these unlearned and ignorant men should be such proficients in the science of infidelity,) let it only be considered, that upon these principles it would have been natural for them to have acted just the quite contrary part to what they really did. If they believed no future state, surely their wisest way would have been to have made the best use of the present, and to have enjoyed it as long, and with as much satisfaction, as was possible. But instead of this, they enter into a plot, as it were, against their own lives; and without any prospect of a future reward or happiness, deliberately contrive their own misery in every period of what they supposed their whole existence. It is impossible to say what is folly and madness, if this be not so; and yet it seems at the same time these very men had sense and sagacity enough to see through the whole imposture of Moses and the prophets. Here again is an absurdity, which whoever can believe has no occasion to compliment Christians for the strength of their faith.

It must then, I think, appear very plainly, that whether the apostles expected a future state or not, they acted a most unaccountable part in this affair of Christ's resurrection, unless they really believed it. If they had no prospect beyond the grave, why should they bring themselves down with sorrow to it by a violent and untimely death? And if they had any expectation of a judgment to come, how is it conceivable that they would expose themselves to it, by dying in attestation of what they knew to be an execrable falsehood? There are, it is true, several instances of men's dying, rather than relinquish their errors: but even in these cases, their sufferings and death are at least an argument of their sincerity.

And therefore there is no resemblance between the case of such persons who die for opinions, which they believe to be true, and that of the apostles dying in attestation of a fact, which they knew to be false. If there be any other instances of men who went further than this, and died even with a lie in their mouths, by denying facts of which they had been plainly guilty, they had doubtless their reasons for this behaviour, and hoped by their dissimulation to obtain their pardon. But this case is by no means parallel to that of the apostles; since their hopes of pardon could only arise, not from the concealment, but the confession of their guilt; and their only way to avoid death was plainly to acknowledge their imposture. Not one however of their number could be prevailed on by any means to own any fraud at all, or even to be silent upon the subject. They declared, they could not but speak the things which they had seen and heard; that as for their lives, they were in the hands of God, whom they were obliged, and whom they were resolved, to obey rather than man; that they had been taught to expect, and were ready to suffer death in testimony of the truth; and in the mean time they rejoiced, that they were counted worthy to suffer shame and per- . secution for the name of Christ. It is well known that the event did not disappoint their expectations: they actually laid down their lives in attestation of the facts which they had delivered; and sealed the truths with their blood, which they had now spread far and wide by their preaching. It need only be said upon this occasion, and it is, I think, too plain to be contested, that if they were deceivers, they were

But if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. We must not therefore drop the evidence of the apostles here, how credible soever it may be in itself, but shall go on to consider it further, as accompanied and confirmed by the demonstration of the Spirit, and of power. It cannot perhaps be well denied, but that men may possibly be mere deceivers, under the most specious appearances of sincerity; though it is the highest improbability that the apostles were so, and highly unreasonable and disingenuous to suspect them, sincę they gave all possible proofs that they were honest and disinterested men. But however, God must be true, though every man should prove a liar; and therefore if he has seconded and supported their evidence by superior testimony of his own, the matter is confirmed to us beyond all imaginable exception. Now miracles, in the case before us, can be considered in no other view than as the seal and attestation of God, who enabled the apostles to work them. They wrought them to this end, and appealed to them for this purpose; and therefore whatever they may or may not prove in their own nature, in the use and application made of them by the apostles, they infallibly proved the truth of their doctrines, if they were wrought at all. And that they really did perform most surprising and miraculous operations, is a point which the bitterest enemies of Christianity, in the first ages of it, could not deny. The facts were too plain and public; were such as could not be counterfeited, and yet were often repeated; were of various kinds, and were performed by several

1 1 John v.

9.

m

I Cor. ii. 4.

persons at different times, as objects presented themselves, or occasion served. Men of any tolerable sense and consideration saw then plainly enough, that this could not be all a mere pretence, or owing to collusion among men only; and therefore the common evasion was, to ascribe them to magic, or a confederacy with evil spirits. This senseless objection was first urged by the Jews, and confuted by our Lord himself; and was afterwards taken up by some heathen philosophers, who would not embrace Christianity, and yet had nothing better to allege against it. It now again seems to be as much disregarded as it deserves. It implies, that there are some powerful invisible beings, who have a greater intercourse with mankind than our modern infidels are willing to believe; and therefore they are rather inclined to think, that the apostles wrought no miracles at all. To be consistent with themselves, indeed, they should go one step further, and deny that there were ever any such men. For if they admit historical evidence with regard to the persons, why do they reject it with reference to the facts? Will they say, that in matters of this kind reason is to judge what is credible, and what is not; and that nothing is more common, than to admit upon the faith of history the existence of several persons, and yet to disbelieve the transactions ascribed to them? This may be true, but comes not up to the case before us; since there is nothing incredible in this, that God should enable men to work miracles, in order to establish a religion agreeable to his own nature and will, which could not, consistently with the nature of this religion, and the then state of the

say, that the evidence itself is different, and that while we have the testimony both of friends and enemies for the apostles themselves, we have the testimony of the former only for their miracles? But the fact is otherwise: for the most virulent, and at the same time the most learned enemies of Christianity, have so far borne witness to it, as to own that the first preachers of it performed very wonderful operations. Supposing however that we were destitute of this collateral evidence, is the testimony of friends in every case to be entirely disregarded? If not, what is it that renders it so exceptionable in this? Were these reports spread abroad, and these writings first published, in ages and countries far distant from the times and places where the facts are said to have been done? This cannot with any colour of reason be pretended. And supposing then that they were false, how is it possible that they should have gained any degree of credit amongst those, who had it every day in their power to confute them? That they did gain credit, most surprising credit, in every part of the world, is a fact too plain to be contested. This leads us to the success which the apostles met with; and our adversaries may be pleased to account for it upon their hypothesis, that the apostles wrought no miracles: but they will find, that to establish such a religion as this against all human power, without any assistance of the divine, is only to introduce another miracle, superior if possible to all the rest.

It must be remembered, that there was something both in the nature of this religion, and in the first preachers of it, that raised all the power and all the prejudices of the world against it. The age in which