⚫tentions in the world, for the sake of promoting

so holy a cause *.'

Our religion, to use its own nervous language, teaches ust, that we ought not to lie, or speak wickedly, not even for God; that we ought not to accept his person in judgment, or talk, or act deceitfully for him. But so very little, it must be owned, has this sentiment been attended to, even in the Christian world, that one would almost think it contained a strain of virtue too sublime for the apprehension of the multitude. It is therefore a fact not to be questioned, that little pious frauds, as they are absurdly, not to say impiously called, have been often practised by ignorant zealots, in support of a cause which they firmly believed to be both true and holy. But in all such cases the truth and holiness of the cause are wholly independent of those artifices. A person may be persuaded of the former, who is too clear-sighted to be deceived by the latter: for even a full conviction of the truth of the cause is not, in the least, inconsistent with either the consciousness, or the detection of the frauds used in support of it. In the Romish church, for example, there are many zealous and orthodox believers, who are nevertheless incapable of being imposed on by the lying wonders, which some of their clergy have exhibited. The circumstances of the apostles were widely different from the circumstan

ces either of those believers, or of their clergy. Some of the miraculous events, which the apostles attested, were not only the evidences, but the distinguishing doctrines of the religion which they taught. There is therefore in their case an absolute inconsistency betwixt a conviction of the truth of the cause, and the consciousness of the frauds used in support of it. Those frauds themselves, if I may so express myself, constituted the very essence of the cause. What were the tenets, by which they were distinguished, in their religious system, particularly from the Pharisees, who owned not only the unity and perfections of the Godhead, the existence of angels and demons, but the general resurrection, and a future state of rewards and punishments? Were not these their peculiar tenets, • That Jesus, whom the Jews and Romans joined ⚫ in crucifying without the gates of Jerusalem, had suffered that ignominious death, to make atonement for the sins of men*? that, in testimony of this, and of the divine acceptance, God had raised him from the dead? that he had exalted

him to his own right hand, to be a prince and a

saviour, to give repentance to the people, and the

• remission of their sins†?

'vocate with the Father?

that he is now our ad

that he will descend

'from heaven at the last day, to judge the world in

Rom. v. 6. &c. 1 John ii. 1.

+ Acts ii. 32. &c. v, 30. &c. x. 40. &c.

righteousness *, and to receive his faithful disciples ' into heaven to be for ever with himself +?' These fundamental articles of their system, they must have known, deserved no better appellation than a string of lies, if we suppose them liars in the testimony they gave of the resurrection and ascension of their master. If, agreeably to the Jewish hypothesis, they had, in a most wonderful and daring manner, stole by night the corpse from the sepulchre, that, on the false report of his resurrection, they might found the stupendous fabric they had projected among themselves, how was it possible they should conceive the cause to be either true or holy? They must have known, that in those cardinal points, on which all depends, they were false witnesses concerning God, wilful corrupters of the religion of their country, and public, though indeed disinterested incendiaries, whithersoever they went. They could not, therefore, enjoy even that poor solace, that the end will sanctify the means;' a solace with which the monk or anchoret silences the remonstrances of his conscience, when, in defence of a religion which he regards as certain, he, by some pitiful juggler-trick, imposes on the credulity of the rabble. On the contrary, the whole scheme of the apostles must have been, and not only must have been, but must have appeared to themselves, a most audacious freedom with their maker, a vil

6

Acts x. 42. xvii. 31.

† John xiv. 3.

lainous imposition on the world, and, I will add, a most foolish and ridiculous project of heaping ruin and disgrace upon themselves, without the prospect of any compensation in the present life, or reversion in the future.

ONCE more, can we account for so extraordinary a phenomenon, by attributing it to that most powerful of all motives, as the author thinks it, an

6

ambition to attain so sublime a character, as that { of a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven?'

Not to mention, that such a towering ambition was but ill adapted to the mean rank, poor education, and habitual circumstances, of such men as the apostles mostly had been; a desire of that kind, whatever wonders it may effectuate, when supported by enthusiasm, and faith, and zeal, must have soon been crushed by the outward, and, to human appearance, insurmountable difficulties and distresses they had to encounter; when quite unsupported from within by either faith or hope, or the testimony of a good conscience; rather I should have said, when they themselves were haunted from within by a consciousness of the blackest guilt, impiety, and baseness. Strange indeed, it must be owned without a parallel, that in such a cause, and in such circumstances, not only one, but all, should have

* Page 200.

the resolution to persevere to the last, in spite of infamy and torture; and that no one, among so many confederates, should be induced to betray the dreadful secret.

THUS it appears, that no address in the FOUNDER of our religion, that no enthusiastic credulity, no pious frauds, no ambitious views, in the FIRST CONVERTS, will account for its propagation on the plea of miracles, if false; and that consequently, there is no presumption arising from human nature against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christianity.

SECTION II.

There is no presumption arising from the history of mankind, against the miracles said to have been wrought in proof of Christiani

ty.

In the foregoing section, I reasoned only from the knowledge that experience affords us of human nature, and of the motives by which men are influenced in their conduct. I come now to the exa