3. The Mosaic and Christian revelations profess to rest on external evi dence.

4. Provision made (1.) By writing. (2.) By commemorative rites, &u (3.) By accredited teachers.

Two preliminaries.

11. DIRECT EVIDENCE.

(1) (Chap. ix.) The evidences necessary to authenticate a revelation. (P. 70.) 1 EXTERNAL, principal and most appropriate: if not to the immediate recipient, at least to those to whom he communicates it. There are two branches of the external proof, Miracles and Prophecy.

(a.) MIRACLES.

1. Definition. 1.) Popular. 2.) Philosophic. 3.) Theological.
2. Possibility of miracles. (Pp. 74, 75.)

3. Distinction between real miracles and prodigies. Criteria. (P. 76.)
4. Necessity of connexion between even such real miracles, the mes-
senger, and his message. (P. 78.)

5. Human testimony sufficient to establish the credibility of miracles. (Pp. 78, 79.)

(1.) Hume's objection.

(2.) Replies to it by Paley-Llandaff-Campbell.

6. Fitness of the evidence of miracles as a ground of universal belief. (P. 85.)

(b.) PROPHECY.

1. Possibility not to be denied. Dilemma.

2. Adequateness as a proof.

2. INTERNAL.

(a.) Nature of the evidence.

(b.) Its rank in the scale of evidence.

1. Not necessary: sufficient proof without it: but nevertheless useful.
2. Not primary, but confirmatory. The contrary opinion not only
supposes us capable of judging fully of the doctrines revealed, but
also renders the external testimony comparatively nugatory. Two
sources of this error.

(1.) The notion that miracles might be wrought to attest unworthy
doctrines.

(2.) A confounding of the rational with the authenticating eviden 'e 3. Not so well adapted to the mass of mankind as external evidence. 3. COLLATERAL. Nature of the evidence stated. (P. 94.)

(II.) (Chap. xi.) The use and limitation of reason in religion.

(a.) USE of reason in regard to revelation.

1. To investigate the evidences of its divine authority.

2. To interpret the meaning of the record.

(b.) LIMITATION.

1. It must not decide in cases where the nature of things is not known, either by or without revelation.

2. The things compared must be of the same nature, and the comparison must be made in the same respects.

These preliminaries being settled, we now proceed to adduce positive 677dences, of which there are three heads, viz.:

L EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

(L) Preliminaries.

(A) (Chap. xii.) ANTIQUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.

a.) (P. 107.) The PERSONS who were the immediate instruments of these revelations, existed at the periods assigned. Proved,

(1.) By the very existence of 1.) The Jewish polity; and 2.) The Christian religion.

(2.) By the testimony of ancient authors.

1. As to Moses. Manetho, Apollonius, Strabo, Justin, Pliny, Tacitus, Juvenal, Longinus, Diod. Siculus, &c.

2. As to Christ. Suetonius, Tacitus.

b.) (P. 109.) The BOOKS which contain the doctrines are of the date assigned to them. Proved,

(1.) As to Old Testament.

1. By the language in which it is written.

2. By Josephus' Catalogue.

3. By the Septuagint, and by Samaritan Pentateuch.

4. By LESLIE'S ARGUMENT, which gives four rules for determining the truth of matters of fact, all which are applied with success

to the Old Testament, viz.:

(1.) The matter of fact must be cognizable by the senses.

(2.) The matter of fact must be publicly done.

(3.) The matter of fact must be commemorated by monuments and outward actions,

(4.) Which must date from the time of the matters of fact.

(2.) As to New Testament.

1. By Leslie's Argument, as before.

2. By internal evidence from the narration itself.

3. Testimony of adversaries. CELSUS, PORPHYRY, HIEROCLES, JULIAN.

4. Quotations by subsequent authors, from the apostles downward (P. 126.)

(B.) (Chap. xiii.) UNCORRUPTED PRESERVATION OF THE BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. (P. 134.)

a.) The books are SUBSTANTIALLY the same as when written. Proved, (1.) As to Old Testament. By the list of Josephus, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch.

(2.) As to New Testament. By the Catalogues of Origen, Athanasius,

Cyril, &c., from A. D. 230, downward.

b.) But it can be shown also, that they have descended to us without any material alteration whatever.

(1.) As to Old Testament.

1 Before the time of Christ, they were secured from alteration by their being generally known,-by the jealousy of the Samaritans, -by the public reading on Sabbath,-by Chaldee Paraphrase, and the Greek version.

2. After the birth of Christ, by mutual jealousy of Jews and Christians, and the general diffusion of the books.

8. All this is confirmed by the agreement of the manuscripts in all important respects. (P. 188.)

(2.) As to New Testament.

1. From their contents. Same facts and doctrines.

2. Impossibility of corruption because of general knowledge of the books, and mutual restraints of orthodox and heretics, Eastern

and Western churches.

8. From the agreement of the manuscripts.

4. From the agreement of ancient versions and quotations.

(C.) (Chap. xiv.) CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE SACRED

WRITERS.

(1.) That they were persons of virtuous and sober character was never denied.

(2.) They were in circumstances to know the truth of what they relate. They could not be deceived, for instance, as to the feeding of the four thousand, gift of tongues, &c.

(3.) They had no interest in making good the story. Their interests all lay in the opposite direction.

(4.) Their account is circumstantial, and given in a learned age, when its falsity might easily have been detected.

(II.) After these preliminaries, establishing the genuineness and authenticity of the books, it remains now to present the argument.

(A.) FROM MIRACLES. (P. 146.)

(1.) (Chap. xv.) Their reality proved.

(a.) Definition of a true miracle.

(b.) Claims of Scriptural miracles to be considered true, illus

trated

1. As to those of Moses. Darkness, destruction of first-born, passage

of Red Sea, falling of manna.

As to those of Christ. Illustrated especially by the greatest
miracle, the RESURRECTION, in regard to which it is shown,
a. That Christ was really dead.

b. That the body was missing. That

c. Every attempt to account for (b,) except on the supposition of a resurrection, is absurd, and

d. That the story was confirmed by the subsequent testimony and conduct of the disciples.

(2.) (Chap. xvi.) Objections answered.

(a.) It is asserted that miracles have been wrought in support of other

doctrines.

I. On the authority of Scripture. For, it is said,

(1.) That Scripture gives instances of such: e. g., of magicians in opposition to Moses, and the raising of Samuel by the witch of Endor, etc. In reply to this,

1. As to the feats of the magicians, it is to be noticed, 1. That
they were professed wonder-workers; 2. That they could
imitate but three of Moses' miracles; 3. That their works
were wrought to maintain the equality of their idols with
Jehovah. Two explanations are given.

1. Some suppose these were exercises of legerdemain.
2. Our author admits a supernatural evil agency: which is
not unreasonable, inasmuch as the design was, not to
disprove the divinity of Jehovah, but to maintain their
own authority.

2. As to the witch of Endor, and Satan's bearing our Lord
through the air:-Granting these events to have been
miraculous, it cannot be shown that they were wrought in
opposition to a divine mission.

(2.) That Scripture assumes the possibility of such. Deut. xiii, 1 Matt. xxiv, 24; 2 Thess. ii, 8, 9. As to this,

1. Notice the nature and work of Satan.-Six points.

2. Observe the limitations of the power of evil spirits, four points: (1.) No work of creation. (2.) No power of life and death. (3.) No knowledge of future events. (4.) No certain knowledge of the thoughts of men.

3. Apply these considerations to show

(1.) That no real miracle can be performed in opposition to the truth. Illustrated,

(1.) By the case of the Egyptian magi.

(2.) By that of false Christs, &c.

(2.) Nor any prophecy be uttered implying certain knowledge
of future events: though great sagacity may be exhibited.
N. B. No evidence recorded in favour of falsehood that might
not readily be refuted on the spot by counter evidence.
On the authority of profane writers. (P. 168.) Miracles of Aris-
teas, Pythagoras, Alexander, Vespasian, Apollonius Tyanæus.
and the Romish Church. To this we reply,

(a.) These pretended miracles are all deficient in evidence.
VOL. I.-B.

(b.) They are insulated and destitute of any reasonable object. while the miracles of Scripture combine for the establishment of one system.

(B.) FROM PROPHECY. (P. 175.)
(1.) (Chap. xvii.) Their reality proved.
(a.) Preliminary considerations.

1. The instances are numerous.
2. Many have clearly come to pass.

3. They all tend to one great end.

4. This last characteristic is peculiar to the Scripture prophecies.

5. There is no obscurity in them that can be a just ground for cavil.

6. The double sense of prophecy, so far from being an objection, is a confirmation of the infinite wisdom that inspired it.

(b.) Examples of such predictions. (P. 181, et seq.)

1. The prediction to Adam of the protracted conflict between the serpent
and the seed of the woman, with the ultimate triumph of the
latter.

2. Jacob's prediction respecting the time when Shiloh should come.
3. Predictions respecting the Jewish nation, viz.:—(1.) Their apos-
tacies. (2.) Their punishments. (3.) Their restoration.
4. Predictions respecting the Messiah.

(1.) Upward of one hundred distinct predictions as to his birth,
life, sufferings, death, and resurrection.

(2.) Wonderful prophecy, especially, contained in Isaiah liii.

(2.) (Chap. xviii.) Objections answered.

(a.) It is objected to some of the prophecies, that they were written after

the event.

This cannot be sustained: illustrated as to Isaiah and Daniel. (b.) The Scripture prophecies are compared to the heathen oracles. Let us take the Delphic oracle for an example. Of this we say,

1. None of its predictions ever went deep into futurity.

2. Its responses were ambiguous.

3. Venal and servile, it was easily corrupted. None of which can be alleged of Scripture prophecies.

(c.) The character of the prophets is aspersed.

E. g., Balaam, and Jewish false prophets. Singular proceeding to condemn the true on account of the false, who were not received by the Jews themselves.

(d.) It is asserted that some of the prophecies have failed.

1. Promise to Abraham. Ans. But this was fulfilled in the time of David and Solomon.

2. Promise of great wealth and dominion to the Jews. (Voltaire.) Ans. Civil blessings promised conditionally, and spiritual bless ings generally predicted under figures of speech.