to the divine character of JESUS even before them; nor could they have afferted that JESUS himself publickly reminded the Jews in the temple, of their having fent this meffage to JOHN, and of the answer JOHN fent them in teftimony of his divine character *, if thefe had not been indubitable facts; as thefe facts themselves could never have exifted had JESUS been but a mere preacher of morality.

In the gofpels + we find JESUS reprefented as foretelling the deftruction of Jerufalem, and the national overthrow of the Jews, exactly as it afterwards came to pafs. And upon our present fuppofition, we muft imagine this prophecy to have been a mere forgery of his difciples, and to have been falfely afcribed to JEsus by the Apoftles, when they began to preach in his name immediately after his death. But can any thing be more felf-evidently abfurd than this fuppofition? If JESUS himself was a mere man, unable to foretell future events, and who in fact never pretended to do it; could his difciples be poffeffed of divine knowledge, and utter fuch an amazing prophecy as this? Or could they utter this prophecy, which, tho' at the time there were no figns of its completion, was in a few years fo exactly fulfilled, without being divinely inspired? Or is it conceivable, that they could choose to frame any forged prophecy at all; and more ef pecially any fuch denunciation against Jerufalem itself, the Capital of their nation; and this when there were no vifible figns whatever of its approaching deftruction? We may venture to affirm all these fuppofitions to be utterly incredible.

It has been already obferved, that the Evangelifts must have declared from the first in preaching the gospel, the fame things which they * John v. 32-34. † Matth. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. afterwards

C

afterwards afferted in their written hiftories of JESUS. The particulars contained therefore in the 1ft, 2d, and 3d chapters of LUKE, relating to the births of JESUS and the BAPTIST, and what followed upon them, must have been forged by the Apostles, on our prefent fuppofition, and related by them from their firft beginning to preach the gofpel after JESUS's death. But could thefe aftonishing relations, with all the circumstances attending them; the declarations of the fhepherds of Bethlehem, and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna; have been credited by any perfon whatever, upon the mere affertions of the Apostles immediately after JESUS was dead, if no one had ever heard of them in the time of his life? Or would not the broaching fuch relations just after his death, if they had never been heard of before, have been fufficient with every man of common sense, to convict the Apoftles of impofture; and naturally have drawn upon them, not only fevere punishment from the Rulers and Chief Priefts, but the utter averfion and contempt of every one; and thus at once have put an end to the disciples of CHRIST?

We are told *, that the Sadducees came to JESUS, to enquire whofe wife the woman should be in the refurrection, who had had the feven brethren for her husbands? This was certainly very far indeed from a point of mere reafon, or natural religion; nor could the Sadducees have put it to him, had they not all along feen, that the character he affumed was that of a perfon divinely inspired, and commiffioned from above. Neither could this relation itfelf be forged by the Apoftles upon JESUS's death, fince it is added, that what he further faid to them; to prove the * Luke xx. 27, &c. and in the parallel places in Matth. and Mark.

refurrection of the dead from what God faid to Mofes at the bufh; fo effectually filenced them, and fo thoroughly convinced all the leading fects of his fuperior knowledge, that from this time they made no more attempts to puzzle him with their questions.

But above all, the whole behaviour not of JESUS only, but even of the Jewish rulers themfelves, at his Tryal, and all the circumftances of it; none of which from the very nature of the things themselves could be forged by the Evangelists; will place it beyond all poffibility of doubt, that JESUS himself really affumed a character, which was ftrictly and properly fupernatural and divine.

The rulers had caufed Jesus to be apprehended in hopes of getting him put to death. With this view, that they might have fome confeffion from his own mouth fufficient to condemn him, the High Priest asked him firft, Of his difciples and his doctrine? But evident it is, that if they had known; and they must have known the truth; that he pretended not to be any thing more than a mere man, or to teach any thing more than the precepts of mere reafon and moral virtue; they could never have asked him to give an account either of his difciples, or his doctrine, in hopes of getting any confeffion relating to them, capable of ferving as a pretext for his condemna

tion.

When JESUS had avoided this fnare, they fought for witneffes, who could testify any thing that might be fufficient to condemn him. And at length there came witneffes who depofed, that they had heard him fay, I will deftroy this temple that is made with bands, and within three days I will build another that is made without bands +. Thefe witneffes indeed differed fo much, it seems, that + Mark xiv. 57, 58. C 2

*John xviii. 19.

the

the chief priests did not choose to condemn him upon their teftimony: but ftill they fupply us with an unanswerable proof, that JESUS had really given that anfwer to the Jews which in the gofpels he is afferted to have given; when, upon his driving the dealers out of the temple, they afked him for fome fign, fome miraculous performance, to eftablish his divine authority as a prophet, and one immediately commiffioned from above;-Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up* ;-alluding certainly to his refurrection on the third day, as a proof he would give them of his divine commiffion. Here therefore we have unquestionable evidence, the evidence of fuch a fact as the Apoitles could not forge, that the character to which JESUS himself had laid claim, was, and was well known to be, that of a divine meffenger fpecially commiffioned from above, and enabled to perform miraculous works for the proof of his divine pretenfions.

The council being now apprehenfive, that for want of fufficient teftimony they fhould not be able to condemn him, the High Prieft faid unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of the living God? This is evidently fuch a fact as the Apostles could never have taken upon them to affert, or have been permitted to affert with impunity, had it not been well known to be true. But if JESUS himself had never pretended to any other character, than that of a mere man, who chofe to employ himself in inculcating the mere doctrines of reafon and morality alone; how was it poffible for the high priest to address him with fuch a queftion as this? Or what end could he have proposed by it? The only anfwer they could pofJohn ii. 18, 19 Matth xxvi. 63.

fibly

fibly have expected from him muft in this cafe have been, a full and explicit difavowal of all fuch, and every other divine pretenfion; fuch as would have laid them under a neceffity to have acquitted and released him.

But befides, what was in fact JESUS's answer to this question?-And Jefus faid, I am;-theCHRIST, the Son of the living God; and ye shall fee the Son of Man fitting on the right band of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven *. Here we fee JESUS reprefented as exprefsly afferting himself to be the promised MESSIAH; and that upon fuch an occafion, and before fuch an audience, that it was impoffible for the Apoftles to forge this relation when they began to preach in his name, fince if they had, the 'Jewish rulers, who muft all have known it to be forged, would certainly have brought them to public fhame and punishment for the forgery. Nay fo inconteftable is the truth of JESUS's having made this anfwer to the council, that we find it was upon the strength of this very declaration, which the high prieft, was fo defirous to draw from him, that they condemned him to death †; and proceeded to deride him for laying claim to the character of the MESSIAH. Then did they spit in his face and buffeted him, and others fmote him with the palms of their bands, (having blindfolded hirn); Saying, prophecy unto us, THOU CHRIST, who is he that fmote thee.

When, in confequence of this confeffion, they had brought him before Pilate, and Pilate would not listen to them, unless they could produce fome explicit accufation against him, they accused him of faying, that he himself was Chrift, a King; and then Pilate queftioned him, whether he was the King of the Jews? And he anMark xiv. 63-65,

*Mark xiv. 62. xxvi. 68. · Luke xxiii. 2.

Matth.