that contain them, a man muft have a divine
miffion who, in proof of it, does what God
alone could impower him to do; and that
Chrift and the apoftles unquestionably did fuch
things, i. e. work real miracles, if the evan-
gelical history be only in the main true. For
without this it was naturally impoffible that
Christianity fhould have been received, as all
history, facred and profane, fhews that it was,
in the early ages.

When the mind is poffeffed of this fixed
principle, it will not be fo apt to revolt at
feeming improbabilities in the books of fcrip-
ture. Finding it impoffible to refift the evi-
dence of miracles, and of teftimony, in favour
of Chriftianity, a man will naturally confider
the difficulties in every point of view; and if
he be not unfortunately fituated indeed with
respect to information, he will soon satisfy him-
felf that they are far from being infuperable;
or, at leaft, that when every deduction from
the ftrength of the evidence is made on this
account, there will remain a great preponder-
ance of evidence in its favonr, fuch as will in-
duce every reasonable man to act upon it;
efpecially when he confiders that the end of

Puthoring the an theskiing, oropy

all

all faith in the gofpel is the obfervance of the moral precepts of it, and that the moral precepts of Chriftianity are the fame with those of natural religion, the observance of which is highly conducive to health of body and peace of mind in this life, without any regard to another; virtue hardly ever failing to be its own reward.

I mention these confiderations in this place because, though I have no doubt of Mr. Evanfon's friendly intention with respect to Christianity, many of his readers and admirers avail themselves of the principles of his work, as, in their opinion, highly unfavourable to it; and they are too ready to catch at every thing that, by any perverfion, they can bend to their purpose.

In some respects this is unavoidable by all who, from the best intentions, and the pureft regard to Chriftianity, endeavour to free it from any of the corruptions or abufes with which it has been loaded; fince this neceffarily occafions divifions among Christians, and has alfo too often an unpleasant effect on the tempers and conduct of the contending parties; and to fuperficial fpectators these things

furnish

furnish a fpecious objection to the religion about which they contend.

On this account I have taken this opportunity of fhewing that no difference of opinion among Chriftians about the authenticity of the books of Scripture, or the peculiar doctrines of Chriftianity, will justify unbelievers in their rejection of it. It behoves them, as perfons deeply interested in the dif cuffion, to see every thing with their own eyes, and to judge for themfelves, whatever labour may be neceffary for that purpose. If it was an estate to which they thought they had, or might have, a title, they would not dismiss all attention to the fubject because the lawyers they confulted could not agree about fome points of law refpecting it. Or if they were at sea in a storm, they would not think themselves unconcerned, because the failors had different opinions about the best method of faving the fhip.

Could unbelievers fee things in their true light, without any improper bias upon their minds, from unworthy paffions, and purfuits, they would fee that they had the greatest perfonal intereft in the truth or falsehood of Christianity, and would make the most dili

gent

gent inquiry into the evidence of it, without at all regarding what any other perfons thought concerning it. And if, from any motive, they be truly diligent and impartial in their inquiries, fuch are the means of information that are now within their reach, that I have little doubt of their becoming Chrif tians, and zealously attached to their religion; and confequently, by cultivating the temper, and habitually difcharging the duties of it, acquiring a fuperior dignity and excellence of character themselves, and thereby recommending it to the regard of others.

It will be obferved that my quotations from Mr. Evanfon are unufually long. I purposely made them fo, that he might not have any just reafon to complain of me for diminishing their ftrength. Still, however, I have left fome articles untouched, but they are fuch as appeared to me to be least worthy of particular notice. After remarking upon almost every thing in his objections to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, and the Epistle to the Romans, I thought it unnecessary even to mention his objections to fome of the other epiftles. I alfo thought my readers would be tired of perusing things fo very offenfive to

them,

them, and at the fame time fo weak. But if Mr. Evanfon, in his reply, fhould require it, I promise him to be as full in my remarks. with respect to these, as I have been with respect to the former books.

Some who entertain my fentiments of Mr. Evanfon's performance will wonder that a man of his abilities and learning, fhould write fo weakly; and fome, not being themselves. judges of the controverfy, will be apt to think there must be great uncertainty in the subject itself, when learned men can think fo differently about it. But no perfon acquainted with the writings of Mr. Whiston, will think him to have been lefs able, or less learned, than Mr. Evanson; and yet his ftrange weakness of judgment with refpect to fubjects of Chriftian antiquity (to which, notwithstanding, he did not fail to give much attention) has not led any scholar to think that there is any particular uncertainty, or obfcurity, in the fubjects about which he has puzzled himself and fome others fo much. Single perfons often entertain fingular notions about politics, and things in common life; but it is a circumftance that has no effect on the decifiveness of the judgment of other perfons when they have