corrected at least after the attempt, by the greater number of the fame books, which were out of their reach, and remained ftill incorrupt. But befides all this, there were some circumstances, peculiar to the books of the New Teftament, which enfured the prefervation of them more effectually, than of any other ancient books whatsoever; the divinity of their character, and the religious regard, which was paid to them by all the fects and parties of Christians; and above all, the mutual jealoufies of thofe very parties, which were perpetually watching over each other, left any of them fhould corrupt the fources of that pure doctrine, which they all profeffed to teach and to deduce from the fame books-it was not in the power of any craft, to impose spurious pieces, in the room of those genuine ones, which were actually deposited in all churches, and preserved, with the utmost reverence, in the hands of fo many private Christians.”

After these preliminary observations, to justify, in fome measure, the liberty, that will be taken, of appealing to the Evangelical writings, as authentick hiftories of real fact, I proceed, in difcharge of the honourable province affigned me, to fhew that they con

tain

tain evidences of a divine atteftation to the Gospel, and begin with ftating the drift and substance of the argument, to be pursued in thefe difcourfes.

The defign is; to produce and illustrate, first, the prophetical teftimony of John the Baptift to the Gofpel, and its Author; and then, the principal prophecies of Christ himfelf; and to urge them jointly in support of the divine original of the Chriftian Religion.

This is the general scheme in view; the particular argument of each difcourfe will be stated, as it occurs ;-the fequel of this will be employed to fhew, firft, that the Jews really admitted the prophetical character of the Baptift; fecondly, that the evidence, upon which they admitted it, was only partial and prefumptive, the complete and decifive proof of it being entirely difregarded; and lastly, to point out from whence the true and conclufive evidence of his divine miffion arofe.

I. With respect to the general reception of John as a prophet, it may be observed, that 'Jewish historians attest his administration of baptifm, and appropriate to him that title, drawn from his office, by which he is dis

f Jofephus, and Jofeph ben Gorion, or Jofippon. See Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Teftimonies.

tinguished

tinguished in the Gofpels, and affign the reign of Herod Antipas, as the date, and the land of Judæa, as the scene, of his ministry, and further intimate that a multitude of Jews received his baptifm.

The testimony, given by Jofephus in particular, to the publick ministry and general veneration of the Baptift, will have the greater weight in behalf of the Gospel, which began in the baptism of John, from the agreement, fubfifting between the facred writers and him, in their account, not only of the ministry and extraordinary fuccefs of the Baptift, but also of other circumstances,refpecting the character and the objects of his baptifm, of which notice will be taken hereafter.

This historian informs us, that John had conciliated the affection and reverence of the people to fo great a degree, that his popularity alarmed the king; and that the destruction of his army was publickly reputed a just act of divine vengeance against him, for shedding the blood of John.

Agreeably to this account, we learn from the Gospels, that Herod, although he ventured to shut up John in prison, yet permitted his disciples to continue their intercourse with him, and for a long time, through fear of the

f Matth. xiv, 5.

the people and perfonal respect to the Baptist, forbore to deprive him of life, and, at last, gave him up with the greatest reluctance to the fanguinary malice of Herodias.

The great Council of the Jews, who affumed and exercised the right of examining and determining every claim to a prophetical commiffion, by a folemn deputation of Levites to the Baptift, enquired into the truth of his pretenfions. The turn of their queftions implies a persuasion in the messengers, that John was a real prophet; art thou Elias, or that prophet, or the Chrift? They did not enquire, whether God had fent him, but rather, in what divine character he came; and, they did not demand, " why baptizeft thou then," untill he had already disclaimed, one after another, the feveral divine charac-. ters, which they had imagined might belong to him. And after all, though his answer gave offence to the Council, yet they did not venture to condemn him as a false prophet. Indeed, the danger was great of difowning. his miffion from God, and depreciating his baptifm; "if we shall say, it was of men, all the people will ftone us, for they be perfuaded that John was a prophet," is the language held by themselves.

f Mark vi. 20.

8 Luke xx. 5, 6.

The

The principal circumstances, which can be drawn, either from the Scripture, or the account of Jofephus, have fufficient agreement, to fhew, that the character of the Baptift was generally believed prophetical. The latest of the two Jewish hiftorians exprefly calls him a prophet; and, whether this writer was a Jew in reality, or in pretence only, it feems to be equally certain, that he has given the true Jewish opinion concerning John. If he is esteemed a real Jew, then he ought also to be reckoned a credible judge and witness of the current notions of his countrymen; but, on the contrary, if it be fuppofed, that he perfonated a Jewish character, and that in a very late period, it may then be obferved, that the reception and credit of his history among the Jews, even in preference to that of Jofephus, fufficiently fhews, that they justify and authenticate the fubftance of his ftory.

This belief, of the infpiration of John, feems to have been generally entertained without any view to the Meffiah. For, 'in the Gospels, mention is made of disciples, that still adhered to, and vifited, the Baptist in the prifon, when Chrift was in the full exercife

f Jofippon is fupposed to have written about the eleventh century. Lardner, ubi fupra 8 Matth. ix. 14. xi. 2.

of