favour of a false story,-to believe this, I say, would be much greater credulity than to believe that the Gospel really was from God.

These marks of truth, you should observe, are (as has been said) a vast deal stronger when taken together, and confirming each other. For, each of the separate proofs may be regarded as a distinct witness. And when several independent witnesses give the same evidence, their agreement may prove the matter completely, even when no one of those witnesses is, by himself, deserving of confidence. Suppose, for instance, that one out of several men,-none of them much to be relied on, gives a particular account of some transaction which he professes to have seen: you may think it not unlikely that he may have invented the story, or have dreamed it; but then, if his account is confirmed by another, and another, of these men, who, you are sure, could have had no communication with the first, you then conclude that it must be true; because they could not have chanced, all of them, to invent the same story or to have the same dream. And so it is, when you have a number of different marks of truth meeting together, as they do, in the Gospel history. Even if each of these, taken separately, had much less force than it actually has, it would be infinitely unlikely that they should all happen to be found united in a false story.

These arguments, however, have been laid before you very briefly; and hereafter, if you will study them at leisure and dwell upon them more fully, in your own mind, and in conversation with others, you will see the force of them still more and more.

But though these arguments are enough to satisfy

you, that an ordinary Christian, who does not pretend to be a learned man, may yet believe in his religion on better grounds than the Pagans have for believing theirs, there are many other arguments besides, some of which are quite within the reach of the unlearned. In particular, what is called the internal evidence of Christianity, that is, the proof drawn from the character of the religion itself, and of the Christian Scriptures, is a kind of evidence which you will find more and more satisfactory the more you reflect on and study the subject, if you endeavour at the same time, sincerely to act up to the knowledge you acquire, and to be the better for it in your life.

LESSON XII.

INTERNAL EVIDENCES. PART I

Ir the Christian religion was not from God, it must have been from man. It must have been a "cunningly devised fable" of artful impostors, or else, a dream of crazy enthusiasts, or some mixture of these two, if it was not really what it professed to be, a divine revelation.

To examine, then, the internal evidence, is to inquire which of these is the most likely supposition, looking to the character of the Gospel itself:-to consider whether

the religion itself, and the Christian scriptures, seem more likely to have proceeded from the God of truth, or from mere men, who were either designing impostors, or wild enthusiasts.

Now, it may be said, that we are very imperfect judges of the question what is likely to have come from God, since we have such a faint and imperfect knowledge of Him; so that we cannot decide with any confidence what we ought to expect in a divine revelation. This is very true. But you should remember that the question is not whether Christianity seems to us likely, in itself, to have come from God, and is just such as we should have expected a divine revelation to be; but whether it is more likely to have come from God, or from man. For we know that the religion does exist; and therefore we have to consider not merely whether it is like what might be looked for in a true revelation from God, but also, whether it is unlike what might be looked for in the work of human impostors or enthusiasts.

Now, this is a question of which we are able to judge; because we have, or may acquire, such a knowledge of human nature as to decide, on good grounds, what is likely to have proceeded from man's device. And the more you learn of mankind, and of the works of various writers, and again, the more you study the Christian religion, the more you will see how different it is from any religion that mere men (and particularly Jews) would have been likely to contrive.

But a great part of this internal evidence is such, as to require some experience and knowledge of the world, and reflection, as well as acquaintance with the Scrip

tures, to enable any one to take it in properly. Hereafter, you may have it in your power to learn by degrees a great deal more of this than it would be possible clearly to put before you here, at once, in a small space. But still there are several internal marks of truth that may be pointed out; which, though but a small part of what you may hereafter find, are yet of great impor

tance.

For example, if the Christian religion had been contrived and propagated by a number of designing men, in such a way as would have seemed to them the best suited for gaining converts, you may be sure that they would naturally have put forth some book purporting to be written by Jesus Himself, laying down the principles and precepts of his religion, and answering to the books of the Law written by Moses. All men who were at all disposed to listen to the preaching of the Gospel, and to examine the Christian Scriptures, would have been likely to inquire, in the first place, (as no doubt many persons did,) for something written by the very Founder of the new religion. If, therefore, there had been any forgery, the forged books,-or at least the principal of them,—would certainly have been attributed to Jesus Christ as their author. And all that were not attributed to Him, would naturally have been published with the names of the most distinguished and eminent of his Apostles.

Now, the fact is, as you know, that of all the Christian Scriptures there is no one book professing to be written by Christ Himself; and, of the four Gospels, there are only two that are attributed even to any of the Apostles as the writers; St. Matthew's and St. John's:

and, again, of these two, St. John alone is much distinguished among the Apostles; very little being recorded of St. Matthew in particular. The other two Gospels, and also the book of the Acts, which records the first propagation of Christianity, have come down to us, as the works of two men, who appear, indeed, to have been companions of some of the most eminent of the Apostles, but who did not claim to be Apostles themselves.

All this is just the reverse of what might have been expected from crafty and designing men, seeking to impose on the credulous for the purpose of gaining con

verts.

Again, it is certain that at the time when Jesus appeared, the Jews were earnestly expecting a Christ, or Messiah, (that is, an anointed Deliverer,) who should be a mighty prince, and free them from subjection to the Romans, and make them a powerful nation, ruling over all the Gentiles. And this is what is still expected by the Jews at this day. Now, if Jesus and his Apostles had been enthusiasts, or impostors, or a mixture of the two, they would most likely have conformed to the prevailing expectations of the people. They would have been likely to give out that the "kingdom of heaven" which was "at hand" was a glorious worldly empire, such as the Jews had fixed their hopes on, instead of "6 a kingdom not of this world," which was what they did preach. And we know that the several pretended Christs who appeared a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, and even after it, did profess, ́each, to come as a temporal deliverer and conqueror, agreeably to the prevailing notions. Jesus and his dis

E