works of a personage of pretensions like our Lord's, should we think it necessary or reasonable to resort to long courses of argument, or indeed to any process of the understanding, except what was requisite to establish the fact of the miracles? Should we, while he was opening the eyes of the blind, and raising the dead from their graves, feel it necessary to be deciphering prophecies, and weighing these[fn 3] difficulties? Now we may transfer this case to that of Christianity. The miracles of our Lord are either true or false. The infidel if he maintain the latter must prove it; and if the former can be made to appear, they are beyond all comparison the most direct and convincing testimony that can be devised," p. 1, 2. of Mr. Everett's work.

To this statement I would reply—that I do not know what right Mr. Everett has to call upon his opponent, to prove a negative. It was his business to prove the affirmative of his question, and to show that these miracles actually were performed, before he proceeded to argue upon the strength of them. It is, I conceive, impossible to demonstrate that miracles said to have been wrought 1800 years ago, were not performed; but it is, I believe, quite possible to show that there is no sufficient proof that they were. One of the reasons given, in the 2d, ch. as I think, of the grounds of Christianity examined, for throwing out of consideration the miracles recorded in the New Testament in examining the question of the Messiahship of Jesus, was, that the New Testament itself, was not a sufficient proof that these miracles were actually wrought; and this, with the reader's indulgence, I think I can plainly show.

Mr. Everett allows p. 450 of his work, what indeed he cannot deny, that the four Gospels do sometimes contradict each other in their narratives; and he refers with approbation, in a note to p. 458, to a work of Lessing's, which he says, "ought to be read by every one who is overfond of Harmonies." This work of Lessing's, if I recollect right, maintains, that all hopes of harmonizing the evangelists, of reconciling their contradictions, must be given up. [See Lessings Sammliche, Schriften, ch. v. S. 150, as quoted by Mr. Everett, p. 458.]

Now these contradictions, if they do exist, unquestionably argue one of two things; either fraud, or want of accurate information in their authors, as no man who wishes to be considered "compos mentis" will deny, because, accurate information excludes the possibility of contradiction in authors willing to tell the truth, and much more in inspired authors, who must be incapable of writing anything but the truth.

The Christian, therefore, must, it seems to me, on account of these contradictions, allow one of two things; either, that the evangelists were fraudulent men, or else that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles and immediate followers of Jesus: because want of accurate information, cannot be supposed of the Apostles and immediate followers of Jesus; as having been constantly with him, from the beginning, to the end of his ministery, they must have been perfectly acquainted with his actions and doctrines. Neither can lapse of memory be urged; because the Gospels represent Jesus as saying, John ch. xvi. 26, that they should have the aid of inspiration, which "should, bring all things, to remembrance;" and in Acts ch. iv. 31, all the followers of Jesus are represented as having actually received the effusion of the Holy Ghost: of course want of accurate information, and lapse or memory in them cannot be supposed.

The Christian, therefore, must allow, since contradictions do exist, if he would avoid accusing the Apostles and disciples of Jesus of fraud, that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles and first followers of Jesus, but that they were written by men, who had no accurate information about the events they record. It is therefore plain, that the miracles recorded in the Gospels, are incapable of proof. For what Christian in his senses can ask another man to believe accounts of miracles, which accounts, he must at the same time allow, were written by fraudulent men, or by men who had no accurate information upon the subjects about which they write.

The edge of this, as I think, smites right through the neck of Mr. Everett's argument on which his work depends, and leaves his book—"a gasping head—-a quivering trunk." Sic transit gloria mundi.

But in order to make Mr. Everett still farther Sensible how easily his argument can be "overturned, overturned and overturned," I will suppose a reasonable and reasoning man, desirous to verify the claims of the books of the New Testament as containing a Revelation from God, to set down to scrutinize with anxious solicitude every argument of internal and external evidence, in favour of their authenticity, and authority, in the hope of becoming satisfied of the truth of their claims. But in the course of his examination, such a man will assuredly find, that almost every step in his inquiry, is an occasion of doubt and of difficulty.

Books containing Revelations from the Supreme, must be consistent with themselves. But he will observe on a careful perusal of the evangelists, that the contradictions, particularly in the narratives of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, are numerous; and that all the ingenuity of Christian writers, has been exhausted in vain in the attempt to reconcile them; for example, the Gospel called of Matthew says, ch. iii. 14, that John the Baptist, knew Jesus when he came to him to be baptised, (which was very probable on account of the relationship and intimacy subsisting between Mary the mother of Jesus, and: Elizabeth the mother of John, as mentioned in the Gospel called of Luke, ch. i. 18, it could hardly have been otherwise) but the author of the Gospel called of John says, ch. i. 31, that John knew him not, until he was designated by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him.

Again, it is said in the Gospel called of John, ch. ii. 14. that Jesus, on his first visit to Jerusalem after he had commenced his preaching, cast the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, whereas the Gospel called of Matthew, and also those called of Mark and Luke, represent this to have been done by Jesus at his last visit to Jerusalem. See Matt. ch. xxi. 12. Mark ch. xi. 15. Luke ch. xix. 45.

Again, the author of the Gospel called of John, represents the last supper or Jesus with his Apostles, to have taken place (See ch. xiii. 1. and ch. xviii. 28.) on the eve before the feast of the passover, and that Jesus was crucified on the feast day itself, while the authors of the other Gospels represent the first event to have taken place, on the evening of the passover itself, and that Jesus was crucified the day after. See Matt. Ch. xxvi. 18. Mark xiv. 12. Luke ch. xxii. 7. Now Matthew and John must, according to the Gospels themselves, have been present with Jesus when he drove the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, and at his last supper, and when he was seized in the garden of Gethsemane; they must therefore have known perfectly whether Jesus drove the buyers; and sellers out of the Temple, at his first visit to Jerusalem in their company; or at his last, and whether his last supper, and his seizure in the garden of Gethsemane took place on the eve before this passover their great national festival, or on the evening of the passover itself. They could not forget the time and place of events, so affecting and important as the last mentioned, and when we add to these considerations, that the Gospels represent Jesus as saying, (John ch. xiv.;26.) that they should be inspired by the Holy Spirit, which "should bring all things to remembrance," the supposition that the real Matthew and John could contradict each other in this manner, becomes quite inadmissable.

In the account of the resurrection of Jesus, the most important fact of Christianity, we also find several