miracles, and the kind of miracles, which the apostles attributed to
Jesus. Although, for argument's sake, and only for argument's sake, we
should allow that this Gospel had been erroneously ascribed to Matthew;
yet, if the Gospel of St. John be genuine, the observation holds with no
less strength. Again, although the Gospels both of Matthew and John
could be supposed to be spurious, yet, if the Gospel of Saint Luke were
truly the composition of that person, or of any person, be his name what
it might, who was actually in the situation in which the author of that
Gospel professes himself to have been, or if the Gospel which bear the
name of Mark really proceeded from him; we still, even upon the lowest
supposition, possess the accounts of one writer at least, who was not
only contemporary with the apostles, but associated with them in their
ministry; which authority seems sufficient, when the question is simply
what it was which these apostles advanced.

I think it material to have this well noticed. The New Testament
contains a great number of distinct writings, the genuineness of any one
of which is almost sufficient to prove the truth of the religion: it
contains, however, four distinct histories, the genuineness of any one
of which is perfectly sufficient.

If, therefore, we must be considered as encountering the risk of error
in assigning the authors of our books, we are entitled to the advantage
of so many separate probabilities. And although it should appear that
some of the evangelists had seen and used each other's works, this
discovery, whist it subtracts indeed from their characters as
testimonies strictly independent, diminishes, I conceive, little either
their separate authority, (by which I mean the authority of any one that
is genuine,) or their mutual confirmation. For, let the most
disadvantageous supposition possible be made concerning them; let it be