transactions upon which the religion rested, and accounts which were
accordingly used, repeated, and relied upon,) this reception would be a
valid proof that these books, whoever were the authors of them, must
have accorded with what the apostles taught. A reception by the first
race of Christians, is evidence that they agreed with what the first
teachers of the religion delivered. In particular, if they had not
agreed with what the apostles themselves preached, how could they have
gained credit in churches and societies which the apostles
established?

Now the fact of their early existence, and not only of their existence,
but their reputation, is made out by some ancient testimonies which do
not happen to specify the names of the writers: add to which, what hath
been already hinted, that two out of the four Gospels contain averments
in the body of the history, which, though they do not disclose the
names, fix the time and situation of the authors, viz., that one was
written by an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ, the other by a
contemporary of the apostles. In the Gospel of St. John (xix. 35),
describing the crucifixion, with the particular circumstance of piercing
Christ's side with a spear, the historian adds, as for himself, "and he
that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he
saith true, that ye might believe." Again (xxi. 24), after relating a
conversation which passed between Peter and "the disciple," as it is
there expressed, "whom Jesus loved," it is added, "this is the disciple
which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things." This
testimony, let it be remarked, is not the less worthy of regard, because
it is, in one view, imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if a
fraudulent purpose had been intended, would have been done. The third of
our present Gospels purports to have been written by the person who
wrote the Acts of the Apostles; in which latter history, or rather