reality in fuch a manner as to contradict himself, it will be moft fatisfactory to fhew the abfurdity of both. The two fuppofitions are in themselves fo distinct, that they require to be confidered apart; and therefore, as their very nature fuggefts, we will enquire firft;-Whether thofe parts of the New Testament, which contain any thing more than the doctrines of a mere man, who of his own accord taught the precepts of human reafon only; could be additions made to the real doctrines of JESUS, by the Apostles Themselves, without authority from him?

But here, that we may understand clearly what it is we are to confider, one obfervation is abfolutely neceffary to be made: and that is, that if JESUS was a mere preacher of morality alone, and all the fupernatural doctrines attributed to him in the New Teftament are therefore falfely attributed to him; then all the fupernatural powers and performances there attributed to him must be fo too; fince on this fuppofition it must be allowed, that he no more performed fupernatural works, than taught fupernatural doctrines; and confequently, that if the apoftles themselves forged the one, they muft have forged the other likewife. So that the real question we are firft to confider amounts to this; Whether the whole hiftory of JESUS, containing his works as well as his doctrines, as we find it in the New Teftament; except only the mere moral precepts there attributed to him; is: not all a forgery of the Apostles Themselves?

To determine this point, the firft particular that will naturally offer itself to our thoughts is, that the feveral diftinct accounts of JESUS's fupernatural works and doctrines, which are given us in each of the gofpels, tho' they agree in fubftance, are yet fo different in a great variety of particulars, in the manner of their being related,

as it is utterly incredible that accounts of one and the fame fet of concerted forgeries could be. The gofpels appear, upon the very face of them, to be juft fuch relations as fo many different persons might honeftly give, of the fame events and particulars, which they all knew to be true; but by no means fuch accounts as must be expected from fo many men fetting down to write the fame feries. of facts, which they had previously agreed together to forge. The gofpels are written with fuch evident freedom from all apprehenfion of inconfiftency, falfehood, or mistake; and yet with fo much difference in many of the relations they contain of the fame occurrences; in the very highest degree improbable to have been adventured on by confpiring impoftors; as is alone one very strong moral proof of the honesty of the writers, and the truth of what they relate.

Further, the internal nature of that particular divine character, which is attributed to Jesus in the gofpels; and of thofe declarations he is there represented as having made, which a mere teacher of moral virtue could not have made; are fuch, that it is utterly incredible they could be forged by fuch men as the Apostles were.

It is abfolutely inconceiveable, that men of the low rank and education of the apoftles could have any other ideas of their expected MESSIAH, than what we know the whole nation, learned as well as athers, at that time entertained. How therefore could thofe, who expected the MESSIAH to ap-pear as a temporal and victorious prince; and who knew that every one else had the fame expectations of him; how could they even conceive the defign of fetting up for the MESSIAH, a man, who in their own accounts of him, is not only declared, not to have had in fact where to lay his head; kut plainly represented as not choofing to appear

4

in any other condition: and not only to have been put to death, even as a malefactor, ignominiously on the cross; but to have known long before that this would prove the end of his undertaking; and yet to have chofen not to take any steps to prevent it? Common fenfe will not permit us to fuppofe that the apoftles could plan fuch an imposture as this.

Befides, if it had been poffible for them to have conceived fuch a kind of defign in general, it would still have been impoffible for them to have forged those prophecies and declarations, as delivered by him, which the gofpels contain.

If the apoftles had forged the divine character of JESUS afcribed to him in the gofpels, it must be with a view in fome shape or other to exalt or bẹnefit themselves; which the gofpels plainly fhew they at first expected to do by following him. How therefore could they make JESUS declare, Whosoever be be of you that forfaketh not all that be bath, he cannot be my difciple. Or how could they make him say, But I fay unto you which bear, love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curfe you, and pray for them which despitefully ufe you. And to him that fmiteth thee on the one cheek, offer the other alfo; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat alfot. How could they feign him to have faid exprefsly to themselves,-Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the gentiles exercife lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But fo it fhall not be among you; but whofoever will be great among you shall be your minifter; and whosoever of you will be chiefest shall be fervant of all ‡.

JESUS is reprefented in the gofpels as foretelling, to the apoftles a particular time, when the Jews

Luke xiv. 33. † Luke vi, 27-29. Mark x. 42-44-2

would

would deliver them up to be afflicted, and kill them ; and when they should be hated of all nations for his name's Jake.*-That they should be put out of the fynagogues; yea, that the time would come, that whofoever killed them would think that he did God fervice t. And this, not because he was a preacher of pure morality, but because he laid claim to the character of the MESSIAH:-because they have not known the father nor me. Could the apostles forge fuch declarations as thefe, and many others fimilar to thefe, in order to induce the Jews in general, and the rulers in particular, to torment and destroy them?

The gofpels reprefent Jesus as declaring,—If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and fifters, yea, and his own life alfo; he cannot be my difciple That he came not to fend peace upon S earth, but rather divifion. That from that time there should be five in one houfe divided, three against two, and two against three. That the father should be divided against the fon, and the fon against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother: the mother in law against the daughter in law, and the daughter in law against the mother in law | And the brother fhall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; and the children fhall rise up against their pan rents, and caufe them to be put to death. Could the apoftles forge fuch declarations as thefe, and put them into the mouth of their mafter, to deter their hearers from becoming their difciples, and render them enemies both to them and their doctrines?

In the gofpels JESUS is reprefented faying to his difciples, Verily, verily, I fay unto you, be that

Matth. xxiv. 9. Luke xiv. 26.

+ John xvi. 2. Luke xüs 553

Ibid. ver, 3.

Matth.

believeth

believeth on me, the works that I do, fhall be do alfo and greater works than thefe fhall be do; because I go unto my father *. Again, And thefe figns fhall follow them that believe; in my name, fhall they caft out devils, they fhall Speak with new tongues, they fhall take up ferpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it fhall not hurt them; they shall lay bands on the fick, and they shall recover .If JESUS him+ felf had been nothing more than a preacher of mere morality, unable himself to perform any miraculous works; and his apostles of course had not poffeffed divine powers; could they have forged fuch declarations as thefe; purposely cal culated to make their hearers require of them the performance of a great variety of miracles, before they would become their disciples? Did ever impoftors purfue fuch a courfe as this, or is it credible that any could?

We cannot poffibly fuppofe, that the divine character attributed to JESUS in the gofpels, and all thofe various declarations connected with, and dependent upon it, were forgeries of the apoftles. themselves; without fuppofing them to have forged fuch things, as the most obvious princi ples of common fenfe must convince us they never could.

But further, if the forgery in question was in its own nature fuch as they could have contrived, it would be still abfolutely incredible, that fuch a number of perfons fhould confpire together in any forgery, as must have been parties in this; and if poffible ftill more incredible, that not one out of fuch a number fhould ever have confeffed it.

If the accounts of JESUS, and his works and doctrines, which the gofpels contain, were originally in the gofpels; and yet forged, as we are † Mark xvi. 17, 18.

* John xiv, 12.

now