In what other manner, and on what other principle, were fo many converts made during the life of Chrift, and till the deftruction of Jerufalem, during all which time the prophecies in the Chriftian church were very inconfiderable? Were the Chriftians of those days, many of whom endured great hardships, and fome of whom laid down their lives, for their profeffion of Chriftianity (and many of them did not themselves fee any miracle, but only heard the reports of others) only in a state of attention and expectation, without any real belief in the divine miffion of Chrift, till they could fee fome prophecy completed? Nay, would the completion of any prophecy have produced a greater effect than did the certain belief, whether occafioned by the evidence of their own fenfes, or that of others, that Jefus wrought real miracles, and that he died, and rofe from the dead? What other evidence of the divine miffion of Chrift, or of the truth of Chriftianity, was wanting to perfons who really believed these facts?

Mr. Evanson may think that miracles were fufficient to convince those who themfelves faw them; but that completed prophecy is neceffary to the conviction of those who had no opportunity of feeing them. But if the evidence of fight was fufficient to convince the spectators that the miracles were real, a fufficient evidence that thofe fpectators were convinced, that is, the evidence of teftimony, can be all that is neceffary to convince others. For this places

them

them precisely in the fituation of those who were the fpectators. And if any person be fo conftituted, as to think that other men, of whose judgment and veracity he can have no doubt, were, from their own inspection and examination, satisfied with respect to the truth of any facts, without believing that they really took place, neither would he be convinced by the evidence of his own fenfes. Nothing can lead any man to fufpend his affent in this cafe, but the perfuafion that, though all other perfons might be impofed upon, he could not; which is what no man will presume to fay of himself. The proof, there-fore, that competent witneffes were fatisfied of the reality of any fact, miraculous or otherwife, must be fufficient to convince others. And this it has never failed to do.

Mr. Evanson seems to fuppofe that our belief of the miracles of Chrift and the Apostles depends upon the authenticity of the books of the New Teftament which contain the account of them; and certainly all our knowledge of thefe facts is derived from those books. But ftill our faith doth not reft upon the testimony of the writers of those books, but upon that of those who first received the books, and who tranfmitted them to us as authentic, which they would not have done, if they had not known them to be deferving of credit,

It is not because four perfons, though the most unexceptionable evidences, affert that Chrift and his Apostles wrought miracles, that we believe the

facts. We believe them on the evidence of the thoufand, and tens of thousands, themselves well acquainted with the facts, by whom it cannot be denied that the contents of these books were credited. It is on the testimony of all the primitive Christians, and in fome measure of the heathen world also, that we believe in the miracles, the death, and refurrection of Christ, in confequence of which we are Chriftians.

The books called the Gofpels were not the cause, but the effect, of the belief of Christianity in the first ages. For Chriftianity had been propagated with great fuccefs long before those books were written; nor had the publication of them any particular effect in adding to the number of Chriftian converts. Christians received the books because they knew beforehand that the contents of them were true; and they were at that time of no further use than to af certain, and fix, the testimony of living witnesses, in order to its being transmitted without variation to fucceeding ages. For what could have been the preaching of the gospel originally, but a recital of the discourses and miracles of Chrift, by those who were eye-witnesses of them, to those who were not? The gofpels, therefore, contain the substance of all their preaching.

While the eye-witnesses were living, there was little occafion for books; and accordingly no histories were written till about thirty years after the afcenfion of Chrift, when the eye-witnesses were going

off

off the stage, and confequently when their teftimony, without being fecured by writing, could not have been known with certainty, or have been tranfmitted to future ages. This was the natural and the actual progrefs of things in the primitive times.

Since the belief of Chriftianity did not originally depend upon the authenticity of any books, the dif proving their authenticity will not affect its credibility. The miracles of Chrift and the Apoftles must have been true, or the belief of Chriftianity could not have been established in the circumstances in which it may be proved from history that it did actually gain ground. And unbelievers in Christianity prove nothing against it, unless they can prove that Christianity did not make the progress that it is faid to have done while the facts were recent, or that the circumstances in which it was propagated were materially different from what is commonly apprehended; as that the civil powers did not oppofe its propagation, so that there was no perfecution of Chriftians, nothing to lead its friends or its enemies to inquire into the evidence of the facts while they were recent. But the history of thofe times is fo well known, that this is clearly out of any man's power, and must be so to the end of time, while any history of the first and second centuries fhall exist.

The present state of things with respect to the belief of Christianity cannot be accounted for with. out fuppofing the state of it in the last century to have been fuch as all authentic history represents

it.

it. In like manner, going back through every century, we shall find that every one of them requires the preceding to have been what history informs us that it was, till we find that it could not poffibly have had the spread that it evidently had in the times of Pliny and of Nero, unless fuch a narrative as that of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles had been true, whether those particular books be authentic or not.

We have no reafon, therefore, from a regard to Christianity, to be alarmed at any effect that Mr. Evanson's publication can have. Whatever we may think with refpect to the authenticity of any particular books, all history is a ftanding and fufficient evidence of the truth of Christianity, and affords a firm foundation of our faith. I fhall, therefore, proceed with perfect calmnefs to examine what Mr. Evanfon has advanced againft the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and in favour of the preference that he is disposed to give to that of Luke, not as a believer in Christianity against an unbeliever, but as one critic, if I may so call myself, against another; and I wish you to attend to my reasoning with the fame difpaffionate calmnefs with which I write.

I am, &c.

LETTER