wise in the Syriac version, must be received as his; that version of course having the greatest weight in a question of this kind, from its antiquity, and the situation of the Syrian Christians with respect to Judea. The Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third of St. John, and the Epistle of St. Jude, are not in the Syriac version, which may reasonably be accounted for, from its having been made before these epistles were known. The Second Epistle of St. Peter has such strong internal evidence of its genuineness, as proved by comparison with the First, which is undoubtedly genuine, that it must be received. The three other epistles are so very short, and their nature is such, that it is not at all surprising that they were for a time unnoticed, particularly the two former; but these so closely resemble the First Epistle of St. John, that there can be little doubt as to their genuineness; and the Epistle of St. Jude, when known, was received as his, being quoted as such both by Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The book of Revelation is also quoted frequently by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and likewise by Irenæus. It is also expressly ascribed to St. John by the latter (whose testimony is of the greatest weight with regard to it) as before seen, and by Justin Martyr at a still earlier period. The defence of Christianity may be maintained without depending upon any of these books; but there is no necessity to give up their authority, since the evidence for their genuineness is far greater than what would be deemed necessary to establish the credit of any common author..

CONVERSATION XI.

Mr. B. WE are now arrived at that part of the evidences of Christianity to which the greatest interest is generally attached, and on which indeed the whole proof

46 Of the Epistle of James; of the second Epistle of Peter; of the third Epistle of John; and of the Epistle of Jude, what is said?-47 Of the other epistles, what is said?-48 Of the book of Revelation, what is said? 1 To what part of the argument are we now arrived?

of Christianity seems to depend-the credibility of the New Testament. If the accounts of our Lord Jesus Christ be not true, however excellent Christianity may appear, and however singular may be the fact of its continuance to the present day, we can only regard it as the effect of a variety of concurring causes, which it may be interesting, but cannot be absolutely necessary to investigate; and here, therefore, we may terminate our inquiries. But if, on the other hand, the New Testament be credible as well as genuine, the truth of Christianity is established, and the remainder of our inquiries may be restricted to, showing how far this fact affects others connected with it, or is itself affected by them.

Edward. Do you then consider the whole question as turning upon this one point?

Mr. B. I do. If Christ be not risen from the dead, all probabilities in favour of Christianity must fail: if he is risen from the dead, they are unnecessary.

Edward. Do you then consider all the internal evidence in behalf of Christianity, arising from its excellence, as useless?

Mr. B. By no means: it is of the greatest consequence; but the utmost which it can establish, independently of external evidence, is, that the religion is not (according to our notions), unworthy of God.

Maria. Has it not been denied by some, that the Gospel statements can be proved true by any means whatsoever?

Mr. B. It has, from the circumstance of their relating miracles.

Maria. And what is the argument made use of? If it be valid, all further inquiry is needless.

Mr. B. It is this,-that a miracle is contrary to our experience, and therefore no testimony, however strong, can establish it. The fallacy of the argument consists in the ambiguity of the word experience. It may be certain

2 If the accounts of our Lord be not true, what is the supposition of Mr. B. But if the New Testament be credible, as well as genuine, what is the fact?-4 What importance is attached to the resurrection of our Lord from the dead?-5 What does Mr. B. say of the excellence of Christianity?-6 What objection is made to miracles?

that a miracle is contrary to our own personal experience; but to say that it is contrary to universal experience, is what can never be proved, and is assuming the very question at issue. To prove that a miracle never did occur, would require a knowledge which man cannot possess.

Maria. This is a very contemptible method of quibbling upon a serious subject.

وو

66

Mr. B. It is, and as such I shall not dwell further upon it. In Leland's "Deistical Writers" you will find some observations on the subject, and in "Beattie's Essay on Truth, Campbell on Miracles, " and "Douglas on Miracles," sufficient answers to the objection. In the beginning of Paley's Evidences, you will find some admirable observations on the same subject.

Edward. But I have met with another objection that seems much more formidable, which is, "that we can never certainly know what is a miracle and what is not; for a miracle is a deviation from the accustomed course of things, and we are not sufficiently acquainted with the laws of nature to determine when the law is broken."

Mr. B. This is one of the many instances in which it is attempted to explain away common sense by metaphysical refinement, and respecting which I again refer you to Beattie. Suppose we do not know every thing relative to the ordinary course of all things, does it follow that our knowledge is so circumscribed that we cannot in some determine as to whether the general course is observed or broken? An astronomer observes the course of a planet, and determines the law by which that course is directed. He afterwards obtains better instruments, and by fresh observations ascertains that the course is not such as he had before concluded it to be. He examines his calculations, but can detect no error, and is thereby perplexed. He does not thence infer there is a miracle, and justly, because he is aware that he is not acquainted with every thing relative to the subject. Perhaps at a

7 In what does the fallacy of this objection consist?-8 In what works does a sufficient answer to it exist?-9 What other objection does Edward bring forward-10 How does Mr. B. speak of this objection?-11 How does he illustrate his meaning by a case of astronomy?

subsequent period he detects the cause of the deviations from what appeared to be the natural course dictated by the general law of attraction, to be latent in the universality of that law affecting other bodies, which he had before neglected to take into the account. But what analogy is there between this and the case of a man born blind suddenly restored to sight; a cripple suddenly restored to the use of his limbs; or of a man, who had died some days before, arising from the grave, on being commanded so to do? I do not know every thing relative to the human body, and the changes it may undergo from various causes; but I do know sufficient to inform me that the sound of the human voice has no power over the" dull cold ear of death." I do not know every thing relative to the nature of water; but I do know that similar bodies similarly situated will be affected in the like manner by the same causes; and that if on the sea of Galilee Peter was sinking at the time his Master walked upon it, that undoubtedly there was a suspension of the accustomed course of nature.

Maria. I do not think my brother's objection much better than the first.

Edward. But if a deviation from a law of nature take place, it must require amazingly strong evidence to prove

it.

Mr. B. The whole resolves itself into a question of probabilities, and as such it ought to be considered; viz. whether it is more probable that the miracle has taken place, or that those who bear witness to it are deceivers or deceived?

Maria. But, from the nature of the miracles you have just now cited in illustration, there appears no chance of deception.

Mr. B. There can be very little; but however we will consider both cases. Now, with regard to the miracles of the New Testament, their probability rests upon the following probabilities;-that they cannot be disproved;

12 What application does he make of this case to the argument against miracles?-13 What additional illustration does he make in the case of Peter?-14 Into what does he say that the whole resolves itself?-15 Upon what probabilities do the miracles of the New Testament rest?

that the witnesses of them were not deceivers; that they were not deceived; that the cause of the performance of these miracles was such as made the interposition of Divine power necessary or expedient.

Maria. The reason of the three first I see, but not of the last.

Mr. B. A miracle may be said to have been wrought, which I cannot disprove, and which is well attested, but which does not affect me; but the miracles of the New Testament are expressly given as proofs of the divine origin of the religion therein taught; and therefore I must be quite certain of their connexion with God, and must be convinced that they are in agreement with what I know of him. If I found the reverse the case, I should conclude that there was a defect in some part or other of the preceding proof, though I might not be able to detect it; in the same manner that an absurd conclusion in mathematics is allowed to overthrow a theory, however plausible, which has led to it.

Edward. Before we examine the miracles, will it not be as well to examine the credibility of the other parts of the New Testament? since, if we detect falsehood in common things, it is not unreasonable to distrust statements of extraordinary events.

Mr. B. Certainly; and first, then, I observe, that with regard to all the leading facts, not miraculous, the statements of the New Testament were allowed by those who were able to have detected falsehood, had it existed, and who were most anxious to destroy their credit. From the enemies of Christianity, and its most bitter antagonists, we may prove the credibility of the New Testament. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, must have had the power to detect any gross falsehood; and who that looks at the remains of their works can doubt their anxiety to overthrow Christianity?

But again, the leading facts have never been disputed.

16 What does Maria say of these probabilities?-17 How does Mr. B. reply to her remark?-18 What does Edward propose to examine before the miracles, and why?-19 How, in the first place, is the credibility of the New Testament to be proved?-20 What is said of the existence of Paganism, Mahometanism, and Judaisın, as affecting this argument?

14*