and happiness of society would be removed. That there is an important defect in the characters of men by nature, is a truth which we may derive with undoubting certainty, from the injuries which they suffer from each other; and we may rationally expect, that a revelation from God would be adapted to remedy this evil. Accordingly we find, that in the Bible, the nature of this defection is explained, and a foundation is laid for our reconciliation, to him and to each other.

Again, it is evident that the Bible is a revelation from God, from the nature of its doctrines and requisitions. That the precepts and doctrines of the Bible, meet with violent opposition from the spirit of this world, is a truth so well attested by our own experience and observation, as to need no other proof. Those practices with which men are pleased, to relinquish which, they will not be persuaded, are by the Bible, plainly and fearfully condemned. Notwithstanding all the hopes they cherish, while they refuse to relinquish their vices, they are threatened in the Bible with eternal death. May we not then safely conclude, that the Scriptures could not have been the production of vile and ungodly men? Did the instance ever occur when men of this description, gave rules for life so directly at war with every feeling of their hearts, and by the penalties of which, they pronounced the most terrible punishment upon themselves? But the supposition that the Bible could have been the production of good men, and yet not be what it claims to be, a revelation from God, is still more absurd. If we admit that the writers of the Bible were honest, the question with regard to its truth, will be forever at rest. The passages in which it claims to be the word of God, are so numerous, and the circumstances in which this claim is advanced, are so various, that to suprose that they could have been deceived, is impossible. By lock ing at other pretended revelations from God, we shall see that

this reasoning accords with fact. The system, (if we may so call it) of Mohammed is such as we might naturally have expected, viewing him as an unprincipled and ambitious man. We see merely that spicing of self-denial, which a man of his foresight, after having read the bible, might readily deem necessary to give his book the appearance of a revelation; while it is filled with all that could cherish the pride, and inflame the passions, of our fallen nature.

Again, there are many testimonies from ancient writings and traditions, which correspond with the leading and most important facts contained in the Bible. In some of the mostancient writings we have an account of the law of Moses, as forbidding the worship of images-also of the departure of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, and their encampment at Mount Sinai-of the skill of Moses in working miracles-of the miraculous supply of water in the wilderness, &c. In others, Moses is said to be the author of a volume preserved with great care, in which the worship of ima ges and the eating of swine's flesh were forbidden. Tradi tions concerning the flood and the preservation of Noah-of the building of Babel and the confusion of languages, are nuBut the most important of all the traditions, in point of testimony, are those which relate to the offering of sacrifices, and the division of days into weeks. The custom of offering sacrifices, it is well known, prevailed through all the heathen world from time immemorial. What could have suggested such a method to appease the anger of the Deity, had it not descended by tradition from a divine institution? Is it not more rational to suppose this to have been the origin of the custom, than that it should have, originated among the heathen? But in reference to the division of days into weeks, as it will be seen to be wholly arbitrary, we see no way to evade the conviction that it descended from a divine appoint

merous.

ment. Now that these traditions should have existed, if the history of the Bible be true, must certainly appear rational; but if not, how is it possible to account for them? These testimonies are taken from writers who lived several centuries previous to the coming of Christ.

But when we come along down to the gospel dispensation, the evidence which we derive from this kind of testimony, becomes far more conclusive and satisfactory. It is supposed by some that the crucifixion and death of Christ, and the subsequent events which are recorded in the New Testament, were not known scarcely beyond the limits of the neighbourhood where they occurred, till centuries after they took place. This impression, however, has nothing to support it but the most pitiable ignorance. The testimony that may be gathered from authors, who lived immediately after the days of the Saviour and his apostles, whose works have survived the ravages of time, is of the most convincing kind. It affords us relief upon a point on which it is extremely natural in our inquiries upon this subject, to be anxious. It is natural for us to inquire, how soon the New Testament was received and considered as of divine authority, by the Churches? It appears on examination, that it was received immediately, and considered in point of authority and obligation, as superior to all human compositions. The reasons which are given are such as naturally offer themselves to our minds.The writers were admitted to be fellow-labourers with our Lord, and enjoyed his instructions, and gave evidence by the miracles which they wrought, that they had been commissioned by him, and by him endued with supernatural power. Among the numerous testimonies that might be cited in proof of this point, we have room for but few. Barnabas, who was the companion of Paul, in an epistle to the Churches, quotes the gospel of St. Matthew as of divine authority. Clement,

who was another of his fellow-labourers, and whose name we find in his epistles, has sundry quotations from the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and from the epistles of paul to the Romans, and 1 Cor. and the Hebrews. Hermes, another of the companions of the apostle, whose name he mentions in his epistle to the Romans, has left an epistle containing allusions to the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who became Bishop of Antioch in less than forty years after the ascension of our Lord, has left in his writings, references to Matthew, John, and the epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. In a book written by Polycarp, who had been taught by the apostles, there are more than forty undoubted allusions to the different books of the New Testament. What renders the testimony of these men and their contemporaries of great importance, in this investigation, is the fact that they are individually quoted by almost all the noted writers in the four succeeding centuries. As we come along down from that period, witnesses who assure us that the writings of the New Testament were early received as divine inspiration, become more numerous. Merely to give the character of their testimony, we will cite the words of Irenæus, who was the disciple of Polycarp:-"We have not received the knowl edge of the way of salvation by any others, than those, by whom the gospel has been brought to us: Which gospel they first preached, and afterwards by the will of God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come, the foundation and pillar of our faith: For after that our Lord rose from the dead, and the apostles were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghost, coming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things."

In addition to this direct testimony, that the Scriptures were thus early received as divine inspiration, the same point is supported by other considerations. They were early col

lected into a volume, and viewed by the churches as superior to other writings. In support of this, we have the testimony of Ignatius, who, as we have seen, was Bishop of Antioch within less than forty years from the crucifixion of our Saviour: And also, of Eusebius, Irenæus, Melito, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Most of these writers lived within less than two hundred years of the commencement of the Christian era.

The writings of the New Testament in their present form, were early distinguished by appropriate appellations of respect. To this we have the testimony of the same writers, together with that of Justin Martyr, Dionysius, Theophilus, and Origen.

Again, the Scriptures were, at this early period, publickly read and expounded in religious assemblies,

Commentaries were written upon them-different copies were carefully examined, and translations made of them into different languages.

Lastly, the Scriptures, as we now have them, were appealed to, in controversies, both by friends and enemies. To all these points, the testimonies from the various writers of the three first centuries, are so full and explicit, as to leave no room for a remaining doubt. In the fourth century, Christianity became the most prevalent religion in the world. To look for testimony of this kind from that period, is like searching after light under a meridian sun, when there is not a cloud to obscure it.

Again, the miracles which are recorded in the Bible, are an evidence that it is divine inspiration. A miracle, is an event which is out of, or above the common course of nature. Our Saviour appealed to the miracles which he wrought, as a proof that he was the true Messiah, and endued with divine power.-"Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father