Of the Nature of Hiftorical Evidence, illuftrated by that of the Propagation of Christianity.

DEAR SIR,

I AM

AM happy to find that, in my former Letters, I was able to give you satisfaction with respect to the propriety of Public Worship, and of the observance of the Lord's Day for that purpose, in reply to the objections of Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Evanfon. You have fince read, as every scholar will do, Mr, Evanson's treatise on the Diffonance of the Four generally received Evangelists; and, as I perceive, you are, with many others, confiderably impreffed by

it.

You are inclined to think that the Christian church has received the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, as well as feveral of the epiftles, without fufficient authority, and that the only authentic hiftory of the origin and first planting of Christianity is to be found in the gospel of Luke, and the Acts of the Apostles. You are alfo difpofed to lay but litele ftrefs upon any evidence arifing from teftimony,

with respect to events fo remote and extraordinary, and to rely on that of completed prophecy in preference to it. You wish, however, to have my free thoughts on these subjects, and I shall have much pleasure in giving you them. The investigation of truth is always a pleasing employment, and it is more particularly interefting when the fubject is religion.

You will naturally enough fufpect, though you will not tell me fo, that it is owing to prejudice, that I am unwilling to accede to opinions so novel and ftartling as thofe advanced by Mr. Evanfon; and it would be vain for me to deny that I am as fubject to prejudice as other men; though, in general, I have not objected to any opinions on account of their novelty, or their not having been generally received, whether advanced by other perfons, or fuggefted by myself. You will attend, however, to the arguments that I fhall produce, and compare them with thofe of Mr. Evanfon; and let us both endeavour to keep our minds as free from prejudice as we can, that we may neither be misled ourselves, nor contribute to mislead others.

In the first place, I fhall confider what Mr. Evanfon has advanced with refpect to historical evidence in general, as applied by him to the evidence of Chrif tianity. To all future ages," he fays, p. 5, "( pro"phecy, the completed prediction of events out of "the power of human fagacity to forefee, is the only

fupernatural teftimony that can be alleged in proof

"of the authenticity of any revelation. To those,

" for

"for example, of the prefent age, who have any "doubt about the certainty of the Christian revela❝tion, and confequently of the truth and authenticity "of thofe hiftories in which it is recorded, it cannot "be of the least use to allege the miraculous acts "there, and there only, related to have been per"formed by the first preachers of that revelation; "because those acts making a very confiderable part "of the narration, the authority and credibility of "the histories must be firmly established before the "miracles contained in them can reasonably be ad"mitted as real facts." P. 6. "Prophecy, there

fore," he adds, "is by far the moft fatisfactory, " and the only lafting, fupernatural evidence of the "truth of any revelation." And (p. 19), “ the su"pernatural power of working miracles could only "be intended to gain the new religion attention from "the world, and to be a present teftimony of its di" vine origin and authority, till the more lasting and "more fatisfactory proof of completed prophecy "could take place."

I would be far from undervaluing the evidence of completed prophecy in favour of revelation. I value Christianity too much to neglect any proper argument in favour of it. Since God only can fee into remote futurity, the causes of diftant events being concealed from all human penetration, if we have sufficient evidence of any event being distinctly foretold, and we are fatisfied that the prediction was no random conjecture, we neceffarily conclude that it

was dictated by God, and that any declaration connected with it may be depended upon, fince the Supreme Being could not intend to impofe upon his I alfo believe that in the fcriptures there are several fuch predictions, the publication of which may be clearly proved to have been prior to the

creatures.

events.

But notwithstanding this, the proper, and univerfally fatisfactory evidence of all past events, miraculous as well as others, is the teftimony of perfons who were eye-witneffes of them. It depends upon a principle which no person will deny, viz. that human nature has been the fame in all ages, and therefore that, if the teftimony of perfons now living, who could not be deceived themselves, and who had no motive to impofe upon others, may be depended upon, that of perfons in the fame circumftances a hundred or a thousand years ago may be depended upon. They are but few things that we can fee with our own eyes; but we are well fatisfied with the evidence of their having been feen by others.

The evidence of the truth of Christianity is of this fatisfactory kind; and if the facts on which it depends be of an extraordinary kind, as not being analogous to any thing that we ourselves are witneffes to; the teftimony by which they are ascertained is in full proportion copious and definite; perfons then living having had every motive that men could have to examine and re-examine every thing relating to them, both its friends and its enemies having been

fufficiently

fufficiently interested so to do, and while the facts were recent, and capable of being easily inveftigated.

In the preceding extract Mr. Evanson says that the evidence of miracles is not to be depended upon, "because they make a confiderable part of the nar"ration, the truth of which is queftioned." But if the narrative be fufficiently authenticated, the truth of the miracles is as well established as that of any other facts; and there can be no objection to them, but what affects the narrative, i. e. the books which contain the account of them. To make this objection of any weight, Mr. Evanson must maintain, with Mr. Hume, that no account of miracles can be credible. If they be credible at all, their credibility may be ascertained by fufficient teftimony.

If, as he says, miracles could only be defigned to excite attention till another kind of proof, viz. that of completed prophecy, can be applied, they could not themselves be a proof of any thing. But a completed prophecy is only a particular fpecies of miracle; fo that if miracles be no proof of a revelation, this also could anfwer no end, but to excite more attention. Miracles, however, did, in fact, not only excite attention, but actually enforced the belief of the divine miffions of Mofes and of Christ long before any prophecies were known to be completed; and it was the fatisfaction which the evidence of thefe miracles gave to thofe who faw them, that engaged the belief of those who did not fee them.