longed to and sprung out of, the narrative now in our hands, which accordancy shows, that it was the narrative upon which these persons acted, and which they had received from their teachers. Our account makes the Founder of the religion direct that his disciples should be baptized; we know that the first Christians were baptized. Our account makes him direct that they should hold religious assemblies: we find that they did hold religious assemblies. Our accounts make the apostles assemble upon a stated day of the week: we find, and that from information perfectly independent of our accounts, that the Christians of the first century did observe stated days of assembling. Our histories record the institution of the rite which we call the Lord's Supper, and a command to repeat it in perpetual succession: we find, amongst the early Christians, the celebration of this rite universal. And indeed we find concurring in all the above-mentioned observances, Christian societies of many different nations and languages, removed from one another by a great distance of place and dissimilitude of situation. It is also extremely material to remark, that there is no room for insinuating that our books were fabricated with a studious accommodation to the usages which obtained at the time they were written; that the authors of the books found the usages established, and framed the story to account for their original. The Scripture accounts especially of the Lord's Supper, are too short and cursory, not to say too obscure, and, in this view, deficient, to allow a place for any such suspicion."*

Amongst the proofs of the truth of our proposition, viz. that the story, which we have now, is, in substance, the story which the Christians had then, or, in other words, that the accounts in our Gospels are, as to their principal parts at least,

*The reader who is conversant in these researches, by comparing the short Scripture accounts of the Christian rites above mentioned, with the minute and circumstantial directions contained in the pretended apostolical constitutions, will see the force of this observation; the difference between truth and forgery.

the accounts which the apostles and original teachers of the religion delivered, one arises from observing, that it appears by the Gospels themselves, that the story was public at the time; that the Christian community was already in possess ion of the substance and principal parts of the narrative. The Gospels were not the original cause of the Christian history being believed, but were themselves among the consequences of that belief. This is expressly affirmed by Saint Luke, in his brief, but, as I think, very important and instructive preface; "Forasmuch (says the evangelist) as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered them unto us, which, from the beginning, were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed." This short introduction testifies, that the substance of the history, which the evangelist was about to write, was already believed by Christians; that it was believed upon the declarations of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; that it formed the account of their religion, in which Christians were instructed; that the office which the historian proposed to himself, was to trace each particular to its origin, and to fix the certainty of many things which the reader had before heard of. In Saint John's Gospel, the same point appears hence, that there are some principal facts, to which the historian refers, but which he does not relate. A remarkable instance of this kind is the ascension, which is not mentioned by Saint John in its place, at the conclusion of his history, but which is plainly referred to in the following words of the sixth chapter:"* "What and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?" And still more positively in the words which Christ, according to our evangelist, spoke to Mary

* Also John, iii. 13; and xvi. 28.

after his resurrection, "Touch me not, for I am not yet as. cended to my Father: but go unto my brethren, and say un to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God.”* This can only be accounted for by the supposition that Saint John wrote under a sense of the notoriety of Christ's ascension, amongst those by whom his book was likely to be read. The same account must also be given of Saint Matthew's omission of the same important fact. The thing was very well known, and it did not occur to the historian that it was necessary to add any particulars concerning it. It agrees also with this solution, and with no other, that neither Matthew, nor John, disposes of the person of our Lord in any manner whatever. Other intimations in Saint John's Gospel, of the then general notoriety of the story are the following: His manner of introducing his nar rative (ch. i. ver. 15.), "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying "-evidently presupposes that his readers knew who John was. His rapid parenthetical reference to John's im prisonment," for John was not yet cast into prison," could only come from a writer whose mind was in the habit of considering John's imprisonment as perfectly notorious. The description of Andrew by the addition "Simon Peter's brother," takes it for granted, that Simon Peter was well known. His name had not been mentioned before. The evangelist's noticing § the prevailing misconstruction of a discourse, which Christ held with the beloved disciple, proves that the characters and the discourse were already public. And the observation which these instances afford, is of equal validity for the purpose of the present argument, whoever were the authors of the histories.

These four circumstances ;-first, the recognition of the account in its principal parts, by a series of succeeding writers; secondly, the total absence of any account of the origin of the religion substantially different from ours;

* John xx. 17.

t Ibid. i. 40

† John iii. 24.
§ Ibid. xxi. 24.

thirdly, the early and extensive prevalence of rites and insti tutions, which result from our account; fourthly, our account bearing, in its construction, proof that it is an account of facts, which were known and believed at the time;—are suffi cient, I conceive, to support an assurance, that the story which we have now, is, in general, the story which Christians had at the beginning. I say in general; by which term I mean, that it is the same in its texture, and in its principal facts. For instance, I make no doubt, for the reasons above stated, but that the resurrection of the Founder of the religion was always a part of the Christian story. Nor can a doubt of this remain upon the mind of any one who reflects that the resurrection is, in some form or other, asserted, referred to, or assumed, in every Christian writing, of every description, which hath come down to us.

And if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case to offer for we should have to allege, that in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, a certain number of persons set about an attempt of establishing a new religion in the world in the prosecution of which purpose, they voluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labors, sustained great sufferings, all for a miraculous story, which they published wherever they came; and that the resurrection of a dead man, whom during his life they had followed and accompanied, was a constant part of this story. I know nothing in the above statement which can, with any appearance of reason, be disputed; and I know nothing, in the history of the human species, similar to it.

NOTE A.

THIS alternative is clearly true, and is all that is essential to the argument. Whether the above passage (from Josephus) be genuine or not, continues as much disputed as ever. The external evidence in its favor is strong. It is found in all the Greek manuscripts, in a Hebrew version in the Vatican, and an Arabic version among the

Maronites of Lebanon, and is quoted by Eusebius, Jerome, Rufinus, Sozomen, and a chain of later authors. It is confirmed by the exist ence of two similar testimonies to John the Baptist, and James the Just, the brother of our Lord, to whose death Josephus elsewhere ascribes the calamities of the Jews. The words of Tacitus, also,

have some appearance of being borrowed from it. On the other hand, Origen quotes Josephus as saying "That these things befell them by the anger of God, on account of what they dared to do to James, the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ. And wonderful it is, that while he did not receive Jesus for Christ, he did nevertheless bear witness that Jesus was so righteous a man." He says further, that "the people thought they suffered these things for the sake of James."* This seems to imply that Origen had not read this testimony of Josephus in his copy. It is also hard to believe that Josephus owned the resurrection of Christ, and that He was the object of many prophecies, and yet neither embraced Christianity, nor spoke more fully concerning it. It is certain that he speaks elsewhere of the national hope of a conqueror to come from the east, as fulfilled in Vespasian and Titus. On the whole it seems most probable that the passage is genuine; that the clause, "This was the Christ," is meant simply to identify the person as the same from whom the Christians derived their name; and that either the clause about the resurrection has been slightly altered, or else that Josephus, like Agrippa, was a half believer, too proud and worldly to become an open disciple, and that he thought some of the prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus, and others in his own imperial patrons.-REV. T. R. BIRKS.

NOTE B.

IN the Toldoth Jeschu, and Martini's Compendium of Jewish History of Jesus, of which the former dates some time after the sixth century, but was probably formed, as well as the latter, from earlier traditions among the Jews, are many testimonies to facts mentioned in the gospels. "Miriam (Mary) brought forth a son, whom she called Joshua" (Greek, Jesus.) "The elders of the Sanhedrim proclaimed him unfit to be of the congregation, and styled him

* James the Less, surnamed the Just for his holiness of life, was the son of Cleophas, by Mary, sister of the Virgin. James the Great, or Elder, was the son of Zebedee and Salome. He was beheaded by Herod Agrippa. James the Less was murdered by the Pharisees about A.D. 63. They threw him from the battlement of the temple; but life not being thus extinguished, he got up on his knees, and prayed for his murderers, amidst a shower of stones, till one beat out his brains with a fuller's club.-Ed.