The learned archdeacon deducts from this fact a strong argument in support of the truth of Christianity. In order to display his confidence in the strength of his argument, he says: "If the Reformers in the time of Wicliffe, or of Luther; or those of England, in the time of Henry the Eighth, or of Queen Mary; or the founders of our religious sects since, such as were Mr. Whitefield and Mr. Wesley in our times--had undergone the life of toil and exertion, of danger and suffering, which we know that many of them did undergo, for a miraculous story; that is to say, if they had founded their public ministry upon the allegation of miracles wrought within their knowledge, and upon narratives which could not be resolved into delusion or mistake; and if it had appeared that their conduct really had its origin in these accounts, _I should have believed them_." [1] Mr. Paley's argument is this: The early Christians came to the world with a miraculous story; their public ministry was founded upon the allegation of miracles wrought within their own knowledge, and upon narratives which could not be resolved into delusion or mistake; their conduct really had its origin in these miraculous accounts; and in support of their declarations they endured lives of toil, poverty, persecution, danger and suffering; and for these reasons Mr. Paley concludes that the religion they advocated "must be true." "These men," he says "could not be deceivers. By only _not_ bearing testimony they might have avoided all these sufferings and have lived quietly. Would men in such circumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert facts which they had no knowledge of; go about lying, to teach virtue; and though not only convinced of Christ's being an impostor, but having seen the success of his imposture in his crucifixion, yet persist in carrying it on; and so persist as to bring upon themselves, for nothing, and with a full knowledge of the consequences, enmity and hatred, danger and death?" [2]