unfortunate in his allusion to Latimer....contradicts himself with respect to the origin of sin....the New Testament doctrine on this subject not borrowed from the Persians, neither is the New Testament doctrine of the devil.. Mr.English makes a great mistake about the doctrine of atonement....betrays the temper in which he pursued this enquiry...Absurd comparison of the primitive Christians to the Shakers.... His account of the primitive state of Christianity inconsistent with Tacitus, Pliny, and the whole series of history...No resemblance between the evangelical miracles and those of the church....The proof of the Christian miracles is their effect on the world....Mr. English's principles lead to universal skepticism. pp. 372-400.

CHAPTER X.

Our Lord's Prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem not borrowed from Daniel...eight circumstances alleged in which it is more explicit...strictly fulfilled in all of them...Mr.English's unhappiness in calling the interpretations of this prophecy nonsensical....Isaiah uses the same language in the same sense....No objection to this prophecy from an alleged errour with respect to the day of judgment...Mr.English's surprising neglect to examine the prophecies of the New Testament....two pointed out, Matt. xvi. 18 and Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11.... their wonderful fulfilment against human probability....Our Lord taught the worship of no being beside Jehovah. pp. 401-418.

CHAPTER IX.

Mr. English's contradiction of himself with respect to the New Testament morality....examination of his objections to certain precepts....vindication of the precepts....Mr. English holds false notions of morality, which he will learn by experience....a mistake of a few fathers for the body of the primitive Christians....examination of a particular objection...Indecency of the skeptical writers... Vanity of the charge that Christianity was a principal means of destroying the Roman empire....Mr. English's quotation and treatment of Origen, the one incorrect and the other uncivil.... Authority of Tertullian and of Grotius. pp. 418–441.

CHAPTER XII.

Authenticity of the New Testament....Mr. English refutes his own objections....Instances....Examination of alleged geographical blunders in Matthew....of alleged ignorance of Jewish customs in the evangelists...Quotation of an apocryphal book...Objection that Latin words occur in the gospels answered....The case of alleged contradictions between the evangelists...Parallel examples by Dr. Paley and Lessing...Mr. English misrepresents Evanson...Opinion

pronounced of Evanson's work by Eichhorn....Mr. English misrepresents Semler....Semler asserts the authenticity of all the books of the New Testament excepting the Catholick epistles, and the apocalypse....Mr. English misrepresents Dodwell....Mr. English's mistake in copying Toland....The conjectures of Dodwell refuted by Le Clerc....Argument for the genuine from the apocryphal gospels.... The authority of Papias vindicated, and of Irenæus and Tertullian....that of Justin Martyr....Heinous liberty taken by Mr. English with Dr. Marsh....Proofs of the authenticity of the New Testament from the succession of authors that tes tify to it....from the hereticks....the heathen....the versions...Application of Mr. English's manner of reasoning to the poems of Horace, proving them not to be authentick....Conclusion.

DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.

CHAPTER I.

A LITTLE difficulty has arisen in this subject, with respect to the comparative value of evidence from prophecy fulfilled, and evidence from miraculous works. It may therefore be proper to state the precise question in controversy, and the different topicks of argument, which may be employed. The main question is, the Messiahship of Jesus: Was Jesus Christ the person foretold by the prophets, as the Messiah of the Jews? One method, and a very obvious one, of examining his claims to this character, is to compare his person, life, actions, and doctrine with the supposed predictions of them. But if it also appear that this Jesus wrought such works, as evinced that he enjoyed the supernatural assistance and cooperation of God, this certainly is a fact of great importance. For we cannot say that in estimating the validity of our Lord's claims to the character of Messiah, it is of no consequence whether, while he advanced those claims, he wrought such works as proved his intimacy with the God of truth. While he professed himself the Messiah,

is it indifferent whether he was showing himself to be a being beyond delusion and above imposture?-Let us make the case our own. Suppose that we were witnesses of the miraculous works of a personage of pretensions like our Lord's, should we think it necessary or reasonable to resort to long courses of argument, or indeed to any process of the understanding, except what was requisite to establish the matter of fact of the miracles? Should we, while he was opening the eyes of the blind and raising the dead from their graves, feel it necessary to be decyphering prophecies, and weighing their difficulties? Now we may transfer this case to that of christianity. The miracles of our Lord are either true or false. The infidel, if he maintain the latter, must prove it; and if the former can be made to appear, then they are beyond all comparison the most direct and convincing testimony to the truth of him, who wrought them, that can be devised; and it is only a waste of zeal to pursue the inquiry into the evidence of the christian religion, without taking them into the account. But to do the argument justice, let us take the opposite statement, as it is forcibly made by Mr. English. "Suppose that the prophecies, which foretel, or describe a Messiah, had affirmed, that he should be born at Athens, and should be learned in all the philosophy of Greece. A man born at Bethlehem in Judea, and entirely ignorant of Grecian philosophy and letters, arises and

proclaims himself the promised Messiah. But he not only calls himself this Messiah foretold by the prophets, he performs miracles to prove the truth of what he teaches. Now according to our irrefragable argument' his miracles prove his doctrine true. And what is the doctrine taught? Why unquestionably this, that the prophet had foretold a Messiah, that this Messiah should be born at Athens, &c. and that this prophecy is true. But his miracles prove too the truth of his assertion, viz.. that he who was born at Bethlehem, &c. is the Messiah promised! That is, the miracles prove the prophecy to be false, which is affirmed to be true!"* Now this, however plausible, is clearly only the supposition of an impossible case. As prophecy and miracle are equally divine works, it is impossible that they should contradict each other. They are equally the works of the God of truth, and whatever contradiction there appear to be between them, must be but apparent. If a person of whatever pretensions professes to work miracles in support of those pretensions, in which nevertheless he is contradicted by express prophecy-one of three things is certain, that the prophecy is a forged one, or that we have mistaken the meaning of it, or that the miracles are not real. To reply however to the case, which is put by Mr English, suppose that one of the prophecies which foretel or describe the Messiah, had affirmed that he should be born at Athens, and should be • English's Letter to Mr. Cary, p. 45, 46.