are utterly lost, the rest preserved by some single manuscript. There is weight also in Dr. Bentley's observation, that the New Testament has suffered less injury by the errors of transcribers than the works of any profane author of the same size and antiquity; that is, there never was any writing in the preservation and purity of which the world was so interested or so careful."

"An argument of great weight with those who are judges of the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their testi mony, of being addressed to every understanding, is that which arises from the style and language of the New Testament. It is just such language as might be expected from the apostles, from persons of their age and in their situation, and from no other persons. It is the style neither of classic authors, nor of the ancient Christian fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, such as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used a language spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect of the country.

"This happy peculiarity is a strong proof of the genuineness of these writings; for who should forge them? The christian fathers were for the most part entirely ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were not likely to insert Hebraisms and Syriasms into their writings. The few who had a knowledge of the Hebrew,

The

as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius, wrote in a language which bears no resemblance to that of the New Testament. Nazarenes, who understood Hebrew, used chiefly, perhaps almost entirely, the gospel of St. Matthew, and therefore cannot be suspected of forging the rest of the sacred writings. The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity of these books; that they belong to the age of the apostles; that they could be composed indeed in no other." Thus far from our excellent author.

It is observable in the historic books of the New Testament, that there are many internal marks of honesty and fidelity, which no im. postor would be likely to counterfeit. He would be apt to judge them more against his cause than in its favor. The noticing of Christ's brethren, who did not believe in him, could not be thought in the eyes of an unbelieving world to add much to the interest of christianity. It would be natural to say, if his brethren did not believe in him, can he expect to persuade others? But the remark is a proof of the candor in which the history was written, and the confidence the writer had, that no truth relating to Jesus, would harm him.

The mention of Christ's words where he says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword," &c. no friend would be likely to

state of him, unless it were true that he spoke them. He would be apt to think, it would rather degrade, than add any thing of importance to him as the minister of peace. But the testimony of succeeding ages has proved these words true. His professed ministers have preached peace, but made war; they have preached endless division to be in the world to come, and divided many families here. The doctrine of christianity with all its blessings, has been attended with much mischief in our world, which the Savior foresaw and mentioned, and his faithful historian recorded. If these be thought to make against his benevolence, they plainly establish his character as a prophet, (for they have been fulfilled,) and his honesty in telling the bad as well as the good effects of his mission; likewise, the fidelity of his historian. But his benevolence is as clearly seen as his honesty, when we learn that these things were not taught by his example or doctrine, but come by a perversion of his instructions; occasioned by good principles, perverted by wicked hearts.

Impostors are careful to secrete all the disastrous consequences of their undertakings from their followers that are possible; and their followers generally are careful to exclude them from the historics of their masters; because these are always judged to be detrimental to the maintaining of supernatural powers. Impostors generally manifest themselves as

far as they think they can maintain in the public mind, in promising happy results to the efforts of their followers in all things. Human prudence conceives this the natural spur to action and zeal. Without it they know they must soon fall, because what is begun with fraud, must be maintained in deceit; for open truth destroys it as light destroys darkness. But Christ and his disciples used no care to secrete any calamity or mischief that has attended him or his followers; and many failings and weaknesses of the disciples, are recorded. All these are marks of faithfulness in the histories of Christ. In short, I think it is fair to state, no history, in internal marks of faithfulness, can exceed the gospels, and it is a matter of doubt whether any can be found to equal them. Now though a history may be believed without so many strong marks of faithfulness as the gospels contain, a small part of which I have now noticed, can any be false that has them?

The histories of Christ could not since be very materially corrupted, without discovery and detection. The learned inform us that a variety of copies, written long before the art of printing, have been found in countries remote from each other, and among a multitude of small differences, but very few make any alteration in the sense, and a still much less number in which jealousies are excited of interpolations or expungings. Besides, many ancient authors have quoted from the Evan

gelists, which quotations agree with the reading of our modern copies. Thus it appears that our histories of Christ are substantially correct. We will therefore, attend to the second statement, that the resurrection of Jesus was of such a nature, that the original witnesses were able to judge, whether it was true or false.

Had it been our privilege to have been acquainted with a personage of noted character, like that of Jesus Christ for any considerable length of time; had we travelled with him from town to town, and from city to city, daily conversing with him, and hearing his public performances, which were in a manner so original that none could imitate them, for he taught, not as the scribes; had we been with him when he was taken, seen him tried, heard the witnesses against him, beheld him executed, and knew the place of his burial; then in three days had he shown himself alive, should we not consider ourselves capable of judging, whether or not, it was the same person? If we had the opportunity of handling him, conversing with him in the same familiar way as formerly, seeing the same original manner, which we never saw in any other man, and that for a satisfactory length of time, frequently for the space of forty days, could we suspect, for a moment, any room for deception? It is believed such a transaction is sufficient to convince the most incredulous, who should be an eye witness of its performance. As the