That all the facts related in these writings, and the accounts given of every thing our Saviour said and did are also strictly true, we have the most substantial grounds for believing : For, in the first place, the writers had the very best means of information, and could not possibly be deceived themselves. And, in the next place, they could have no conceivable inducement for imposing upon others. St. Matthew and St. John were two of our Lord's apostles; his constant companions and attendants throughout the whole of his ministry. They were actually present at the scenes which they describe; eye-witnesses of the facts, and earwitnesses of the discourses, which they relate. St. Mark and St. Luke, though not themselves apostles, yet were the contemporaries and companions of apostles, and in habits of society and friendship with those who had been present at the transactions which they record. St. Luke expressly says this in the beginning of his Gospel, which opens with these words: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us; even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me, also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee, in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." St. Luke also being the author of the Acts of the Apostles, we have, for the writers of these five books, persons who had the most perfect know. ledge of every thing they relate, either from their own personal observation, or from immediate communication with those who saw and heard every thing that passed. They could not, therefore, be themselves deceived; nor could they have the least inducement, or the least inclination, to deceive others. They were plain, honest, artless, unlearned men, in very humble occupations of life, and utterly incapable of inventing or carrying on such a refined and complicated system of fraud, as the Christian religion must have been if it was not true. There are, besides, the strongest marks of fairness, candour, simplicity, and truth, throughout the whole of their narratives. Their greatest enemies have never attempted to throw the least stain upon their characters; and how then can they be supposed capable of so gross an imposition as that of asserting and propagating the most impudent fiction? They could gain by it neither pleasure, profit, nor power. On the contrary, it brought upon them the most dreadful evils, and even death itself. If, therefore, they were cheats, they were cheats without any motive, and without any advantage; nay, contrary to every motive, and every advantage that usually influence the actions of men. They preached a religion which forbids falsehood under pain of eternal punishment, and yet, on this supposition, they supported that religion by falsehood; and, whilst they were guilty of the basest and most was a most inveterate enemy to the Christian religion, yet confesses, that there was wanting some universal method of delivering men's souls, which no sect of philosophy had ever yet found out. These confessions of the great sages of antiquity, infinitely outweigh the assertions of our modern infidels, "that human reason is fully sufficient to teach man his duty, and enable him to perform it; and that, therefore, a divine revelation was perfectly needless." It is true, that in the present times, a Deist may have tolerably just notions of the nature and attributes of the Supreme Being, of the worship due to Him, of the ground and extent of moral obligation, and even of a future state of retribution. But from whence does he derive these notions? Not from the dictates of his own unassisted reason, but (as the philosophist Rousseau himself confesses) from those very Scriptures which he despises and reviles, from the early impressions of education, from living and conversing in a Christian country, where those doctrines are publicly taught, and where, in spite of himself, he imbibes some portion of that religious knowledge which the sacred writings have every where diffused and communicated to the enemies as well as the friends of the Gospel. But they who were destitute of these advantages, they who had nothing but reason to direct them, and therefore knew what reason is capable of doing, when left to itself, much better than any modern infidel (who never was, and never can be, precisely in the same predicament;) these men uniformly declare, that the mere light of nature was not competent to conduct them into the road of happiness and virtue; and that the only sure and certain guide to carry men well through this life, was a divine discovery of the truth. These considerations may serve to shew, that, instead of entertaining any unreasonable prejudices beforehand against the possibility or probability of any divine reve. lation whatever, we ought on the contrary, to be previously prepossessed in favour of it, and to be prepared and open to receive it with candour and fairness, whenever it should come supported with sufficient evidence; because, from considering the wants of man and the mercy of God, it appears highly probable that such a revelation would some time or other be vouchsafed to mankind. PROP. II. At the very time when there was a general expectation in the world of some extraordinary personage making his appearance in it, a person called Jesus Christ did actually appear upon earth, asserting that he was the Son of God, and that he came from heaven to teach mankind true religion; and he did accordingly found a religion, which from him was called the Christian religion, and which has been professed by great numbers of people from that time to the present. It was necessary just to state this proposition, as the foundation of all the reasoning that is to follow; but the truth of it is so universally acknowledged, that it requires but very few words to be said in support of it. was a most inveterate enemy to the Christian religion, yet confesses, that there was wanting some universal method of delivering men's souls, which no sect of philosophy had ever yet found out. These confessions of the great sages of antiquity, infinitely outweigh the assertions of our modern infidels, "that human reason is fully sufficient to teach man his duty, and enable him to perform it; and that, therefore, a divine revelation was perfectly needless." It is true, that in the present times, a Deist may have tolerably just notions of the nature and attributes of the Supreme Being, of the worship due to Him, of the ground and extent of moral obligation, and even of a future state of retribution. But from whence does he derive these notions? Not from the dictates of his own unassisted reason, but (as the philosophist Rousseau himself confesses) from those very Scriptures which he despises and reviles, from the early impressions of education, from living and conversing in a Christian country, where those doctrines are publicly taught, and where, in spite of himself, he imbibes some portion of that religious knowledge which the sacred writings have every where diffused and communicated to the enemies as well as the friends of the Gospel. But they who were destitute of these advantages, they who had nothing but reason to direct them, and therefore knew what reason is capable of doing, when left to itself, much better than any modern infidel (who never was, and never can be, precisely in the |