i * ae * te Mn + ¥ ¥ 4 tn Aye ay 7* ¢ \ , f of sf ee 4 ‘fh ty . ‘ it? ; i + 1 * he. e jas ° | | c | Eo ; "3 Ai | OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. . BT’ 1101)°.C42 1824 ica oo Chalmers, Thomas, 1780-1847) Shelf The evidence and authority ee tint Bror of the Christian revelation a ‘ i : i ) Ads tea hin te! Be Fae oo) a Say Fe fess Py &y ‘ ay aie Sed Py ree " y 7 . ry 4 j r b ' . . - - : : Liar ' + sae IS 7 . s a * s ’ © re S > s » , . ‘ - me we» id * ; ‘ ; . u 2 are yep ei Pr & » hae = ‘hee Mey Cette & - THE EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION. Z Pi 2 2 a «o sad te x oY aay ; i ey il ase : Moe . eel Ag aes i“ oh tur’ Aa < Taare aie ‘ hy i Meno i tahe Bite Ve See, Se “he RAR RY, ‘ . wT "4 = ' k - 4 . > A, i y ‘ ’ A Sa - 3 " a re, ye » ea, + } coe ‘ J ri ‘ 4 4 ; oN ; ee rita : Poe my oy yer : te y ae ee rs. 53 dae re ite oa ea ee i f 4 £ ae by ¥ é , Tg [ aad 4 . -* = Sos SCOR PEPE RR: SEAR. SOME a ete Ae PORE Te, ie ae Deg aT eh CORSE rks ee eT Ae dee eae | 7 AUR > “ , ad M.DCCC.XXIV. he ‘ Pun Aiea ss a . “eth SR 4. ES ie oe finn ae a wudoni.tiet iamniets aosnnrons a | mance un See NE: Te cA A ROWAY ae ae j Z A ted Lo ‘ Sant aoa ue ae me i eo aa Wigs re Uh Nr anne 7 - H A . a ia om OS part KN: ea - ADVERTISEMENT. Tue contents of this volume form the substance of the article CurisTIaniry, in the Eninpurcu Encyciopaptia. 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 Christianity; and the aim of the Author is fulfilled if he has succeeded in proving the external testimony to be so sufficient, as to leave infidelity without excuse, even v1 ADVERTISEMENT. though theremainingimportant 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.” 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 withinthemselves, which the worldknow- eth not,even the promised manifestations of the Saviour. This evidence is a “sign to them that believe ;” but the Bible 2 ~ e ADVERTISEMENT. Vill speaks also of a “ sign to them which believe not;’’ and should it be effectual in reclaiming any of these from their in- fidelity, a mighty object is gained by the exhibition of it. Should it not be effec- tual, 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 salvation ?” It will be a great satisfaction to the writer of the following pages, if any shall rise from the perusal of them with a stronger determination than before to take his Christianity exclusively from his Bible. It is not enough to entitle a vill ADVERTISEMENT. ynan to the name 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 question, while they suffer it to lie beside them unopened, unread, and unattended to! ; CONTENTS. ’ #CHAP., I. Page On the Principles of Historical Evidence, and their application to the Question of the Truth of Christ- IBMIE Wie 85, ete hoy tol rebel aos Ck) a OR Lf CHAP. II. On the Authenticity of the different Books of the New phestament, varie sre RY Hirer te Nevis ONC GREG CHAP. III. On the Internal Marks of Truth and Honesty to be found in the New Testament, . ..... ... vA CHAP. IV. On the Testimony of the Original Witnesses to the _ Truth of the Gospel Narrative, . . . . . . 101 x CONTENTS. CHAP. ¥V: On the Testimony of Subsequent Witnesses, . - - 117 CHAP. VI. : Remarks on the Argument from Prophecy, . - - 177 CHAP. VII. Remarks on the Scepticism of Geologists, . . - + 195 CHAP. VIII. On the Internal Evidence, and the Objections of De- Geto) GORGE ay, Mela tacit sic Sireake dle ene she CHAP. IX. On the Way of proposing the Argument to Atheisti- cal -inhdelés))\..o' ad oF aw Sepak oo oe ota ae ee CHAPSx. On the Supreme Authority of Revelation, . . . 259 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. > CHAP. I. ON THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL EVI- DENCE, AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE QUESTION OF THE TRUTH OF CHRIST- IANITY. 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 ex- amination, 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 greatest degree of sagacity to this investiga- tion; but then the highest sagacity is of no avail, when there is an insufficiency of data. Our ingenuity may be unbounded; but then we may want the materials. The principle which we assume may be untrue in itself, and, there- fore, may be fallacious in its application. — HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 13 Thus, we may derive very little ight 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 concert 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 de- liver. Last of all, as the conclusive seal of their authenticity, they may all agree in giving usa 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 sub- ject of examination, we may derive from the se- cond the most decisive evidence, that the mes- sage in question is a real message, and was actu- ally 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 in- to 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 tnternal 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 imake the management of his empire a subject inaccessible to all our faculties. 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 ; or did they suffer in consequence of this per- severance ? Did they suffer to such a degree, as to constitute a satisfying pledge of their inte- erity? Was there more than one messenger, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 17 and did they agree as to the substance of 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 legiti- mate boundaries of human observation; and upon the solution of these do we rest the ques- tion 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- tisty 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 Christ- ian 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 Cesar; 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 sa- tisfying 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 unprecedent- ed 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 B 2 ¥ 20 PRINCIPLES OF criticism. Too sit in judgment on the credibi- lity of a written document, is a frequent and fa- miliar 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 Christi- anity (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. 1 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 BS 92 PRINCIPLES OF with the exercises of the understanding. ‘There is aclass 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. 93 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 toa 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 New 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- 24 PRINCIPLES OF ciating 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 re- ligion, 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. 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. 95 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, independent- ly 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 26 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 argu- ment. His very anxiety for the truth dis- poses him to over-rate 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 erudition. 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. The 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 2 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. ony & through the performance of the author; the concurrence of other testimonies; the perse- cutions 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 imposing 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 dif- ficult to get rid of, even after it has been de- monstrated to be completely unreasonable. He is a Christian. He is one of the party. Am I an infidel? I persist in distrusting the testimony. Am I a Christian? I rejoice in the strength of it; but this very joy becomes matter of suspicion to a scrupulous inquirer. He feels something more than the concur- rence of his belief in the testimony of the wri- ter. He catches the infection of his piety and his moral sentiments. In addition to the ac- quiescence of the understanding, there is a con amore feeling, both in himself and in his au- thor, which he had rather been without, be- cause he finds it difficult to compute the pre- 98 PRINCIPLES OF cise amount of its influence; and the consi- deration of this restrains him from that clear and decided conclusion, which he would infal- libly have landed in, had it been purely a se- cular investigation. There is something in the very sacredness" of the subject, which intimidates the under- standing, and restrains it from making the same firm and confident application of its fa- culties, which it would have felt itself perfect- ly 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 succes- sors in the office of presiding over the disci- pline and instruction of the numerous schools which they had established, this would have given a secular complexion to the argument, which, we think, would have been more satisfy- ing to the mind, and have impressed upon it a closer and more familiar conviction of the his- tory in question. We should have immediate- ly brought it into comparison with the history of other philosophers, and could not have fail- ed to recognize, that, in minuteness of infor- HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 29 mation, in weight and quantity of evidence, in the concurrence of numerous and independent testimonies, and in the total absence of eve- ry circumstance that should dispose us to an- nex suspicion to the account which lay before us, it far surpassed any thing that had come down to us from antiquity. It so happens, however, that instead of being the history of a philosopher, it is the history of a prophet. The veneration we annex to the sacredness of such a character, mingles with our belief in the truth of his history. From a question of simple truth, it becomes a question in which the heart is interested ; and the subject from that moment assumes a certain holiness and mystery, which veils the strength of the argu- ment, and takes off from that familiar and in- timate 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 uudergo a most severe scrutiny. The same degree of evidence which, in questions of or- dinary history, commands the easy and uni- 50 _ PRINCIPLES OF versal acquiescence of every inquirer, has, in the subject before us, been taken most tho- roughly to pieces, and pursued, both by friends and enemies, into all its ramifications. The effect of this is unquestionable. ‘The genuine- ness and authenticity of the profane historian are admitted upon much inferior evidence to what we can adduce for the different pieces which make up the New Testament: And why ? Because the evidence has been hitherto thought sufficient, and the genuineness and authenticity have never been questioned. Not so with the Gospel history. Though its evi- dence is precisely the same in kind, and vast- ly superior in degree, to the evidence for the history of the profane writer, its evidence has been questioned, and the very circumstance of its being ‘questioned has annexed a suspi- cion to it. At all points of the question, there has been a struggle anda controversy. Every ignorant objection, and every rash and petu- lant observation, has been taken up and com- mented upon by the defenders of Christianity. There has at last been so much said about it, that a general feeling of insecurity is apt to HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 31 accompany the whole investigation, There has been so much fighting, that. Christianity is now looked upon as debateable ground. Other books, where the evidence is much in- ferior, but which have had the advantage of never being questioned, are received as of es- tablished authority. It is striking to observe the perfect confidence with which an infidel will quote a passage from an ancient histo- rian. He, perhaps, does not over-rate the cre- dit due to him. But present him with a tabel- lated and comparative view of all the evi- dences that can be adduced for the Gospel of Matthew, and any profane historian whom he chooses to fix upon, and Jet each distinct evi- dence be discussed upon no other principle 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, 32 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 un- der the procuratorship of Pilate; the tempo- rary check which this gave to his religion ; its revival, 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 had 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 of 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 Cc 34 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- eree of credit and influence which he ought to have possessed, had no such exception been made. Inno case has an exception to the cre- dibility of an author been more triumphantly removed, than in the case of the early Christian 1 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 35 writers; 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 to the account of the Roman writer, which is al- } together 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 as- serted, in round and unqualified terms, that this _ said Christus had risen from the dead, and was: seen alive by some hundreds of his acquaint- ances. Even this would not have silenced altogether the cavils of enemies: but it would have reclaimed many an infidel; been exulted cQ 36 PRINCIPLES OF 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 aciually 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. 37 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, C3 88 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 under-rate 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. $9 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 in 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 asimi- lar testimony from Barnabas, or Clement, or Polycarp. It certainly ought not to doit; and there is adelusion in the preference that is thus given to the later 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. 4 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 have diminished. | * HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 43 If it were necessary, in a court of justice, to ascertain the circumstances of a certain trans- action, 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 trans- action, and for this purpose might call in the AA 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 records 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 villainy 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 ; and the Apostles and Evangelists, with every evidence in their favour which it is in HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. ADS 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 over-rate 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 has 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. CHAP. IL. ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DIFFERENT BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Tue 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 in 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, we Shall lay before them the additional and subsequent testimonies, by which the narra- tive of the original writers is supported. AUTHENTICITY, &c. 47 In every point of the investigation, we shall meet with examples of the principle which we have already alluded to. We have said, that if 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, 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 exist- ence, 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 48 AUTHENTICITY OF convictions; 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. Bai 2 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 bea 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 so- litary 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 6 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 euthor of the subsequent testi- D 2 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 have 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 D3 54 AUTHENTICITY OF find those compositions which profess a higher 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. 4 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 sufhi- 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 se 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 ; 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. There 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. 57 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 of 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 refer- ences 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 up- on the tacit or implied concurrence of subse- quent writers, and which is held to be perfectly 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 contained 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 very 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, “ Asit is written.” And thirdly, 'There are innumerable allusions to the different parts of the New Testament, scattered over all the THE NEW TESTAMENT. 61 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 allusions 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 chureh 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, 62 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. Besides 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 writers who came forward in its defence and illustration. | 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 oné Christian author, than of all the works of Ci- cero, though of so uncommon excellence for 64 AUTHENTICITY OF thought and style, in the writers of all charac- ters for several ages.” 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. 65 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 acquaintan- ces; and when all of them had the benefit of an uncontrolled 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 antient 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 Christ- ians 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 every thing for a religion whose teach- ers 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’¢ruth 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. E 2 68 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. Furst, 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. 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 Gospel ? 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 TES- TAMENT. Ul. 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 circumstances 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 2 “2 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 them underwent the trial and punishment of the times. It is easy to perceive, then, that the New Testament writers were led to allude toa 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, &e. 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 familiar 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 | 14 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- mony, that he was not a Christian; but that, on the other hand, we have every reason to Itis really = a most useful exercise, to pursue the harmony which subsists between the writers of the New Testament, and those Jewish and profane determined enemy to the cause. authors with whom we bring them into com- parison. Throughout the whole examination, our attention is confined to forms of justice ; succession 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 ~ 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 his 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 OF TRUTH, &c. 77 external testimony. It amounts to a proof, that it is the production of authors who lived 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 ‘48 INTERNAT. 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 on a subject on 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, it 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 ac- complishment. 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. Hach 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 remembrance 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 differ- ence, 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 difficulties. 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, r 89 INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &c. they would have studied a closer resemblance to the existing authorities of that period ; 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 lit- tle attended to, and which so few know how to appreciate. In the Gospels, we are told that Herod, the Tetrach 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 ‘tod osephus, 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- ¥ 2 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 te 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, whatis 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 it 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 8G 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 to 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 the narrative of the Evangelists must have foreign testimony to confirm and support it? How comes it, that the silence of J ose- 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 groundwork of a story may be a fabrication; but it requires a more refined species of imposture than we can well conceive, to construct a harmonious and well-sustained narrative, abounding in minute and circum- stantial details, which support one another, and where, with all our experience of real life, we can detect nothing misplaced, or inconsistent, or improbable. 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. 89 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 by- standers; the arguments and examinations it gave birth to; and all that minuteness of refer- ence 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, &e. 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 ran 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 J erusalem 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 custom with all 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 Evan- gelists 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. 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 9 ~ INTERNAL MARKS OF TRUTH, &c. 95 examinations, are simply recorded by the Evan- gelists. Thereis no boastful reference to these circumstances, and no ostentatious display of the advantage which they gave 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 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, &e. 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 sufli- 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 G2 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 WIT- NESSES TO THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVE. U1. Tuer 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, and 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; 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, 104 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 zz 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 control over the measures of the Roman governor; and we know, that it was this control 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. Wealso 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. 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 “ superstitio eartiabilis,” 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 phi- losopher. That constancy which, in another 2 108 TESTIMONY OF THE cause, would have made them illustrious, was held to be a comtemptible folly, which only ex- 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. 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 ** de’ ORIGINAL WITNESSES. 108 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 differ- ent 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. 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 Christ- ians, 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. 111 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; but if we were told by a Christian teacher, in the so- lemnity of hisdying 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 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, indu- ced 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; 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. 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. _ 115 may not be competent for an unlettered pea- sant to detect the absurdity of a doctrine ; 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 at 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 H 2 116 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. CHAP. V. ON THE TESTIMONY OF SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES, IV. Bor 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 Kpistles 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, 118 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 2 ae a ee ee Me Aa OBJECTIONS OF INFIDELS. 943 with the light of natural religion is superfluous. Give them historical evidence for the truth of Christianity, and all that natural religion may have taught them will fly like so many vision- ary phantoms before the light of its overbear- ing authority. With them the argument is re- duced to a narrower compass. Is the testimony of the Apostles and first Christians sufficient to establish the credibility of the facts which are recorded in the New Testament ? The question is made to rest exclusively on the character of this testimony, and the circumstances attend- ing it; and no antecedent theology of their own is suffered to mingle with the investigation. If the historical evidence of Christianity is found to be conclusive, they conceive the in- vestigation to be at an end; and that nothing remains, on their part, but an act of uncondi- tional submission to all its doctrines. Though it might be proper, in the present state of opinion, to accommodate to both these cases, yet we profess ourselves to belong to the latter description of Christians. We hold by the total insufficiency of natural religion to Q 2 Q44 INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND pronounce upon the éntrinsic merits of any re- velation, and think that the authority of every revelation rests exclusively upon its external evidences, and upon such marks of honesty in the composition itself as would apply to any human performance. We rest this opinion, not upon any fanatical impression of the igno- rance of man, or how sinful it is for a weak and guilty mortal to pronounce upon the counsels of heaven, and the laws of the divine administration. We disown this presumption, not merely because it is sinful, but because we conceive it to be unphilosopliical, and precise- ly analogous to that theorizing, @ priori spirit, which the wisdom of Bacon has banished from all the schools of philosophy. For the satisfaction of the first class, we re- fer them to that argument which has been pro- secuted with so much ability and success by Bishop Butler, in his Analogy of Natural and Revealed Religion. It is not so much the ob- ject of this author to found any positive argu- ment on the accordancy which subsists between the processes of the divine adyninistration in OBJECTIONS OF INFIDELS: 245 nature, and the processes ascribed to God by revelation, as to repel the argument founded upon their supposed discordancy. ‘To one of the second class, the argument of Bishop Butler is not called for; but as to one of the first class, we can conceive nothing more cal- culated to quiet his difficulties. ~He believes a God ; and he must therefore believe the charac- ter and existence of God to be reconcile- able with all that he observes in the events and phenomena around him. He questions the claims of the New Testament to be a reve- lation from heaven; because he conceives, that it ascribes a plan and an economy to the Su- preme Being which are unworthy of his cha- racter. We offer no positive solution of this difficulty. We profess ourselves to be too little acquainted with the character of God, and that, in this little corner of his works, we see not far enough to offer any decision on the merits of a government, which embraces worlds, and reaches eternity. We think we do enough, if we give a sufficiency of external proof for the New Testament being a true and authentic message from heaven; and that 246 INTERNAL EVIDENCE, AND therefore nothing remains for us, but to attend and to submit to it. But the argument of Bishop Butler enables us to do still more than this. It enables us to say, that the very thing objected against in Christianity exists in na- ture; and that therefore the same God who is ‘the author of nature, may be the author of Christianity. We do not say that any positive evidence can be founded upon this analogy. But, in as far as it goes to repel the objection, it is triumphant. A man has no right to re- tain his theism, if he rejects Christianity upon difficulties to which natural religion is equally liable. If Christianity tells us, that the guilt of a father has brought suffering and vice upon his posterity ; it is what we see exemplified in a thousand instances amongst the families around us. If it tells us, that the innocent have suf- fered for the guilty; it is nothing more than what all history and all observation have made perfectly familiar to us. If it tells us of one portion of the human race being distinguished, by the sovereign will of the Almighty, for supe- rior knowledge, or superior privileges; it only adds one inéquality more to the many inequa- 6 OBJECTIONS OF INFIDELS. Q47 lities which we perceive every day in the gifts of nature, of fortune, and of providence. In short, without entering into all the details of that argument, which Butler has brought for- ward in a way so masterly and decisive, there is not a single impeachment which can be offered against the God of Christianity, that may not, if consistently proceeded upon, be offered against the God of Nature itself. If the one be unworthy of God, the other is equally so; and if, in spite of these difficulties, you still retain the conviction, that there is a God of Nature, it is not fair or rational to suf- fer them to outweigh all that positive evidence and testimony, which have been adduced for proving, that the same God is the God of Christianity also.. CHAP. IX. ON THE WAY OF PROPOSING THE ARGUMENT TO ATHEISTICAL INFIDELS. Ir Christianity be still resisted, it appears to us that the only consistent refuge is Atheism. The very same peculiarities in the dispensation of the Gospel, which lead the infidel to reject it as unworthy of God, go to prove, that nature is unworthy of him; and land us in the melan- choly conclusion, that whatever theory can be offered as to the mysterious origin and exist- ence of the things which be, they are not un- der the dominion of a supreme and intelligent mind. Nor do we look upon Atheism as: a more hopeless species of infidelity than Deism, unless in so far as it proves a more stubborn disposition of the heart to resist every religious conviction. Viewed purely as an intellectual subject, we look upon the mind of an Atheist as in a better state of preparation for the proofs of Christianity than the mind of a Deist. The ARGU MENT, &c. 249 one is a blank surface, on which evidence may make a fair impression, and where the finger of history may inscribe its credible and well-. attested information; the other is occupied with pre-conceptions. It will not take what history offers toit. It puts itselfinto the same unphilosophical posture, in which the mind of a prejudiced Cartesian opposed its theory of the heavens to the demonstration and measure- ments of Newton. The theory of the Deist upon a subject, where truth is still more inac- cessible, and speculation still more presumptu- ous, sets him to resist the only safe and compe- tent evidence that can be appealed to. What was originally the evidence of observation, and is now transformed into the evidence of testi- mony, comes down to us in a series of histori- cal documents, the closest and most consistent that all antiquity can furnish. It is the unfor- tunate theory which forms the grand obstacle to the admission of the Christian miracles, and which leads the Deist to an exhibition of him- self so unphilosophical, as that of trampling on the soundest laws of evidence, by bringing an historical fact under the tribunal of a theoreti- 950 ARGUMENT TO cal principle. The deistical speculation of Rousseau, by which he neutralized the testi- mony of the first Christians, is as complete a transgression against the temper and principles of true science, as a category of Aristotle when employed to overrule an experiment in che- mistry. But however this be, it is evident, that Rousseau would’have given a readier reception to the Gospel history, had his mind not been pre-occupied with the speculation; and the negative state of Atheism would have been more favourable to the admission of those facts, which are connected with the origin and esta- blishment of our religion in the world. This suggests the way in which the evidence for Christianity should be carried home to the mind of an Atheist. He sees nothing in the phenomena around him, that can warrant him to believe in the existence of a living and in- telligent principle, which gave birth and move- ment to all things. He does not say, that he would refuse credit to the existence of God upon sufficient evidence ; but he says that there are not such appearances of design in nature, ATHEISTICAL INFIDELS. 951 as to supply him with that evidence. He does not deny the existence of God to be a possible truth ; but he affirms, that while there is no- thing before him but the consciousness of what passes within, and the observation of what passes without, it remains an assertion destitute of proof, and can have no more effect upon his conviction than any other nonentity of the ima- gination. There isa mighty difference between not proven and disproven. We see nothing in the argument of the Atheists which goes far- ther, than to establish the former sentence upon the question of God’s existence. It is altoge- ther an argument ab ignorantia ; and the same ~ ignorance which restrains them from asserting in positive terms that God exists, equally re- strains them from asserting in positive terms that God does not exist. The assertion may be offered, that, in some distant regions of the creation, there are tracts of space which, in- stead of being occupied like the tracts around us with suns and planetary systems, teem only with animated beings, who, without being sup- ported like us on the firm surface of a world, have the power of spontaneous movements in 252 ARGUMENT TO free spaces. We cannot say that the assertion is not true, but we can say that it is not proven. It carries in it no positive character either of truth or falsehood, and may therefore be ad- mitted on appropriate and satisfying evidence. But till that evidence comes, the mind is in a state entirely neutral; and such we conceive to be the neutral state of the Atheist, as to what he holds to be the unproved assertion of the existence of God. To the neutral mind of the Atheist, then, unfurnished as it is with any previous concep- tion, we offer the historical evidence of Christ- ianity. We do not ask him to presume the existence of God. We ask him to examine the miracles of the New Testament merely as recorded events, and to admit no other princi- ple into the investigation, than those which are held to be satisfying and decisive, on any other subject of written testimony. The sweeping principle upon which Rousseau, filled with his own assumptions, condemned the his- torical evidence for the truth of the Gospel narrative, can have no influence on the blank ATHEISTICAL INFIDELS. 253 and unoccupied mind of an Atheist. He has no presumptions upon the subject ; for to his eye the phenomena of nature sit so loose and unconnected with that intelligent Being, to whom they have been referred as their origin, that he does not feel himself entitled, from these phenomena, to ascribe any existence, any character, any attributes, or any method of administration to such a Being. He is therefore in the best possible condition for submitting his understanding to the entire im- pression of the historical evidence. Those difficulties which perplex the Deists, who can- not recognize in the God of the New Testa- ment the same features and the same princi- ples in which they have invested the God of Nature, are no difficulties to him. He has no God of Nature to confront with that real, though invisible power, which lay at the bot- tom of those astonishing miracles, on which history has stamped her most authentic cha- racters. Though the power which presided there should be an arbitrary, an unjust, or a malignant being, all this may startle a Deist, but it will not prevent a consistent Atheist Q54 ARGUMENT TO from acquiescing in any legitimate inference, to which the miracles of the Gospel, viewed in the simple light of historical facts, may chance to carry him. He cannot bring his antecedent information into play upon this question. He professes to have no antecedent information on the subject ; and this sense of his entire igno- rance, which lies at the bottom of his Atheism, would expunge from his mind all that is theo- retical, and make it the passive recipient of every thing which observation offers to its no- tice, or which credible testimony has brought down to it of the history of past ages. What then, we ask, does the Atheist make of the miracles of the New Testament ? If he questions their truth, he must do it upon grounds that are purely historical. He is pre- cluded from every other ground by the very principle on which he has rested his Atheism ; and we, therefore, upon the strength of that testimony which has been already exhibited, -press the admission of these miracles as facts. If there be nothing, then, in the ordinary phe- nomena of nature, to infer a God, do these ex- ATHEISTICAI INFIDELS. 955 traordinary phenomena supply him with no ar- gument? Does a voice from heaven make no impression upon him ? And we have the best evidence which history can furnish, that such a voice was uttered—“< This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” We have the evidence of a fact, for the existence of that very Being from whom the voice proceeded ; and the evidence of a thousand facts, for a power superior to nature: because, on the im- pulse of a volition, it counteracted her laws and processes; it allayed the wind; it gave sight to the blind; health to the diseased ; and, at the utterance of a voice, it gave life to the dead. The ostensible agent in all these won- derful proceedings gave not only credentials of his power, but he gave such credentials of his honesty, as dispose our understanding to receive his explanation of them. We do not avail ourselves of any other principle than what an Atheist will acknowledge. He understands, as well as we do, the natural signs of veracity, which lie in the tone, the manner, the counte- nance, the high moral expression of worth and benevolence, and, above all, in that firm and 250 ARGUMENT TO undaunted constancy, which neither contempt, nor poverty, nor death, could shift from any of its positions. All these claims upon our be- lief were accumulated, to an unexampled de- gree, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth ; and when we couple with them his undoubted mi- racles, and the manner in which his own per- sonal appearance was followed up by a host of witnesses, who, after a catastrophe which would have proved a death-blow to any cause of imposture, offered themselves to the eye of the public, with the same powers, the same evidence, and the same testimony, it seems im- possible to resist his account of the invisible principle, which gave birth and movement to the whole of this wonderful transaction. Whatever Atheism we may have founded on the common phenomena around us, here is a new phenomenon which demands our atten- tion—the testimony of a man who, in addi- tion to evidences of honesty, more varied and more satisfying than were ever offered by a brother of the species, had a voice from the clouds, and the power of working miracles, to vouch for him. We do not think, that the ace. ATHEISTICAL INFIDELS. 957 count which this man gives of himself can. be viewed either with indifference or distrust, and the account is most satisfying. “I proceeded forth and came from God.”—“« He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God.” —‘“ Even as the Father said unto me so I “speak.” He had elsewhere said, that God was his Father. The existence of God is here laid before us, by an evidence altogether distinct from the natural argument of the schools; and it may therefore be admitted in spite of the deficiency of that argument. From the Same pure and unquestionable source we ga- ther our information of his attributes. “ God is true.”-——“ God is a spirit.” He is omnipo- tent, “ for with God all things are possible.” He is intelligent, “for he knoweth what things we have need of.” He sees all things, and he directs all things ; “ for the very hairs of our head are numbered,” and “ a sparrow falleth not to the ground without his permission.” The evidences of the Christian religion are suited to every species of infidelity. We do not ask the Atheist to furnish himself with any R 258 ARGUMENT, &e. previous conception. We ask him to come as he is; and, upon the strength of his own fa- vourite principle, viewing it as a pure intellec- tual question, and abstracting from the more unmanageable tendencies of the heart and temper, we conceive his understanding to be in a high state of preparation, for taking in Christianity in a far purer and more scriptural form, than can be expected from those whose minds are tainted and pre-occupied with their former speculations. tei», ‘CHAP. X. ON THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF REVELATION. Ir the New Testament be a message from God, it behoves us to make an entire and un- conditional surrender of our minds, to all the duty and to all the information which it sets before us. | There is, perhaps, nothing more thoroughly beyond the cognizance of the human faculties, than the truths of religion, and the ways of that mighty and invisible Being who is the object of it; and yet nothing, we will venture to say, has been made the subject of more hardy and adventurous speculation. Wemake no allusion at present to’Deists, who reject the authority of the New Testament, because the plan and the dispensation of the Almighty, which is recorded there, is different from that plan and that dispensation which they have R 2 | 260 SUPREME AUTHORITY chosen to ascribe to him. We speak of Christ-— ians, who profess to admit the authority of this ' record, but who have tainted the purity of their profession by not acting upon its exclu- sive authority ; who have mingled their own thoughts, and their own fancy with its informa- tion; who, instead of repairing in every ques- tion, and in every difficulty, to the principle of “ what readest thou?” have abridged the sove- reignty of this principle, by appealing to others, of which we undertake to make out the incom- petency ; who, in addition to the word of God, talk also of the reason of the thing, or the stan- dard of orthodoxy; and have in fact brought down the Bible from the high place which belongs to it, as the only tribunal to which the appeal should he made, or from which the de- cision should be looked. for. But it is not merely among partisans or the advocates of a system, that we meet with this indifference to the authority of what is written. It lies at the bottom of a great deal of that looseness, both in practice and speculation, which we meet with every day in society, and ~ OF REVELATION. 261 - which we often hear expressed in familiar con- versation. Whence that list of maxims which » are so indolently conceived, but which, at the same time, are so faithfully proceeded upon ? “ We have all our passions and infirmities ; but we have honest hearts, and that will make up for them. Men are not all cast in the same mould. God will not call us to task too rigid- ly for our foibles; at least this is our opinion ; and God can never be so unmerciful, or so un- just, as bring us to a severe and unforgiving tri- bunal for the mistakes of the understanding.” Now, it is not licentiousness in general, which we are speaking against. It is against that sanction which it. appears to derive from the self-formed maxims of him who is guilty of it. It is against the principle, that either an error of doctrine, or an indulgence of passion, is to be exempted from condemnation, because it has an opinion of the mind to give it counte- nance and authority. What we complain of is, that a man no sooner sets himself forward and says, “ This is my sentiment,” than he con- ceives that all culpability is taken away from the error, either of practice or speculation, into 262 SUPREME AUTHORITY which he has fallen. The carelessness with which the opinion has been formed, is of no account in the estimate. It is the mere exist- ence of the opinion, which is pleaded in vin- dication; and, under the authority of our maxim, and our mode of thinking, every man conceives himself to have a right to his own way and his own peculiarity. , Now this might be all very fair, were there ' no Bible and no revelation in existence. But it is not fair, that all this looseness, and all this variety, should be still floating in the world, in the face of an authoritative communication from God himself. Had no message come to us from the fountain-head of truth, it were natural enough for every individual mind to betake itself to its own speculation. But a message has come to us, bearing on its fore- head every character of authenticity ; and is it right now, that the question of our faith, or of our duty, should be committed to the capri- cious variations of this man’s taste, or of that man’s fancy ? Our maxim, and our sentiment ! God has put an authoritative stop to all this. OF REVELATION, 263 He has spoken; and the right or the liberty of speculation no longer remains to us. The question now is, not “ What thinkest thou ?” In the days of Pagan antiquity, no other ques- tion could be put ; and the wretched delusions and idolatries of that period let us see what kind of answer the human mind is capable of making, when left to its own guidance, and its own authority. But we call ourselves Christ- ians, and profess to receive the Bible as the directory of our faith; and the only question in which we are concerned is, “ What is writ- ten in the law; how readest thou ?” But there is a way of escaping from this con- clusion. Noman calling himself a Christian, will ever disown, in words, the authority of the Bible. Whatever be counted the genuine in- ..terpretation, it must be submitted to. But in the act of coming to this interpretation, it will be observed, there is room for the unwarrant- able principles which we are attempting to expose. The business of a Scripture critic is to give a fair representation of the sense of all its passages as they exist in the original. Now, 264 SUPREME AUTHORITY this is a process which requires some investiga- tion; and it is during the time that this process is carrying on, that the tendencies and antece- dent opinions of the mind are suffered to mis- lead the inquirer from the true principles of the business in which he is employed. The mind and meaning of the author, who is translated, is purely a question of language, and should be decided upon no other principles than those of grammar or philology. Now, what we com- plain of is, that while this principle is recog- nized and acted upon in every other composi- tion which has come down to us from anti- quity, it has been most glaringly departed from in the case of the Bible: That the meaning of its author, instead of being made singly and entirely a question of grammar, has been made a question of metaphysics, or a question of sentiment: That, instead of the argument re-. sorted to being, “‘ such must be the rendering from the structure of the language, and the import and significancy of its phrases,” it has been, “ such must be the rendering from the analogy of the faith, the reason of the thing, the character of the divine mind, and the wis- OF REVELATION. 265 dom of all his dispensations.” And whether this argument be formally insisted upon or not, we have still to complain, that, in reality, it has a most decided influence on the understanding of many a Christian; and in this way, the creed which exists in his mind, instead of being a fair transcript of the New Testament, is the result of a compromise which has been made betwixt its authoritative decisions and the spe- culations of his own fancy. What is the reason why there is so much more unanimity among critics and gramma- rians about the sense of any ancient author, than about the sense of the New Testament? Because the one is made purely a question of criticism: ‘The other has been complicated with the uncertain fancies of a-daring and pre- sumptuous theology. Could we only dismiss these fancies, sit down like a school-boy to his task, and look upon the study of divinity as a mere work of translation, then we would ex- pect the same unanimity among Christians that we meet with among scholars and literati, about the system of Epicurus or philosophy of 266 SUPREME AUTHORITY Aristotle. But here lies thedistinction betwixt the two cases. When we make out, by a cri- tical examination of the Greek of Aristotle, that such was his meaning, and such his phi- losophy, the result carries no authority with it, and our mind retains the congenial liberty of its own speculations. But if we make out, by a critical examination of the Greek of St. Paul, that such is the theology of the New Testa- ment, we are bound to submit to this theology; and our mind must surrender every opinion, however dear to it. It is quite in vain to talk of the mysteriousness of the subject, as being ~ the cause of the want of unanimity among Christians. It may be mysterious, in reference to our former conceptions. It may be myste- rious in the utter impossibility of reconciling it. with our own assumed fancies, and self-form- ed principles. It may be mysterious in the difficulty which we feel in comprehending the manner of the doctrine, when we ought to be satisfied with the authoritative revelation which has been made to us of its existence and its truth. But if we could only abandon all our former conceptions, if we felt that our business — OF REVELATION. 267 was to submit to the oracles of God, and that we are not called upon to effect a reconciliation betwixt a revealed doctrine of the Bible, and an assumed or excogitated principle of our. own ;—then we are satisfied, that we would find the language of the Testament to have as much clear, and precise, and didactic simpli- city, as the language of any sage or philoso- pher that has come down to us. Could we only get it reduced to a mere ques- tion of language, we should look at no distant period for the establishment of a pure and una- nimous Christianity in the world. But, no! While the mind and the meaning of any philo- sopher is collected from his words, and these words tried, as to their import and significancy, upon the appropriate principles of criticism, the mind and the meaning of the Spirit of God is not collected upon the same pure and compe- tent principles of investigation. In order to know the mind of the Spirit, the communica- tions of the Spirit, and the expression of these communications in written language, should be consulted. These are the only data upon 1 268 SUPREME AUTHORITY which the inquiry should be instituted. But, no! Instead of learning the designs and cha- racter of the Almighty from his own mouth, we sit in judgment upon them, and make our conjecture of what they should be, take the precedency of his revelation of what they are. We do him the same injustice that we do to an acquaintance, whose proceedings and whose intentions we venture to pronounce upon, while we refuse him a hearing, or turn away from” the letter in which he explains himself. No wonder, then, at the want of unanimity among Christians, so long as the question of “ What thinkest thou ?” is made the principle of their creed, and, for the safe guidance of criticism, they have committed themselves to the endless caprices of the human intellect. Let the prin- ciple of “ What thinkest thou ?” be exploded, and that of “ What readest thou ?” be substitut- ed-in its place. Let us take our lesson as the Almighty places it before us; and, instead of being the judge of his conduct, be satisfied with the safer and humbler office oy eve the interpreter of his language. OF REVELATION. 269 Now this principle is not exclusively appli- cable to the learned. The great bulk of Christ- _ ians have no access to the Bible in its original languages; but they have access to the com- mon translation, and they may be satisfied, by the concurrent testimony of the learned among the different sectaries of this country, that the translation is a good one. We do not confine the principle to critics and translators; we press it upon all. We call upon them not to form their divinity by independent thinking, but to receive it by obedient reading; to take the words. as they stand, and submit to the plain English of the Scriptures which lie before them. It is the office of a translator to give a faithful representation of the original. Now that this faithful representation has been given, it is our part to peruse it with care, and to take a fair and a faithful impression of it. It is our part to purify our understanding of all its previous conceptions. We must bring a free and unoccupied mind to the exercise. It must not be the pride or the obstinacy of self- formed opinions, or the haughty independence of him who thinks he has reached the manhood 970 SUPREME AUTHORITY of his understanding. We must bring with us the docility of a child, if we want to gain the kingdom of heaven. It must not be a partial, but an entire and unexcepted obedience. There must be no garbling of that which is entire 5; no darkening of that which is luminous; no soften- ing down of that which is authoritative or se- vere. The Bible will allow of no compromise. _ It professes to be the directory of our faith, and claims a total ascendency over the souls and the understandings of men. It will enter into no composition with us, or our natural principles. . It challenges the whole mind as its due, and it appeals to the truth of heaven for the high authority of its sanctions. “ Who- soever addeth to, or taketh from, the words of this book, is accursed,” is the absolute lan- guage in which it delivers itself. This brings us to its terms. There is no way of escaping after this. We must bring every thought into the captivity of its obedience; and, as closely as ever lawyer stuck to his document or his ex- tract, must we abide by the rule and the doc- trine which this authentic memorial of God sets before us. | _ —— OF REVELATION. Me a | Now we hazard the assertion, that, with a number of professing Christians, there is not this unexcepted submission of the understand- ing to the authority of the Bible; and that the authority of the Bible is often modified, and in some cases superseded by the authority of other principles. One of these principles is the rea- son of the thing. We do not know if this prin- ciple would be at all felt or appealed to by the earliest Christians. It may perhaps by the dis- putatious or the philosophising among convert- ed Jews and Greeks, but not certainly by those of whom Paul said, that “ not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, were called.” They turned from dumb idols to serve the living and the true God. There was nothing in their antecedent theo- logy which they could have any respect for: Nothing which they could confront, or bring into competition with the doctrines of the New Testament. In those days, the truth as it is in Jesus came to the mind of its disciples, recom- mended by its novelty ; by its grandeur ; by the power and recency of its evidences ; and, above all, by its vast and evident superiority over the O79 SUPREME AUTHORITY fooleries of a degrading Paganism. It does not occur to us, that men in these circumstances would ever think of sitting in judgment over the mysteries of that sublime faith which had charmed them into an abandonment of their earlier religion. It rather strikes us, that they would receive them passively ; that, like scho- lars who had all to learn, they would take their lesson as they found it; that the information of their teachers would be enough for them ; and that the restless tendency of the human mind to speculation, would for a time find am- ple enjoyment in the rich and splendid disco- veries, which broke like a flood of light upon the world. But we are in different circum- stances. ‘To us, these discoveries, rich and splendid as they are, have lost the freshness of novelty. The sun of righteousness, like the sun in the firmament, has become familiarized to us by possession. In a few ages, the human mind deserted its guidance, and rambled as much as ever in-quest of new speculations. It is true, that they took a juster anda loftier flight since the days of Heathenism. But it was only because they walked in the light of a — =e ap OF REVELATION. 273 revelation. ‘They borrowed of the New Testa- ment without acknowledgment, and took its beauties and its truths to deck their own wretched fancies and. self-constituted systems. In the process of time, the delusion multiplied and extended. Schools were formed, and the ways of the Divinity were as confidently theo- rized upon, as the processes of chemistry, or the economy of the heavens. Universities were endowed, and natural theology took its place in the circle of the sciences. Folios were written, and the respected luminaries of a for- mer age poured their @ priori and their @ pos- teriort demonstrations on the world. ‘Taste, and sentiment, and imagination, grew apace; and every raw untutored principle which poe- try could clothe in prettiness, or over which the hand of genius could throw the graces of sensibility and elegance, was erected into a principle of the divine government, and made to preside over the counsels of the Deity. In the mean time, the Bible, which ought to supersede all, was itself superseded. It was quite in vain to say that it was the only au- thentic record of an actual embassy which God s O74 SUPREME AUTHORITY -had sent into the world. It was quite in vain ‘to plead its testimonies, its miracles, and the ‘unquestionable fulfilment of its prophecies. These mighty claims must lie over, and be sus- pended, till we have settled—what ? the rea- sonableness of its doctrines. We must bring -the theology of God’s ambassador to the bar of our self-formed theology. The Bible, instead of being admitted as the directory of our faith upon its external evidences, must be tried upon the merits of the work itself; and if our ver- dict be favourable, it must be brought in, not as a help to our ignorance, but as a corollary to our demonstrations. But is this ever done? Yes! by Dr. Samuel Clarke, and a whole host of followers and admirers. ‘Their first step in the process of theological study is to furnish their minds with the principles of natural theo- logy. Christianity, before its external proofs are looked at or listened to, must be brought under the tribunal of these principles. All the difficulties which attach to the reason of the thing, or the fitness of the doctrines, must be formally discussed, and satisfactorily got over. A voice was heard from heaven, saying of OF REVELATION. 275 Jesus Christ, “ This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.” The men of Galilee saw him ascend from the dead to the heaven which he now oc- cupies. The men of Galilee gave their testi- mony; and it is a testimony which stood the fiery trial of persecution in a former age, and of sophistry in this. And yet, instead of hear- ing Jesus Christ as disciples, they sit in autho- rity over him as judges. Instead of forming their divinity after the Bible, they try the Bible by their antecedent divinity ; and this book, with all its mighty train of evidences, must drivel in their antichambers, till they have pro- nounced sentence of admission, when they have got its doctrines to agree with their own airy and unsubstantial speculations. | We do not condemn the exercise of reason in matters of theology. It is the part of reason to form its conclusions, when it has data and evidences before it. But it is equally the part of reason to abstain from its conclusions, when these evidences are wanting. Reason can judge of the external evidences for Christianity, be- cause it can discern the merits of human testi- $2 276 SUPREME AUTHORITY mony ; and it can perceive the truth or the falsehood of such obvious credentials as the performance of a miracle, or the fulfilment of a prophecy. But reason is not entitled to sit in judgment over those internal evidences, which many a presumptuous theologian has attempted to derive from the reason of the thing, or from the agreement of the doctrine with the fancied character and attributes of the Deity. One of the most useful exercises of reason is, to ascertain its limits, and to keep within them; to abandon the field of conjec- ture, and to restrain itself within that safe and certain barrier which forms the boundary of human experience. However humiliating you may conceive it, it is this which lies at the bottom of Lord Bacon’s philosophy ; and it is to this that modern science is indebted for all her solidity, and all her triumphs. Why does philosophy flourish in our days? Because her votaries have learned to abandon their own creative speculations, and to submit to evi- dence, let her conclusions be as painful and as unpalatable as they will. Now all that we want, is to carry the same lesson and the same OF REVELATION. 277 principle into theology. Our business is not to. guess, but to learn. After we have esta- blished Christianity to be an authentic mes- sage from God upon those: historical grounds, on which the reason and experience of man entitle him to form his conclusions, nothing remains for us but an unconditional surrender of the mind to the subject of the message. We have a right to sit in judgment over the credentials of heaven’s ambassador; but we have no right to sit in judgment over the in- formation he gives us. We have no right either to refuse or to modify that information, till we have accommodated it to our previous concep- tions. It is very true, that if the truths which he delivered lay within the field of human obser- vation, he brings himself under the tribunal of our antecedent knowledge. Were he to tell us, that the bodies of the planetary system moved in orbits which are purely circular; we would oppose to him the observations and mea- surements of astronomy. Were he to tell us, that in winter the sun never shone, and that in summer no cloud ever darkened the brilliancy of his career; we would oppose to him the cer- 978 SUPREME AUTHORITY tain remembrances, both of ourselves and of our whole neighbourhood. Were he to tell us, that we were perfect men, because’ we were free from passion, and loved our neighbours as ourselves; we would oppose to him the history of our own lives, and the deeply-seated con- sciousness of our own infirmities. On all these subjects we can confront him. But when he brings truth from a quarter which no human eye ever explored; when he tells us the mind of the Deity, and brings before us the counsels of that invisible Being, whose arm is abroad upon all worlds, and whose views reach to eter- nity, he is beyond the ken of eye or of tele- scope, and we must submit to him. We have no more right to sit in judgment over his in- formation, than we have to sit in judgment over the information of any other visitor who lights upon our’ planet, from some distant and unknown part of the universe, and tells us what worlds roll in those remote tracts which are beyond the limits of our astronomy, and how the Divinity peoples them with his wonders. Any previous conceptions of ours are of no more value than the fooleries of an infant ; and OF REVELATION. 279 should we offer to resist or to modify upon the strength of these conceptions, we would be as unsound and as unphilosophical as ever school- man was with his categories, or Cartesian with. his whirlpools of ether. Let us go back to the first Christians of the Gentile world. They turned from dumb idols to serve the living and the true God. They made a simple and entire transition from a state as bad, if not worse, than that of entire igno- rance, to the Christianity of the New Testa- ment. Their previous conceptions, instead of helping them, behoved to be utterly abandon- ed; nor was there that intermediate step which so many of us think to be necessary, and which we dignify with the name of the rational theo-. logy of nature. In those days, this rational theology was unheard of; nor have we the slightest reason to believe, that they were ever initiated into its doctrines, before they were looked upon as fit to be taught the peculiari- ties of the Gospel. They were translated at once from the absurdities of Paganism to that Christianity which has come down to us, in the 980 SUPREME AUTHORITY records of the evangelical history, and the epis- tles which their teachers addressed to them. They saw the miracles; they acquiesced in them, as satisfying credentials of an inspired teacher; they took the whole of their religion from his mouth; their faith came by hearing, and hearing by the words of a divine messen- ger. This was their process, and it ought to be ours. We do not see the miracles, but we see their reality through the medium of that clear and unsuspicious testimony which has been handed down to us. We should admit them as the credentials of an embassy from God. We should take the whole of our religion from the records of this embassy; and, renouncing the idolatry of our own self-formed concep- tions, we should repair to that word, which was spoken to them that heard it, and transmitted to us by the instrumentality of written lan- guage. The question with them was, What hearest thou? The question with us is, What readest thou? They had their idols, and they turned away from them. We have our fancies; and we contend, that, in the face of an autho- ritative revelation from heaven, it is as glaring OF REVELATION. 281 idolatry in us to adhere to them, as it would be were they spread out upon canvass, or chi- selled into material form by the hands of a statuary. In the popular religions of antiquity, we see scarcely the vestige of a resemblance to that vacademical theism which is delivered in our schools, and figures away in the speculations of our moralists. The process of conversion among the first Christians was a very simple one. It consisted of an utter abandonment of ‘their heathenism, and an entire submission to those new truths which came to them through the revelation of the Gospel, and through it only. It was the pure theology of Christ and of his Apostles. That theology which struts in fancied demonstration from a professor’s chair, formed no part of it. They listened as if they had all to learn: we listen as if it was our office to judge, and to give the message of God its due place and subordination among the prin- ciples which we had previously established. Now these principles were utterly unknown at the first publication of Christianity. The Ga- 282 SUPREME AUTHORITY latians, and Corinthians, and Thessalonians,. and Philippians, had no conception of them. And yet, will any man say, that either Paul himself, or those who lived under his imme- diate tuition, had not enough to make them accomplished Christians, or that they fell short of our enlightened selves, in the wisdom which prepares for eternicy, because they wanted our rational tiieology as a stepping-stone to that knowledge Which came, in pure and immediate revelation, from the Son of God ? The Gos- pel was enough for them, and it should be enough for us also. Every natural or assumed principle, whica offers to abridge its supremacy, or even so much as to share with it in autho- rity and direction, should be instantly discard- ed. Every opinion in religion should be re- duced to the question of, What readest thou ?. and the Bible be acquiesced in, and submitted to, as the alone directory of our faith, where we can get the whole will of God for the sal- vation of man. But is not this an enlightened age? and, since the days of the Gospel, has not the wis- OF REVELATION. 283 dom of two thousand years accumulated upon the present generation? Has not science been enriched by discovery ? and is not theology one of the sciences ? Are the men of this advanced period to be restrained from the high exercise of their powers? and, because the men of a remote and barbarous antiquity lisped and dri- velled in the infancy of their acquirements, is that any reason why we should be restricted, like so many schoolboys, to the lesson that is set before us? It is all true, that this is a very enlightened age; but on what field has it ac- quired so flattering a distinction? On the field of experiment. ‘The human mind owes all its progress to the confinement of its efforts within the safe and certain limits of observa- tion, and to the severe restraint which it has imposed upon its speculative tendencies. Go beyond these limits, and the human mind has not advanced a single inch by its own indepen- dent exercises. All the philosophy which has been reared by the labour of successive ages, is the philosophy of facts reduced to general laws, or brought under a general description: from observed points of resemblance. A proud 284 SUPREME AUTHORITY and a wonderful fabric we do allow; but we throw away the very instrument by which it was built, the moment that we cease to observe, and begin to theorize and excogitate. Tell us a single discovery, which has thrown a particle of light on the details of the divine administra- tion. Tell us a single truth in the whole field of experimental science, which can bring us to the moral government of the Almighty by any other road than his own revelation. Astro- nomy has taken millions of suns and of systems within its ample domain; but the ways of God to man stand at a distance as inaccessible as ever; nor has it shed so much as a glimmering over the counsels of that mighty and invisible Being, who sits in high authority over all worlds. The boasted discoveries of modern science are all confined to that field, within which the senses’ of man can expatiate. The moment we go beyond this field, they cease to be discoveries, and are the mere speculations of the fancy. The discoveries of modern science have, in fact, imparted a new energy to the sentiment in question. They all serve to exalt the Deity, but they do not contribute a single OF REVELATION. 985 iota to the explanation of his purposes. They make him greater, but they do not make him more comprehensible. He is more shrouded in mystery than ever. It is not himself whom we see, it is his workmanship ; and every new addition to its grandeur or to its variety, which philosophy opens to our contemplation, throws our understanding at a greater distance than before, from the mind and conception of the sublime*Architect. Instead of the God of a single world, we now see him presiding, in all the majesty of his high attributes, over a mighty range of innumerable systems. To our little eye he is wrapt in more awful mysterious- ness; and every new glimpse which astronomy gives us of the universe, magnifies, to the apprehension of our mind, that impassable bar- rier which stands between the counsels of its Sovereign, and those fugitive beings who strut their evanescent hour in the humblest of its mansions. If this invisible being would only break that mysterious silence in which he has wrapt himself, we feel that a single word from his mouth would be worth a world of darkling speculations. Every new triumph which the 286 SUPREME AUTHORITY mind of man achieves in the field of discovery, ‘binds us more firmly to our Bible; and by the very proportion in which philosophy multiplies the wonders of God, do we prize that book, on ‘which the evidence of history has stamped the character of his authentic communication. The course of the moon in the heavens has exercised astronomers for a long series of ages; and now that they are able to assign all the irregularities of its period, it may be counted one of the most signal triumphs of the modern philosophy. The question lay within the limits of the field of observation. It was accessible to measurement; and, upon the sure principles of calculation, men of science have brought forward the confident solution of a problem, the most difficult and trying that ever was sub- mitted to the human intellect. But let it never be forgotten, that those very maxims of philosophy which guided them so surely and so triumphantly within the field of observation, also restrained them from stepping beyond it; and though none were more confident than they whenever they had evidence and experi- 3 OF REVELATION. 287 ment to enlighten them, yet none were more scrupulous in abstaining to pronounce upon any subject, where evidence and experiment were wanting. Let us suppose that one of their number, flushed with the triumph of success, passed on from the work of calculating the periods of the moon, to theorize upon its che- mical constitution. The former question lies within the field of observation, the other is most thoroughly beyond it; and there is not a man, whose mind is disciplined to. the rigour and sobriety of modern science, that would not look upon the theory with the same contempt as if it were the dream of a poet, or the amuse- ment of a schoolboy. We have heard much of the moon, and of the voleanoes which blaze upon its surface. Let us have incontestible evidence that a falling stone proceeds from the eruption of one of these volcanoes, and the chemistry of the moon will receive more illus- tration from the analysis of that stone, than from all the speculations of all. the theorists. It brings the question in part within the limits of observation. It now becomes a fair subject for the exercise of the true philosophy. The 288 SUPREME AUTHORITY eye can now see, and the hand can now handle it; and the information furnished by the labo- rious drudgery of experimental men, will be received as a truer document, than the theory of any philosopher, however ingenious, or how- ever splendid. At the hazard of being counted fanciful, we bring forward the above as a competent illus- tration of the principle which we are attempt- ing to establish. We do all homage to modern science, nor do we dispute the loftiness of its pretensions. But we maintain, that however brilliant its career in those tracts of philoso- phy, where it has the light of observation to conduct it, the philosophy of all that lies with- out the field of observation is as obscure and inacessible as ever. We maintain, that to pass from the motions of the moon to an unauthorized speculation upon the chemistry of its materials, is a presumption disowned by philosophy. We ought to feel, that it would be a still more glaring transgression of all her maxims, to pass. from the brightest dis- covery in her catalogue, to the ways of that OF REVELATION. 989 mysterious Being, whom no eye hath seen, and whose mind is capacious as infinity. The splen- dour and the magnitude of what we do know, can never authorize us to pronounce upon what we do not know; nor can we conceive a transition more violent or more unwarrantable, than to pass from the truths of natural science to a speculation on the details of God’s admi- nistration, or the economy of his moral govern- ment. We hear much of revelations from hea- ven. Let any one of these bear the evidence of an actual communication from God himself ; and all the reasonings of all the theologians must vanish, and give place to the substance of this communication. Instead of theorizing upon the nature and properties of that divine light which irradiates the throne of God, and exists at so immeasurable a distance from our faculties, let us point our eyes to that emana- tion, which has actually come down to us. In- stead of theorizing upon the counsels of the divine mind, let us go to that Volume which lighted upon our world nearly two thousand years ago, and which bears the most authentic evidence, that it is the depository of part of these counsels. Let us apply the proper in- - 290 SUPREME AUTHORITY strument to this examination. Let us never conceive it to be a work of speculation or fancy. It is a pure work of grammatical ana- lysis. It is an unmixed question of language. The commentator who opens this Book with the one hand, and carries his system in the other, has nothing to do with it. We admit of no other instrument than the vocabulary and the lexicon. The man whom we look to is the Scripture critic, who can appeal to his authorities for the import and significancy of phrases; and whatever be the strict result of his patient and profound philology, we submit to it. We call upon every enlightened dis- ciple of Lord Bacon to approve the steps of this process, and to acknowledge, that the same habits of philosophising to which science is indebted for all her elevation in these later days, will lead us to cast down all our lofty imaginations, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. But something more remains to be done. The mind may have discernment enough to acquiesce in the speculative justness of a prin- ciple; but it may not have vigour or consist- OF REVELATION. 291 ency enough to put it into execution. Lord Bacon pointed out the method of true philoso- phising; yet, in practice, he abandoned it, and his own physical investigations may be ranked among the most effectual specimens of that rash and unfounded theorizing, which his own principles have banished from the schools of philosophy. Sir Isaac Newton completed, in his own person, the character of the true philo- sopher. He not only saw the general princi- ple, but he obeyed it. He both betook him- self to the drudgery of observation, and he en- dured the pain which every mind must suffer in the act of renouncing its old habits of con- ception. We call upon our readers to have manhood and philosophy enough to make a similar sacrifice. It is not enough that the Bible be acknowledged as the only authentic source of information respecting the details of that moral economy, which the Supreme Being has instituted for the government of the intel- ligent beings who occupy this globe. Its au- thenticity must be something more than ac- knowledged. It must be felt, and, in act and obedience, submitted to. Let us put them to the test. “ Verily I say unto you,” says our 2 | 4 * ‘ é 292 SUPREME AUTHORITY, &c. a Saviour, “ unless a man shall be born again, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God.” “ By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” “ Justified freely by his grace, through the re- demption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.” We need not multiply quota- tions; but if there be any repugnance to the obvious truths which we have announced to the reader in the language of the Bible, his mind is not yet tutored to the philosophy of the subject. It may be in the way, but the final result is not yet arrived at. It is still a slave to the elegance or the plausibility of its old speculations; and, though it admits the principle, that every previous opinion must give way to the supreme authority of an ac- tual communication from God, it wants con- sistency and hardihood to carry the principle into accomplishment. FINIS. EDINBURGH : Printed by A. Balfour and Co. _# 4 ” % ; ¢ Tits ‘ y 5 ~ 7 ri Pe a! oN : b. So, es ns 2 % - ‘ ¥ e bb hte Pe y itd! dt i Wees SUT. So eee 5 vad N y : x =4 as al : ‘ bs af f ft ys : ~': 4 “i ran = a we id? 74 * 5 ‘ p A of ie “f ; _ ) ik ee H 7 F . tls i i ‘ & Poke ! } ia a ' a ‘ a = 4 r " A & it i ee aa MAS: 2 sth el ae a, Lae , y 4 y ‘ fj { : : 4 ‘ a Oe d pede reer" 1 Piel y : Rf xi wt T¢ ‘ ; ° { ® Pm - | i Z i ee \ i ‘ E ity 7 ' , ' stds f i ‘ 5 ties * Ht. hats . ’ e ‘ inven “ ca “sh S ; \ ‘ Fi , ; id 4 ‘ 2 e sal i * ” ; ‘ aus oc f,; é ? ’ rad ; ry rf ‘ ; wr 7 \ wom : j et a | ee > SBS - 1 so org ee Sin ae a i Aes Ti ‘i 1 1012 01247 3056 | if } : bt a pete” ae . i ‘e ' + ‘ ‘ | , ye : tog 4 9 2 " “) / ' . 4 = 7 + =