can be a clearer confequence than this-That we must neceffarily admit Both parts as the true doctrines of JESUS and the Apostles, or Neither?

When he enforced that divine law of morality, which the Author acknowledges to be the fum and fubftance of all morality;-Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men hould do to you, do ye even fo to them; he enforced it upon this peculiar account, for this is the law and the prophets: in other words, becaufe this principle is enforced in the revealed LAW of MOSES, and the inspired writings of the PROPHETS. (Matth. vii. 12.)

When the faith of the Centurion, who follicited JESUS to heal his fervant, caufed JESUS to break out into admiration; even then he spoke of the Jews as under a divine difpenfation; and of their Scriptures as divine revelations.-Verily I Say unto you, I have not found fo great faith, no not in Ifrael: and I fay unto you, that many shall come from the east and weft, and fhall fit down with Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be caft out, into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matth. viii. 10-12.) Who were thefe children of the kingdom; or on what was this diftinction founded, but the divine revelation of the JEWISH LAW?

In Matth. xii. 31, 32; we find JESUS blending a doctrine of pure morality, with one of pure revelation, in the following remarkable manner.- -All manner of fin and blafphemy fhall be forgiven unto men; but the blafphemy against the Holy Ghoft fhall not be forgiven unto men. And whoever Speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him: but whofoever fpeaketh against the Holy Ghoft, it shall not be forgiven bim, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.-In explaining the moral parable of the good feed and the tares, he fays; He that foweth the good Jeed is the Son of Man; (Matth. xiii. 37.) And, the enemy that fowed the tares is the Devil; (ver. 39.) And further, that the Son of Man fhall fend forth his angels, &c. (ver. 41.)-Does natural religion, or improved natural reafon, give us any information about this Son of Man, by which title JESUS diftinguishes himself; or of the Devil; or of the Son of Man's fending his ANGELS in the end of the world?

In preffing the moral duty of affection for parents, JESUS peremptorily afferts the divine authority of the Jewish Law.GOD COMMANDED, faying, honour thy father, and mother, &c. (Matth. xv. 4.)—Or, as Mark expreffes it, (vii. 9, 10, 13)— Ye reject THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD,-for MOSES faid, &c. making THE WORD OF GOD of none effect, &c.

But

But if, when this is the cafe, we can be fo irrational and abfurd, as to refolve to receive one part for the true doctrines of JESUS, and yet reject the other, as fpurious and falfe; by what principles can we determine, which part to receive, and which to reject?

The New Teftament itself, and the first christian writers, inform us, that the doctrines contained in both parts were equally the doctrines of JESUS and his infpired Apoftles. If therefore we will refolve to reject one of these parts, as not being his, we can have nothing but our own

whim or fancy, ftrictly and properly fo called; that is, we can have no reason to determine us, which part to admit as the true doctrines of JESUS, and which to reject as false.

Here therefore let the Author confider well, by what device he can prove to himself or others, That the moral part of the New Teftament contains the real doctrines of JESUS, and not the supernatural; instead of the fupernatural part's being his, and not the moral? For before we can allow him this point, he must fatisfactorily acquaint us, what he knows of the true character and doctrines of JESUS, more than the New Testament itself, as we now have it, has informed him of, to determine the fact. And unless he can favour the world, with some genuine hiftory of CHRIST, that has never yet been heard of, which will warrant his determination; he muft ftand convicted of the most self-evident abfurdity on this account.

The felf-fame evidence, which informs us, that any fuch perfons as Jesus and his Apostles ever existed, informs us likewife, that the supernatural doctrines of the New Testament itself, were just as truly their doctrines, as the moral. If therefore this evidence forces us to believe, that any fuch perfons really did exift, it obliges D

us

us to believe likewife, that they certainly taught whatever the New Teftament itself informs us they did; the fupernatural doctrines it contains, as well as the moral.

To fuppofe that the first chriftians would knowingly and voluntarily permit the Four Gofpels, which contained the hiftories of the life and doctrines of JESUS; thofe doctrines for which they chearfully fuffered perfecution, and were ready to facrifice their lives; to be interpolated with a great variety of declarations, and reasonings, relating to points of a fupernatural nature; for which, if they were thus forged, they could not have even the leaft regard; and the forgery of which was in itself utterly inconfiftent with the plaineft moral precepts of the gofpel; thofe moral precepts for the fake of which only they muft on this fuppofition have embraced the gofpel;to fuppofe that the whole body of chriftians at that time, be it when it would; in all the various places, where the gospel had been preached, fhould univerfally, to a man, conspire in such a fenfelefs and iniquitous impofture; would be no thing less than real phrenzy, and the fuppofition of an actual madman. Yet all this we must fuppose, before we can admit the Author's pofition, that every part of the New Teftament, except its moral doctrines, is forged.

'Tis irkfome to be forced to repeat, what fuch writers as this Author have fo often given occafion for repeating; That the circumftances which attended the first planting of the gospel make it utterly impoffible for fuch a forgery ever to have taken place. That the various, and diftant churches in which the gofpels were foon kept; the feveral languages into which they were tranflated; and that great veneration for them, as the only repofitory of their faith, and the only foundation

2

foundation of all their hopes, which the first chriftians must have had; All confpire to prove beyond difpute, that such an interpolation could not at any time be made.

But, in addition to all these circumstances, which have been so often and fo forcibly alleged, there is still another; The Different Times at which the several books of the New Teftament were written; which alone will amply prove the falsehood of that principle, for which the Author contends.

Tho' the exact time when each of the gospels was written is not capable of being determined, thus much is abfolutely certain; That they were written at different times; and all the evidence agrees, that there was an interval of at least above twenty years, perhaps many more, between the writing of the firft, and of JOHN's gospel, which was undoubtedly the laft. It is agreed likewise, that JOHN the Evangelift did not live less than Sixty Year's after the death of CHRIST.

This being the cafe, it behoves the Writer to confider well, how it could be poffible, in the very nature of the thing, for fuch a forgery as he has fuppofed, ever to take place. Moft cer tainly it could never have been admitted, while any of the Apoftles themfelves were alive to detect it; for it is to be remembered, we have already proved it impoffible for the Apoftles themfelves to have been the forgers. It could not have been practised therefore upon that gofpel, which was written first, while that alone was in the hands of the chriftians. Such an interpolation, of every paffage of the first gofpel except its moral precepts only, could not poffibly have escaped the notice even of the meaneft christian, whenever he had first heard a portion of it read and must therefore have been taken notice of

D 2

2

imme

immediately upon its being attempted, and have been directly exploded, in the most public and authoritative manner, by which ever of the Apoftles themselves, or their immediate companions, were then living; as the Three other Evangelifts in particular muft neceffarily have been.

Since then it is evident, that fuch an interpolation could not poffibly be made, in that gofpel which was written firft, while neither of the other three was yet extant; could it afterwards be effected, in either of the three subsequent gospels?

That it could not, in any but that which was wrote laft, is certain from what has been already faid: the felf-fame confiderations which prove this could not be done in the firft; will prove equally that it could not be done in any but the laft. And that it could not be attempted in the last so long at least as John, who wrote it, was living, is equally plain, from hence; that fuch an interpolation in the laft, muft immediately have been exploded by means of the three first.

For, fuppofe fuch a mad experiment to have been made, with that of John, while he was living, and what muft have been the confequence? Immediate notice must have been taken, whereever the attempt was made, of this irreconcileable inconfiftency between the gospel of John and all the reft; John himself must have been applied to upon it, and this extravagant forgery have been authoritatively exploded.

We know, both from the Acts of the Apoftles and moft of the Epiftles, that disputes arofe very foon among thofe who embraced the faith in CHRIST. That when a dispute arose at Antioch, about the neceffity of circumcifion, the christians there fent Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles themselves