Of the Argument for the Truth of Chriflianity arifing from the fulfilment of our Saviour's predictions concerning the deftruction of the Temple, and the City of Jerufalem, and the difperfion of the Jews. Being the third Chapter of the first vol. of a Collection of Jewish and Heathen Teftimonies to the Truth of the Chriftian Religion. By N. LARDNER, D. D. 1764. p. 103.

The argument for the Truth of Chriftianity which is taken from the history of the destruction of Jerufalem as related by Jofephus, compared with our Saviour's predision of that event recorded by the Evangelifts Matthew, Mark, and Luke, has always been confidered as one of the strongest which can be urged, either against the Jews in particular, or against Unbelievers in general, In modern times this argument has been illuftrated by Jackson in the first volume of his works, 1673; by Tillotson in the 12th vol. (8vo ed.) of his Sermons; by Kidder in his Demonftration of the Meffiah; by Whitby in his Commentary on St. Matthew, and in his General Preface; by Sharpe in a difcourfe intituled, The Rife and Fall of the Holy City and Temple of Jerufalem, preached at the Temple Church, 1764; and, to mention no others, by Jortin in the first vol. of his Remarks on Ecclefiaftical Hiftory. This author has alfo well proved, not only that the Gofpels, in which the predictions of Chrift relative to the deftruction of Jerufalem are delivered, were written before that event; but that the predictions themselves could not have been inferted into the Gofpels, as interpolations, after the event: the reader will not efleem this to have been an unneceffary labour, who recollects the confidence with which Voltaire, with a view probably of evading the force of the Argument in queftion, declares, that the Gofpels were written after Jerufalem was deftroyed-fans doubte après la deftruction de Jerufalem.-Many an unbeliever is apt to think and fay, that he would have faith in the Gofpel, if he could fee a man raifed from the dead, or any one notable miracle performed in atteftation of its truth; now the completion of an ancient prophecy is, to us who fee the completion, a Miracle; and I would fincerely recommend it to every one, who is not fteadfast in the faith, to examine carefully, and liberally, whether the prophecies-concerning Jerufalem being trodden under foot of the Gentiles-concerning the fterility of Palestine-the state of the Jewish people-the introduction of the Gentles into the Church of God-the apoftafy of the latter times-the Independency of the Arabs-the Servitude of Ham's pofterity, &c. have not been literally fulfilled. Thefe things are facts which fall within our own obfervation, and if we iarch the Scriptures we fhall find that these facts were predicted long before either we or our fathers were born.

The

The prefent conftitution of the world, with refpect to the civilization, the religion, the liberty, or flavery of the different empires which fubfift in it, is but one ftage of the completion of the various prophecies, which were of old delivered, concerning the fortunes of individuals, nations, and countries; we in our days may fay what Tertullian, fpeaking of the Accomplishment of Scripture prophecy, faid in his Quicquid agitur prænunciabatur, quicquid videtur audiebatur. The reader may find thefe fubjects difcuffed by Bp. Newton in his differtations on the Prophecies; by Whifton in his Accomplishment of Scripture Prophecy; by Sharpe in his fecond Argument in defence of Chriftianity; by Lardner in his three Sermons on the circumftances of the Jewish people, an Argument for the Truth of Christianity; by the Author of the Principes de la Foi Chrètienne; by the Author of an Effay in the Univerfal Hiftory, on The Independency of the Arabs; by Bishops Hurd, Hallifax, and Bagot, in their fermons preached at Warburton's Lecture; by Jofeph Mede; and Henry More in their refpective works; and by Worthington in his Sermon preached at Boyle's Lecture, 1766, &c.

All the Actions recorded in the Gofpels are probable, P. 177.

This Tract is the 4th. chap. of the 1ft. book of the Truth of the Gofpel Hiftory by Macknight. The Title in page 177 is by miftake printed wrong, as the tract itself was not intended to have been printed in this place. Young men fhould render this fhort tract familiar to them by a frequent perufal of it; they will find in it very concife, but fatisfactory aufwers to many objections, respect. ing fome parts of our Saviour's conduct, the poflibility and the credibility of miracles, &c, which are fometimes ferioufly, oftener in wanton mockery of Religion, made fubjects of common conver fation, and which never fail to leave a bad impreffion on the minds of those who know not how to reply to them.

Of the Argument for the Truth of the Chriflian Religion arifing from the converfion of the world to Chriftianity; taken from the Truth of the Gospel Hiftory. By JAMES MACKNIGHT, D. D. 1763. p. 199.

That great multitudes, out of every nation in the then known world, were converted from Heathenifm to Chriftianity, within a few years after the death of Jefus, is a fact allowed on all hands; the queftion is, whether this fact can be properly urged as a decifive proof of the divine Origin of the Chriftian Religion. And, without doubt, the fact, abstractedly confidered, cannot. The extenfive propagation of a religion, how rapidly foever it may have been

made,

madé, is a proof of nothing but that the means were adequate to the end, the caufe to the effect. A falfe Religion may be fpeedily and widely fpread by force or by fraud; or it may, by degrees, gain an extenfive eftablishment in the world, from its being propitious to the follies, the vices, and paffions of Mankind; or from its being first introduced in an unenlightened and credulous age; or in a country fitted by peculiar circumstances to fofter and fupport it; or from a concurrence of many other human means. This may be readily granted, but that the Chriftian Religion fhould have been quickly propagated from Judea through the Roman Empire, during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, &c. by the Human abilities of the dpfiles, appears to me to be an incredible fact. Thofe who think otherwife would do well, in addition to the fact itself, to confider the prophecies which were fulfilled when it took place. "What motive, favs Justin Martyr in his Apology (Reeve's Tranf.), could ever poffibly have perfuaded us to believe a crucified man to be the first begotten of the unbegotten God, and that he would come to judge the world, had we not met with thofe prophetic teftimonies of him proclaimed fo long before his Incarnation? Were we not Eye-witneffes to the fulfilling of them? Did we not fee the de folation of Judea, and men out of all nations profelyted to the faith of his Apoftles, and renouncing the ancient errors they were brought up in? Did we not find the prophecies made good in ourselves, and fee Chriftians in greater numbers, and in greater fincerity, from among the Gentiles, than from the Jews and Samaritans "This argument has been infifted upon by Henry More in the first vol. of his works, where there is a chapter intituled, Veritas Evangelii demonfirata ex fucc Ju; by J. Denne in a difcourfe printed 1725, intituled, The miraculous Succefs of the Gofpel, a proof of its divine origin; by Lefey in his Short Method with the Deifts; by Millar in his Hiftory of the propagation of Chriftianity and overthrow of Paganism; by Tillotson in the 12th vol. of his Sermons; by Leng in his Sernons at Boyle's Lecture; by fo tin in his Truth of the Chriftian Religion; by Leland in the vith chap. of the 2d part of his defence of Chriftianity, by Bp. Atterbury in his two Sermons on the miraculous propagation of the Gofpel; by Boffuet in his Difcourfe on Univerfal Hiftory; by Lardner in his Collection of Jewish Teftimonies, by Pewell in his reth Difcourfe; by Benfon in his Reafonableness of Chriftianity; and by Young in the 2d vol. of his Differtations on Idolatrous Corruptions, where, alfo, there is a compendious view, fupported by proper authorities, of the countries, through which the Apottles travelled in propagating the Gofpel.

An Efay on the Man of Sin, from Benfon's Paraphrafe and Notes on St. Paul's Epiftles. p. 268.

That the Popish Religion is the Chriflian Religion, is a falfe pafition; and therefore Chriftianity may be true, though the Religion

of the Church of Rome be, in many of its parts, an impofture. This obfervation fhould be always kept in mind by fuch of our young men of fashion, as are fent to finish their education by travelling in Catholic countries. It may feem paradoxical to affert, that the corruptions of any religion can be proofs of its truth; yet the corruptions of the Chriftian Religion, as practifed by the Church of Rome, are certain proofs of the truth of the Chriftian Religion; inasmuch as they are exact completions of the prophecies which were delivered by Daniel, St. Paul, and St. John concerning that apoftafy from the faith, which was to take place in the latter times. I have known the infidelity of more than one young man happily removed, by fhewing him the characters of Popery delineated by St. Paul in his prophecy concerning the Man of Sin (2 Thef. 2. 1.), and in that concerning the apoftafy of the latter times (1 Tim. iv. 1.). Bp. Hurd, in his 7th fermon at Warburton's Lecture, has given a concife hiftory of the Charge of Antichriftianifm, which has, at different times, been brought against the Church of Rome. Dr. Whitaker, Regius Profeffor of Divinity at Cambridge, in his exercife for his degree at the Commencement in 1582, fupported this Thefis-Pontifex Romanus eft ille Antichriftus quem futurum Scriptura prædixit. He had, before that time, refuted the forty arguments by which Nicholas Sander boasted, that he had demonftrated-that the Pope was not Antichrift. Whitaker's works are very well worth being looked into by those, who would know what can be faid for and against the other principal points in controverfy between Proteftants and Papifts, as well as against this primary pillar of the reformed faith-That the Hierarchy of the Church of Rome is the Little Horn of Daniel; the Man of Sin of St. Paul; and the Antichrift of St. John. The Evidence arifing from the completion of the prophecies relative to the Rife, Character, and Fall of the Man of Sin, is an increafing Evidence; it ftrikes us with more force than it ftruck our Ancestors before the Reformation; and it will ftrike our Pofterity, who shall obferve the different gradations of his decline, and his final catastrophe, with more force than it now ftrikes us.

Obfervations on the Hiftory and Evidence of the Refurrection of Jefus Chrift. By GILBERT WEST, Efq. Lond. 1767. 6th, Ed. p. 289.

The Refurrection of Chrift is the very corner ftone on which the hope of a Chriftian is built; for, if Chrift be not rifen, Chriftianity is an impofture; and if Chrift be rifen, Chriflianity is true; and Deifm is a Delufion. Whether Chrift be, or be not rifen from the dead, is a queftion of fact, and must be decided (not by metaphysical difquifitions concerning the power of God to work a miracle, nor by nice fubtilties concerning the fufficiency of human Teftimony to ef tablish the credibility of Miracles, but) by fairly eftimating the weight of Evidence for and against the fact. The main Arguments

which are brought to invalidate the fact of the Refurrection are deduced from the real, or feeming, differences in the accounts which the Evangelifts have given of the circumftances which attended it; and much labour has been employed in harmonizing the several accounts. But what if it should be admitted (I do not fay that the conceffion is neceffary), that the accounts cannot in every little point be made to agree? Will you for that reafon disbelieve the fact itself? As well might you have difbelieved the report of those who should have faid, that they had feen the body of Cæfar dead, because you would have found them disagreeing, probably, in fome minute points, relative to the number, or fituation, of his wounds, to the time, or manner, of his being ftabbed in the Capitol. A flight difagreement, between the writers of the New Teftament, in their relations of matters of fact, is entirely analogous to what may be obferved every day in courts of Juftice; no one, on account of a trifling" difference in the teftimonies of the witneffes, ever thinks of quel tioning the existence of the fact in which they all agree, or of im peaching either their integrity, or competency to establish the fact. If the Evangelifts do really differ from each other in their accounts of the Refurrection of Jefus, it is a proof that they did not write in concert, were not combined to impofe a fable on the world; and it is a proof, alfo, that what they wrote was not infpired in the manner which fome, with more piety than judgment, have fuppofed it to have been. Let the Deitts make the moft they can of the variations which they think may be found in the Evangelifts, yet will they never be able to prove, that the facts mentioned by thefe writers refpecting the Birth, Life, Death, Refurrection, and Afcenfion of Jefus Chrift, are not true; let them faften upon the writers of the New Teftament as much Luman infirmity as they can, yet will they never be able to prove that they were not divinely inspired in what they delivered concerning the doctrines neceffary to be believed, and the duties ncceffary to be performed, by all true difciples of Jefus Chritt-The book which is here printed has been much eftcemed, it has been tranflated both into German and French, and may be of great ufe to thofe whofe religious principles are unfettled. Macknight, in his Harmony, has endeavoured to reconcile the feeming inconfiftencies in the Evangelifts relative to the refurrection; Lardner pub lifhed fome judicious obfervations on Macknight's plan. Benfn has given his fentiments on the fubject of the refurrection in his Life of Chrift, and has anfwered the objections úfually made to it. Bp. Newcome, in his Harmony, may be confulted on the fubje&t with great advantage. A pamphlet, publifhed many years ago, intituled, the Tryal of the Witneffes of the Refurrection of Jefus, has been well received in the world; but the moft folid Reasoning on the fubject may be met with in a difcourfe concerning the Refurrection of Jefus Chrift by Humphrey Ditton, 5th ed. 1740. Fabricius, in the 44th chap. of his Delectus Argumentorum, mentions 28 different Authors on the Refurrection, and in the ixth chap. of his Lux Evangelica he adds above 20 more; nor would it be a difficult talk greatly to inlarge his catalogue.

OF