facts, related as they occurred; or it is a fabrication by the most consummate proficients in deception, who had reached the highest perfection of skillthe art of concealing art. There is what the French call a naïveté in the whole which is truly astonishing. It is a bare, simple narrative without the least appearance of design, or even of interest. There is no attempt to serve a particular purpose: the foibles, the weaknesses, and the prejudices, of the writers are faithfully recorded; and not a word escapes them that can directly or indirectly be construed into an attempt to praise or recommend themselves,-not even an encomium on their master.

There is no endeavour in any of the Evangelists to prove the truth of Christ's mission by any kind of reasoning independently of his actions and discourses, except in the few instances where reference is made to the prophecies in attestation of his being the Messiah. And is it conceivable that these writers should have recourse to fictitious miracles in support of a cause which they do not even endeavour to sustain by argument or inference? If this proceeded from simplicity and artlessness, the same disposition of mind would prevent their having recourse to falsehood and deceit; and if it arose from incapacity, the same want of ability which rendered them unfit for the use of argument would hardly have supplied them with so many miracles as we find in the Gospel; —which, if fictitious, are so plausibly fabricated, and so artfully connected with the moral precepts and characteristic discourses of

their master, as to require more than common abilities to invent and amalgamate. The miracles are related with the same simplicity and with the same degree of circumstantiality as the rest of the narrative: the writers draw no inference from them, but leave them to speak for themselves.

There are several minute passages in the books of the New Testament which prove, beyond a doubt, that they were written at the time supposed, by Jews, or persons to whom the state, customs, and opinions of the Jews were not only known but familiar and what fixes the date with greater precision is, that the Jews were at that particular time in a kind of middle and ambiguous state, neither absolutely free and independent, nor yet totally in subjection to the Romans; their political condition, even in the course of the narrative, underwent several variations; and the whole of the account harmonizes in the most remarkable manner with the different alterations that took place in their government and in their relative situation to the Romans.

What is deserving of particular attention is, the character of Jesus himself,-so different from any other in real or fictitious narrative, and yet maintained throughout with such perfect consistency.

The history of his life is related by four several biographers; and the narrative of each is so far different from that of the other three, as to prove that they are not copies of one another. Yet, what identity is there in their several accounts! The

P

Jesus of Matthew is evidently the Jesus of Mark, Luke, and John.

There was nothing systematic in his manner of teaching,-nothing of that artificial and studied logic under which imposture would have sheltered itself. He spoke as one having authority, and not as the Scribes. His discourses were in general occasional, arising from some circumstances that occurred. They were sometimes plain and dogmatical, at others, obscure and prophetic; and yet there was a manner in all of them that was peculiarly his own.

When the whole of the narrative is thoroughly examined, I think it will appear to every unpreju diced mind, that it was impossible for the poor, uneducated followers of Jesus to have devised such a system, and to have pursued it with any appearance or hope of success; and that men of the highest abilities and the greatest talents, even if they had been wise enough to invent the morality of Jesus, would never have thought of propagating and enforcing it by forging such a narrative as the Gospel: there is nothing in it of the means adopted by human wisdom for the attainment of its objects.

As, from a contemplation of the works of nature we deduce the proof of a First Cause, so, by a similar process of reasoning,-from the success of a religion which human wisdom could never have invented, by means which it was impossible for human wisdom to supply, we are justified in ascribing its origin and its success to the especial agency of Divine Providence.

CHAPTER X.

ON THE PROPHECIES.

BESIDES the arguments already urged in support of the truth of Christianity, there are others that will lead us to the same conclusion; and among these the prophecies have always been allowed great weight. It must be owned that many of them are obscure; to me, as well as to others who have not made them the particular object of their studies, they are very much so; and it cannot be denied that, in the interpretation of them, there is great room for the exercise of ingenuity and imagination It cannot, however, be denied that, when some of them are attentively considered and compared with the events which they are supposed to foretel, there is a striking correspondence between them, that cannot be accounted for on any other principle.

The prophecies in the Old Testament which are applied to Christ cannot, at all events, be suspected of having being written after the event; and if there is some obscurity in them, it must be remembered that the Jews, who were better acquainted with the prophetic style of their own Scriptures than we are, understood those very prophecies as intended to designate the Messiah, whom, upon the strength of

them, they expected at the very time when Jesus did in fact appear.

The Jews agree with us (and I consider their opinion in this respect of great weight), that these prophecies were to be applied to the Messiah, and, until their rejection of the Gospel led them to another interpretation, that he was to come at that very time; and if it is granted that they were prophetic of the Messiah, I consider the greatest difficulty to be removed; for, if referable to such a person, there can be little doubt that Christ was that person, from the many striking particulars in which the prophecy and the fulfilment exactly correspond.

It may, perhaps, be urged, that the authors of the life of Jesus, being Jews acquainted with the Old Testament, might accommodate and embellish the events which they related in such a manner as to assimilate them to the prophecies which had been applied by their countrymen to the expected Messiah. But their whole narrative is so evidently void of deceit, or apparent design of any kind, that it would be unjust to suspect them of such an artifice; and, indeed, any attempt of that nature to impose on the Jews was exactly that which was sure to expose them to detection.

There are prophecies, likewise, in the New Testament that require no small degree of attention. The destruction of the Temple would be a most striking proof of the prophetic powers of Jesus, if it were absolutely certain that the Gospels were written before that event. I say absolutely certain, for