:oo
;CD
TY
LIBRAP
i
SN ..-;.& Hi.i.. NO....
FRDM-THE- LIBRARY-OP
TR1NITYCOLLEGETORDNTO
&
.
THB
EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN REVELATION.
\i
Printed by Walker and Greig,
Edinburgh.
THE
EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY
OF THE
Christian &ebelatton*
BY
THOMAS CHALMERS, D.D,
ONE OF THE MINISTERS OF GLASGOW.
FOURTH EDITION.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM BLACKWOOD ; OLIPHANT, WAUGH
AND INNES ; AND WILLIAM WHYTE, EDINBURGH : AND
T. CADELL AND W. DA VIES ; LONGMAN, HURST, REES,
ORME, AND BROWN; AND J. HATCHARD, LONDON.
1817.
>X
3225
.'. a/iA
[ ^
! : r.'. '.T.'r.v JIGH
..ixnw a :A ; Eavi
-
ADVERTISEMENT.
[ I lr
THE contents of this volume form the
substance of the article CHRISTIANITY,
in the EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA.
Its appearance is due to the liberality of
the Proprietors of that Work nor did the
Author conceive the purpose of present
ing it to the world in another shape, till
he was permitted and advised by them
to republish it in a separate form. It is
chiefly confined to the exposition of the
historical argument for the truth of Chris
tianity ; and the aim of the Author is ful
filled if he has succeeded in proving the
external testimony to be so sufficient, as
U> leave infidelity without excuse, even
VI ADVERTISEMENT.
though the remaining important branches
of the Christian defence had been less
strong and satisfactory than they are.
" The works that I do in my Father's
name, they bear witness of me." " And
if I had not done the works among them
which none other man did, they had not
had sin."
J. V * I *4 f \ "*
The Author is far from asserting the
study of the historical evidence to be the
only channel to a faith in the truth of
Christianity. How could he, in the face
of the obvious fact, that there are thou
sands and thousands of Christians, who
bear the most undeniable marks of the
truth having come home to their under
standing " in demonstration of the Spirit
and of power?" They have an evidence
within themselves, which the world know-
eth not, even the promised manifestations
of the Saviour. This evidence is a " sign
to them that believe ;" but the Bible speaks
ADVERTISEMENT.
also of a " sign to them which believe not;"
and should it be effectual in reclaiming any
of these from their infidelity, a mighty
object is gained by the exhibition of it.
Should it not be effectual, it will be to
them, " a savour of death unto death ;"
and this is one of the very effects ascribed
to the proclamation of Christian truth in
the first ages. If, even in the face of that
kind of evidence, which they have a relish
and respect for, they still hold out against
the reception of the Gospel, this must
aggravate the weight of the threatening
which lies upon them; " How shall they
escape, if they neglect so great a salva
tion r
It will be a great satisfaction to the wri
ter of the following pages, if any shall rise
from the perusal of them, with a stronger
determination than before to take his Chris
tianity exclusively from his Bible. It is
not enough to entitle a man to the name
VU1 ADVERTISEMENT.
of a Christian, that he professes to believe
the Bible to be a genuine communication
from God. To be the disciple of any
book, he must do something more than
satisfy himself that its contents are true
he must read the book he must obtain
a knowledge of the contents. And how
many are there in the world who do not
call the truth of the Bible message in ques
tion, while they suffer it to lie beside them
unopened, unread, and unattended to !
odl'io fif$w 5i?r afir^i^.;
'oqrr *M ifonhv
.
T2> i> w<rilrtf til
'7/0 Hot. ar!) 'to 'i
no*] pilt me
i /hy/fr>fjh/ f > vfhn
CONTENTS.
i
CHAP. I. ; ftm>
On the Principles of Historical Evidence, and their
application to the Question of the Truth of Chris
tianity, Page 11
'
CHAP. II.
On the Authenticity of the different Books of the
New Testament, 46
CHAP. III.
On the Internal Marks of Truth and Honesty to be
found in the New Testament, 71
CHAP. IV.
On the Testimony of the Original Witnesses to the
Truth of the Gospel Narrative, ....... 101
CHAP. V.
On the Testimony of Subsequent Witnesses, . . . 117
CHAP. VI.
Remarks on the Argument from Prophecy, ... 177
CONTENTS.
CHAP. VII.
Remarks on the Scepticism of Geologists, . . Page 195
CHAP. VIII.
On the Internal Evidence, and the Objections of
Deistical Infidels, . . . .-, 206
CHAP. IX.
On the Way of proposing the Argument to Atheisti
cal Infidels, . ji.sbovi ukjii,)k.lJ.l^j;-j;v !-<! . 248
-aiiii'J 'lo JluiT QijJ lo tioiiujji) atfj ol aoljiiyiiuq*;
CHAP. X.
,^ine
On the Supreme Authority of Revelation, .... 259
JI /IAI13
ji.'.. ijiliib dtfl "Jo- ''ltdiifiaiflvA QJU . )
. .Ill .^lAH
li'lmT to
.VI .lAHO
drfl oJ aoaaon^iW lanighO oittlo vttemliiT aiicl fC)
. .' . ; . . . ' , t 9viJ^fM
1 ' A t>ill no ?;hf
EVIDENCES
OP
CHRISTIANITY,
CHAP. I.
On the Principles of Historical Evidence, and their
Application to the Question of the Truth of Chris
tianity*
WERE a verbal communication to come to us
from a person at a distance, there are two ways
in which we might try to satisfy ourselves, that
this was a true communication, and that there
was no imposition in the affair. We might
either sit in examination upon the substance of
the message, and then, from what we knew of
the person from whom it professed to come,
judge whether it was probable that such a mes
sage would be sent by him \ or we may sit in
12 PRINCIPLES OF
examination upon the credibility of the mes
sengers.
It is evident, that in carrying on the first
examination, we might be subject to very great
uncertainty. The professed author of the com
munication in question may live at such a dis
tance from us, that we may never have it in our
power to verify his message by any personal
conversation with him. We may be so far ig
norant of his character and designs, as to be
unqualified to judge of the kind of communi
cation that should proceed from him. To es
timate aright the probable authenticity of the
message from what we know of its author,
would require an acquaintance with his plans,
and views, and circumstances, of which we may
not be in possession. We may bring the great
est degree of sagacity to this investigation ; but
then the highest sagacity is of no avail, when
there is an insufficiency of data. Our inge
nuity may be unbounded ; but then we may
want the materials. The principle which we
assume may be untrue in itself, and therefore
may be fallacious in its application. [uo7i
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 15
Thus, we may derive very little light from
our first argument. But there is still a second
in reserve, the credibility of the messengers.
We may be no judges of the kind of commu
nication which is natural, or likely to proceed
from a person with whom we are but imperfect
ly acquainted ; but we may be very competent
judges of the degree of faith that is to be repos
ed in the bearers of that communication. We
may know and appreciate the natural signs of
veracity. There is a tone and a manner cha
racteristic of honesty, which may be both in
telligible and convincing. There may be a
concurrence of several messengers. There may
be their substantial agreement. There may be
the total want of any thing like conceit or col
lusion among them. There may be their deter
mined and unanimous perseverance, in spite of
all the incredulity and all the opposition which
they meet with. The subject of the communi
cation may be most unpalatable to us ; and we
may be so unreasonable, as to wreak our un
pleasant feelings upon the bearers of it. In this
way, they may not only have no earthly interest
to deceive us, but have the strongest induce-
. 14 PRINCIPLES OF
ment possible to abstain from insisting upon
that message which they were charged to deli
ver. Last of all, as the conclusive seal of their
authenticity, they may all agree in giving us a
watchword, which we previously knew could
be given by none but their master ; and which
none but his messengers could ever obtain the
possession of. In this way, unfruitful as all
our efforts may have been upon the first subject
of examination, we may derive from the second
the most decisive evidence, that the message
in question is a real message, and was actually
transmitted to us by its professed author.
Now, this consideration applies in all its parts
to a message from God. The argument for the
truth of this message resolves itself into the
same two topics of examination. We may sit
in judgment upon the subject of the message ;
or we may sit in judgment upon the credibility
of its bearers.
The first forms a great part of that argument
for the truth of the Christian religion, which
comes under the head of its internal evidences.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 15
The substance of the message is neither more
nor less, than that particular scheme of the
divine economy which is revealed to us in the
New Testament ; and the point of inquiry is,
Whether this scheme be consistent with that
knowledge of God and his attributes which we
are previously in possession of?
.
It appears to many, that no effectual argu
ment can be founded upon this consideration,
because they do not count themselves enough
acquainted with the designs or character of the
being from whom the message professes to have
come. Were the author of the message some
distant and unknown individual of our own
species, we would scarcely be entitled to found
an argument upon any comparison of ours, be
twixt the import of the message and the charac
ter of the individual, even though we had our
general experience of human nature to help us
in the speculation. Now, of the invisible God,
we have no experience whatever. We are still
further removed from all direct and personal
observation of him or of his counsels. Whether
we think of the eternity of his government, or
16 PRINCIPLES OF
the mighty range of its influence over the wide
departments of nature and of providence, he
stands at such a distance from us, as to make
the management of his empire a subject inac
cessible to all our faculties.
/~-JvrJ'.*/rt't. r
It is evident, however, that this does not ap
ply to the second topic of examination. The
bearers of the message were beings like our
selves ; and we can apply our safe and certain
experience of man to their conduct and their
testimony. We may know too little of God,
to found any argument upon the coincidence
which we conceive to exist between the subject
of the message and our previous conceptions of
its author. But we may know enough of man
to pronounce upon the credibility of the mes
sengers. Had they the manner and physiog
nomy of honest men? Was their testimony
resisted, and did they persevere in it? Had
they any interest in fabricating the message j
or did they sutler in consequence of this perse
verance ? Did they suffer to such a degree, as
to constitute a satisfying pledge of their inte
grity ? Was there more than one messenger,
'24
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 17
and did they agree as to the substance oY that
communication which they made to the world?
Did they exhibit any special mark of their of
fice as the messengers of God ; such a mark as
none but God could give, and none but his ap
proved messengers could obtain the possession
of? Was this mark the power of working mi
racles; and were these miracles so obviously
addressed to the senses, as to leave no suspicion
of deceit behind them ? These are questions
which we feel our competency to take up, and
to decide upon. They lie within the legitimate
boundaries of human observation ; and upon
the solution of these do we rest the question of
the truth of the Christian religion.
This, then, is the state of the question with
those to whom the message was originally ad
dressed. They had personal access to the mes
sengers; and the evidences of their veracity
lay before them. They were the eye and ear-
witnesses of those facts, which occurred at the
commencement of the Christian religion, and
upon which its credibility rests. What met
their observation must have been enough to
B
18 PRINCIPLES OF
satisfy them; but we live at the distance of
nearly 2000 years, and is there enough to sa
tisfy us? Those facts, which constitute the
evidence for Christianity, might have been cre
dible and convincing to them, if they really
saw them ; but is there any way by which they
can be rendered credible and convincing to
us, who only read of them? What is the ex
pedient by which the knowledge and belief of
the men of other times can be transmitted to
posterity ? Can we distinguish between a cor
rupt and a faithful transmission? Have we
evidence before us, by which we can ascertain
what was the belief of those to whom the mes
sage was first communicated? And can the
belief which existed in their minds be derived
to ours, by our sitting in judgment upon the
reasons which produced it ?
The surest way in which the belief and
knowledge of the men of former ages can be
transmitted to their descendants, is through
the medium of written testimony ; and it is
fortunate for us, that the records *of the Chris
tian religion are not the only historical docu-
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 19
ments which have come down to us. A great
variety of information has come down to us in
this way ; and a great part of that information
is as firmly believed, and as confidently pro
ceeded upon, as if the thing narrated had hap
pened within the limits of our eye-sight. No
man doubts the invasion of Britain by Julius
Caesar ; and no man doubts, therefore, that a
conviction of the truth of past events may be
fairly produced in the mind by the instrumen
tality of a written memorial. This is the kind
of evidence which is chiefly appealed to for the
truth of ancient history ; and it is counted
satisfying evidence for all that part of it which
is received and depended upon.
In laying before the reader, then, the evi
dence for the truth of Christianity, we do not
call his mind to any singular or unprecedented
exercise of its faculties. We call him to pro
nounce upon the credibility of written docu
ments, which profess to have been published
at a certain age, and by certain authors. The
inquiry involves in it no principle which is not
appealed to every day in questions of ordinary
20 PRINCIPLES OF
criticism. To sit in judgment on the credibi
lity of a written document, is a frequent and
familiar exercise of the understanding with lite
rary men. It is fortunate for the human mind,
when so interesting a question as its religious
faith can be placed under the tribunal of such
evidence as it is competent to pronounce upon.
It was fortunate for those to whom Christianity
(a professed communication from heaven) was
first addressed, that they could decide upon
the genuineness of the communication by such
familiar and every-day principles, as the marks
of truth or falsehood in the human bearers of
that communication. And it is fortunate for
us, that when, after that communication has
assumed the form of a historical document, we
can pronounce upon the degree of credit which
should be attached to it, by the very same ex
ercise of mind which we so confidently engage
in, when sitting in examination upon the other
historical documents that have come down to
us from antiquity.
If two historical documents possess equal
degrees of evidence, they should produce equal
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 21
degrees of conviction. But if the object of the
one be to establish some fact connected with
our religious faith, while the object of the other
is to establish some fact, about which we feel
no other interest, than that general curiosity
which is gratified by the solution of any ques
tion in literature, this difference in the object
produces a difference of effect in the feelings
and tendencies of the mind. It is impossible
for the mind, while it inquires into the evi
dence of a Christian document, to abstain from
all reference to the important conclusion of the
inquiry. And this will necessarily mingle its
influence with the arguments which engage its
attention. It may be of importance to attend
to the peculiar feelings which are thus given
to the investigation, and in how far they have
affected the impression of the Christian argu
ment.
We know it to be the opinion of some, that
in this way an undue advantage has been given
to that argument. Instead of a pure question
of truth, it has been made a question of senti
ment, and the wishes of the heart have mingled
g PRINCIPLES OF
with the exercises of the understanding. There
is a class of men who may feel disposed to over
rate its evidences, because they are anxious to
give every support and stability to a system,
which they conceive to be most intimately con
nected with the dearest hopes and wishes of
humanity ; because their imagination is carried
away by the sublimity of its doctrines, or their
heart engaged by that amiable morality which
is so much calculated to improve and adorn
the face of society.
Now, we are ready to admit, that as the ob
ject of the inquiry is not the character, but the
truth of Christianity, the philosopher should
be careful to protect his mind from the delu
sion of its charms. He should separate the
exercises of the understanding from the ten
dencies of the fancy or of the heart. He should
be prepared to follow the light of evidence,
though it may lead him to conclusions the most
painful and melancholy. He should train his
mind to all the hardihood of abstract and un
feeling intelligence. He should give up every
thing to the supremacy of argument, and be
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 23
able to renounce, without a sigh, all the ten-
derest prepossessions of infancy, the moment
that truth demands of him the sacrifice. Let
it be remembered, however, that while one
species of prejudice operates in favour of Chris
tianity, another prejudice operates against it.
There is a class of men who are repelled from
the investigation of its evidences, because in
their minds Christianity is allied with the weak
ness of superstition ; and they feel that they
are descending, when they bring down their
attention to a subject which engrosses so much
respect and admiration from the vulgar.
It appears to us, that the peculiar feeling
which the sacredness of the subject gives to
the inquirer, is, upon the whole, unfavourable
to the impression of the Christian argument.
Had the subject not been sacred, and had the
same testimony been given to the facts that
are connected with it, we are satisfied, that
the history of Jesus in the NW Testament
would have been looked upon as the best sup
ported by evidence of any history that has
come down to us. It would assist us in appre-
2^ PRINCIPLES OF
elating the evidence for the truth of the Gospel
history, if we could conceive for a moment,
that Jesus, instead of being the founder of a
new religion, had been merely the founder of
a new school of philosophy, and that the dif
ferent histories which have come down to us
had merely represented him as an extraordi
nary person, who had rendered himself illus
trious among his countrymen by the wisdom of
his sayings, and the beneficence of his actions.
We venture to say, that had this been the case,
a tenth part of the testimony which has actually
been given, would have been enough to satisfy
us. Had it been a question of mere erudition,
where neither a predilection in favour of a reli
gion, nor an antipathy against it, could have
impressed a bias in any one direction, the tes
timony, both in weight and in quantity, would
have been looked upon as quite unexampled
in the whole compass of ancient literature.
.fc
To form a fair estimate of the strength and
decisiveness of the Christian argument, we
should, if possible, divest ourselves of all refe
rence to religion, and view the truth of the
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 5
Gospel history, purely as a question of erudi
tion. If at the outset of the investigation we>
have a prejudice against the Christian religion,
the effect is obvious ; and without any refine
ment of explanation, we see at once how such
a prejudice must dispose us to annex suspicion
and distrust to the testimony of the Christian
writers. But even when the prejudice is on
the side of Christianity, the effect is unfavour
able on a mind that is at all scrupulous about
the rectitude of its opinions. In these circum
stances, the mind gets suspicious of itself. It
feels a predilection, and becomes apprehensive
lest this predilection may have disposed it to
cherish a particular conclusion, independently
of the evidences by which it is supported.
Were it a mere speculative question, in which
the interests of man, and the attachments of
his heart, had no share, he would feel greater
confidence in the result of his investigation.
But it is difficult to separate the moral impres
sions of piety, and it is no less difficult to cal
culate their precise influence on the exercises
of the understanding. In the complex senti
ment of attachment and conviction, which he
6 PRINCIPLES OF
annexes to the Christian religion, he finds it
difficult to say, how much is due to the ten
dencies of the heart, and how much is due to
the pure and unmingled influence of argument.
His very anxiety for the truth, disposes him to
overrate the circumstances which give a bias
to his understanding, and through the whole
process of the inquiry, he feels a suspicion and
an embarrassment, which he would not have
felt, had it been a question of ordinary erudi
tion. ,811
The same suspicion which he attaches to
himself, he will be ready to attach to all whom
he conceives to be in similar circumstances.
Now, every author who writes in defence of
Christianity is supposed to be a Christian ; and
this, in spite of every argument to the contrary,
has the actual effect of weakening the impres
sion of his testimony. This suspicion affects,
in a more remarkable degree, the testimony of
the first writers on the side of Christianity. In
opposition to it, you have, no doubt, to allege
the circumstances under which the testimony
was given ; the tone of sincerity which runs
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 27
through the performance of the author ; the
concurrence of other testimonies ; the persecu
tions which were sustained in adhering to them,
and which can be accounted for on no other
principle, than the power of conscience and
conviction ; and the utter impossibility of im
posing a false testimony on the world, had they
even been disposed to do it. Still there is a
lurking suspicion, which often survives all this
strength of argument, and which it is difficult
to get rid of, even after it has been demon
strated to be completely unreasonable. He is
a Christian. He is one of the party. Am I
an infidel ? I persist in distrusting the testi
mony. Am I a Christian ? I rejoice in the
strength of it ; but this very joy becomes mat
ter of suspicion to a scrupulous inquirer. He
feels something more than the concurrence of
his belief in the testimony of the writer. He
catches the infection of his piety and his moral
sentiments. In addition to the acquiescence
of the understanding, there is a con amore feel
ing, both in himself and in his author, which
he had rather been without, because he finds
it difficult to compute the precise amount of
28 PRINCIPLES OF
its influence ; and the consideration of this re-
strains him from that clear and decided con
clusion, which he would infallibly have landed
in had it been purely a secular investigation.
There is something in the very sacredness of
the subject, which intimidates the understand
ing, and restrains it from making the same firm
and confident application of its faculties, which
it would have felt itself perfectly warranted to
do, had it been a question of ordinary history.
Had the apostles been the disciples of some
eminent philosopher, and the fathers of the
church their immediate successors in the office
of presiding over the discipline and instruction
of the numerous schools which they had esta
blished, this would have given a secular com
plexion to the argument, which we think would
have been more satisfying to the mind, and
have impressed upon it a closer and more fami
liar conviction of the history in question. We
should have immediately brought it into com
parison with the history of other philosophers,
and could not have failed to recognize, that,
in minuteness of information, in weight and
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 29
quantity of evidence, in the concurrence of
numerous and independent testimonies, and in
the total absence of every circumstance that
should dispose us to annex suspicion to the
account which lay before us, it far surpassed
any thing that had come down to us from an
tiquity. It so happens, however, that instead
of being the history of a philosopher, it is the
history of a prophet. The veneration we an
nex to the sacredness of such a character,
mingles with our belief in the truth of his his
tory. From a question of simple truth, it be
comes a question in which the heart is interest
ed ; and the subject from that moment assumes
a certain holiness and mystery, which veils the
strength of the argument, and takes off from
that familiar and intimate conviction which we
annex to the far less authenticated histories of
profane authors*
It may be further observed, that every part
of the Christian argument has been made to
undergo a most severe scrutiny. The same
degree of evidence which, in questions of ordi
nary history, commands the easy and universal
30 PRINCIPLES O*'
acquiescence of every inquirer, has, in the sub
ject before us, been taken most thoroughly to
pieces, and pursued, both by friends and ene
mies, into all its ramifications. The effect of
this is unquestionable. The genuineness and
authenticity of the profane historian are ad
mitted upon much inferior evidence to what
we can adduce for the different pieces which
make up the New Testament : And why ? Be
cause the evidence has been hitherto thought
sufficient, and the genuineness and authenticity
have never been questioned. Not so with the
Gospel history. Though its evidence is pre
cisely the same in kind, and vastly superior in
degree to the evidence for the history of the
profane writer, its evidence has been question
ed, and the very circumstance of its being ques
tioned has annexed a suspicion to it. At all
points of the question, there has been a struggle
and a controversy. Every ignorant objection,
and every rash and petulant observation, has
been taken up and commented upon by the de
fenders of Christianity. There has at last been
<so much said about it, that a general feeling of
insecurity is apt to accompany the whole inves-
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 31
tigation. There has been so much fighting,
that Christianity is now looked upon as de-
bateable ground. Other books, where the evi
dence is much inferior, but which have had the
advantage of never being questioned, are re
ceived as of established authority. It is strik
ing to observe the perfect confidence with
which an infidel will quote a passage from an
ancient historian. He perhaps does not over
rate the credit due to him. But present him
with a tabellated and comparative view of all
the evidences that can be adduced for the
Gospel of Matthew, and any profane historian
whom he chooses to fix upon, and let each dis
tinct evidence be discussed upon no other prin
ciple than the ordinary and approved principles
of criticism, we assure him that the sacred his
tory would far outweigh the profane in the
number and value of its testimonies.
In illustration of the above remarks, we can
refer to the experience of those who have at
tended to this examination. We ask them to
recollect the satisfaction which they felt, when
they came to those parts of the examination,
13
32 .3 PRINCIPLES OF
where the argument assumes a secular com
plexion. Let us take the testimony of Tacitus
for an example. He asserts the execution of
our Saviour in the reign of Tiberius, and under
the procuratorship of Pilate; the temporary
check which this gave to his religion ; its re
vival, and the progress it had made, not only
over Judea, but to the city of Rome. Now all
this is attested in the Annals of Tacitus. But
it is also attested in a far more direct and cir
cumstantial manner in the annals of another
author, in a book entitled the History of the
Acts of the Apostles by the Evangelist Luke.
Both of these performances carry on the very
face of them the appearance of unsuspicious
and well-authenticated documents. But there
are several circumstances, in which the testi
mony of Luke possesses a decided advantage
over the testimony of Tacitus. He was the
companion of these very apostles. He was an
eye-witness to many of the events recorded by
him. He hai the advantage over the Roman
historian in time and in place, and in personal
knowledge of many of the circumstances in his
history. The genuineness of his publication,
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 33
too, and the time of its appearance, are far bet
ter established, and by precisely that kind o
argument which is held decisive in every other
question of erudition. Besides all this^ we
have the testimony of at least five of the Chris
tian fathers, all of whom had the same, or a
greater,, advantage in point of time than Taci~
tus, and who had a much nearer and readier
access to original sources of information. Now,
how comes it that the testimony of Tacitus, a
distant and later historian,, should yield such
delight and satisfaction to the inquirer, while
all the antecedent testimony (which, by every
principle of approved criticism, is much strong
er than the other) should produce an impression
that is comparatively languid and ineffectual?
It is owing, in a great measure, to the principle
to which we have already alluded. There is a
sacredness annexed to the subject, so long as it
is under the pen of fathers and evangelists, and
this very sacredness takes away from the free
dom and confidence of the argument. The
moment that it is taken up by a profane author,
the spell which held the understanding in some
degree of restraint is dissipated. We now tread
c
3-4 PRINCIPLES OF
on the more familiar ground of ordinary his
tory ; and the evidence for the truth of the
Gospel appears more assimilated to that evi
dence, which brings home to our conviction
the particulars of the Greek and Roman story.
"
To say that Tacitus was upon this subject a
disinterested historian, is not enough to explain
the preference which you give to his testimony.
There is no subject in which the triumph of the
Christian argument is more conspicuous, than
the moral qualifications which give credit to the
testimony of its witnesses. We have every pos
sible evidence, that there could be neither mis
take nor falsehood in their testimony ; a much
greater quantity of evidence, indeed, than can
actually be produced to establish the credibility
of any other historian. Now all we ask is, that
where an exception to the veracity of any his
torian is removed, you restore him to that de
gree of credit and influence which he ought to
have possessed, had no such exception been
made. In no case has an exception to the cre
dibility of an author been more triumphantly
removed, than in the case of the early Christian
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 35
writers j and yet, as a proof that there really
exists some such delusion as we have been la
bouring to demonstrate^ though our eyes are
perfectly open to the integrity of the Christian
witnesses, there is still a disposition to give the
preference to the secular historian. When Ta
citus is placed by the side of the evangelist
Luke, even after the decisive argument which
establishes the credit of the latter historian has
convinced the understanding, there remains a
tendency in the mind to annex a confidence ta
the account of the Roman writer, which is alto
gether disproportioned to the relative merits of
his testimony.
Let us suppose, for the sake of farther illus
tration, that Tacitus had included some more
particulars in his testimony, and that, in addi
tion to the execution of our Saviour,, he had
asserted, in round and unqualified terms> that
this said Christus had risen from the dead, and
was seen alive by some hundreds of his ac
quaintances. Even this would not have silenc
ed altogether the cavils of enemies, but it would
have reclaimed many an infidel j- been exulted
36 PRINCIPLES OP
in by many a sincere Christian ; and made to
occupy a foremost place in many a book upon
the evidences of our religion. Are we to for
get all the while, that we are in actual posses
sion of much stronger testimony ? that we have
the concurrence of eight or ten contemporary
authors, most of whom had actually seen Christ
after the great event of his resurrection ? that
the veracity of these authors, and the genuine
ness of their respective publications, are esta
blished on grounds much stronger than have
ever been alleged in behalf of Tacitus * or any
ancient author ? Whence this unaccountable
preference of Tacitus ? Upon every received
principle of criticism, we are bound to annex
greater confidence to the testimony of the apos-
tles It is vain to recur to the imputation of
its being an interested testimony. This the
apologists for Christianity undertake to dis
prove, and actually have disproved it, and that
by a much greater quantity of evidence than
would be held perfectly decisive in a question
of common history. If after this there should
remain any lurking sentiment of diffidence or
suspicion, it is entirely resolvable into some
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. $7
such principle as I have already alluded to.
It is to be treated as a mere feeling, a delu
sion which should not be admitted to have any
influence on the convictions of the understand
ing,
The principle which we have been attempt
ing to expose, is found, in fact, to run through
every part of the argument, and to accompany
the inquirer through all the branches of the in
vestigation. The authenticity of the different
books of the New Testament forms a very im
portant inquiry, wherein the object of the Chris
tian apologist is to prove, that they were really
written by their professed authors. In proof
of this, there is an uninterrupted series of testi
mony from the days of the apostles ; and it was
not to be expected, that a point so isoteric to
the Christian society could have attracted the
attention of profane authors, till the religion of
Jesus, by its progress in the world, had render
ed itself conspicuous. It is not then till about
eighty years after the publication of the diffe
rent pieces, that we meet with the testimony
of Celsus, an avowed enemy to Christianity,
38 PRINCIPLES OF
and who asserts, upon the strength of its gene
ral notoriety, that the historical parts of the
New Testament were written by the disciples
of our Saviour. This is very decisive evidence.
But how does it happen, that it should throw a
clearer gleam of light and satisfaction over the
mind of the inquirer, than he had yet experi
enced in the whole train of his investigation ?
Whence that disposition to underrate the an
tecedent testimony of the Christian writers?
Talk not of theirs being an interested testimo
ny ; for, in point of fact, the same disposition
operates, after reason is convinced that the sus
picion is totally unfounded. What we contend
for is, that this indifference to the testimony of
the Christian writers implies a dereliction of
principles, which we apply with the utmost
confidence to all similar inquiries.
The effects of this same principle are perfect
ly discernible in the writings of even our most
judicious apologists. We offer no reflection
against the assiduous Lardner, who, in his cre
dibility of the Gospel history, presents us with
a collection of testimonies which should make
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE.
every Christian proud of his religion. In his
evidence for the authenticity of the different
pieces which make up the New Testament, he
begins with the oldest of the fathers, some of
whom were the intimate companions of the ori
ginal writers. According to our view of the
matter, he should have dated the commence
ment of his argument from a higher point, and
begun with the testimonies of these original
writers to one another. In the second Epistle
of Peter, there is a distinct reference made to
the writings of Paul ; and in the Acts of the
Apostles, there is a reference made to one of
the four Gospels. Had Peter, instead of being
an apostle, ranked only with the fathers of the
church, and had his epistle not been admitted
into the canon of scripture, this testimony of
his would have had a place iu the catalogue,
and been counted peculiarly valuable, both for
its precision and its antiquity. There is cer
tainly nothing in the estimation he enjoyed, or
in the circumstances of his epistle being bound
up with the other books of the New Testament,
which ought to impair the credit of his testi
mony. But in effect, his testimony does make
40 PRINCIPLES OF
a weaker impression on the mind, than a simi
lar testimony from Barnabas, or Clement, or
Polycarp. It certainly ought not to do it, and
there is a delusion in the preference that is thus
given to the latter writers. It is, in fact, ano
ther example of the principle which we have
been so often insisting upon. What profane
authors are in reference to Christian authors at
large, the fathers of the church are in reference
to the original writers of the New Testament.
In contradiction to every approved principle,
we prefer the distant and the later testimony,
to the testimony of writers, who carry as much
evidence and legitimate authority along with
them, and who only differ from others in being
nearer the original sources of information. We
neglect and undervalue the evidence which the
New Testament itself furnishes, and rest the
whole of the argument upon the external and
superinduced testimony of subsequent authors.
A great deal of all this is owing to the man
ner in which the defence of Christianity has
been conducted by its friends and supporters.
They have given too much into the suspicions
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 41
of the opposite party. They have yielded
their minds to the infection of their scepti
cism, and maintained, through the whole pro
cess, a caution and a delicacy which they often
carry to a degree that is excessive ; and by
which, in fact, they have done injustice to their
own arguments. Some of them begin with the
testimony of Tacitus as a first principle, and
pursue the investigation upwards, as if the evi
dence that we collect from the annals of the
Roman historian were stronger than that of
the Christian writers who flourished nearer the
scene of the investigation, and whose credibi
lity can be established on grounds which are
altogether independent of his testimony. In
this way, they come at last to the credibility
of the New Testament writers, but by a length,
ened and circuitous procedure. The reader
feels as if the argument were diluted at every
step in the process of derivation, and his faith
in the Gospel history is much weaker than his
faith in histories that are far less authenticated.
Bring Tacitus and the New Testament to an
immediate comparison, and subject them both
to the touchstone of ordinary and received
42 PRINCIPLES OF
principles, and it will be found that the latter
leaves the former out of sight in all the marks,
and characters, and evidences of an authentic
history. The truth of the Gospel stands on a
much firmer and more independent footing,
than many of its defenders would dare to give
us any conception of. They want that boldness
of argument which the merits of the question
entitle them to assume. They ought to main
tain a more decided front to their adversaries,
and tell them, that, in the New Testament it
self in the concurrence of its numerous, and
-distant, and independent authors in the un-
contradicted authority which it has maintained
from the earliest times of the church in the
total inability of the bitterest adversaries of our
religion to impeach its credibility in the ge
nuine characters of honesty and fairness which
it carries on the very face of it ; that in these,
and in every thing else, which can give validi
ty to the written history of past times, there is
a weight and a splendour of evidence, which
the testimony of Tacitus cannot confirm, and
which the absence of that testimony could not
iiave diminished.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 43
If it were necessary, in a court of justice, to
ascertain the circumstances of a certain tran
saction which happened in a particular neigh
bourhood, the obvious expedient would be to
examine the agents and the eye-witnesses of
that transaction. If six or eight concurred in
giving the same testimony if there was no
appearance of collusion amongst them if they
had the manner and aspect of creditable men
above all, if this testimony were made public,
and not a single individual, from the nume
rous spectators of the transaction alluded to,
stept forward to falsify it, then, we apprehend,
the proof would be looked upon as complete.
Other witnesses might be summoned from a
distance to give in their testimony, not of what
they saw, but of what they heard upon the sub
ject ; but their concurrence, though a happy
enough circumstance, would never be looked
upon as any material addition to the evidence
already brought forward. Another court of
justice might be held in a distant country, and
years after the death of the original witnesses.
It might have occasion to verify the same tran
saction, and for this purpose might call in the
44 PRINCIPLES OF
only evidence which it was capable of collect
ing the testimony of men who lived after the
transaction in question, and at a great distance
from the place where it happened. There
would be no hesitation, in ordinary cases,
about the relative value of the two testimo
nies ; and the record of the first court could
be appealed to by posterity as by far the more
valuable document, and far more decisive of
the point in controversy. Now, what we com
plain of is, that in the instance before us this
principle is reversed. The report of hearsay
witnesses is held in higher estimation than the
report of the original agents and spectators.
The most implicit credit is given to the testi
mony of the distant and later historians, and
the testimony of the original witnesses is re
ceived with as much distrust as if they car
ried the marks of villany and imposture upon
their foreheads. The genuineness of the first
record can be established by a much greater
weight and variety of evidence, than the ge
nuineness of the second. Yet all the suspicion
that we feel upon this subject annexes to the
former 5 and the apostles and evangelists, with
every evidence in their favour which it is in
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, 45
the power of testimony to furnish, are, in fact,
degraded from the place which they ought to
occupy among the accredited historians of
past times.
The above observations may help to prepare
the inquirer for forming a just and impartial
estimate of the merits of the Christian testi
mony. His great object should be to guard
against every bias of the understanding. The
general idea is, that a predilection in favour of
Christianity may lead him to overrate the ar
gument. We believe, that if every unfair ten
dency of the mind could be subjected to a ri*
gorous computation, it would be found, that
the combined operation of them all ha& the
effect of impressing a bias in a contrary direc
tion. All we wish for is, that the arguments
which are held decisive in other historical ques
tions, should not be looked upon as nugatory
when applied to the investigation of those facts
which are connected with the truth and esta
blishment of the Christian religion ; that every
prepossession should be swept away, and room
left for the understanding, to expatiate with
out fear, and without encumbrance.
' ;a ->"!.* jLjiif-'ii o^ ^;vi.i3:3" ^ 'j
L-- o>& fcio-u i ',.
ml ' $&o^ ' ;[r;^3O
CHAP. II.
On the Authenticity of the different Books of the
New Testament.
THE argument for the truth of the different
facts recorded in the Gospel history, resolves
itself into four parts. In the first, it shall be
our object to prove, that the different pieces
which make up the New Testament; were
written by the authors whose names they bear,
and the age which is commonly assigned to
them. In the second, we shall exhibit the in
ternal marks of truth and honesty, which may
be gathered from the compositions themselves.
In the third, we shall press upon the reader
the known situation and history of the authors,
as satisfying proofs of the veracity with which
they delivered themselves. And, in the fourth,
ipve shall lay before them the additional and
subsequent testimonies, by which the narra
tive of the original writers is supported.
AUTHENTICITY, &C. 4/7
In every point of the investigation, we shall
meet with examples of the principle which we
have already alluded to. We have said, that
i two distinct inquiries be set on foot, where
the object of the one is to settle some point of
sacred history, and the object of the other is to
settle some point of profane history 5 the mind
acquiesces in a much smaller quantity of evi
dence in the latter case than it does in the for
mer. If this be right, (and to a certain de
gree it undoubtedly is,} then it is incumbent on
the defender of Christianity to bring forward
a greater quantity of evidence than would be
deemed sufficient in a question of common
literature, and to demand the acquiescence of
his reader upon the strength of this superior
evidence. If it be not right beyond a certain
degree and if there be a tendency in the mind
to carry it beyond that degree, then this ten
dency is founded upon a delusion, and it is well
that the reader should be apprized of its exis
tence, that he may protect himself from its in
fluence. The superior quantity of evidence
which we can bring forward, will, in this case,
all go to augment the positive effect upon his
15
48 AUTHENTICITY OF
convictions j and he will rejoice to perceive,
that he is far safer in believing what has been
handed down to him of the history of Jesus
Christ, and the doctrine of his apostles, than in
believing what he has never doubted the his
tory of Alexander, and the doctrine of So
crates. Could all the marks of veracity* and
the list of subsequent testimonies, be exhibited
to the eye of the reader in parallel columns, it
would enable him, at one glance, to form a
complete estimate. We shall have occasion to
call his attention to this so often, that we may
appear to many of our readers to have expati
ated upon our introductory principle to a de
gree that is tiresome and unnecessary. We
conceive, however, that it is the best and most
perspicuous way of putting the argument.
-
I. The different pieces which make up the
New Testament, were written by the authors
whose names they bear, and at the time which
is commonly assigned to them.
i _0 T :/S Ol'T '.-' .Q'Ji <
After the long slumber of the middle ages,
the curiosity of the human mind was awaken-
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49
ed, and felt its attention powerfully directed to
those old writings, which have survived the
waste of so many centuries. It were a curious
speculation to ascertain the precise quantity of
evidence which lay in the information of these
old documents. And it may help us in our
estimate, first to suppose, that in the researches
of that period, there was only one composition
found which professed to be a narrative of past
times. A number of circumstances can be
assigned, which might give a certain degree of
probability to the information even of this soli
tary and unsupported document. There is,
first, the general consideration, that the prin
ciple upon which a man feels himself induced
to write a true history, is of more frequent and
powerful operation, than the principle upon
which a man feels himself induced to offer a
false or a disguised representation of facts to
the world. This affords a general probability
on the side of the document in question being
a true narrative ; and there may be some par
ticulars connected with the appearance of the
performance itself, which might strengthen
this probability. We may not be able to dis-
D
50 AUTHENTICITY OF
cover in the story itself any inducement which
the man could have in publishing it, if it were
mainly and substantially false. We might see
an expression of honesty, which it is in the
power of written language, as well as of spo
ken language, to convey. We might see that
there was nothing monstrous or improbable in
the narrative itself. And, without enumerat
ing every particular calculated to give it the
impression of truth, we may, in the progress of
our inquiries, have ascertained, that copies of
this manuscript were to be found in many pla
ces, and in different parts of the world, prov
ing, by the evidence of its diffusion, the gene
ral esteem in which it was held by the readers
of past ages. This gives us the testimony of
these readers to the value of the performance ;
and as we are supposing it. a history, and not a
work of imagination, it could only be valued
on the principle of the information which was
laid before them being true. In this way, a
solitary document, transmitted to us from a
remote antiquity, might gain credit in the
world, though it had been lost sight of for
many ages, and only brought to light by the
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51
revival of a literary spirit, which had lain dor
mant during a long period of history.
We can farther suppose, that, in the pro
gress of these researches, another manuscript
was discovered, having the same characters,
and possessing the same separate and original
marks of truth, with the former. If they both
touched upon the same period of history, and
gave testimony to the same events, it is plain
that a stronger evidence for the truth of these
events would be afforded, than what it was in
the power of either of the testimonies taken
separately to supply. The separate circum
stances which gave a distinct credibility to
each of the testimonies, are added together,
and give a so much higher credibility to those
points of information upon which they deliver
a common testimony. This is the case when
the testimonies carry in them the appearance
of being independent of one another. And
even when the one is derived from the other,
it still affords an accession to the evidence ;
because the author of the subsequent testi*
52 AUTHENTICITY OF
mony gives us the distinct assertion, that he
believed in the truth of the original testimony.
The evidence may be strengthened still far
ther, by the accession of a third manuscript,
and a third testimony. All the separate cir
cumstances which confer credibility upon any
one document, even though it stands alone and
unsupported by any other, combine themselves
into a much stronger body of evidence, when
we have obtained the concurrence of severaL
If, even in the case of a single narrative, a pro
bability lies on the side of its being true, from
the multitude and diffusion of copies, and from
the air of truth and honesty discernible in the
composition itself, the probability is heightened
by the coincidence of several narratives, all of
them possessing the same claims upon our be
lief. If it be improbable that one should be
written for the purpose of imposing a false
hood upon the world, it is still more improba
ble that many should be written, all of them
conspiring to the same perverse and unnatural
object. No one can doubt, at least, that of
the multitude of written testimonies which
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53
jiave come down to us, the true must greatly
preponderate over the false ; and that the de
ceitful principle, though it exists sometimes,
could never operate to such an extent, as to
carry any great or general imposition in the
face of all the documents which are before us.
The supposition must be extended much far
ther than we have yet carried it, before we
reach the degree of evidence and of testimony,
which, on many points of ancient history, we
are at this moment in actual possession of.
Many documents have been collected, profess
ing to be written at different times, and by
men of different countries. In this way, a
great body of ancient literature has been form
ed, from which we can collect many points of
evidence, too tedious to enumerate. Do we
find the express concurrence of several authors
to the same piece of history? Do we find,
what is still more impressive, events formally
announced in one narrative, not told over
again, but implied and proceeded upon as true
in another ? Do we find the succession of his
tory, through a series of ages, supported in a
way that is natural and consistent ? Do we
54 AUTHENTICITY OF
find those compositions which profess a jiigher
antiquity, appealed to by those which profess
a lower ? These, and a number of other points,
which meet every scholar who betakes himself
to the actual investigation, give a most warm
and living character of reality to the history of
past times. There is a perversity of mind
which may resist all this. There is no end to
the fancies of scepticism. We may plead in
vain the number of written testimonies, their
artless coincidence, and the perfect undesign-
edness of manner by which they often supply
the circumstances that serve both to guide and
satisfy the inquirer, and to throw light and sup-
port upon one another. The infidel will still
have something, behind which he can intrench
himself; and his last supposition, monstrous
and unnatural as it is, may be, that the whole
of written history is a laborious fabrication,
sustained for many ages, and concurred in by
many individuals, with no other purpose than
to enjoy the anticipated blunders of the men
of future times, whom they had combined
with so much dexterity to bewilder and lead
astray.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55
If it were possible to summon up to the pre
sence of the mind, the whole mass of spoken
testimony, it would be found, that what was
false bore a very small proportion to what was
true. For many obvious reasons, the propor
tion of the false to the true must be also small
in written testimony. Yet instances of false
hood occur in both ; and the actual ability to
separate the false from the true in written his
tory, proves that historical evidence has its
principles and its probabilities to go upon.
There may be the natural signs of dishonesty.
There may be the wildness and improbability
of the narrative. There may be a total want
of agreement on the part of other documents.
There may be the silence of every author for
ages after the pretended date of the manuscript
in question. There may be all these, in suffi
cient abundance, to convict the manuscript of
forgery and falsehood. This has actually been
done in several instances. The skill and dis
cernment of the human mind upon the subject
of historical evidence, have been improved by
the exercise. The few cases in which sen
tence of condemnation has been given, are s
56 AUTHENTICITY OF
many testimonies to the competency of the
tribunal which has sat in judgment over them,
and give a stability to their verdict, when any
document is approved of. It is a peculiar sub
ject, and the men who stand at a distance from
it may multiply their suspicions and their scep
ticism at pleasure 5 but no intelligent man ever
entered into the details, without feeling the
most familiar and satisfying conviction of that
credit and confidence which it is in the power
of historical evidence to bestow.
Now, to apply this to the object of our pre
sent division, which is to ascertain the age of
the document, and the person who is the
author of it. These are points of information
which may be collected from the performance
itself. They may be found in the body of the
composition, or they may be more formally
announced in the title-page and every time
that the book is referred to by its title, or the
name of the author and age of the publication
are announced in any other document that has
come down to us, these points of information
receive additional proof from the testimony of
subsequent writers.
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 5J
The New Testament is bound up in one
volume, but we would be underrating its evi
dence if we regarded it only as one testimony,
and that the truth of the facts recorded in it
rested upon the testimony of one historian. It
is not one publication, but a collection of seve
ral publications, which are ascribed to different
authors, -and made their first appearance in dif
ferent parts of the world. To fix the date of
their appearance, it is necessary to institute a
separate inquiry for each publication ; and it
is the unexcepted testimony of all subsequent
writers, that two of the Gospels, and several
of the Epistles, were written by the immediate
disciples of our Saviour, and published in their
lifetime. Celsus, an enemy of the Christian
faith, refers to the affairs x>f Jesus, as written
by his disciples. He never thinks of disputing
the fact ; and from the extracts which he makes
for the purpose of criticism, there can be no
doubt in the mind of the reader, that it is one
or other of the four Gospels to which he refers.
The single testimony of Celsus may be consi
dered as decisive of the fact, that the story of
Jesus and of his life was actually written by his
58 , AUTHENTICITY OF
disciples. Celsus writes about a hundred years
after the alleged time of the publication of this
story ; but that it was written by the compa
nions of this Jesus, is a fact which he never
thinks of disputing. He takes it up upon the
strength of its general notoriety, and the whole
history of that period furnishes nothing that
can attach any doubt or suspicion to this cir
cumstance. Referring to a principle already
taken notice of, had it been the history of a
philosopher instead of a prophet, its authenti
city would have been admitted without any
formal testimony to that effect. It would have
been admitted, so to speak, upon the mere ex
istence of the title-page, combined with this
circumstance, that the whole course of history
or tradition does not furnish us with a single
fact, leading us to believe that the correctness
of this title-page was ever questioned. It would
have been admitted, not because it was asserted
by subsequent writers, but because they made
no assertion upon the subject, because they
never thought of converting it into a matter of
discussion, and because their occasional refe
rences to the book in question would be looked
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59
upon as carrying in them a tacit acknowledg
ment, that it was the very same book which it
professed to be at the present day. The dis
tinct assertion of Celsus, that the pieces in
question were written by the companions of
Jesus, though even at the distance of a. hundred
years, is an argument in favour of their authen
ticity, which cannot be alleged for many of the
most esteemed compositions of antiquity. It
is the addition of a formal testimony to that
kind of general evidence, which is founded
upon the tacit or implied concurrence of sub
sequent writers, and which is held to be per-
fectly decisive in similar cases.
Had the pieces, which make up the New
Testament, been the only documents of past
times, the mere existence of a pretension to
such an age, and to such an author, resting on
their own information, would have been sus
tained as a certain degree of evidence, that the
real age and the real author had been assigned
to them. But we have the testimony of sub
sequent authors to the same effect ; and it
is to be remarked, that it is by far the most
60 AUTHENTICITY OF
- %. .
Crowded, and the most closely sustained series
of testimonies, of which we have any example
in the whole field of ancient history. When
we assigned the testimony of Celsus, it is not
to be supposed that this is the vry first which
occurs after the days of the apostles. The
blank of a hundred years betwixt the publica
tion of the original story and the publication
of Celsus, is filled up by antecedent testimo
nies, which, in all fairness, should be counted
more decisive of the point in question. They
are the testimonies of Christian writers, and, in
as far as a nearer opportunity of obtaining cor
rect information is concerned, they should be
held more valuable than the testimony of Cel
sus. These references are of three kinds :
First, In some cases, their reference to the books
of the New Testament is made in the form
of an express quotation, and the author parti
cularly named. Secondly, In other cases, the
quotation is made without reference to the par
ticular author, and ushered in by the general
words, " as it is written" And thirdly, There
are innumerable allusions to the different parts
of the New Testament, scattered over all the
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 6l
writings of the earlier fathers. In this last
case there is no express citation ; but we have
the sentiment, the turn of expression, the very
words of the New Testament, repeated so of
ten, and by such a number of different writers,
as to leave no doubt upon the mind, that they
were copied from one common original, which
was at that period held in high reverence and
estimation. In pursuing the train of referen
ces, we do not meet with a single chasm from
the days of the original writers. Not to repeat
what we have already made some allusion to,
the testimonies of the original writers to one
another, we proceed to assert, that some of
the fathers, whose writings have come down to
us, were the companions of the apostles, and
are even named in the books of the New
Testament. St Clement, bishop of Rome, is,
with the concurrence of all ancient authors, the
same whom Paul mentions in his epistle to the
Philippians. In his epistle to the church of
Corinth, which was written in the name of the
whole church of Rome, he refers to the first
epistle of Paul to the former church. " Take
into your hands the epistle of the blessed Paul
02 AUTHENTICITY OF
the apostle." He then makes a quotation,
which is to be found in Paul's first epistle to
the Corinthians. Could Clement have done
this to the Corinthians themselves, had no
such epistle been in existence? And is not
this an undoubted testimony, not merely from
the mouth of Clement, but on the part of the
churches both of Rome and Corinth, to the
authenticity of such an epistle ? There are in
this same epistle of Clement, several quota
tions of the second kind, which confirm the
existence of some other books of the New Tes
tament ; and a multitude of allusions or refe
rences of the third kind, to the writings of the
evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, and a
great many of those epistles which have been
admitted into the New Testament. We have
similar testimonies from some more of the fa
thers, who lived and conversed with Jesus
Christ. Beside many references of the second
and third kind, we have also other instances of
the same kind of testimony which Clement
gave to St Paul's first epistle to the Corin
thians, than which nothing can be conceived
more indisputable. Ignatius, writing to the
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 63
church of Ephesus, takes notice of St Paul's
epistle to that church ; and Polycarp, an im
mediate disciple of the apostles, makes the
same express reference to St Paul's epistle to
the Philippians, in a letter addressed to that
people. In carrying our attention down from
the apostolical fathers, we follow an uninter
rupted series of testimonies to the authenticity
of the canonical scriptures* They get more
numerous and circumstantial as we proceed, a
thing to be expected from the progress of
Christianity, and the greater multitude of wri
ters who came forward in its defence and illus
tration.
In pursuing the series of writers from the
days of the apostles down to about 150 years
after the publication of the pieces which make
up the New Testament, we come to Tertullian,
of whom Lardner says, " that there are per
haps more and longer quotations of the small
volume of the New Testament in this one
Christian author, than of all the works of Ci
cero, though of so uncommon excellence for
13
64> AUTHENTICITY OF
thought and style, in the writers of all charac
ters for several ages."
j.
We feel ourselves exposed, in this part of
our investigation, to the suspicion which ad
heres to every Christian testimony. We have
already made some attempts to analyze that
suspicion into its ingredients, and we conceive,
that the circumstance of the Christians being
an interested party, is only one, and not per
haps the principal of these ingredients* At all
events, this may be the proper place for dis
posing of that one ingredient, and for offering
a few general observations on the strength of
the Christian testimony.
In estimating the value of any testimony,
there are two distinct subjects of consideration ;
the person who gives the testimony, and the
people to whom the testimony is addressed. It
is quite needless to enlarge on the resources
which, in the present instance, we derive from
both these considerations, and how much each
of them contributes to the triumph and solidity
of the Christian argument. In as far as the
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 5
people who give the testimony are concerned,
how could they be mistaken in their account
of the books of the New Testament, when some
of them lived in the same age with the original
writers, and were their intimate acquaintances,
and when all of them had the benefit of an un
controlled series of evidence, reaching down
from the date of the earliest publications to
their own times ? Or, how can we suspect that
they falsified, when there runs through their
writings the same tone of plainness and since
rity, which is allowed to stamp the character of
authenticity on other productions ; and, above
all, when, upon the strength even of heathen
testimony, we conclude, that many of them, by
their sufferings and death, gave the highest evi
dence that man can give, of his speaking under
the influence of a real and honest conviction ?
In as far as the people who received the testi
mony are concerned, to what other circumstan
ces can we ascribe their concurrence, than to
the truth of that testimony ? In what way was
it possible to deceive them upon a point of ge
neral notoriety ? The books of the New Testa
ment are referred to by the ancient fathers, as
E
66 AUTHENTICITY OF
writings generally known and respected by the
Christians of that period. If they were ob
scure writings, or had no existence at the time,
how can we account for the credit and autho
rity of those fathers who appealed to them, and
had the effrontery to insult their fellow Chris
tians by a falsehood so palpable, and so easily
detected ? Allow them to be capable of this
treachery, we have still to explain, how the
people came to be the dupes of so glaring an
imposition ; how they could be persuaded to
give up everything for a religion, whose teachers
were so unprincipled as to deceive them, and
so unwise as to commit themselves upon ground
where it was impossible to elude discovery.
Could Clement have dared to refer the people
of Corinth to an epistle said to be received by
themselves, and which had no existence ? or,
could he have referred the Christians at large
to writings which they never heard of? And
it was not enough to maintain the semblance
of truth with the people of their own party.
Where were the Jews all the time ? and how
was it possible to escape the correction of these
keen and vigilant observers ? We mistake the
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67
matter much, if we think, that Christianity at
that time was making its insidious way in si
lence and in secrecy, through a listless and un
concerned public. All history gives an oppo
site representation. The passions and curiosity
of men were quite upon the alert. The popu
lar enthusiasm had been excited on both sides
of the question. It had drawn the attention of
the established authorities in different provinces
of the empire, and the merits of the Christian
cause had become a matter of frequent and
formal discussion in courts of judicature. If,
in these circumstances, the Christian writers
had the hardihood to venture upon a falsehood,
it would have been upon safer ground than what
they actually adopted. They would never have
hazarded to assert what was so open to contra
diction, as the existence of books held in reve
rence among all the churches, and which no
body either in or out of these churches ever
heard of. They would never have been so un
wise as to commit in this way a cause, which
had not a single circumstance to recommend
it but its truth and its evidences.
()8 AUTHENTICITY OF
The falsehood of the Christian testimony on
this point, would carry along with it a concur
rence of circumstances, each of which is the
strangest and most unprecedented that ever
was heard of. First, That men, who sustained
in their writings all the characters of sincerity,
and many of whom submitted to martyrdom, as
the highest pledge of sincerity which can possi
bly be given, should have been capable of
falsehood at all. Second, That this tendency
to falsehood should have been exercised so un
wisely, as to appear in an assertion perfectly
open to detection, and which could be so rea
dily converted to the discredit of that religion,
which it was the favourite ambition of their
lives to promote and establish in the world.
Third, That this testimony could have gained
the concurrence of the people to whom it was
addressed, and that, with their eyes perfectly
open to its falsehood, they should be ready to
make the sacrifice of life and of fortune in sup
porting it. Fourth, That this testimony should
never have been contradicted by the Jews, and
that they should have neglected so effectual an
THE NEW TESTAMENT. 69
opportunity of disgracing a religion, the pro
gress of which they contemplated with so much
jealousy and alarm. Add to this, that it is not
the testimony of one writer which we are mak
ing to pass through the ordeal of so many dif
ficulties : It is the testimony of many writers,
who lived at different times, and in different
countries, and who add the very singular cir
cumstance of their entire agreement with one
another, to the other circumstances equally un
accountable, which we have just now enume
rated. The falsehood of their united testimony
is not to be conceived. It is a supposition
which we are warranted to condemn, upon the
strength of any one of the above improbabilities
taken separately 4 But the fair way of estimat
ing their effect upon the argument, is to take
them jointly, and, in the language of the doc
trine of chances, to take the product of all the
improbabilities into one another* The argu*
ment which this product furnishes for the truth
of the Christian testimony, has, in strength and
conclusiveness, no parallel in the whole com
pass of ancient literature.
70 AUTHENTICITY, &C.
The testimony of Celsus is looked upon as
peculiarly valuable, because it is disinterested.
But if this consideration gives so much weight
to the testimony of Celsus, why should so much
doubt and suspicion annex to the testimony
of Christian writers, several of whom, before
his time, have given a fuller and more express
testimony to the authenticity of the Gospels ?
In the persecutions they sustained ; in the ob
vious tone of sincerity and honesty which runs
through their writings ; in their general agree
ment upon this subject ; in the multitude of
their followers, who never could have confided
in men that ventured to commit themselves, by
the assertion of what was obviously and noto
riously false ; in the check which the vigilance,
both of Jews and Heathens, exercised over
every Christian writer of that period, in all
these circumstances, they give every evidence
of having delivered a fair and unpolluted testi
mony.
CHAP. III.
On the Internal Marks of Truth and Honesty to be
found in the New Testament.
II. WE shall now look into the New Testa
ment itself, and endeavour to lay before the
reader the internal marks of truth and honesty,
which are to be found in it.
Under this head, it may be right to insist
upon the minute accuracy, which runs through
all its allusions to the existing manners and cir
cumstances of the times. To appreciate the
force of this argument, it would be right to
attend to the peculiar situation of Judea, at
the time of our Saviour. It was then under
the dominion -of the Roman Emperors, and
comes frequently under the notice of the pro
fane historians of that period. From this
source we derive a great variety of informa
tion, as to the manner in which the Emperors
conducted the government of their different
72 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
provinces ; what degree of indulgence was al
lowed to the religious opinions of the people
whom they held in subjection ; in how far they
were suffered to live under the administration
of their own laws ; the power which was vested
in the presidents of provinces ; and a number
of other circumstances relative to the criminal
and civil jurisprudence of that period. In this
way, there is a great number of different points
in which the historians of the New Testament
can be brought into comparison with the secu
lar historians of the age. The history of Christ
and his apostles contains innumerable referen
ces to the state of public affairs. It is not the
history of obscure and unnoticed individuals.
They had attracted much of the public atten
tion. They had been before the governors of
the country. They had passed through the
established forms of justice ; and some of tliem
underwent the trial and punishment of the
times. It is easy to perceive, then, that the
-New Testament writers were led to allude to a
number of these circumstances in the political
history and constitution of the times, which
came under the cognizance of ordinary histo-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 73
rians. This was delicate ground for an inven
tor to tread upon ; and particularly, if he lived
at an age subsequent to the time of his history.
He might in this case have fabricated a tale,
by confining himself to the obscure and familial-
incidents of private history ; but it is only for
a true and a contemporary historian to sustain
a continued accuracy through his minute and
numerous allusions to the public policy and
government of the times.
Within the period of the Gospel history,
Judea experienced a good many vicissitudes in
the state of its government. At one time it
formed part of a kingdom under Herod the
Great. At another, it formed part of a smaller
government under Archelaus. It after this
came under the direct administration of a
Roman governor ; which form was again inter
rupted for several years, by the elevation of
Herod Agrippa to the sovereign power, as ex
ercised by his grandfather; and it is at last
left in the form of a province at the conclusion
of the evangelical history. There were also
frequent changes in the political state of the
74 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
countries adjacent to Judea ; and which are
often alluded to in the New Testament. A
caprice of the reigning Emperor often gave
rise to a new form of government, and a new
distribution of territory. It will be readily con
ceived, how much these perpetual fluctuations
in the state of public affairs, both in Judea and
its neighbourhood, must add to the power and
difficulty of that ordeal to which the Gospel
history has been subjected.
On this part of the subject, there is no want
of witnesses with whom to confront the writers
of the New Testament. In addition to the
Roman writers who have touched upon the
affairs of Judea, we have the benefit of a Jew
ish historian, who has given us a professed
history of his own country. From him, as was
to be expected, we have a far greater quantity
of copious and detailed narrative, relative to
the internal affairs of Judea, to the manners of
the people, and those particulars which are
connected with their religious belief, and ec
clesiastical constitution. With many, it will
be supposed to add to the value of his testi-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. J5
mony, that he was not a Christian ; but that,
on the other hand, we have every reason to
believe him to have been a most zealous and
determined enemy to the cause. It is really a
most useful exercise, to pursue the harmony
which subsists between the writers of the New
Testament, and those Jewish and profane
authors with whom we bring them into com-
parison. Throughout the whole examination,
our attention is confined to forms of justice ;
successions of governors in different provinces ;
manners, and political institutions. We are
therefore apt to forget the sacredness of the
subject ; and we appeal to all who have prose
cuted this inquiry, if this circumstance is not
favourable to their having a closer and more
decided impression of the truth of the Gospel
history. By instituting a comparison betwixt
the evangelists and contemporary authors, and
restricting our attention to those points which
come under the cognizance of ordinary his
tory, we put the apostles and evangelists on
the footing of ordinary historians ; and it is
for those who have actually undergone the
labour of this examination, to tell how much
76 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
this circumstance adds to the impression of
their authenticity. The mind gets emancipat
ed from the peculiar delusion which attaches
to the sacredness of the subject, and which has
the undoubted effect of restraining the confi
dence of its inquiries. The argument assumes
a secular complexion, and the writers of the
New Testament are restored to that credit,
with which the reader delivers himself up to
any other historian, who has a much less
weight and quantity of historical evidence in
bis favour.
We refer those readers who wish to prose
cute this inquiry, to the first volume of Lard-
ner's Credibility of the Gospels. We shall re-
Strict ourselves to a few general observations
on the nature and precise effect of the argu
ment.
In the first place, the accuracy of the nume
rous allusions to the circumstances of that pe
riod which the Gospel history embraces, forms
a strong corroboration of that antiquity which
we have already assigned to its writers from
INTERNAL MARKS OP TRUTH, &C. 77
external testimony. It amounts to a proof,
that it is the production of authors who Iive4
antecedent to the destruction of Jerusalem,
and consequently about the time that is as
cribed to them by all the external testimony
which has already been insisted upon. It is
that accuracy, which could only be maintained
by a contemporary historian. It would be
difficult, even for the author of some general
speculation, not to betray his time by some
occasional allusion to the ephemeral customs
and institutions of the period in which he
wrote. But the authors of the New Testa
ment run a much greater risk. There are
five different pieces of that collection which
are purely historical, and where there is a con
tinued reference to the characters, and politics,
and passing events of the day. The destruc
tion of Jerusalem swept away the whole fabric
of Jewish polity ; and it is not to be conceiv
ed, that the memory of a future generation
could have retained that minute, that varied,
that intimate acquaintance with the statistics
of a nation no longer- in existence, which is
evinced in every page of the evangelical
78 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
writers. We find, in point of fact, that both
the Heathen and Christian writers of subse
quent ages do often betray their ignorance of
the particular customs which obtained in Judea
during the time of our Saviour. And it must
be esteemed a strong circumstance in favour
of the antiquity of the New Testament, that
pn a subject, in which the chances of detec
tion are so numerous, . and where we can
scarcely advance a single step in the narrative,
without the possibility of betraying our time
by some mistaken allusion, it stands distin
guished from every later composition, in being
able to bear the most minute and intimate
comparison with the contemporary historians
of that period.
The argument derives great additional
strength, from viewing the New Testament,
not as one single performance, but as a col
lection of several performances. It is the
work of no less than eight different authors,
who wrote without any appearance of concert,
who published in different parts of the world,
and whose writings possess every evidence*
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 79
both internal and external, of being indepen-,
dent productions. Had only one author ex
hibited the same minute accuracy of allusion,
it would have been esteemed a very strong
evidence of his antiquity. But when we see
so many authors exhibiting such a well sustain
ed and almost unexcepted accuracy through
the whole of their varied and distinct narra
tives, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion,
that they were either the eye-witnesses of their
own history, or lived about the period of its
accomplishment.
When different historians undertake the af
fairs of the same period, they either derive
their information from one another, or proceed
upon distinct and independent information of
their own. Now, it is not difficult to distin
guish the copyist from the original historian.
There is something in the very style and man
ner of an original narrative, which announces
its pretensions. It is not possible that any one
event, or any series of events, should make such
a similar impression upon two witnesses, as to
dispose them to relate it in the same language,
80 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
to describe it in the same order, to form the
same estimate as to the circumstances which
should be noticed as important, and those other
circumstances which should be suppressed as
immaterial. Each witness tells the thing in his
own way, makes use of his own language, and
brings forward circumstances which the other
might omit altogether, as not essential to the
.purpose of his narrative. It is this agreement
in the facts, with this variety in the manner of
describing them, that never fails to impress
upon the inquirer that additional conviction
which arises from the concurrence of separate
and independent testimonies. Now, this is
precisely that kind of coincidence which sub
sists between the New Testament writers and
Josephus, in their allusions to the peculiar cus
toms and institutions of that age. Each party
maintains the style of original and independent
historians. The one often omits altogether, or
makes only a slight and distant allusion to what
occupies a prominent part in the composition
of the other. There is not the slightest vestige
of any thing like a studied coincidence betwixt
them. There is, variety, but no opposition ;
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 81
and it says much for the authenticity of both
histories, that the most scrupulous and atten
tive criticism can scarcely detect a single ex
ample of an apparent contradiction in the tes
timony of these different authors, which does
not admit of a likely, or at least a- plausible re
conciliation.
When the difference betwixt two historians
is carried to the length of a contradiction, it
enfeebles the credit of both their testimonies.
When the agreement is carried to the length
of a close and scrupulous resemblance in every
particular, it destroys the credit of one' of the
parties as an independent historian. In the
case before us, we neither perceive this diffe
rence, nor this agreement. Such are the varia
tions, that, at first sight, the reader is alarmed
with the appearance of very serious and em
barrassing difficultiesr And such is the actual
coincidence, that the difficulties vanish when
we apply to them the labours of a profound
and intelligent criticism. Had it been the ob
ject of the Gospel writers to trick out a plausi
ble imposition on the credulity of the world.
82 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
they would have studied a closer resemblance
to the existing authorities of that period j nor
would they have laid themselves open to the
superficial brilliancy of Voltaire, which dazzles
every imagination, and reposed their vindica
tion with the Lelands and Lardners of a dis
tant posterity, whose sober erudition is so little
attended to, and which so few know how to
appreciate.
In the Gospels, we are told that Herod, the
Tetrarch of Galilee, married his brother Philip's
wife. In Josephus we have the same story;
only he gives a different name to Philip, and
calls him Herod ; and, what adds to the diffi
culty, there was a Philip of that family, whom
we know not to have been the first husband of
Herodias, This is at first sight a little alarm
ing. But, in the progress of our inquiries, we
are given to understand from this same Jose
phus, that there were three Herods in the same
family, and therefore no improbability in there
being two Philips. We also know, from the
histories of that period, that it was quite com
mon for the same individual to have two
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 83
names ; and this is never more necessary than
when employed to distinguish brothers who
have one name the same. The Herod who is
called Philip is just as likely a distinction as the
Simon who is called Peter, or the Saul who is
called Paul. The name of the high priest, at
the time of our Saviour's crucifixion, was Caia-
phas, according to the evangelists. According
to Josephus, the name of the high priest at that
period was Joseph. This would have been pre
cisely a difficulty of the same kind, had not
Josephus happened to mention that this Joseph
was also called Caiaphas. "Would it have been
dealing fairly with the evangelists, we ask, to
have made their credibility depend upon the
accidental omission of another historian ? Is it
consistent with any acknowledged principle of
sound criticism, to bring four writers so entirely
under the tribunal of Josephus, each of whom
stands as firmly supported by all the evidences
which can give authority to an historian ; and
who have greatly the advantage of him in this,
that they can add the argument of their con
currence to the argument of each separate and
independent testimony ? It so happens, how-
84 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
ever, in the present instance, that even Jewish
writers, in their narrative of the same circum
stance, give the name of Philip to the first
husband of Herodias. We by no means con
ceive, that any foreign testimony was necessary
for the vindication of the evangelists. Still,
however, it must go far to dissipate every sus
picion of artifice in the construction of their
histories. It proves, that, in the confidence
with which they delivered themselves up to
their own information, they neglected appear
ance, and felt themselves independent of it.
This apparent difficulty, like many others of
the same kind, lands us in a stronger confir
mation of the honesty of the evangelists ;, and
it is delightful to perceive how truth receives a
fuller accession to its splendour, from the at
tempts which are made to disgrace and to
darken it*
On this branch of the argument, the impar
tial inquirer must be struck with the little in
dulgence which infidels, and even Christians,
have given to the evangelical writers. In other
cases, when we compare the narratives of con-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 85
temporary historians, it is not expected that
all the circumstances alluded to by one will be
taken notice of by the rest ; and it often hap
pens, that an event or a custom is admitted
upon the faith of a single historian ; and the
silence of all other writers is not suffered to
attach suspicion or discredit to his testimony.
It is an allowed principle, that a scrupulous re
semblance betwixt two histories is very far from
necessary to their being held consistent with
one another. And, what is more, it sometimes
happens, that with contemporary historians
there may be an apparent contradiction, and
the credit of both parties remain as entire and
unsuspicious as before. Posterity is in these
cases disposed to make the most liberal allow
ances. Instead of calling it a contradiction,
they often call k a difficulty. They are sensi
ble, that in many instances a seeming variety
of statement has, upon a more extensive know
ledge of ancient history, admitted of a perfect
reconciliation. Instead, then, of referring the
difficulty in question to the inaccuracy or bad
faith of any of the parties, they, with more
justness and more modesty, refer it to their
86 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
own ignorance, and to that obscurity which
necessarily hangs over the history of every
remote age. These principles are suffered ta
have great influence in every secular investiga
tion ; but so soon as, instead of a secular, it
becomes a sacred investigation, every ordinary
principle is abandoned, and the suspicion an
nexed to the teachers of religion is carried to
the dereliction of all that candour and libera
lity with which every other document of anti
quity is judged of and appreciated. How does
it happen that the authority of Josephus should
be acquiesced in as a first principle, while every
step in jthe narrative of the evangelists must
have foreign testimony to confirm and support
it ? How comes it, that the silence of Jose
phus should be construed into an impeachment
of the testimony of the evangelists, while it is
never admitted for a single moment, that the
silence of the evangelists can impart the slight
est blemish to the testimony of Josephus ? How
comes it, that the supposition of two Philips in
one family should throw a damp of scepticism
over the Gospel narrative, while the only cir
cumstance which renders that supposition ne-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 87
cessary is the single testimony of Josephus ; in
which very testimony it is necessarily implied,
that there are two Herods in that same family ?
How comes it, that the evangelists, with as
much internal, and a vast deal more of exter
nal evidence in their favour, should be made
to stand before Josephus, like so many prison
ers at the bar of justice ? In any other case,
we are convinced that this would be looked
upon as rough handling. But we are not sorry
for it. It has given more triumph and confi
dence to the argument. And it is no small
addition to our faith, that its first teachers have
survived an examination, which, in point of
rigour and severity, we believe to be quite un
exampled in the annals of criticism.
It is always looked upon as a Favourable pre
sumption, when a story is told circumstantially.
The art and the safety of an impostor, is to
confine his narrative to generals, and not to
commit himself by too minute a specification
of time and place, and allusion to the manners
or occurrences of the day. The more of cir
cumstance that we introduce into a story, we
88 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
multiply the chances of detection, if false ; and
therefore, where a great deal of circumstance
is introduced, it proves, that the narrator feels
the confidence of truth, and labours under no
apprehension for the fate of his narrative.
Even though we have it not in our power to
verify the truth of a single circumstance, yet
the mere property of a story being circumstan
tial is always felt to carry an evidence in its
favour. It imparts a more familiar air of life
and reality to the narrative. It is easy to be
lieve, that the ground- work of a story may be a
fabrication ; but it requires a more refined spe
cies of imposture than we can well conceive, to
construct a harmonious and well-sustained nar
rative, abounding in minute and circumstantial
details which support one another, and where,
with all our experience of real life, we can
detect nothing misplaced, or inconsistent, or
improbable. vjyr^ c
' : '^ ->J :r?ij(m'?fc <#{ sarui/T
To prosecute this argument in all its extent,
it would be necessary to present the reader
with a complete analysis or examination of the
Gospel history. But the most superficial ob-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 9
server cannot fail to perceive, that it maintains,
in a very high degree, the character of being a
circumstantial narrative. When a miracle is
recorded, we have generally the name of the
town or neighbourhood where it happened ;
the names of the people concerned ; the effect
upon the hearts and convictions of the bye-
standers ; the arguments and examinations it
gave birth to ; and all that minuteness of refe
rence and description which impresses a strong
character of reality upon the whole history.
If we take along with us the time at which this
history made its appearance, the argument be
comes much stronger. It does not merely
carry a presumption in its favour, from being
a circumstantial history : It carries a proof in
its favour, because these circumstances were
completely within the reach and examination
of those to whom it was addressed. Had the
evangelists been false historians, they would
not have committed themselves upon so many
particulars. They would not have furnished
the vigilant inquirers of that period with such
an effectual instrument for bringing them into
discredit with the people ; nor foolishly sup-
90 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C*
plied, in every page of their narrative, so many
materials for a cross-examination, which would
infallibly have disgraced them.
Now, we of this age can institute the same
cross-examination. We can compare the evan
gelical writers with contemporary authors, and
verify a number of circumstances in the his
tory, and government, and peculiar economy of
the Jewish people* We therefore have it in
our power to institute a cross-examination upon
the writers of the New Testament ; and the
freedom and frequency of their allusions to
these circumstances supply us with ample ma
terials for it. The fact, that they are borne
out in their minute and incidental allusions by
the testimony of other historians, gives a strong
weight of what has been called circumstantial
evidence in their favour. As a specimen of
the argument, let us confine our observations
to the history of our Saviour's trial, and execu
tion, and burial. They brought him to Pontius
Pilate. We know, both from Tacitus and Jose-
phus, that he was at that time governor of Ju-
dea. A sentence from him was necessary be-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C, 91
fore they could proceed to the execution of
Jesus ; and we know that the power of life and
death was usually vested in the Roman gover
nor. Our Saviour was treated with derision ;
and this we know to have been a customary
practice at that time, previous to the execution
of criminals, and during the time of it. Pilate
scourged Jesus before he gave him up to be
crucified. We know from ancient authors,
that this was a very usual practice among the
Romans. The account of an execution gene
rally run in this form : He was stripped, whip
ped, and beheaded or executed. According to
the evangelists, his accusation was written on
the top of the cross ; and we learn from Sue
tonius and others, that the crime of the person
to be executed was affixed to the instrument of
his punishment. According to the evangelists,
this accusation was written in three different
languages ; and we know from Josephus, that
it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all
public advertisements written in this manner.
According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear
his cross ; and we know from other sources of
information, that this was the constant practice
92 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
of these times. According to the evangelists,
the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at
the request of friends. We know that, unless
the criminal was infamous, this was the law, or
the custom with ^11 Roman governors.
These, and a few more particulars of the
same kind, occur within the compass of a
single page of the evangelical history. The
circumstantial manner of the history affords a
presumption in its favour, antecedent to all ex
amination into the truth of the circumstances
themselves. But it makes a strong addition to
the evidence, when we find, that in all the
subordinate parts of the main story, the evange
lists maintain so great a consistency with the
testimony of other authors, and with all that
we can collect from other sources of informa
tion, as to the manners and institutions of that
period. It is difficult to conceive, in the first
instance, how the inventor of a fabricated story
would hazard such a number of circumstances,
each of them supplying a point of comparison
with other authors, and giving to the inquirer
an additional chance of detecting the imposi-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 93
tion. And it is still more difficult to believe,
that truth should have been so artfully blended
with falsehood in the composition of this narra
tive, particularly as we perceive nothing like a
forced introduction of any one circumstance.
There appears to be nothing out of place, no
thing thrust in with the view of imparting an
air of probability to the history. The circum
stance upon which we bring the evangelists
into comparison with profane authors, is often
not intimated in a direct form, but in the form
of a slight or distant allusion. There is not
the most remote appearance of its being fetch
ed or sought for. It is brought in accidentally,
and flows in the most natural and undesigned
manner out of the progress of the narrative.
"-To% i jji'j oW
The circumstance, that none of the Gospel
writers are inconsistent with one another, falls
better under a different branch of the argument.
It is enough for our present purpose, that
there is no single writer inconsistent with him
self. It often happens, that falsehood carries
its own refutation along with it ; and that,
through the artful disguises which are employ-
94 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C,
ed in the construction of a fabricated story, we
can often detect a flaw or a contradiction, which
condemns the authority of the whole narrative.
Now, every single piece of the New Testament
wants this mark or character of falsehood.
The different parts are found to sustain, and
harmonize, and flow out of each other. Each
has at least the merit of being a consistent nar
rative. For any thing we see upon the face of
it, it may be true, and a further hearing must
be given before we can be justified in rejecting
it as the tale of an impostor.
There is another mark of falsehood which
each of the Gospel narratives appears to be
exempted from. There is little or no parad
ing about their own integrity. We can col
lect their pretensions to credit from the history
itself, but we see no anxious display of these
pretensions. We cannot fail to perceive the
force of that argument which is derived from
the publicity of the Christian miracles, and the
very minute and scrupulous examination which
they had to sustain from the rulers and official
men of Judea. But this publicity, and these
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 95
examinations, are simply recorded by the evan
gelists. There is no boastful reference to these
circumstances, and no ostentatious display of
the advantage which they give to the Christian
argument. They bring their story forward in
the shape of a direct and unencumbered narra
tive, and deliver themselves with that simpli
city and unembarrassed confidence, which no
thing but their consciousness of truth, and the
perfect feeling of their own strength and con
sistency, can account for. They do not write,
as if their object was to carry a point that was
at all doubtful or suspicious. It is simply to
transmit to the men of other times, and of other
countries, a memorial of the events which led
to the establishment of the Christian religion
in the world. In the prosecution of their nar
rative, we challenge the most refined judge of
the human character, to point out a single
symptom of diffidence in the truth of their own
story, or of art to cloak this diffidence from the
notice of the most severe and vigilant obser
vers. The manner of the New Testament
writers does not carry in it the slightest idea
of its being an assumed manner. It is quite
13
96 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
natural, quite unguarded, and free of all ap
prehension, that their story is to meet with any
discredit or contradiction from any of those
numerous readers, who had it fully in their
power to verify or to expose it. We see no expe
dient made use of to obtain or to conciliate the
acquiescence of their readers. They appear
to feel as if they did not need it. They de
liver what they have to say, in a round and
unvarnished manner ; nor is it in general ac
companied with any of those strong assevera
tions by which an impostor so often attempts
to practise upon the credulity of his victims.
In the simple narrative of the evangelists,
they betray no feeling of wonder at the extra
ordinary nature of the events which they re
cord, and no consciousness that what they are
announcing is to excite any wonder among
their readers. This appears to us to be a very
strong circumstance. Had it been the newly
broached tale of an impostor, he would, in all
likelihood, have feigned astonishment himself,
or at least have laid his account with the doubt
and astonishment of those to whom it was ad-
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 97
dressed. When a person tells a wonderful
story to a company who are totally unac
quainted with it, he must be sensible, not
merely of the surprise which is excited in the
minds of the hearers, but of a corresponding
sympathy in his own mind with the feelings of
those who listen to him. He lays his account
with the wonder, if not the incredulity, of his
hearers ; and this distinctly appears in the
terms with which he delivers his story, and the
manner in which he introduces it. It makes a
wide difference, if, on the other hand, he tells
the same story to a company, who have long
been apprised of the chief circumstances, but
who listen to him for the mere purpose of ob
taining a more distinct and particular narra
tive. Now, in as far as we can collect from
the manner of the evangelists, they stand in
this last predicament. They do not write, as
if they were imposing a novelty upon their
readers. In the language of Luke, they write
for the sake of giving more distinct information ;
and that the readers might know the certainty of
those things, wherein they had been instructed.
In the prosecution of this task, they deliver
G
98 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
themselves with the most familiar and unem
barrassed simplicity. They do not appear to
anticipate the surprise of their readers, or to
be at all aware, that the marvellous nature of
their story is to be any obstacle to its credit or
reception in the neighbourhood. At the first
performance of our Saviour's miracles, there
was a strong and a widely spread sensation over
the whole country. His fame went abroad, and
all people were amazed. This is quite natural ;
and the circumstance of no surprise being either
felt or anticipated by the evangelists, in the
writing of their history, can best be accounted
for by the truth of the history itself, that the
experience of years had blunted the edge of
novelty, and rendered miracles familiar, not
only to them, but to all the people to whom
they addressed themselves.
What appears to us a most striking internal
evidence for the truth of the Gospel, is that
perfect unity of mind and of purpose which is
ascribed to our Saviour. Had he been an im
postor, he could not have foreseen all the fluc
tuations of his history, and yet no expression
INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C. 99
of surprise is recorded to have escaped from
him. No event appears to have caught him
unprepared. We see no shifting of doctrine
or sentiment, with a view to accommodate to
new or unexpected circumstances. His para
bles and warnings to his disciples, give suffi
cient intimation that he laid his account with
all those events, which appeared to his unen
lightened friends to be so untoward and so un
promising. In every explanation of his objects,
we see the perfect consistency of a mind, be
fore whose prophetic eye all futurity lay open ;
and when the events of this futurity came
round, he met them, not as chances that were
unforeseen, but as certainties which he had
provided for. This consistency of his views
is supported through all the variations of his
history, and it stands finally contrasted in the
record of the evangelists, with the misconcep
tions, the surprises, the disappointments of his
followers. The gradual progress of their minds,
from the splendid anticipations of earthly gran
deur to a full acquiescence in the doctrine of
a crucified Saviour, throws a stronger light on
the perfect unity of purpose and of conception
100 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &C.
which animated his, and which can only be ac
counted for by the inspiration that filled and
enlightened it. It may have been possible
enough to describe a well-sustained example
of this contrast from an actual history before
us. It is difficult, however, to conceive, how
it could be sustained so well, and in a manner
so apparently artless, by means of invention,
and particularly when the Inventors made their
own errors and their own ignorance form part
of the fabrication.
*
CHAP. IV.
On the Testimony of the Original Witnesses to the
Truth of the Gospel Narrative.
in. THERE was nothing in the situation of the
New Testament writers, which leads us to per
ceive that they had any possible inducement
for publishing a falsehood*
We have not to allege the mere testimony of
the Christian writers, for the danger to which
the profession of Christianity exposed all its
adherents at that period. We have the testi
mony of Tacitus to this effect. We have in
numerable allusions, or express intimations, of
the same circumstance in the Roman historians.
The treatment and persecution of the Christians
makes a principal figure in the affairs of the
empire ; and there is no point better establish
ed in ancient history, than that the bare cir
cumstance of being a Christian brought many
to the punishment of death, arid exposed all to
102 TESTIMONY OF THE
the danger of a suffering the most appalling
and repulsive to the feelings of our nature.
It is not difficult to perceive, why the Roman
government, in its treatment of Christians, de
parted from its usual principles of toleration.
We know it to have been their uniform prac
tice, to allow every indulgence to the religious
belief of those different countries in which they
established themselves. The truth is, that such
an indulgence demanded of them no exertion
of moderation or principle. It was quite con
sonant to the spirit of Paganism. A different
country worshipped different gods ; but it was
a general principle of Paganism, that each
country had its gods, to which the inhabitants
of that country owed their peculiar homage
and veneration. In this way there was no
interference between the different religions
which prevailed in the world. It fell in with
the policy of the Roman government to allow
the fullest toleration to other religions, and it
demanded no sacrifice of principle. It was
even a dictate of principle with them, to respect
the gods of other countries j and the violation
ORIGINAL WITNESSES. 103
of a "religion different from their own seems to
have been felt, not merely as a departure from
policy or justice, but to be viewed with the
same sentiment of horror which is annexed to
blasphemy or sacrilege. So long as we were
under Paganism, the truth of one religion did
not involve in it the falsehood or rejection of
another. In respecting the religion of another
country, we did not abandon our own ; nor
did it follow, that the inhabitants of that other
country annexed any contempt or discredit to
the religion in which we had been educated.
In this mutual reverence for the religion of
each other, no principle was departed from,
and no object of veneration abandoned. It did
not involve in it the denial or relinquishment
of our own gods, but only the addition of so
many more gods to our catalogue.
In this respect, however, the Jews stood dis
tinguished from every other people within the
limits of the Roman empire. Their religious
belief carried in it something more than attach
ment to their own system. It carried in it the
contempt and detestation of every other. Yet,
TESTIMONY OF THE
in spite of this circumstance, their religion was
protected by the mild and equitable toleration
of the Roman government. The truth is, that
there was nothing in the habits or character of
the Jews, which was calculated to give much
disturbance to the establishments of other coun
tries. Though they admitted converts from
other nations, yet their spirit of proselytism was
far from being of that active or adventurous
kind, which could alarm the Roman govern
ment for the safety of any existing institutions.
Their high and exclusive veneration for their
own system, gave an unsocial disdain to the
Jewish character, which was not at all inviting
to foreigners ; but still, as it led to nothing mis
chievous in point of effect, it seems to have
been overlooked by the Roman government as-
a piece of impotent vanity.
But the case was widely different with the
Christian system. It did not confine itself to
the denial or rejection of every other system.
It was for imposing its own exclusive authority
over the consciences of all, and for detaching
as many as it could from their allegiance to the
ORIGINAL WITNESSES. 105
religion of their own country. It carried on
its forehead all the offensive characters of a
monopoly, and not merely excited resentment
by the supposed arrogance of its pretensions,
but from the rapidity and extent of its innova
tions, spread an alarm over the whole Roman
empire for the security of all its establishments.
Accordingly, at the commencement of its pro
gress, so long as it was confined to Judea and
the immediate neighbourhood, it seems to have
been in perfect safety from the persecutions of
the Roman government. It was at first looked
upon as a mere modification of Judaism, and
that the first Christians differed from the rest
of their countrymen only in certain questions of
their own superstition. For a few years after
the crucifixion of our Saviour, it seems to have
excited no alarm on the part of the Roman
Emperors, who did not depart from their usual
maxims of toleration, till they began to under
stand the magnitude of its pretensions, and the
unlooked for success which attended them.
In the course of a very few years after its
first promulgation, it drew down upon it the
106 TESTIMONY OF THE
hostility of the Roman government ; and the
fact is undoubted, that some of its first teachers,
who announced themselves to be the compa
nions of our Saviour, and the eye-witnesses of
all the remarkable events in his history, suffer
ed martyrdom for their adherence to the reli
gion which they taught.
The disposition of the Jews to the religion
of Jesus was no less hostile ; and it manifested
itself at a still earlier stage of the business.
The causes of this hostility are obvious to all
who are in the slightest degree conversant with
the history of those times. It is true, that the
Jews did not at all times possess the power of
life and death, nor was it competent for them
to bring the Christians to execution by the ex
ercise of legal authority. Still, however, their
powers of mischief were considerable. Their
wishes had always a certain controul over the
measures of the Roman governor ; and we
know, that it was this controul which was the
means of extorting from Pilate the unrighteous
sentence by which the very first teacher of our
religion was brought to a cruel and ignomi-
ORIGINAL WITNESSES. 107
nious death. We also know, that under Herod
Agrippa the power of life and death was vested
in a Jewish sovereign, and that this power was
actually exerted against the most distinguished
Christians of that time. Add to this, that the
Jews had, at all times, the power of inflicting
the lesser punishments. They could whip, they
could imprison. Besides all this, the Christians
had to brave the frenzy of an enraged multi
tude ; and some of them actually suffered mar-
tyrdom in the violence of the popular commo
tions.
UOl fr
Nothing is more evident than the utter dis
grace which was annexed by the world at large
to the profession of Christianity at that period.
Tacitus calls it " super stitio exitiabilis" and
accuses the Christians of enmity to mankind.
By Epictetus and others, their heroism is term
ed obstinacy, and it was generally treated by
the Roman governors as the infatuation of a
miserable and despised people. There was
none of that glory annexed to it which blazes
around the martyrdom of a patriot or a philo
sopher. That constancy, which, in another
108 TESTIMONY OF THE
cause, would have made them illustrious, was
held to be a contemptible folly, which only exr
posed them to the derision and insolence of the
multitude. A name and a reputation in the
world might sustain the dying moments of So
crates or Regulus ; but what earthly principles
can account for the intrepidity of those poor
and miserable outcasts, who consigned them
selves to a voluntary martyrdom in the cause
of their religion ?
Having premised these observations, we offer
the following alternative to the mind of every
candid inquirer. The first Christians either
delivered a sincere testimony, or they imposed
a story upon the world which they knew to be
a fabrication. ,^ c
The persecutions to which the first Christians
voluntarily exposed themselves, compel us to
adopt the first part of the alternative. It is
not to be conceived, that a man would resign
fortune, and character, and life, in the asser
tion of what he knew to be a falsehood. The
first Christians must have believed their story
ORIGINAL WITNESSES. 109
to be true ; and it only remains to prove, that
if they believed it to be true, it must be true
indeed.
A voluntary martyrdom must be looked upon
as the highest possible evidence which it is in
the power of man to give of his sincerity. The
martyrdom of Socrates has never been ques
tioned, as an undeniable proof of the sincere
devotion of his mind to the principles of that
philosophy for which he suffered. The death
of Archbishop Cranmer will be allowed by all
to be a decisive evidence of his sincere rejec
tion of what he conceived to be the errors of
Popery, and his thorough conviction of the
truth of the opposite system. When the coun
cil of Geneva burnt Servetus, no one will ques
tion the sincerity of the latter's belief, however
much he may question the truth of it. Now,
in all these cases, the proof goes no farther
than to establish the sincerity of the martyr's
belief. It goes but a little way, indeed, in
establishing the justness of it. This is a diffe-
relnt question. A man may be mistaken though
he be sincere. His errors, if they are not seen
110 TESTIMONY OF THE
to be such, will exercise all the influence and
authority of truth over him. Martyrs have bled
on the opposite sides of the question. It is
impossible, then, to rest on this circumstance
as an argument for the truth of either system ;
but the argument is always deemed incontro
vertible, in as far as it goes to establish the sin
cerity of each of the parties, and that both died
in the firm conviction of the doctrines which
they professed.
f[tf; f }h criT' .f&tdfttta fhl'fHi'i^V' tot vifij^wtfftfr}'
Now, the martyrdom of the first Christians
stands distinguished from all other examples by
this circumstance, that it not merely proves
the sincerity of the martyr's belief, but it also
proves that what he believed was true. In
other cases of martyrdom, the sufferer, when
he lays down his life, gives his testimony to the
truth of an opinion. In the case of the Chris
tians, when they laid down their lives, they
gave their testimony to the truth of a fact, of
which they affirmed themselves to be the eye
and the ear-witnesses. The sincerity of both
testimonies is unquestionable ; but it is only
in the latter case that the truth of the testi-
ORIGINAL WITNESSES. Ill
mony follows as a necessary consequence of its
sincerity. An opinion comes under the cog-
nizance of the understanding, ever liable, as we
all know, to error and delusion. A fact comes
under the cognizance of the senses, which have
ever been esteemed as infallible, when they
give their testimony to such plain, and obvious,
and palpable appearances, as those which make
up the evangelical story. We are still at liberty
to question the philosophy of Socrates, or the
orthodoxy of Cranmer and Servetus j but if
we were told by a Christian teacher, in the so
lemnity of his dying hour, and with the dread
ful apparatus of martyrdom before him, that
he saw Jesus after he had risen from the dead ;
that he conversed with him many days ; that
he put his hand into the print of his sides ;
and, in the ardour of his joyful conviction, ex
claimed, " My Lord, and my God !" we should
feel that there was no truth in the world, did
this language and this testimony deceive us.
If Christianity be not true, then the first
Christians must have been mistaken as to the
subject of their testimony. This supposition
24
112 , TESTIMONY OF THE
is destroyed by the nature of the subject. It
was not testimony to a doctrine which might
deceive the understanding. It was something
more than testimony to a dream, or a trance,
or a midnight fancy, which might deceive the
imagination. It was testimony to a multitude
and a succession of palpable facts, which could
never have deceived the senses, and which pre
clude all possibility of mistake, even though it
had been the testimony only of one individual.
But when, in addition to this, we consider, that
it is the testimony, not of one, but of many
individuals ; that it is a story repeated in a
variety of forms, but substantially the same ;
that it is the concurring testimony of different
eye-witnesses, or the companions of eye-wit
nesses we may, after this, take refuge in the
idea of falsehood and collusion, but it is not to
be admitted, that these eight .different writers
of the New Testament could have all blun
dered the matter with such method, and such
uniformity.
We know that, in spite of the magnitude of
their sufferings, there are infidels who, driven
ORIGINAL WITNESSES. 113
from the first part of the alternative, have re
curred to the second, and have affirmed, that
the glory of establishing a new religion, induc
ed the first Christians to assert, and to persist
in asserting, what they knew to be a falsehood.
But (though we should be anticipating the last
branch of the argument) they forget, that we
have the concurrence of two parties to the
truth of Christianity, and that it is the con
duct only of one of the parties, which can be
accounted for by the supposition in question.
The two parties are the teachers and the
taught. The former may aspire to the glory
of founding a new faith - y but what glory did
the latter propose to themselves from being
the dupes of an imposition so ruinous to every
earthly interest, and held in such low and dis
graceful estimation by the world at large ?
Abandon the teachers of Christianity to every
imputation, which infidelity,- on the rack for
conjectures to give plausibility to its system,
can desire; how shall we explain the con
currence of its disciples ? There may be a
glory in leading, but we see no glory in being
led. If Christianity were false, and Paul had
H
114* TESTIMONY OF THE
the effrontery to appeal to his five hundred
living witnesses whom he alleges to have seen
Christ after his resurrection ; the submissive
acquiescence of his disciples remains a very in
explicable circumstance. The same Paul, in
his epistles to the Corinthians, tells them that
some of them had the gift of healing, and the
power of working miracles ; and that the signs
of an apostle had been wrought among them
in wonders and mighty deeds. A man aspir
ing to the glory of an accredited teacher,
would never have committed himself on a sub
ject, where his falsehood could have been so
readily exposed. And in the veneration with
which we know his epistles to have been pre
served by the church of Corinth, we have not
merely the testimony of their writer to the
truth of the Christian miracles, but the testi
mony of a whole people, who had no interest
in being deceived.
<M- Ot 3 HfJto^ffTO')
Had Christianity been false, the reputation
of its first teachers lay at the mercy of every
individual among the numerous proselytes
whom they had gained to their system. It
ORIGINAL WITNESSES.
may not be competent for an unlettered pea
sant to detect the absurdity of a doctrine j but
he can at all times lift his testimony against a
fact, said to have happened in his presence,
and under the observation of his senses. Now
it so happens, that in a number of the epistles,
there are. allusions to, or express intimations of,
the miracles that had been wrought in the dif
ferent churches to which these epistles are ad
dressed. How comes it, if it be all a fabrica
tion, that it was never exposed ? We know,
that some of the disciples were driven, by the
terrors of persecuting violence, to resign their
profession. How should it happen, that none
of them ever attempted to vindicate their
apostasy, by laying open the artifice and insin
cerity of their Christian teachers? We may
be sure that such a testimony would have been
highly acceptable to the existing authorities of
that period. The Jews would have made the
most of it ; and the vigilant and discerning
officers of the Roman government would not
have failed to turn it to account. The mys
tery would have been exposed and laid open,
and the curiosity of latter ages would have
116 TESTIMONY, &C.
been satisfied as to the wonderful and unac
countable steps, by which a religion could
make such head in the world, though it rested
its whole authority on facts ; the falsehood of
which was accessible to all who were at the
trouble to inquire about them. But no ! We
hear of no such testimony from the apostates
of that period. We read of some, who, ago
nized at the reflection of their treachery, re
turned to their first profession, and expiated,
by martyrdom, the guilt which they felt they
had incurred by their dereliction of the truth.
This furnishes a strong example of the power
of conviction, and when we join with it, that it
is conviction in the integrity of those teachers
who appealed to miracles which had been
wrought among them, it appears to us a testi
mony in favour of our religion which is altoge
ther irresistible.
^ti 'io tao/n
rd- 'io
f
CHAP. V.
On the Testimony of Subsequent Witnesses.
IV. BUT this brings us to the last division of
the argument, viz. that the leading facts in the
history of the Gospel are corroborated by the
testimony of others.
' .. .;
The evidence we have already brought for
ward for the antiquity of the New Testament,
and the veneration in which it was held from
the earliest ages of the church, is an implied
testimony of all the Christians of that period to
the truth of the Gospel history. By proving
the authenticity of St Paul's Epistles to the
Corinthians, we not merely establish his testi
mony to the truth of the Christian miracles,
we establish the additional testimony of the
whole church of Corinth, who would never
have respected these Epistles, if Paul had ven
tured upon a falsehood so open to detection,
TESTIMONY OF
as the assertion, that miracles were wrought
among them, which not a single individual
ever witnessed. By proving the authenticity
of the New Testament at large, we secure, not
merely that argument which is founded on the
testimony and concurrence of its different wri
ters, but also the testimony of those immense
multitudes, who in distant countries submitted
to the New Testament as the rule of their
faith. The testimony of the teachers, whether
we take into consideration the subject of that
testimony, or the circumstances under which it
was delivered, is of itself a stronger argument
for the truth of the Gospel history, than can
be alleged for the truth of any other history
which has been transmitted down to us from
ancient times. The concurrence of the taught
carries along with it a host of additional testi
monies, which gives an evidence to the evan
gelical story, that is altogether unexampled.
On a point of ordinary history, the testimony
of Tacitus is held decisive, because it is not
contradicted. The history of the New Testa
ment is not only not contradicted, but confirm
ed by the strongest possible expressions which
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 119
men can give of their acquiescence in its
truth; by thousands who were either agents
or eye-witnesses of the transactions recorded,
who could not be deceived, who had no inte
rest, and no glory to gain by supporting a
falsehood, and who, by their sufferings in the
cause of what they professed to be their belief,
gave the highest evidence that human nature
can give of sincerity.
In this circumstance, it may be perceived,
how much the evidence for Christianity goes
beyond all ordinary historical evidence. A
profane historian relates a series of events
which happen in a particular age j and we
count it well, if it be his own age, and if the
history which he gives us be the testimony of
a contemporary author. Another historian
succeeds him at the distance of years, and, by
repeating the same story, gives the additional
evidence of his testimony to its truth. A third
historian perhaps goes over the same ground,
and lends another confirmation to the history.
And it is thus, by collecting all the lights
which are thinly scattered over the tract of
TESTIMONY OF
ages and of centuries, that we obtain all the
evidence which can be got, and all the evi
dence that is generally wished for.
..jpfs EK* *M* billow orbvK
Now, there is room for a thousand presump
tions, which, if admitted, would overturn the
whole of this evidence. For any thing we
know, the first historians may have had some
interest in disguising the truth, or substituting
in its place a falsehood, and a fabrication.
True, it has not been contradicted ; but they
form a very small number of men, who feel
strongly or particularly interested in a question
of history. The literary and speculative men
of that age may have perhaps been engaged
in other pursuits, or their testimonies may
have perished in the wreck of centuries. The
second historian may have been so far removed
in point of time from the events of his narra
tives, that he can furnish us not with an inde
pendent, but with a derived testimony. He
may have copied his account from the original
historian, and the falsehood have come down
to us in the shape of an authentic and well-
attested history. Presumptions may be multi-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.
plied without end ; yet in spite of them, there
is a natural confidence in the veracity of man,
which disposes us to as firm a belief in many
of the facts of ancient history, as in the occur
rences of the present day.
The history of the Gospel, however, stands
distinguished from all other history, by the un
interrupted nature of its testimony, which car
ries down its evidence, without a chasm, from
its earliest promulgation to the present day.
We do not speak of the superior weight and
splendour of its evidences, at the first publica
tion of that history, as being supported, not
merely by the testimony of one, but by the
concurrence of several independent witnesses.
We do not speak of its subsequent writers,
who follow one another in a far closer and
more crowded train, than there is any other
example of in the history or literature of the
world. We speak of the strong though unwrit
ten testimony of its numerous proselytes, who,
in the very fact of their proselytism, give, the
strongest possible confirmation to the Gospel,
and fill up every chasm in the recorded evi
dence of past times,
TESTIMONY OF
In the written testimonies for the truth of
.the Christian religion, Barnabas comes next in
order to the first promulgators of the evangeli
cal story. He was a contemporary of the apos
tles, and writes a very few years after the pub
lication of the pieces which make up the New
Testament. Clement follows, who was a fel
low-labourer of Paul, and writes an epistle in
the name of the church of Rome, to the
. church of Corinth. The written testimonies
follow one another with a closeness and a rapi
dity of which there is no example ; but what
we insist on at present, is the unwritten and
implied testimony of the people who compos
ed these two churches. There can be no
fact better established, than that these two
churches were planted in the days of the apos
tles, and that the Epistles which were respec
tively addressed to them, were held in the ut
most authority and veneration. There is no
doubt, that the leading facts of the Gospel his
tory were familiar to them ; that it was in the
power of many individuals amongst them to
verify these facts, either by their own personal
observation, or by an actual conversation with
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.
eye-witnesses ; and that, in particular, it was in
the power of almost every individual in the
church of Corinth, either to verify the miracles
which St Paul alludes to in his epistle to that
church, or to detect and expose the imposi
tion, had there been no foundation for such an
allusion. What do we see in all this, but the
strongest possible testimony of a whole peo
ple to the truth of the Christian miracles?
There is nothing like this in common history,
the formation of a society, which can only
be explained by the history of the Gospel, and
* where the conduct of every individual fur-
iiishes a distinct pledge and evidence of its
truth. And to have a full view of the argu
ment, we must reflect, that it is not one, but
many societies scattered over the different
countries of the world ; that the principle upon
which each society was formed, was the divine
authority of Christ and his apostles, resting
upon the recorded miracles of the New Testa
ment ; that these miracles were wrought with
a publicity, and at a nearness of time, which
rendered them accessible to the inquiries of
all, for upwards of half a century j that no-
124* TESTIMONY OF
thing but the power of conviction could have
induced the people of that age to embrace a
religion so disgraced and so persecuted ; that
every temptation was held out for its disciples
to abandon it ; and that though some of them,
overpowered by the terrors of punishment,
were driven to apostasy, yet not one of them
has left us a testimony which can impeach the
miracles of Christianity, or the integrity of its
first teachers.
It may be observed, that in pursuing the line
of continuity from the days of the apostles, the
written testimonies for the truth of the Chris
tian miracles follow one another in closer suc
cession, than we have any other example of in
ancient history. But what gives such peculiar
and unprecedented evidence to the history of
the Gospel is, that in the concurrence of the
multitudes who embraced it, and in the exist
ence of those numerous churches and societies
of men who espoused the profession of the
Christian faith, we cannot but perceive, that
every small interval of time betwixt the written
testimonies of authors is filled up by materials
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.
so strong and so firmly cemented, as to present
us with an unbroken chain of evidence, carry
ing as much authority along with it, as if it had
been a diurnal record, commencing from the
days of the apostles, and authenticated through
its whole progress by the testimony of thou
sands.
JW rr-fi
Every convert to the Christian faith in those
days, gives one additional testimony to the
truth of the Gospel history. Is he a Gentile ?
The sincerity of his testimony is approved by
the persecutions, the sufferings, the danger, and
often the certainty of martyrdom, which the
profession of Christianity incurred. Is he a
Jew ? The sincerity of his testimony is approv
ed by all these evidences, and in addition to
them by this well known fact, that the faith
and doctrine of Christianity were in the highest
degree repugnant to the wishes and prejudices
of that people. It ought never to be forgotten,
that in as far as Jews are concerned, Christi
anity does not owe a single proselyte to its doc
trines, but to the power and credit of its evi
dences, and that Judea was the chief theatre
126 TESTIMONY OF
on which these evidences were exhibited. fy,
cannot be too often repeated, that these evi
dences rest not upon arguments but upon facts,
and that the time, and the place, and the cir
cumstance, rendered these facts accessible to
the inquiries of all who chose to be at the trou
ble of this examination. And there can be no
doubt that this trouble was taken, whether we
reflect on the nature of the Christian faith, as
being so offensive to the pride and bigotry of
the Jewish people, or whether we reflect on the
consequences of embracing it, which were de
rision, and hatred, and banishment, and death.
We may be sure, that a step which involved in
it such painful sacrifices, would, not be entered
into upon light and insufficient grounds. In.
the sacrifices they made, the Jewish converts
gave every evidence of having delivered an
honest testimony in favour of the Christian
miracles; and when we reflect, that many of
them must have been eye-witness.es, and all of
them had it in their power to verify these mi
racles, by conversation and correspondence with
bye-standers, there can be no doubt that it was
not merely an honest, but a competent testi-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.
mony. There is no fact better established, than
that many thousands among the Jews believed
in Jesus and his apostles ; and we have there
fore to allege their conversion as a strong addi
tional confirmation of the written testimony of
the original historians.
s / & "Kfc ^tifl/ibsi^f 3 # iok >i$r<2
One of the popular objections against the
truth of the Christian miracles, is the general
infidelity of the Jewish people. We are con
vinced, that at the moment of proposing this
objection an actual delusion exists in the mind
of the infidel. In his conception, the Jews and.
the Christians stand opposed to each other.
In the belief of the latter, he sees nothing but
a party or an interested testimony j and in the
unbelief of the former, he sees a whole people
persevering in their ancient faith, and resisting
the new faith, on the ground of its insufficient
evidences. He forgets aU the while, that the
testimony of a great many of these Christians
is in fact the testimony of Jews. He only
attends to them in their present capacity. He
contemplates them in the light of Christians,
and annexes to them all that suspicion and ia
TESTIMONY OF
credulity which are generally annexed to the
testimony of an interested party. He is aware
of what they are at present, Christians and
defenders of Christianity ; but he has lost sight
of their original situation, and is totally un
mindful of this circumstance, that in their tran
sition from Judaism to Christianity they have
given him the very evidence he is in quest of.
Had another thousand of these Jews renounced
the faith of their ancestors, and embraced the
religion of Jesus, they would have been equi
valent to a thousand additional testimonies in
favour of Christianity, and testimonies too of
the strongest and most unsuspicious kind that
can well be imagined. But this evidence
would make no impression on the mind of an
infidel, and the strength of it is disguised, even
from the eyes of the Christian. These thou
sand, in the moment of their conversion, lose
the appellation of Jews, and merge into the
name and distinction of Christians. The Jews,
though diminished in number, retain the na
tional appellation ; and the obstinacy with
which they persevere in the belief of their
ancestors, is still looked upon as the adverse
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 129
testimony of an entire people. So long as one
of that people continues a Jew, his testimony
is looked upon as a serious impediment in the
way of the Christian evidences. But the mo
ment he becomes a Christian, his motives are
contemplated with distrust. He is one of the
obnoxious and suspected party. The mind
carries a reference only to what he is, and not
to what he has been. It overlooks the change
of sentiment, and forgets, that, in the renun
ciation of old habits, and old prejudices, in de
fiance to sufferings and disgrace, in attachment
to a religion so repugnant to the pride and
bigotry of their nation, and above all, in sub
mission to a system of doctrines which rested
its authority on the miracles of their own time,
and their own remembrance, every Jewish con
vert gives the most decisive testimony which
man can give for the truth and divinity of our
religion.
^
But why, then, says the infidel, did they not
all believe ? Had the miracles of the Gospel
been true, we do not see how human nature,
i
130 TESTIMONY OP
could have helc} out against an evidence so
striking and so extraordinary j nor can we at
all enter into the obstinacy of that belief which
is ascribed to the majority of the Jewish people,
and which led them to shut their eyes against
a testimony, that no man of common sense, we
think, could have resisted.
rf iFHvfr ir'vl'*> lAxis-rilo-i '-ttemp ?
Many Christian writers have attempted to
resolve this difficulty, and to prove that the
irifidelity of the Jews, in spite of the miracles
which they saw, is perfectly consistent with the
known principles of human nature. For this
purpose, they have enlarged, with much force
and plausibility, on the strength and inveteracy
of the Jewish prejudices on the bewildering
influence of religious bigotry upon the under
standing of men on the woeful disappoint
ment which Christianity offered to the pride
and interests of the nation on the selfishness
of the priesthood and on the facility with
which they might turn a blind and fanatical
multitude, who had been trained, by their ear
liest habits, to follow and to revere them.
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 131
In the Gospel history itself, we have a very
consistent account at least of the Jewish oppo
sition to the claims of our Saviour. We see
the deeply wounded pride of a nation, that felt
itself disgraced by the loss of its independence.
We see the arrogance of its peculiar and exclu
sive claims to the favour of the Almighty. We
see the anticipation of a great prince, who was
to deliver them from the power and subjection
of their enemies. We see their insolent con
tempt for the people of other countries, and
the foullest scorn that they should be admitted
to an equality with themselves in the honours
and benefits of a revelation from heaven. We
may easily conceive, how much the doctrine of
Christ and his apostles was calculated to gall,
and irritate, and disappoint them ; how it must
have mortified their national vanity ; how it
must have alarmed the jealousy of an artful and
interested priesthood ; and how it must have
scandalized the great body of the people, by
the liberality with which it addressed itself to
all men, and to all nations, and raised to an
elevation with themselves, those whom the
firmest habits and prejudices of their country
14ft TKWMONY 0V
l,,,| I.. I Ilirin to roMlrmplnlr Illldri nil llir ill'.
Mini ifjrnommy ol
A i < Miillllfrly u I IIM\V. in l.n I. lh;il IHI< I
III'**, Illlll riWlllHirnl. tin. I uoini.l. .1 |.M,I. . I .
H il.< I. .,ii,, i,, of i < .ii ! il l lli "|'|"- -ilion
\vlii Ii < lin h.iiul \ ' |> i " n 'l |MIII lli. I
iNli |H'oplr. In I IK Nrvv 'IVMhiinriH hiMory
Jlwlfi \v i|M.ih.l < I.I.|.|-N ol' (holr otii-
ni^MuiM vhilriiro ( mill UMM IN conllniird by (ho
i. .inn..ii\ nl ninny ollin writer*, lit I ho hi-
|MI\ ..I III. in, Ml N id. -in (,| PolyCMI'p, it, IN Mlllr.l.
lluil ilu <i iililrn mill ,lrw Ilihithilillg SinyriiM.
hi a CiiritMiN rugr, nn<l with i( Imid \<>i< r, HIM!
M.I. " HUM in llir l< .< !< . ..I' Amu, thr Ihlhri ol
il>< ChiUliutm, Iho ill-Mil. .\. oioiirgodN, who
I IMir Ill-Ill Illl HUM ..... I In !; I lfl< ', '"" I" u< -ln|
ill. in 1 " Ilu, . ..llM'lrtl \V((il, mill llic (!IMM|
ltnnclir nl lici'M, lor INN pile \ mid il IN nddrd,
II tlio ,!IWN wlwo, m'l'nnliu^; In nmloin, nwminlni/'.
Willl iltO ghNttCINt fcMfWRnltlONN." Il IN iirrdlrMN
to iniilli|ilv h-Mliinoiinm to II poltli HO f'.< i" ' >ll\
UUiltM'HiOod | MM. Hi it H uniliol rmivirl inn ulniio
which hiy til Hi. I. ,,11. ,ni .,i Mi. M ..|>|.> ih.>ii i..
CIlNNilUIIN i I!M! n K rriil drul nl'
WIYNRMKM.
rnh-M'il info if , Mini tli;il HIMI num. .,:. . I .
"I li':;hlily ftKftillftt fill' WOf*lll|f|MtrN iff Jtt*M*,
carry ", 1 1,. I,. .11 i li<t murk* of fury mid r*ent-
IIM III
Now w know Hi. 'i il I'owitr of |MMftion will
i;my it vii y fui ovi tin- jinwn of mi
W know iii.ii dm Mtrimjftli irf' ciiti-
IN not ... projioilion lo I,|H .jn ...hi-/ o(
i."i to H- -I-M.IM ,,i ( * v i-
dinoo tittendati i ni |><'rcoivoil 9 in cot^*
of ittii Attonibn* / Wti ulo know, Unit
in n grni mnNiir^ "|HI.M/
mid flint it In vftm in lli powitr of Uut
bofli to turn Mwny it* MtUmtion ftnin
wlmt would Jmid it in nny jmin/id or JinmllJMt-
ronc-limion, Mild to ditlivtir ituwlf ii|i
to UIOMI MrKuiiitntM which flitUtr it/
und it* fi^ii^iQii Ail UiiM \v within
fMtlM|45 of iMinilJMr Mnd trvrry dy
W*' Mil know fiow irnii'li it tinri^ Urn
of MII tr^nitM'nf , wlum it wl* ttJ
In i'/ flu |f " gfOAUr numbor ^
in M litinUon rn not
I34f TESTIMONY OF
but each confident and believing that theirs is
the side on which the justice lies. In those
contests of opinion, which take place every day
between man and man, and particularly if pas
sion and interest have any share in the contro
versy, it is evident to the slightest observation,
that though it might have been selfishness, in
the first instance, which gave a peculiar direc
tion to the understanding, yet each of the par
ties often comes, at last, to entertain a sincere
conviction in the truth of his own argument.
It is not that truth is not one and immutable.
The whole difference lies in the observers, each
of them viewing the object through the me
dium of his own prejudices, or cherishing those
peculiar habits of attention and understanding,
to which taste or inclination had disposed him.
In addition to all this, we know, that though
the evidence for a particular truth be so glar
ing, that it forces itself upon the understand
ing, and all the sophistry of passion and inte
rest cannot withstand it ; yet if this truth be
of a very painful and humiliating kind, the
obstinacy of man will often dispose him to re-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 135
sist its influence, and, in the bitterness of his
malignant feelings, to carry a hostility against ,
it, and that too in proportion to the weight of
the argument which may be brought forward
in its favour.
'unfy,p ^CTJ^ajjjKipkmj .Uu; -j-;r. ri"
Now, if we take into account the inveteracy
of the Jewish prejudices, and reflect how un
palatable and how mortifying to their pride
must have been the doctrine of a crucified Sa
viour ; we believe that their conduct, in refe
rence to Christianity and its miraculous evi
dences, presents us with nothing anomalous or
inexplicable, and that it will appear a possible
and a likely thing to every understanding, that
has been much cultivated in the experience of
human affairs, in the nature of mind, and in
the science of its character and phenomena.
There is a difficulty, however, in the way of
this investigation. From the nature of the
case, it bears no resemblance to any thing else,
that has either been recorded in history, or has
come within the range of our own personal ob
servation. There is no other example of a
136 TESTIMONY OF
people called upon to renounce the darling
faith and principles of their country, and that
upon the authority of miracles exhibited before
them. All the experience we have about the
operation of prejudice, and the perverseness of
the human temper and understanding, cannot
afford a complete solution of the question. In
many respects, it is a case sui generis, and the
only creditable information which we can ob
tain, to enlighten us in this inquiry, is through
the medium of that very testimony upon which
the difficulty in question has thrown the sus
picion that we want to get rid of.
. :tti
Let us give all the weight to this argument
of which it is susceptible, and the following is
the precise degree in which it affects the merits
of the controversy. When the religion of
Jesus was promulgated in Judea, its first teach
ers appealed to miracles wrought by themselves
in the face of day, as the evidence of their
being commissioned by God. Many adopted
the new religion upon this appeal, and many
rejected it. An argument in favour of Chris
tianity is derived from the conduct of the first
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 137
An objection against Christianity is derived
from the conduct of the second. Now, allow
ing that we are not in possession of experience
enough for estimating, in absolute terms, the
strength of the objection, we propose the fol
lowing as a solid and unexceptionable principle,
upon which to estimate a comparison betwixt
the strength of the objection and the strength
of the argument. We are sure that the first
would not have embraced Christianity had its
miracles been false; but we are not sure be-
forehand, whether the second would have re
jected this religion on the supposition of the
miracles being true. If experience does not
enlighten us as to how far the exhibition of a
real miracle would be effectual in inducing men
to renounce their old and favourite opinions,
we can infer nothing decisive from the conduct
of those who still kept by the Jewish religion,
This conduct was a matter of uncertainty, and
any argument which may be extracted from it
cannot be depended upon. But the case is
widely different with that party of their nation
who were converted from Judaism to Chris
tianity. We know that the alleged miracles of
138 TESTIMONY OF
Christianity were perfectly open to examina
tion. We are sim j , from our experience of
human nature, that in a question so interesting,
this examination would be given. We know,
from the very nature of the miraculous facts,
so remote from every thing like what would be
attempted by jugglery, or pretended to by en>-
thusiasm, that, if this examination were given,
it would fix the truth or falsehood of the mira
cles. The truth of these miracles, then, for
any thing we know, may be consistent with the
conduct of the Jewish party ; but the falsehood
of these miracles, from all that we do know of
human nature, is not consistent with the con
duct of the Christian party. Granting that we
are not sure whether a miracle would force the
Jewish nation to renounce their opinions, all
that we can say of the conduct of the Jewish
party is, that we are not able to explain it.
But there is one thing that we are sure of. We
are sure, that if the pretensions of Christianity
be false, it never could have forced any part of
the Jewish nation to renounce their opinions,
with its alleged miracles, so open to detection,
and its doctrines so offensive to every indiyi-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 139
dual. The conduct of the Christian party then
is not only what we are able to explain, but we
can say with certainty, that it admits of no
other explanation, than the truth of that hypo
thesis which we contend for. We may not
know in how far an attachment to existing
opinions will prevail over an argument which
is felt to be true ; but we are sure, that this
attachment will never give way to an argument
which is perceived to be false ; and particular
ly when danger, and hatred, and persecution,
are the consequences of embracing it. The
argument for Christianity, from the conduct of
the first proselytes, rests upon the firm ground
of experience. The objection against it, from
the conduct of the unbelieving Jews, has no
experience whatever to rest upon.
The conduct of the Jews may be considered
as a solitary fact in the history of the world,
not from its being an exception to the general
principles of human nature, but from its being
an exhibition of human nature in singular cir
cumstances. We have no experience to guide
us in our opinion as to the probability of this
140 TESTIMONY OF
conduct ; and nothing, therefore, that can im
peach a testimony which all experience in hu
man affairs leads us to repose in as unquestion
able. But, after this testimony is admitted,
we may submit to be enlightened by it ; and
in the history which it gives us of the unbe
lieving Jews, it furnishes a curious fact as to
the power of prejudice upon the human mind,
and a valuable accession to what we before
knew of the principles of our nature. It lays
before us an exhibition of the human mind in
a situation altogether unexampled, and fur
nishes us with the result of a singular experi
ment, if we may so call it, in the history of
the species. We offer it as an interesting fact
to the moral and intellectual philosopher, that
a previous attachment may sway the mind even
against the impression of a miracle ; and those
who believe not in the historical evidence
which established the authority of Christ and
of the apostles, would not believe, even though
cme rose from the dead,
.- <\
-ii j '.. '.-.> r
We are inclined to think, that the argument
has come down to us in the best possible form,
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 141
and that it would have been enfeebled by that
very circumstance, which the infidel demands
as essential to its validity. Suppose for a mo
ment that we could give him what he wants,
that all the priests and people of Judea were
so borne down by the resistless evidence of
miracles, as by one universal consent to be
come the disciples of the new religion. What
interpretation might have been given to this
unanimous movement in favour of Christiani
ty ? A very unfavourable one, we apprehend,
to the authenticity of its evidences. Will the
infidel say, that he has a higher respect for the
credibility of those miracles which ushered in
the dispensation of Moses, because they were
exhibited in the face of a whole people, and
gained their unexcepted submission to the laws
and the ritual of Judaism ? This new revolu
tion would have received the same explanation.
We would have heard of its being sanctioned
by their prophecies, of its being agreeable to
their prejudices, of its being supported by the
countenance and encouragement of their priest
hood, and that the jugglery of its miracles im
posed upon all, because all were willing to be
TESTIMONY OF
deceived by them. The actual form in which
the history has come down, presents us with an
argument free of all these exceptions. We, in
the first instance, behold a number of prose
lytes, whose testimony to the facts of Christi
anity is approved of by what they lost and suf
fered in the maintenance of their faith ; and
we, in the second instance, behold a number
of enemies, eager, vigilant, and exasperated, at
the progress of the new religion, who have not
questioned the authenticity of our histories,
and whose silence, as to the public and widely
talked of miracles of Christ and his apostles,
we have a right to interpret into the most
triumphant of all testimonies.
/><> e:' Vb
The same process of reasoning is applicable
to the case of the Gentiles. Many adopted
the new religion, and many rejected it. We
may not be sure, if we can give an adequate
explanation of the conduct of the latter, on the
supposition that the evidences are true ; but
we are perfectly sure, that we can give no ade
quate explanation of the conduct of the for*
mer, on the supposition that the evidences are
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 14)3
false. For any thing we know, it is possible
that the one party may have adhered to their
former prejudices, in opposition to all the force
and urgency of argument, which even an au
thentic miracle carries along with it. But we
know that it is not possible that the other party
should renounce these prejudices, and that too
in the face of danger and persecution, unless
the miracles had been authentic. So great is
the difference betwixt the strength of the argu
ment and the strength of the objection, that
we count it fortunate for the merits of the
cause, that the conversions to Christianity
were partial. We, in this way, secure all the
support which is derived from the inexplicable
fact of the silence of its enemies, inexplicable
on every supposition, but the undeniable evi
dence and certainty of the miracles. Had the
Roman empire made a unanimous movement
to the new religion, and all the authorities of
the state lent their concurrence to it, there
would have been a suspicion annexed to the
whole history of the Gospel, which cannot at
present apply to it ; and from the collision of
the opposite parties, the truth has come down
144 TESTIMONY OF
to us in a far more unquestionable form than if
no such collision had been excited.
ui ."*>iiuj{oi$j T9*m.0t
The silence of Heathen and Jewish writers
of that period, about the miracles of Chris
tianity, has been much insisted upon by the
enemies of our religion ; and has even excit
ed something like a painful suspicion in the
breasts of those who are attached to its cause.
Certain it is, that no ancient facts have come
down to us, supported by a greater quantity of
historical evidence, and better accompanied
with all the circumstances which can confer
credibility on that evidence. ' When we de
mand the testimony of Tacitus to the Christian
miracles, we forget all the while that we can
allege a multitude of much more decisive tes
timonies ; no less than eight contemporary
authors, and a train of succeeding writers, who
follow one another with a closeness and a ra
pidity, of which there is no example in any
other department of ancient history. We for
get that the authenticity of these different
writers, and their pretensions to credit, are
founded on considerations, perfectly the same
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 145
in kind, though much stronger in degree,
than what have been employed to establish the
testimony of the most esteemed historians of
former ages. For the history of the Gospel,
we behold a series of testimonies, more conti
nuous, and more firmly sustained, than there
is any other example of in the whole compass
of erudition. And to refuse this evidence, is
a proof, that in this investigation, there is an
aptitude in the human mind to abandon all
ordinary principles, and to be carried away
by the delusions which we have already insist
ed on.
L<te..;Kl#90Mi<- ifg
But let us try the effect of that testimony
which our antagonists demand. Tacitus has
actually attested the existence of Jesus Christ ;
the reality of such a personage; his public
execution under the administration of Pontius
Pilate ; the temporary check which this gave
to the progress of his religion ; its revival a
short time after his death; its progress over
the land of Judea, and to Rome itself, the me
tropolis of the empire ; all this we have in a
Roman historian ; and, in opposition to all es-
K
146 TESTIMONY OF
tablished reasoning upon these subjects, it is by
some more firmly confided in upon his testi
mony, than upon the numerous and concurring
testimonies of nearer and contemporary writers.
But be this as it may, let us suppose that Taci
tus had thrown one particular more into his
testimony, and that his sentence had run thus :
" They had their denomination from Christus,
who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death
as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate,
and who rose from the dead on the third day
after his execution, and ascended into heaven."
Does it not strike every body, that however
true the last piece of information may be, and
however well established by its proper historians,
this is not the place where we can expect to
find it? If Tacitus did not believe the resur
rection of our Saviour, (which is probably the
case, as he never, in all likelihood, paid any
attention to the evidence of a faith which he
was led to regard, from the outset, as a perni
cious superstition, and a mere modification of
Judaism,) it is not to be supposed that such an
assertion could ever have been made by him.
If Tacitus did believe the resurrection of our
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 147
Saviour, he gives us an example of what ap
pears not to have been uncommon in these
ages he gives us an example of a man adher
ing to that system which interest and education
recommended, in opposition to the evidence of
a miracle which he admitted to be true. Still,
even on this supposition, it is the most unlikely
thing in the world, that he would have admitted
the fact of our Saviour's resurrection into his
history. It is most improbable, that a testi
mony of this kind would have been given, even
though the resurrection of Jesus Christ be ad
mitted ; and, therefore, the want of this testi
mony carries in it no argument that the resur
rection is a falsehood. If, however, in opposi
tion to all probability, this testimony had been
given, it would have been appealed to as a most
striking confirmation of the main fact of the
evangelical history. It would have figured
away in all our elementary treatises, and been
referred to as a master argument in every ex
position of the evidences of Christianity. In
fidels would have been challenged to believe in
it on the strength of their own favourite evi
dence, the evidence of a classical historian;
148 TESTIMONY OF
and must have been at a loss how to dispose of
this fact, when they saw an unbiassed heathen
giving his round and unqualified testimony in
its favour.
Let us now carry this supposition a step far
ther. Let us conceive that Tacitus not only be
lieved the fact, and gave his testimony to it, but
that he believed it so far as to become a Chris
tian. Is his testimony to be refused, because
he gives this evidence of its sincerity? Taci
tus asserting the fact, and remaining a heathen,
is not so strong an argument for the truth of
our Saviour's resurrection, as Tacitus asserting
the fact and becoming a Christian in conse
quence of it. Yet the moment that this transi
tion is made a transition by which, in point
of fact, his testimony becomes stronger in
point of impression it becomes less ; and, by a
delusion, common to the infidel and the be
liever, the argument is held to be weakened by
the very circumstance which imparts greater
force to it. The elegant and accomplished
scholar becomes a believer. The truth, the
novelty, the importance of this new subject,
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 149
withdraw him from every other pursuit. He
shares in the common enthusiasm of the cause,
and gives all his talents and eloquence to the
support of it. Instead of the Roman historian,
Tacitus comes down to posterity in the shape of
a Christian father, and the high authority of his
name is lost in a crowd of similar testimonies,
:i <J
A direct testimony to the miracles of the
New Testament from the mouth of a heathen,
is not to be expected. We cannot satisfy this
demand of the infidel ; but we can give him a
host of much stronger testimonies than he is in
quest of the testimonies of those njen who
were heathens, and who embraced a hazardous
and a disgraceful profession, under a deep con*
viction of those facts to which they gave their
testimony. " Q, but you now land us in the
testimony of Christians !" This is very true ;
but it is the very fact of their being Christians
in which the strength of the argument lies : and
in each of the numerous fathers of the Chris
tian church, we see a stronger testimony than
the required testimony of the heathen Tacitus,
We see men who, if they had not been Chris-
150 TESTIMONY OF
tians, would have risen to as high an eminence
as Tacitus in the literature of the times ; and
whose direct testimonies to the gospel history
would, in that case, have been most impres
sive, even to the mind of an infidel. And are
these testimonies to be less impressive, because
they were preceded by conviction, and sealed
by martyrdom ?
.
Yet though, from the nature of the case, no
direct testimony to the Christian miracles from
a heathen can be looked for, there are heathen
testimonies which form an important accession
to the Christian argument. Such are the testi
monies to the state of Judea ; the testimonies
to those numerous particulars in government
and customs, which are so often alluded to in
the New Testament, and give it the air of an
authentic history ; and above all, the testimo
nies to the sufferings of the primitive Chris
tians, from which we learn, through a channel
clear of every suspicion, that Christianity, a re
ligion of facts, was the object of persecution at
a time, when eye-witnesses taught, and eye
witnesses must have Wed for it.
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 151
The silence of Jewish and Heathen writers,
when the true interpretation is given to it, is
all on the side of the Christian argument.
Even though the miracles of the Gospel had
been believed to be true, it is most unlikely that
the enemies of the Christian religion would
have given their testimony to them ; and the
absence of this testimony is no impeachment
therefore upon the reality of these miracles.
But if the miracles of the Gospel had been
believed to be false, it is most likely that this
falsehood would have been asserted by the
Jews and Heathens of that period ; and the
circumstance of no such assertion having been
given, is a strong argument for the reality of
these miracles. Their silence in not asserting
the miracles, is perfectly consistent with their
truth ; but their silence in not denying them,
is not at all consistent with their falsehood.
The entire silence of Josephus upon the subject
of Christianity, though he wrote after the de
struction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history
of that period in which Christ and his apostles
lived, is certainly a very striking circumstance.
The sudden progress of Christianity at that
TESTIMONY OF
time, and the fame of its miracles, (if not the
miracles themselves,) form an important part
of the Jewish history. HOW came Josephus to
abstain from every particular respecting it?
Will you reverse every principle of criticism,
and make the silence of Josephus carry it over
the positive testimony of the many historical
documents which have come down to us ? If
you refuse every Christian testimony upon the
subject, you will not refuse the testimony of
Tacitus, who asserts, that this religion spread
over Judea, and reached the city of Rome, and
was looked upon as an evil of such importance,
that it became the object of an authorized
persecution by the Roman government ; and
all this several years before the destruction of
Jerusalem, and before Josephus composed his
history. Whatever opinion may -be formed as
to the truth of Christianity, certain it is, that
its progress constituted an object of sufficient
magnitude, to compel the attention of any his
torian who undertook the affairs of that period.
How then shall we account for the scrupulous
and determined exclusion of it from the history
of Josephus ? Had its miracles been false, this
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 153
Jewish historian would gladly have exposed
them. But its miracles were true, and silence
was the only refuge of an antagonist, and his
wisest policy.
But though we gather no direct testimony
from Josephus, yet his history furnishes us with
many satisfying additions to the Christian argu
ment. In the details of policy and manners,
he coincides in the main with the writers of the
New Testament ; and these coincidences are
so numerous, and have so undesigned an ap
pearance, as to impress on every person, who
is at the trouble of making the comparison, the
truth of the evangelical story.
If we are to look for direct testimonies to
the miracles of the New Testament, we must
look to that quarter, where alone it would be
reasonable to expect them, to the writings of
the Christian fathers, men who were not Jews
or Heathens at the moment of recording their
testimony ; but who had been Jews or Hea
thens, and who, in their transition to the ulti
mate state of Christians, give a stronger eyi T
TESTIMONY OF
dence of integrity, than if they had believed
these miracles, and persisted in a cowardly
adherence to the safest profession.
We do not undertake to satisfy every demand
of the infidel. We think we do enough, if we
prove that the thing demanded is most unlike
ly, even though the miracles should be true ;
and therefore that the want of it carries no
argument against the truth of the miracles.
But we do still more than this, if we prove that
the testimonies which we actually possess are
much stronger than the testimonies he is in
quest of. And who can doubt this, when he
reflects, that the true way of putting the case
betwixt the testimony of the Christian father,
which we do have, and the testimony of Taci
tus, which we do not have, is, that the latter
would be an assertion not followed up by that
conduct, which would have been the best evi
dence of its sincerity ; whereas, the former is
an assertion substantiated by the whole life,
and by the decisive fact of the old profession
having been renounced, and the new profession
entered into, a change where disgrace, and
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 155
danger, and martyrdom, were the consequen
ces?
.
Let us, therefore, enter into an examination
of these testimonies.
c*j ijiiKvy/.jI .<aaJhw icirh^o - oi
This subject has been in part anticipated,
when we treated of the authenticity of the
books of the New Testament. We have quo
tations and references to these books from five
apostolic fathers, the companions of the origi
nal writers. We have their testimonies sustain*
ed and extended by their immediate successors;
and as we pursue this crowded series of testi
monies downwards, they become so numerous,
and so explicit, as to leave no doubt on the
mind of the inquirers, that the different books
of the New Testament are the publications of
the authors, whose names they bear ; and were
received by the Christian world, as books of
authority, from the first period of their appear
ance.
.viOmiJi
Now, every sentence in a Christian father,
expressive of respect for a book in the New
156 TESTIMONY OP
Testament, is also expressive of his faith in its
contents. It is equivalent to his testimony for
the miracles recorded in it. In the language
of the law, it is an act by which he homologates
the record, and superinduces his own testimony
to that of the original writers. It would be
vain to attempt speaking of all these testimo
nies. It cost the assiduous Lardner many
years to collect them. They are exhibited in
his Credibility of the New Testament ; and in
the multitude of them, we see a power and a
variety of evidence for the Christian miracles,
which is quite unequalled in the whole compass
of ancient history.
itffGiQfiU
But, in addition to these testimonies in the
gross, for the truth of the evangelical history,
have we no distinct testimonies to the indivi
dual facts which compose it ? We have no
doubt of the fact, that Barnabas was acquaint
ed with the Gospel by Matthew, and that he
subscribed to all the information contained in
that history. This is a most valuable testimony
from a contemporary writer ; and a testimony
which embraces all the miracles narrated by
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 157
the evangelist. But, in addition to this, we
should like if Barnabas, upon his own personal
conviction, could assert the reality of any of
these miracles. It would be multiplying the
original testimonies ; for he was a companion
and a fellow-labourer of the apostles. We
should have been delighted, if, in the course of
our researches into the literature of past times,
we had met with an authentic record, written
by one of the five hundred that are said to
have seen our Saviour after his resurrection,
and adding his own narrative of this event to
the narratives that have already come down to
us. Now, is any thing of this kind to be met
with in ecclesiastical antiquity ? How much of
this kind of evidence are we in actual possession
of? and if we have not enough to satisfy our
keen appetite for evidence on a question of
such magnitude, how is the want of it to be
accounted for ?
Let it be observed, then, that of the twenty-
seven books which make up the New Testa
ment, five are narrative or historical, viz. the
four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles*
158 TESTIMONY OF
which relate to the life and miracles of our
Saviour, and the progress of his religion
through the world, for a good many years
after his ascension into heaven. All the rest,
with the exception of the Revelation of St
John, are doctrinal or admonitory ; and their
main object is to explain the principles of the
new religion, or to impress its duties upon the
numerous proselytes who had even at that
early period been gained over to the profes
sion of Christianity.
Besides what we have in the New Testa
ment, no other professed narrative of the mi
racles of Christianity has come down to us,
bearing the marks of an authentic composition
by any apostle, or any contemporary of the
apostles. Now, to those who regret this cir
cumstance, we beg leave to submit the follow
ing observations. Suppose that one other nar
rative of the life and miracles of our Saviour
had been composed, and, to give all the value
to this additional testimony of which it is sus
ceptible, let us suppose it to be the work of an
apostle. By this last circumstance, we secure
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.
to its uttermost extent the advantage of an
original testimony, the testimony of another
eye-witness, and constant companion of our Sa
viour. Now, we ask, what would have been
the fate of this performance ? It would have
been incorporated into the New Testament
along with the other Gospels. It may have
been the Gospel according to Philip. It may
have been the Gospel according to Bartholo
mew. At all events, the whole amount of the
advantage would have been the substitution of
five Gospels instead of four, and this addition,
the want of which is so much complained of,
would scarcely have been felt by the Christian,
or acknowledged by the infidel, to strengthen
the evidence of which we are already in pos
session.
But to vary the supposition, let us suppose
that the narrative wanted, instead of being the
work of an apostle, had been the work of some
other contemporary, who writes upon his own
original knowledge of the subject, but was not
so closely associated with Christ, or his imme
diate disciples, as to have his history admitted
24
160 TESTIMONY OF
into the canonical scriptures. Had this his
tory been preserved, it would have been trans
mitted to us in a separate state ; it would have
stood out from among that collection of writ
ings, which passes under the general name of
the New Testament, and the additional evi
dence thus afforded, would have come down
in the form most satisfactory to those with
whom we are maintaining our present argu
ment. Yet though, in point of form, the tes
timony might be more satisfactory ; in point
of fact, it would be less so. It is the testimony
of a less competent witness, a witness who,
in the judgment of his contemporaries, want
ed those accomplishments which entitled him
to a place in the New Testament. There must
be some delusion operating upon the under
standing, if we think that a circumstance,
which renders an historian less accredited in
the eyes of his own age, should render him
more accredited in the eyes of posterity. Had
Mark been kept out of the New Testament,
he would have come dpwn to us in that form,
which would have made his testimony more
impressive to a superficial inquirer ; yet there
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 161
would be no good reason for keeping him out,
but precisely that reason which should render
his testimony less impressive. We do not
complain of this anxiety for more evidence,
and as much of it as possible ; but it is right
to be told, that the evidence we have is of far
more value than the evidence demanded, and
that, in the concurrence of four canonical nar
ratives,, we see a far more effectual argument
for the miracles of the New Testament, than
in any number of those separate and extra
neous narratives, the want of which is so much
felt, and so much complained of.
That the New Testament is not one, but a
collection of many testimonies, is what has
been often said, and often acquiesced in. Yet
even after the argument is formally acceded
to, its impression is unfelt j and on this sub
ject there is a great and an obstinate delusion,
which not only confirms the infidel in his dis
regard to Christianity, but even veils the
strength of the evidence from its warmest ad
mirers.
162 TESTIMONY OF
There is a difference betwixt a mere narrative
and a work of specidation or morality. The
latter subjects embrace a wider range, admit a
greater variety of illustration, and are quite end
less in their application to the new cases that
occur in the ever-changing history of human
affairs. The subject of a narrative again admit*
of being exhausted. It is limited by the num
ber of actual events. True, you may expatiate
upon the character or importance of these
events, but, in so doing,- you drop the office of
the pure historian, for that of the politician, or
the moralist, or the divine. The evangelists
give us a very chaste and perfect example of
the pure narrative. They never appear in their
own persons* or arrest the progress of the his
tory for a single moment, by interposing their
own wisdom, or their own piety. A gospel is a
bare relation of what has been said or done ;
and it is evident that, after a few good compo
sitions of this kind, any future attempts would
be superfluous and uncalled for.
But, in point of fact, these attempts were
made. It is to be supposed, that, after the sin-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 163
gular events of our Saviour's history,, the curio
sity of the public would be awakened, and there
would be a demand for written accounts of
such wonderful transactions. These written
accounts were accordingly brought forward.
Even in the interval' of time betwixt the ascen
sion of our Saviour, and the publication of the
earliest Gospel, such written histories seem to
have been frequent. " Many, >r says St Luke,
(and in this he is supported by the testimony
of subsequent writers,) " have taken in hand to
set forth in order a declaration of these things."
Now what has been the fate of all these perfor
mances ? Such as might have been- anticipated.
They fell into disuse and oblivion* There is no
evil design ascribed to the authors of them.
They may have been written with perfect inte
grity, and been useful for a short time, and with
in a limited circle ; but, as was natural, they all
gave way to the superior authority, and more
complete information, of our present narratives.
The demand of the Christian world was with
drawn from the less esteemed, to the more es
teemed histories of our Saviour. The former
ceased to be read, and copies of them would be
164 TESTIMONY OF
no longer transcribed or multiplied. We can
not find the testimony we are in quest of, not
because it was never given, but because the
early Christians, who were the most competent
judges of that testimony, did not think it wor
thy of being transmitted to us.
But, though the number of narratives be ne
cessarily limited by the nature of the subject,
there is no such limitation upon works of a mo
ral, didactic, or explanatory kind. Many such
pieces have come down to us, both from the
apostles themselves, and from the earlier fathers
of the church. Now, though the object of these
compositions is not to deliver any narrative of
the- Christian miracles, they may perhaps give
us some occasional intimation of them. They
may proceed upon their reality. We may ga
ther either from incidental passages, or from
the general scope of the performance, that the
miracles of Christ and his apostles were recog
nized, and the divinity of our religion acknow
ledged,, as founded upon these miracles.
The first piece of the kind which we meet
with, besides the writings of the New Testa-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. l(x>
ment, is an epistle ascribed to Barnabas, and,
at all events, the production of a man, who liv
ed in. the days of the apostles. It .consists of
an -exhortation to constancy in the Christian
profession, a dissuasive from Judaism, and other
moral instructions. We shall only give JSL quo
tation of a single clause from this work. " And
he (i.e. our Saviour) making great signs and
prodigies to the people of the Jews, they nei
ther believed jixxr loved him."
The next piece in the succession of Christian
writers, is the undoubted epistle of Clement,
the bishop of Rome, to the church of Corinth,
and who, by the concurrent voice of all anti
quity, is the same Clement who is mentioned
in the epistle to the Philippians, as the fellow-
labourer of Paul. It is written in the name of
the church of Rome, and the object of it is to
compose certain dissensions which had arisen in
the church of Corinth. It was out of his way
to enter into any thing like a formal narrative
of the miraculous facts which are to be found
in the evangelical history. The subject of his
-epistle did not lead him to this ; and besides,
166 TESTIMONY OF
the number and authority of the narratives al
ready published, rendered an attempt of this
kind altogether superfluous. Still, however,
though a miracle may not be formally announ
ced, it may be brought in incidentally, or it
may be proceeded upon, or assumed as the
basis of an argument. We give one or two ex
amples of this. In one part of his epistle, he
illustrates the doctrine of our resurrection from
-the dead, by the change and progression of na
tural appearances, and he ushers in this illus
tration with the following sentence : " Let us
consider, my beloved, how the Lord shews us
our future resurrection perpetually, of which
he made the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits,
by raising him from the dead." This inciden
tal way of bringing in the fact of our Lord's re
surrection, appears to us the strongest possible
form in which the testimony of Clement could
Jiave come down to us. It is brought forward
in the most confident and unembarrassed man
ner. He does not stop to confirm this fact by
any strong asseveration, nor does he carry, in
his manner of announcing it, the most remote
suspicion of its being resisted by the incredu-
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 16?
lity of those to whom he is addressing himself.
It wears the air of an acknowledged truth, a
thing understood and acquiesced in by all the
parties in this correspondence. The direct
narrative of the evangelists gives us their ori
ginal testimony to the miracles of the gospeL
The artless and indirect allusions of the apos
tolic fathers, give us not merely their faith in
this testimony, but the faith of the whole so
cieties to which they write. They let us see,
not merely that such a testimony was given, but
that such a testimony was generally believed,
and that, too, at a time when the facts in ques
tion lay within the memory of living witnesses.
In another part, speaking of the apostles,
dement says, that " receiving the command
ments, and being filled with full certainty by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and confirmed
by the word of God, with the assurance of the
Holy Spirit, they went out announcing the ad
vent of the kingdom of God."
It was no object, in those days, for a Chris
tian writer to come over the miracles of the
168 TESTIMONY OP
New Testament, with the view of lending hig
formal and explicit testimony to them. This
testimony had already been completed to the
satisfaction of the whole Christian world. If
much additional testimony has not been given,
it is because it was not called for. But we
ought to see, that every Christian writer, in
the fact ,of his being a Christian, in his express
ed reverence for the books of the New Testa
ment, and in his numerous allusions to the
leading points of the Gospel history, has given
.as satisfying evidence to the truth of the .Chris-
.tian miracles, as if he had left behind him a
.copious ,an<d distinct narrative..
Of all the miracles of the Gospel, it was to
be supposed, that the resurrection of our Sa
viour would be oftenest appealed to j not as an
evidence of his being a teacher, for that was
a point so settled in the mind of every Chris
tian, that a written exposition of the argument
was no longer necessary,^-but as a motive to
constancy in the Christian profession, and as
the great pillar of hope in our own immortality.
We accordingly meet with the most free and
t SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 169
confident allusions to this fact in the early fa
thers. We meet with five intimations of this
fact in the undoubted epistle of Polycarp to
the Philippians : a father who had been edu
cated by the apostles, and conversed with many
who had seen Christ.
It is quite unnecessary to exhibit passages
from the epistles of Ignatius to the same ef
fect, or to pursue the examination downwards
through the series of written testimonies. ' It
is enough to announce it as a general fact,
that, in the very first age of the Christian
church, the teachers of this religion proceeded
as confidently upon the reality of Christ's mira
cles and resurrection in their addresses to the
people, as the teachers of the present day : Or,
in other words, that they were as little afraid
of being resisted by the incredulity of the peo
ple, at a time when the evidence of the facts
was accessible to all, and habit and prejudice
were against them, as we are of being resisted
by the incredulity of an unlettered multitude,
who listen to us with all the veneration of a
hereditary faith.
170 TESTIMONY OF
There are five apostolic fathers, and a series
of Christian writers who follow after them in
rapid succession. To give an idea to those
who are not conversant in the study of ecclesi
astical antiquities, how well sustained the chain
of testimony is from the first age of Christianity,
we shall give a passage from a letter of Irenseus,
preserved by Eusebius. We have no less than
nine compositions from different authors, which
fill up the interval betwixt him and Polycarp ;
and yet this is the way in which he speaks, in
his old age, of the venerable Polycarp, in a let
ter to Florinus. " I saw you, when I was very
young, in the Lower Asia with Polycarp. For
I better remember the affairs of that time than
those which have lately happened : the things
which we learn in our childhood growing up in
the soul, and uniting themselves to it. Inso
much, that I can tell the place in which the
blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going
out, and coming in, and the manner of his life,
and the form of his person, and his discourses to
the people ; and how he related his conversation
with John, and others who had seen the Lord ;
and how he related their sayings, and what
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.
ke had heard from them concerning the Lord,
both concerning his miracles and his doctrines,
as he had received them from the eye-witnesses
of the Word of Life ; all which Polycarp re
lated agreeably to the Scriptures. These things
I then, through the mercy of God toward me,
diligently heard and attended to, recording
them not on paper, but upon my heart."
.
Now is the time to exhibit to full advantage
the argument which the different epistles of the
New Testament afford. They are, in fact, s6
many distinct and additional testimonies. If
the testimonies drawn from the writings of the
Christian fathers are calculated to make any
impression, then the testimonies of these epis
tles, where there as no delusion, and no preju
dice in the mind of the inquirer, must make a
greater impression. They are more ancient,
and were held to be of greater authority by
competent judges. They were held sufficient
by the men of those days, who were nearer to
the sources of evidence ; and they ought, there
fore, to be held sufficient by us. The early
persecuted Christians had too great an interest
TESTIMONY OF
in the grounds of their faith, to 'make a light
and superficial examination. We may safely
commit the decision to them ; and the decision
they have made, is, that the authors of the dif
ferent epistles in the New Testament, were
worthier of their confidence, as witnesses of the
truth, than the authors of those compositions
which were left out of the collection, and main
tain, in our eye, the form of a separate testi
mony. By what unaccountable tendency is it,
that we feel disposed to reverse this decision,
and to repose more faith in the testimony of
subsequent and less esteemed writers ? Is there
any thing in the confidence given to Peter and
Paul by their contemporaries, which renders
them unworthy of ours ? or, is the testimony of
their writings less valuable and less impressive,
because the Christians of old have received
them as the best vouchers of their faith ?
; T>}s^% ltff>, r ' 'I ^-wrftt' ;
It gives us a far more satisfying impression
than ever of the truth of our religion, when, in
addition to several distinct and independent
narratives of its history, we meet with a num
ber of contemporaneous productions addressed
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 173
to different societies, and all proceeding upon
the truth of that history, as an agreed and un
questionable point amongst the different parties
in the correspondence* Had that history been
a fabrication, in what manner, we ask, would it
have been followed up by the subsequent com
positions of those numerous agents in the work
of deception ? How comes it, that they have
betrayed no symptom of that insecurity which
it would have been so natural to feel in their
circumstances? Through the whole of these
epistles, we see nothing like the awkward or
embarrassed air of impostors. We see no
anxiety, either to mend or to confirm the his
tory that had already been given. We see no
contest which they might have been called up
on to maintain with the incredulity of their
converts, as to the miracles of the Gospel. We
see the most intrepid remonstrance against
errors of conduct, or discipline, or doctrine.
This savours strongly of upright and indepen
dent teachers ; but is it not a most striking cir
cumstance, that, amongst the severe reckonings
which St Paul had with some of his churches,
he was never once called upon to school their
174 TESTIMONY OF
doubts, or their suspicions, as to the reality of
the Christian miracles ? This is a point uni
versally acquiesced in ; and, from the general
strain of these epistles, we collect, not merely
the testimony of their authors, but the unsus
pected testimony of all to whom they address
ed themselves.
i ^ 7 j.
And let it never be forgotten, that the Chris
tians who composed these churches, were in
every way well qualified to be arbiters in this
question. They had the first authorities within
their reach. The five hundred who, Paul says
to them, had seen our Saviour after his resur
rection, could be sought after ; and if not to
be found, Paul would have had his assertion to
answer for. In some cases, they were the first
authorities themselves, and had therefore no
confirmation to go in search of. He appeals to
the miracles which had been wrought among
them, and in this way he commits the question
to their own experience. He asserts this to
the Galatians ; and at the very time, too, that
he is delivering against them a most severe and
irritating invective. He intimates the same
SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES. 175
thing repeatedly to the Corinthians ; and after
he had put his honesty to so severe a trial, does
he betray any insecurity as to his character and
reputation amongst them ? So far from this,
that in arguing the general doctrine of the re
surrection from the dead, as the most effectual
method of securing assent to it, he rests the
main part of the argument upon their confi
dence in his fidelity as a witness. " But if
there be no resurrection from the dead, then is
Christ not risen Yea, and we are found false
witnesses of God, because we have testified of
God, that he raised up Christ, whom he raised
not up, if so be that the dead rise not." Where,
we ask, would have been the mighty charm of
this argument, if Paul's fidelity had been ques
tioned ; and how shall we account for the free
and intrepid manner in which he advances it,
if the miracles which he refers to, as. wrought
among them, had been nullities of his own in
vention ?
For the truth of the Gospel history, we can
appeal to one strong and unbroken series of
testimonies from the days of the apostles. But
176 TESTIMONY, &C.
the great strength of the evidence lies in that
effulgence of testimony, which enlightens this
history at its commencement in the number
of its original witnesses in the distinct and
independent records which they left behind
them, and in the undoubted faith they bore
among the numerous societies which they in-
stituted. The concurrence of the apostolic
fathers, and their immediate successors, forms
a very strong and a very satisfying argument ;
but let it be further remembered, that out of
the materials which compose, if we may be al
lowed the expression, the original charter of
our faith, we can select a stronger body of evi
dence than it is possible to form out of the
whole mass of subsequent testimonies,
. t ti gaonitftfto^r! xbirlw ni
CHAP. VI.
Remarks on the Argument from Prophecy.
PROPHECY is another species of evidence to
which Christianity professes an abundant claim,
and which can be established on evidence alto
gether distinct from the testimony of its sup
porters. The prediction of what is future may
not be delivered in terms so clear and intelli
gible as the history of what is past ; and yet,
in its actual fulfilment, it may leave no doubt
on the mind of the inquirer that it was a pre
diction, and that the event in question was in
the contemplation of him who uttered it. It
may be easy to dispose of one isolated prophe
cy, by ascribing it to accident ; but when we
observe a number of these prophecies, delivered
in different ages, and all bearing an application
to the same events, or the same individual, it
is difficult to resist the impression that they
were actuated by a knowledge superior to hu
man.
M
178 ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY.
The obscurity of the prophetical language
has been often complained of; but it is not so
often attended to, that if the prophecy which
foretels an event were as clear as the narrative
which describes it, it would in many cases an
nihilate the argument. Were the history of
any individual foretold in terms as explicit as
it is in the power of narrative to make them,
it might be competent for any usurper to set
himself forward, and in as far as it depended
upon his own agency, he might realize that
history. He has no more to do than to take
his lesson from the prophecy before him ; but
could it be said that fulfilment like this carried
in it the evidene of any thing divine or mira
culous ? If the prophecy of a Prince and a
Saviour, in the Old Testament, were different
from what they are, and delivered in the pre
cise and intelligible terms of an actual history j
then every accomplishment which could be
brought about by the agency of those who un
derstood the prophecy, and were anxious for
-its verification, is lost to the argument. It
would be instantly said that the agents in the
transaction took their clue from the prophecy
ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 179
before them. It is the way, in fact, in which
infidels have attempted to evade the argument
as it actually stands. In the New Testament,
an event is sometimes said to happen, that it
might be fulfilled what was spoken by some of
the old prophets. If every event which enters
into the Gospel had been under the controul
of agents merely human, and friends to Chris
tianity ; then we might have had rea|Qii to
pronounce the whole history to be one conti
nued process of artful and designed accommo
dation to the Old Testament prophecies. But
the truth is, that many of the events pointed
at in the Old Testament, so far from being
brought about by the agency of Christians,
were brought about in opposition to their most
anxious wishes. Some of them were brought
about by the agency of their most decided ene
mies ; and some of them, such as the dissolu
tion of the Jewish state, and the dispersion of
its people amongst all countries, were quite
beyond the controul of the apostles and their
followers, and were effected by the intervention
of a neutral party, which at the time took no
interest in the question, and which was a
180 ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY.
stranger to the prophecy, though the uncon
scious instrument of its fulfilment.
Lord Bolingbroke has carried the objection
so -far, that he asserts Jesus Christ to have
brought on his own death, by a series of wilful
and preconcerted measures, merely to give the
disciples who came after him the triumph of
an appeal to the old prophecies. This is ridi
culous enough ; but it serves to shew with
what facility an infidel might have evaded the
whole argument, had these prophecies been
free of all that obscurity which is now so loudly
complained of.
The best form, for the purposes of argument,
in which a prophecy can be delivered, is to be
so obscure, as to leave the event, or rather its
main circumstances, unintelligible before the
fulfilment, and so clear as to be intelligible after
it. It is easy to conceive that this may be an
attainable object - 9 and it is saying much for
the argument as it stands, that the happiest
illustrations of this clearness on the one hand,
and this obscurity on the other, are to be ga-
ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. 181
thered from the actual prophecies of the Old
Testament.
It is not, however, by this part of the argu
ment, that we expect to reclaim the enemy of
our religion from his infidelity; not that the
examination would not satisfy him, but that the
examination will not be given. What a vio
lence it would be offering to all his antipathies,
were we to land him, at the outset of our dis
cussions, among the chapters of Daniel or
Isaiah ! He has too inveterate a contempt for
the Bible. He nauseates the whole subject too
strongly to be prevailed upon to accompany us
to such an exercise. On such a subject as
this, there is no contact, no approximation be
twixt us ; and we therefore leave him with the
assertion, (an assertion which he has no title
to pronounce upon, till after he has finished
the very examination in which we are most
anxious to engage him,) that in the numerous
prophecies of the Old Testament, there is such
a multitude of allusions to the events of the
New, as will give a strong impression to the
mind of every inquirer, that the whole forms
ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY
one magnificent series of communications be
twixt the visible and the invisible world ; a great
plan over which the unseen God presides in
wisdom, and which, beginning with the first
ages of the world, is still receiving new deve-
lopements from every great step in the history
of the species.
fi'^ml'ff'"' ' : Jn^/i^''9f 1 ;fofi'
