and who, rejecting the Christian religion on ac count of its miracles, have yet in the most solemn manner affirmed, that very signal miracles were wrought in their own behalf, and in confirmation of their own writings.* You see, then, the learned as well as ignorant may be credulous. To know which is truly so, must depend upon the nature of the evidence. If this be slight, secret, suspicious, in correspondence with beloved prejudices, humours, and affections, displayed before friends, or in support of a favourite cause, it comes in a questionable shape; and whoever gives an easy assent to such, whether philosopher or peasant, is the credulous man. On the other hand, if the evidence be public, notorious in the face of determined enemies, exhibited on various occasions to different people, and in opposition to all established opinions and authority, as well as to the dearest and most valued worldly interests of the persons concerned; the people, who acknowledged the force of such testimony, are the truly wise; the disputer of this world, who rejects it, is the miserable fool. Let not then such vague and general assertions of popular credulity weigh with you. Examine the matter honestly and calmly: compare the conduct of those pretended wise men, in their several contests with our Lord and his disciples, with that of the

* Lord Herbert of Cherbury.

4

people; the former are ever driven to silence, or confusion, or menaces, or force, or to something which disclaims all appearance of reason; while -the latter, following those lights which God hath given them, "seeing with their eyes, hearing with their ears, and understanding with their hearts, are converted and live." Be this, my brethren, our hope, our joy, our consolation, our praise.

When the council had heard the defence made by the Apostles, they were cut to the heart, and began to deliberate about putting them to death; which brings us to the memorable advice given on that occasion by Gamaliel, a man of great reputation, cminently skilled in the law; the same probably under whose discipline St. Paul was brought up before his conversion. The design of this sound reasoner was, to dissuade them from any such act of violence, by shewing that, whether the new religion was truth or imposture, in either case they could not wisely and safely resort to force: "Refrain from these men, says he, and let them alone; for if this counsel, or this work, be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." In support of his opinion, upon the first of these suppositions, he mentions the case of two impostors, who had some time before failed in similar attempts : " For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom

a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

It may possibly be objected to St. Luke, that he has mistaken the time of Theudas, who, according to Josephus, did not make his appearance till the reign of Claudius, some years after this speech of Gamaliel; whereas St. Luke places him before Judas, who was in the days of the taxing by Cyrenius; which was about the sixth or seventh year of the Christian æra. St. Luke's Theudas was therefore near forty years earlier than he whom Josephus mentions. But why may not there be two impostors of this name (which was a common one among the Jews) within that period; and both historians just and and accurate ? We read of four impostors, whose name was Simon; and three called Judas, within little greater compass of time. And what makes it most highly probable, that two different persons are intended by the different writers, is this: St. Luke mentions the number of men who followed Thendas, to be "about four hundred, who were scattered;" Josephus says of his Theudas, "that he persuaded a very great multitude to

1

follow him, many of whom were slain, and many taken prisoners." These accounts differ materially; so that we have the strongest reason to suppose they relate to different men. Josephus has certainly passed over more names, in his account of those times, than he has given; for he himself says, "At that time there were innumerable disturbances in Judea." What wonder, then, that he should not have particularly noticed an insurrection under the first Theudas, which was but inconsiderable, compared with many which followed after?

Gamaliel, in reasoning upon the supposition of imposture, confines himself to the argument taken from example, as being one of the most forcible and persuasive that can be imagined; for it is at once both proof and illustration. There are very few minds so intensely fixed upon truth and reason, as to be equally affected by what reaches them through the hearing, as by the sight; by abstract proofs, as by the presence of sensible objects bearing with them those proofs. But where violent prejudice and a rooted antipathy prevail (as in the present instance) the plainest demonstration in

words will fail of success. Had Gamaliel set about proving the moral certainty, that this work, if it were of men, would come to nought, arguing from the nature of man and the constitution of things; however just his reasoning might be, it yet had wanted force to rouse and awaken their attention. Whereas by exemplifying these things in the ruinous fate of similar attempts, which happened before the eyes of many who heard him, he brought the argument home to their understandings, and even appealed to their own experience for the wisdom and justness of his observation.

But, while we allow the efficacy of this method, we are not precluded from supporting it by the other mode of reasoning; particularly as it will serve to distinguish Christianity from other religions, which although manifestly the work of men, have notwithstanding prevailed through a large portion of the world, and for a considerable length of time. The religion of Mahomet is of this description, to which, if the judgment of Gamaliel be applied, it will not conclude. How then can it be justified? I answer, by shewing so marked a distinction between the primitive state and manner of propagating both religions, that what was perfectly true of one may not be so in any degree of the other. The religion of Mahomet was propagated completely by the sword, without venturing one appeal to miracles. It is true he pretended to miraculous visions and communications with Heaven; but these were all in privacy and retirement, far from the notice of mankind, carrying with them this infallible token of imposture-secrecy: as well as a multitude of others, in their gross and palpa