our faith; for they prove the existence of a tranfaction, which cannot even in its moft general parts be accounted for, upon any reasonable fuppofition, except that of the truth of the miffion. But the particulars, the detail of the miracles or miraculous pretences (for fuch there neceffarily must have been) upon which this unexampled tranfac

4

tion refted, and for which thefe men acted and fuffered as they did act and fuffer, it is undoubtedly of great importance to us to know. We have this detail from the fountain head, from the perfons themselves; in accounts written by eye-witneffes of the fcene, by contemporaries and companions of those who were fo; not in one book, but four, each containing enough for the verifi cation of the religion, all agreeing in the fundamental parts of the hiftory. We have the authenticity of these books established, by more and ftronger proofs than belong to almoft any other ancient book whatever, and by proofs which widely distinguish them from any others claiming a fimilar authority to theirs. If there were any good reason for doubt concerning the names to which these books are ascribed (which there is not, for they were never afcribed to any other, and we have evidence not long after their publication of their bearing the names which they now bear), their antiquity, of which there is no queftion, their reputation and authority amongst the early disciples of

the

the religion, of which there is as little, form a valid proof that they muft, in the main at leaft, have agreed with what the firft teachers of the religion delivered.

When we open thefe ancient volumes, we discover in them marks of truth, whether we confider each in itself, or collate them with one another. The writers certainly knew fomething of what they were writing about, for they manifeft an acquaintance with local circumstances, with the hiftory and ufages of the times, which could only belong to an inhabitant of that country, living in that age. In every narrative we perceive fimplicity and undefignednefs; the air and the language of reality. When we compare the different narratives together, we find them fo varying as to repell all fufpicion of confederacy; fo agreeing under this variety, as to shew that the accounts had one real tranfaction for their common foundation; often attributing different actions and difcourfes, to the perfon whofe hiftory, or rather memoirs of whose history, they profefs to relate, yet actions

7

actions and difcourfes fo fimilar, as very much to bespeak the fame character; which is a coincidence, that, in fuch writers as they were, could only be the confequence of their writing from fact, and not from imagination.

These four narratives are confined to the hiftory of the founder of the religion, and end with his miniftry. Since however it is certain that the affair went on, we cannot help being anxious to know how it proceeded. This intelligence hath come down to us in a work purporting to be written by a perfon, himself connected with the bufiness during the first stages of its progress, taking up the ftory where the former hiftories had left it, carrying on the narrative, oftentimes with great particularity, and throughout with the appearance of good fense*, information and candour: ftating

*See Peter's fpeech upon curing the cripple (Acts , 18), the council of the apoftles (xv.), Paul's difcourfe at Athens (xvii. 22), before Agrippa (xxvi.), I notice thefe paffages, both as fraught with good fenfe, and as the fmalleft tincture of enthufiafm. ee from

VOL. II.

Did

all

all along the origin, and the only probable origin, of effects which unquestionably were produced, together with the natural confequences of fituations which unquestionably did exift; and confirmed, in the substance at leaft of the account, by the ftrongest poffible acceffion of teftimony which a history can receive, original letters, written by the perfon who is the principal fubject of the hif tory, written upon the business to which the history relates, and during the period, or foon after the period, which the hiftory comprises. No man can say that this altogether is not a body of ftrong hiftorical evidence.

When we reflect that fome of thofe from whom the books proceeded, are related to have themfelves wrought miracles, to have been the subject of miracles, or of fupernatural affiftance in propagating the religion, we may perhaps be led to think, that more credit, or a different kind of credit, is due to these accounts, than what can be claimed by merely human teftimony. But this is an argument

6