Matthew's and once more allowing for the sake of stating the argument,
that that Gospel was not the production of the author to whom we
ascribe it; yet still we have in St. Luke's Gospel a history given by a
writer immediately connected with the transaction with the witnesses of
it with the persons engaged in it, and composed from materials which
that person, thus situated, deemed to be safe source of intelligence; in
other words, whatever supposition be made concerning any or all the
other Gospels, if Saint Luke's Gospel be genuine, we have in it a
credible evidence of the point which we maintain. The Gospel according
to Saint John appears to be, and is on all hands allowed to be, an
independent testimony, strictly and properly so called. Notwithstanding
therefore, any connexion or supposed connexion, between one of the
Gospels, I again repeat what I before said, that if any one of the four
be genuine, we have, in that one, strong reason, from the character and
situation of the writer, to believe that we possess the accounts which
the original emissaries of the religion delivered.

Secondly: In treating of the written evidences of Christianity, next to
their separate, we are to consider their aggregate authority. Now, there
is in the evangelic history a cumulation of testimony which belongs
hardly to any other history, but which our habitual mode of reading the
Scriptures sometimes causes us to overlook. When a passage, in any wise
relating to the history of Christ is read to us out of the epistle of
Clemens Romanus, the epistles of Ignatius, of Polycap, or from any other
writing of that age, we are immediately sensible of the confirmation
which it affords to the Scripture account. Here is a new witness. Now,
if we had been accustomed to read the Gospel of Matthew alone, and had
known that of Luke only as the generality of Christians know the
writings of the apostolical fathers, that is, had known that such a
writing was extant and acknowledged; when we came, for the first time,