infidels as Hobbes, and Chub, and Bolingbroke, to deny the point in question. The latter, as an example of the others, speaking of John and Matthew, acknowledges that “they recorded the doctrines of Christ in the very words in which he taught them; and they were careful to mention the several occasions on which he delivered them to his disciples or others. If, therefore, Plato and Xenophon tell us, with a good deal of certainty, what Socrates taught, these two evangelists seem to tell us, with much more, what the Saviour taught, and commanded them to teach."

Here I think we may safely leave the question of credibility. So conclusive and certain have seemed to my mind the several consecutive arguments to which you have listened, that instead of feeling at each step as if any candid hearer would wait for additional proof, I have felt not unfrequently as if I were tiring your attention with an unnecessary accumulation. Why this heaping of argument upon argument, one may say, when from the very outset of the question, from the certain authenticity of the Gospels, united with their internal evidence, we have a proof of credibility with which any rational mind should be perfectly satisfied? We acknowledge the reasonableness of the inquiry. If the history under consideration related to the life of Alexander the Great and his generals, instead of that of the meek and lowly Jesus and his apostles, who would think it necessary to go into all this detail of evidence to establish its truth? That it contained no internal marks of dishonesty; that it was uncontradicted by contemporaneous writers and by other histories of the same times; that it had been received, ever since, as a true account; would be considered an ample warrant of its historical correctness. Few, if any, profane histories, can produce more positive proof of credibility than this. Try them by the scale on which the gospel history is measured; require them to present one half of the weight of evidence which infidels demand, and Christians bring in

support of the sacred narrative; and you must exclude them from all claim to the confidence of their readers. We might speak of the unfairness of requiring so much more in proof of a history because its character is sacred, and its facts are connected with religion. I see not that the inferences arising from an event, are entitled to any influence in changing the amount of evidence necessary to its proof. Whether an evangelist be worthy of dependence, when he relates the works of Jesus, is a question of testimony to be determined by the same degree of proof as should satisfy us as to the accuracy and honesty of any other writer, on any other subject of history. But we have no disposition to complain that so much has been demanded in evidence of the gospel narrative. It has only served to quicken the investigations of the friends of truth, and to exhibit, with a more impressive assurance, those great events, on which all that is precious in a Christian's faith is founded. It has showed, not only how amply, but how wonderfully the God of truth and grace has made the anchor of our hope to be sure and steadfast. It teaches how, in the hands of Divine Wisdom, the wrath of man is made subsidiary to the praise of God; how the fiery darts of the wicked are not only broken against the shield of faith, but made the means of increasing the light by which the Christian is guided, and often of carrying back confusion into the ranks of the enemy. It should lead the believer to adore, with admiring gratitude, the goodness of Him, who, for the sake of those that love Him, causes all the schemes and assaults of unbelievers to work together for good; making it more and more manifest, by the defeat of every new attack, that this is "the true light"-" the shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day."

Had we time, or were it needful, to enter upon a particular view of the authenticity and credibility of the Old Testament volume, this would be the place for the argument.

But we have room only to advert to it. The connexion between the truth of the christian scriptures and that of the Jewish is so obvious and essential; the dispensation of Christ so continually assumes the divine authority of that of Moses, and is so evidently built on its foundations; the writings of the apostles so frequently quote and refer to the law and the prophets, as authentic, credible, and inspired scriptures; the argument for the books of the Old Testament is so parallel, in its mode and means, to that for the books of the New; and the cavils of sceptics, in relation to the former, are so similar in objection, principle, and reason ing, to those with which they assail the latter; that in hav ing established the authenticity and credibility of the one, we may be fairly said to have done the same, in outline, for the character of the other. Certain we are, that one who is intelligently convinced of the authenticity and credibility of the New Testament, will not halt between two opinions as to the writings of Moses and the prophets, but will read them as assuredly the writings of those whose names they bear; and deserving, in relation to all matters of fact, the character of credible scriptures.

LECTURE V.

MIRACLES.

If the

OUR last lecture was on the CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. In a previous one, we ascertained the AUTHENTICITY of the books in which it is contained. evidence adduced in proof of both these fundamental articles appeared as satisfactory to the hearers, as to the speaker, we are then prepared to open the New Testament with the assurance that the books it contains were written by those original disciples whose names they bear; and that we may confidently depend on the historical correctness of their statements. The seals, therefore, of the volume are now unloosed. Immediately on inspecting the contents, it appears that the grand and continual reference is to Jesus Christ, as a Teacher and Saviour sent from God, to communicate personally, and by his apostles, a revelation of truth and duty to man. This revelation, the New Testament professes to contain. Now, the grand question is, what are the evidences that the religion contained in the New Testament is a divine revelation?

When an ambassador from a foreign power presents him self at our seat of government, charged with certain commu nications from his sovereign, he first exhibits his credentials of appointment. These being satisfactory, whatever he may communicate, in his official character, is received with as much reliance as if it were heard from the lips of his sovereign himself. It is treated as a revelation of the mind or will of that sovereign. In the New Testament we read that our Lord Jesus Christ appeared among men as an ambassa

dor from God, charged with certain important proposals to the world. Before we can be justified in receiving them as a divine revelation, we must know the credentials of the ambas sador; we must have sufficient evidence that he was sent of God. Furnish this, and we are bound to receive his commu nications, as confidently as if they should be heard directly from the throne of the Most High. Thus the Jews said to him: "What sign showest thou, that we may see and believe thee? What dost thou work?"* The Saviour, admitting the propriety of the demand, appealed to his works, as his credentials. "The works that I do, they bear witness of me." On another occasion, he called up his miracles. "The blind (said he) receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up." As if he had said: "Such works can only be done by the direct and supernatural interposition of the power of God. They are done at my word and will. They are therefore a perfect attestation that God is with me, and that my claim to your confidence as His ambassador is true." Nicodemus understood this, and expressed no other than the plain dictate of common sense, when he said to Jesus: "We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles which thou doest except God be with him." The credentials of the apostles, as subordinate agents of divine revelation, are expressed in like manner. "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost." None can question the absolute certainty of such credentials. This has been acknowledged even by the most famous advocates of infidelity. Woolston says: "I believe it will be granted on all hands that the restoring a person indisputably dead to life is a stupendous miracle, and that two or three such miracles, well attested and credibly reported, are enough to

John, vi. 30-ii. 18. + Mat. xi. 5.

+ John, iii. 2.

§ Heb. ii. 4.