EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY

by

WILLIAM PALEY, D. D. 

A New Edition

London: Printed by W. Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street

1851

THE HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND

JAMES YORK, D. D. , LORD BISHOP OF ELY

My LORD, When, five years ago, an important station in the University ofCambridge awaited your Lordship's disposal, you were pleased to offer itto me. The circumstances under which this offer was made demand a publicacknowledgment. I had never seen your Lordship; I possessed noconnection which could possibly recommend me to your favour; I was knownto you only by my endeavour, in common with many others, to discharge myduty as a tutor in the University; and by some very imperfect, butcertainly well-intended, and, as you thought, useful publications since. In an age by no means wanting in examples of honourable patronage, although this deserve not to be mentioned in respect of the object ofyour Lordship's choice, it is inferior to none in the purity anddisinterestedness of the motives which suggested it. 

How the following work may be received, I pretend not to foretell. Myfirst prayer concerning it is, that it may do good to any: my secondhope, that it may assist, what it hath always been my earnest wish topromote, the religious part of an academical education. If in thislatter view it might seem, in any degree, to excuse your Lordship'sjudgment of its author, I shall be gratified by the reflection that, toa kindness flowing from public principles, I have made the best publicreturn in my power. 

In the mean time, and in every event, I rejoice in the opportunity hereafforded me of testifying the sense I entertain of your Lordship'sconduct, and of a notice which I regard as the most flatteringdistinction of my life. 

 I am, MY LORD, With sentiments of gratitude and respect, Your Lordship's faithful And most obliged servant, WILLIAM PALEY. 

CONTENTS

Preparatory Considerations--Of the antecedent Credibility of Miracles. 

PART 1. 

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT ISDISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES. 

Proposition stated

PROPOSITION I. 

That there is satisfactory Evidence, that many professing to be originalWitnesses of the Christian Miracles passed their Lives in Labours, Dangers, and Sufferings, voluntarily undergone in Attestation of theAccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their Beliefof those Accounts; and that they submitted, from the same Motives, tonew Rules of Conduct. 

CHAPTER I

Evidence of the Suffering of the first Propagators of Christianity, fromthe Nature of the Case. 

CHAPTER II

Evidence of the Sufferings of the first Propagators of Christianity, from Profane Testimony. 

CHAPTER III

Indirect Evidence of the Sufferings of the first Propagators ofChristianity, from the Scriptures and other ancient Christian Writings. 

CHAPTER IV

Direct Evidence of the same. 

CHAPTER V

Observations upon the preceding Evidence. 

CHAPTER VI

That the Story for which the first Propagators of Christianity sufferedwas miraculous. 

CHAPTER VII

That it was, in the main, the Story which we have now proved by indirectConsiderations. 

CHAPTER VIII

The same proved from the Authority of our Historical Scriptures. 

CHAPTER IX

Of the Authenticity of the historical Scriptures, in eleven Sections

SECT. 1 Quotations of the historical Scriptures by ancient Christian Writers. SECT. 2 Of the peculiar Respect with which they were quoted. SECT. 3 The Scriptures were in very early Times collected into a distinct Volume. SECT. 4 And distinguished by appropriate Names and Titles of Respect. SECT. 5 Were publicly read and expounded in the religious Assemblies of the early Christians. SECT. 6 Commentaries, &c. , were anciently written upon the Scriptures. SECT. 7 They were received by ancient Christians of different Sects and persuasions. SECT. 8 The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the first of Peter, were received without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other Books of our present Canon. SECT. 9 Our present Gospels were considered by the adversaries of Christianity as containing the Accounts upon which the Religion was founded. SECT. 10 Formal Catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, in all which our present Gospels were included. SECT. 11 The above Propositions cannot be predicated of those Books which are commonly called Apocryphal Books of the New Testament. 

Recapitulation. 

CHAPTER X. 

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT ISDISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES. 

PROPOSITION II. 

CHAPTER I

That there is not satisfactory Evidence, that Persons pretending to beoriginal Witnesses of any other similar Miracles have acted in the sameManner, in Attestation of the Accounts which they delivered, and solelyin consequence of their Belief of the Truth of those Accounts. 

CHAPTER II

Consideration of some specific Instances

PART II. 

OF THE AUXILIARY EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, CHAPTER I

Prophecy

CHAPTER II

The Morality of the Gospel

CHAPTER III

The Candour of the Writers of the New Testament

CHAPTER IV

Identity of Christ's Character

CHAPTER V

Originality of our Saviour's Character

CHAPTER VI

Conformity of the Facts occasionally mentioned or referred to inScripture with the State of things in these Times, as represented byforeign and independent Accounts. 

CHAPTER VII

Undesigned Coincidences. 

CHAPTER VIII

Of the History of the Resurrection. 

CHAPTER IX

Of the Propagation of Christianity. SECT. 2 Reflections upon the preceding Account. SECT. 3 Of the Religion of Mahomet. 

PART III

A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJECTIONS. 

CHAPTER I

The Discrepancies between the several Gospels. 

CHAPTER II

Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles. 

CHAPTER III

The Connection of Christianity with the Jewish History. 

CHAPTER IV

Rejection of Christianity. 

CHAPTER V

That the Christian Miracles are not recited, or appealed to, by earlyChristian Writers themselves, so fully or frequently as might have beenexpected. 

CHAPTER VI

Want of Universality in the Knowledge and Reception of Christianity, andof greater Clearness in the Evidence. 

CHAPTER VII

Supposed effects of Christianity. 

CHAPTER VIII

Conclusion. 

PREPARATORY CONSIDERATIONS. 

I deem it unnecessary to prove that mankind stood in need of arevelation because I have met with no serious person who thinks that, even under the Christian revelation, we have too much light, or anydegree of assurance which is superfluous. I desire, moreover, that injudging of Christianity, it may be remembered that the question liesbetween this religion and none: for, if the Christian religion be notcredible, no one, with whom we have to do, will support the pretensionsof any other. 

Suppose, then, the world we live in to have had a Creator; suppose it toappear, from the predominant aim and tendency of the provisions andcontrivances observable in the universe, that the Deity, when he formedit, consulted for the happiness of his sensitive creation; suppose thedisposition which dictated this counsel to continue; suppose a part ofthe creation to have received faculties from their Maker, by which theyare capable of rendering a moral obedience to his will, and ofvoluntarily pursuing any end for which he has designed them; suppose theCreator to intend for these, his rational and accountable agents, asecond state of existence, in which their situation will be by theirbehaviour in the first state, by which suppose (and by no other) theobjection to the divine government in not putting a difference betweenthe good and the bad, and the inconsistency of this confusion with thecare and benevolence discoverable in the works of the Deity is doneaway; suppose it to be of the utmost importance to the subjects of thisdispensation to know what is intended for them, that is, suppose theknowledge of it to be highly conducive to the happiness of the species, a purpose which so many provisions of nature are calculated to promote:Suppose, nevertheless, almost the whole race, either by the imperfectionof their faculties, the misfortune of their situation, or by the loss ofsome prior revelation, to want this knowledge, and not to be likely, without the aid of a new revelation, to attain it; under thesecircumstances, is it improbable that a revelation should be made? Is itincredible that God should interpose for such a purpose? Suppose him todesign for mankind a future state; is it unlikely that he shouldacquaint him with it?

Now in what way can a revelation be made, but by miracles? In none whichwe are able to conceive. Consequently, in whatever degree it isprobable, or not very improbable, that a revelation should becommunicated to mankind at all: in the same degree is it probable, ornot very improbable, that miracles should be wrought. Therefore, whenmiracles are related to have been wrought in the promulgating of arevelation manifestly wanted, and, if true, of inestimable value, theimprobability which arises from the miraculous nature of the thingsrelated is not greater than the original improbability that such arevelation should be imparted by God. 

I wish it, however, to be correctly understood, in what manner, and towhat extent, this argument is alleged. We do not assume the attributesof the Deity, or the existence of a future state, in order to prove thereality of miracles. That reality always must be proved by evidence. Weassert only, that in miracles adduced in support of revelation there isnot any such antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount. Andfor the purpose of maintaining this assertion, we contend, that theincredibility of miracles related to have been wrought in attestation ofa message from God, conveying intelligence of a future state of rewardsand punishments, and teaching mankind how to prepare themselves for thatstate, is not in itself greater than the event, call it either probableor improbable, of the two following propositions being true: namely, first, that a future state of existence should be destined by God forhis human creation; and, secondly, that, being so destined, he shouldacquaint them with it. It is not necessary for our purpose, that thesepropositions be capable of proof, or even that, by arguments drawn fromthe light of nature, they can be made out to be probable; it is enoughthat we are able to say concerning them, that they are not so violentlyimprobable, so contradictory to what we already believe of the divinepower and character, that either the propositions themselves, or factsstrictly connected with the propositions (and therefore no furtherimprobable than they are improbable), ought to be rejected at firstsight, and to be rejected by whatever strength or complication ofevidence they be attested. 

This is the prejudication we would resist. For to this length does amodern objection to miracles go, viz. , that no human testimony can inany case render them credible. I think the reflection above stated, that, if there be a revelation, there must be miracles, and that, underthe circumstances in which the human species are placed, a revelation isnot improbable, or not to any great degree, to be a fair answer to thewhole objection. 

But since it is an objection which stands in the very threshold ourargument, and, if admitted, is a bar to every proof, and to all futurereasoning upon the subject, it may be necessary, before we proceedfurther, to examine the principle upon which it professes to be founded;which principle is concisely this, That it is contrary to experiencethat a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience thattestimony should be false. 

Now there appears a small ambiguity in the term "experience, " and in thephrases, "contrary to experience, " or "contradicting experience, " whichit may be necessary to remove in the first place. Strictly speaking, thenarrative of a fact is then only contrary to experience, when the factis related to have existed at a time and place, at which time and placewe being present did not perceive it to exist; as if it should beasserted, that in a particular room, and at a particular hour of acertain day, a man was raised from the dead, in which room, and at thetime specified, we, being present and looking on, perceived no suchevent to have taken place. Here the assertion is contrary to experienceproperly so called; and this is a contrariety which no evidence cansurmount. It matters nothing, whether the fact be of a miraculousnature, or not. But although this be the experience, and thecontrariety, which Archbishop Tillotson alleged in the quotation withwhich Mr. Hume opens his Essay, it is certainly not that experience, northat contrariety, which Mr. Hume himself intended to object. And shortof this I know no intelligible signification which can be affixed to theterm "contrary to experience, " but one, viz. , that of not havingourselves experienced anything similar to the thing related, or suchthings not being generally experienced by others. I say "not generally"for to state concerning the fact in question, that no such thing wasever experienced, or that universal experience is against it, is toassume the subject of the controversy. 

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is awant, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to theprobability there is, that, if the thing were true, we should experiencethings similar to it, or that such things would be generallyexperienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought onthe first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles coulddecide its authority, is it certain that such miracles would be repeatedso often, and in so many places, as to become objects of generalexperience? Is it a probability approaching to certainty? Is it aprobability of any great strength or force? Is it such as no evidencecan encounter? And yet this probability is the exact converse, andtherefore the exact measure, of the improbability which arises from thewant of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by humantestimony. 

It is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment innatural philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expectedthat, under the same circumstances, the same effect will followuniversally; and in proportion as this expectation is justlyentertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives thehistory. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upona repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be amiracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totallydestroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought. 

The force of experience as an objection to miracles is founded in thepresumption, either that the course of nature is invariable, or that, ifit be ever varied, variations will be frequent and general. Has thenecessity of this alternative been demonstrated? Permit us to call thecourse of nature the agency of an intelligent Being, and is there anygood reason for judging this state of the case to be probable? Ought wenot rather to expect that such a Being, on occasions of peculiarimportance, may interrupt the order which he had appointed, yet, thatsuch occasions should return seldom; that these interruptionsconsequently should be confined to the experience of a few; that thewant of it, therefore, in many, should be matter neither of surprise norobjection?

But, as a continuation of the argument from experience, it is said that, when we advance accounts of miracles, we assign effects without causes, or we attribute effects to causes inadequate to the purpose, or tocauses of the operation of which we have no experience of what causes, we may ask, and of what effects, does the objection speak? If it beanswered that, when we ascribe the cure of the palsy to a touch, ofblindness to the anointing of the eyes with clay, or the raising of thedead to a word, we lay ourselves open to this imputation; we reply thatwe ascribe no such effects to such causes. We perceive no virtue orenergy in these things more than in other things of the same kind. Theyare merely signs to connect the miracle with its end. The effect weascribe simply to the volition of Deity; of whose existence and power, not to say of whose Presence and agency, we have previous andindependent proof. We have, therefore, all we seek for in the works ofrational agents--a sufficient power and an adequate motive. In a word, once believe that there is a God, and miracles are not incredible. 

Mr. Hume states the ease of miracles to be a contest of oppositeimprobabilities, that is to say, a question whether it be moreimprobable that the miracle should be true, or the testimony false: andthis I think a fair account of the controversy. But herein I remark awant of argumentative justice, that, in describing the improbability ofmiracles, he suppresses all those circumstances of extenuation, whichresult from our knowledge of the existence, power, and disposition ofthe Deity; his concern in the creation, the end answered by the miracle, the importance of that end, and its subserviency to the plan pursued inthe work of nature. As Mr. Hume has represented the question, miraclesare alike incredible to him who is previously assured of the constantagency of a Divine Being, and to him who believes that no such Beingexists in the universe. They are equally incredible, whether related tohave been wrought upon occasion the most deserving, and for purposes themost beneficial, or for no assignable end whatever, or for an endconfessedly trifling or pernicious. This surely cannot be a correctstatement. In adjusting also the other side of the balance, the strengthand weight of testimony, this author has provided an answer to everypossible accumulation of historical proof by telling us that we are notobliged to explain how the story of the evidence arose. Now I think thatwe are obliged; not, perhaps, to show by positive accounts how it did, but by a probable hypothesis how it might so happen. The existence ofthe testimony is a phenomenon; the truth of the fact solves thephenomenon. If we reject this solution, we ought to have some other torest in; and none, even by our adversaries, can be admired, which is notinconsistent with the principles that regulate human affairs and humanconduct at present, or which makes men then to have been a differentkind of beings from what they are now. 

But the short consideration which, independently of every other, convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's conclusion, is the following. When a theorem is proposed to a mathematician, thefirst thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case, and if itproduce a false result, he is sure that there must be some mistake inthe demonstration. Now to proceed in this way with what may be calledMr. Hume's theorem. If twelve men, whose probity and good sense I hadlong known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me anaccount of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it wasimpossible that they should be deceived: if the governor of the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these men into hispresence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess theimposture, or submit to be tied up to a gibbet; if they should refusewith one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood orimposture in the case: if this threat were communicated to themseparately, yet with no different effect; if it was at last executed; ifI myself saw them, one after another, consenting to be racked, burnt, orstrangled, rather than live up the truth of their account;--still if Mr. Hume's rule be my guide, I am not to believe them. Now I undertake tosay that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believethem, or who would defend such incredulity. 

Instances of spurious miracles supported by strong apparent testimonyundoubtedly demand examination; Mr. Hume has endeavoured to fortify hisargument by some examples of this kind. I hope in a proper place to showthat none of them reach the strength or circumstances of the Christianevidence. In these, however, consists the weight of his objection; inthe principle itself, I am persuaded, there is none. 

PART I. 

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT ISDISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES. 

The two propositions which I shall endeavour to establish are these:

I. That there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to beoriginal witnesses of the Christian miracles passed their lives inlabours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestationof the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of theirbelief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the samemotives, to new rules of conduct. 

2. That there is not satisfactory evidence that persons professing to beoriginal witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain asthese are, have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and properly in consequence of theirbelief of those accounts. 

The first of these prepositions, as it forms the argument will stand atthe head of the following nine chapters. 

CHAPTER I

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitness of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their ofbelief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the samemotives, to new rules of conduct. 

To support this proposition, two points are necessary to be made out:first, that the Founder of the institution, his associates and immediatefollowers, acted the part which the proposition imputes to them:secondly, that they did so in attestation of the miraculous historyrecorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief ofthe truth of this history. 

Before we produce any particular testimony to the activity andsufferings which compose the subject of our first assertion, it will beproper to consider the degree of probability which the assertion derivesfrom the nature of the case, that is, by inferences from those parts ofthe case which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknowledged. 

First, then, the Christian Religion exists, and, therefore, by somemeans or other, was established. Now it either owes the principle of itsestablishment, i. E. Its first publication, to the activity of thePerson who was the founder of the institution, and of those who werejoined with him in the undertaking, or we are driven upon the strangesupposition, that, although they might lie by, others would take it up;although they were quiet and silent, other persons busied themselves inthe success and propagation of their story. This is perfectlyincredible. To me it appears little less than certain, that, if thefirst announcing of the religion by the Founder had not been followed upby the zeal and industry of his immediate disciples, the attempt musthave expired in its birth. Then as to the kind and degree of exertionwhich was employed, and the mode of life to which these personssubmitted, we reasonably suppose it to be like that which we observe inall others who voluntarily become missionaries of a new faith. Frequent, earnest, and laborious preaching, constantly conversing with religiouspersons upon religion, a sequestration from the common pleasures, engagements, and varieties of life, and an addiction to one seriousobject, compose the habits of such men. I do not say that this mode oflife is without enjoyment, but I say that the enjoyment springs fromsincerity. With a consciousness at the bottom of hollowness andfalsehood, the fatigue and restraint would become insupportable. I amapt to believe that very few hypocrites engage in these undertakings;or, however, persist in them long. Ordinarily speaking, nothing canovercome the indolence of mankind, the love which is natural to mosttempers of cheerful society and cheerful scenes, or the desire, which iscommon to all, of personal ease and freedom, but conviction. 

Secondly, it is also highly probable, from the nature of the case, thatthe propagation of the new religion was attended with difficulty anddanger. As addressed to the Jews, it was a system adverse, not only totheir habitual opinions but to those opinions upon which their hopes, their partialities, their pride, their consolation, was founded. Thispeople, with or without reason, had worked themselves into a persuasion, that some signal and greatly advantageous change was to be effected inthe condition of their country, by the agency of a long-promisedmessenger from heaven. * The rulers of the Jews, their leading sect, their priesthood, had been the authors of this persuasion to the commonpeople. So that it was not merely the conjecture of theoretical divines, or the secret expectation of a few recluse devotees, but it was becomethe popular hope and Passion, and, like all popular opinions, undoubtingand impatient of contradiction. They clung to this hope under everymisfortune of their country, and with more tenacity as their dangers andcalamities increased. To find, therefore, that expectations sogratifying were to be worse than disappointed; that they were to end inthe diffusion of a mild unambitious religion, which, instead ofvictories and triumphs, instead of exalting their nation and institutionabove the rest of the world, was to advance those whom they despised toan equality with themselves, in those very points of comparison in whichthey most valued their own distinction, could be no very pleasingdiscovery to a Jewish mind; nor could the messengers of suchintelligence expect to be well received or easily credited. The doctrinewas equally harsh and novel. The extending of the kingdom of God tothose who did not conform to the law of Moses was a notion that hadnever before entered into the thoughts of a Jew. 

_________

* "Pererebuerat oriento toto vetus et contans opinio, esse in fatis, uteo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirsatur. " Sueton. Vespasian. Cap. 4--8. 

"Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eoipso tempore fore, ut valesecret oriens, profectique Judaea rerumpotirentur. " Tacit. Hist. Lib. V. Cap. 9--13. _________

The character of the new institution was, in other respects also, ungrateful to Jewish habits and principles. Their own religion was in ahigh degree technical. Even the enlightened Jew placed a great deal ofstress upon the ceremonies of his law, saw in them a great deal ofvirtue and efficacy; the gross and vulgar had scarcely anything else;and the hypocritical and ostentatious magnified them above measure, asbeing the instruments of their own reputation and influence. TheChristian scheme, without formally repealing the Levitical code, loweredits estimation extremely. In the place of strictness and zeal inperforming the observances which that code prescribed, or whichtradition had added to it, the new sect preached up faith, well-regulated affections, inward purity, and moral rectitude ofdisposition, as the true ground, on the part of the worshipper, of meritand acceptance with God. This, however rational it may appear, orrecommending to us at present, did not by any means facilitate the planthen. On the contrary, to disparage those qualities which the highestcharacters in the country valued themselves most upon, was a sure way ofmaking powerful enemies. As if the frustration of the national hope wasnot enough, the long-esteemed merit of ritual zeal and punctuality wasto be decried, and that by Jews preaching to Jews. 

The ruling party at Jerusalem had just before crucified the Founder ofthe religion. That is a fact which will not be disputed. They, therefore, who stood forth to preach the religion must necessarilyreproach these rulers with an execution which they could not butrepresent as an unjust and cruel murder. This would not render theiroffice more easy, or their situation more safe. 

With regard to the interference of the Roman government which was thenestablished in Judea, I should not expect, that, despising as it did thereligion of the country, it would, if left to itself, animadvert, eitherwith much vigilance or much severity, upon the schisms and controversieswhich arose within it. Yet there was that in Christianity which mighteasily afford a handle of accusation with a jealous government. TheChristians avowed an unqualified obedience to a new master. They avowedalso that he was the person who had been foretold to the Jews under thesuspected title of King. The spiritual nature of this kingdom, theconsistency of this obedience with civil subjection, were distinctionstoo refined to be entertained by a Roman president, who viewed thebusiness at a great distance, or through the medium of very hostilerepresentations. Our histories accordingly inform us, that this was theturn which the enemies of Jesus gave to his character and pretensions intheir remonstrances with Pontius Pilate. And Justin Martyr, about ahundred years afterwards, complains that the same mistake prevailed inhis time: "Ye, having heard that we are waiting for a kingdom, supposewithout distinguishing that we mean a human kingdom, when in truth wespeak of that which is with God. "* And it was undoubtedly a naturalsource of calumny and misconstruction. 

_________

* Ap. Ima p. 16. Ed. Thirl. _________

The preachers of Christianity had, therefore, to contend with prejudicebacked by power. They had to come forward to a disappointed people, to apriesthood possessing a considerable share of municipal authority, andactuated by strong motives of opposition and resentment; and they had todo this under a foreign government, to whose favour they made nopretensions, and which was constantly surrounded by their enemies. Thewell-known, because the experienced, fate of reformers, whenever thereformation subverts some reigning opinion, and does not proceed upon achange that has already taken place in the sentiments of a country, willnot allow, much less lead us to suppose that the first propagators ofChristianity at Jerusalem and in Judea, under the difficulties and theenemies they had to contend with, and entirely destitute as they were offorce, authority, or protection, could execute their mission withpersonal ease and safety. 

Let us next inquire, what might reasonably be expected by the preachersof Christianity when they turned themselves to the heathen public. Nowthe first thing that strikes us is, that the religion they carried withthem was exclusive. It denied without reserve the truth of every articleof heathen mythology, the existence of every object of their worship. Itaccepted no compromise, it admitted no comprehension. It must prevail, if it prevailed at all, by the overthrow of every statue, altar, andtemple in the world, It will not easily be credited, that a design, sobold as this was, could in any age be attempted to be carried intoexecution with impunity. 

For it ought to be considered, that this was not setting forth, ormagnifying the character and worship of some new competitor for a placein the Pantheon, whose pretensions might he discussed or assertedwithout questioning the reality of any others: it was pronouncing allother gods to be false, and all other worship vain. From the facilitywith which the polytheism of ancient nations admitted new objects ofworship into the number of their acknowledged divinities, or thepatience with which they might entertain proposals of this kind, we canargue nothing as to their toleration of a system, or of the publishersand active propagators of a system, which swept away the very foundationof the existing establishment. The one was nothing more than what itwould be, in popish countries, to add a saint to the calendar; the otherwas to abolish and tread under foot the calendar itself. 

Secondly, it ought also to be considered, that this was not the case ofphilosophers propounding in their books, or in their schools, doubtsconcerning the truth of the popular creed, or even avowing theirdisbelief of it. These philosophers did not go about from place to placeto collect proselytes from amongst the common people; to form in theheart of the country societies professing their tenets; to provide forthe order, instruction and permanency of these societies; nor did theyenjoin their followers to withdraw themselves from the public worship ofthe temples, or refuse a compliance with rites instituted by the laws. *These things are what the Christians did, and what the philosophers didnot; and in these consisted the activity and danger of the enterprise. 

_________

* The best of the ancient philosophers, Plato, Cicero, and Epictetus, allowed, or rather enjoined, men to worship the gods of the country, andin the established form. See passages to this purpose collected fromtheir works by Dr. Clarke, Nat. And Rev. Rel. P. 180. Ed. V--ExceptSocrates, they all thought it wiser to comply with the laws than tocontend. _________

Thirdly, it ought also to be considered, that this danger proceeded notmerely from solemn acts and public resolutions of the state, but fromsudden bursts of violence at particular places, from the licence of thepopulace, the rashness of some magistrates and negligence of others;from the influence and instigation of interested adversaries, and, ingeneral, from the variety and warmth of opinion which an errand so noveland extraordinary could not fail of exciting. I can conceive that theteachers of Christianity might both fear and suffer much from thesecauses, without any general persecution being denounced against them byimperial authority. Some length of time, I should suppose, might pass, before the vast machine of the Roman empire would be put in motion, orits attention be obtained to religious controversy: but, during thattime, a great deal of ill usage might be endured, by a set offriendless, unprotected travellers, telling men, wherever they came, that the religion of their ancestors, the religion in which they hadbeen brought up, the religion of the state, and of the magistrate, therites which they frequented, the pomp which they admired, was throughouta system of folly and delusion. 

Nor do I think that the teachers of Christianity would find protectionin that general disbelief of the popular theology, which is supposed tohave prevailed amongst the intelligent part of the heathen public. It isby no means true that unbelievers are usually tolerant. They are notdisposed (and why should they?) to endanger the present state ofthings, by suffering a religion of which they believe nothing to bedisturbed by another of which they believe as little. They are readythemselves to conform to anything; and are, oftentimes, amongst theforemost to procure conformity from others, by any method which theythink likely to be efficacious. When was ever a change of religionpatronized by infidels? How little, not withstanding the reigningscepticism, and the magnified liberality of that age, the trueprinciples of toleration were understood by the wisest men amongst them, may be gathered from two eminent and uncontested examples. The youngerPliny, polished as he was by all the literature of that soft and elegantperiod, could gravely pronounce this monstrous judgment:--"Those whopersisted in declaring themselves Christians, I ordered to be led awayto punishment, (i. E. To execution, ) for I DID NOT DOUBT, whatever itwas that they confessed, that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy oughtto be punished. " His master Trajan, a mild and accomplished prince, went, nevertheless, no further in his sentiments of moderation andequity than what appears in the following rescript:--"The Christians arenot to be sought for; but if any are brought before you, and convicted, they are to be punished. " And this direction he gives, after it had beenreported to him by his own president, that, by the most strictexamination, nothing could be discovered in the principles of thesepersons, but "a bad and excessive superstition, " accompanied, it seems, with an oath or mutual federation, "to allow themselves in no crime orimmoral conduct whatever. " The truth is, the ancient heathens consideredreligion entirely as an affair of state, as much under the tuition ofthe magistrate as any other part of the police. The religion of that agewas not merely allied to the state; it was incorporated into it. Many ofits offices were administered by the magistrate. Its titles of pontiffs, augurs, and flamens, were borne by senators, consuls, and generals. Without discussing, therefore, the truth of the theology, they resentedevery affront put upon the established worship, as a direct oppositionto the authority of government. 

Add to which, that the religious systems of those times, however illsupported by evidence, had been long established. The ancient religionof a country has always many votaries, and sometimes not the fewer, because its origin is hidden in remoteness and obscurity. Men have anatural veneration for antiquity, especially in matters of religion. What Tacitus says of the Jewish was more applicable to the heathenestablishment: "Hi ritus, quoquo modo inducti, antiquitate defenduntur. "It was also a splendid and sumptuous worship. It had its priesthood, itsendowments, its temples. Statuary, painting, architecture, and music, contributed their effect to its ornament and magnificence. It aboundedin festival shows and solemnities, to which the common people aregreatly addicted, and which were of a nature to engage them much morethan anything of that sort among us. These things would retain greatnumbers on its side by the fascination of spectacle and pomp, as well asinterest many in its preservation by the advantage which they drew fromit. "It was moreover interwoven, " as Mr. Gibbon rightly represents it, "with every circumstance of business or pleasure, of public or privatelife, with all the offices and amusements of society. " On the duecelebration also of its rites, the people were taught to believe, anddid believe, that the prosperity of their country in a great measuredepended. 

I am willing to accept the account of the matter which is given by Mr. Gibbon: "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman worldwere all considered by the people as equally true, by the philosopher asequally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful:" and I would askfrom which of these three classes of men were the Christian missionariesto look for protection or impunity? Could they expect it from thepeople, "whose acknowledged confidence in the public religion" theysubverted from its foundation? From the philosopher, who, "consideringall religious as equally false, " would of course rank theirs among thenumber, with the addition of regarding them as busy and troublesomezealots? Or from the magistrate, who, satisfied with the "utility" ofthe subsisting religion, would not be likely to countenance a spirit ofproselytism and innovation:--a system which declared war against everyother, and which, if it prevailed, must end in a total rupture of publicopinion; an upstart religion, in a word, which was not content with itsown authority, but must disgrace all the settled religions of the world?It was not to be imagined that he would endure with patience, that thereligion of the emperor and of the state should be calumniated and bornedown by a company of superstitious and despicable Jews. 

Lastly; the nature of the case affords a strong proof, that the originalteachers of Christianity, in consequence of their new profession, entered upon a new and singular course of life. We may be allowed topresume, that the institution which they preached to others, theyconformed to in their own persons; because this is no more than whatevery teacher of a new religion both does, and must do, in order toobtain either proselytes or hearers. The change which this would producewas very considerable. It is a change which we do not easily estimate, because, ourselves and all about us being habituated to the institutionsfrom our infancy, it is what we neither experience nor observe. Aftermen became Christians, much of their time was spent in prayer anddevotion, in religious meetings, in celebrating the Eucharist, inconferences, in exhortations, in preaching, in an affectionateintercourse with one another, and correspondence with other societies. Perhaps their mode of life, in its form and habit, was not very unlikethe Unitas Fratrum, or the modern methodists. Think then what it was tobecome such at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Antioch, or even at Jerusalem. How new! How alien from all their former habits and ideas, and fromthose of everybody about them! What a revolution there must have been ofopinions and prejudices to bring the matter to this!

We know what the precepts of the religion are; how pure, how benevolent, how disinterested a conduct they enjoin; and that this purity andbenevolence are extended to the very thoughts and affections. We arenot, perhaps, at liberty to take for granted that the lives of thepreachers of Christianity were as perfect as their lessons; but we areentitled to contend, that the observable part of their behaviour musthave agreed in a great measure with the duties which they taught. Therewas, therefore, (which is all that we assert, ) a course of life pursuedby them, different from that which they before led. And this is of greatimportance. Men are brought to anything almost sooner than to changetheir habit of life, especially when the change is either inconvenient, or made against the force of natural inclination, or with the loss ofaccustomed indulgences. It is the most difficult of all things toconvert men from vicious habits to virtuous ones, as every one may judgefrom what he feels in himself, as well as from what he sees in others. *It is almost like making men over again. 

_________

* Hartley's Essays on Man, p. 190. _________

Left then to myself, and without any more information than a knowledgeof the existence of the religion, of the general story upon which it isfounded, and that no act of power, force, and authority was concerned inits first success, I should conclude, from the very nature and exigencyof the case, that the Author of the religion, during his life, and hisimmediate disciples after his death, exerted themselves in spreading andpublishing the institution throughout the country in which it began, andinto which it was first carried; that, in the prosecution of thispurpose, they underwent the labours and troubles which we observe thepropagators of new sects to undergo; that the attempt must necessarilyhave also been in a high degree dangerous; that, from the subject of themission, compared with the fixed opinions and prejudices of those towhom the missionaries were to address themselves, they could hardly failof encountering strong and frequent opposition; that, by the hand ofgovernment, as well as from the sudden fury and unbridled licence of thepeople, they would oftentimes experience injurious and cruel treatment;that, at any rate, they must have always had so much to fear for theirpersonal safety, as to have passed their lives in a state of constantperil and anxiety; and lastly, that their mode of life and conduct, visibly at least, corresponded with the institution which theydelivered, and, so far, was both new, and required continualself-denial. 

CHAPTER II. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

After thus considering what was likely to happen, we are next to inquirehow the transaction is represented in the several accounts that havecome down to us. And this inquiry is properly preceded by the other, forasmuch as the reception of these accounts may depend in part on thecredibility of what they contain. 

The obscure and distant view of Christianity, which some of the heathenwriters of that age had gained, and which a few passage in theirremaining works incidentally discover to us, offers itself to our noticein the first place: because, so far as this evidence goes, it is theconcession of adversaries; the source from which it is drawn isunsuspected. Under this head, a quotation from Tacitus, well known toevery scholar, must be inserted, as deserving particular attention. Thereader will bear in mind that this passage was written about seventyyears after Christ's death, and that it relates to transactions whichtook place about thirty years after that event--Speaking of the firewhich happened at Rome in the time of Nero, and of the suspicions whichwere entertained that the emperor himself was concerned in causing it, the historian proceeds in his narrative and observations thus:--

"But neither these exertions, nor his largesses to the people, nor hisofferings to the gods, did away the infamous imputation under which Nerolay, of having ordered the city to be set on fire. To put an end, therefore, to this report, he laid the guilt, and inflicted the mostcruel punishments, upon a set of people, who were holden in abhorrencefor their crimes, and called by the vulgar, Christians. The founder ofthat name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, underhis procurator, Pontius Pilate--This pernicious superstition, thuschecked for a while, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea, where the evil originated, but through Rome also, whither everything badupon the earth finds its way and is practised. Some who confessed theirsect were first seized, and afterwards, by their information, a vastmultitude were apprehended, who were convicted, not so much of the crimeof burning Rome, as of hatred to mankind. Their sufferings at theirexecution were aggravated by insult and mockery; for some were disguisedin the skins of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs; some werecrucified; and others were wrapped in pitched shirts, * and set on firewhen the day closed, that they might serve as lights to illuminate thenight. Nero lent his own gardens for these executions, and exhibited atthe same time a mock Circensian entertainment; being a spectator of thewhole, in the dress of a charioteer, sometimes mingling with the crowdon foot, and sometimes viewing the spectacle from his car. This conductmade the sufferers pitied; and though they were criminals, and deservingthe severest punishments, yet they were considered as sacrificed, not somuch out of a regard to the public good, as to gratify the cruelty ofone man. "

_________

* This is rather a paraphrase, but is justified by what the Scholiastupon Juvenal says; "Nero maleficos homines taeda et papyro et cerasupervestiebat, et sic ad ignem admoveri jubebat. " Lard. Jewish andHeath. Test. Vol. I. P. 359. _________

Our concern with this passage at present is only so far as it affords apresumption in support of the proposition which we maintain, concerningthe activity and sufferings of the first teachers of Christianity. Now, considered in this view, it proves three things: 1st, that the Founderof the institution was put to death; 2dly, that in the same country inwhich he was put to death, the religion, after a short check, broke outagain and spread; 3dly, that it so spread as that, within thirty-fouryears from the Author's death, a very great number of Christians (ingenseorum multitudo) were found at Rome. From which fact, the two followinginferences may be fairly drawn: first, that if, in the space ofthirty-four years from its commencement, the religion had spreadthroughout Judea, had extended itself to Rome, and there had numbered agreat multitude of converts, the original teachers and missionaries ofthe institution could not have been idle; secondly, that when the Authorof the undertaking was put to death as a malefactor for his attempt, theendeavours of his followers to establish his religion in the samecountry, amongst the same people, and in the same age, could not but beattended with danger. 

Suetonius, a writer contemporary with Tacitus, describing thetransactions of the same reign, uses these words: "Affecti suppliciisChristiani genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae. " (Suet. Nero. Cap. 16) "The Christians, a set of men of a new and mischievous(or magical) superstition, were punished. "

Since it is not mentioned here that the burning of the city was thepretence of the punishment of the Christians, or that they were theChristians of Rome who alone suffered, it is probable that Suetoniusrefers to some more general persecution than the short and occasionalone which Tacitus describes. 

Juvenal, a writer of the same age with the two former, and intending, itshould seem, to commemorate the cruelties exercised under Nero'sgovernment, has the following lines: (Sat. I. Ver. 155)

"Pone Tigellinum, taeda lucebis in illa, Qua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fumant, Et latum media sulcum deducit arena" (Forsan "deducis. ")

"Describe Tigellinus (a creature of Nero), and you shall suffer the samepunishment with those who stand burning in their own flame and smoke, their head being held up by a stake fixed to their chin, till they makea long stream of blood and melted sulphur on the ground. "

If this passage were considered by itself, the subject of allusion mightbe doubtful; but, when connected with the testimony of Suetonius, as tothe actual punishment of the Christians by Nero, and with the accountgiven by Tacitus of the species of punishment which they were made toundergo, I think it sufficiently probable that these were the executionsto which the poet refers. 

These things, as has already been observed, took place within thirty-oneyears after Christ's death, that is, according to the course of nature, in the life-time, probably, of some of the apostles, and certainly inthe life-time of those who were converted by the apostles, or who wereconverted in their time. If then the Founder of the religion was put todeath in the execution of his design; if the first race of converts tothe religion, many of them, suffered the greatest extremities for theirprofession; it is hardly credible, that those who came between the two, who were companions of the Author of the institution during his life, and the teachers and propagators of the institution after his death, could go about their undertaking with ease and safety. 

The testimony of the younger Pliny belongs to a later period; for, although he was contemporary with Tacitus and Suetonius, yet his accountdoes not, like theirs, go back to the transactions of Nero's reign, butis confined to the affairs of his own time. His celebrated letter toTrajan was written about seventy years after Christ's death; and theinformation to be drawn from it, so far as it is connected with ourargument, relates principally to two points: first, to the number ofChristians in Bithynia and Pontus, which was so considerable as toinduce the governor of these provinces to speak of them in the followingterms: "Multi, omnis aetatis, utriusque sexus etiam;--neque enimcivitates tantum, sed vicos etiam et agros, superstitionis istiuscontagio pervagata est. " "There are many of every age and of bothsexes;--nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but smaller towns also, and the open country. " Great exertions must havebeen used by the preachers of Christianity to produce this state ofthings within this time. Secondly, to a point which has been alreadynoticed, and, which I think of importance to be observed, namely, thesufferings to which Christians were exposed, without any publicpersecution being denounced against them by sovereign authority. For, from Pliny's doubt how he was to act, his silence concerning anysubsisting law on the subject, his requesting the emperor's rescript, and the emperor, agreeably to his request, propounding a rule for hisdirection without reference to any prior rule, it may be inferred thatthere was, at that time, no public edict in force against theChristians. Yet from this same epistle of Pliny it appears "thataccusations, trials, and examinations, were, and had been, going onagainst them in the provinces over which he presided; that scheduleswere delivered by anonymous informers, containing the names of personswho were suspected of holding or of favouring the religion; that, inconsequence of these informations, many had been apprehended, of whomsome boldly avowed their profession, and died in the cause; othersdenied that they were Christians; others, acknowledging that they hadonce been Christians, declared that they had long ceased to be such. "All which demonstrates that the profession of Christianity was at thattime (in that country at least) attended with fear and danger: and yetthis took place without any edict from the Roman sovereign, commandingor authorizing the persecution of Christians. This observation isfurther confirmed by a rescript of Adrian to Minucius Fundanus, theproconsul of Asia (Lard. Heath. Test. Vol. Ii. P. 110): from whichrescript it appears that the custom of the people of Asia was to proceedagainst the Christians with tumult and uproar. This disorderly practice, I say, is recognised in the edict, because the emperor enjoins, that, for the future, if the Christians were guilty, they should be legallybrought to trial, and not be pursued by importunity and clamour. 

Martial wrote a few years before the younger Pliny: and, as his mannerwas, made the suffering of the Christians the subject of his ridicule. 

In matutina nuper spectatus arenaMucius, imposuit qui sua membra focis, Si patiens fortisque tibi durusque videtur, Abderitanae pectora plebis habes;Nam cum dicatur, tunica praesente molesta, Ure* manum: plus est dicere, Non facio. 

*Forsan "thure manum. "

Nothing, however, could show the notoriety of the fact with morecertainty than this does. Martial's testimony, as well indeed asPliny's, goes also to another point, viz, that the deaths of these menwere martyrdom in the strictest sense, that is to say, were sovoluntary, that it was in their power, at the time of pronouncing thesentence, to have averted the execution, by consenting to join inheathen sacrifices. 

The constancy, and by consequence the sufferings, of the Christians ofthis period, is also referred to by Epictetus, who imputes theirintrepidity to madness, or to a kind of fashion or habit; and aboutfifty years afterwards, by Marcus Aurelius, who ascribes it toobstinacy. "Is it possible (Epictetus asks) that a man may arrive atthis temper, and become indifferent to those things from madness or fromhabit, as the Galileans?" "Let this preparation of the mind (to die)arise from its own judgment, and not from obstinacy like theChristians. " (Epict. I. Iv. C. 7. ) (Marc. Aur. Med. 1. Xi. C. 3. )

CHAPTER III. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed there lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

Of the primitive condition of Christianity, a distant only and generalview can be acquired from heathen writers. It is in our own books thatthe detail and interior of the transaction must be sought for. And thisis nothing different from what might be expected. Who would write ahistory of Christianity, but a Christian? Who was likely to record thetravels, sufferings, labours, or successes of the apostles, but one oftheir own number, or of their followers? Now these books come up intheir accounts to the full extent of the proposition which we maintain. We have four histories of Jesus Christ. We have a history taking up thenarrative from his death, and carrying on an account of the propagationof the religion, and of some of the most eminent persons engaged in it, for a space of nearly thirty years. We have, what some may think stillmore original, a collection of letters, written by certain principalagents in the business upon the business, and in the midst of theirconcern and connection with it. And we have these writings severallyattesting the point which we contend for, viz. The sufferings of thewitnesses of the history, and attesting it in every variety of form inwhich it can be conceived to appear: directly and indirectly, expresslyand incidentally, by assertion, recital, and allusion, by narratives offacts, and by arguments and discourses built upon these facts, eitherreferring to them, or necessarily presupposing them. 

I remark this variety, because, in examining ancient records, or indeedany species of testimony, it is, in my opinion, of the greatestimportance to attend to the information or grounds of argument which arecasually and undesignedly disclosed; forasmuch as this species of proofis, of all others, the least liable to be corrupted by fraud ormisrepresentation. 

I may be allowed therefore, in the inquiry which is now before us, tosuggest some conclusions of this sort, as preparatory to more directtestimony. 

1. Our books relate, that Jesus Christ, the founder of the religion, was, in consequence of his undertaking, put to death, as a malefactor, at Jerusalem. This point at least will be granted, because it is no morethan what Tacitus has recorded. They then proceed to tell us that thereligion was, notwithstanding, set forth at this same city of Jerusalem, propagated thence throughout Judea, and afterwards preached in otherparts of the Roman Empire. These points also are fully confirmed byTacitus, who informs us that the religion, after a short check, brokeout again in the country where it took its rise; that it not only spreadthroughout Judea, but had reached Rome, and that it had there greatmultitudes of converts: and all this within thirty years after itscommencement. Now these facts afford a strong inference in behalf of theproposition which we maintain. What could the disciples of Christ expectfor themselves when they saw their master put to death? Could they hopeto escape the dangers in which he had perished? If they had persecutedme, they will also persecute you, was the warning of common sense. Withthis example before their eyes, they could not be without a full senseof the peril of their future enterprise. 

2. Secondly, all the histories agree in representing Christ asforetelling the persecution of his followers:--"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you, andye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. " (Matt. Xxiv. 9. )

"When affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediatelythey are offended. " (Mark iv. 17. See also chap. X. 30. )

"They shall lay hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up tothe synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulersfor my name's sake:--and ye shall be betrayed both by parents andbrethren, and kinsfolks and friends, and some of you shall they cause tobe put to death. " (Luke xxi. 12--16. See also chap. Xi. 49. )

"The time cometh, that he that killed you will think that he doeth Godservice. And these things will they do unto you, because they have notknown the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that whenthe time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. " (Johnxvi. 4. See also chap. Xv. 20; xvi. 33. )

I am not entitled to argue from these passages, that Christ actually didforetell these events, and that they did accordingly come to pass;because that would be at once to assume the truth of the religion: but Iam entitled to contend that one side or other of the followingdisjunction is true; either that the Evangelists have delivered whatChrist really spoke, and that the event corresponded with theprediction; or that they put the prediction into Christ's mouth, becauseat the time of writing the history, the event had turned out so to be:for, the only two remaining suppositions appear in the highest degreeincredible; which are, either that Christ filled the minds of hisfollowers with fears and apprehensions, without any reason or authorityfor what he said, and contrary to the truth of the case; or that, although Christ had never foretold any such thing, and the event wouldhave contradicted him if he had, yet historians who lived in the agewhen the event was known, falsely, as well as officiously, ascribedthese words to him. 

3. Thirdly, these books abound with exhortations to patience, and withtopics of comfort under distress. 

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, ordistress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him thatloved us. " (Rom. Viii. 35-37. )

"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but notdestroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body;--knowingthat he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise us up also by Jesus, and shall present us with you---For which cause we faint not; but, thoughour outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. Forour light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a farmore exceeding and eternal weight of glory. " (2 Cor. Iv. 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17. )

"Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of theLord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and oftender mercy. " (James v. 10, 11. )

"Call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye wereilluminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions partly whilst yewere made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and afflictions, and partlywhilst ye became companions of them that were so used; for ye hadcompassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of yourgoods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and anenduring substance. Cast not away, therefore, your confidence, whichhath great recompense of reward; for ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. " (Heb. X. 32-36. )

"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God, for yourpatience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that yeendure. Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, thatye may be counted worthy of the kingdom for which ye also suffer. " (2Thess. I. 4, 5. )

"We rejoice in hope of the glory of God; and not only so, but we gloryin tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience, andpatience experience, and experience hope. " (Rom. V. 3, 4. )

"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is totry you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings. --Wherefore let themthat suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of theirsouls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. " (1 Pet. Iv. 12, 13, 19. )

What could all these texts mean, if there was nothing in thecircumstances of the times which required patience, --which called forthe exercise of constancy and resolution? Or will it be pretended, thatthese exhortations (which, let it be observed, come not from one author, but from many) were put in merely to induce a belief in after-ages, thatthe Christians were exposed to dangers which they were not exposed to, or underwent sufferings which they did not undergo? If these booksbelong to the age to which they lay claim, and in which age, whethergenuine or spurious, they certainly did appear, this supposition cannotbe maintained for a moment; because I think it impossible to believethat passages, which must be deemed not only unintelligible, but false, by the persons into whose hands the books upon their publication were tocome, should nevertheless be inserted, for the purpose of producing aneffect upon remote generations. In forgeries which do not appear tillmany ages after that to which they pretend to belong, it is possiblethat some contrivance of that sort may take place; but in no others canit be attempted. 

CHAPTER IV. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

The account of the treatment of the religion, and of the exertions ofits first preachers, as stated in our Scriptures (not in a professedhistory of persecutions, or in the connected manner in which I am aboutto recite it, but dispersedly and occasionally, in the course of a mixedgeneral history, which circumstance, alone negatives the supposition ofany fraudulent design), is the following: "That the Founder ofChristianity, from the commencement of his ministry to the time of hisviolent death, employed himself wholly in publishing the institution inJudea and Galilee; that, in order to assist him in this purpose, he madechoice, out of the number of his followers, of twelve persons, who mightaccompany him as he travelled from place to place; that, except a shortabsence upon a journey in which he sent them two by two to announce hismission, and one of a few days, when they went before him to Jerusalem, these persons were steadily and constantly attending upon him; that theywere with him at Jerusalem when he was apprehended and put to death; andthat they were commissioned by him, when his own ministry was concluded, to publish his Gospel, and collect disciples to it from all countries ofthe world. " The account then proceeds to state, "that a few days afterhis departure, these persons, with some of his relations, and some whohad regularly frequented their society, assembled at Jerusalem; that, considering the office of preaching the religion as now devolved uponthem, and one of their number having deserted the cause, and, repentingof his perfidy, having destroyed himself, they proceeded to electanother into his place, and that they were careful to make theirelection out of the number of those who had accompanied their masterfrom the first to the last, in order, as they alleged, that he might bea witness, together with themselves, of the principal facts which theywere about to produce and relate concerning him; ( Acts i. 12, 22. ) thatthey began their work at Jerusalem by publicly asserting that thisJesus, whom the rulers and inhabitants of that place had so latelycrucified, was, in truth, the person in whom all their prophecies andlong expectations terminated; that he had been sent amongst them by God;and that he was appointed by God the future judge of the human species;that all who were solicitous to secure to themselves happiness afterdeath, ought to receive him as such, and to make profession of theirbelief, by being baptised in his name. " (Acts xi. )

The history goes on to relate, "that considerable numbers accepted thisproposal, and that they who did so formed amongst themselves a strictunion and society; (Acts iv. 32. ) that the attention of the Jewishgovernment being soon drawn upon them, two of the principal persons ofthe twelve, and who also had lived most intimately and constantly withthe Founder of the religion, were seized as they were discoursing to thepeople in the temple; that after being kept all night in prison, theywere brought the next day before an assembly composed of the chiefpersons of the Jewish magistracy and priesthood; that this assembly, after some consultation, found nothing, at that time, better to be donetowards suppressing the growth of the sect, than to threaten theirprisoners with punishment if they persisted; that these men, afterexpressing, in decent but firm language, the obligation under which theyconsidered themselves to be, to declare what they knew, 'to speak thethings which they had seen and heard, ' returned from the council, andreported what had passed to their companions; that this report, whilstit apprized them of the danger of their situation and undertaking, hadno other effect upon their conduct than to produce in them a generalresolution to persevere, and an earnest prayer to God to furnish themwith assistance, and to inspire them with fortitude, proportioned to theincreasing exigency of the service. " ( Acts iv. ) A very short time afterthis, we read "that all the twelve apostles were seized and cast intoprison; ( Acts v. 18. ) that, being brought a second time before theJewish Sanhedrim, they were upbraided with their disobedience to theinjunction which had been laid upon them, and beaten for theircontumacy; that, being charged once more to desist, they were sufferedto depart; that however they neither quitted Jerusalem, nor ceased frompreaching, both daily in the temple, and from house to house (Acts v. 42. ) and that the twelve considered themselves as so entirely andexclusively devoted to this office, that they now transferred what maybe called the temporal affairs of the society to other hands. "*

_________

* I do not know that it has ever been insinuated that the Christianmission, in the hands of the apostles, was a scheme for making afortune, or for getting money. But it may nevertheless be fit to remarkupon this passage of their history, how perfectly free they appear tohave been from any pecuniary or interested views whatever. The mosttempting opportunity which occurred of making gain of their converts, was by the custody and management of the public funds, when some of thericher members, intending to contribute their fortunes to the commonsupport of the society, sold their possessions, and laid down the pricesat the apostles' feet. Yet, so insensible or undesirous were they of theadvantage which that confidence afforded, that we find they very soondisposed of the trust, by putting it into the hands, not of nominees oftheir own, but of stewards formally elected for the purpose by thesociety at large. 

We may add also, that this excess of generosity, which cast privateproperty into the public stock, was so far from being required by theapostles, or imposed as a law of Christianity, that Peter remindsAnanias that he had been guilty, in his behaviour, of an officious andvoluntary prevarication; "for whilst, " says he, "thy estate remainedunsold, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thineown power?"_________

Hitherto the preachers of the new religion seem to have had the commonpeople on their side; which is assigned as the reason why the Jewishrulers did not, at this time, think it prudent to proceed to greaterextremities. It was not long, however, before the enemies of theinstitution found means to represent it to the people as tending tosubvert their law, degrade their lawgiver, and dishonour theirtemple. (Acts vi. 12. ) And these insinuations were dispersed with so muchsuccess as to induce the people to join with their superiors in thestoning of a very active member of the new community. 

The death of this man was the signal of a general persecution, theactivity of which may be judged of from one anecdote of the time:--"Asfor Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, andtaking men and women committed them to prison. " (Acts viii. 3. ) Thispersecution raged at Jerusalem with so much fury as to drive most of thenew converts out of the place, * except the twelve apostles. The convertsthus "scattered abroad, " preached the religion wherever they came; andtheir preaching was, in effect, the preaching of the twelve; for it wasso far carried on in concert and correspondence with them, that whenthey heard of the success of their emissaries in a particular country, they sent two of their number to the place, to complete and confirm themission. 

_________

*Acts viii. I. "And they were all scattered abroad;" but the term "all"is not, I think, to be taken strictly as denoting more than thegenerality; in like manner as in Acts ix. 35: "And all that dwelt atLydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord. "_________

An event now took place, of great importance in the future history ofthe religion. The persecution which had begun at Jerusalem followed theChristians to other cities, ( Acts ix. ) in which the authority of theJewish Sanhedrim over those of their own nation was allowed to beexercised. A young man, who had signalized himself by his hostility tothe profession, and had procured a commission from the council atJerusalem to seize any converted Jews whom he might find at Damascus, suddenly became a proselyte to the religion which he was going about toextirpate. The new convert not only shared, on this extraordinarychange, the fate of his companions, but brought upon himself a doublemeasure of enmity from the party which he had left. The Jews atDamascus, on his return to that city, watched the gates night and day, with so much diligence, that he escaped from their hands only by beinglet down in a basket by the wall. Nor did he find himself in greatersafety at Jerusalem, whither he immediately repaired. Attempts werethere also soon set on foot to destroy him; from the danger of which hewas preserved by being sent away to Cilicia, his native country. 

For some reason not mentioned, perhaps not known, but probably connectedwith the civil history of the Jews, or with some danger* which engrossedthe public attention, an intermission about this time took place in thesufferings of the Christians. This happened, at the most, only seven oreight, perhaps only three or four years after Christ's death, withinwhich period, and notwithstanding that the late persecution occupiedpart of it, churches, or societies of believers, had been formed in allJudea, Galilee, and Samaria; for we read that the churches in thesecountries "had now rest and were edified, and, walking in the fear ofthe Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. " (Actsix 31. ) The original preachers of the religion did not remit theirlabours or activity during this season of quietness; for we find one, and he a very principal person among them, passing throughout allquarters. We find also those who had been before expelled from Jerusalemby the persecution which raged there, travelling as far as Poenice, Cyprus, and Antioch; (Acts xi. 19. ) and lastly, we find Jerusalem againin the centre of the mission, the place whither the preachers returnedfrom their several excursions, where they reported the conduct andeffects of their ministry, where questions of public concern werecanvassed and settled, whence directions were sought, and teachers sentforth. 

_________

* Dr. Lardner (in which he is followed also by Dr. Benson) ascribes thecessation of the persecution of the Christians to the attempt ofCaligula to set up his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem, and to theconsternation thereby excited in the minds of the Jewish people; whichconsternation for a season superseded every other contest. _________

The time of this tranquillity did not, however, continue long. HerodAgrippa, who had lately acceded to the government of Judea, "stretchedforth his hand to vex certain of the church. " (Acts xii. 1. ) He beganhis cruelty by beheading one of the twelve original apostles, a kinsmanand constant companion of the Founder of the religion. Perceiving thatthis execution gratified the Jews, he proceeded to seize, in order toput to death, another of the number, --and him, like the former, associated with Christ during his life, and eminently active in theservice since his death. This man was, however, delivered from prison, as the account states miraculously, (Acts xii. 3--17. ) and made hisescape from Jerusalem. 

These things are related, not in the general terms under which, ingiving the outlines of the history, we have here mentioned them, butwith the utmost particularity of names, persons, places, andcircumstances; and, what is deserving of notice, without the smallestdiscoverable propensity in the historian, to magnify the fortitude, orexaggerate the sufferings, of his party. When they fled for their lives, he tells us. When the churches had rest, he remarks it. When the peopletook their part, he does not leave it without notice. When the apostleswere carried a second time before the Sanhedrim, he is careful toobserve that they were brought without violence. When milder counselswere suggested, he gives us the author of the advice and the speechwhich contained it. When, in consequence of this advice, the rulerscontented themselves with threatening the apostles, and commanding themto be beaten with stripes, without urging at that time the persecutionfurther, the historian candidly and distinctly records theirforbearance. When, therefore, in other instances, he states heavierpersecutions, or actual martyrdoms, it is reasonable to believe that hestates them because they were true, and not from any wish to aggravate, in his account, the sufferings which Christians sustained, or to extol, more than it deserved, their patience under them. 

Our history now pursues a narrower path. Leaving the rest of theapostles, and the original associates of Christ, engaged in thepropagation of the new faith, (and who there is not the least reason tobelieve abated in their diligence or courage, ) the narrative proceedswith the separate memoirs of that eminent teacher, whose extraordinaryand sudden conversion to the religion, and corresponding change ofconduct, had before been circumstantially described. This person, inconjunction with another, who appeared among the earlier members ofthe society at Jerusalem, and amongst the immediate adherents of thetwelve apostles, (Acts iv. 36. ) set out from Antioch upon the expressbusiness of carrying the new religion through the various provinces ofthe Lesser Asia. (Acts xiii. 2. ) During this expedition, we find that inalmost every place to which they came, their persons were insulted, andtheir lives endangered. After being expelled from Antioch in Pisidia, they repaired to Iconium. (Acts xiii. 51. ) At Iconium, an attempt wasmade to stone them; at Lystra, whither they fled from Iconium, one ofthem actually was stoned and drawn out of the city for dead. (Acts xiv. 19. ) These two men, though not themselves original apostles, were actingin connection and conjunction with the original apostles; for, after thecompletion of their journey, being sent on a particular commission toJerusalem, they there related to the apostles (Acts xv. 12--26. ) andelders the events and success of their ministry, and were in returnrecommended by them to the churches, "as men who had hazarded theirlives in the cause. "

The treatment which they had experienced in the first progress did notdeter them from preparing for a second. Upon a dispute, however, arisingbetween them, but not connected with the common subject of theirlabours, they acted as wise and sincere men would act; they did notretire in disgust from the service in which they were engaged, but, eachdevoting his endeavours to the advancement of the religion, they partedfrom one another, and set forward upon separate routes. The history goesalong with one of them; and the second enterprise to him was attendedwith the same dangers and persecutions as both had met with in thefirst. The apostle's travels hitherto had been confined to Asia. He nowcrosses for the first time the Aegean sea, and carries with him, amongstothers, the person whose accounts supply the information we arestating. (Acts xvi. 11. ) The first place in Greece at which he appears tohave stopped, was Philippi in Macedonia. Here himself and one of hiscompanions were cruelly whipped, cast into prison, and kept there underthe most rigorous custody, being thrust, whilst yet smarting with theirwounds, into the inner dungeon, and their feet made fast in thestocks. (Acts xvi. 23, 24, 33. ) Notwithstanding this unequivocal specimenof the usage which they had to look for in that country, they wentforward in the execution of their errand. After passing throughAmphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica; in which city thehouse in which they lodged was assailed by a party of their enemies, inorder to bring them out to the populace. And when, fortunately for theirpreservation, they were not found at home, the master of the house wasdragged before the magistrate for admitting them within his doors. (Actsxvii. 1--5. ) Their reception at the next city was something better: butneither had they continued long before their turbulent adversaries theJews, excited against them such commotions amongst the inhabitants asobliged the apostle to make his escape by a private journey toAthens. (Acts xvii. 13. ) The extremity of the progress was Corinth. Hisabode in this city, for some time, seems to have been withoutmolestation. At length, however, the Jews found means to stir up aninsurrection against him, and to bring him before the tribunal of theRoman president. (Acts xviii. 12. ) It was to the contempt which thatmagistrate entertained for the Jews and their controversies, of which heaccounted Christianity to be one, that our apostle owed hisdeliverance. (Acts xviii. 15. )

This indefatigable teacher, after leaving Corinth, returned by Ephesusinto Syria; and again visited Jerusalem, and the society of Christiansin that city, which, as hath been repeatedly observed, still continuedthe centre of the mission. (Acts xviii. 22. ) It suited not, however, withthe activity of his zeal to remain long at Jerusalem. We find him goingthence to Antioch, and, after some stay there, traversing once more thenorthern provinces of Asia Minor. (Acts xviii. 23. ) This progress endedat Ephesus: in which city, the apostle continued in the daily exerciseof his ministry two years, and until his success, at length, excited theapprehensions of those who were interested in the support of thenational worship. Their clamour produced a tumult, in which he hadnearly lost his life. (Acts xix. 1, 9, 10. ) Undismayed, however, by thedangers to which he saw himself exposed, he was driven from Ephesus onlyto renew his labours in Greece. After passing over Macedonia, he thenceproceeded to his former station at Corinth. (Acts xx. 1, 2. ) When he hadformed his design of returning by a direct course from Corinth intoSyria, he was compelled by a conspiracy of the Jews, who were preparedto intercept him on his way, to trace back his steps through Macedoniato Philippi, and thence to take shipping into Asia. Along the coast ofAsia, he pursued his voyage with all the expedition he could command, inorder to reach Jerusalem against the feast of Pentecost. (Acts xx. 16. )His reception at Jerusalem was of a piece with the usage he hadexperienced from the Jews in other places. He had been only a few daysin that city, when the populace, instigated by some of his old opponentsin Asia, who attended this feast, seized him in the temple, forced himout of it, and were ready immediately to have destroyed him, had not thesudden presence of the Roman guard rescued him out of their hands. (Actsxxi. 27--33. ) The officer, however, who had thus seasonably interposed, acted from his care of the public peace, with the preservation of whichhe was charged, and not from any favour to the apostle, or indeed anydisposition to exercise either justice or humanity towards him; for hehad no sooner secured his person in the fortress, than he was proceedingto examine him by torture. (Acts xxii 24. )

From this time to the conclusion of the history, the apostle remains inpublic custody of the Roman government. After escaping assassination bya fortunate discovery of the plot, and delivering himself from theinfluence of his enemies by an appeal to the audience of theemperor, (Acts xxv. 9, 11. ) he was sent, but not until he had sufferedtwo years' imprisonment, to Rome. (Acts xxiv. 27. ) He reached Italy aftera tedious voyage, and after encountering in his passage the perils of adesperate shipwreck. (Acts xxvii. ) But although still a prisoner, and hisfate still depending, neither the various and long-continued sufferingswhich he had undergone, nor the danger of his present situation, deterred him from persisting in preaching the religion: for thehistorian closes the account by telling us that, for two years, hereceived all that came unto him in his own hired house, where he waspermitted to dwell with a soldier that guarded him, "preaching thekingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord JesusChrist, with all confidence. "

Now the historian, from whom we have drawn this account, in the part ofhis narrative which relates to Saint Paul, is supported by the strongestcorroborating testimony that a history can receive. We are in possessionof letters written by Saint Paul himself upon the subject of hisministry, and either written during the period which the historycomprises, or, if written afterwards, reciting and referring to thetransactions of that period. These letters, without borrowing from thehistory, or the history from them, unintentionally confirm the accountwhich the history delivers, in a great variety of particulars. Whatbelongs to our present purpose is the description exhibited of theapostle's sufferings: and the representation, given in our history, ofthe dangers and distresses which he underwent not only agrees in generalwith the language which he himself uses whenever he speaks of his lifeor ministry, but is also, in many instances, attested by a specificcorrespondency of time, place, and order of events. If the historian putdown in his narrative, that at Philippi the apostle "was beaten withmany stripes, cast into prison, and there treated with rigour andindignity;" (Acts xvi. 23, 24. ) we find him, in a letter to aneighbouring church, (I Thess. Ii. 2. ) reminding his converts that, "after he had suffered before, and was shamefully entreated at Philippi, he was bold, nevertheless, to speak unto them (to whose city he nextcame) the Gospel of God. " If the history relates that, (Acts xvii. 5. )at Thessalonica, the house in which the apostle was lodged, when hefirst came to that place, was assaulted by the populace, and the masterof it dragged before the magistrate for admitting such a guest withinhis doors; the apostle, in his letter to the Christians of Thessalonica, calls to their remembrance "how they had received the Gospel in muchaffliction. " (1 Thess. I. 6. ) If the history deliver an account of aninsurrection at Ephesus, which had nearly cost the apostle his life, wehave the apostle himself, in a letter written a short time after hisdeparture from that city, describing his despair, and returning thanksfor his deliverance. (Acts xix. 2 Cor. I. 8--10. ) If the history informus, that the apostle was expelled from Antioch in Pisidia, attempted tobe stoned at Iconium, and actually stoned at Lystra; there is preserveda letter from him to a favourite convert, whom, as the same historytells us, he first met with in these parts; in which letter he appealsto that disciple's knowledge "of the persecutions which befell him atAntioch, at Iconium, at Lystra. " (Acts xiii. 50; xiv. 5, 19. 2 Tim. 10, 11. ) If the history make the apostle, in his speech to the Ephesianelders, remind them, as one proof of the disinterestedness of his views, that, to their knowledge, he had supplied his own and the necessities ofhis companions by personal labour; (Acts xx. 34. ) we find the sameapostle, in a letter written during his residence at Ephesus, assertingof himself, "that even to that hour he laboured, working with his ownhands. " (1 Cor. Iv 11, 12. )

These coincidences, together with many relative to other parts of theapostle's history, and all drawn from independent sources, not onlyconfirm the truth of the account, in the particular points as to whichthey are observed, but add much to the credit of the narrative in allits parts; and support the author's profession of being a contemporaryof the person whose history he writes, and, throughout a materialportion of his narrative, a companion. 

What the epistles of the apostles declare of the suffering state ofChristianity the writings which remain of their companions and immediatefollowers expressly confirm. 

Clement, who is honourably mentioned by Saint Paul in his epistle to thePhilippians, (Philipp. Iv. 3. ) hath left us his attestation to thispoint, in the following words: "Let us take (says he) the examples ofour own age. Through zeal and envy, the most faithful and righteouspillars of the church have been persecuted even to the most grievousdeaths. Let us set before our eyes the holy apostles. Peter, by unjustenvy, underwent not one or two, but many sufferings; till at last, beingmartyred, he went to the place of glory that was due unto him. For thesame cause did Paul, in like manner, receive the reward of his patience. Seven times he was in bonds; he was whipped, was stoned; he preachedboth in the East and in the West, leaving behind him the glorious reportof his faith; and so having taught the whole world righteousness, andfor that end travelled even unto the utmost bounds of the West, he atlast suffered martyrdom by the command of the governors, and departedout of the world, and went unto his holy place, being become a mosteminent pattern of patience unto all ages. To these holy apostles werejoined a very great number of others, who, having through envyundergone, in like manner, many pains and torments, have left a gloriousexample to us. For this, not only men, but women, have been persecuted;and, having suffered very grievous and cruel punishments, have finishedthe course of their faith with firmness. " (Clem. Ad Cor. C. V. Vi. Abp. Wake's Trans. )

Hermas, saluted by Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans, in a piecevery little connected with historical recitals, thus speaks: "Such ashave believed and suffered death for the name of Christ, and haveendured with a ready mind, and have given up their lives with all theirhearts. " (Shepherd of Hermas, c. Xxviii. )

Polycarp, the disciple of John (though all that remains of his works bea very short epistle), has not left this subject unnoticed. "I exhort(says he) all of you, that ye obey the word of righteousness, andexercise all patience, which ye have seen set forth before your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, and Lorimus, and Rufus, but in othersamong yourselves, and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles;being confident in this, that all these have not run in vain, but infaith and righteousness; and are gone to the place that was due to themfrom the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not thispresent world, but him who died, and was raised again by God for us. "(Pol. Ad Phil c. Ix. )

Ignatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, recognises the same topic, briefly indeed, but positively and precisely. "For this cause, (i. E. Having felt and handled Christ's body at his resurrection, and beingconvinced, as Ignatius expresses it, both by his flesh and spirit, ) they(i. E. Peter, and those who were present with Peter at Christ'sappearance) despised death, and were found to be above it. " (19. Ep. Smyr. C. Iii. )

Would the reader know what a persecution in those days was, I wouldrefer him to a circular letter, written by the church of Smyrna soonafter the death of Polycarp, who it will be remembered, had lived withSaint John; and which letter is entitled a relation of that bishop'smartyrdom. "The sufferings (say they) of all the other martyrs wereblessed and generous, which they underwent according to the will of God. For so it becomes us, who are more religious than others, to ascribethe power and ordering of all things unto Him. And, indeed, who canchoose but admire the greatness of their minds, and that admirablepatience and love of their Master, which then appeared in them? Who, when they were so flayed with whipping that the frame and structure oftheir bodies were laid open to their very inward veins and arteries, nevertheless endured it. In like manner, those who were condemned to thebeasts, and kept a long time in prison, underwent many cruel torments, being forced to lie upon sharp spikes laid under their bodies, andtormented with divers other sorts of punishments; that so, if it werepossible, the tyrant, by the length of their sufferings, might havebrought them to deny Christ. " (Rel. Mor. Pol. C. Ii. )

CHAPTER V. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

On the history, of which the last chapter contains an abstract, thereare a few observations which it may be proper to make, by way ofapplying its testimony to the particular propositions for which wecontend. 

I. Although our Scripture history leaves the general account of theapostles in an early part of the narrative, and proceeds with theseparate account of one particular apostle, yet the information whichit delivers so far extends to the rest, as it shows the nature of theservice. When we see one apostle suffering persecution in the dischargeof this commission, we shall not believe, without evidence, that thesame office could, at the same time, be attended with ease and safety toothers. And this fair and reasonable inference is confirmed by thedirect attestation of the letters, to which we have so often referred. The writer of these letters not only alludes, in numerous passages, tohis own sufferings, but speaks of the rest of the apostles as enduringlike sufferings with himself. "I think that God hath set forth us theapostles last, as it were, appointed to death; for we are made aspectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men; even unto thispresent hour, we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and arebuffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and labour, working withour own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it;being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the earth, and asthe offscouring of all things unto this day. " (I Cor. Iv. 9, et seq. )Add to which, that in the short account that is given of the otherapostles in the former part of the history, and within the short periodwhich that account comprises, we find, first, two of them seized, imprisoned, brought before the Sanhedrim, and threatened with furtherpunishment; (Acts iv. 3, 21. ) then, the whole number imprisoned andbeaten; (Acts v. 18, 40. ) soon afterwards, one of their adherents stonedto death, and so hot a persecution raised against the sect as to drivemost of them out of the place; a short time only succeeding, before oneof the twelve was beheaded, and another sentenced to the same fate; andall this passing in the single city of Jerusalem, and within ten yearsafter the Founder's death, and the commencement of the institution. 

II. We take no credit at present for the miraculous part of thenarrative, nor do we insist upon the correctness of single passages ofit. If the whole story be not a novel, a romance; the whole action adream; if Peter, and James, and Paul, and the rest of the apostlesmentioned in the account, be not all imaginary persons; if their lettersbe not all forgeries, and, what is more, forgeries of names andcharacters which never existed; then is there evidence in our handssufficient to support the only fact we contend for (and which, I repeatagain, is, in itself, highly probable), that the original followers ofJesus Christ exerted great endeavours to propagate his religion, andunderwent great labours, dangers, and sufferings, in consequence oftheir undertaking. 

III. The general reality of the apostolic history is strongly confirmedby the consideration, that it, in truth, does no more than assignadequate causes for effects which certainly were produced; and describeconsequences naturally resulting from situations which certainlyexisted. The effects were certainly there, of which this history setsforth the cause, and origin, and progress. It is acknowledged on allhands, because it is recorded by other testimony than that of theChristians themselves, that the religion began to prevail at that time, and in that country. It is very difficult to conceive how it couldbegin without the exertions of the Founder and his followers, inpropagating the new persuasion. The history now in our hands describesthese exertions, the persons employed, the means and endeavours made useof, and the labours undertaken in the prosecution of this purpose. Again, the treatment which the history represents the first propagatorsof the religion to have experienced was no other than what naturallyresulted from the situation in which they were confessedly placed. It isadmitted that the religion was adverse, in great degree, to the reigningopinions, and to the hopes and wishes of the nation to which it wasfirst introduced; and that it overthrew, so far as it was received, theestablished theology and worship of every other country. We cannot feelmuch reluctance in believing that when the messengers of such a systemwent about not only publishing their opinions, but collectingproselytes, and forming regular societies of proselytes, they shouldmeet with opposition in their attempts, or that this opposition shouldsometimes proceed to fatal extremities. Our history details examples ofthis opposition, and of the sufferings and dangers which the emissariesof the religion underwent, perfectly agreeable to what might reasonablybe expected, from the nature of their undertaking, compared with thecharacter of the age and country in which it was carried on. 

IV. The records before us supply evidence of what formed another memberof our general proposition, and what, as hath already been observed, ishighly probable, and almost a necessary consequence of their newprofession, viz. , that, together with activity and courage inpropagating the religion, the primitive followers of Jesus assumed, upontheir conversion, a new and peculiar course of private life. Immediatelyafter their Master was withdrawn from them, we hear of their "continuingwith one accord in prayer and supplication;" (Acts i. 14. ) of their"continuing daily with one accord in the temple" (Acts ii. 46. ) Of "manybeing gathered together praying. " (Acts xii. 12. ) We know that strictinstructions were laid upon the converts by their teachers. Whereverthey came, the first word of their preaching was, "Repent!" We know thatthese injunctions obliged them to refrain from many species oflicentiousness, which were not, at that time, reputed criminal. We knowthe rules of purity, and the maxims of benevolence, which Christiansread in their books; concerning which rules it is enough to observe, that, if they were, I will not say completely obeyed, but in any degreeregarded, they could produce a system of conduct, and, what is moredifficult to preserve, a disposition of mind, and a regulation ofaffections, different from anything to which they had hitherto beenaccustomed, and different from what they would see in others. The changeand distinction of manners, which resulted from their new character, isperpetually referred to in the letters of their teachers. "And you hathhe quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in timespast ye walked, according to the course of this world, according to theprince of the power of the air, the Spirit that now worketh in thechildren of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation intimes past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of theflesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, evenas others. " (Eph. Ii 1-3. See also Tit. Iii. 3. )--"For the time past ofour life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, whenwe walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries; wherein they think it strangethat ye run not with them to the same excess of riot. " (1 Pet. Iv. 3, 4. ) Saint Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, afterenumerating, as his manner was, a catalogue of vicious characters, adds, "Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified. " (1Cor. Vi. 11. ) In like manner, and alluding to the same change ofpractices and sentiments, he asked the Roman Christians, "what fruitthey had in those things, whereof they are now ashamed?" (Rom. Vi. 21. )The phrases which the same writer employs to describe the moralcondition of Christians, compared with their condition before theybecame Christians, such as "newness of life, " being "freed from sin, "being "dead to sin;" "the destruction of the body of sin, that, for thefuture, they should not serve sin;" "children of light and of the day, "as opposed to "children of darkness and of the night;" "not sleeping asothers;" imply, at least, a new system of obligation, and, probably, anew series of conduct, commencing with their conversion. 

The testimony which Pliny bears to the behaviour of the new sect in histime, and which testimony comes not more than fifty years after that ofSt. Paul, is very applicable to the subject under consideration. Thecharacter which this writer gives of the Christians of that age, andwhich was drawn from a pretty accurate inquiry, because he consideredtheir moral principles as the point in which the magistrate wasinterested, is as follows:--He tells the emperor, "that some of thosewho had relinquished the society, or who, to save themselves, pretendedthat they had relinquished it, affirmed that they were wont to meettogether on a stated day, before it was light, and sang among themselvesalternately a hymn to Christ as a God; and to bind themselves by anoath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but that they would notbe guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery; that they would neverfalsify their word, or deny a pledge committed to them, when called uponto return it. " This proves that a morality, more pure and strict thanwas ordinary, prevailed at that time in Christian societies. And to meit appears, that we are authorised to carry his testimony back to theage of the apostles; because it is not probable that the immediatehearers and disciples of Christ were more relaxed than their successorsin Pliny's time, or the missionaries of the religion than those whomthey taught. 

CHAPTER VI. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

When we consider, first, the prevalency of the religion at this hour;secondly, the only credible account which can be given of its origin, viz. The activity of the Founder and his associates; thirdly, theopposition which that activity must naturally have excited; fourthly, the fate of the Founder of the religion, attested by heathen writers, as well as our own; fifthly, the testimony of the same writers to thesufferings of Christians, either contemporary with, or immediatelysucceeding, the original settlers of the institution; sixthly, predictions of the suffering of his followers ascribed to the Founderof the religion, which ascription alone proves, either that suchpredictions were delivered and fulfilled, or that the writers ofChrist's life were induced by the event to attribute such predictionsto him; seventhly, letters now in our possession, written by someof the principal agents in the transaction, referring expressly toextreme labours, dangers, and sufferings, sustained by themselvesand their companions; lastly, a history purporting to be writtenby a fellow-traveller of one of the new teachers, and, by itsunsophisticated correspondency with letters of that person still extant, proving itself to be written by some one well acquainted with thesubject of the narrative, which history contains accounts of travels, persecutions, and martyrdoms, answering to what the former reasons leadus to expect: when we lay together these considerations, which takenseparately are, I think correctly such as I have stated them in thepreceding chapters, there cannot much doubt remain upon our minds butthat a number of persons at that time appeared in the world, publiclyadvancing an extraordinary story, and for the sake of propagating thebelief of that story, voluntarily incurring great personal dangers, traversing seas and kingdoms, exerting great industry, and sustaininggreat extremities of ill usage and persecution. It is also proved thatthe same persons, in consequence of their persuasion, or pretendedpersuasion, of the truth of what they asserted, entered upon a course oflife in many respects new and singular. 

From the clear and acknowledged parts of the case, I think it to belikewise in the highest degree probable, that the story for which thesepersons voluntarily exposed themselves to the fatigues and hardshipswhich they endured was a miraculous story; I mean, that they pretendedto miraculous evidence of some kind or other. They had nothing else tostand upon. The designation of the person, that is to say, that Jesus ofNazareth, rather than any other person, was the Messiah, and as such thesubject of their ministry, could only be founded upon supernaturaltokens attributed to him. Here were no victories, no conquests, norevolutions, no surprising elevation of fortune, no achievements ofvalour, of strength, or of policy, to appeal to; no discoveries in anyart or science, no great efforts of genius or learning to produce. AGalilean peasant was announced to the world as a divine lawgiver. Ayoung man of mean condition, of a private and simple life, and who hadwrought no deliverance for the Jewish nation, was declared to be theirMessiah. This, without ascribing to him at the same time some proofs ofhis mission, (and what other but supernatural proofs could there be?)was too absurd a claim to be either imagined, or attempted, or credited. In whatever degree, or in whatever part, the religion was argumentative, when it came to the question, "Is the carpenter's son of Nazareth theperson whom we are to receive and obey?" there was nothing but themiracles attributed to him by which his pretensions could be maintainedfor a moment. Every controversy and every question must presupposethese: for, however such controversies, when they did arise, might andnaturally would, be discussed upon their own grounds of argumentation, without citing the miraculous evidence which had been asserted to attendthe Founder of the religion (which would have been to enter uponanother, and a more general question), yet we are to bear in mind, thatwithout previously supposing the existence or the pretence of suchevidence, there could have been no place for the discussion of theargument at all. Thus, for example, whether the prophecies, which theJews interpreted to belong to the Messiah, were or were not applicableto the history of Jesus of Nazareth, was a natural subject of debate inthose times; and the debate would proceed without recurring at everyturn to his miracles, because it set out with supposing these; inasmuchas without miraculous marks and tokens (real or pretended), or withoutsome such great change effected by his means in the public condition ofthe country, as might have satisfied the then received interpretation ofthese prophecies, I do not see how the question could ever have beenentertained. Apollos, we read, "mightily convinced the Jews, showing bythe Scriptures that Jesus was Christ;" (Acts xviii. 28. ) but unlessJesus had exhibited some distinction of his person, some proof ofsupernatural power, the argument from the old Scriptures could have hadno place. It had nothing to attach upon. A young man calling himself theSon of God, gathering a crowd about him, and delivering to them lecturesof morality, could not have excited so much as a doubt among the Jews, whether he was the object in whom a long series of ancient propheciesterminated, from the completion of which they had formed suchmagnificent expectations, and expectations of a nature so opposite towhat appeared; I mean no such doubt could exist when they had the wholecase before them, when they saw him put to death for his officiousness, and when by his death the evidence concerning him was closed. Again, theeffect of the Messiah's coming, supposing Jesus to have been he, uponJews, upon Gentiles, upon their relation to each other, upon theiracceptance with God, upon their duties and their expectations; hisnature, authority, office, and agency; were likely to become subjects ofmuch consideration with the early votaries of the religion, and tooccupy their attention and writings. I should not however expect, thatin these disquisitions, whether preserved in the form of letters, speeches, or set treatises, frequent or very direct mention of hismiracles would occur. Still, miraculous evidence lay at the bottom ofthe argument. In the primary question, miraculous pretensions andmiraculous pretensions alone, were what they had to rely upon. 

That the original story was miraculous, is very fairly also inferredfrom the miraculous powers which were laid claim to by the Christians ofsucceeding ages. If the accounts of these miracles be true, it was acontinuation of the same powers; if they be false, it was an imitation, I will not say of what had been wrought, but of what had been reportedto have been wrought, by those who preceded them. That imitation shouldfollow reality, fiction should be grafted upon truth; that, if miracleswere performed at first, miracles should be pretended afterwards; agreesso well with the ordinary course of human affairs, that we can have nogreat difficulty in believing it. The contrary supposition is veryimprobable, namely, that miracles should be pretended to by thefollowers of the apostles and first emissaries of the religion, whennone were pretended to, either in their own persons or that of theirMaster, by these apostles and emissaries themselves. 

CHAPTER VII. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

It being then once proved, that the first propagators of the Christianinstitution did exert activity, and subject themselves to great dangersand sufferings, in consequence and for the sake of an extraordinary and, I think, we may say, of a miraculous story of some kind or other; thenext great question is, whether the account, which our Scripturescontain, be that story; that which these men delivered, and for whichthey acted and suffered as they did? This question is, in effect, noother than whether the story which Christians have now be the storywhich Christians had then? And of this the following proofs may bededuced from general considerations, and from considerations prior toany inquiry into the particular reasons and testimonies by which theauthority of our histories is supported. 

In the first place, there exists no trace or vestige of any other story. It is not, like the death of Cyrus the Great, a competition betweenopposite accounts, or between the credit of different historians. Thereis not a document, or scrap of account, either contemporary with thecommencement of Christianity, or extant within many ages afar thatcommencement, which assigns a history substantially different from ours. The remote, brief, and incidental notices of the affair which are foundin heathen writers, so far as they do go, go along with us. They beartestimony to these facts--that the institution originated from Jesus;that the Founder was put to death, as a malefactor, at Jerusalem, by theauthority of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate; that the religionnevertheless spread in that city, and throughout Judea; and that it waspropagated thence to distant countries; that the converts were numerous;that they suffered great hardships and injuries for their profession;and that all this took place in the age of the world which our bookshave assigned. They go on, further, to describe the manners ofChristians in terms perfectly conformable to the accounts extant in ourbooks; that they were wont to assemble on a certain day; that they sanghymns to Christ as to a God; that they bound themselves by an oath notto commit any crime, but to abstain from theft and adultery, to adherestrictly to their promises, and not to deny money deposited in theirhands;* that they worshipped him who was crucified in Palestine; thatthis their first lawgiver had taught them that they were all brethren;that they had a great contempt for the things of this world, and lookedupon them as common; that they flew to one another's relief; that theycherished strong hopes of immortality; that they despised death, andsurrendered themselves to sufferings. +

_________

* See Pliny's Letter--Bonnet, in his lively way of expressing himself, says, --"Comparing Pliny's Letter with the account of the Acts, it seemsto me that I had not taken up another author, but that I was stillreading the historian of that extraordinary society. " This is strong;but there is undoubtedly an affinity, and all the affinity that could beexpected. 

+ "It is incredible, what expedition they use when any of their friendsare known to be in trouble. In a word, they spare nothing upon such anoccasion;--for these miserable men have no doubt they shall be immortaland live for ever; therefore they contemn death, and many surrenderthemselves to sufferings. Moreover, their first lawgiver has taught themthat they are all brethren, when once they have turned and renounced thegods of the Greeks, and worship this Master of theirs who was crucified, and engage to live according to his laws. They have also a sovereigncontempt for all the things of this world, and look upon them ascommon. " Lucian, de Morte Peregrini, t. I. P. 565, ed. Graev. _________

This is the account of writers who viewed the subject at a greatdistance; who were uninformed and uninterested about it. It bears thecharacters of such an account upon the face of it, because it describeseffects, namely the appearance in the world of a new religion, and theconversion of great multitudes to it, without descending, in thesmallest degree, to the detail of the transaction upon which it wasfounded, the interior of the institution, the evidence or argumentsoffered by those who drew over others to it. Yet still here is nocontradiction of our story; no other or different story set up againstit: but so far a confirmation of it as that, in the general points onwhich the heathen account touches, it agrees with that which we find inour own books. 

The same may be observed of the very few Jewish writers of that and theadjoining period, which have come down to us. Whatever they omit, orwhatever difficulties we may find in explaining the omission, theyadvance no other history of the transaction than that which weacknowledge. Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities, or History of theJews, about sixty years after the commencement of Christianity, in apassage generally admitted as genuine, makes mention of John under thename of John the Baptist; that he was a preacher of virtue; that hebaptized his proselytes; that he was well received by the people; thathe was imprisoned and put to death by Herod; and that Herod lived in acriminal cohabitation with Herodias, his brother's wife. (Antiq. I. Xviii. Cap. V. Sect. 1, 2. ) In another passage allowed by many, althoughnot without considerable question being moved about it, we hear of"James, the brother of him who was called Jesus, and of his being put todeath. " (Antiq. I. Xx. Cap. Ix. Sect. 1. ) In a third passage, extant inevery copy that remains of Josephus's history, but the authenticity ofwhich has nevertheless been long disputed, we have an explicit testimonyto the substance of our history in these words:--"At that time livedJesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he performed manywonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth withpleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was theChrist; and when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among ushad condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived anaffection for him did not cease to adhere to him; for, on the third day, he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretoldthese and many wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of theChristians, so called from him, subsists to this time. " (Antiq. I. Xviii. Cap. Iii. Sect 3. ) Whatever become of the controversy concerningthe genuineness of this passage; whether Josephus go the whole length ofour history, which, if the passage be sincere, he does; or whether heproceed only a very little way with us, which, if the passage berejected, we confess to be the case; still what we asserted is true, that he gives no other or different history of the subject from ours, noother or different account of the origin of the institution. And I thinkalso that it may with great reason be contended, either that the passageis genuine, or that the silence of Josephus was designed. For, althoughwe should lay aside the authority of our own books entirely, yet whenTacitus, who wrote not twenty, perhaps not ten, years after Josephus, inhis account of a period in which Josephus was nearly thirty years ofage, tells us, that a vast multitude of Christians were condemned atRome; that they derived their denomination from Christ, who, in thereign of Tiberius, was put to death, as a criminal, by the procurator, Pontius Pilate; that the superstition had spread not only over Judea, the source of the evil but it had reached Rome also:--when Suetonius, anhistorian contemporary with Tacitus, relates that, in the time ofClaudius, the Jews were making disturbances at Rome, Christus beingtheir leader: and that, during the reign of Nero, the Christians werepunished; under both which emperors Josephus lived: when Pliny, whowrote his celebrated epistle not more than thirty years after thepublication of Josephus's history, found the Christians in such numbersin the province of Bithynia as to draw from him a complaint that thecontagion had seized cities, towns, and villages, and had so seized themas to produce a general desertion of the public rites; and when, as hasalready been observed, there is no reason for imagining that theChristians were more numerous in Bithynia than in many other parts ofthe Roman empire; it cannot, I should suppose, after this, be believed, that the religion, and the transaction upon which it was founded, weretoo obscure to engage the attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place inhis history. Perhaps he did not know how to represent the business, anddisposed of his difficulties by passing it over in silence. Eusebiuswrote the life of Constantine, yet omits entirely the most remarkablecircumstance in that life, the death of his son Crispus; undoubtedly forthe reason here given. The reserve of Josephus upon the subject ofChristianity appears also in his passing over the banishment of the Jewsby Claudius, which Suetonius, we have seen, has recorded with an expressreference to Christ. This is at least as remarkable as his silence aboutthe infants of Bethlehem. * Be, however, the fact, or the cause of theomission in Josephus, + what it may, no other or different history on thesubject has been given by him, or is pretended to have been given. 

_________

* Michaelis has computed, and, as it should seem, fairly enough; thatprobably not more than twenty children perished by this cruelprecaution. Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, translated byMarsh; vol. I. C. Ii. Sect. 11. 

+ There is no notice taken of Christianity in the Mishna, a collectionof Jewish traditions compiled about the year 180; although it contains aTract "De cultu peregrino, " of strange or idolatrous worship; yet itcannot be disputed but that Christianity was perfectly well known in theworld at this time. There is extremely little notice of the subject inthe Jerusalem Talmud, compiled about the year 300, and not much more inthe Babylonish Talmud, of the year 500; although both these works are ofa religions nature, and although, when the first was compiled, Christianity was on the point of becoming the religion of the state, and, when the latter was published, had been so for 200 years. _________

But further; the whole series of Christian writers, from the first ageof the institution down to the present, in their discussions, apologies, arguments, and controversies, proceed upon the general story which ourScriptures contain, and upon no other. The main facts, the principalagents, are alike in all. This argument will appear to be of greatforce, when it is known that we are able to trace back the series ofwriters to a contact with the historical books of the New Testament, andto the age of the first emissaries of the religion, and to deduce it, byan unbroken continuation, from that end of the train to the present. 

The remaining letters of the apostles, (and what more original thantheir letters can we have?) though written without the remotest designof transmitting the history of Christ, or of Christianity, to futureages, or even of making it known to their contemporaries, incidentallydisclose to us the following circumstances:--Christ's descent andfamily; his innocence; the meekness and gentleness of his character (arecognition which goes to the whole Gospel history); his exalted nature;his circumcision; his transfiguration; his life of opposition andsuffering; his patience and resignation; the appointment of theEucharist, and the manner of it; his agony; his confession beforePontius Pilate; his stripes, crucifixion, and burial; his resurrection;his appearance after it, first to Peter, then to the rest of theapostles; his ascension into heaven; and his designation to be thefuture judge of mankind; the stated residence of the apostles atJerusalem; the working of miracles by the first preachers of the Gospel, who were also the hearers of Christ;* the successful propagation of thereligion; the persecution of its followers; the miraculous conversion ofPaul; miracles wrought by himself, and alleged in his controversies withhis adversaries, and in letters to the persons amongst whom they werewrought; finally, that MIRACLES were the signs of an apostle. +

_________

* Heb. Ii. 3. "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, which, at the first, began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmedunto us by them that heard him, God also be bearing them witness, bothwith signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the HolyGhost?" I allege this epistle without hesitation; for, whatever doubtsmay have been raised about its author, there can be none concerning theage in which it was written. No epistle in the collection carries aboutit more indubitable marks of antiquity than this does. It speaks forinstance, throughout, of the temple as then standing and of the worshipof the temple as then subsisting. --Heb. Viii. 4: "For, if he were onearth, he should not be a priest, seeing there are priests that offeraccording to the law. "--Again, Heb. Xiii. 10: "We have an altar whereofthey have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. "

+ Truly the signs of as apostle were wraught among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. ' 2 Cor. Xii. 12. _________

In an epistle bearing the name of Barnabas, the companion of Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have thesufferings of Christ, his choice of apostles and their number, hispassion, the scarlet robe, the vinegar and gall, the mocking andpiercing, the casting lots for his coat, (Ep. Bar. C. Vii. ) hisresurrection on the eighth, (i. E. The first day of the week, [Ep. Bar. C. Vi. ]) and the commemorative distinction of that day, hismanifestation after his resurrection, and, lastly, his ascension. Wehave also his miracles generally but positively referred to in thefollowing words:--"Finally, teaching the people of Israel, and doingmany wonders and signs among them, he preached to them, and showed theexceeding great love which he bare towards them. " (Ep. Bar. C. V. )

In an epistle of Clement, a hearer of St. Paul, although written for apurpose remotely connected with the Christian history, we have theresurrection of Christ, and the subsequent mission of the apostles, recorded in these satisfactory terms: "The apostles have preached to usfrom our Lord Jesus Christ from God:--For, having received theircommand, and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of our LordJesus Christ, they went abroad, publishing that the kingdom of God wasat hand. " (Ep. Clem. Rom. C. Xlii. ) We find noticed, also, the humility, yet the power of Christ, (Ep. Clem. Rom. C. Xvi. ) his descent fromAbraham--his crucifixion. We have Peter and Paul represented as faithfuland righteous pillars of the church; the numerous sufferings of Peter;the bonds, stripes, and stoning of Paul, and more particularly hisextensive and unwearied travels. 

In an epistle of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, though only a briefhortatory letter, we have the humility, patience, sufferings, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, together with the apostoliccharacter of St. Paul, distinctly recognised. (Pol. Ep. Ad Phil. C. V. Viii. Ii. Iii. ) Of this same father we are also assured, by Irenaeus, that he (Irenaeus) had heard him relate, "what he had received fromeye-witnesses concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and hisdoctrine. " (Ir. Ad Flor. 1 ap. Euseb. L. V. C. 20. )

In the remaining works of Ignatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, largerthan those of Polycarp, (yet, like those of Polycarp, treating ofsubjects in nowise leading to any recital of the Christian history, ) theoccasional allusions are proportionably more numerous. The descent ofChrist from David, his mother Mary, his miraculous conception, the starat his birth, his baptism by John, the reason assigned for it, hisappeal to the prophets, the ointment poured on his head, his sufferingsunder Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, his resurrection, theLord's day called and kept in commemoration of it, and the Eucharist, inboth its Parts, --are unequivocally referred to. Upon the resurrection, this writer is even circumstantial. He mentions the apostles' eating anddrinking with Christ after he had risen, their feeling and theirhandling him; from which last circumstance Ignatius raises this justreflection;--"They believed, being convinced both by his flesh andspirit; for this cause, they despised death, and were found to be aboveit. " (Ad Smyr. C. Iii. )

Quadratus, of the same age with Ignatius, has left us the followingnoble testimony:--"The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, forthey were real; both those that were healed, and those that were raisedfrom the dead; who were seen not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterwards; not only whilst he dwelled on thisearth, but also after his departure, and for a good while after it, insomuch that some of them have reached to our times. " (Ap. Euseb. H. E. L. Iv. C. 3. )

Justin Martyr came little more than thirty years after Quadratus. FromJustin's works, which are still extant, might be collected a tolerablycomplete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with thatwhich is delivered in our Scriptures; taken indeed, in a great measure, from those Scriptures, but still proving that this account, and noother, was the account known and extant in that age. The miracles inparticular, which form the part of Christ's history most material to betraced, stand fully and distinctly recognised in the followingpassage:--"He healed those who had been blind, and deaf, and lame fromtheir birth; causing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and athird to see: and, by raising the dead, and making them to live, heinduced, by his works, the men of that age to know him. " (Just. Dial. Cum Tryph. P. 288, ed. Thirl. )

It is unnecessary to carry these citations lower, because the history, after this time, occurs in ancient Christian writings as familiarly asit is wont to do in modern sermons;--occurs always the same insubstance, and always that which our evangelists represent. 

This is not only true of those writings of Christians which are genuine, and of acknowledged authority; but it is, in a great measure, true ofall their ancient writings which remain; although some of these may havebeen erroneously ascribed to authors to whom they did not belong, or maycontain false accounts, or may appear to be undeserving of credit, ornever indeed to have obtained any. Whatever fables they have mixed withthe narrative, they preserve the material parts, the leading facts, aswe have them; and, so far as they do this, although they be evidence ofnothing else, they are evidence that these points were fixed, werereceived and acknowledged by all Christians in the ages in which thebooks were written. At least, it may be asserted, that, in the placeswhere we were most likely to meet with such things, if such things hadexisted, no reliques appear of any story substantially different fromthe present, as the cause, or as the pretence, of the institution. 

Now that the original story, the story delivered by the first preachersof the institution, should have died away so entirely as to have left norecord or memorial of its existence, although so many records andmemorials of the time and transaction remain; and that another storyshould have stepped into its place, and gained exclusive possession ofthe belief of all who professed, themselves disciples of theinstitution, is beyond any example of the corruption of even oraltradition, and still less consistent with the experience of writtenhistory: and this improbability, which is very great, is rendered stillgreater by the reflection, that no such change as the oblivion of onestory, and the substitution of another, took place in any future periodof the Christian aera. Christianity hath travelled through dark andturbulent ages; nevertheless it came out of the cloud and the storm, such, in substance, as it entered in. Many additions were made to theprimitive history, and these entitled to different degrees of credit;many doctrinal errors also were from time to time grafted into thepublic creed; but still the original story remained, and remained thesame. In all its principal parts, it has been fixed from the beginning. 

Thirdly: The religious rites and usages that prevailed amongst the earlydisciples of Christianity were such as belonged to, and sprung out of, the narrative now in our hands; which accordancy shows, that it was thenarrative upon which these persons acted, and which they had receivedfrom their teachers. Our account makes the Founder of the religiondirect that his disciples should be baptized: we know that the firstChristians were baptized, Our account makes him direct that they shouldhold religious assemblies: we find that they did hold religiousassemblies. Our accounts make the apostles assemble upon a stated day ofthe week: we find, and that from information perfectly independent ofour accounts, that the Christians of the first century did observestated days of assembling. Our histories record the institution of therite which we call the Lord's Supper, and a command to repeat it inperpetual succession: we find, amongst the early Christians, thecelebration of this rite universal. And, indeed, we find concurring inall the above-mentioned observances, Christian societies of manydifferent nations and languages, removed from one another by a greatdistance of place and dissimilitude of situation. It is also extremelymaterial to remark, that there is no room for insinuating that our bookswere fabricated with a studious accommodation to the usages whichobtained at the time they were written; that the authors of the booksfound the usages established, and framed the story to account for theiroriginal. The Scripture accounts, especially of the Lord's Supper, aretoo short and cursory, not to say too obscure, and in this view, deficient, to allow a place for any such suspicion. *

_________

* The reader who is conversant in these researches, by comparing theshort Scripture accounts of the Christian rites above-mentioned with theminute and circumstantial directions contained in the pretendedapostolical constitutions, will see the force of this observation; thedifference between truth and forgery. _________

Amongst the proofs of the truth of our proposition, viz. That the storywhich we have now is, in substance, the story which the Christians hadthen, or, in other words, that the accounts in our Gospels are, as totheir principal parts, at least, the accounts which the apostles andoriginal teachers of the religion delivered, one arises from observing, that it appears by the Gospels themselves that the story was public atthe time; that the Christian community was already in possession of thesubstance and principal parts of the narrative. The Gospels were not theoriginal cause of the Christian history being believed, but werethemselves among the consequences of that belief. This is expresslyaffirmed by Saint Luke, in his brief, but, as I think, very importantand instructive preface:--"Forasmuch (says the evangelist) as many havetaken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things whichare most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered them untous, which, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses and ministers of theword; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of allthings from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellentTheophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those thingswherein thou hast been instructed. "--This short introduction testifies, that the substance of the history which the evangelist was about towrite was already believed by Christians; that it was believed upon thedeclarations of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; that it formedthe account of their religion in which Christians were instructed; thatthe office which the historian proposed to himself was to trace eachparticular to its origin, and to fix the certainty of many things whichthe reader had before heard of. In Saint John's Gospel the same pointappears hence, that there are some principal facts to which thehistorian refers, but which he does not relate. A remarkable instance ofthis kind is the ascension, which is not mentioned by St. John in itsplace, at the conclusion of his history, but which is plainly referredto in the following words of the sixth chapter; "What and if ye shallsee the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Also John iii. 31;and xvi. 28. ) And still more positively in the words which Christ, according to our evangelist, spoke to Mary after his resurrection, "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go unto mybrethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your God. " (John xx. 17. ) This can only be accounted forby the supposition that St. John wrote under a sense of the notoriety ofChrist's ascension, among those by whom his book was likely to be read. The same account must also be given of Saint Matthew's omission of thesame important fact. The thing was very well known, and it did not occurto the historian that it was necessary to add any particulars concerningit. It agrees also with this solution, and with no other, that neitherMatthew nor John disposes of the person of our Lord in any mannerwhatever. Other intimations in St. John's Gospel of the then generalnotoriety of the story are the following: His manner of introducing hisnarrative (ch. I. Ver. 15. )--"John bare witness of him, and cried, saying" evidently presupposes that his readers knew who John was. Hisrapid parenthetical reference to John's imprisonment, "for John was notyet cast into prison, " (John iii, 24. ) could only come from a writerwhose mind was in the habit of considering John's imprisonment asperfectly notorious. The description of Andrew by the addition "SimonPeter's brother, " (John i. 40. ) takes it for granted, that Simon Peterwas well known. His name had not been mentioned before. The evangelist'snoticing the prevailing misconstruction of a discourse, (John xxi. 24. )which Christ held with the beloved disciple, proves that the charactersand the discourse were already public. And the observation which theseinstances afford is of equal validity for the purpose of the presentargument, whoever were the authors of the histories. 

These four circumstances:--first, the recognition of the account in itsprincipal parts by a series of succeeding writers; secondly, the totalabsence of any account of the origin of the religion substantiallydifferent from ours; thirdly, the early and extensive prevalence ofrites and institutions, which resulted from our account; fourthly, ouraccount bearing in its construction proof that it is an account of factswhich were known and believed at the time, are sufficient, I conceive, to support an assurance, that the story which we have now is, in general, the story which Christians had at the beginning. I say in general; bywhich term I mean, that it is the same in its texture, and in itsprincipal facts. For instance, I make no doubt, for the reasons abovestated, but that the resurrection of the Founder of the religion wasalways a part of the Christian story. Nor can a doubt of this remainupon the mind of any one who reflects that the resurrection is, in someform or other, asserted, referred to, or assumed, in every Christianwriting, of every description which hath come down to us. 

And if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case to offer:for we should have to allege, that in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, acertain number of persons set about an attempt of establishing a newreligion in the world: in the prosecution of which purpose, theyvoluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labours, sustained great sufferings, all for a miraculous story, which theypublished wherever they came; and that the resurrection of a dead man, whom during his life they had followed and accompanied, was a constantpart of this story. I know nothing in the above statement which can, with any appearance of reason, be disputed; and I know nothing, in thehistory of the human species, similar to it. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

That the story which we have now is, in the main, the story which theapostles published, is, I think, nearly certain, from the considerationswhich have been proposed. But whether, when we come to the particulars, and the detail of the narrative, the historical books of the NewTestament be deserving of credit as histories, so that a fact oughtto be accounted true, because it is found in them; or whether they areentitled to be considered as representing the accounts which, true orfalse, the apostles published; whether their authority, in either ofthese views, can be trusted to, is a point which necessarily dependsupon what we know of the books, and of their authors. 

Now, in treating of this part of our argument, the first and mostmaterial observation upon the subject is, that such was the situation ofthe authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed, that, if any one ofthe four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose. The receivedauthor of the first was an original apostle and emissary of thereligion. The received author of the second was an inhabitant ofJerusalem, at the time, to whose house the apostles were wont to resort, and himself an attendant upon one of the most eminent of that number. The received author of the third was a stated companion andfellow-traveller of the most active of all the teachers of the religion, and, in the course of his travels, frequently in the society of theoriginal apostles. The received author of the fourth, as well as of thefirst, was one of these apostles. No stronger evidence of the truth of ahistory can arise from the situation of the historian than what is hereoffered. The authors of all the histories lived at the time and upon thespot. The authors of two of the histories were present at many of thescenes which they describe; eye-witnesses of the facts, ear-witnesses ofthe discourses; writing from personal knowledge and recollection; and, what strengthens their testimony, writing upon a subject in which theirminds were deeply engaged, and in which, as they must have been veryfrequently repeating the accounts to others, the passages of the historywould be kept continually alive in their memory. Whoever reads theGospels (and they ought to be read for this particular purpose) willfind in them not merely a general affirmation of miraculous powers, butdetailed circumstantial accounts of miracles, with specifications oftime, place, and persons; and these accounts many and various. In theGospels, therefore, which bear the names of Matthew and John, thesenarratives, if they really proceeded from these men, must either be trueas far as the fidelity of human recollection is usually to be dependedupon, that is, must be true in substance and in their principal parts, (which is sufficient for the purpose of proving a supernatural agency, )or they must be wilful and mediated falsehoods. Yet the writers whofabricated and uttered these falsehoods, if they be such, are of thenumber of those who, unless the whole contexture of the Christian storybe a dream, sacrificed their ease and safety in the cause, and for apurpose the most inconsistent that is possible with dishonestintentions. They were villains for no end but to teach honesty, andmartyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage. 

The Gospels which bear the names of Mark and Luke, although not thenarratives of eye-witnesses, are, if genuine, removed from that only byone degree. They are the narratives of contemporary writers, or writersthemselves mixing with the business; one of the two probably living inthe place which was the principal scene of action; both living in habitsof society and correspondence with those who had been present at thetransactions which they relate. The latter of them accordingly tells us(and with apparent sincerity, because he tells it without pretending topersonal knowledge, and without claiming for his work greater authoritythan belonged to it) that the things which were believed amountChristians came from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses andministers of the word; that he had traced accounts up to their source;and that he was prepared to instruct his reader in the certainty of thethings which he related. * Very few histories lie so close to theirfacts; very few historians are so nearly connected with the subject oftheir narrative, or possess such means of authentic information, asthese. 

_________

* Why should not the candid and modest preface of this historian bebelieved, as well as that which Dion Cassius prefixes to his Life ofCommodus? "These things and the following I write, not from the reportof others, but from my own knowledge and observation. " I see no reasonto doubt but that both passages describe truly enough the situation ofthe authors. _________

The situation of the writers applies to the truth of the facts whichthey record. But at present we use their testimony to a point somewhatshort of this, namely, that the facts recorded in the Gospels, whethertrue or false, are the facts, and the sort of facts which the originalpreachers of the religion allege. Strictly speaking, I am concerned onlyto show, that what the Gospels contain is the same as what the apostlespreached. Now, how stands the proof of this point? A set of men wentabout the world, publishing a story composed of miraculous accounts, (for miraculous from the very nature and exigency of the case they musthave been, ) and upon the strength of these accounts called upon mankindto quit the religions in which they had been educated, and to take up, thenceforth, a new system of opinions, and new rules of action. What ismore in attestation of these accounts, that is, in support of aninstitution of which these accounts were the foundation, is, that thesame men voluntarily exposed themselves to harassing and perpetuallabours, dangers, and sufferings. We want to know what these accountswere. We have the particulars, i. E. Many particulars, from two of theirown number. We have them from an attendant of one of the number, andwho, there is reason to believe, was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at thetime. We have them from a fourth writer, who accompanied the mostlaborious missionary of the institution in his travels; who, in thecourse of these travels, was frequently brought into the society of therest; and who, let it be observed, begins his narrative by telling usthat he is about to relate the things which had been delivered by thosewho were ministers of the word, and eye-witnesses of the facts. I do notknow what information can be more satisfactory than this. We may, perhaps, perceive the force and value of it more sensibly if we reflecthow requiring we should have been if we had wanted it. Supposing it tobe sufficiently proved, that the religion now professed among us owedits original to the preaching and ministry of a number of men, who, about eighteen centuries ago, set forth in the world a new system ofreligious opinions, founded upon certain extraordinary things which theyrelated of a wonderful person who had appeared in Judea; suppose it tobe also sufficiently proved, that, in the course and prosecution oftheir ministry, these men had subjected themselves to extreme hardships, fatigue, and peril; but suppose the accounts which they published hadnot been committed to writing till some ages after their times, or atleast that no histories but what had been composed some ages afterwardshad reached our hands; we should have said, and with reason, that wewere willing to believe these under the circumstances in which theydelivered their testimony, but that we did not, at this day, know withsufficient evidence what their testimony was. Had we received theparticulars of it from any of their own number, from any of those wholived and conversed with them, from any of their hearers, or even fromany of their contemporaries, we should have had something to rely upon. Now, if our books be genuine, we have all these. We have the veryspecies of information which, as it appears to me, our imagination wouldhave carved out for us, if it had been wanting. 

But I have said that if any one of the four Gospels be genuine, we havenot only direct historical testimony to the point we contend for, buttestimony which, so far as that point is concerned, cannot reasonably berejected. If the first Gospel was really written by Matthew, we have thenarrative of one of the number, from which to judge what were themiracles, and the kind of miracles, which the apostles attributed toJesus. Although, for argument's sake, and only for argument's sake, weshould allow that this Gospel had been erroneously ascribed to Matthew;yet, if the Gospel of St. John be genuine, the observation holds with noless strength. Again, although the Gospels both of Matthew and Johncould be supposed to be spurious, yet, if the Gospel of Saint Luke weretruly the composition of that person, or of any person, be his name whatit might, who was actually in the situation in which the author of thatGospel professes himself to have been, or if the Gospel which bear thename of Mark really proceeded from him; we still, even upon the lowestsupposition, possess the accounts of one writer at least, who was notonly contemporary with the apostles, but associated with them in theirministry; which authority seems sufficient, when the question is simplywhat it was which these apostles advanced. 

I think it material to have this well noticed. The New Testamentcontains a great number of distinct writings, the genuineness of any oneof which is almost sufficient to prove the truth of the religion: itcontains, however, four distinct histories, the genuineness of any oneof which is perfectly sufficient. 

If, therefore, we must be considered as encountering the risk of errorin assigning the authors of our books, we are entitled to the advantageof so many separate probabilities. And although it should appear thatsome of the evangelists had seen and used each other's works, thisdiscovery, whist it subtracts indeed from their characters astestimonies strictly independent, diminishes, I conceive, little eithertheir separate authority, (by which I mean the authority of any one thatis genuine, ) or their mutual confirmation. For, let the mostdisadvantageous supposition possible be made concerning them; let it beallowed, what I should have no great difficulty in admitting, that Markcompiled his history almost entirely from those of Matthew and Luke; andlet it also for a moment be supposed that were not, in fact, written byMatthew and Luke; yet, if it be true that Mark, a contemporary of theapostles, living, in habits of society with the apostles, afellow-traveller and fellow-labourer with some of them; if, I say, it betrue, that this person made the compilation, it follows, that thewritings from which he made it existed in the time of the apostles, andnot only so, but that they were then in such esteem and credit, that acompanion of the apostles formed a history out of them. Let the Gospelof Mark be called an epitome of that of Matthew; if a person in thesituation in which Mark is described to have been actually made theepitome, it affords the strongest possible attestation to the characterof the original. 

Again, parallelisms in sentences, in word, and in the order of words, have been traced out between the Gospel of Matthew and that of Luke;which concurrence cannot easily be explained, otherwise than bysupposing, either that Luke had consulted Matthew's history, or, whatappears to me in nowise incredible, that minutes of some of Christ'sdiscourses, as well as brief memoirs of some passages of his life, hadbeen committed to writing at the time; and that such written accountshad by both authors been occasionally admitted into their histories. Either supposition is perfectly consistent with the acknowledgedformation of St. Luke's narrative, who professes not to write as aneye-witness, but to have investigated the original of every accountwhich he delivers: in other words, to have collected them from suchdocuments and testimonies as he, who had the best opportunities ofmaking inquiries, judged to be authentic. Therefore, allowing that thiswriter also, in some instances, borrowed from the Gospel which we callMatthew's and once more allowing for the sake of stating the argument, that that Gospel was not the production of the author to whom weascribe it; yet still we have in St. Luke's Gospel a history given by awriter immediately connected with the transaction with the witnesses ofit with the persons engaged in it, and composed from materials whichthat person, thus situated, deemed to be safe source of intelligence; inother words, whatever supposition be made concerning any or all theother Gospels, if Saint Luke's Gospel be genuine, we have in it acredible evidence of the point which we maintain. The Gospel accordingto Saint John appears to be, and is on all hands allowed to be, anindependent testimony, strictly and properly so called. Notwithstandingtherefore, any connexion or supposed connexion, between one of theGospels, I again repeat what I before said, that if any one of the fourbe genuine, we have, in that one, strong reason, from the character andsituation of the writer, to believe that we possess the accounts whichthe original emissaries of the religion delivered. 

Secondly: In treating of the written evidences of Christianity, next totheir separate, we are to consider their aggregate authority. Now, thereis in the evangelic history a cumulation of testimony which belongshardly to any other history, but which our habitual mode of reading theScriptures sometimes causes us to overlook. When a passage, in any wiserelating to the history of Christ is read to us out of the epistle ofClemens Romanus, the epistles of Ignatius, of Polycap, or from any otherwriting of that age, we are immediately sensible of the confirmationwhich it affords to the Scripture account. Here is a new witness. Now, if we had been accustomed to read the Gospel of Matthew alone, and hadknown that of Luke only as the generality of Christians know thewritings of the apostolical fathers, that is, had known that such awriting was extant and acknowledged; when we came, for the first time, to look into what it contained, and found many of the facts whichMatthew recorded, recorded also there, many other facts of a similarnature added, and throughout the whole work the same general series oftransactions stated, and the same general character of the person whowas the subject of the history preserved, I apprehend that we shouldfeel our minds strongly impressed by this discovery of fresh evidence. We should feel a renewal of the same sentiment in first reading theGospel of Saint John. That of Saint Mark perhaps would strike us as anabridgment of the history with which we were already acquainted; but weshould naturally reflect, that if that history was abridged by such aperson as Mark, or by any person of so early an age, it afforded one ofthe highest possible attestations to the value of the work. Thissuccessive disclosure of proof would leave us assured, that there musthave been at least some reality in a story which not one, but many, hadtaken in hand to commit to writing. The very existence of four separatehistories would satisfy us that the subject had a foundation; and when, amidst the variety which the different information of the differentwriters had supplied to their accounts, or which their different choiceand judgment in selecting their materials had produced, we observed manyfacts to stand the same in all; of these facts, at least, we shouldconclude, that they were fixed in their credit and publicity. If, afterthis, we should come to the knowledge of a distinct history, and thatalso of the same age with the rest, taking up the subject where theothers had left it, and carrying on a narrative of the effects producedin the world by the extraordinary causes of which we had already beeninformed, and which effects subsist at this day, we should think thereality of the original story in no little degree established by thissupplement. If subsequent inquiries should bring to our knowledge, oneafter another, letters written by some of the principal agents in thebusiness, upon the business, and during the time of their activity andconcern in it, assuming all along and recognising the original story, agitating the questions that arose out of it, pressing the obligationswhich resulted from it, giving advice and directions to these who actedupon it; I conceive that we should find, in every one of these, a stillfurther support to the conclusion we had formed. At present, the weightof this successive confirmation is, in a great measure; unperceived byus. The evidence does not appear to us what it is; for, being from ourinfancy accustomed to regard the New Testament as one book, we see in itonly one testimony. The whole occurs to us as a single evidence; and itsdifferent parts not as distinct attestations, but as different portionsonly of the same. Yet in this conception of the subject we are certainlymistaken; for the very discrepancies among the several documents whichform our volume prove, if all other proof were wanting, that in theiroriginal composition they were separate, and most of them independentproductions. 

If we dispose our ideas in a different order, the matter standsthus:--Whilst the transaction was recent, and the original witnesseswere at hand to relate it; and whilst the apostles were busied inpreaching and travelling, in collecting disciples, in forming andregulating societies of converts, in supporting themselves againstopposition; whilst they exercised their ministry under the harassings offrequent persecutions, and in a state of almost continual alarm, it isnot probable that, in this engaged, anxious, and unsettled condition oflife, they would think immediately of writing histories for theinformation of the public or of posterity. * But it is very probable, that emergencies might draw from some of them occasional letters uponthe subject of their mission, to converts, or to societies ofconverts, with which they were connected; or that they might addresswritten discourses and exhortations to the disciples of the institutionat large, which would be received and read with a respect proportionedto the character of the writer. Accounts in the mean time would getabroad of the extraordinary things that had been passing, written withdifferent degrees of information and correctness. The extension of theChristian society, which could no longer be instructed: by a personalintercourse with the apostles, and the possible circulation of imperfector erroneous narratives, would soon teach some amongst them theexpediency of sending forth authentic memoirs of the life and doctrineof their Master. When accounts appeared authorised by the name, andcredit, and situation of the writers, recommended or recognised by theapostles and first preachers of the religion, or found to coincide withwhat the apostles and first preachers of the religion had taught, otheraccounts would fall into disuse and neglect; whilst these, maintainingtheir reputation (as, if genuine and well founded, they would do) underthe test of time, inquiry, and contradiction, might be expected to maketheir way into the hands of Christians of all countries of the world. 

________

* This thought occurred to Eusebius: "Nor were the apostles of Christgreatly concerned about the writing of books, being engaged in a moreexcellent ministry which is above all human power. " Eccles. Hist. 1. Iii. C. 24. --The same consideration accounts also for the paucity ofChristian writings in the first century of its aera. _________

This seems the natural progress of the business; and with this therecords in our possession, and the evidence concerning them correspond. We have remaining, in the first place, many letters of the kind abovedescribed, which have been preserved with a care and fidelity answeringto the respect with which we may suppose that such letters would bereceived. But as these letters were not written to prove the truth ofthe Christian religion, in the sense in which we regard that question;nor to convey information of facts, of which those to whom the letterswere written had been previously informed; we are not to look in themfor anything more than incidental allusions to the Christian history. Weare able, however, to gather from these documents various particularattestations which have been already enumerated; and this is a speciesof written evidence, as far as it goes, in the highest degreesatisfactory, and in point of time perhaps the first. But for our morecircumstantial information, we have, in the next place, five directhistories, bearing the names of persons acquainted, by their situation, with the truth of what they relate, and three of them purporting, in thevery body of the narrative, to be written by such persons; of whichbooks we know, that some were in the hands of those who werecontemporaries of the apostles, and that, in the age immediatelyposterior to that, they were in the hands, we may say, of every one, andreceived by Christians with so much respect and deference, as to beconstantly quoted and referred to by them, without any doubt of thetruth of their accounts. They were treated as such histories, proceedingfrom such authorities, might expect to be treated. In the preface to oneof our histories, we have intimations left us of the existence of someancient accounts which are now lost. There is nothing in thiscircumstance that can surprise us. It was to be expected, from themagnitude and novelty of the occasion, that such accounts would swarm. When better accounts came forth, these died away. Our present historiessuperseded others. They soon acquired a character and established areputation which does not appear to have belonged to any other: that, atleast, can be proved concerning them which cannot be proved concerningany other. 

But to return to the point which led to these reflections. Byconsidering our records in either of the two views in which we haverepresented them, we shall perceive that we possess a connection ofproofs, and not a naked or solitary testimony; and that the writtenevidence is of such a kind, and comes to us in such a state, as thenatural order and progress of things, in the infancy of the institution, might be expected to produce. 

Thirdly: The genuineness of the historical books of the New Testament isundoubtedly a point of importance, because the strength of theirevidence is augmented by our knowledge of the situation of theirauthors, their relation to the subject, and the part which theysustained in the transaction; and the testimonies which we are able toproduce compose a firm ground of persuasion, that the Gospels werewritten by the persons whose names they bear. Nevertheless, I must beallowed to state, that to the argument which I am endeavouring tomaintain, this point is not essential; I mean, so essential as that thefate of the argument depends upon it. The question before us is, whetherthe Gospels exhibit the story which the apostles and first emissaries ofthe religion published, and for which they acted and suffered in themanner in which, for some miraculous story or other, they did act andsuffer. Now let us suppose that we possess no other informationconcerning these books than that they were written by early disciples ofChristianity; that they were known and read during the time, or near thetime, of the original apostles of the religion; that by Christians whomthe apostles instructed, by societies of Christians which the apostlesfounded, these books were received, (by which term "received" I meanthat they were believed to contain authentic accounts of thetransactions upon which the religion rested, and accounts which wereaccordingly used, repeated, and relied upon, ) this reception would be avalid proof that these books, whoever were the authors of them, musthave accorded with what the apostles taught. A reception by the firstrace of Christians, is evidence that they agreed with what the firstteachers of the religion delivered. In particular, if they had notagreed with what the apostles themselves preached, how could they havegained credit in churches and societies which the apostlesestablished?

Now the fact of their early existence, and not only of their existence, but their reputation, is made out by some ancient testimonies which donot happen to specify the names of the writers: add to which, what hathbeen already hinted, that two out of the four Gospels contain avermentsin the body of the history, which, though they do not disclose thenames, fix the time and situation of the authors, viz. , that one waswritten by an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ, the other by acontemporary of the apostles. In the Gospel of St. John (xix. 35), describing the crucifixion, with the particular circumstance of piercingChrist's side with a spear, the historian adds, as for himself, "and hethat saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that hesaith true, that ye might believe. " Again (xxi. 24), after relating aconversation which passed between Peter and "the disciple, " as it isthere expressed, "whom Jesus loved, " it is added, "this is the disciplewhich testifieth of these things, and wrote these things. " Thistestimony, let it be remarked, is not the less worthy of regard, becauseit is, in one view, imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if afraudulent purpose had been intended, would have been done. The third ofour present Gospels purports to have been written by the person whowrote the Acts of the Apostles; in which latter history, or ratherlatter part of the same history, the author, by using in various placesthe first person plural, declares himself to have been a contemporary ofall, and a companion of one, of the original preachers of the religion. 

CHAPTER IX. 

There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be originalwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of theaccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their beliefof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 

Not forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelicalhistory, supposing even any one of the four Gospels to be genuine; whatcredit is due to the Gospels, even supposing nothing to be knownconcerning them but that they were written by early disciples of thereligion, and received with deference by early Christian churches; moreespecially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Testament in itscapacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to state the proper anddistinct proofs, which show not only the general value of these records, but their specific authority, and the high probability there is thatthey actually came from the persons whose names they bear. 

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may drawup with more regularity to the propositions upon which the close andparticular discussion of the subject depends. Of which nature are thefollowing:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, foundin many different countries, and in countries widely distant from eachother, all of them anterior to the art of printing, some Certainly sevenor eight hundred years old, and some which have been preserved probablyabove a thousand years. * We have also many ancient versions of thesebooks, and some of them into languages which are not at present, nor formany ages have been, spoken in any part of the world. The existence ofthese manuscripts and versions proves that the Scriptures were not theproduction of any modern contrivance. It does away also the uncertaintywhich hangs over such publications as the works, real or pretended, ofOssian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce theirmanuscripts and to show where they obtained their copies. The number ofmanuscripts, far exceeding those of any other book, and their widedispersion, afford an argument, in some measure to the senses, that theScriptures anciently, in like manner as at this day, were more read andsought after than any other books, and that also in many differentcountries. The greatest part of spurious Christian writings are utterlylost, the rest preserved by some single manuscript. There is weight alsoin Dr. Bentley's observation, that the New Testament has suffered lessinjury by the errors of transcribers than the works of any profaneauthor of the same size and antiquity; that is, there never was anywriting, in the preservation and purity of which the world was sointerested or so careful. 

_________

* The Alexandrian manuscript, now in the British Museum, was writtenprobably in the fourth or fifth century. _________

II. An argument of great weight with those who are judges of the proofsupon which it is founded, and capable, through their testimony, of beingaddressed to every understanding, is that which arises from the styleand language of the New Testament. It is just such a language as mightbe expected from the apostles, from persons of their age and in theirsituation, and from no other persons. It is the style neither of classicauthors, nor of the ancient Christian fathers, but Greek coming from menof Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, such as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used alanguage spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect ofthe country. This happy peculiarity is a strong proof of the genuinenessof these writings: for who should forge them? The Christian fathers werefor the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were notlikely to insert Hebraisms and Syriasms into their writings. The few whohad a knowledge of the Hebrew, as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius, wrote in a language which hears no resemblance to that of the NewTestament. The Nazarenes, who understood Hebrew, used chiefly, perhapsalmost entirely, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and therefore cannot besuspected of forging the rest of the sacred writings. The argument, atany rate, proves the antiquity of these books; that they belonged to theage of the apostles; that they could be composed, indeed, in no other. *

_________

* See this argument stated more at large in Michaelis's Introduction, (Marsh's translation, ) vol. I. C. Ii. Sect. 10, from which theseobservations are taken. _________

III. Why should we question the genuineness of these books? Is it forthat they contain accounts of supernatural events? I apprehend thatthis, at the bottom, is the real, though secret, cause of our hesitationabout them: for had the writings inscribed with the names of Matthew andJohn related nothing but ordinary history, there would have been nomore doubt whether these writings were theirs than there is concerningthe acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would havebeen no doubt at all. Now it ought to be considered that this reason, however it may apply to the credit which is given to a writer's judgmentor veracity, affects the question of genuineness very indirectly. Theworks of Bede exhibit many wonderful relations: but who, for thatreason, doubts that they were written by Bede? The same of a multitudeof other authors. To which may be added that we ask no more for ourbooks than what we allow to other books in some sort similar to ours: wedo not deny the genuineness of the Koran; we admit that the history ofApollonius Tyanaeus, purporting to be written by Philostratus, wasreally written by Philostratus. 

IV. If it had been an easy thing in the early times of the institutionto have forged Christian writings, and to have obtained currency andreception to the forgeries, we should have had many appearing in thename of Christ himself. No writings would have been received with somuch avidity and respect as these: consequently none afforded so great atemptation to forgery. Yet have we heard but of one attempt of thissort, deserving of the smallest notice, that in a piece of a very fewlines, and so far from succeeding, I mean, from obtaining acceptance andreputation, or an acceptance an reputation in anywise similar to thatwhich can be proved to have attended the books of the New Testament, that it is not so much as mentioned by any writer of the first threecenturies. The learned reader need not be informed that I mean theepistle of Christ to Abgarus, king of Edessa, found at present in thework of Eusebius, * as a piece acknowledged by him, though not withoutconsiderable doubt whether the whole passage be not an interpolation, asit is most certain, that, after the publication of Eusebius's work, thisepistle was universally rejected. +

_________

* Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. C. 15. + Augustin, A. D. 895 (De Consens. Evan. C. 34), had heard that thePagans pretended to be possessed of an epistle of Christ to Peter andPaul; but he had never seen it, and appears to doubt of the existence ofany such piece either genuine or spurious. No other ancient writermentions it. He also, and he alone, notices, and that in order to condemnit, an epistle ascribed to Christ by the Manichees, A. D. 270, and a shorthymn attributed to him by the Priscillianists, A. D. 378 (cont. Faust. Man. Lib xxviii, c, 4). The lateness of the writer who notices these things, themanner in which he notices them, and above all, the silence of everypreceding writer, render them unworthy on of consideration. _________

V. If the ascription of the Gospels to their respective authors had beenarbitrary or conjectural, they would have been ascribed to more eminentmen. This observation holds concerning the first three Gospels, thereputed authors of which were enabled, by their situation, to obtaintrue intelligence, and were likely to deliver an honest account of whatthey knew, but were persons not distinguished in the history byextraordinary marks of notice or commendation. Of the apostles, I hardlyknow any one of whom less is said than of Matthew, or of whom the littlethat is said is less calculated to magnify his character. Of Mark, nothing is said in the Gospels; and what is said of any person of thatname in the Acts, and in the epistles, in no part bestows praise oreminence upon him. The name of Luke is mentioned only in St Paul'sepistles, * and that very transiently. The judgment, therefore, whichassigned these writings to these authors proceeded, it may be presumed, upon proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice ofnames. 

VI. Christian writers and Christian churches appear to have soon arrivedat a very general agreement upon the subject, and that without theinterposition of any public authority. When the diversity of opinionwhich prevailed, and prevails among Christians in other points, isconsidered, their concurrence in the canon of Scripture is remarkable, and of great weight, especially as it seems to have been the result ofprivate and free inquiry. We have no knowledge of any interference ofauthority in the question before the council of Laodicea in the year363. Probably the decree of this council rather declared than regulatedthe public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment of someneighbouring churches; the council itself consisting of no more thanthirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries. + Nor doesits authority seem to have extended further; for we find numerousChristian writers, after this time, discussing the question, "What bookswere entitled to be received as Scripture, " with great freedom, uponproper grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the decision atLaodicea. 

_________

* Col. Iv. 14. 2Tim. Iv. 11. Philem. 24. + Lardner, Cred. Vol. Viii. P. 291, et seq. _________

These considerations are not to be neglected: but of an argumentconcerning the genuineness of ancient writings, the substance, undoubtedly, and strength, is ancient testimony. 

This testimony it is necessary to exhibit somewhat in detail; for whenChristian advocates merely tell us that we have the same reason forbelieving the Gospels to be written by the evangelists whose names theybear as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Caesar's, theAeneid Virgil's, or the Orations Cicero's, they content themselves withan imperfect representation. They state nothing more than what is true, but they do not state the truth correctly. In the number, variety, andearly date of our testimonies, we far exceed all other ancient books. For one which the most celebrated work of the most celebratedGreek or Roman writer can allege, we produce many. But then it is morerequisite in our books than in theirs to separate and distinguish themfrom spurious competitors. The result, I am convinced, will besatisfactory to every fair inquirer: but this circumstance renders aninquiry necessary. 

In a work, however, like the present, there is a difficulty in finding aplace for evidence of this kind. To pursue the details of proofthroughout, would be to transcribe a great part of Dr. Lardner's elevenoctavo volumes: to leave the argument without proofs is to leave itwithout effect; for the persuasion produced by this species of evidencedepends upon a view and induction of the particulars which compose it. 

The method which I propose to myself is, first, to place before thereader, in one view, the propositions which comprise the several headsof our testimony, and afterwards to repeat the same propositions in somany distinct sections, with the necessary authorities subjoined toeach. *

_________

* The reader, when he has the propositions before him, will observe thatthe argument, if he should omit the sections, proceeds connectedly fromthis point. _________

The following, then, are the allegations upon the subject which arecapable of being established by proof:--

I. That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby thefour Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, bya series of Christian writers, beginning with those who werecontemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, andproceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present. 

II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alludedto with peculiar respect, as books 'sui generis'; as possessing anauthority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in allquestions and controversies amongst Christians. 

III. That they were, in very early times, collected into a distinctvolume. 

IV. That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles ofrespect. 

V. That they were publicly read and expounded in the religiousassemblies of the early Christians. 

VI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out ofthem, different copies carefully collated, and versions of them madeinto different languages. 

VII. That they were received by Christians of different sects, by manyheretics as well as Catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides inthe controversies which arose in those days. 

VIII. That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistlesof Saint Paul, the first epistle of John, and the first of-Peter, werereceived without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other bookswhich are included in our present canon. 

IX. That the Gospels were attacked by the early adversaries ofChristianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religionwas founded. 

X. That formal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published; in allwhich our present sacred histories were included. 

XI. That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other booksclaiming to be books of Scripture; by which are meant those books whichare commonly called apocryphal books of the New Testament. 

SECTION I. 

The historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the fourGospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by aseries of Christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporarywith the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding inclose and regular succession from their time to the present. 

The medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, themost unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and isnot diminished by the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the History ofhis Own Times, inserts various extracts from Lord Clarendon's History. One such insertion is a proof that Lord Clarendon's History was extantat the time when Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had been read by BishopBurnet, that it was received by Bishop Burnet as a work of LordClarendon, and also regarded by him as an authentic account of thetransactions which it relates; and it will be a proof of these points athousand years hence, or as long as the books exist. Quintilian havingquoted as Cicero's, (Quint, lib. Xl. C. L. ) that well known trait ofdissembled vanity:--"Si quid est in me ingenii, Judices, quod sentioquam sit exiguum;"--the quotation would be strong evidence, were thereany doubt, that the oration, which opens with this address, actuallycame from Cicero's pen. These instances, however simple, may serve topoint out to a reader who is little accustomed to such researches thenature and value of the argument. 

The testimonies which we have to bring forward under this propositionare the following:--

I. There is extant an epistle ascribed to Barnabas, * the companion ofPaul. It is quoted as the epistle of Barnabas, by Clement of Alexandria, A. D. CXCIV; by Origen, A. D. CCXXX. It is mentioned by Eusebius, A. D. CCCXV, and by Jerome, A. D. CCCXCII, as an ancient work in their time, bearing the name of Barnabas, and as well known and read amongstChristians, though not accounted a part of Scripture. It purports tohave been written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, during thecalamities which followed that disaster; and it bears the character ofthe age to which it professes to belong. 

_________

* Lardner, Cred. Edit. 1755, vol. I. P. 23, et seq. The reader willobserve from the references, that the materials of these sections arealmost entirely extracted from Dr. Lardner's work; my office consistedin arrangement and selection. _________

In this epistle appears the following remarkable passage:--"Let us, therefore, beware lest it come upon us, as it is written; There are manycalled, few chosen. " From the expression, "as it is written, " we inferwith certainty, that at the time when the author of this epistle lived, there was a book extant, well known to Christians, and of authorityamongst them, containing these words:--"Many are called, few chosen. "Such a book is our present Gospel of Saint Matthew, in which this textis twice found, (Matt xx. 16; xxii. 14. ) and is found in no other booknow known. There is a further observation to be made upon the terms ofthe quotation. The writer of the epistle was a Jew. The phrase "it iswritten" was the very form in which the Jews quoted their Scriptures. Itis not probable, therefore, that he would have used this phrase, andwithout qualification, of any book but what had acquired a kind ofScriptural authority. If the passage remarked in this ancient writinghad been found in one of Saint Paul's Epistles, it would have beenesteemed by every one a high testimony to Saint Matthew's Gospel. Itought, therefore, to be remembered, that the writing in which it isfound was probably by very few years posterior to those of Saint Paul. 

Beside this passage, there are also in the epistle before us severalothers, in which the sentiment is the same with what we meet with inSaint Matthew's Gospel, and two or three in which we recognize the samewords. In particular, the author of the epistle repeats the precept, "Give to every one that asketh thee;" (Matt. V. 42. ) and saith thatChrist chose as his apostles, who were to preach the Gospel, men whowere great sinners, that he might show that he came "not to call therighteous, but sinners to repentance. " (Matt. Ix. 13. )

II. We are in possession of an epistle written by Clement, bishop ofRome, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. P. 62, et seq. ) whom ancient writers, withoutany doubt or scruple, assert to have been the Clement whom Saint Paulmentions, Phil. Iv. 3; "with Clement also, and other myfellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life. " This epistle isspoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and, asIrenaeus well represents its value, "written by Clement, who had seenthe blessed apostles, and conversed with them; who had the preaching ofthe apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before hiseyes. " It is addressed to the church of Corinth; and what alone may seemalmost decisive of its authenticity, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, aboutthe year 170, i. E. About eighty or ninety years after the epistle waswritten, bears witness, "that it had been wont to be read in that churchfrom ancient times. "

This epistle affords, amongst others, the following valuablepassages:--"Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which hespake teaching gentleness and long-suffering: for thus he said:* Be yemerciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it my be forgiven untoyou; as you do, so shall it be done unto you; as you give, so shall itbe given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye showkindness, so shall kindness be shown unto you; with what measure ye mete, with the same shall it be measured to you. By this command, and by theserules, let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obedientlyto his holy words. "

_________

* "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. " Matt. V. 7. --"Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given untoyou. " Luke vi. 37, 38. --"Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with whatjudgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, itshall be measured to you again. " Matt. Vii. 1, 2. _________

Again; "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, Woe to thatman by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not beenborn, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for himthat a millstone should be tied about his neck, and that he should bedrowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones. "*

_________

* Matt. Xviii. 6. "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones whichbelieve in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hangedabout his neck, and that he were cast into the sea. " The latter part ofthe passage in Clement agrees exactly with Luke xvii. 2; "It were betterfor him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he cast intothe sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. "_________

In both these passages we perceive the high respect paid to the words ofChrist as recorded by the evangelists; "Remember the words of the LordJesus;--by this command, and by these rules, let us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his holy words. " We perceive alsoin Clement a total unconsciousness of doubt whether these were the realwords of Christ, which are read as such in the Gospels. This observationindeed belongs to the whole series of testimony, and especially to themost ancient part of it. Whenever anything now read in the Gospels ismet with in an early Christian writing, it is always observed to standthere as acknowledged truth, i. E. To be introduced without hesitation, doubt, or apology. It is to be observed also, that, as this epistle waswritten in the name of the church of Rome, and addressed to the churchof Corinth, it ought to be taken as exhibiting the judgment not only ofClement, who drew up the letter, but of these churches themselves, atleast as to the authority of the books referred to. 

It may be said that, as Clement has not used words of quotation, it isnot certain that he refers to any book whatever. The words of Christwhich he has put down, he might himself have heard from the apostles, ormight have received through the ordinary medium of oral tradition. Thishas been said: but that no such inference can be drawn from the absenceof words of quotation, is proved by the three followingconsiderations:--First, that Clement, in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage now found in the epistleto the Romans; (Rom. I. 29. ) which passage, from the peculiarity of thewords which compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that hemust have taken from the book. The same remark may be repeated of somevery singular sentiments in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, thatthere are many sentences of Saint Paul's First Epistle to theCorinthians standing in Clement's epistle without any sign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement hadSaint Paul's epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place he mentions itin terms too express to leave us in any doubt:--"Take into your handsthe epistle of the blessed apostle Paul. " Thirdly, that this method ofadopting words of Scripture without reference or acknowledgment was, aswill appear in the sequel, a method in general use amongst the mostancient Christian writers. --These analogies not only repel theobjection, but cast the presumption on the other side, and afford aconsiderable degree of positive proof, that the words in question havebeen borrowed from the places of Scripture in which we now find them. But take it if you will the other way, that Clement had heard thesewords from the apostles or first teachers of Christianity; with respectto the precise point of our argument, viz. That the Scriptures containwhat the apostles taught, this supposition may serve almost as well. 

III. Near the conclusion of the epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul, amongst others, sends the following salutation: "Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are withthem. " Of Hermas, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Christians ascontemporary with Saint Paul, a book bearing the name, and it is mostprobably rightly, is still remaining. It is called the Shepherd, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 111. ) or pastor of Hermas. Its antiquity isincontestable, from the quotations of it in Irenaeus, A. D. 178; Clementof Alexandria, A. D. 194; Tertullian, A. D. 200; Origen, A. D. 230. Thenotes of time extant in the epistle itself agree with its title, andwith the testimonies concerning it, for it purports to have been writtenduring the life-time of Clement. 

In this place are tacit allusions to Saint Matthew's, Saint Luke's, andSaint John's Gospels; that is to say, there are applications of thoughtsand expressions found in these Gospels, without citing the place orwriter from which they were taken. In this form appear in Hermas theconfessing and denying of Christ; (Matt. X. :i2, 33, or, Luke xli. 8, 9. ) the parable of the seed sown (Matt. Xiii. 3, or, Luke viii. 5); thecomparison of Christ's disciples to little children; the saying "he thatputteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery" (Lukexvi. 18. ); The singular expression, "having received all power from hisFather, " in probable allusion to Matt. Xxviii. 18; and Christ being the"gate, " or only way of coming "to God, " in plain allusion to John xiv. 6; x. 7, 9. There is also a probable allusion to Acts v. 32. 

This piece is the representation of a vision, and has by many beenaccounted a weak and fanciful performance. I therefore observe, that thecharacter of the writing has little to do with the purpose for which weadduce it. It is the age in which it was composed that gives the valueto its testimony. 

IV. Ignatius, as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, becamebishop of Antioch about thirty-seven years after Christ's ascension;and, therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probablethat he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Epistles ofIgnatius are referred to by Polycarp, his contemporary. Passages foundin the epistles now extant under his name are quoted by Irenaeus, A. D. 178; by Origen, A. D. 230; and the occasion of writing the epistles isgiven at large by Eusebius and Jerome. What are called the smallerepistles of Ignatius are generally deemed to be those which were read byIrenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 147. ). 

In these epistles are various undoubted allusions to the Gospels ofSaint Matthew and Saint John; yet so far of the same form with those inthe preceding articles, that, like them, they are not accompanied withmarks of quotation. 

Of these allusions the following are clear specimens:

Matt. *: "Christ was baptized of John, that all righteousness might befulfilled by him. " "Be ye wise as serpents in all things, and harmlessas a dove. "

John+: "Yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God: for it knowswhence it comes and whither it goes. " "He (Christ) is the door of theFather, by which enter in Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob, and theapostles, and the church. "

_________

* Chap. Iii. 15. "For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. "Chap. X. 16. "Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. "

+ Chap. Iii. 8. "The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest thesound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither itgoeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. " Chap. X. 9. "I am thedoor; by me if any man enter in he shall be saved. "_________

As to the manner of quotation, this is observable;--Ignatius, in oneplace, speaks of St. Paul in terms of high respect, and quotes hisEpistle to the Ephesians by name; yet, in several other places, heborrows words and sentiments from the same epistle without mentioningit; which shows that this was his general manner of using and applyingwritings then extant, and then of high authority. 

V. Polycarp (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. 192. ) had been taught by theapostles; had conversed with many who had seen Christ; was also by theapostles appointed bishop of Smyrna. This testimony concerning Polycarpis given by Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen him:--"I can tell theplace, " saith Irenaeus, "in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and theform of his person, and the discourses he made to the people, and how herelated his conversation with John, and others who had seen the Lord, and how he related their sayings, and what he had heard concerning theLord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he had receivedthem from the eyewitnesses of the word of life: all which Polycarprelated agreeable to the Scriptures. "

Of Polycarp, whose proximity to the age and country and persons of theapostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle remaining. Andthis, though a short letter, contains nearly forty clear allusions tobooks of the New Testament; which is strong evidence of the respectwhich Christians of that age bore for these books. 

Amongst these, although the writings of St. Paul are more frequentlyused by Polycarp than any other parts of Scripture, there are copiousallusions to the Gospel of St. Matthew, some to passages found in theGospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some which more nearly resemblethe words in Luke. 

I select the following as fixing the authority of the Lord's prayer, andthe use of it amongst the primitive Christians: "If therefore we praythe Lord, that he will forgive us, we ought also to forgive. "

"With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us intotemptation. "

And the following, for the sake of repeating an observation alreadymade, that words of our Lord found in our Gospels were at this early dayquoted as spoken by him; and not only so, but quoted with so littlequestion or consciousness of doubt about their being really his words, as not even to mention, much less to canvass, the authority from whichthey were taken:

"But remembering what the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that ye be notjudged; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye mayobtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to youagain. " (Matt. Vii. 1, 2; v. 7; Luke vi. 37, 38. )

Supposing Polycarp to have had these words from the books in which wenow find them, it is manifest that these books were considered by him, and, as he thought, considered by his readers, us authentic accounts ofChrist's discourses; and that that point was incontestible [sic]. 

The following is a decisive, though what we call a tacit reference toSt. Peter's speech in the Acts of the Apostles:--"whom God hath raised, having loosed the pains of death. " (Acts ii. 24. )

VI. Papias, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 239. ) a hearer of John, andcompanion of Polycarp, as Irenaeus attests, and of that age, as allagree, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expresslyascribes the respective Gospels to Matthew and Mark; and in a mannerwhich proves that these Gospels must have publicly borne the names ofthese authors at that time, and probably long before; for Papias doesnot say that one Gospel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark;but, assuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from whatmaterials Mark collected his account, viz. From Peter's preaching, andin what language Matthew wrote, viz. In Hebrew. Whether Papias was wellinformed in this statement, or not; to the point for which I producethis testimony, namely, that these books bore these names at this time, his authority is complete. 

The writers hitherto alleged had all lived and conversed with some ofthe apostles. The works of theirs which remain are in general very shortpieces, yet rendered extremely valuable by their antiquity; and none, short as they are, but what contain some important testimony to ourhistorical Scriptures. *

_________

* That the quotations are more thinly strewn in these than in thewritings of the next and of succeeding ages, is in a good measureaccounted for by the observation, that the Scriptures of the NewTestament had not yet, nor by their recency hardly could have, become ageneral part of Christian education; read as the Old Testament was byJews and Christians from their childhood, and thereby intimately mixing, as that had long done, with all their religious ideas, and with theirlanguage upon religious subjects. In process of time, and as soonperhaps as could be expected, this came to be the case. And then weperceive the effect, in a proportionably greater frequency, as well ascopiousness of allusion. --Mich. Introd. C. Ii. Sect. Vi. _________

VII. Not long after these, that is, not much more than twenty yearsafter the last, follows Justin Martyr (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 258. ). His remaining works are much larger than any that have yet been noticed. Although the nature of his two principal writings, one of which wasaddressed to heathens, and the other was a conference with a Jew, didnot lead him to such frequent appeals to Christian books as would haveappeared in a discourse intended for Christian readers; we neverthelessreckon up in them between twenty and thirty quotations of the Gospelsand Acts of the Apostles, certain, distinct, and copious: if each versebe counted separately, a much greater number; if each expression, a verygreat one. *

_________

* "He cites our present canon, and particularly our four Gospels, continually, I dare say, above two hundred times. " Jones's New and FullMethod. Append. Vol. I. P. 589, ed. 1726. _________

We meet with quotations of three of the Gospels within the compass ofhalf a page: "And in other words he says, Depart from me into outerdarkness, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his angels, "(which is from Matthew xxv. 41. ) "And again he said, in other words, Igive unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and venomousbeasts, and upon all the power of the enemy. " (This from Luke x. 19. )"And before he was crucified, he said, The Son of Man must suffer manythings, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again the third day. " (This from Mark viii. 31. )

In another place Justin quotes a passage in the history of Christ'sbirth, as delivered by Matthew and John, and fortifies his quotation bythis remarkable testimony: "As they have taught, who have written thehistory of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ; and webelieve them. " Quotations are also found from the Gospel of Saint John. What moreover seems extremely material to be observed is, that in allJustin's works, from which might be extracted almost a complete life ofChrist, there are but two instances in which he refers to anything assaid or done by Christ, which is not related concerning him in ourpresent Gospels: which shows, that these Gospels, and these, we may say, alone, were the authorities from which the Christians of that day drewthe information upon which they depended. One of these instances is of asaying of Christ, not met with in any book now extant. +

_________

+ "Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ has said, In whatsoever I shallfind you, in the same I will also judge you. " Possibly Justin designednot to quote any text, but to represent the sense of many of our Lord'ssayings. Fabrieius has observed, that this saying has been quoted bymany writers, and that Justin is the only one who ascribes it to ourLord, and that perhaps by a slip of his memory. Words resembling theseare read repeatedly in Ezekiel; "I will judge them according to theirways;" (chap. Vii. 3; xxxiii. 20. ) It is remarkable that Justin had justbefore expressly quoted Ezekiel. Mr. Jones upon this circumstance foundeda conjecture, that Justin wrote only "the Lord hath said, " intending toquote the words of God, or rather the sense of those words in Ezekiel;and that some transcriber, imagining these to be the words of Christ, inserted in his copy the addition "Jesus Christ. " Vol. 1. P. 539. _________

The other of a circumstance in Christ's baptism, namely, a fiery orluminous appearance upon the water, which, according to Epiphanius, isnoticed in the Gospel of the Hebrews: and which might be true: butwhich, whether true or false, is mentioned by Justin, with a plain markof diminution when compared with what he quotes as resting uponScripture authority. The reader will advert to this distinction: "andthen, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, asJesus descended into the water, a fire also was kindled in Jordan: andwhen he came up out of the water, (the apostles of this our Christ havewritten), that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove. "

All the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author;which proves that these books were perfectly notorious, and that therewere no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no other soreceived and credited as to make it necessary to distinguish these fromthe rest. 

But although Justin mentions not the author's name, he calls the books, "Memoirs composed by the Apostles;" "Memoirs composed by the Apostlesand their Companions;" which descriptions, the latter especially, exactly suit with the titles which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostlesnow bear. 

VIII. Hegesippus (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 314. ) came about thirtyyears after Justin. His testimony is remarkable only for thisparticular; that he relates of himself that, travelling from Palestineto Rome, he visited, on his journey, many bishops; and that, "in everysuccession, and in every city, the same doctrine is taught, which theLaw and the Prophets, and the Lord teacheth. " This is an importantattestation, from good authority, and of high antiquity. It is generallyunderstood that by the word "Lord, " Hegesippus intended some writing orwritings, containing the teaching of Christ; in which sense alone theterm combines with the other term "Law and Prophets, " which denotewritings; and together with them admit of the verb "teacheth" in thepresent tense. Then, that these writings were some or all of the booksof the New Testament, is rendered probable from hence, that in thefragments of his works, which are preserved in Eusebius, and in a writerof the ninth century, enough, though it be little, is left to show, thatHegesippus expressed divers thing in the style of the Gospels, and ofthe Acts of the Apostles; that he referred to the history in the secondchapter of Matthew, and recited a text of that Gospel as spoken by ourLord. 

IX. At this time, viz. About the year 170, the churches of Lyons andVienne, in France, sent a relation of the sufferings of their martyrs tothe churches of Asia and Phrygia. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 332. ) Theepistle is preserved entire by Eusebius. And what carries in somemeasure the testimony of these churches to a higher age, is, that theyhad now for their bishop, Pothinus, who was ninety years old, and whoseearly life consequently must have immediately joined on with the timesof the apostles. In this epistle are exact references to the Gospels ofLuke and John, and to the Acts of the Apostles; the form of referencethe same as in all the preceding articles. That from Saint John is inthese words: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, thatwhosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service. " (John xvi. 2. )

X. The evidence now opens upon us full and clear. Irenaeus (Lardner, vol. I. P. 344. ) succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. In his youth hehad been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. In the timein which he lived, he was distant not much more than a century from thepublication of the Gospels; in his instruction only by one stepseparated from the persons of the apostles. He asserts of himself andhis contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up, in all theprincipal churches, the succession of bishops from the first. (Adv. Haeres. 1. Iii. C. 3. ) I remark these particulars concerning Irenaeuswith more formality than usual, because the testimony which this writeraffords to the historical books of the New Testament, to theirauthority, and to the titles which they bear, is express, positive, andexclusive. One principal passage, in which this testimony is contained, opens with a precise assertion of the point which we have laid down asthe foundation of our argument, viz. , that the story which the Gospelsexhibit is the story which the apostles told. "We have not received, "saith Irenaeus, "the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any othersthan those by whom the Gospel has been brought to us. Which Gospel theyfirst preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, committed towriting, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar ofour faith. --For after that our Lord arose from the dead, and they (theapostles) were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghostcoming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men theMessage of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one, alike theGospel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their ownlanguage, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome, andfounding a church there: and after their exit, Mark also, the discipleand interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that hadbeen preached by Peter and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in abook the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the disciple ofthe Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, he likewise published aGospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia. " If any modern divine shouldwrite a book upon the genuineness of the Gospels, he could not assert itmore expressly, or state their original more distinctly, than Irenaeushath done within little more than a hundred years after they werepublished. 

The correspondency, in the days of Irenaeus, of the oral and writtentradition, and the deduction of the oral tradition through variouschannels from the age of the apostles, which was then lately passed, and, by consequence, the probability that the books truly delivered whatthe apostles taught, is inferred also with strict regularity fromanother passage of his works. "The tradition of the apostles, " thisfather saith, "hath spread itself over the whole universe; and all theywho search after the sources of truth will find this tradition to beheld sacred in every church, We might enumerate all those who have beenappointed bishops to these churches by the apostles, and all theirsuccessors, up to our days. It is by this uninterrupted succession thatwe have received the tradition which actually exists in the church, asalso the doctrines of truth, as it was preached by the apostles. " (Iren. In Haer. I. Iii. C. 3. ) The reader will observe upon this, that the sameIrenaeus, who is now stating the strength and uniformity of thetradition, we have before seen recognizing, in the fullest manner, theauthority of the written records; from which we are entitled toconclude, that they were then conformable to each other. 

I have said that the testimony of Irenaeus in favour of our Gospels isexclusive of all others. I allude to a remarkable passage in his works, in which, for some reasons sufficiently fanciful, he endeavours to showthat there could he neither more nor fewer Gospels than four. With hisargument we have no concern. The position itself proves that four, andonly four, Gospels were at that time publicly read and acknowledged. That these were our Gospels, and in the state in which we now have them, is shown from many other places of this writer beside that which we havealready alleged. He mentions how Matthew begins his Gospel, bow Markbegins and ends his, and their supposed reasons for so doing. Heenumerates at length the several passages of Christ's history in Luke, which are not found in any of the other evangelists. He states theparticular design with which Saint John composed his Gospel, andaccounts for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative. 

To the book of the Acts of the Apostles, its author, and credit, thetestimony of Irenaeus is no less explicit. Referring to the account ofSaint Paul's conversion and vocation, in the ninth chapter of that book, "Nor can they, " says he, meaning the parties with whom he argues, "showthat he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with thegreatest exactness. " In another place, he has actually collected theseveral texts, in which the writer of the history is represented asaccompanying Saint Paul; which leads him to deliver a summary of almostthe whole of the last twelve chapters of the book. 

In an author thus abounding with references and allusions to theScriptures, there is not one to any apocryphal Christian writingwhatever. This is a broad line of distinction between our sacred booksand the pretensions of all others. 

The force of the testimony of the period which we have considered isgreatly strengthened by the observation, that it is the testimony, andthe concurring testimony, of writers who lived in countries remote fromone another. Clement flourished at Rome, Ignatius at Antioch, Polycarpat Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, and Irenaeus in France. 

XI. Omitting Athenagoras and Theophilus, who lived about thistime; (Lardner, vol. I. P. 400 & 422. ) in the remaining works of theformer of whom are clear references to Mark and Luke; and in the worksof the latter, who was bishop of Antioch, the sixth in succession fromthe apostles, evident allusions to Matthew and John, and probableallusions to Luke (which, considering the nature of the compositions, that they were addressed to heathen readers, is as much as could beexpected); observing also, that the works of two learned Christianwriters of the same age, Miltiades and Pantaenus, (Lardner, vol. I. P. 413, 450. ) are now lost: of which Miltiades Eusebius records, that hiswritings "were monuments of zeal for the Divine Oracles;" and whichPantaenus, as Jerome testifies, was a man of prudence and learning, bothin the Divine Scriptures and secular literature, and had left manycommentaries upon the Holy Scriptures then extant. Passing by thesewithout further remark, we come to one of the most voluminous of ancientChristian writers, Clement of Alexandria (Lardner, vol. Ii. P. 469. ). Clement followed Irenaeus at the distance of only sixteen years, andtherefore may be said to maintain the series of testimony in anuninterrupted continuation. 

In certain of Clement's works, now lost, but of which various parts arerecited by Eusebius, there is given a distinct account of the order inwhich the four Gospels were written. The Gospels which contain thegenealogies were (he says) written first; Mark's next, at the instanceof Peter's followers; and John's the last; and this account he tells usthat he had received from presbyters of more ancient times. Thistestimony proves the following points; that these Gospels were thehistories of Christ then publicly received and relied upon; and that thedates, occasions, and circumstances, of their publication were at thattime subjects of attention and inquiry amongst Christians. In the worksof Clement which remain, the four Gospels are repeatedly quoted by thenames of their authors, and the Acts of the Apostles is expresslyascribed to Luke. In one place, after mentioning a particularcircumstance, he adds these remarkable words: "We have not this passagein the four Gospels delivered to us, but in that according to theEgyptians;" which puts a marked distinction between the four Gospels andall other histories, or pretended histories, of Christ. In another partof his works, the perfect confidence with which he received the Gospelsis signified by him in these words: "That this is true appears fromhence, that it is written in the Gospel according to Saint Luke;" andagain, "I need not use many words, but only to allege the evangelicvoice of the Lord. " His quotations are numerous. The sayings of Christ, of which he alleges many, are all taken from our Gospels; the singleexception to this observation appearing to be a loose quotation of apassage in Saint Matthew's Gospel. *

_________

* "Ask great things and the small shall be added unto you. " Clementrather chose to expound the words of Matthew (chap. Vi. 33), thanliterally to cite them; and this is most undeniably proved by anotherplace in the same Clement, where he both produces the text and thesewords am an exposition:--"Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and itsrighteousness, for these are the great things; but the small things, andthings relating to this life, shall be added unto you. " Jones's New andFull Method, vol. I. P. 553. _________

XII. In the age in which they lived, (Lardner, vol. Ii. P. 561. )Tertullian joins on with Clement. The number of the Gospels thenreceived, the names of the evangelists, and their proper descriptions, are exhibited by this writer in one short sentence:--"Among the apostlesJohn and Matthew teach us the faith; among apostolical men, Luke andMark refresh it. " The next passage to be taken from Tertullian affordsas complete an attestation to the authenticity of our books as can bewell imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded byPaul at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus; thechurch of Rome established by Peter and Paul, and other churches derivedfrom John; he proceeds thus:--"I say, then, that with them, but not withthem only which are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship withthem in the same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received from its firstpublication, which we so zealously maintain:" and presently afterwardsadds, "The same authority of the apostolical churches will support theother Gospels which we have from them and according to them, I meanJohn's and Matthew's; although that likewise which Mark published may besaid to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. " In another placeTertullian affirms, that the three other Gospels were in the hands ofthe churches from the beginning, as well as Luke's. This noble testimonyfixes the universality with which the Gospels were received and theirantiquity; that they were in the hands of all, and had been so from thefirst. And this evidence appears not more than one hundred and fiftyyears after the publication of the books. The reader must be given tounderstand that, when Tertullian speaks of maintaining or defending(tuendi) the Gospel of Saint Luke, he only means maintaining ordefending the integrity of the copies of Luke received by Christianchurches, in opposition to certain curtailed copies used by Marcion, against whom he writes. 

This author frequently cites the Acts of the Apostles under that title, once calls it Luke's Commentary, and observes how Saint Paul's epistlesconfirm it. 

After this general evidence, it is unnecessary to add particularquotations. These, however, are so numerous and ample as to have led Dr. Lardner to observe, "that there are more and larger quotations of thesmall volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author, thanthere are of all the works of Cicero in writers of all characters forseveral ages. " (Lardner, vol ii. P. 647. )

Tertullian quotes no Christian writing as of equal authority with theScriptures, and no spurious books at all; a broad line of distinction, we may once more observe, between our sacred books and all others. 

We may again likewise remark the wide extent through which thereputation of the Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles had spread, and the perfect consent, in this point, of distant and independentsocieties. It is now only about one hundred and fifty years since Christwas crucified; and within this period, to say nothing of the apostolicalfathers who have been noticed already, we have Justin Martyr atNeapolis, Theophilus at Antioch, Irenaeus in France, Clement atAlexandria, Tertullian at Carthage, quoting the same books of historicalScriptures, and I may say, quoting these alone. 

XIII. An interval of only thirty years, and that occupied by no smallnumber of Christian writers, (Minucius Felix, Apollonius, Caius, AsteriusUrbanus Alexander bishop of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, Ammonius JuliusAfricanus) whose works only remain in fragments and quotations, and inevery one of which is some reference or other to the Gospels (and in oneof them, Hippolytus, as preserved in Theodoret, is an abstract of thewhole Gospel history), brings us to a name of great celebrity inChristian antiquity, Origen (Lardner, vol. Iii. P. 234. ) of Alexandria, who in the quantity of his writings exceeded the most laborious of theGreek and Latin authors. Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subjectnow under consideration, and, from a writer of his learning andinformation, more satisfactory, than the declaration of Origen, preserved, in an extract from his works, by Eusebius; "That the fourGospels alone are received without dispute by the whole church of Godunder heaven:" to which declaration is immediately subjoined a briefhistory of the respective authors to whom they were then, as they arenow, ascribed. The language holden concerning the Gospels, throughoutthe works of Origen which remain, entirely corresponds with thetestimony here cited. His attestation to the Acts of the Apostles is noless Positive: "And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet, relating theacts of the apostles. " The universality with which the Scriptures werethen read is well signified by this writer in a passage in which he hasoccasion to observe against Celsus, "That it is not in any privatebooks, or such as are read by a few only, and those studious persons, but in books read by everybody, That it is written, The invisible thingsof God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understoodby things that are made. " It is to no purpose to single out quotationsof Scripture from such a writer as this. We might as well make aselection of the quotations of Scripture in Dr. Clarke's Sermons. Theyare so thickly sown in the works of Origen, that Dr. Mill says, "If wehad all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the wholetext of the Bible. " (Mill, Proleg. Esp. Vi. P. 66. )

Origen notices, in order to censure, certain apocryphal Gospels. He alsouses four writings of this sort; that is, throughout his large works heonce or twice, at the most, quotes each of the four; but always withsome mark, either of direct reprobation or of caution to his readers, manifestly esteeming them of little or no authority. 

XIV. Gregory, bishop of Neocaesaea, and Dionysius of Alexandria, werescholars of Origen. Their testimony, therefore, though full andparticular, may be reckoned a repetition only of his. The series, however, of evidence is continued by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, whoflourished within twenty years after Origen. "The church, " said thisfather, "is watered, like Paradise, by four rivers, that is, by fourGospels. " The Acts of the Apostles is also frequently quoted by Cyprianunder that name, and under the name of the "Divine Scriptures. " In hisvarious writings are such constant and copious citations of Scripture, as to place this part of the testimony beyond controversy. Nor is there, in the works of this eminent African bishop, one quotation of a spuriousor apocryphal Christian writing. 

XV. Passing over a crowd* of writers following Cyprian at differentdistances, but all within forty years of his time; and who all, in theperfect remains of their works, either cite the historical Scriptures ofthe New Testament, or speak of them in terms of profound respect: Isingle out Victorin, bishop of Pettaw, in Germany, merely on account ofthe remoteness of his situation from that of Origen and Cyprian, whowere Africans; by which circumstance his testimony, taken in conjunctionwith theirs, proves that the Scripture histories, and the samehistories, were known and received from one side of the Christian worldto the other. This bishop (Lardner, vol. V. P. 214. ) lived about theyear 290: and in a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, "Thefirst was like a lion, the second was like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle, " he makes out that by the fourcreatures are intended the four Gospels; and, to show the propriety ofthe symbols, he recites the subject with which each evangelist opens hishistory. The explication is fanciful, but the testimony positive. Healso expressly cites the Acts of the Apostles. 

_________

* Novatus, Rome, A. D. 251; Dionysius, Rome, A. D. 259; Commodian, A. D. 270; Anatolius, Laodicea, A. D. 270; Theognostus A. D. 282; MethodiusLycia, A. D. 290; Phileas, Egypt, A. D. 296. _________

XVI. Arnobius and Lactantius (Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 43, 201. ), aboutthe year 300, composed formal arguments upon the credibility of theChristian religion. As these arguments were addressed to Gentiles, theauthors abstain from quoting Christian books by name, one of them givingthis very reason for his reserve; but when they came to state, for theinformation of their readers, the outlines of Christ's history, it isapparent that they draw their accounts from our Gospels, and from noother sources; for these statements exhibit a summary of almosteverything which is related of Christ's actions and miracles by the fourevangelists. Arnobius vindicates, without mentioning their names, thecredit of these historians; observing that they were eye-witnesses ofthe facts which they relate, and that their ignorance of the arts ofcomposition was rather a confirmation of their testimony, than anobjection to it. Lactantius also argues in defence of the religion, fromthe consistency, simplicity, disinterestedness, and sufferings of theChristian historians, meaning by that term our evangelists. 

XVII. We close the series of testimonies with that of Eusebius, (Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 33. ) bishop of Caesarea who flourished in the year 315, contemporary with, or posterior only by fifteen years to, the authorslast cited. This voluminous writer, and most diligent collector of thewritings of others, beside a variety of large works, composed a historyof the affairs of Christianity from its origin to his own time. Histestimony to the Scriptures is the testimony of a man much conversant inthe works of Christian authors, written during the first three centuriesof its era, and who had read many which are now lost. In a passage ofhis Evangelical Demonstration, Eusebius remarks, with great nicety, thedelicacy of two of the evangelists, in their manner of noticing anycircumstance which regarded themselves; and of Mark, as writing underPeter's direction, in the circumstances which regarded him. Theillustration of this remark leads him to bring together long quotationsfrom each of the evangelists: and the whole passage is a proof thatEusebius, and the Christians of those days, not only read the Gospels, but studied them with attention and exactness. In a passage of hisecclesiastical History, he treats, in form, and at large, of theoccasions of writing the four Gospels, and of the order in which theywere written. The title of the chapter is, "Of the Order of theGospels;" and it begins thus: "Let us observe the writings of thisapostle John, which are not contradicted by any: and, first of all, mustbe mentioned, as acknowledged by all, the Gospel according to him, well-known to all the churches under heaven; and that it has been justlyplaced by the ancients the fourth in order, and after the other three, may be made evident in this manner. "--Eusebius then proceeds to showthat John wrote the last of the four, and that his Gospel was intendedto supply the omissions of the others; especially in the part of ourLord's ministry which took place before the imprisonment of John theBaptist. He observes, "that the apostles of Christ were not studious ofthe ornaments of composition, nor indeed forward to write at all, beingwholly occupied with their ministry. "

This learned author makes no use at all of Christian writings, forgedwith the names of Christ's apostle, or their companions. We close thisbranch of our evidence here, because, after Eusebius, there is no roomfor any question upon the subject; the works of Christian writers beingas full of texts of Scripture, and of references to Scripture, as thediscourses of modern divines. Future testimonies to the books of Scripturecould only prove that they never lost their character or authority. 

SECTION II. 

When the Scriptures are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted withpeculiar respect, as books sui generis; as possessing an authority whichbelonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions andcontroversies amongst Christians. 

Beside the general strain of reference and quotation, which uniformlyand strongly indicates this distinction, the following may be regardedas specific testimonies:

I. Theophilus, (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. I. P. 429. ) bishop ofAntioch, the sixth in succession from the apostles, and who flourishedlittle more than a century after the books of the New Testament werewritten, having occasion to quote one of our Gospels, writes thus:"These things the Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were moved bythe Holy Spirit, among whom John says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. " Again: "Concerning the righteousness whichthe law teaches, the like things are to be found in the prophets and theGospels, because that all, being inspired, spoke by one and the sameSpirit of God. " (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. I. P. 448. ) No words cantestify more strongly than these do, the high and peculiar respect inwhich these books were holden. 

II. A writer against Artemon, (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. Iii. P. 40. )who may be supposed to come about one hundred and fifty-eight yearsafter the publication of the Scripture, in a passage quoted byEusebius, uses these expressions: "Possibly what they (our adversaries)say, might have been credited, if first of all the Divine Scriptures didnot contradict them; and then the writings of certain brethren moreancient than the times of Victor. " The brethren mentioned by name areJustin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, Irenaeus, Melito, with a generalappeal to many more not named. This passage proves, first, that therewas at that time a collection called Divine Scriptures; secondly, thatthese Scriptures were esteemed of higher authority than the writings ofthe most early and celebrated Christians. 

III. In a piece ascribed to Hippolytus, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 112. ) who lived near the same time, the author professes, in giving hiscorrespondent instruction in the things about which he inquires, "todraw out of the sacred-fountain, and to set before him from the SacredScriptures what may afford him satisfaction. " He then quotes immediatelyPaul's epistles to Timothy, and afterwards many books of the NewTestament. This preface to the quotations carries in it a markeddistinction between the Scriptures and other books. 

IV. "Our assertions and discourses, " saith Origen, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. Pp. 287-289. ) "are unworthy of credit; we must receive theScriptures as witnesses. " After treating of the duty of prayer, heproceeds with his argument thus: "What we have said, may be proved fromthe Divine Scriptures. " In his books against Celsus we find thispassage: "That our religion teaches us to seek after wisdom, shall beshown, both out of the ancient Jewish Scriptures which we also use, andout of those written since Jesus, which are believed in the churches tobe divine. " These expressions afford abundant evidence of the peculiarand exclusive authority which the Scriptures possessed. 

V. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Vi. P. 840. ) whoseage lies close to that of Origen, earnestly exhorts Christian teachers, in all doubtful cases, "to go back to the fountain; and, if the truthhas in any case been shaken, to recur to the Gospels and apostolicwritings. "--"The precepts of the Gospel, " says he in another place, "arenothing less than authoritative divine lessons, the foundations of ourhope, the supports of our faith, the guides of our way, the safeguardsof our course to heaven. "

VI. Novatus, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. V. P. 102. ) a Roman contemporary withCyprian, appeals to the Scriptures, as the authority by which allerrors were to be repelled, and disputes decided. "That Christ is notonly man, but God also, is proved by the sacred authority of the DivineWritings. "--"The Divine Scripture easily detects and confutes the fraudsof heretics. "--"It is not by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, whichnever deceive. " Stronger assertions than these could not be used. 

VII. At the distance of twenty years from the writer last cited, Anatolius (Lardner, Cred. Vol. V. P. 146. ), a learned Alexandrian, andbishop of Laedicea, speaking of the rule for keeping Easter, a questionat that day agitated with much earnestness, says of those whom heopposed, "They can by no means prove their point by the authority of theDivine Scripture. "

VIII. The Arians, who sprung up about fifty years after this, arguedstrenuously against the use of the words consubstantial, and essence, and like phrases; "because they were not in Scripture. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Vii. Pp. 283-284. ) And in the same strain one of their advocatesopens a conference with Augustine, after the following manner: "If yousay what is reasonable, I must submit. If you allege anything from theDivine Scriptures which are common to both, I must hear. Butunscriptural expressions (quae extra Scripturam sunt) deserve noregard. "

Athanasius, the great antagonist of Arianism, after having enumeratedthe books of the Old and New Testament, adds, "These are the fountainof salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oraclescontained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation isproclaimed. Let no man add to them, or take anything from them. "(Lardner, Cred. Vol. Xii. P. 182. )

IX. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Viii. P. 276. ), whowrote about twenty years after the appearance of Arianism, uses theseremarkable words: "Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith, not the least article ought to be delivered without the DivineScriptures. " We are assured that Cyril's Scriptures were the same asours, for he has left us a catalogue of the books included under thatname. 

X. Epiphanius, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Viii. P. 314. ) twenty years afterCyril, challenges the Arians, and the followers of Origen, "to produceany passage of the Old and New Testament favouring their sentiments. "

XI. Poebadius, a Gallic bishop, who lived about thirty years after thecouncil of Nice, testifies, that "the bishops of that council firstconsulted the sacred volumes, and then declared their faith. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ix. P. 52. )

XII. Basil, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, contemporary withEpiphanius, says, that "hearers instructed in the Scriptures ought toexamine what is said by their teachers, and to embrace what is agreeableto the Scriptures, and to reject what is otherwise. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ix. P. 124. )

XIII. Ephraim, the Syrian, a celebrated writer of the same times, bearsthis conclusive testimony to the proposition which forms the subject ofour present chapter: "the truth written in the Sacred Volume of theGospel is a perfect rule. Nothing can be taken from it nor added to it, without great guilt. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ix. P. 202. )

XIV. If we add Jerome to these, it is only for the evidence which heaffords of the judgment of preceding ages. Jerome observes, concerningthe quotations of ancient Christian writers, that is, of writers whowere ancient in the year 400, that they made a distinction betweenbooks; some they quoted as of authority, and others not: whichobservation relates to the books of Scripture, compared with otherwritings, apocryphal or heathen. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. X. Pp. 123-124. )

SECTION III. 

The Scriptures were in very early times collected into a distinctvolume. 

Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch within forty years after theAscension, and who had lived and conversed with the apostles, speaks ofthe Gospel and of the apostles in terms which render it very probablethat he meant by the Gospel the book or volume of the Gospels, and bythe apostles the book or volume of their Epistles. His words in oneplace are, (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. I. P. 180. ) "Fleeing to theGospel as the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as the presbytery ofthe church;" that is, as Le Clere interprets them, "in order tounderstand the will of God, he fled to the Gospels, which he believed noless than if Christ in the flesh had been speaking to him; and to thewritings of the apostles, whom he esteemed as the presbytery of thewhole Christian church. " It must be observed, that about eighty yearsafter this we have direct proof, in the writings of Clement ofAlexandria, (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. Ii. P. 516. ) that these twonames, "Gospel, " and "Apostles, " were the names by which the writings ofthe New Testament, and the division of these writings, were usuallyexpressed. 

Another passage from Ignatius is the following:--"But the Gospel hassomewhat in it more excellent, the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, his passion and resurrection. " (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. Ii. P. 182. )

And a third: "Ye ought to hearken to the Prophets, but especially to thegospel, in which the passion has been manifested to us, and theresurrection perfected. " In this last passage, the Prophets and theGospel are put in conjunction; and as Ignatius undoubtedly meant by theprophets a collection of writings, it is probable that he meant the sameby the Gospel, the two terms standing in evident parallelism with eachother. 

This interpretation of the word "Gospel, " in the passages above quotedfrom Ignatius, is confirmed by a piece of nearly equal antiquity, therelation of the martyrdom of Polycarp by the church of Smyrna. "Allthings, " say they, "that went before, were done, that the Lord mightshow us a martyrdom according to the Gospel, for he expected to bedelivered up as the Lord also did. " (Ignat. Ep. C. I. ) And in anotherplace, "We do not commend those who offer themselves, forasmuch as theGospel, teaches us no such thing. " (Ignat. Ep. C. Iv. ) In both theseplaces, what is called the Gospel seems to be the history of JesusChrist, and of his doctrine. 

If this be the true sense of the passages, they are not only evidencesof our proposition, by strong and very ancient proofs of the high esteemin which the books of the New Testament were holden. 

II. Eusebius relates, that Quadratus and some others, who were theimmediate successors of the apostles, travelling abroad to preachChrist, carried the Gospels with them, and delivered them to theirconverts. The words of Eusebius are: "Then travelling abroad, theyperformed the work of evangelists, being ambitious to preach Christ, anddeliver the Scripture of the divine Gospels. " (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. I. P. 236. ) Eusebius had before him the writings both of Quadratushimself, and of many others of that age, which are now lost. It isreasonable, therefore to believe that he had good grounds for hisassertion. What is thus recorded of the Gospels took place within sixty, or at the most seventy, years after they were published: and it isevident that they must, before this time (and, it is probable, longbefore this time), have been in general use and in high esteem in thechurches planted by the apostles, inasmuch as they were now, we find, collected into a volume: and the immediate successors of the apostles, they who preached the religion of Christ to those who had not alreadyheard it, carried the volume with them, and delivered it to theirconverts. 

III. Irenaeus, in the year 178, (Lardner, Cred. Part ii. Vol. I. P. 383. )puts the evangelic and apostolic writings in connexion with the Law andthe Prophets, manifestly intending by the one a code or collection ofChristian sacred writings, as the other expressed the code or collectionof Jewish sacred writings. And, IV. Melito, at this time bishop of Sardis, writing to one Onesimus, tells his correspondent, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 331. ) that he hadprocured an accurate account of the books of the Old Testament. Theoccurrence in this message of the term Old Testament has been brought toprove, and it certainly does prove, that there was then a volume orcollection of writings called the New Testament. 

V. In the time of Clement of Alexandria, about fifteen years after thelast quoted testimony, it is apparent that the Christian Scriptures weredivided into two parts, under the general titles of the Gospels andApostles; and that both these were regarded as of the highest authority. One out of many expressions of Clement, alluding to this distribution, is the following: "There is a consent and harmony between the Law andthe Prophets, the Apostles and the Gospel. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 516. )

VI. The same division, "Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles, " appears inTertullian, the contemporary of Clement. The collection of the Gospelsis likewise called by this writer the "Evangelic Instrument;" the wholevolume the "New Testament;" and the two parts, the "Gospels andApostles. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. Pp. 631, 574 & 632. )

VII. From many writers also of the third century, and especially fromCyprian, who lived in the middle of it, it is collected that theChristian Scriptures were divided into two cedes or volumes, one calledthe "Gospels or Scriptures of the Lord, " the other the "Apostles, orEpistles of the Apostles" (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iv. P. 846. )

VIII. Eusebius, as we have already seen, takes some pains to show thatthe Gospel of Saint John had been justly placed by the ancients, "thefourth in order, and after the other three. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Viii. P. 90. ) These are the terms of his proposition: and the veryintroduction of such an argument proves incontestably, that the fourGospels had been collected into a volume, to the exclusion of everyother: that their order in the volume had been adjusted with muchconsideration; and that this had been done by those who were calledancients in the time of Eusebius. 

In the Diocletian persecution, in the year 303, the Scriptures weresought out and burnt:(Lardner, Cred. Vol. Vii. Pp. 214 et seq. ) manysuffered death rather than deliver them up; and those who betrayed themto the persecutors were accounted as lapsed and apostate. On the otherhand, Constantine, after his conversion, gave directions for multiplyingcopies of the Divine Oracles, and for magnificently adorning them at theexpense of the imperial treasury. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Vii. P. 432. ) Whatthe Christians of that age so richly embellished in their prosperity, and, which is more, so tenaciously preserved under persecution, was thevery volume of the New Testament which we now read. 

SECTION IV. 

Our present Sacred Writings were soon distinguished by appropriate namesand titles of respect. 

Polycarp. "I trust that ye are well exercised in the HolyScriptures;--as in these Scriptures it is said, Be ye angry and sin not, and let not the sun go down upon your wrath. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 203. ) This passage is extremely important; because it proves that, inthe time of Polycarp, who had lived with the apostles, there wereChristian writings distinguished by the name of "Holy Scriptures, " orSacred Writings. Moreover, the text quoted by Polycarp is a text foundin the collection at this day. What also the same Polycarp hathelsewhere quoted in the same manner, may be considered as proved tobelong to the collection; and this comprehends Saint Matthew's and, probably, Saint Luke's Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, ten epistles ofPaul, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First of John. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 223. ) In another place, Polycarp has these words: "Whoeverperverts the Oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says there isneither resurrection nor judgment, he is the first born of Satan. "(Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 223. )--It does not appear what else Polycarpcould mean by the "Oracles of the Lord, " but those same "HolyScriptures, " or Sacred Writings, of which he had spoken before. 

II. Justin Martyr, whose apology was written about thirty years afterPolycarp's epistle, expressly cites some of our present histories underthe title of Gospel, and that not as a name by him first ascribed tothem, but as the name by which they were generally known in his time. His words are these:--"For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered it, that Jesus commandedthem to take bread, and give thanks. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 271. )There exists no doubt, but that, by the memoirs above-mentioned, Justinmeant our present historical Scriptures; for throughout his works hequotes these and no others. 

III. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who came thirty years after Justin, in a passage preserved in Eusebius (for his works are lost), speaks "ofthe Scriptures of the Lord. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 298. )

IV. And at the same time, or very nearly so, by Irenaeus, bishop ofLyons in France, (The reader will observe the remoteness of these twowriters in country and situation) they are called "DivineScriptures, "--"Divine Oracles, "--"Scriptures of the Lord, "--"Evangelicand Apostolic writings. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 343, et seq. ) Thequotations of Irenaeus prove decidedly, that our present Gospels, andthese alone, together with the Acts of the Apostles, were the historicalbooks comprehended by him under these appellations. 

V. Saint Matthew's Gospel is quoted by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, contemporary with Irenaeus, under the title of the "Evangelic voice;"(Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 427. ) and the copious works of Clement ofAlexandria, published within fifteen years of the same time, ascribeto the books of the New Testament the various titles of "SacredBooks, "--"Divine Scriptures, "--"Divinely inspired Scriptures, "--"Scriptures of the Lord, "--"the true Evangelical Canon. "(Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 515. )

VI. Tertullian, who joins on with Clement, beside adopting most of thenames and epithets above noticed, calls the Gospels "our Digesta, " inallusion, as it should seem, to some collection of Roman laws thenextant. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 630. )

VII. By Origen, who came thirty years after Tertullian, the same, andother no less strong titles, are applied to the Christian Scriptures:and, in addition thereunto, this writer frequently speaks of the "Oldand New Testament, "--"the Ancient and New Scriptures, "--"the Ancient andNew Oracles. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 230. )

VIII. In Cyprian, who was not twenty years later, they are "Books of theSpirit, "--"Divine Fountains, "--"Fountains of the Divine Fulness. "(Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iv. P. 844. )

The expressions we have thus quoted are evidences of high and peculiarrespect. They all occur within two centuries from the publication of thebooks. Some of them commence with the companions of the apostles; andthey increase in number and variety, through a series of writerstouching upon one another, and deduced from the first age of thereligion. 

SECTION V. 

Our Scriptures were publicly read and expounded in the religiousassemblies of the early Christians. Justin MARTYR, who wrote in the year140, which was seventy or eighty years after some, and less, probably, after others of the Gospels were published, giving, in his first apologyan account, to the Emperor, of the Christian worship has this remarkablepassage:

"The Memoirs of the Apostles, or the Writings of the Prophets, are readaccording as the time allows: and, when the reader has ended, thepresident makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of so excellentthings. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 273. )

A few short observations will show the value of this testimony. 

1. The "Memoirs of the Apostles, " Justin in another place expresslytells us, are what are called "Gospels:" and that they were the Gospelswhich we now use, is made certain by Justin's numerous quotations ofthem, and his silence about any others. 

2. Justin describes the general usage of the Christian church. 

3. Justin does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in theterms in which men speak of established customs. 

II. Tertullian, who followed Justin at the distance of about fiftyyears, in his account of the religious assemblies of Christians as theywere conducted in his time, says, "We come together to recollect theDivine Scriptures; we nourish our faith, raise our hope, confirm ourtrust, by the Sacred Word. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 628. )

III. Eusebius records of Origen, and cites for his authority the lettersof bishops contemporary with Origen, that when he went into Palestineabout the year 216, which was only sixteen years after the date ofTertullian's testimony, he was desired by the bishops of that country todiscourse and expound the Scriptures publicly in the church, though hewas not yet ordained a presbyter. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 68. ) Thisanecdote recognises the usage, not only of reading, but of expoundingthe Scriptures; and both as subsisting in full force. Origen alsohimself bears witness to the same practice: "This, " says he, "we do, when the Scriptures are read in the church, and when the discourse forexplication is delivered to the people. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 302. ) And what is a still more ample testimony, many homilies of hisupon the Scriptures of the New Testament, delivered by him in theassemblies of the church, are still extant. 

IV. Cyprian, whose age was not twenty years lower than that of Origen, gives his people an account of having ordained two persons, who werebefore confessors, to be readers; and what they were to read appears bythe reason which he gives for his choice; "Nothing, " says Cyprian, "canbe more fit than that he who has made a glorious confession of the Lordshould read publicly in the church; that he who has shown himselfwilling to die a martyr should read the Gospel of Christ by whichmartyrs are made. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iv. P. 842. )

V. Intimations of the same custom may be traced in a great number ofwriters in the beginning and throughout the whole of the fourth century. Of these testimonies I will only use one, as being, of itself, expressand full. Augustine, who appeared near the conclusion of the century, displays the benefit of the Christian religion on this very account, thepublic reading of the Scriptures in the churches, "where, " says he, "isa consequence of all sorts of people of both sexes; and where they hearhow they ought to live well in this world, that they may deserve to livehappily and eternally in another. " And this custom he declares to beuniversal: "The canonical books of Scripture being read every where, themiracles therein recorded are well known to all people. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. X. P. 276, et seq. )

It does not appear that any books, other than our present Scriptureswere thus publicly read, except that the epistle of Clement was read inthe church of Corinth, to which it had been addressed, and in someothers; and that the Shepherd of Hennas was read in many churches. Nordoes it subtract much from the value of the argument, that these twowritings partly come within it, because we allow them to be the genuinewritings of apostolical men. There is not the least evidence, that anyother Gospel than the four which we receive was ever admitted to thisdistinction. 

SECTION VI. 

Commentaries were anciently written upon the Scriptures; harmoniesformed out of them; different copies carefully collated; and versionsmade of them into different languages. 

No greater proof can be given of the esteem in which these books wereholden by the ancient Christians, or of the sense then entertained oftheir value and importance, than the industry bestowed upon them. Andit ought to be observed that the value and importance of these booksconsisted entirely in their genuineness and truth. There was nothing inthem, as works of taste or as compositions, which could have induced anyone to have written a note upon them. Moreover, it shows that they wereeven then considered as ancient books. Men do not write comments uponpublications of their own times: therefore the testimonies cited underthis head afford an evidence which carries up the evangelic writingsmuch beyond the age of the testimonies themselves, and to that of theirreputed authors. 

I. Tatian, a follower of Justin Martyr, and who flourished about theyear 170, composed a harmony, or collation of the Gospels, which hecalled Diatessaron, of the four. The title, as well as the work, isremarkable; because it shows that then, as now, there were four, andonly four, Gospels in general use with Christians. And this was littlemore than a hundred years after the publication of some of them. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 307. )

II. Pantaenus, of the Alexandrian school, a man of great reputation andlearning, who came twenty years after Tatian, wrote many commentariesupon the Holy Scriptures, which, as Jerome testifies, were extant in histime. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. I. P. 455. )

III. Clement of Alexandria wrote short explications of many books of theOld and New Testament. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 462. )

IV. Tertullian appeals from the authority of a later version, then inuse, to the authentic Greek. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 638. )

V. An anonymous author, quoted by Eusebius, and who appears to havewritten about the year 212, appeals to the ancient copies of theScriptures, in refutation of some corrupt readings alleged by thefollowers of Artemon. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 46. )

VI. The same Eusebius, mentioning by name several writers of the churchwho lived at this time, and concerning whom he says, "There still remaindivers monuments of the laudable industry of those ancient andecclesiastical men, " (i. E. Of Christian writers who were considered asancient in the year 300, ) adds, "There are, besides, treatises of manyothers, whose names we have not been able to learn, orthodox andecclesiastical men, as the interpretations of the Divine Scripturesgiven by each of them show. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 551. )

VII. The last five testimonies may be referred to the year 200;immediately after which, a period of thirty years gives us JuliusAfricanus, who wrote an epistle upon the apparent difference in thegenealogies in Matthew and Luke, which he endeavours to reconcile by thedistinction of natural and legal descent, and conducts his hypothesiswith great industry through the whole series of generations. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 170. )

Ammonius, a learned Alexandrian, who composed, as Tatian had done, aharmony of the four Gospels, which proves, as Tatian's work did, thatthere were four Gospels, and no more, at this time in use in the church. It affords also on instance of the zeal of Christians for thosewritings, and of their solicitude about them. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 122. )

And, above both these, Origen, who wrote commentaries, or homilies, uponmost of the books included in the New Testament, and upon no other booksbut these. In particular, he wrote upon Saint John's Gospel, verylargely upon Saint Matthew's, and commentaries, or homilies, upon theActs of the Apostles. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. Pp. 352, 192, 202 & 245. )

VIII. In addition to these, the third century likewisecontains--Dionysius of Alexandria, a very learned man, who compared, with great accuracy, the accounts in the four Gospels of the time ofChrist's resurrection, adding a reflection which showed his opinion oftheir authority: "Let us not think that the evangelists disagree orcontradict each other, although there be some small difference; but letus honestly and faithfully endeavour to reconcile what we read. "(Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iv. P. 166. )

Victorin, bishop of Pettaw, in Germany, who wrote comments upon SaintMatthew's Gospel. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iv. P. 195. )

Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch; and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, whoput forth editions of the New Testament. 

IX. The fourth century supplies a catalogue* of fourteen writers, whoexpended their labours upon the books of the New Testament, and whoseworks or names are come down to our times; amongst which number it maybe sufficient, for the purpose of showing the sentiments and studies oflearned Christians of that age, to notice the following:

_________

* Eusebius . .. .. . A. D. 315Juvencus, Spain . .. .. 330Theodore, Thrace . .. . 334Hilary, Poletiers . .. . 340Fortunatus . .. .. 354Apollinarius of Loadicea 362Damasus, Rome . .. .. 366Gregory, Nyssen . .. . 371Didimus of Alex, . . . . 370Ambrose of Milan . .. .. 374Diodore of Tarsus . .. .. 378Gaudent of Brescia . .. . 387Theodore of Cilicia . .. . 395Jerome . .. .. .. . 392Chrysostom . .. .. . 398_________

Eusebius, in the very beginning of the century, wrote expressly upon thediscrepancies observable in the Gospels, and likewise a treatise, inwhich he pointed out what things are related by four, what by three, what by two, and what by one evangelist. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Viii. P. 46. ) This author also testifies what is certainly a material piece ofevidence, "that the writings of the apostles had obtained such an esteemas to be translated into every language both of Greeks and Barbarians, and to be diligently studied by all nations. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Viii. P. 201. ) This testimony was given about the year 300; how long beforethat date these translations were made does not appear. 

Damasus, bishop of Rome, corresponded with Saint Jerome upon theexposition of difficult texts of Scripture; and, in a letter stillremaining, desires Jerome to give him a clear explanation of the wordHosanna, found in the New Testament; "He (Damasus) having met with verydifferent interpretations of it in the Greek and Latin commentaries ofCatholic writers which he had read. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ix. P. 108)This last clause shows the number and variety of commentaries thenextant. 

Gregory of Nyssen, at one time, appeals to the most exact copies ofSaint Mark's Gospel; at another time, compares together, and proposes toreconcile, the several accounts of the Resurrection given by the fourEvangelists; which limitation proves that there were no other historiesof Christ deemed authentic beside these, or included in the samecharacter with these. This writer observes, acutely enough, that "thedisposition of the clothes in the sepulchre, the napkin that was aboutour Saviour's head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrappedtogether in a place by itself, did not bespeak the terror and hurry ofthieves, and therefore refutes the story of the body beingstolen. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ix. P. 163. )

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, remarked various readings in the Latin copiesof the New Testament, and appeals to the original Greek;

And Jerome, towards the conclusion of this century, put forth an editionof the New Testament in Latin, corrected, at least as to the Gospels, byGreek copies, and "those (he says) ancient. "

Lastly, Chrysostom, it is well known, delivered and published a greatmany homilies, or sermons, upon the Gospels and the Acts of theApostles. 

It is needless to bring down this article lower, but it is of importanceto add, that there is no example of Christian writers of the first threecenturies composing comments upon any other books than those which arefound in the New Testament, except the single one of Clement ofAlexandria commenting upon a book called the Revelation of Peter. 

Of the ancient versions of the New Testament, one of the most valuableis the Syriac. Syriac was the language of Palestine when Christianitywas there first established. And although the books of Scripture werewritten in Greek, for the purpose of a more extended circulation thanwithin the precincts of Judea, yet it is probable that they would soonbe translated into the vulgar language of the country where the religionfirst prevailed. Accordingly, a Syriac translation is now extant, allalong, so far as it appears, used by the inhabitants of Syria, bearingmany internal marks of high antiquity, supported in its pretensions bythe uniform tradition of the East, and confirmed by the discovery ofmany very ancient manuscripts in the libraries of Europe, It is about200 years since a bishop of Antioch sent a copy of this translation intoEurope to be printed; and this seems to be the first time that thetranslation became generally known to these parts of the world. Thebishop of Antioch's Testament was found to contain all our books, exceptthe second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and theRevelation; which books, however, have since been discovered in thatlanguage in some ancient manuscripts of Europe. But in this collection, no other book, besides what is in ours, appears ever to have had aplace. And, which is very worthy of observation, the text, thoughpreserved in a remote country, and without communication with ours, differs from ours very little, and in nothing that is important (Joneson the Canon, vol. I. E. 14. ). 

SECTION VII. 

Our Scriptures were received by ancient Christians of different sectsand persuasions, but many Heretics as well as Catholics, and wereusually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose inthose days. 

The three most ancient topics of controversy amongst Christians were, the authority of the Jewish constitution, the origin of evil, and thenature of Christ. Upon the first of these we find, in very early times, one class of heretics rejecting the Old Testament entirely; anothercontending for the obligation of its law, in all its parts, throughoutits whole extent, and over every one who sought acceptance with God. Upon the two latter subjects, a natural, perhaps, and venial, but afruitless, eager, and impatient curiosity, prompted by the philosophyand by the scholastic habits of the age, which carried men much intobold hypotheses and conjectural solutions, raised, amongst some whoprofessed Christianity, very wild and unfounded opinions. I think thereis no reason to believe that the number of these bore any considerableproportion to the body of the Christian church; and, amidst the disputeswhich such opinions necessarily occasioned, it is a great satisfactionto perceive what, in a vast plurality of instances, we do perceive, allsides recurring to the same Scriptures. 

*I. Basilides lived near the age of the apostles, about the year 120, or, perhaps, sooner. (Lardner, vol. Ix. P. 271. ) He rejected the Jewishinstitution, not as spurious, but as proceeding from a being inferior tothe true God; and in other respects advanced a scheme of theology widelydifferent from the general doctrine of the Christian church, and which, as it gained over some disciples, was warmly opposed by Christianwriters of the second and third century. In these writings there ispositive evidence that Basilides received the Gospel of Matthew; andthere is no sufficient proof that he rejected any of the other three: onthe contrary, it appears that he wrote a commentary upon the Gospel, socopious as to be divided into twenty-four books. (Lardner, vol. Ix. Ed. 1788, p. 305, 306. )

_________

* The materials of the former part of this section are taken from Dr. Lardner's History of the Heretics of the first two centuries, publishedsince his death, with additions, by the Rev. Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, andinserted into the ninth volume of his works, of the edition of 1778. _________

II. The Valentinians appeared about the same time. Their heresyconsisted in certain notions concerning angelic natures, which canhardly be rendered intelligible to a modern reader. They seem, however, to have acquired as much importance as any of the separatists of thatearly age. Of this sect, Irenaeus, who wrote A. D. 172, expressly recordsthat they endeavoured to fetch arguments for their opinions from theevangelic and apostolic writings. Heracleon, one of the most celebratedof the sect, and who lived probably so early as the year 125, wrotecommentaries upon Luke and John. Some observations also of his uponMatthew are preserved by Origen. Nor is there any reason to doubt thathe received the whole New Testament. (Lardner, vol. Ix. Ed. 1788, pp. 350-351; vol. I. P. 383; vol. Ix. Ed. 1788, p. 352-353. )

III. The Carpocratians were also an early heresy, little, if at all, later than the two preceding. Some of their opinions resembled what weat this day mean by Socinianism. With respect to the Scriptures, theyare specifically charged, by Irenaeus and by Epiphanius, withendeavouring to pervert a passage in Matthew, which amounts to apositive proof that they received that Gospel. Negatively, they are notaccused, by their adversaries, of rejecting any part of the NewTestament. (Lardner, vol. Ix. Ed. 1788, pp. 309 & 318. )

IV. The Sethians, A. D. 150; the Montanists, A. D. 156; the Marcosigns, A. D. 160; Hermogenes, A. D. 180; Praxias, A. D. 196; Artemon, A. D. 200;Theodotus, A. D. 200; all included under the denomination of heretics, and all engaged in controversies with Catholic Christians, received theScriptures of the New Testament. (Lardner, vol. Ix. Ed. 1788, pp. 455, 482, 348, 473, 433, 466. )

V. Tatian, who lived in the year 172, went into many extravagantopinions, was the founder of a sect called Encratites, and was deeplyinvolved in disputes with the Christians of that age; yet Tatian soreceived the four Gospels as to compose a harmony from them. 

VI. From a writer quoted by Eusebius, of about the year 200, it isapparent that they who at that time contended for the mere humanity ofChrist, argued from the Scriptures; for they are accused by this writerof making alterations in their copies in order to favour theiropinions. (Lardner, vol. Iii. P. 46. )

VII. Origen's sentiments excited great controversies, --the bishops ofRome and Alexandria, and many others, condemning, the bishops of theeast espousing them; yet there is not the smallest question but thatboth the advocates and adversaries of these opinions acknowledged thesame authority of Scripture. In his time, which the reader will rememberwas about one hundred and fifty years after the Scriptures werepublished, many dissensions subsisted amongst Christians, with whichthey were reproached by Celsus; yet Origen, who has recorded thisaccusation without contradicting it, nevertheless testifies, that thefour Gospels were received without dispute, by the whole church of Godunder heaven. (Lardner, vol. Iv. Ed. 1788, p. 642. )

VIII. Paul of Samosata, about thirty years after Origen, sodistinguished himself in the controversy concerning the nature of Christas to be the subject of two councils or synods, assembled at Antioch, upon his opinions. Yet he is not charged by his adversaries withrejecting any book of the New Testament. On the contrary, Epiphanius, who wrote a history of heretics a hundred years afterwards, says, thatPaul endeavoured to support his doctrine by texts of Scripture. AndVincentius Lirinensis, A. D. 434, speaking of Paul and other heretics ofthe same age, has these words: "Here, perhaps, some one may ask whetherheretics also urge the testimony of Scripture. They urge it, indeed, explicitly and vehemently; for you may see them flying through everybook of the sacred law. " (Lardner, vol. Ix. P. 158. )

IX. A controversy at the same time existed with the Noetians orSabellians, who seem to have gone into the opposite extreme from that ofPaul of Samosata and his followers. Yet according to the expresstestimony of Epiphanius, Sabellius received all the Scriptures. And withboth sects Catholic writers constantly allege the Scriptures, and replyto the arguments which their opponents drew from particular texts. 

We have here, therefore, a proof, that parties who were the mostopposite and irreconcilable to one another acknowledged the authority ofScripture with equal deference. 

X. And as a general testimony to the same point, may be produced whatwas said by one of the bishops of the council of Carthage, which washolden a little before this time:--"I am of opinion that blasphemous andwicked heretics, who pervert the sacred and adorable words of theScripture, should be execrated. " Undoubtedly, what they perverted theyreceived. (Lardner, vol. Ix. P. 839. )

XI. The Millennium, Novatianism, the baptism of heretics, the keeping ofEaster, engaged also the attention and divided the opinions ofChristians, at and before that time (and, by the way, it may beobserved, that such disputes, though on some accounts to be blamed, showed how much men were in earnest upon the subject. ); yet every oneappealed for the grounds of his opinion to Scripture authority. Dionysius of Alexandria, who flourished A. D. 247, describing aconference or public disputation, with the Millennarians of Egypt, confesses of them, though their adversary, "that they embrace whatevercould be made out by good arguments, from the Holy Scriptures. "(Lardner, vol. Iv. P. 666. ) Novatus, A. D. 251, distinguished by somerigid sentiments concerning the reception of those who had lapsed, andthe founder of a numerous sect, in his few remaining works quotes theGospel with the same respect as other Christians did; and concerning hisfollowers, the testimony of Socrates, who wrote about the year 440, ispositive, viz. "That in the disputes between the Catholics and them, each side endeavoured to support itself by the authority of the DivineScriptures" (Lardner, vol. V. P. 105. )

XII. The Donatists, who sprung up in the year 328, used the sameScriptures as we do. "Produce, " saith Augustine, "some proof from theScriptures, whose authority is common to us both" (Lardner, vol. Vii. P. 243. )

XIII. It is perfectly notorious, that in the Arian controversy, whicharose soon after the year 300, both sides appealed to the sameScriptures, and with equal professions of deference and regard. TheArians, in their council of Antioch, A. D. 341, pronounce that "if anyone, contrary to the sound doctrine of the Scriptures, say, that the Sonis a creature, as one of the creatures, let him be an anathema. "(Lardner, vol. Vii. P. 277. ) They and the Athanasians mutually accuseeach other of using unscriptural phrases; which was a mutualacknowledgment of the conclusive authority of Scripture. 

XIV. The Priscillianists, A. D. 378, the Pelagians, A. D. 405 received thesame Scriptures as we do. (Lardner, vol. Ix. P. 325; vol. Xi p. 52. )

XV. The testimony of Chrysostom, who lived near the year 400, is sopositive in affirmation of the proposition which we maintain, that itmay form a proper conclusion of the argument. "The general reception ofthe Gospels is a proof that their history is true and consistent; for, since the writing of the Gospels, many heresies have arisen, holdingopinions contrary to what is contained in them, who yet receive theGospels either entire or in part. " (Lardner, vol. X. P. 316. ) I am notmoved by what may seem a deduction from Chrysostom's testimony, thewords, "entire or in part;" for if all the parts which were everquestioned in our Gospels were given up, it would not affect themiraculous origin of the religion in the smallest degree: e. G. 

Cerinthus is said by Epiphanius to have received the Gospel of Matthew, but not entire. What the omissions were does not appear. The commonopinion, that he rejected the first two chapters, seems to have been amistake. (Lardner, vol. Ix. Ed. 1788, p. 322. ) It is agreed, however, byall who have given any account of Cerinthus, that he taught that theHoly Ghost (whether he meant by that name a person or a power) descendedupon Jesus at his baptism; that Jesus from this time performed manymiracles, and that he appeared after his death. He must have retainedtherefore the essential parts of the history. 

Of all the ancient heretics, the most extraordinary was Marcion. (Lardner, vol. Ix. Sect. Ii. C. X. Also Michael vol. I. C. I. Sect. Xviii. ) One of his tenets was the rejection of the Old Testament, asproceeding from an inferior and imperfect Deity; and in pursuance ofthis hypothesis, he erased from the New, and that, as it should seem, without entering into any critical reasons, every passage whichrecognised the Jewish Scriptures. He spared not a text whichcontradicted his opinion. It is reasonable to believe that Marciontreated books as he treated texts: yet this rash and wildcontroversialist published a recension, or chastised edition of SaintLuke's Gospel, containing the leading facts, and all which is necessaryto authenticate the religion. This example affords proof that there werealways some points, and those the main points, which neither wildnessnor rashness, neither the fury of opposition nor the intemperance ofcontroversy, would venture to call in question. There is no reason tobelieve that Marcion, though full of resentment against the CatholicChristians, ever charged them with forging their books. "The Gospel ofSaint Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, with those of Saint Peter andSaint James, as well as the Old Testament in general" he said, "werewritings not for Christians but for Jews. " This declaration shows theground upon which Marcion proceeded in his mutilation of the Scriptures, viz. , his dislike of the passages or the books. Marcion flourished aboutthe year 130. *

_________

* I have transcribed this sentence from Michaelis (p. 38), who has not, however, referred to the authority upon which he attributes these wordsto Marcion. _________

Dr. Lardner, in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in thefollowing words:--"Noitus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcelins, Photinus, the Novatiana, Donatists, Manicheans (This must be with anexception, however, of Faustus, who lived so late us the year 354), Priscillianists, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and diversothers, all received most of all the same books of the New Testamentwhich the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them aswritten by apostles, or their disciples and companions. " (Lardner, vol. Iii. P. 12. --Dr. Lardner's future inquiries supplied him with many otherinstances. )

SECTION VIII. 

The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of SaintPaul the First Epistle of John, and the First of Peter, were receivedwithout doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which areincluded in our present Canon. 

I state this proposition, because, if made out, it shows that theauthenticity of their books was a subject amongst the early Christiansof consideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause of doubt, they did doubt; a circumstance which strengthens very much theirtestimony to such books as were received by them with full acquiescence. 

I. Jerome, in his account of Caius, who was probably a presbyter ofRome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that, reckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the fourteenth, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his: and then Jerome adds, "With the Romans to this day it is not looked upon as Paul's. " Thisagrees in the main with the account given by Eusebius of the sameancient author and his work; except that Eusebius delivers his ownremark in more guarded terms: "And indeed to this very time, by some ofthe Romans, this epistle is not thought to be the apostle's. " (Lardner, vol. Iii. P. 240. )

II. Origen, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the Epistle to theHebrews, observes that some might dispute the authority of that epistle;and therefore proceeds to quote to the same point, as undoubted books ofScripture, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, andPaul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians. (Lardner, vol. Iii. P. 246. )and in another place, this author speaks of the Epistle to the Hebrewsthus: "The account come down to us is various; some saying that Clementwho was bishop of Rome, wrote this epistle; others, that it was Luke, the same who wrote the Gospel and the Acts. " Speaking also, in the sameparagraph, of Peter, "Peter, " says he, "has left one epistle, acknowledged; let it be granted likewise that he wrote a second, for itis doubted of. " And of John, "He has also left one epistle, of a veryfew lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow them tobe genuine. " Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates, and thus confesses his own doubts and the doubts which subsisted in histime, expressly witnesses concerning the four Gospels, "that they aloneare received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven. "(Lardner, vol. Iii. P. 234. )

III. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning theBook of Revelation, whether it was written by Saint John; states thegrounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion concerning it, in his own time, and before his time. (Lardner, vol. Iv. P. 670. ) Yetthe same Dionysius uses and collates the four Gospels in a manner whichshows that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their authority, and in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, werereceived as authentic histories of Christ. (Lardner, vol. Iv. P. 661. )

IV. But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose tointroduce to the reader two remarkable passages extant in Eusebius'sEcclesiastical History. The first passage opens with these words:--"Letus observe the writings of the apostle John which are uncontradicted:and first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospelaccording to him, well known to all the churches under heaven. " Theauthor then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the Gospels, andthe reasons for placing Saint John's the last, manifestly speaking ofall the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty oftheir original. (Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 90. ) The second passage is takenfrom a chapter, the title of which is, "Of the Scriptures universallyacknowledged, and of those that are not such. " Eusebius begins hisenumeration in the following manner:--"In the first place are to beranked the sacred four Gospels; then the book of the Acts of theApostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. In thenext place, that called the First Epistle of John, and the Epistle ofPeter, are to be esteemed authentic. After this is to be placed, if itbe thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe thedifferent opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet wellknown or approved by the most, are, that called the Epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third ofJohn, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the samename. " (Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 39. ) He then proceeds to reckon up fiveothers, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, inanother controverted, meaning, as appears to me, nearly the same thingby these two words. *

_________

* That Eusebius could not intend, by the wordrendered 'spurious' what we at present mean by it, is evident from aclause in this very chapter where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter, andThomas and Matthias, and some others, he says, "They the are not so muchas to be reckoned among the spurious, but are altogether absurd andimpious. " (Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 99. )_________

It is manifest from this passage, that the four Gospels, and the Acts ofthe Apostles (the parts of Scripture with which our concern principallylies), were acknowledged without dispute, even by those who raisedobjections, or entertained doubts, about some other parts of the samecollection. But the passage proves something more than this. The authorwas extremely conversant in the writings of Christians which had beenpublished from the commencement of the institution to his own time: andit was from these writings that he drew his knowledge of the characterand reception of the books in question. That Eusebius recurred to thismedium of information, and that he had examined with attention thisspecies of proof, is shown, first, by a passage in the very chapter weare quoting, in which, speaking of the books which he calls spurious, "None, " he says, "of the ecclesiastical writers, in the succession ofthe apostles, have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in theirwritings;" and, secondly, by another passage of the same work, wherein, speaking of the First Epistle of Peter, "This, " he says, "the presbytersof ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine;"(Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 99. ) and then, speaking of some other writingsbearing the name of Peter, "We know, " he says, "that they have not beendelivered down to us in the number of Catholic writings, forasmuch as noecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made use oftestimonies out of them. " "But in the progress of this history, " theauthor proceeds, "we shall make it our business to show, together withthe successions from the apostles, what ecclesiastical writers, in everyage, have used such writings as these which are contradicted, and whatthey have said with regard to the Scriptures received in the NewTestament, and acknowledged by all, and with regard to those which arenot such. " (Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 111)

After this it is reasonable to believe that when Eusebius states thefour Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, as uncontradicted, uncontested, and acknowledged by all; and when he places them inopposition, not only to those which were spurious, in our sense of thatterm, but to those which were controverted, and even to those which werewell known and approved by many, yet doubted of by some; he representsnot only the sense of his own age, but the result of the evidence whichthe writings of prior ages, from the apostles' time to his own, hadfurnished to his inquiries. The opinion of Eusebius and hiscontemporaries appears to have been founded upon the testimony ofwriters whom they then called ancient: and we may observe, that such ofthe works of these writers as have come down to our times entirelyconfirm the judgment, and support the distinction which Eusebiusproposes. The books which he calls "books universally acknowledged" arein fact used and quoted in time remaining works of Christian writers, during the 250 years between the apostles' time and that of Eusebius, much more frequently than, and in a different manner from, those theauthority of which, he tells us, was disputed. 

SECTION IX. 

Our historical Scriptures were attacked by the early adversaries ofChristianity, as containing the accounts upon which the Religion wasfounded. 

Near the middle of the second century, Celsus, a heathen philosopher, wrote a professed treatise against Christianity. To this treatiseOrigen, who came about fifty years after him, published an answer, inwhich he frequently recites his adversary's words and arguments. Thework of Celsus is lost; but that of Origen remains. Origen appears tohave given us the words of Celsus, where he professes to give them, veryfaithfully; and amongst other reasons for thinking so, this is one, thatthe objection, as stated by him from Celsus, is sometimes stronger thanhis own answer. I think it also probable that Origen, in his answer, hasretailed a large portion of the work of Celsus:

"That it may not be suspected, " he says, "that we pass by any chaptersbecause we have no answers at hand, I have thought it best, according tomy ability, to confute everything proposed by him, not so muchobserving the natural order of things, as the order which he has takenhimself. " (Orig. Cont. Cels. I. I. Sect. 41. )

Celsus wrote about one hundred years after the Gospels were published;and therefore any notices of these books from him are extremelyimportant for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more so bythe character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety ofthese books must have been well established amongst Christians, to havemade them subjects of animadversion and opposition by strangers and byenemies. It evinces the truth of what Chrysostom, two centuriesafterwards, observed, that "the Gospels, when written, were not hiddenin a corner or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all theworld, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now. " (InMatt. Hom. I. 7. )

1. Celsus, or the Jew whom he personates, uses these words:--"I couldsay many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, too, different from those written by the disciples of Jesus; but I purposelyomit them. " (Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Test. Vol. Ii. P. 274. ) Uponthis passage it has been rightly observed, that it is not easy tobelieve, that if Celsus could have contradicted the disciples upon goodevidence in any material point, he would have omitted to do so, and thatthe assertion is, what Origen calls it, a mere oratorical flourish. 

It is sufficient, however, to prove that, in the time of Celsus, therewere books well known, and allowed to be written by the disciples ofJesus, which books contained a history of him. By the term disciples, Celsus does not mean the followers of Jesus in general; for them hecalls Christians, or believers, or the like; but those who had beentaught by Jesus himself, i. E. His apostles and companions. 

2. In another passage, Celsus accuses the Christians of altering theGospel. (Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Test. Vol. Ii. P. 275. ) Theaccusation refers to some variations in the readings of particularpassages: for Celsus goes on to object, that when they are pressed hard, and one reading has been confuted, they disown that, and fly to another. We cannot perceive from Origen, that Celsus specified any particularinstances, and without such specification the charge is of no value. Butthe true conclusion to be drawn from it is, that there were in the handsof the Christians histories which were even then of some standing: forvarious readings and corruptions do not take place in recentproductions. 

The former quotation, the reader will remember, proves that these bookswere composed by the disciples of Jesus, strictly so called; the presentquotation shows, that though objections were taken by the adversaries ofthe religion to the integrity of these books, none were made to theirgenuineness. 

3. In a third passage, the Jew whom Celsus introduces shuts up anargument in this manner:--"these things then we have alleged to you outof your own writings, not needing any other weapons. " (Lardner, vol. Ii. P. 276. ) It is manifest that this boast proceeds upon the suppositionthat the books over which the writer affects to triumph possessed anauthority by which Christians confessed themselves to be bound. 

4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our presentGospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found inthese Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes twoof these Gospels; of the precepts, Resist not him that injures you, andif a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also; ofthe woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying, That itis impossible to serve two masters; ( Lardner, vol. Ii. Pp. 276-277. ) Ofthe purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand; of theblood that flowed from the body of Jesus upon the cross, whichcircumstance is recorded by John alone; and (what is instar omnium forthe purpose for which we produce it) of the difference in the accountsgiven of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angelsat the sepulchre, ethers only one. (Lardner, vol. Ii. Pp. 280, 281, &283. )

It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetuallyreferred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four Gospels, butthat he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of hisobjections to Christianity upon any thing delivered in spurious Gospels. (The particulars, of which the above are only a few, are well collectedby Mr. Bryant, p. 140. )

II. What Celsus was in the second century, Porphyry became in the third. His work, which was a large and formal treatise against the Christianreligion, is not extant. We must be content, therefore, to gather hisobjections from Christian writers, who have noticed in order to answerthem; and enough remains of this species of information to provecompletely, that Porphyry's animadversions were directed against thecontents of our present Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles;Porphyry considering that to overthrow them was to overthrow thereligion. Thus he objects to the repetition of a generation in SaintMatthew's genealogy; to Matthew's call; to the quotation of a text fromIsaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling ofthe lake of Tiberius a sea; to the expression of Saint Matthew, "theabomination of desolation;" to the variation in Matthew and Mark uponthe text, "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, " Matthew citing itfrom Isaias, Mark from the Prophets; to John's application of the term"Word;" to Christ's change of intention about going up to the feast ofTabernacles (John vii. 8); to the judgment denounced by Saint Peter uponAnanias and Sapphira, which he calls an "imprecation of death. " (Jewishand Heathen Test. Vol. Iii. P. 166, et seq. )

The instances here alleged serve, in some measure, to show the nature ofPorphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the Gospels withthat sort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them asthe depositaries of the religion which he attacked. Besides thesespecifications, there exists, in the writings of ancient Christians, general evidence that the places of Scripture upon which Porphyry hadremarked were very numerous. 

In some of the above-cited examples, Porphyry, speaking of SaintMatthew, calls him your Evangelist; he also uses the term evangelists inthe plural number. What was said of Celsus is true likewise of Porphyry, that it does not appear that he considered any history of Christ exceptthese as having authority with Christians. 

III. A third great writer against the Christian religion was the emperorJulian, whose work was composed about a century after that of Porphyry. 

In various long extracts, transcribed from this work by Cyril andJerome, it appears, (Jewish and Heathen Test. Vol. Iv. P. 77, et seq. )that Julian noticed by name Matthew and Luke, in the difference betweentheir genealogies of Christ that he objected to Matthew's application ofthe prophecy, "Out of Egypt have I called my son" (ii. 15), and to thatof "A virgin shall conceive" (i. 23); that he recited sayings of Christ, and various passages of his history, in the very words of theevangelists; in particular, that Jesus healed lame and blind people, andexorcised demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany; that healleged that none of Christ's disciples ascribed to him the creation ofthe world, except John; that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, norMark, have dared to call Jesus God; that John wrote later than the otherevangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the cities ofGreece and Italy were converted; that he alludes to the conversion ofCornelius and of Sergius Paulus, to Peter's vision, to the circularletter sent by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, which are allrecorded in the Acts of the Apostles: by which quoting of the fourGospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and by quoting no other, Julianshows that these were the historical books, and the only historicalbooks, received by Christians as of authority, and as the authenticmemoirs of Jesus Christ, of his apostles, and of the doctrines taught bythem. But Julian's testimony does something more than represent thejudgment of the Christian church in his time. It discovers also his own. He himself expressly states the early date of these records; he callsthem by the names which they now bear. He all along supposes, he nowhereattempts to question, their genuineness. 

The argument in favour of the books of the New Testament, drawn from thenotice taken of their contents by the early writers against thereligion, is very considerable. It proves that the accounts whichChristians had then were the accounts which we have now; that ourpresent Scriptures were theirs. It proves, moreover, that neither Celsusin the second, Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the fourth century, suspected the authenticity of these books, or ever insinuated thatChristians were mistaken in the authors to whom they ascribed them. Notone of them expressed an opinion upon this subject different from thatwhich was holden by Christians. And when we consider how much it wouldhave availed them to have cast a doubt upon this point, if they could;and how ready they showed themselves to be to take every advantage intheir power; and that they were all men of learning and inquiry: theirconcession, or rather their suffrage, upon the subject is extremelyvaluable. 

In the case of Porphyry, it is made still stronger, by the considerationthat he did in fact support himself by this species of objection when hesaw any room for it, or when his acuteness could supply any pretence foralleging it. The prophecy of Daniel he attacked upon this very ground ofspuriousness, insisting that it was written after the time of AntiochusEpiphanes, and maintains his charge of forgery by some far-fetchedindeed, but very subtle criticisms. Concerning the writings of the NewTestament, no trace of this suspicion is anywhere to be found in him. (Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. I. P. 43. Marsh'sTranslation. )

SECTION X. 

Formal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, in all whichour present sacred histories were included. 

This species of evidence comes later than the rest; as it was notnatural that catalogues of any particular class of books should be putforth until Christian writings became numerous; or until some writingsshowed themselves, claiming titles which did not belong to them, andthereby rendering it necessary to separate books of authority fromothers. But, when it does appear, it is extremely satisfactory; thecatalogues, though numerous, and made in countries at a wide distancefrom one another, differing very little, differing in nothing which ismaterial, and all containing the four Gospels. To this last articlethere is no exception. 

I. In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extractspreserved by Eusebius, from works of his which are now lost, there areenumerations of the books of Scriptures, in which the Four Gospels andthe Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honourably specified, and inwhich no books appear beside what are now received. The reader, by thistime, will easily recollect that the date of Origen's works is A. D. 230. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Iii. P. 234, et seq. ; vol. Viii. P. 196. )

II. Athanasias, about a century afterwards, delivered a catalogue of thebooks of the New Testament in form, containing our Scriptures and noothers; of which he says, "In these alone the doctrine of Religion istaught; let no man add to them, or take anything from them. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 223. )

III. About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, set forth a catalogue of the books of Scripture, publicly read at thattime in the church of Jerusalem, exactly the same as ours, except thatthe "Revelation" is omitted. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 270. )

IV. And fifteen years after Cyril, the council of Laodicea delivered anauthoritative catalogue of canonical Scripture, like Cyril's, the sameas ours with the omission of the "Revelation. "

V. Catalogues now became frequent. Within thirty years after the lastdate, that is, from the year 363 to near the conclusion of the fourthcentury, we have catalogues by Epiphanius, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 368. ) by Gregory Nazianzen, by Philaster, bishop of Breseia in Italy, (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ix. P. 132 & 373. ) by Amphilochius, bishop ofIconium; all, as they are sometimes called, clean catalogues (that is, they admit no books into the number beside what we now receive); andall, for every purpose of historic evidence, the same asours. (Epiphanius omits the Acts of the Apostles. This must have been anaccidental mistake, either in him or in some copyist of his work; forhe elsewhere expressly refers to this book, and ascribes it to Luke. )

VI. Within the same period Jerome, the most learned Christian writer ofhis age, delivered a catalogue of the hooks of the New Testament, recognising every book now received, with the intimation of a doubtconcerning the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, and taking not the leastnotice of any book which is not now received. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. X. P. 77. )

VII. Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in Palestine, was St. Augustine, in Africa, who published likewise a catalogue, withoutjoining to the Scriptures, as books of authority, any otherecclesiastical writing whatever, and without omitting one which we atthis day acknowledge. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. X. P. 213. )

VIII. And with these concurs another contemporary writer, Rufen, presbyter of Aquileia, whose catalogue, like theirs, is perfect andunmixed, and concludes with these remarkable words: "These are thevolumes which the fathers have included in the canon, and out of whichthey would have us prove the doctrine of our faith. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. X. P. 187. )

SECTION XI. 

These propositions cannot be predicated of any of those books which arecommonly called Apocryphal Books of the New Testament. 

I do not know that the objection taken from apocryphal writings is atpresent much relied upon by scholars. But there are many, who, hearingthat various Gospels existed in ancient times under the names of theapostles, may have taken up a notion, that the selection of our presentGospels from the rest was rather an arbitrary or accidental choice, thanfounded in any clear and certain cause of preference. To these it may bevery useful to know the truth of the case. I observe, therefore:--

I. That, beside our Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, no Christianhistory, claiming to be written by an apostle or apostolical man, isquoted within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by anywriter now extant or known; or, if quoted, is not quoted but with marksof censure and rejection. 

I have not advanced this assertion without inquiry; and I doubt not butthat the passages cited by Mr. Jones and Dr. Lardner, under the severaltitles which the apocryphal books bear; or a reference to the placeswhere they are mentioned as collected in a very accurate table, published in the year 1773, by the Rev. J. Atkinson, will make out thetruth of the proposition to the satisfaction of every fair and competentjudgment. If there be any book which may seem to form an exception tothe observation, it is a Hebrew Gospel, which was circulated under thevarious titles of, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel ofthe Nazarenes, of the Ebionites, sometimes called of the Twelve, by someascribed to St Matthew. This Gospel is once, and only once, cited byClemeus Alexandrinus, who lived, the reader will remember, in the latterpart of the second century, and which same Clement quotes one or otherof our four Gospels in almost every page of his work. It is also twicementioned by Origen, A. D. 230; and both times with marks of diminutionand discredit. And this is the ground upon which the exception stands. But what is still more material to observe is, that this Gospel, in themain, agreed with our present Gospel of Saint Matthew. (In applying tothis Gospel what Jerome in the latter end of the fourth century hasmentioned of a Hebrew Gospel, I think it probable that we sometimesconfound it with a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, whether anoriginal or version, which was then extant. )

Now if, with this account of the apocryphal Gospels, we compare what wehave read concerning the canonical Scriptures in the preceding sections;or even recollect that general but well-founded assertion of Dr. Lardner, "That in the remaining works of Irenaeus, Clement ofAlexandria, and Tertullian, who all lived in the first two centuries, there are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the NewTestament than of all the works of Cicero, by writers of all characters, for several ages;" (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Xii. P. 53. ) and if to this weadd that, notwithstanding the loss of many works of the primitive timesof Christianity, we have, within the above-mentioned period, the remainsof Christian writers who lived in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, the part of Africa that used the Latin tongue, in Crete, Greece, Italy, and Gaul, in all which remains references are found to our evangelists;I apprehend that we shall perceive a clear and broad line of divisionbetween those writings and all others pretending to similar authority. 

II. But beside certain histories which assumed the names of apostles, and which were forgeries properly so called, there were some otherChristian writings, in the whole or in part of an historical nature, which, though not forgeries, are denominated apocryphal, as being ofuncertain or of no authority. 

Of this second class of writings, I have found only two which arenoticed by any author of the first three centuries without express termsof condemnation: and these are, the one a book entitled the Preaching ofPeter, quoted repeatedly by Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 196; the other abook entitled the Revelation of Peter, upon which the above-mentionedClemens Alexandrinus is said by Eusebius to have written notes; andwhich is twice cited in a work still extant, ascribed to the sameauthor. 

I conceive, therefore, that the proposition we have before advanced, even after it hath been subjected to every exception of every kind thatcan be alleged, separates, by a wide interval, our historical Scripturesfrom all other writings which profess to give an account of the samesubject. 

We may be permitted however to add, --

1. That there is no evidence that any spurious or apocryphal bookswhatever existed in the first century of the Christian era, in whichcentury all our historical books are proved to have been extant. "Thereare no quotations of any such books in the apostolical fathers, by whomI mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whosewritings reach from about the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108 (andsome of whom have quoted each and every one of our historicalScriptures): I say this, " adds Dr. Lardner, "because I think it has beenproved. " (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Xii. P. 158. )

2. These apocryphal writings were not read in the churches ofChristians;

3. Were not admitted into their volume;

4. Do not appear in their catalogues;

5. Were not noticed by their adversaries;

6. Were not alleged by different parties, as of authority in theircontroversies;

7. Were not the subjects, amongst them, of commentaries, versions, collections, expositions. 

Finally; beside the silence of three centuries, or evidence within thattime of their rejection, they were, with a consent nearly universal, reprobated by Christian writers of succeeding ages. 

Although it be made out by these observations that the books in questionnever obtained any degree of credit and notoriety which can place themin competition with our Scriptures; yet it appears from the writings ofthe fourth century, that many such existed in that century, and in thecentury preceding it. It may be difficult at this distance of time toaccount for their origin. 

Perhaps the most probable explication is, that they were in generalcomposed with a design of making a profit by the sale. Whatever treatedof the subject would find purchasers. It was an advantage taken of thepious curiosity of unlearned Christians. With a view to the samepurpose, there were many of them adapted to the particular opinions ofparticular sects, which would naturally promote their circulationamongst the favourers of those opinions. After all, they were probablymuch more obscure than we imagine. Except the Gospel according to theHebrews, there is none of which we hear more than the Gospel of theEgyptians; yet there is good reason to believe that Clement, a presbyterof Alexandria in Egypt, A. D. 184, and a man of almost universalreading, had never seen it. (Jones, vol. I. P. 243. ) A Gospel accordingto Peter was another of the most ancient books of this kind; yetSerapion, bishop of Antioch, A. D. 200, had not read it, when he heard ofsuch a book being in the hands of the Christians of Rhossus in Cillcia;and speaks of obtaining a sight of this Gospel from some sectaries whoused it. (Lardner, Cred. Vol. Ii. P. 557. ) Even of the Gospel of theHebrews, which confessedly stands at the head of the catalogue, Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, was glad to procure a copy by thefavour of the Nazarenes of Berea. Nothing of this sort ever happened, orcould have happened, concerning our Gospels. 

One thing is observable of all the apocryphal Christian writings, viz. That they proceed upon the same fundamental history of Christ and hisapostles as that which is disclosed in our Scriptures. The mission ofChrist, his power of working miracles, his communication of that powerto the apostles, his passion, death, and resurrection, are assumed orasserted by every one of them. The names under which some of them cameforth are the names of men of eminence in our histories. What thesebooks give are not contradictions, but unauthorised additions. Theprincipal facts are supposed, the principal agents the same; which showsthat these points were too much fixed to be altered or disputed. 

If there be any book of this description which appears to have imposedupon some considerable number of learned Christians, it is the Sibyllineoracles; but when we reflect upon the circumstances which facilitatedthat imposture, we shall cease to wonder either at the attempt or itssuccess. It was at that time universally understood that such aprophetic writing existed. Its contents were kept secret. This situationafforded to some one a hint, as well as an opportunity, to give out awriting under this name, favourable to the already establishedpersuasion of Christians, and which writing, by the aid andrecommendation of these circumstances, would in some degree, it isprobable, be received. Of the ancient forgery we know but little; whatis now produced could not, in my opinion, have imposed upon any one. Itis nothing else than the Gospel history woven into verse; perhaps was atfirst rather a fiction than a forgery; an exercise of ingenuity, morethan an attempt to deceive. 

CHAPTER X. 

RECAPITULATION. 

The reader will now be pleased to recollect, that the two points whichform the subject of our present discussion are, first, that the Founderof Christianity, his associates, and immediate followers, passed theirlives in labours, dangers, and sufferings; secondly, that they did so inattestation of the miraculous history recorded in our Scriptures, andsolely in consequence of their belief of the truth of that history. 

The argument, by which these two propositions have been maintained byus, stands thus:

No historical fact, I apprehend, is more certain, than that the originalpropagators of Christianity voluntarily subjected themselves to lives offatigue, danger, and suffering, in the prosecution of their undertaking. The nature of the undertaking; the character of the persons employed init; the opposition of their tenets to the fixed opinions andexpectations of the country in which they first advanced them; theirundissembled condemnation of the religion of all other countries; theirtotal want of power, authority, or force--render it in the highestdegree probable that this must have been the case. The probability isincreased by what we know of the fate of the Founder of the institution, who was put to death for his attempt; and by what we also know of thecruel treatment of the converts to the institution, within thirty yearsafter its commencement: both which points are attested by heathenwriters, and, being once admitted, leave it very incredible that theprimitive emissaries of the religion, who exercised their ministry, first, amongst the people who had destroyed their Master, and, afterwards, amongst those who persecuted their converts, shouldthemselves escape with impunity, or pursue their purpose in ease andsafety. This probability, thus sustained by foreign testimony, isadvanced, I think, to historical certainty, by the evidence of our ownbooks; by the accounts of a writer who was the companion of the personswhose sufferings he relates; by the letters of the persons themselves bypredictions of persecutions ascribed to the Founder of the religion, which predictions would not have been inserted in his history, much lesshave been studiously dwelt upon, if they had not accorded with theevent, and which, even if falsely ascribed to him, could only have beenso ascribed, because the event suggested them; lastly, by incessantexhortations to fortitude and patience, and by an earnestness, repetition, and urgency upon the subject, which were unlikely to haveappeared if there had not been, at the time, some extraordinary call forthe exercise of these virtues. 

It is made out also, I think, with sufficient evidence, that both theteachers and converts of the religion, in consequence of their newprofession, took up a new course of life and behaviour. 

The next great question is, what they did this FOR. That it was for amiraculous story of some kind or other, is to my apprehension extremelymanifest; because, as to the fundamental article, the designation of theperson, viz. That this particular person, Jesus of Nazareth, ought to bereceived as the Messiah, or as a messenger from God, they neither had, nor could have, anything but miracles to stand upon. That the exertionsand sufferings of the apostles were for the story which we have now, isproved by the consideration that this story is transmitted to us by twoof their own number, and by two others personally connected with them;that the particularity of the narrative proves that the writers claimedto possess circumstantial information, that from their situation theyhad full opportunity of acquiring such information, that they certainly, at least, knew what their colleagues, their companions, their masterstaught; that each of these books contains enough to prove the truth ofthe religion; that if any one of them therefore be genuine, it issufficient; that the genuineness, however, of all of them is made out, as well by the general arguments which evince the genuineness of themost undisputed remains of antiquity, as also by peculiar and specificproofs, viz. By citations from them in writings belonging to a periodimmediately contiguous to that in which they were published; by thedistinguished regard paid by early Christians to the authority of thesebooks; (which regard was manifested by their collecting of them into avolume, appropriating to that volume titles of peculiar respect, translating them into various languages, digesting them into harmonies, writing commentaries upon them, and, still more conspicuously, by thereading of them in their public assemblies in all parts of the world)by an universal agreement with respect to these books, whilst doubtswere entertained concerning some others; by contending sects appealingto them; by the early adversaries of the religion not disputing theirgenuineness, but, on the contrary, treating them as the depositaries ofthe history upon which the religion was founded; by many formalcatalogues of these, as of certain and authoritative writings, publishedin different and distant parts of the Christian world; lastly, by theabsence or defect of the above-cited topics of evidence, when applied toany other histories of the same subject. 

These are strong arguments to prove that the books actually proceededfrom the authors whose names they bear (and have always borne, for thereis not a particle of evidence to show that they ever went under anyother); but the strict genuineness of the books is perhaps more than isnecessary to the support of our proposition. For even supposing that, byreason of the silence of antiquity, or the loss of records, we knew notwho were the writers of the four Gospels, yet the fact that they werereceived as authentic accounts of the transaction upon which thereligion rested, and were received as such by Christians at or near theage of the apostles, by those whom the apostles had taught, and bysocieties which the apostles had founded; this fact, I say, connectedwith the consideration that they are corroborative of each other'stestimony, and that they are further corroborated by anothercontemporary history taking up the story where they had left it, and, ina narrative built upon that story, accounting for the rise andproduction of changes in the world, the effects of which subsist at thisday; connected, moreover, with the confirmation which they receive fromletters written by the apostles themselves, which both assume the samegeneral story, and, as often as occasions lead them to do so, allude toparticular parts of it; and connected also with the reflection, that ifthe apostles delivered any different story it is lost; (the present andno other being referred to by a series of Christian writers, down fromtheir age to our own; being like-wise recognised in a variety ofinstitutions, which prevailed early and universally, amongst thedisciples of the religion;) and that so great a change as the oblivionof one story and the substitution of another, under such circumstances, could not have taken place: this evidence would be deemed, I apprehend, sufficient to prove concerning these books, that, whoever were theauthors of them, they exhibit the story which the apostles told, and forwhich, consequently, they acted and they suffered. 

If it be so, the religion must be true. These men could not bedeceivers. By only not bearing testimony, they might have avoided allthese sufferings, and have lived quietly. Would men in suchcircumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert factswhich they had no knowledge of; go about lying to teach virtue; and, though not only convinced of Christ's being an impostor, but having seenthe success of his imposture in his crucifixion, yet persist in carryingit on; and so persist, as to bring upon themselves for nothing, and witha full knowledge of the consequence, enmity and hatred, danger anddeath?

=========================================

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 

PROPOSITION II. 

CHAPTER I. 

Our first proposition was, That there is satisfactory evidence that manypretending to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passedtheir lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertakenand undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, andsolely in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts;and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules ofconduct. 

Our second proposition, and which now remains to be treated of, is, Thatthere is NOT satisfactory evidence, that persons pretending to beoriginal witnesses of any other similar miracles have acted in the samemanner, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solelyin consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts. 

I enter upon this part of my argument, by declaring how far my belief inmiraculous accounts goes. If the reformers in the time of Wickliffe, orof Luther; or those of England in the time of Henry the Eighth, or ofQueen Mary; or the founders of our religious sects since, such as wereMr. Whitfield and Mr. Wesley in our times--had undergone the life oftoil and exertion, of danger and sufferings, which we know that many ofthem did undergo, for a miraculous story; that is to say, if they hadfounded their public ministry upon the allegation of miracles wroughtwithin their own knowledge, and upon narratives which could not beresolved into delusion or mistake; and if it had appeared that theirconduct really had its origin in these accounts, I should have believedthem. Or, to borrow an instance which will be familiar to every one ofmy readers, if the late Mr. Howard had undertaken his labours andjourneys in attestation, and in consequence of a clear and sensiblemiracle, I should have believed him also. Or, to represent the samething under a third supposition; if Socrates had professed to performpublic miracles at Athens; if the friends of Socrates, Phaedo, Cebes, Crito, and Simmias, together with Plato, and many of his followers, relying upon the attestations which these miracles afforded to hispretensions, had, at the hazard of their lives, and the certain expenseof their ease and tranquillity, gone about Greece, after his death, topublish and propagate his doctrines: and if these things had come to ourknowledge, in the same way as that in which the life of Socrates is nowtransmitted to us through the hands of his companions and disciples, that is, by writings received without doubt as theirs, from the age inwhich they were published to the present, I should have believed thislikewise. And my belief would, in each case, be much strengthened, ifthe subject of the mission were of importance to the conduct andhappiness of human life; if it testified anything which it behovedmankind to know from such authority; if the nature of what it deliveredrequired the sort of proof which it alleged; if the occasion was adequateto the interposition, the end worthy of the means. In the last ease, myfaith would be much confirmed if the effects of the transactionremained; more especially if a change had been wrought, at the time, inthe opinion and conduct of such numbers as to lay the foundation of aninstitution, and of a system of doctrines, which had since overspreadthe greatest part of the civilized world. I should have believed, I say, the testimony in these cases; yet none of them do more than come up tothe apostolic history. 

If any one choose to call assent to its evidence credulity, it is atleast incumbent upon him to produce examples in which the same evidencehath turned out to be fallacious. And this contains the precise questionwhich we are now to agitate. 

In stating the comparison between our evidence, and what our adversariesmay bring into competition with ours, we will divide the distinctionswhich we wish to propose into two kinds, --those which relate to theproof, and those which relate to the miracles. Under the former head wemay lay out of the case:--

I. Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in historiesby some ages posterior to the transaction; and of which it is evidentthat the historian could know little more than his reader. Ours iscontemporary history. This difference alone removes out of our way themiraculous history of Pythagoras, who lived five hundred years beforethe Christian era, written by Porphyry and Jamblicus, who lived threehundred years after that era; the prodigies of Livy's history; thefables of the heroic ages; the whole of the Greek and Roman, as well asof the Gothic mythology; a great part of the legendary history of Popishsaints, the very best attested of which is extracted from thecertificates that are exhibited during the process of theircanonization, a ceremony which seldom takes place till a century aftertheir deaths. It applies also with considerable force to the miracles ofApollonius Tyaneus, which are contained in a solitary history of hislife, published by Philostratus above a hundred years after his death;and in which, whether Philostratus had any prior account to guide him, depends upon his single unsupported assertion. Also to some of themiracles of the third century, especially to one extraordinary instance, the account of Gregory, bishop of Neocesarea, called Thaumaturgus, delivered in the writings of Gregory of Nyssen, who lived one hundredand thirty years after the subject of his panegyric. 

The value of this circumstance is shown to have been accuratelyexemplified in the history of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the order ofJesuits. (Douglas's Criterion of Miracles, p. 74. ) His life, written by acompanion of his, and by one of the order, was published about fifteenyears after his death. In which life, the author, so far from ascribingany miracles to Ignatius, industriously states the reasons why he wasnot invested with any such power. The life was republished fifteen yearsafterwards, with the addition of many circumstances which were thefruit, the author says, of further inquiry, and of diligent examination;but still with a total silence about miracles. When Ignatius had beendead nearly sixty years, the Jesuits, conceiving a wish to have thefounder of their order placed in the Roman calendar, began, as it shouldseem, for the first time, to attribute to him a catalogue of miracleswhich could not then be distinctly disproved; and which there was, inthose who governed the church, a strong disposition to admit upon theslenderest proofs. 

II. We may lay out of the case accounts published in one country, ofwhat passed in a distant country, without any proof that such accountswere known or received at home. In the case of Christianity, Judea, which was the scene of the transaction, was the centre of the mission. The story was published in the place in which it was acted. The churchof Christ was first planted at Jerusalem itself. With that church otherscorresponded. From thence the primitive teachers of the institution wentforth; thither they assembled. The church of Jerusalem, and the severalchurches of Judea, subsisted from the beginning, and for many ages;received also the same books and the same accounts as other churchesdid. (The succession of many eminent bishops of Jerusalem in the firstthree centuries is distinctly preserved; as Alexander, A. D. 212, whosucceeded Narcissus, then 116 years old. )

This distinction disposes, amongst others, of the above-mentionedmiracles of Apollonius Tyaneus, most of which are related to have beenperformed in India; no evidence remaining that either the miraclesascribed to him, or the history of those miracles, were ever heard of inIndia. Those of Francis Xavier, the Indian missionary, with many othersof the Romish breviary, are liable to the same objection, viz. That theaccounts of them were published at a vast distance from the supposedscene of the wonders. (Douglas's Crit. P. 84. )

III. We lay out of the case transient rumours. Upon the firstpublication of an extraordinary account, or even of an article ofordinary intelligence, no one who is not personally acquainted with thetransaction can know whether it be true or false, because any man maypublish any story. It is in the future confirmation, or contradiction, of the account; in its permanency, or its disappearance; its dying awayinto silence, or its increasing in notoriety; its being followed up bysubsequent accounts, and being repeated in different and independentaccounts--that solid truth is distinguished from fugitive lies. Thisdistinction is altogether on the side of Christianity. The story did notdrop. On the contrary, it was succeeded by a train of action and eventsdependent upon it. The accounts which we have in our hands were composedafter the first reports must have subsided. They were followed by atrain of writings upon the subject. The historical testimonies of thetransaction were many and various, and connected with letters, discourses, controversies, apologies, successively produced by the sametransaction. 

IV. We may lay out of the case what I call naked history. It has beensaid, that if the prodigies of the Jewish history had been found only infragments of Manetho, or Berosus, we should have paid no regard to them:and I am willing to admit this. If we knew nothing of the fact, but fromthe fragment; if we possessed no proof that these accounts had beencredited and acted upon, from times, probably, as ancient as theaccounts themselves; if we had no visible effects connected with thehistory, no subsequent or collateral testimony to confirm it; underthese circumstances I think that it would be undeserving of credit. Butthis certainly is not our case. In appreciating the evidence ofChristianity, the books are to be combined with the institution; withthe prevalency of the religion at this day; with the time and place ofits origin, which are acknowledged points; with the circumstances of itsrise and progress, as collected from external history; with the fact ofour present books being received by the votaries of the institution fromthe beginning; with that of other books coming after these, filled withaccounts of effects and consequences resulting from the transaction, orreferring to the transaction, or built upon it; lastly, with theconsideration of the number and variety of the books themselves, thedifferent writers from which they proceed, the different views withwhich they were written, so disagreeing as to repel the suspicion ofconfederacy, so agreeing as to show that they were founded in a commonoriginal, i. E. In a story substantially the same. Whether this proof besatisfactory or not, it is properly a cumulation of evidence, by nomeans a naked or solitary record. 

V. A mark of historical truth, although only a certain way, and to acertain degree, is particularity in names, dates, places, circumstances, and in the order of events preceding or following the transaction: ofwhich kind, for instance, is the particularity in the description of St. Paul's voyage and shipwreck, in the 27th chapter of the Acts, which noman, I think, can read without being convinced that the writer wasthere; and also in the account of the cure and examination of the blindman in the 9th chapter of St. John's Gospel, which bears every mark ofpersonal knowledge on the part of the historian. (Both these chaptersought to be read for the sake of this very observation. ) I do not denythat fiction has often the particularity of truth; but then it is ofstudied and elaborate fiction, or of a formal attempt to deceive, thatwe observe this. Since, however, experience proves that particularity isnot confined to truth, I have stated that it is a proof of truth only toa certain extent, i. E. It reduces the question to this, whether we candepend or not upon the probity of the relater? which is a considerableadvance in our present argument; for an express attempt to deceive, inwhich case alone particularity can appear without truth, is charged uponthe evangelists by few. If the historian acknowledge himself to havereceived his intelligence from others, the particularity of thenarrative shows, prima facie, the accuracy of his inquiries, and thefulness of his information. This remark belongs to St. Luke's history. Of the particularity which we allege, many examples may be found in allthe Gospels. And it is very difficult to conceive that such numerousparticularities as are almost everywhere to be met with in theScriptures should be raised out of nothing, or be spun out of theimagination without any fact to go upon. *

_________

* "There is always some truth where there are considerableparticularities related, and they always seem to bear some proportion toone another. Thus, there is a great want of the particulars of time, place, and persons in Manetho's account of the Egyptian Dynasties, Etesias's of the Assyrian Kings, and those which the technicalchronologers have given of the ancient kingdoms of Greece; and, agreeably thereto, the accounts have much fiction and falsehood, withsome truth: whereas Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, andCaesar's of the War in Gaul, in both which the particulars of time, place, and persons are mentioned, are universally esteemed true to agreat degree of exactness. " Hartley, vol. Ii. P. 109. _________

It is to be remarked, however, that this particularity is only to belooked for in direct history. It is not natural in references orallusions, which yet, in other respects, often afford, as far as theygo, the most unsuspicious evidence. 

VI. We lay out of the case such stories of supernatural events asrequire, on the part of the hearer, nothing more than an otiose assent;stories upon which nothing depends, in which no interest is involved, nothing is to be done or changed in consequence of believing them. Suchstories are credited, if the careless assent that is given to themdeserve that name, more by the indolence of the hearer, than by hisjudgment: or, though not much credited, are passed from one to anotherwithout inquiry or resistance. To this case, and to this case alone, belongs what is called the love of the marvellous. I have never known itcarry men further. Men do not suffer persecution from the love of themarvellous. Of the indifferent nature we are speaking of are most vulgarerrors and popular superstition: most, for instance, of the currentreports of apparitions. Nothing depends upon their being true or false. But not, surely, of this kind were the alleged miracles of Christ andhis apostles. They decided, if true, the most important question uponwhich the human mind can fix its anxiety. They claimed to regulate theopinions of mankind upon subjects in which they are not only deeplyconcerned, but usually refractory and obstinate. Men could not beutterly careless in such a case as this. If a Jew took up the story, hefound his darling partiality to his own nation and law wounded; if aGentile, he found his idolatry and polytheism reprobated and condemned. Whoever entertained the account, whether Jew or Gentile, could not avoidthe following reflection:--"If these things be true, I must give up theopinions and principles in which I have been brought up, the religion inwhich my fathers lived and died. " It is not conceivable that a manshould do this upon any idle report or frivolous account, or, indeed, without being fully satisfied and convinced of the truth and credibilityof the narrative to which he trusted. But it did not stop at opinions. They who believed Christianity acted upon it. Many made it the expressbusiness of their lives to publish the intelligence. It was required ofthose who admitted that intelligence to change forthwith their conductand their principles, to take up a different course of life, to partwith their habits and gratifications, and begin a new set of rules andsystem of behaviour. The apostles, at least, were interested not tosacrifice their ease, their fortunes, and their lives for an idle tale;multitudes beside them were induced, by the same tale, to encounteropposition, danger, and sufferings. 

If it be said, that the mere promise of a future state would do allthis; I answer, that the mere promise of a future state, without anyevidence to give credit or assurance to it, would do nothing. A fewwandering fishermen talking of a resurrection of the dead could produceno effect. If it be further said that men easily believe what theyanxiously desire; I again answer that in my opinion, the very contraryof this is nearer to the truth. Anxiety of desire, earnestness ofexpectation, the vastness of an event, rather causes men to disbelieve, to doubt, to dread a fallacy, to distrust, and to examine. When ourLord's resurrection was first reported to the apostles, they did notbelieve, we are told, for joy. This was natural, and is agreeable toexperience. 

VII. We have laid out of the case those accounts which require no morethan a simple assent; and we now also lay out of the case those whichcome merely in affirmance of opinions already formed. This lastcircumstance is of the utmost importance to notice well. It has longbeen observed, that Popish miracles happen in Popish countries; thatthey make no converts; which proves that stories are accepted when theyfall in with principles already fixed, with the public sentiments, orwith the sentiments of a party already engaged on the side the miraclesupports, which would not be attempted to be produced in the face ofenemies, in opposition to reigning tenets or favourite prejudices, orwhen, if they be believed, the belief must draw men away from theirpreconceived and habitual opinions, from their modes of life and rulesof action. In the former case, men may not only receive a miraculousaccount, but may both act and suffer on the side, and, in the cause, which the miracle supports, yet not act or suffer for the miracle, butin pursuance of a prior persuasion. The miracle, like any other argumentwhich only confirms what was before believed, is admitted with littleexamination. In the moral, as in the natural world, it is change whichrequires a cause. Men are easily fortified in their old opinions, drivenfrom them with great difficulty. Now how does this apply to theChristian history? The miracles there recorded were wrought in the midstof enemies, under a government, a priesthood, and a magistracy decidedlyand vehemently adverse to them, and to the pretensions which theysupported. They were Protestant miracles in a Popish country; they werePopish miracles in the midst of Protestants. They produced a change;they established a society upon the spot, adhering to the belief ofthem; they made converts; and those who were converted gave up to thetestimony their most fixed opinions and most favourite prejudices. Theywho acted and suffered in the cause acted and suffered for the miracles:for there was no anterior persuasion to induce them, no prior reverence, prejudice, or partiality to take hold of Jesus had not one follower whenhe set up his claim. His miracles gave birth to his sect. No part ofthis description belongs to the ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popishmiracles. Even most of the miracles alleged to have been performed byChristians, in the second and third century of its era, want thisconfirmation. It constitutes indeed a line of partition between theorigin and the progress of Christianity. Frauds and fallacies might mixthemselves with the progress, which could not possibly take place in thecommencement of the religion; at least, according to any laws of humanconduct that we are acquainted with. What should suggest to the firstpropagators of Christianity, especially to fishermen, tax-gatherers, andhusbandmen, such a thought as that of changing the religion of theworld; what could bear them through the difficulties in which theattempt engaged them; what could procure any degree of success to theattempt? are questions which apply, with great force, to the setting outof the institution--with less, to every future stage of it. 

To hear some men talk, one would suppose the setting up a religion bymiracles to be a thing of every day's experience: whereas the wholecurrent of history is against it. Hath any founder of a new sect amongstChristians pretended to miraculous powers, and succeeded by hispretensions? "Were these powers claimed or exercised by the founders ofthe sects of the Waldenses and Albigenses? Did Wickliffe in Englandpretend to it? Did Huss or Jerome in Bohemia? Did Luther in Germany, Zuinglius in Switzerland, Calvin in France, or any of the reformersadvance this plea?" (Campbell on Miracles, p. 120, ed. 1766. ) The Frenchprophets, in the beginning of the present century, (the eighteenth)ventured to allege miraculous evidence, and immediately ruined theircause by their temerity. "Concerning the religion of ancient Rome, ofTurkey, of Siam, of China, a single miracle cannot be named that wasever offered as a test of any of those religions before theirestablishment. " (Adams on Mir. P. 75. )

We may add to what has been observed of the distinction which we areconsidering, that, where miracles are alleged merely in affirmance of aprior opinion, they who believe the doctrine may sometimes propagate abelief of the miracles which they do not themselves entertain. This isthe case of what are called pious frauds; but it is a case, I apprehend, which takes place solely in support of a persuasion already established. At least it does not hold of the apostolical history. If the apostlesdid not believe the miracles, they did not believe the religion; andwithout this belief, where was the piety, what place was there foranything which could bear the name or colour of piety, in publishing andattesting miracles in its behalf? If it be said that many promote thebelief of revelation, and of any accounts which favour that belief, because they think them, whether well or ill founded, of public andpolitical utility; I answer, that if a character exist which can withless justice than another be ascribed to the founders of the Christianreligion, it is that of politicians, or of men capable of entertainingpolitical views. The truth is, that there is no assignable characterwhich will account for the conduct of the apostles, supposing theirstory to be false. If bad men, what could have induced them to take suchpains to promote virtue? If good men, they would not have gone about thecountry with a string of lies in their mouths. 

In appreciating the credit of any miraculous story, these aredistinctions which relate to the evidence. There are other distinctions, of great moment in the question, which relate to the miraclesthemselves. Of which latter kind the following ought carefully to beretained. 

I. It is not necessary to admit as a miracle what can be resolved into afalse perception. Of this nature was the demon of Socrates; the visionsof Saint Anthony, and of many others; the vision which Lord Herbert ofCherbury describes himself to have seen; Colonel Gardiner's vision, asrelated in his life, written by Dr. Doddridge. All these may beaccounted for by a momentary insanity; for the characteristic symptom ofhuman madness is the rising up in the mind of images not distinguishableby the patient from impressions upon the senses. (Batty on Lunacy. ) Thecases, however, in which the possibility of this delusion exists aredivided from the cases in which it does not exist by many, and those notobscure marks. They are, for the most part, cases of visions or voices. The object is hardly ever touched. The vision submits not to be handled. One sense does not confirm another. They are likewise almost alwayscases of a solitary witness. It is in the highest degree improbable, andI know not, indeed, whether it hath ever been the fact, that the samederangement of the mental organs should seize different persons at thesame time; a derangement, I mean, so much the same, as to represent totheir imagination the same objects. Lastly, these are always cases ofmomentary miracles; by which term I mean to denote miracles of which thewhole existence is of short duration, in contradistinction to miracleswhich are attended with permanent effects. The appearance of a spectre, the hearing of a supernatural sound, is a momentary miracle. Thesensible proof is gone when the apparition or sound is over. But if aperson born blind be restored to sight, a notorious cripple to the useof his limbs, or a dead man to life, here is a permanent effect producedby supernatural means. The change indeed was instantaneous, but theproof continues. The subject of the miracle remains. The man cured orrestored is there: his former condition was known, and his presentcondition may be examined. This can by no possibility be resolved intofalse perception: and of this kind are by far the greater part of themiracles recorded in the New Testament. When Lazarus was raised from thedead, he did not merely move, and speak, and die again; or come out ofthe grave, and vanish away. He returned to his home and family, andthere continued; for we find him some time afterwards in the same town, sitting at table with Jesus and his sisters; visited by great multitudesof the Jews as a subject of curiosity; giving, by his presence, so muchuneasiness to the Jewish rulers as to beget in them a design ofdestroying him. (John xii. 1, 2, 9, 10. ) No delusion can account forthis. The French prophets in England, some time since, gave out that oneof their teachers would come to life again; but their enthusiasm nevermade them believe that they actually saw him alive. The blind man whoserestoration to sight at Jerusalem is recorded in the ninth chapter ofSaint John's Gospel did not quit the place or conceal himself frominquiry. On the contrary, he was forthcoming, to answer the call, tosatisfy the scrutiny, and to sustain the browbeating of Christ's angryand powerful enemies. When the cripple at the gate of the temple wassuddenly cured by Peter, (Acts iii. 2. ) he did not immediately relapseinto his former lameness, or disappear out of the city; but boldly andhonestly produced himself along with the apostles, when they werebrought the next day before the Jewish council. (Acts iv. 14. ) Here, though the miracle was sudden, the proof was permanent. The lameness hadbeen notorious, the cure continued. This, therefore, could not be theeffect of any momentary delirium, either in the subject or in thewitnesses of the transaction. It is the same with the greatest number ofthe Scripture miracles. There are other cases of a mixed nature, inwhich, although the principal miracle be momentary, some circumstancecombined with it is permanent. Of this kind is the history of SaintPaul's conversion. (Acts ix. ) The sudden light and sound, the vision andthe voice upon the road to Damascus, were momentary: but Paul'sblindness for three days in consequence of what had happened; thecommunication made to Ananias in another place, and by a visionindependent of the former; Ananias finding out Paul in consequence ofintelligence so received, and finding him in the condition described, and Paul's recovery of his sight upon Ananias laying his hands upon him;are circumstances which take the transaction, and the principal miracleas included in it, entirely out of the case of momentary miracles, or ofsuch as may be accounted for by false perceptions. Exactly the samething may be observed of Peter's vision preparatory to the call ofCornelius, and of its connexion with what was imparted in a distantplace to Cornelius himself, and with the message despatched by Corneliusto Peter. The vision might be a dream; the message could not. Eithercommunication taken separately, might be a delusion; the concurrence ofthe two was impossible to happen without a supernatural cause. 

Beside the risk of delusion which attaches upon momentary miracles, there is also much more room for imposture. The account cannot beexamined at the moment: and when that is also a moment of hurry andconfusion, it may not be difficult for men of influence to gain creditto any story which they may wish to have believed. This is precisely thecase of one of the best attested of the miracles of Old Rome, theappearance of Castor and Pollux in the battle fought by Posthumius withthe Latins at the lake Regillus. There is no doubt but that Posthumius, after the battle, spread the report of such an appearance. No personcould deny it whilst it was said to last. No person, perhaps, had anyinclination to dispute it afterwards; or, if they had, could say withpositiveness what was or what was not seen by some or other of the army, in the dismay and amidst the tumult of a battle. 

In assigning false perceptions as the origin to which some miraculousaccounts may be referred, I have not mentioned claims to inspiration, illuminations, secret notices or directions, internal sensations, orconsciousnesses of being acted upon by spiritual influences, good orbad, because these, appealing to no external proof, however convincingthey may be to the persons themselves, form no part of what can beaccounted miraculous evidence. Their own credibility stands upon theiralliance with other miracles. The discussion, therefore, of all suchpretensions may be omitted. 

II. It is not necessary to bring into the comparison what may be calledtentative miracles; that is, where, out of a great number of trials, some succeed; and in the accounts of which, although the narrative ofthe successful cases be alone preserved, and that of the unsuccessfulcases sunk, yet enough is stated to show that the cases produced areonly a few out of many in which the same means have been employed. Thisobservation bears with considerable force upon the ancient oracles andauguries, in which a single coincidence of the event with the predictionis talked of and magnified, whilst failures are forgotten, orsuppressed, or accounted for. It is also applicable to the cures wroughtby relics, and at the tombs of saints. The boasted efficacy of theking's touch, upon which Mr. Hume lays some stress, falls under the samedescription. Nothing is alleged concerning it which is not alleged ofvarious nostrums, namely, out of many thousands who have used them, certified proofs of a few who have recovered after them. No solution ofthis sort is applicable to the miracles of the Gospel. There is nothingin the narrative which can induce, or even allow, us to believe, thatChrist attempted cures in many instances, and succeeded in a few; orthat he ever made the attempt in vain. He did not profess to healeverywhere all that were sick; on the contrary, he told the Jews, evidently meaning to represent his own case, that, "although many widowswere in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up threeyears and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land, yetunto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow:" and that "many lepers were in Israel inthe time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed savingNaaman the Syrian. " (Luke iv. 25. ) By which examples he gave them tounderstand, that it was not the nature of a Divine interposition, ornecessary to its purpose, to be general; still less to answer everychallenge that might be made, which would teach men to put their faithupon these experiments. Christ never pronounced the word, but the effectfollowed. *

_________

*One, and only one, instance may be produced in which the disciples ofChrist do seem to have attempted a cure, and not to have been able toperform it. The story is very ingenuously related by three of theevangelists. (Matt. Xvii. 14. Mark ix. 14. Luke ix. 33. ) The patient wasafterwards healed by Christ himself; and the whole transaction seems tohave been intended, as it was well suited, to display the superiority ofChrist above all who performed miracles in his name, a distinctionwhich, during his presence in the world, it might be necessary toinculcate by some such proof as this. _________

It was not a thousand sick that received his benediction, and a few thatwere benefited; a single paralytic is let down in his bed at Jesus'sfeet, in the midst of a surrounding multitude; Jesus bid him walk, andhe did so. (Mark ii. 3. ) A man with a withered hand is in the synagogue;Jesus bid him stretch forth his hand in the presence of the assembly, and it was "restored whole like the other. " (Matt. Xii. 10. ) There wasnothing tentative in these cures; nothing that can be explained by thepower of accident. 

We may observe, also, that many of the cures which Christ wrought, suchas that of a person blind from his birth; also many miracles besidescures, as raising the dead, walking upon the sea, feeding a greatmultitude with a few loaves and fishes, are of a nature which does notin anywise admit of the supposition of a fortunate experiment. 

III. We may dismiss from the question all accounts in which, allowingthe phenomenon to be real, the fact to be true, it still remainsdoubtful whether a miracle were wrought. This is the case with theancient history of what is called the thundering legion, of theextraordinary circumstances which obstructed the rebuilding of thetemple at Jerusalem by Julian; the circling of the flames and fragrantsmell at the martyrdom of Polycarp; the sudden shower that extinguishedthe fire into which the Scriptures were thrown in the Diocletianpersecution; Constantine's dream; his inscribing in consequence of itthe cross upon his standard and the shields of his soldiers; hisvictory, and the escape of the standard-bearer; perhaps, also, theimagined appearance of the cross in the heavens, though this lastcircumstance is very deficient in historical evidence. It is also thecase with the modern annual exhibition of the liquefaction of the bloodof Saint Januarius at Naples. It is a doubt, likewise, which ought to beexcluded by very special circumstances from those narratives whichrelate to the supernatural cure of hypochondriacal and nervouscomplaints, and of all diseases which are much affected by theimagination. The miracles of the second and third century are, usually, healing the sick and casting out evil spirits, miracles in which thereis room for some error and deception. We hear nothing of causing theblind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to becleansed. (Jortin's Remarks, vol. Ii. P. 51. ) There are also instances inChristian writers of reputed miracles, which were natural operations, though not known to be such at the time; as that of articulate speechafter the loss of a great part of the tongue. 

IV. To the same head of objection, nearly, may also be referred accountsin which the variation of a small circumstance may have transformed someextraordinary appearance, or some critical coincidence of events, into amiracle; stories, in a word, which may be resolved into exaggeration. Themiracles of the Gospel can by no possibility be explained away in thismanner. Total fiction will account for anything; but no stretch ofexaggeration that has any parallel in other histories, no force of fancyupon real circumstances, could produce the narratives which we now have. The feeding of the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes surpassesall bounds of exaggeration. The raising of Lazarus, of the widow's sonat Nain, as well as many of the cures which Christ wrought, come notwithin the compass of misrepresentation. I mean that it is impossible toassign any position of circumstances however peculiar, any accidentaleffects however extraordinary, any natural singularity, which couldsupply an origin or foundation to these accounts. 

Having thus enumerated several exceptions which may justly be taken torelations of miracles, it is necessary, when we read the Scriptures, tobear in our minds this general remark; that although there be miraclesrecorded in the New Testament, which fall within some or other of theexceptions here assigned, yet that they are united with others, to whichnone of the same exceptions extend, and that their credibility standsupon this union. Thus the visions and revelations which Saint Paulasserts to have been imparted to him may not, in their separateevidence, be distinguishable from the visions and revelations which manyothers have alleged. But here is the difference. Saint Paul'spretensions were attested by external miracles wrought by himself, andby miracles wrought in the cause to which these visions relate; or, tospeak more properly, the same historical authority which informs us ofone informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the visionsof enthusiasts, or even of the accounts in which they are contained. Again, some of Christ's own miracles were momentary; as thetransfiguration, the appearance and voice from Heaven at his baptism, avoice from the clouds on one occasion afterwards (John xii. 28), andsome others. It is not denied, that the distinction which we haveproposed concerning miracles of this species applies, in diminution ofthe force of the evidence, as much to these instances as to others. Butthis is the case not with all the miracles ascribed to Christ, nor withthe greatest part, nor with many. Whatever force therefore there may bein the objection, we have numerous miracles which are free from it; andeven those to which it is applicable are little affected by it in theircredit, because there are few who, admitting the rest, will reject them. If there be miracles of the New Testament which come within any of theother heads into which we have distributed the objections, the sameremark must be repeated. And this is one way in which the unexamplednumber and variety of the miracles ascribed to Christ strengthen thecredibility of Christianity. For it precludes any solution, orconjecture about a solution, which imagination, or even which experiencemight suggest, concerning some particular miracles, if consideredindependently of others. The miracles of Christ were of various kinds, *and performed in great varieties of situation, form, and manner; atJerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish nation and religion; indifferent parts of Judea and Galilee; in cities and villages; insynagogues, in private houses; in the street, in highways; withpreparation, as in the case of Lazarus; by accident, as in the case ofthe widow's son of Nain; when attended by multitudes, and when alonewith the patient; in the midst of his disciples, and in the presence ofhis enemies; with the common people around him, and before Scribes andPharisees, and rulers of the synagogues. 

_________

* Not only healing every species of disease, but turning water into wine(John ii. ); feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes (Matt. Xiv. 15; Mark vi. 35; Luke ix. 12; John vi. 5); walking on the sea (Matt. Xiv. 25); calming a storm (Matt. Viii. 26; Luke viii. 24); a celestialvoice at his baptism, and miraculous appearance (Matt. Iii. 16;afterwards John xii. 28); his transfiguration (Matt. Xvii. 18; Mark ix. 2; Luke ix. 28; 2 Peter i. 16, 17); raising the dead in three distinctinstances (Matt. Ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke vii. 14; viii. 41; John xi. ). _________

I apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison the cases which arefairly disposed of by the observations that have been stated, many caseswill not remain. To those which do remain, we apply this finaldistinction; "that there is not satisfactory evidence that personspretending to be original witnesses of the miracles passed their livesin labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken andundergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, andproperly in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts. "

CHAPTER II. 

But they with whom we argue have undoubtedly a right to select their ownexamples. The instances with which Mr. Hume has chosen to confront themiracles of the New Testament, and which, therefore, we are entitled toregard as the strongest which the history of the world could supply tothe inquiries of a very acute and learned adversary, are the threefollowing:

I. The cure of a blind and of a lame man of Alexandria, by the emperorVespasian, as related by Tacitus;

II. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish church, astold by Cardinal de Retz; and, III. The cures said to be performed at the tomb of the abbe Paris in theearly part of the eighteenth century. 

I. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms: "One of thecommon people of Alexandria, known to be diseased in his eyes, by theadmonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation worshipabove all other gods, prostrated himself before the emperor, earnestlyimploring from him a remedy for his blindness, and entreating that hewould deign to anoint with his spittle his cheeks and the balls of hiseyes. Another, diseased in his hand, requested, by the admonition of thesame god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasianat first derided and despised their application; afterwards, when theycontinued to urge their petitions, he sometimes appeared to dread theimputation of vanity; at other times, by the earnest supplication of thepatients, and the persuasion of his flatterers, to be induced to hopefor success. At length he commanded an inquiry to be made by thephysicians, whether such a blindness and debility were vincible by humanaid. The report of the physicians contained various points: that in theone, the power of vision was not destroyed, but would return if theobstacles were removed; that in the other, the diseased joints might berestored, if a healing power were applied; that it was, perhaps, agreeable to the gods to do this; that the emperor was elected by divineassistance; lastly, that the credit of the success would be theemperor's, the ridicule of the disappointment would fall upon thepatients. Vespasian believing that everything was in the power of hisfortune, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilst themultitude which stood by eagerly expected the event, with a countenanceexpressive of joy, executed what he was desired to do. Immediately thehand was restored to its use, and light returned to the blind man. Theywho were present relate both these cures, even at this time, when thereis nothing to be gained by lying. " (Tacit. Hist. Lib. Iv. )

Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-seven years after themiracle is said to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what passedat Alexandria, and wrote also from report; and although it does notappear that he had examined the story or that he believed it, (butrather the contrary, ) yet I think his testimony sufficient to prove thatsuch a transaction took place: by which I mean, that the two men inquestion did apply to Vespasian; that Vespasian did touch the diseasedin the manner related; and that a cure was reported to have followed theoperation. But the affair labours under a strong and just suspicion, that the whole of it was a concerted imposture brought about bycollusion between the patients, the physician, and the emperor. Thissolution is probable, because there was everything to suggest, andeverything to facilitate such a scheme. The miracle was calculated toconfer honour upon the emperor, and upon the god Serapis. It wasachieved in the midst of the emperor's flatterers and followers; in acity and amongst a populace before-hand devoted to his interest, and tothe worship of the god: where it would have been treason and blasphemytogether to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to havequestioned it. And what is very observable in the account is, that thereport of the physicians is just such a report as would have been madeof a case in which no external marks of the disease existed, and which, consequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited; viz. That inthe first of the patients the organs of vision were not destroyed, thatthe weakness of the second was in his joints. The strongest circumstancein Tacitus's narration is, that the first patient was "notus tabeoculorum, " remarked or notorious for the disease in his eyes. But thiswas a circumstance which might have found its way into the story in itsprogress from a distant country, and during an interval of thirty years;or it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet thatthe nature and degree of the disease had never been ascertained; a caseby no means uncommon. The emperor's reserve was easily affected: or itis possible he might not be in the secret. There does not seem to bemuch weight in the observation of Tacitus, that they who were presentcontinued even then to relate the story when there was nothing to begained by the lie. It only proves that those who had told the story formany years persisted in it. The state of mind of the witnesses andspectators at the time is the point to be attended to. Still less isthere of pertinency in Mr. Hume's eulogium on the cautious andpenetrating genius of the historian; for it does not appear that thehistorian believed it. The terms in which he speaks of Serapis, thedeity to whose interposition the miracle was attributed, scarcely sufferus to suppose that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real: "by theadmonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation (deditasuperstitionibus gens) worship above all other gods. " To have broughtthis supposed miracle within the limits of comparison with the miraclesof Christ, it ought to have appeared that a person of a low and privatestation, in the midst of enemies, with the whole power of the countryopposing him, with every one around him prejudiced or interested againsthis claims and character, pretended to perform these cures, and requiredthe spectators, upon the strength of what they saw, to give up theirfirmest hopes and opinions, and follow him through a life of trial anddanger; that many were so moved as to obey his call, at the expense bothof every notion in which they had been brought up, and of their ease, safety, and reputation; and that by these beginnings a change wasproduced in the world, the effects of which remain to this day: a case, both in its circumstances and consequences, very unlike anything we findin Tacitus's relation. 

II. The story taken from the Memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, which is thesecond example alleged by Mr. Hume, is this: "In the church of Saragossain Spain, the canons showed me a man whose business it was to light thelamps; telling me, that he had been several years at the gate with oneleg only. I saw him with two. " (Liv. Iv. A. D. 1654. )

It is stated by Mr. Hume, that the cardinal who relates this story didnot believe it; and it nowhere appears that he either examined the limb, or asked the patient, or indeed any one, a single question about thematter. An artificial leg, wrought with art, would be sufficient, in aplace where no such contrivance had ever before been heard of, to giveorigin and currency to the report. The ecclesiastics of the place would, it is probable, favour the story, inasmuch as it advanced the honour oftheir image and church. And if they patronized it, no other person atSaragossa, in the middle of the last century, would care to dispute it. The story likewise coincided not less with the wishes and preconceptionsof the people than with the interests of their ecclesiastical rulers: sothat there was prejudice backed by authority, and both operating uponextreme ignorance, to account for the success of the imposture. If, as Ihave suggested, the contrivance of an artificial limb was then new, itwould not occur to the cardinal himself to suspect it; especially underthe carelessness of mind with which he heard the tale, and the littleinclination he felt to scrutinize or expose its fallacy. 

III. The miracles related to have been wrought at the tomb of the abbeParis admit in general of this solution. The patients who frequented thetomb were so affected by their devotion, their expectation, the place, the solemnity, and, above all, by the sympathy of the surroundingmultitude, that many of them were thrown into violent convulsions, whichconvulsions, in certain instances, produced a removal of disorder, depending upon obstruction. We shall, at this day, have the lessdifficulty in admitting the above account, because it is the very samething as hath lately been experienced in the operations of animalmagnetism: and the report of the French physicians upon that mysteriousremedy is very applicable to the present consideration, viz. That thepretenders to the art, by working upon the imaginations of theirpatients, were frequently able to produce convulsions; that convulsionsso produced are amongst the most powerful, but, at the same time, mostuncertain and unmanageable applications to the human frame which can beemployed. 

Circumstances which indicate this explication, in the case of theParisian miracles, are the following:

1. They were tentative. Out of many thousand sick, infirm, and diseasedpersons who resorted to the tomb, the professed history of the miraclescontains only nine cures. 

2. The convulsions at the tomb are admitted. 

3. The diseases were, for the most part, of that sort which depends uponinaction and obstruction, as dropsies, palsies, and some tumours. 

4. The cures were gradual; some patients attending many days, some severalweeks, and some several months. 

5. The cures were many of them incomplete. 

6. Others were temporary. (The reader will find these particularsverified in the detail, by the accurate inquiries of the present bishopof Sarum, in his Criterion of Miracles, p. 132, et seq. )

So that all the wonder we are called upon to account for is, that out ofan almost innumerable multitude which resorted to the tomb for the cureof their complaints, and many of whom were there agitated by strongconvulsions, a very small proportion experienced a beneficial change intheir constitution, especially in the action of the nerves and glands. 

Some of the cases alleged do not require that we should have recourse tothis solution. The first case in the catalogue is scarcelydistinguishable from the progress of a natural recovery. It was that ofa young man who laboured under an inflammation of one eye, and had lostthe sight of the other. The inflamed eye was relieved, but the blindnessof the other remained. The inflammation had before been abated bymedicine; and the young man, at the time of his attendance at the tomb, was using a lotion of laudanum. And, what is a still more material partof the case, the inflammation, after some interval, returned. Anothercase was that of a young man who had lost his sight by the puncture ofan awl, and the discharge of the aqueous humour through the wound. Thesight, which had been gradually returning, was much improved during hisvisit to the tomb, that is, probably in the same degree in which thedischarged humour was replaced by fresh secretions. And it isobservable, that these two are the only cases which, from their nature, should seem unlikely to be affected by convulsions. 

In one material respect I allow that the Parisian miracles weredifferent from those related by Tacitus, and from the Spanish miracle ofthe cardinal de Retz. They had not, like them, all the power and all theprejudice of the country on their side to begin with. They were allegedby one party against another, by the Jansenists against the Jesuits. These were of course opposed and examined by their adversaries. Theconsequence of which examination was that many falsehoods were detected, that with something really extraordinary much fraud appeared to bemixed. And if some of the cases upon which designed misrepresentationcould not be charged were not at the time satisfactorily accounted for, it was because the efficacy of strong spasmodic affections was not thensufficiently known. Finally, the cause of Jansenism did not rise by themiracles, but sunk, although the miracles had the anterior persuasion ofall the numerous adherents of that cause to set out with. 

These, let us remember, are the strongest examples which the history ofages supplies. In none of them was the miracle unequivocal; by none ofthem were established prejudices and persuasions overthrown; of none ofthem did the credit make its way, in opposition to authority and power;by none of them were many induced to commit themselves, and that incontradiction to prior opinions, to a life of mortification, danger, andsufferings; none were called upon to attest them at the expense of theirfortunes and safety. *

_________

* It may be thought that the historian of the Parisian miracles, M. Montgeron, forms an exception to this last assertion. He presented hisbook (with a suspicion, as it should seem, of the danger of what he wasdoing) to the king; and was shortly afterwards committed to prison; fromwhich he never came out. Had the miracles been unequivocal, and had M. Montgeron been originally convinced by them, I should have allowed thisexception. It would have stood, I think, alone in the argument of ouradversaries. But, beside what has been observed of the dubious nature ofthe miracles, the account which M. Montgeron has himself left of hisconversion shows both the state of his mind and that his persuasion wasnot built upon external miracles. --"Scarcely had he entered thechurchyard when he was struck, " he tells us, "with awe and reverence, having never before heard prayers pronounced with so much ardour andtransport as he observed amongst the supplicants at the tomb. Upon this, throwing himself on his knees, resting his elbows on the tombstone andcovering his face with his hands, he spake the following prayer. O thou, by whose intercession so many miracles are said to be performed, if itbe true that a part of thee surviveth the grave, and that thou hastinfluence with the Almighty, have pity on the darkness of myunderstanding, and through his mercy obtain the removal of it. " Havingprayed thus, "many thoughts, " as he sayeth, "began to open themselves tohis mind; and so profound was his attention that he continued on hisknees four hours, not in the least disturbed by the vast crowd ofsurrounding supplicants. During this time, all the arguments which heever heard or read in favour of Christianity occurred to him with somuch force, and seemed so strong and convincing, that he went home fullysatisfied of the truth of religion in general, and of the holiness andpower of that person who, " as he supposed, "had engaged the DivineGoodness to enlighten his understanding so suddenly. " (Douglas's Crit ofMir. P. 214. )

_________

PART II. 

OF THE AUXILIARY EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY

CHAPTER I. 

PROPHECY. 

Isaiah iii. 13; liii. "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shallbe exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished atthee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more thanthe sons of men: so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shuttheir mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall theysee; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Who hathbelieved our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For heshall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dryground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, thereis no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected ofmen, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid, as itwere, our faces from him: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we didesteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was woundedfor our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, thechastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we arehealed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one tohis own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Hewas oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he isbrought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearersis dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and fromjudgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off outof the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was hestricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich inhis death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit inhis mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him togrief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall seehis seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shallprosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shallbe satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him aportion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;because he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered withthe transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercessionfor the transgressors. "

These words are extant in a book purporting to contain the predictionsof a writer who lived seven centuries before the Christian era. 

That material part of every argument from prophecy, namely, that thewords alleged were actually spoken or written before the fact to whichthey are applied took place, or could by any natural means be foreseen, is, in the present instance, incontestable. The record comes out of thecustody of adversaries. The Jews, as an ancient father well observed, are our librarians. The passage is in their copies as well as in ours. With many attempts to explain it away, none has ever been made by themto discredit its authenticity. 

And what adds to the force of the quotation is, that it is taken from awriting declaredly prophetic; a writing professing to describe suchfuture transactions and changes in the world as were connected with thefate and interests of the Jewish nation. It is not a passage in anhistorical or devotional composition, which, because it turns out to beapplicable to some future events, or to some future situation ofaffairs, is presumed to have been oracular. The words of Isaiah weredelivered by him in a prophetic character, with the solemnity belongingto that character: and what he so delivered was all along understood bythe Jewish reader to refer to something that was to take place after thetime of the author. The public sentiments of the Jews concerning thedesign of Isaiah's writings are set forth in the book ofEcclesiasticus:* "He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to passat the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He showed whatshould come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came. "

_________

* Chap. Xlviii. Ver. 24. _________

It is also an advantage which this prophecy possesses, that it isintermixed with no other subject. It is entire, separate, anduninterruptedly directed to one scene of things. 

The application of the prophecy to the evangelic history is plain andappropriate. Here is no double sense; no figurative language but what issufficiently intelligible to every reader of every country. Theobscurities (by which I mean the expressions that require a knowledge oflocal diction, and of local allusion) are few, and not of greatimportance. Nor have I found that varieties of reading, or a differentconstruing of the original, produce any material alteration in the senseof the prophecy. Compare the common translation with that of BishopLowth, and the difference is not considerable. So far as they do differ, Bishop Lowth's corrections, which are the faithful result of an accurateexamination, bring the description nearer to the New Testament historythan it was before. In the fourth verse of the fifty-third chapter, whatour bible renders "stricken" he translates "judicially stricken:" and inthe eighth verse, the clause "he was taken from prison and fromjudgment, " the bishop gives "by an oppressive judgment he was takenoff. " The next words to these, "who shall declare his generation?" aremuch cleared up in their meaning by the bishop's version; "his manner oflife who would declare?" i. E. Who would stand forth in his defence? Theformer part of the ninth verse, "and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, " which inverts the circumstances ofChrist's passion, the bishop brings out in an order perfectly agreeableto the event; "and his grave was appointed with the wicked, but with therich man was his tomb. " The words in the eleventh verse, "by hisknowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, " are, in the bishop'sversion, "by the knowledge of him shall my righteous servant justifymany. "

It is natural to inquire what turn the Jews themselves give to thisprophecy. * There is good proof that the ancient Rabbins explained it oftheir expected Messiah:+ but their modern expositors concur, I think, inrepresenting it as a description of the calamitous state, and intendedrestoration, of the Jewish people, who are here, as they say, exhibitedunder the character of a single person. I have not discovered that theirexposition rests upon any critical arguments, or upon these in any otherthan in a very minute degree. 

_________

* "Vaticinium hoc Esaiae est carnificina Rabbinorum, de quo aliquiJudaei mihi confessi sunt, Rabbinos suos ex propheticis scripturisfacile se extricare potuisse, modo; Esaias tacuisset. " Hulse, Theol. Jud. P. 318, quoted by Poole, in loc. 

+ Hulse, Theol. Jud. P. 430. _________

The clause in the ninth verse, which we render "for the transgression ofmy people was he stricken, " and in the margin, "was the stroke uponhim, " the Jews read "for the transgression of my people was the strokeupon them. " And what they allege in support of the alteration amountsonly to this, that the Hebrew pronoun is capable of a plural as well asof a singular signification; that is to say, is capable of theirconstruction as well as ours. * And this is all the variation contendedfor; the rest of the prophecy they read as we do. The probability, therefore, of their exposition is a subject of which we are as capableof judging as themselves. This judgment is open indeed to the good senseof every attentive reader. The application which the Jews contend forappears to me to labour under insuperable difficulties; in particular, it may be demanded of them to explain in whose name or person, if theJewish people he the sufferer, does the prophet speak, when he says, "Hehath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem himstricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; but he was wounded for ourtransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement ofour peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. " Again, thedescription in the seventh verse, "he was oppressed and he wasafflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to theslaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened nothis mouth, " quadrates with no part of the Jewish history with which weare acquainted. The mention of the "grave" and the "tomb, " in the ninthverse, is not very applicable to the fortunes of a nation; and stillless so is the conclusion of the prophecy in the twelfth verse, whichexpressly represents the sufferings as voluntary, and the sufferer asinterceding for the offenders; "because he hath poured out his soul untodeath, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sinof many, and made intercession for the transgressors. "

_________

* Bishop Lowth adopts in this place the reading of the seventy, whichgives smitten to death, "for the transgression of my people was hesmitten to death. " The addition of the words "to death" makes an end ofthe Jewish interpretation of the clause. And the authority upon whichthis reading (though not given by the present Hebrew text) is adopted, Dr. Kennicot has set forth by an argument not only so cogent, but soclear and popular, that I beg leave to transcribe the substance of itinto this note:--"Origen, after having quoted at large this prophecyconcerning the Messiah, tells us that, having once made use of thispassage, in a dispute against some that were accounted wise amongst theJews, one of them replied that the words did not mean one man, but onepeople, the Jews, who were smitten of God, and dispersed among theGentiles for their conversion; that he then urged many parts of thisprophecy to show the absurdity of this interpretation, and that heseemed to press them the hardest by this sentence, --'for thetransgression of my people was he smitten to death. '" Now as Origen, theauthor of the Hexapla, must have understood Hebrew, we cannot supposethat he would have urged this last text as so decisive, if the Greekversion had not agreed here with the Hebrew text; nor that these wiseJews would have been at all distressed by this quotation, unless theHebrew text had read agreeably to the words "to death, " on which theargument principally depended; for by quoting it immediately, they wouldhave triumphed over him, and reprobated his Greek version. This, whenever they could do it was their constant practice in their disputeswith the Christians. Origen himself, who laboriously compared the Hebrewtext with the Septuagint, has recorded the necessity of arguing with theJews from such passages only as were in the Septuagint agreeable to theHebrew. Wherefore, as Origen had carefully compared the Greek version ofthe Septuagint with the Hebrew text; and as he puzzled and confoundedthe learned Jews, by urging upon them the reading "to death" in thisplace; it seems almost impossible not to conclude, both from Origen'sargument and the silence of his Jewish adversaries, that the Hebrew textat that time actually had the word agreeably to the version of theseventy. Lowth's Isaiah, p. 242. _________

There are other prophecies of the Old Testament, interpreted byChristians to relate to the Gospel history, which are deserving both ofgreat regard and of a very attentive consideration: but I content myselfwith stating the above, as well because I think it the clearest and thestrongest of all, as because most of the rest, in order that their valuemight be represented with any tolerable degree of fidelity, require adiscussion unsuitable to the limits and nature of this work. The readerwill find them disposed in order, and distinctly explained, in BishopChandler's treatise on the subject; and he will bear in mind, what hasbeen often, and, I think, truly, urged by the advocates of Christianity, that there is no other eminent person to the history of whose life somany circumstances can be made to apply. They who object that much hasbeen done by the power of chance, the ingenuity of accommodation, andthe industry of research, ought to try whether the same, or anythinglike it, could be done, if Mahomet, or any other person, were proposedas the subject of Jewish prophecy. 

II. A second head of argument from prophecy is founded upon our Lord'spredictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, recorded by threeout of the four evangelists. 

Luke xxi. 5-25. "And as some spake of the temple, how it was adornedwith goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which yebehold, the days will come in which there shall not be left one stoneupon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be whenthese things shall come to pass? And he said, Take heed that ye be notdeceived; for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and thetime draweth near; go ye not therefore after them. But when ye shallhear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things mustfirst come to pass; but the end is not by-and-by. Then said he untothem, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; andgreat earth-quakes shall be in divers places, and famines andpestilences; and fearful sights, and great signs shall there be fromheaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, andpersecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shallturn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts not tomeditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth andwisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay norresist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, andkinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put todeath. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But thereshall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye yoursouls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then knowthat the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judeaflee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it departout; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. Forthese be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may befulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child and to them that givesuck in those days: for there shall be great distress in the land, andwrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall betrodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles befulfilled. "

In terms nearly similar, this discourse is related in the twenty-fourthchapter of Matthew and the thirteenth of Mark. The prospect of the sameevils drew from our Saviour, on another occasion, the followingaffecting expressions of concern, which are preserved by St. Luke (xix. 41--44): "And when he was come near, he beheld the city and wept overit, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thineeyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast atrench about thee, and compass thee round and keep thee in on everyside, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children withinthee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; becausethou knowest not the time of thy visitation"--These passages are directand explicit predictions. References to the same event, some plain, someparabolical, or otherwise figurative, are found in divers otherdiscourses of our Lord. (Matt. Xxi. 33-46; xxii. 1-7. Mark xii. 1-12. Luke xiii. 1-9; xx. 9-20; xxi. 5-13. )

The general agreement of the description with the event, viz. With theruin of the Jewish nation, and the capture of Jerusalem under Vespasian, thirty-six years after Christ's death, is most evident; and theaccordancy in various articles of detail and circumstances has beenshown by many learned writers. It is also an advantage to the inquiry, and to the argument built upon it, that we have received a copiousaccount of the transaction from Josephus, a Jewish and contemporaryhistorian. This part of the case is perfectly free from doubt. The onlyquestion which, in my opinion, can be raised upon the subject is, whether the prophecy was really delivered before the event? I shallapply, therefore, my observations to this point solely. 

1. The judgment of antiquity, though varying in the precise year of thepublication of the three Gospels, concurs in assigning them a date priorto the destruction of Jerusalem. (Lardner, vol. Xiii. )

2. This judgment is confirmed by a strong probability arising from thecourse of human life. The destruction of Jerusalem took place in theseventieth year after the birth of Christ. The three evangelists, one ofwhom was his immediate companion, and the other two associated with hiscompanions, were, it is probable, not much younger than he was. Theymust, consequently, have been far advanced in life when Jerusalem wastaken; and no reason has been given why they should defer writing theirhistories so long. 

3. (Le Clerc, Diss. III. De Quat. Evang. Num. Vii. P. 541. ) If theevangelists, at the time of writing the Gospels, had known of thedestruction of Jerusalem, by which catastrophe the prophecies wereplainly fulfilled, it is most probable that, in recording thepredictions, they would have dropped some word or other about thecompletion; in like manner as Luke, after relating the denunciation of adearth by Agabus, adds, "which came to pass in the days of ClaudiusCaesar;" (Acts xi. 28. ) whereas the prophecies are given distinctly inone chapter of each of the first three Gospels, and referred to inseveral different passages of each, and in none of all these places doesthere appear the smallest intimation that the things spoken of had cometo pass. I do admit that it would have been the part of an impostor, whowished his readers to believe that this book was written before theevent, when in truth it was written after it, to have suppressed anysuch intimation carefully. But this was not the character of the authorsof the Gospel. Cunning was no quality of theirs. Of all writers in theworld, they thought the least of providing against objections. Moreover, there is no clause in any one of them that makes a profession of theirhaving written prior to the Jewish wars, which a fraudulent purposewould have led them to pretend. They have done neither one thing nor theother; they have neither inserted any words which might signify to thereader that their accounts were written before the destruction ofJerusalem, which a sophist would have done; nor have they dropped a hintof the completion of the prophecies recorded by them, which anundesigning writer, writing after the event, could hardly, on some orother of the many occasions that presented themselves, have missed ofdoing. 

4. The admonitions* which Christ is represented to have given to hisfollowers to save themselves by flight are not easily accounted for onthe supposition of the prophecy being fabricated after the event. Eitherthe Christians, when the siege approached, did make their escape fromJerusalem, or they did not: if they did, they must have had the prophecyamongst them: if they did not know of any such prediction at the time ofthe siege, if they did not take notice of any such warning, it was animprobable fiction, in a writer publishing his work near to that time(which, on any, even the lowest and most disadvantageous supposition, was the case with the gospels now in our hands), and addressing his workto Jews and to Jewish converts (which Matthew certainly did), to statethat the followers of Christ had received admonition of which they madeno use when the occasion arrived, and of which experience then recentproved that those who were most concerned to know and regard them wereignorant or negligent. Even if the prophecies came to the hands of theevangelists through no better vehicle than tradition, it must have beenby a tradition which subsisted prior to the event. And to suppose thatwithout any authority whatever, without so much as even any tradition toguide them, they had forged these passages, is to impute to them adegree of fraud and imposture from every appearance of which theircompositions are as far removed as possible. 

_________

* "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that thedesolation thereof is nigh; then let them which are in Judea flee to themountains; then let them which are in the midst of it depart out, andlet not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. "--Luke xxi. 20, 21. "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then let them whichbe in Judea flee unto the mountains; let him which is on the house-topnot come down to take anything out of his house; neither let him whichis in the field return back to take his clothes. "--Matt. Xiv. 18. _________

5. I think that, if the prophecies had been composed after the event, there would have been more specification. The names or descriptions ofthe enemy, the general, the emperor, would have been found in them. Thedesignation of the time would have been more determinate. And I amfortified in this opinion by observing that the counterfeited propheciesof the Sibylline oracles, of the twelve patriarchs, and, I am inclinedto believe, most others of the kind, are mere transcripts of thehistory, moulded into a prophetic form. 

It is objected that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem ismixed or connected with expressions which relate to the final judgmentof the world; and so connected as to lead an ordinary reader to expectthat these two events would not be far distant from each other. To whichI answer, that the objection does not concern our present argument. Ifour Saviour actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, it issufficient; even although we should allow that the narration of theprophecy had combined what had been said by him on kindred subjects, without accurately preserving the order, or always noticing thetransition of the discourse. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE MORALITY OF THE GOSPEL. 

Is stating the morality of the Gospel as an argument of its truth, I amwilling to admit two points; first, that the teaching of morality wasnot the primary design of the mission; secondly, that morality, neitherin the Gospel, nor in any other book, can be a subject, properlyspeaking, of discovery. 

If I were to describe in a very few words the scope of Christianity as arevelation, * I should say that it was to influence the conduct of humanlife, by establishing the proof of a future state of reward andpunishment, --"to bring life and immortality to light. " The directobject, therefore, of the design is, to supply motives, and not rules;sanctions, and not precepts. And these were what mankind stood most inneed of. The members of civilised society can, in all ordinary cases, judge tolerably well how they ought to act: but without a future state, or, which is the same thing, without credited evidence of that state, they want a motive to their duty; they want at least strength of motivesufficient to bear up against the force of passion, and the temptationof present advantage. Their rules want authority. The most importantservice that can be rendered to human life, and that consequently whichone might expect beforehand would be the great end and office of arevelation from God, is to convey to the world authorised assurances ofthe reality of a future existence. And although in doing this, or by theministry of the same person by whom this is done, moral precepts orexamples, or illustrations of moral precepts, may be occasionally givenand be highly valuable, yet still they do not form the original purposeof the mission. 

_________

* Great and inestimably beneficial effects may accrue from the missionof Christ, and especially from his death, which do not belong toChristianity as a revelation: that is, they might have existed, and theymight have been accomplished, though we had never, in this life, beenmade acquainted with them. These effects may be very extensive; they maybe interesting even to other orders of intelligent beings. I think it isa general opinion, and one to which I have long come, that thebeneficial effects of Christ's death extend to the whole human species. It was the redemption of the world. "He is the propitiation for oursins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world;" 1 John ii. 2. Probably the future happiness, perhaps the future existence of thespecies, and more gracious terms of acceptance extended to all, mightdepend upon it or be procured by it. Now these effects, whatever theybe, do not belong to Christianity as a revelation; because they existwith respect to those to whom it is not revealed. _________

Secondly; morality, neither in the Gospel nor in any other book, can bea subject of discovery, properly so called. By which proposition I meanthat there cannot, in morality, be anything similar to what are calleddiscoveries in natural philosophy, in the arts of life, and in somesciences; as the system of the universe, the circulation of the blood, the polarity of the magnet, the laws of gravitation, alphabeticalwriting, decimal arithmetic, and some other things of the same sort;facts, or proofs, or contrivances, before totally unknown and unthoughtof. Whoever, therefore, expects in reading the New Testament to bestruck with discoveries in morals in the manner in which his mind wasaffected when he first came to the knowledge of the discoveries abovementioned: or rather in the manner in which the world was affected bythem, when they were first published; expects what, as I apprehend, thenature of the subject renders it impossible that he should meet with. And the foundation of my opinion is this, that the qualities of actionsdepend entirely upon their effects, which effects must all along havebeen the subject of human experience. 

When it is once settled, no matter upon what principle, that to do goodis virtue, the rest is calculation. But since the calculation cannot beinstituted concerning each particular action, we establish intermediaterules; by which proceeding, the business of morality is muchfacilitated, for then it is concerning our rules alone that we needinquire, whether in their tendency they be beneficial; concerning ouractions, we have only to ask whether they be agreeable to the rules. Werefer actions to rules, and rules to public happiness. Now, in theformation of these rules, there is no place for discovery, properly socalled, but there is ample room for the exercise of wisdom, judgment, and prudence. 

As I wish to deliver argument rather than panegyric, I shall treat ofthe morality of the Gospel in subjection to these observations. Andafter all, I think it such a morality as, considering from whom it came, is most extraordinary; and such as, without allowing some degree ofreality to the character and pretensions of the religion, it isdifficult to account for: or, to place the argument a little lower inthe scale, it is such a morality as completely repels the supposition ofits being the tradition of a barbarous age or of a barbarous people, ofthe religion being founded in folly, or of its being the production ofcraft; and it repels also, in a great degree, the supposition of itshaving been the effusion of an enthusiastic mind. 

The division under which the subject may be most conveniently treated isthat of the things taught, and the manner of teaching. 

Under the first head, I should willingly, if the limits and nature of mywork admitted of it, transcribe into this chapter the whole of what hasbeen said upon the morality of the Gospel by the author of The InternalEvidence of Christianity; because it perfectly agrees with my ownopinion, and because it is impossible to say the same things so well. This acute observer of human nature, and, as I believe, sincere convertto Christianity, appears to me to have made out satisfactorily the twofollowing positions, viz. --

I. That the Gospel omits some qualifies which have usually engaged thepraises and admiration of mankind, but which, in reality, and in theirgeneral effects, have been Prejudicial to human happiness. 

II. That the Gospel has brought forward some virtues which possess thehighest intrinsic value, but which have commonly been overlooked andcontemned. 

The first of these propositions he exemplifies in the instances offriendship, patriotism, active courage; in the sense in which thesequalities are usually understood, and in the conduct which they oftenproduce. 

The second, in the instances of passive courage or endurance ofsufferings, patience under affronts and injuries, humility, irresistance, placability. 

The truth is, there are two opposite descriptions of character underwhich mankind may generally be classed. The one possesses rigour, firmness, resolution; is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in itspurpose, violent in its resentments. 

The other meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act, butwilling to suffer; silent and gentle under rudeness and insult, suingfor reconciliation where others would demand satisfaction, giving way tothe pushes of impudence, conceding and indulgent to the prejudices, thewrong-headedness, the intractability of those with whom it has to deal. 

The former of these characters is, and ever hath been, the favourite ofthe world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in itwhich universally commands respect. 

The latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject. Yet so it hath happened, that with the Founder of Christianity this latter is the subject of hiscommendation, his precepts, his example; and that the former is so in nopart of its composition. This, and nothing else, is the characterdesigned in the following remarkable passages: "Resist not evil: butwhosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the otheralso; and if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also: and whosoever shall compel thee to go amile, go with him twain: love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully useyou and persecute you. " This certainly is not commonplace morality. Itis very original. It shows at least (and it is for this purpose weproduce it) that no two things can be more different than the Heroic andthe Christian characters. 

Now the author to whom I refer has not only marked this difference morestrongly than any preceding writer, but has proved, in contradiction tofirst impressions, to popular opinion, to the encomiums of orators andpoets, and even to the suffrages of historians and moralists, that thelatter character possesses the most of true worth, both as being mostdifficult either to be acquired or sustained, and as contributing mostto the happiness and tranquillity of social life. The state of hisargument is as follows:

I. If this disposition were universal, the case is clear; the worldwould be a society of friends. Whereas, if the other disposition wereuniversal, it would produce a scene of universal contention. The worldcould not hold a generation of such men. 

II. If, what is the fact, the disposition be partial; if a few beactuated by it, amongst a multitude who are not; in whatever degree itdoes prevail, in the same proportion it prevents, allays, and terminatesquarrels, the great disturbers of human happiness, and the great sourcesof human misery, so far as man's happiness and misery depend upon man. Without this disposition enmities must not only be frequent, but, oncebegun, must be eternal: for, each retaliation being a fresh injury, andconsequently requiring a fresh satisfaction, no period can be assignedto the reciprocation of affronts, and to the progress of hatred, butthat which closes the lives, or at least the intercourse, of the parties. 

I would only add to these observations, that although the former of thetwo characters above described may be occasionally useful; although, perhaps, a great general, or a great statesman, may be formed by it, andthese may be instruments of important benefits to mankind, yet is thisnothing more than what is true of many qualities which are acknowledgedto be vicious. Envy is a quality of this sort: I know not a strongerstimulus to exertion; many a scholar, many an artist, many a soldier, has been produced by it; nevertheless, since in its general effects itis noxious, it is properly condemned, certainly is not praised, by sobermoralists. 

It was a portion of the same character as that we are defending, orrather of his love of the same character, which our Saviour displayed inhis repeated correction of the ambition of his disciples; his frequentadmonitions that greatness with them was to consist in humility; hiscensure of that love of distinction and greediness of superiority whichthe chief persons amongst his countrymen were wont, on all occasions, great and little, to betray. "They (the Scribes and Pharisees) love theuppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, andgreetings in the markets, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. But benot ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye arebrethren: and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is yourfather, which is in heaven; neither be ye called master, for one is yourMaster, even Christ; but he that is greatest among you shall be yourservant; and whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and he thatshall humble himself shall be exalted. " (Matt. Xxiii. 6. See also Markxii. 39; Luke xx. 46; xiv. 7. ) I make no further remark upon thesepassages (because they are, in truth, only a repetition of the doctrine, different expressions of the principle, which we have already stated), except that some of the passages, especially our Lord's advice to theguests at an entertainment, (Luke iv. 7. ) seem to extend the rule towhat we call manners; which was both regular in point of consistency, and not so much beneath the dignity of our Lord's mission as may atfirst sight be supposed, for bad manners are bad morals. 

It is sufficiently apparent that the precepts we have tired, or ratherthe disposition which these precepts inculcate, relate to personalconduct from personal motives; to cases in which men act from impulse, for themselves and from themselves. When it comes to be considered whatis necessary to be done for the sake of the public, and out of a regardto the general welfare (which consideration, for the most part, oughtexclusively to govern the duties of men in public stations), it comes toa case to which the rules do not belong. This distinction is plain; andif it were less so the consequence would not be much felt: for it isvery seldom that in time intercourse of private life men act with publicviews. The personal motives from which they do act the rule regulates. 

The preference of time patient to the heroic cheer, which we have herenoticed, and which the reader will find explained at large in the workto which we have referred him, is a peculiarity in the Christianinstitution, which I propose as an argument of wisdom, very much beyondthe situation and natural character of the person who delivered it. 

II. A second argument, drawn from the morality of the New Testament, isthe stress which is laid by our Saviour upon the regulation of thethoughts; and I place this consideration next to the other because theyare connected. The other related to the malicious passions; this to thevoluptuous. Together, they comprehend the whole character. 

"Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, " &c. "These are the things which defile a man. " (Matt. Xv. 19. )

"Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean theoutside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full ofextortion and excess. --Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeedappear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, andof all uncleanness; even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity" (Matt. Xxiii. 25, 27)

And more particularly that strong expression, (Matt. V. 28. ) "Whosoeverlooketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with heralready in his heart. "

There can be no doubt with any reflecting mind but that the propensitiesof our nature must be subject to regulation; but the question is, wherethe check ought to be placed, upon the thought, or only upon the action?In this question our Saviour, in the texts here quoted, has pronounced adecisive judgment. He makes the control of thought essential. Internalpurity with him is everything. Now I contend that this is the onlydiscipline which can succeed; in other words, that a moral system whichprohibits actions, but leaves the thoughts at liberty, will beineffectual, and is therefore unwise. I know not how to go about theproof of a point which depends upon experience, and upon a knowledge ofthe human constitution, better than by citing the judgment of personswho appear to have given great attention to the subject, and to be wellqualified to form a true opinion about it. Boerhaave, speaking of thisvery declaration of our Saviour, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lustafter her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart, " andunderstanding it, as we do, to contain an injunction to lay the checkupon the thoughts, was wont to say that "our Saviour knew mankind betterthan Socrates. " Hailer, who has recorded this saying of Boerhaave, addsto it the following remarks of his own:--(Letters to his Daughter. ) "Itdid not escape the observation of our Saviour that the rejection ofany evil thoughts was the best defence against vice: for when adebauched person fills his imagination with impure pictures, thelicentious ideas which he recalls fail not to stimulate his desires witha degree of violence which he cannot resist. This will be followed bygratification, unless some external obstacle should prevent him from thecommission of a sin which he had internally resolved on. " "Every momentof time, " says our author, "that is spent in meditations upon sinincreases the power of the dangerous object which has possessed ourimagination. " I suppose these reflections will be generally assented to. 

III. Thirdly, had a teacher of morality been asked concerning a generalprinciple of conduct, and for a short rule of life; and had heinstructed the person who consulted him, "constantly to refer hisactions to what he believed to be the will of his Creator, andconstantly to have in view not his own interest and gratification alone, but the happiness and comfort of those about him, " he would have beenthought, I doubt not, in any age of the world, and in any, even the mostimproved state of morals, to have delivered a judicious answer; because, by the first direction, he suggested the only motive which acts steadilyand uniformly, in sight and out of sight, in familiar occurrences andunder pressing temptations; and in the second he corrected what of alltendencies in the human character stands most in need of correction, selfishness, or a contempt of other men's conveniency and satisfaction. In estimating the value of a moral rule, we are to have regard not onlyto the particular duty, but the general spirit; not only to what itdirects us to do, but to the character which a compliance with itsdirection is likely to form in us. So, in the present instance, the rulehere recited will never fail to make him who obeys it considerate not onlyof the rights, but of the feelings of other men, bodily and mental, ingreat matters and in small; of the ease, the accommodation, theself-complacency of all with whom he has any concern, especially of allwho are in his power, or dependent upon his will. 

Now what, in the most applauded philosopher of the most enlightened ageof the world, would have been deemed worthy of his wisdom, and of hischaracter, to say, our Saviour hath said, and upon just such an occasionas that which we have feigned. 

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, temptinghim, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thyheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; this is the firstand great commandment: and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt lovethy neighbour as thyself: on these two commandments hang all the law andthe prophets. " (Matt. Xxii. 35-40. )

The second precept occurs in St. Matthew (xix. 16), on another occasionsimilar to this; and both of them, on a third similar occasion, in Luke(x. 27). In these two latter instances the question proposed was, "Whatshall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Upon all these occasions I consider the words of our Saviour asexpressing precisely the same thing as what I have put into the mouth ofthe moral philosopher. Nor do I think that it detracts much from themerit of the answer, that these precepts are extant in the Mosaic code:for his laying his finger, if I may so say, upon these precepts; hisdrawing them out from the rest of that voluminous institution; hisstating of them, not simply amongst the number, but as the greatest andthe sum of all the others; in a word, his proposing of them to hishearers for their rule and principle, was our Saviour's own. 

And what our Saviour had said upon the subject appears to me to havefixed the sentiment amongst his followers. 

Saint Paul has it expressly, "If there be any other commandment, it isbriefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour asthyself;" (Rom. Xiii. 9. ) and again, "For all the law is fulfilled inone word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " (Gal. V. 14. )

Saint John, in like manner, "This commandment have we from him, that hewho loveth God love his brother also. " (1 John iv. 21. )

Saint Peter, not very differently: "Seeing that ye have purified yoursouls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love ofthe brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently. "(I Peter i, 22. )

And it is so well known as to require no citations to verify it, thatthis love, or charity, or, in other words, regard to the welfare ofothers, runs in various forms through all the preceptive parts of theapostolic writings. It is the theme of all their exhortations, that withwhich their morality begins and ends, from which all their details andenumerations set out, and into which they return. 

And that this temper, for some time at least, descended in its purity tosucceeding Christians, is attested by one of the earliest and best ofthe remaining writings of the apostolical fathers, the epistle of theRoman Clement. The meekness of the Christian character reigns throughoutthe whole of that excellent piece. The occasion called for it. It was tocompose the dissensions of the church of Corinth. And the venerable hearerof the apostles does not fall short, in the display of this principle, ofthe finest passages of their writings. He calls to the remembrance of theCorinthian church its former character in which "ye were all of you, " hetells them, "humble-minded, not boasting of anything, desiring rather tobe subject than to govern, to give than to receive, being content with theportion God had dispensed to you and hearkening diligently to his word;ye were enlarged in your bowels, having his sufferings always before youreyes. Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that withcompassion and a good conscience the number of his elect might be saved. Ye were sincere, and without offence towards each other. Ye bewailedevery one his neighbour's sins, esteeming their defects your own. " Hisprayer for them was for the "return of peace, long-suffering, andpatience. " (Ep. Clem. Rom. C. 2 & 53; Abp. Wake's Translation. ) And hisadvice to those who might have been the occasion of difference in thesociety is conceived in the true spirit, and with a perfect knowledge ofthe Christian character: "Who is there among you that is generous? whothat is compassionate? Who that has any charity? Let him say, If thissedition, this contention, and these schisms be upon my account, I amready to depart, to go away whithersoever ye please, and do whatsoeverye shall command me; only let the flock of Christ be in peace with theelders who are set over it. He that shall do this shall get to himself avery great honour in the Lord; and there is no place but what will heready to receive him; for the earth is the Lord's and the fullnessthereof. These things they who have their conversation towards God, notto be repented of, both have done, and will always be ready to do. " (Ep. Clem. Rom. C. 54; Abp. Wake's Translation. )

This sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance, lenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age. Thereare more quotations in the apostolical fathers of texts which relate tothese points than of any other. Christ's sayings had struck them. "Notrendering, " said Polycarp, the disciple of John, "evil for evil, orrailing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for cursing. "Again, speaking of some whose behaviour had given great offence, "Be yemoderate, " says he, "on this occasion, and look not upon such asenemies, but call them back as suffering and erring members, that yesave your whole body. " (Pol. Ep. Ad Phil. C. 2 & 11. )

"Be ye mild at their anger, " saith Ignatius, the companion of Polycarp, "humble at their boastings, to their blasphemies return your prayers, totheir error your firmness in the faith; when they are cruel, be yegentle; not endeavouring to imitate their ways, let us be their brethrenin all kindness and moderation: but let us be followers of the Lord; forwho was ever more unjustly used, more destitute, more despised?"

IV. A fourth quality by which the morality of the Gospel isdistinguished is the exclusion of regard to fame and reputation. 

"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven. " "Whenthou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth insecret shall reward thee openly. " (Matt. Vi. 1 & 6. )

And the rule, by parity of reason, is extended to all other virtues. 

I do not think that either in these or in any other passage of the NewTestament, the pursuit of fame is stated as a vice; it is only said thatan action, to be virtuous, must be independent of it. I would alsoobserve that it is not publicity, but ostentation, which is prohibited;not the mode, but the motive of the action, which is regulated. A goodman will prefer that mode, as well as those objects of his beneficence, by which he can produce the greatest effect; and the view of thispurpose may dictate sometimes publication, and sometimes concealment. Either the one or the other may be the mode of the action, according asthe end to be promoted by it appears to require. But from the motive, the reputation of the deed, and the fruits and advantage of thatreputation to ourselves, must be shut out, or, in whatever proportionthey are not so, the action in that proportion fails of being virtuous. 

This exclusion of regard to human opinion is a difference not so much inthe duties to which the teachers of virtue would persuade mankind, as inthe manner and topics of persuasion. And in this view the difference isgreat. When we set about to give advice, our lectures are full of theadvantages of character, of the regard that is due to appearances and toopinion; of what the world, especially of what the good or great, willthink and say; of the value of public esteem, and of the qualities bywhich men acquire it. Widely different from this was our Saviour'sinstruction; and the difference was founded upon the best reasons. For, however the care of reputation, the authority of public opinion, or evenof the opinion of good men, the satisfaction of being well received andwell thought of, the benefit of being known and distinguished, aretopics to which we are fain to have recourse in our exhortations; thetrue virtue is that which discards these considerations absolutely, andwhich retires from them all to the single internal purpose of pleasingGod. This at least was the virtue which our Saviour taught. And inteaching this, he not only confined the views of his followers to theproper measure and principle of human duty, but acted in consistencywith his office as a monitor from heaven. 

Next to what our Saviour taught, may be considered the manner of histeaching; which was extremely peculiar, yet, I think, precisely adaptedto the peculiarity of his character and situation. His lessons did notconsist of disquisitions; of anything like moral essays, or likesermons, or like set treatises upon the several points which hementioned. When he delivered a precept, it was seldom that he added anyproof or argument; still more seldom that he accompanied it with whatall precepts require, limitations and distinctions. His instructionswere conceived in short, emphatic, sententious rules, in occasionalreflections, or in round maxims. I do not think that this was a natural, or would have been a proper method for a philosopher or a moralist; orthat it is a method which can be successfully imitated by us. But Icontend that it was suitable to the character which Christ assumed, andto the situation in which, as a teacher, he was placed. He producedhimself as a messenger from God. He put the truth of what he taught uponauthority. (I say unto you, Swear not at all; I say auto you, Resist notevil; I say unto you, Love your enemies. --Matt. V. 34, 39, 44. ) In thechoice, therefore, of his mode of teaching, the purpose by him to beconsulted was impression: because conviction, which forms the principalend of our discourses, was to arise in the minds of his followers from adifferent source, from their respect to his person and authority. Now, for the purpose of impression singly and exclusively, (I repeat again, that we are not here to consider the convincing of the understanding, ) Iknow nothing which would have so great force as strong ponderous maxims, frequently urged and frequently brought back to the thoughts of thehearers. I know nothing that could in this view be said better, than "Dounto others as ye would that others should do unto you:" "The first andgreat commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: and the secondis like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " It must alsobe remembered, that our Lord's ministry, upon the supposition either ofone year or three, compared with his work, was of short duration; that, within this time, he had many places to visit, various audiences toaddress; that his person was generally besieged by crowds of followers;that he was, sometimes, driven away from the place where he was teachingby persecution, and at other times thought fit to withdraw himself fromthe commotions of the populace. Under these circumstances, nothingappears to have been so practicable, or likely to be so efficacious, asleaving, wherever he came, concise lessons of duty. These circumstancesat least show the necessity he was under of comprising what he deliveredwithin a small compass. In particular, his sermon upon the mount oughtalways to be considered with a view to these observations. The questionis not, whether a fuller, a more accurate, a more systematic, or a moreargumentative discourse upon morals might not have been pronounced; butwhether more could have been said in the same room better adapted tothe exigencies of the hearers, or better calculated for the purpose ofimpression? Seen in this light, it has always appeared to me to beadmirable. Dr. Lardner thought that this discourse was made up of whatChrist had said at different times, and on different occasions, severalof which occasions are noticed in St Luke's narrative. 

I can perceive no reason for this opinion. I believe that our Lorddelivered this discourse at one time and place, in the manner related bySaint Matthew, and that he repeated the same rules and maxims atdifferent times, as opportunity or occasion suggested; that they wereoften in his mouth, and were repeated to different audiences, and invarious conversations. 

It is incidental to this mode of moral instruction, which proceeds notby proof but upon authority, not by disquisition but by precept, thatthe rules will be conceived in absolute terms, leaving the applicationand the distinctions that attend it to the reason of the hearer. It islikewise to be expected that they will be delivered in terms by so muchthe more forcible and energetic, as they have to encounter natural orgeneral propensities. It is further also to be remarked, that many ofthose strong instances which appear in our Lord's sermon, such as, "Ifany man will smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also:""If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let himhave thy cloak also:" "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go withhim twain:" though they appear in the form of specific precepts, areintended as descriptive of disposition and character. A specificcompliance with the precepts would be of little value, but thedisposition which they inculcate is of the highest. He who shouldcontent himself with waiting for the occasion, and with literallyobserving the rule when the occasion offered, would do nothing, or worsethan nothing: but he who considers the character and disposition whichis hereby inculcated, and places that disposition before him as themodel to which he should bring his own, takes, perhaps, the bestpossible method of improving the benevolence, and of calming andrectifying the vices of his temper. 

If it be said that this disposition is unattainable, I answer, so is allperfection: ought therefore a moralist to recommend imperfections? Oneexcellency, however, of our Saviour's rules is, that they are eithernever mistaken, or never so mistaken as to do harm. I could feign ahundred cases in which the literal application of the rule, "of doing toothers as we would that others should do unto us, " might mislead us; butI never yet met with the man who was actually misled by it. Notwithstanding that our Lord bade his followers, "not to resist evil, "and to "forgive the enemy who should trespass against them, not tillseven times, but till seventy times seven, " the Christian world hashitherto suffered little by too much placability or forbearance. I wouldrepeat once more, what has already been twice remarked, that these ruleswere designed to regulate personal conduct from personal motives, andfor this purpose alone. I think that these observations will assist usgreatly in placing our Saviour's conduct as a moral teacher in a properpoint of view; especially when it is considered, that to deliver moraldisquisitions was no part of his design, --to teach morality at all wasonly a subordinate part of it; his great business being to supply whatwas much more wanting than lessons of morality, stronger moralsanctions, and clearer assurances of a future judgment. *

_________

* Some appear to require in a religious system, or in the books whichprofess to deliver that system, minute directions for every case andoccurrence that may arise. This, say they, is necessary to render arevelation perfect, especially one which has for its object theregulation of human conduct. Now, how prolix, and yet how incomplete andunavailing, such an attempt must have been, is proved by one notableexample: "The Indoo and Mussulman religions are institutes of civil law, regulating the minutest questions, both of property and of all questionswhich come under the cognizance of the magistrate. And to what lengthdetails of this kind are necessarily carried when once begun, may beunderstood from an anecdote of the Mussulman code, which we havereceived from the most respectable authority, that not less thanseventy-five thousand traditional precepts have been promulgated. "(Hamilton's translation of Hedays, or Guide. )_________

The parables of the New Testament are, many of them, such as would havedone honour to any book in the world: I do not mean in style anddiction, but in the choice of the subjects, in the structure of thenarratives, in the aptness, propriety, and force of the circumstanceswoven into them; and in some, as that of the Good Samaritan, theProdigal Son, the Pharisee and the Publican, in an union of pathos andsimplicity, which in the best productions of human genius is the fruitonly of a much exercised and well cultivated judgment. 

The Lord's Prayer, for a succession of solemn thoughts, for fixing theattention upon a few great points, for suitableness to every condition, for sufficiency, for conciseness without obscurity, for the weight andreal importance of its petitions, is without an equal or a rival. 

From whence did these come? Whence had this man his wisdom? Was ourSaviour, in fact, a well instructed philosopher, whilst he isrepresented to us as an illiterate peasant? Or shall we say that someearly Christians of taste and education composed these pieces andascribed them to Christ? Beside all other incredibilities in thisaccount, I answer, with Dr. Jortin, that they could not do it. Nospecimens of composition which the Christians of the first century haveleft us authorise us to believe that they were equal to the task. Andhow little qualified the Jews, the countrymen and companions of Christ, were to assist him in the undertaking, may be judged of from thetraditions and writings of theirs which were the nearest to that age. The whole collection of the Talmud is one continued proof into whatfollies they fell whenever they left their Bible; and how little capablethey were of furnishing out such lessons as Christ delivered. 

But there is still another view in which our Lord's discourses deserveto be considered; and that is, in their negative character, --not in whatthey did, but in what they did not, contain. Under this head thefollowing reflections appear to me to possess some weight. 

I. They exhibit no particular description of the invisible world. Thefuture happiness of the good, and the misery of the bad, which is all wewant to be assured of, is directly and positively affirmed, and isrepresented by metaphors and comparisons, which were plainly intended asmetaphors and comparisons, and as nothing more. As to the rest, a solemnreserve is maintained. The question concerning the woman who had beenmarried to seven brothers, "Whose shall she be on the resurrection?" wasof a nature calculated to have drawn from Christ a more circumstantialaccount of the state of the human species in their future existence. Hecuts short, however, the inquiry by an answer, which at once rebukedintruding curiosity, and was agreeable to the best apprehensions we areable to form upon the subject, viz. "That they who are accounted worthyof that resurrection, shall be as the angels of God in heaven. " I lay astress upon this reserve, because it repels the suspicion of enthusiasm:for enthusiasm is wont to expatiate upon the condition of the departed, above all other subjects, and with a wild particularity. It is moreovera topic which is always listened to with greediness. The teacher, therefore, whose principal purpose is to draw upon himself attention, issure to be full of it. The Koran of Mahomet is half made up of it. 

II. Our Lord enjoined no austerities. He not only enjoined none asabsolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higherdegree of Divine favour. Place Christianity, in this respect, by theside of all institutions which have been founded in the fanaticismeither of their author or of his first followers: or, rather, compare inthis respect Christianity, as it came from Christ, with the samereligion after it fell into other hands--with the extravagant merit verysoon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigoursof an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the hair-shirt, thewatchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence, the gloom andmortification of religious orders, and of those who aspired to religiousperfection. 

III. Our Saviour uttered no impassioned devotion. There was no heat inhis piety, or in the language in which he expressed it; no vehement orrapturous ejaculations, no violent urgency, in his prayers. The Lord'sPrayer is a model of calm devotion. His words in the garden areunaffected expressions of a deep, indeed, but sober piety. He neverappears to have been worked up into anything like that elation, or thatemotion of spirits which is occasionally observed in most of those towhom the name of enthusiast can in any degree be applied. I feel arespect for Methodists, because I believe that there is to be foundamongst them much sincere piety, and availing though not alwayswell-informed Christianity: yet I never attended a meeting of theirs butI came away with the reflection, how different what I heard was fromwhat I read! I do not mean in doctrine, with which at present I have noconcern, but in manner how different from the calmness, the sobriety, the good sense, and I may add, the strength and authority of our Lord'sdiscourses!

IV. It is very usual with the human mind to substitute forwardness andfervency in a particular cause for the merit of general and regularmorality; and it is natural, and politic also, in the leader of a sector party, to encourage such a disposition in his followers. Christ didnot overlook this turn of thought; yet, though avowedly placing himselfat the head of a new institution, he notices it only to condemn it. "Notevery one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdomof heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied inthy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name donemany wonderful works? And then will I profess unto you, I never knewyou: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. " (Matt. Vii. 21, 22. ) So farwas the Author of Christianity from courting the attachment of hisfollowers by any sacrifice of principle, or by a condescension to theerrors which even zeal in his service might have inspired. This was aproof both of sincerity and judgment. 

V. Nor, fifthly, did he fall in with any of the depraved fashions of hiscountry, or with the natural bias of his own education. Bred up a Jew, under a religion extremely technical, in an age and amongst a peoplemore tenacious of the ceremonies than of any other part of thatreligion, he delivered an institution containing less of ritual, andthat more simple, than is to be found in any religion which everprevailed amongst mankind. We have known, I do allow, examples of anenthusiasm which has swept away all external ordinances before it. Butthis spirit certainly did not dictate our Saviour's conduct, either inhis treatment of the religion of his country, or in the formation of hisown institution. In both he displayed the soundness and moderation ofhis judgment. He censured an overstrained scrupulousness, or perhaps anaffectation of scrupulousness, about the Sabbath: but how did he censureit? not by contemning or decrying the institution itself, but bydeclaring that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath;"that is to say, that the Sabbath was to be subordinate to its purpose, and that that purpose was the real good of those who were the subjectsof the law. The same concerning the nicety of some of the Pharisees, inpaying tithes of the most trifling articles, accompanied with a neglectof justice, fidelity, and mercy. He finds fault with them for misplacingtheir anxiety. He does not speak disrespectfully of the law of tithes, nor of their observance of it; but he assigns to each class of dutiesits proper station in the scale of moral importance. All this might beexpected perhaps from a well-instructed, cool, and judiciousphilosopher, but was not to be looked for from an illiterate Jew;certainly not from an impetuous enthusiast. 

VI. Nothing could be more quibbling than were the comments andexpositions of the Jewish doctors at that time; nothing so puerile astheir distinctions. Their evasion of the fifth commandment, theirexposition of the law of oaths, are specimens of the bad taste in moralswhich then prevailed. Whereas, in a numerous collection of our Saviour'sapophthegms, many of them referring to sundry precepts of the Jewishlaw, there is not to be found one example of sophistry, or of falsesubtlety, or of anything approaching thereunto. 

VII. The national temper of the Jews was intolerant, narrow-minded, andexcluding. In Jesus, on the contrary, whether we regard his lessons orhis example, we see not only benevolence, but benevolence the mostenlarged and comprehensive. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, thevery point of the story is, that the person relieved by him was thenational and religious enemy of his benefactor. Our Lord declared theequity of the Divine administration, when he told the Jews, (what, probably, they were surprised to hear, ) "That many should come from theeast and west, and should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, inthe kingdom of heaven; but that the children of the kingdom should becast into outer darkness. " (Matt. Viii. 11. ) His reproof of the hastyzeal of his disciples, who would needs call down fire from heaven torevenge an affront put upon their Master, shows the lenity of hischaracter, and of his religion: and his opinion of the manner in whichthe most unreasonable opponents ought to be treated, or at least of themanner in which they ought not to be treated. The terms in which hisrebuke was conveyed deserve to be noticed:--"Ye know not what manner ofspirit ye are of. " (Luke ix. 55. )

VIII. Lastly, amongst the negative qualities of our religion, as it cameout of the hands of its Founder and his apostles, we may reckon itscomplete abstraction from all views either of ecclesiastical or civilpolicy; or, to meet a language much in fashion with some men, from thepolitics either of priests or statesmen. Christ's declaration, that "hiskingdom was not of this world, " recorded by Saint John; his evasion ofthe question, whether it was lawful or not to give tribute unto Caesar, mentioned by the three other evangelists; his reply to an applicationthat was made to him, to interpose his authority in a question ofproperty; "Man, who made me a ruler or a judge over you?" ascribed tohim by St. Luke; his declining to exercise the office of a criminaljudge in the case of the woman taken in adultery, as related by John, are all intelligible significations of our Saviour's sentiments uponthis head. And with respect to politics, in the usual sense of thatword, or discussions concerning different forms of government, Christianity declines every question upon the subject. Whilstpoliticians are disputing about monarchies, aristocracies, andrepublics, the Gospel is alike applicable, useful, and friendly to themall; inasmuch, as, 1stly, it tends to make men virtuous, and as it iseasier to govern good men than bad men under any constitution; as, 2ndly, it states obedience to government, in ordinary cases, to be notmerely a submission to force, but a duty of conscience; as, 3rdly, itinduces dispositions favourable to public tranquillity, a Christian'schief care being to pass quietly through this world to a better; as, 4thly, it prays for communities, and, for the governors of communities, of whatever description or denomination they be, with a solicitude andfervency proportioned to the influence which they possess upon humanhappiness. All which, in my opinion, is just as it should be. Had therebeen more to be found in Scripture of a political nature, or convertibleto political purposes, the worst use would have been made of it, onwhichever side it seemed to lie. 

When, therefore, we consider Christ as a moral teacher (remembering thatthis was only a secondary part of his office; and that morality, by thenature of the subject, does not admit of discovery, properly socalled)--when we consider either what he taught, or what he did notteach, either the substance or the manner of his instruction; hispreference of solid to popular virtues, of a character which is commonlydespised to a character which is universally extolled; his placing, inour licentious vices, the check in the right place, viz. Upon thethoughts; his collecting of human duty into two well-devised rules, hisrepetition of these rules, the stress he laid upon them, especially incomparison with positive duties, and his fixing thereby the sentimentsof his followers; his exclusion of all regard to reputation in ourdevotion and alms, and by parity of reason in our other virtues;--whenwe consider that his instructions were delivered in a form calculatedfor impression, the precise purpose in his situation to be consulted;and that they were illustrated by parables, the choice and structure ofwhich would have been admired in any composition whatever;--when weobserve him free from the usual symptoms of enthusiasm, heat andvehemence in devotion, austerity in institutions, and a wildparticularity in the description of a future state; free also from thedepravities of his age and country; without superstition amongst themost superstitious of men, yet not decrying positive distinctions orexternal observances, but soberly calling them to the principle of theirestablishment, and to their place in the scale of human duties; withoutsophistry or trifling, amidst teachers remarkable for nothing so much asfrivolous subtleties and quibbling expositions; candid and liberal inhis judgment of the rest of mankind, although belonging to a people whoaffected a separate claim to Divine favour, and in consequence of thatopinion prone to uncharitableness, partiality, and restriction;--whenwe find in his religion no scheme of building up a hierarchy, or ofministering to the views of human governments;--in a word, when wecompare Christianity, as it came from its Author, either with otherreligions, or with itself in other hands, the most reluctantunderstanding will be induced to acknowledge the probity, I think alsothe good sense, of those to whom it owes its origin; and that someregard is due to the testimony of such men, when they declare theirknowledge that the religion proceeded from God; and when they appeal forthe truth of their assertion, to miracles which they wrought, or whichthey saw. 

Perhaps the qualities which we observe in the religion may be thought toprove something more. They would have been extraordinary had thereligion come from any person; from the person from whom it did come, they are exceedingly so. What was Jesus in external appearance? A Jewishpeasant, the son of a carpenter, living with his father and mother in aremote province of Palestine, until the time that he produced himself inhis public character. He had no master to instruct or prompt him; he hadread no books but the works of Moses and the prophets; he had visited nopolished cities; he had received no lessons from Socrates orPlato, --nothing to form in him a taste or judgment different from thatof the rest of his countrymen, and of persons of the same rank of lifewith himself. Supposing it to be true, which it is not, that all hispoints of morality might be picked out of Greek and Roman writings, theywere writings which he had never seen. Supposing them to be no more thanwhat some or other had taught in various times and places, he could notcollect them together. 

Who were his coadjutors in the undertaking, --the persons into whosehands the religion came after his death? A few fishermen upon the lakeof Tiberias, persons just as uneducated, and, for the purpose of framingrules of morality, as unpromising as himself. Suppose the mission to bereal, all this is accounted for; the unsuitableness of the authors tothe production, of the characters to the undertaking, no longersurprises us: but without reality, it is very difficult to explain howsuch a system should proceed from such persons. Christ was not like anyother carpenter; the apostles were not like any other fishermen. 

But the subject is not exhausted by these observations. That portion ofit which is most reducible to points of argument has been stated, and, Itrust, truly. There are, however, some topics of a more diffuse nature, which yet deserve to be proposed to the reader's attention. 

The character of Christ is a part of the morality of the Gospel: onestrong observation upon which is, that, neither as represented by hisfollowers, nor as attacked by his enemies, is he charged with anypersonal vice. This remark is as old as Origen: "Though innumerable liesand calumnies had been forged against the venerable Jesus, none haddared to charge him with an intemperance. " (Or. Ep. Cels. 1. 3, num. 36, ed. Bened. ) Not a reflection upon his moral character, not an imputationor suspicion of any offence against purity and chastity, appears forfive hundred years after his birth. This faultlessness is more peculiarthan we are apt to imagine. Some stain pollutes the morals or themorality of almost every other teacher, and of every other lawgiver. *Zeno the stoic, and Diogenes the cynic, fell into the foulestimpurities; of which also Socrates himself was more than suspected. Solon forbade unnatural crimes to slaves. Lycurgus tolerated theft as apart of education. Plato recommended a community of women. Aristotlemaintained the general right of making war upon barbarians. The elderCato was remarkable for the ill usage of his slaves; the younger gave upthe person of his wife. One loose principle is found in almost all thePagan moralists; is distinctly, however, perceived in the writings ofPlato, Xenophon, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus; and that is, the allowing, and even the recommending to their disciples, a compliance with thereligion, and with the religious rites, of every country into which theycame. In speaking of the founders of new institutions we cannot forgetMahomet. His licentious transgressions of his own licentious rules; hisabuse of the character which he assumed, and of the power which he hadacquired, for the purposes of personal and privileged indulgence; hisavowed claim of a special permission from heaven of unlimitedsensuality, is known to every reader, as it is confessed by every writerof the Moslem story. 

_________

* See many instances collected by Grotius, de Veritate ChristianaeReligionis, in the notes to his second book, p. 116. Pocock's edition. _________

Secondly, in the histories which are left us of Jesus Christ, althoughvery short, and although dealing in narrative, and not in observation orpanegyric, we perceive, beside the absence of every appearance of vice, traces of devotion, humility, benignity, mildness, patience, prudence. Ispeak of traces of these qualities, because the qualities themselves areto be collected from incidents; inasmuch as the terms are never used ofChrist in the Gospels, nor is any formal character of him drawn in anypart of the New Testament. 

Thus we see the devoutness of his mind in his frequent retirement tosolitary prayer; (Matt. Xiv. 23. Luke ix. 28. Matt. Xxvi. 36. ) in hishabitual giving of thanks; (Matt. Xi. 25. Mark viii. 6. John vi. 23. Lukexxii. 17. ) in his reference of the beauties and operations of nature tothe bounty of Providence; (Matt. Vi, 26--28. ) in his earnest addresses tohis Father, more particularly that short but solemn one before theraising of Lazarus from the dead; (John xi. 41. ) and in the deep piety ofhis behaviour in the garden on the last evening of his life:(Matt. Xxvi. 86--47. ) his humility in his constant reproof of contentions forsuperiority:(Mark ix. 33. ) the benignity and affectionateness of histemper in his kindness to children; (Mark x. 16. ) in the tears which heshed over his falling country, (Luke xix. 41. ) and upon the death of hisfriend; (John xi. 35. ) in his noticing of the widow's mite; (Mark xii. 42. ) in his parables of the good Samaritan, of the ungrateful servant, and of the Pharisee and publican, of which parables no one but a man ofhumanity could have been the author: the mildness and lenity of hischaracter is discovered in his rebuke of the forward zeal of hisdisciples at the Samaritan village; (Luke ix. 55. ) in his expostulationwith Pilate; (John xix. 11. ) in his prayer for his enemies at the momentof his suffering, (Luke xxiii. 34. ) which, though it has been since veryproperly and frequently imitated, was then, I apprehend, new. Hisprudence is discerned, where prudence is most wanted, in his conduct ontrying occasions, and in answers to artful questions. Of these thefollowing are examples:--His withdrawing in various instances from thefirst symptoms of tumult, (Matt. Xiv. 22. Luke v. 15, 16. John v. 13; vi. 15. ) and with the express care, as appears from Saint Matthew, (Chap. Xii. 19. ) of carrying on his ministry in quietness; his declining ofevery species of interference with the civil affairs of the country, which disposition is manifested by his behaviour in the case of thewoman caught in adultery, (John viii. 1. ) and in his repulse of theapplication which was made to him to interpose his decision about adisputed inheritance:(Luke xii. 14. ) his judicious, yet, as it shouldseem, unprepared answers, will be confessed in the case of the Romantribute (Matt. Xxii. 19. ) in the difficulty concerning the interferingrelations of a future state, as proposed to him in the instance of awoman who had married seven brethren; (Matt. Xxii. 28. ) and moreespecially in his reply to those who demanded from him an explanation ofthe authority by which he acted, which reply consisted in propounding aquestion to them, situated between the very difficulties into which theywere insidiously endeavouring to draw him. (Matt. Xxi. 23, et seq. )

Our Saviour's lessons, beside what has already been remarked in them, touch, and that oftentimes by very affecting representations, upon someof the most interesting topics of human duty, and of human meditation;upon the principles by which the decisions of the last day will beregulated; (Matt. Xxv. 31, et seq. ) upon the superior, or rather thesupreme importance of religion; ( Mark viii. 35. Matt. Vi. 31--33. Lukexii. 4, 5, 16--21. ) upon penitence, by the most pressing calls, and themost encouraging invitations; (Luke xv. ) upon self-denial, (Matt. V. 29. )watchfulhess, (Mark xiii. 37. Matt. Xxiv. 42; xxv. 13. ) placability, (Lukexvii. 4. Matt. Xviii. 33, et seq. ) confidence in God, (Matt. Vi. 25--30. )the value of spiritual, that is, of mental worship, (John iv. 23, 24. )the necessity of moral obedience, and the directing of that obedience tothe spirit and principle of the law, instead of seeking for evasions ina technical construction of its terms. (Matt. V. 21. )

If we extend our argument to other parts of the New Testament, we mayoffer, as amongst the best and shortest rules of life, or, which is thesame thing, descriptions of virtue, that have ever been delivered, thefollowing passages:--

"Pure religion, and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this; tovisit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himselfunspotted from the world. " (James i. 27. )

"Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart and agood conscience, and faith unfeigned. " (I Tim. I. 5. )

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should livesoberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. " (Tit. Ii. 11, 12. )

Enumerations of virtues and vices, and those sufficiently accurate andunquestionably just, are given by St. Paul to his converts in threeseveral epistles. (Gal. V. 19. Col. Iii. 12. 1 Cor. Xiii. )

The relative duties of husbands and wives, of parents and children, ofmasters and servants, of Christian teachers and their flocks, ofgovernors and their subjects, are set forth by the same writer, (Eph. V. 33; vi. 1--5. 2 Cor. Vi. 6, 7. Rom. Xiii. ) not indeed with thecopiousness, the detail, or the distinctness of a moralist who should inthese days sit down to write chapters upon the subject, but with theleading rules and principles in each; and, above all, with truth andwith authority. 

Lastly, the whole volume of the New Testament is replete with piety;with what were almost unknown to heathen moralists, devotional virtues, the most profound veneration of the Deity, an habitual sense of hisbounty and protection, a firm confidence in the final result of hiscounsels and dispensations, a disposition to resort upon all occasionsto his mercy for the supply of human wants, for assistance in danger, for relief from pain, for the pardon of sin. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE CANDOUR OF THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

I make this candour to consist in their putting down many passages, andnoticing many circumstances, which no writer whatever was likely to haveforged; and which no writer would have chosen to appear in his book whohad been careful to present the story in the most unexceptionable form, or who had thought himself at liberty to carve and mould the particularsof that story according to his choice, or according to his judgment ofthe effect. 

A strong and well-known example of the fairness of the evangelistsoffers itself in their account of Christ's resurrection, namely, intheir unanimously stating that after he was risen he appeared to hisdisciples alone. I do not mean that they have used the exclusive wordalone; but that all the instances which they have recorded of hisappearance are instances of appearance to his disciples; that theirreasonings upon it, and allusions to it, are confined to thissupposition; and that by one of them Peter is made to say, "Him Godraised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drinkwith him after he rose from the dead. " (Acts x. 40, 41. ) The most commonunderstanding must have perceived that the history of the resurrectionwould have come with more advantage if they had related that Jesusappeared, after he was risen, to his foes as well as his friends, to thescribes and Pharisees, the Jewish council, and the Roman governor: oreven if they had asserted the public appearance of Christ in generalunqualified terms, without noticing, as they have done, the presence ofhis disciples on each occasion, and noticing it in such a manner as tolead their readers to suppose that none but disciples were present. Theycould have represented in one way as well as the other. And if theirpoint had been to have their religion believed, whether true or false;if they had fabricated the story ab initio; or if they had been disposedeither to have delivered their testimony as witnesses, or to have workedup their materials and information as historians, in such a manner as torender their narrative as specious and unobjectionable as they could; ina word, if they had thought of anything but of the truth of the case, asthey understood and believed it; they would in their account of Christ'sseveral appearances after his resurrection, at least have omitted thisrestriction. At this distance of time, the account as we have it isperhaps more credible than it would have been the other way; becausethis manifestation of the historians' candour is of more advantage totheir testimony than the difference in the circumstances of the accountwould have been to the nature of the evidence. But this is an effectwhich the evangelists would not foresee: and I think that it was by nomeans the case at the time when the books were composed. 

Mr. Gibbon has argued for the genuineness of the Koran, from theconfessions which it contains, to the apparent disadvantage of theMahometan cause. (Vol. Ix. C. 50, note 96. ) The same defence vindicatesthe genuineness of our Gospels, and without prejudice to the cause atall. 

There are some other instances in which the evangelists honestly relatewhat they must have perceived would make against them. 

Of this kind is John the Baptist's message preserved by Saint Matthew(xi. 2) and Saint Luke (vii. 18): "Now when John had heard in the prisonthe works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?" To confess, stillmore to state, that John the Baptist had his doubts concerning thecharacter of Jesus, could not but afford a handle to cavil andobjection. But truth, like honesty, neglects appearances. The sameobservation, perhaps, holds concerning the apostacy of Judas. *

_________

* I had once placed amongst these examples of fair concession theremarkable words of Saint Matthew in his account of Christ's appearanceupon the Galilean mountain: "And when they saw him they worshipped him;but some doubted. " (Chap. Xxviii. 17. ) I have since, however, beenconvinced, by what is observed concerning this passage in Dr. Townshend's Discourse (Page 177. ) upon the Resurrection, that thetransaction, as related by Saint Matthew, was really this: "Christappeared first at a distance; the greater part of the company, themoment they saw him, worshipped, but some as yet, i. E. Upon this firstdistant view of his person, doubted; whereupon Christ came up to them, and spake to them, "+ &c. : that the doubt, therefore, was a doubt only atfirst for a moment, and upon his being seen at a distance, and wasafterwards dispelled by his nearer approach, and by his entering intoconversation with them. 

+ Saint Matthew's words are: kai proselthon o Iesous elalesen autois[and having come toward them, Jesus spoke]. This intimates that when hefirst appeared it was at a distance, at least from many of thespectators. Ib. P. 197. _________

John vi. 66. "From that time, many of his disciples went back, andwalked no more with him. " Was it the part of a writer who dealt insuppression and disguise to put down this anecdote? Or this, whichMatthew has preserved (xii. 58)? "He did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. "

Again, in the same evangelist (v. 17, 18): "Think not that I am come todestroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but tofulfil; for, verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, onejot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all befulfilled. " At the time the Gospels were written, the apparent tendencyof Christ's mission was to diminish the authority of the Mosaic code, and it was so considered by the Jews themselves. It is very improbable, therefore, that, without the constraint of truth, Matthew should haveascribed a saying to Christ, which, primo intuitu, militated with thejudgment of the age in which his Gospel was written. Marcion thoughtthis text so objectionable, that he altered the words, so as to invertthe sense. (Lardner, Cred. , vol. Xv. P. 422. )

Once more (Acts xxv. 18): "They brought none accusation against him ofsuch things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him oftheir own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paulaffirmed to be alive. " Nothing could be more in the character of a Romangovernor than these words. But that is not precisely the point I amconcerned with. A mere panegyrist, or a dishonest narrator, would nothave represented his cause, or have made a great magistrate representit, in this manner, i. E. In terms not a little disparaging, andbespeaking, on his part, much unconcern and indifference about thematter. The same observation may be repeated of the speech which isascribed to Gallio (Acts xviii. 15): "If it be a question of words andnames, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of suchmatters. "

Lastly, where do we discern a stronger mark of candour, or lessdisposition to extol and magnify, than in the conclusion of the samehistory? in which the evangelist, after relating that Paul, on his firstarrival at Rome, preached to the Jews from morning until evening, adds, "And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. "

The following, I think, are passages which were very unlikely to havepresented themselves to the mind of a forger or a fabulist. 

Matt. Xxi. 21. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say untoyou, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which isdone unto the fig-tree, but also, if ye shall say unto this mountain, Bethou removed, and be thou east into the sea, it shall be done; allthings whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, it shall be done. "(See also chap. Xvii. 20. Luke xvii. 6. ) It appears to me veryimprobable that these words should have been put into Christ's mouth, ifhe had not actually spoken them. The term "faith, " as here used, isperhaps rightly interpreted of confidence in that internal notice bywhich the apostles were admonished of their power to perform anyparticular miracle. And this exposition renders the sense of the textmore easy. But the words undoubtedly, in their obvious construction, carry with them a difficulty which no writer would have brought uponhimself officiously. 

Luke ix. 59. "And he said unto another, Follow me: but he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let thedead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. " (Seealso Matt. Viii. 21. ) This answer, though very expressive of thetranscendent importance of religious concerns, was apparently harsh andrepulsive; and such as would not have been made for Christ if he had notreally used it. At least some other instance would bare been chosen. 

The following passage, I, for the same reason, think impossible to havebeen the production of artifice, or of a cold forgery:--"But I say untoyou, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall bein danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire (Gehennae). " Matt. V. 22. It isemphatic, cogent, and well calculated for the purpose of impression; butis inconsistent with the supposition of art or wariness on the part ofthe relator. 

The short reply of our Lord to Mary Magdalen, after his resurrection(John xx. 16, 17), "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended unto myFather, " in my opinion must have been founded in a reference or allusionto some prior conversation, for the want of knowing which his meaning ishidden from us. This very obscurity, however, is a proof of genuineness. No one would have forged such an answer. 

John vi. The whole of the conversation recorded in this chapter is inthe highest degree unlikely to be fabricated, especially the part of ourSaviour's reply between the fiftieth and the fifty-eighth verse. I needonly put down the first sentence: "I am the living bread which came downfrom heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: andthe bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will give for thelife of the world. " Without calling in question the expositions thathave been given of this passage, we may be permitted to say, that itlabours under an obscurity, in which it is impossible to believe thatany one, who made speeches for the persons of his narrative, would havevoluntarily involved them. That this discourse was obscure, even at thetime, is confessed by the writer who had preserved it, when he tells us, at the conclusion, that many of our Lord's disciples, when they hadheard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can hear it?"

Christ's taking of a young child, and placing it in the midst of hiscontentious disciples (Matt. Xviii. 2), though as decisive a proof asany could be of the benignity of his temper, and very expressive of thecharacter of the religion which he wished to inculcate, was not by anymeans an obvious thought. Nor am I acquainted with anything in anyancient writing which resembles it. 

The account of the institution of the eucharist bears strong internalmarks of genuineness. If it had been feigned, it would have been morefull; it would have come nearer to the actual mode of celebrating therite as that mode obtained very early in the Christian churches; and itwould have been more formal than it is. In the forged piece called theApostolic Constitutions, the apostles are made to enjoin many parts ofthe ritual which was in use in the second and third centuries, with asmuch particularity as a modern rubric could have done. Whereas, in thehistory of the Lord's Supper, as we read it in Saint Matthew's Gospel, there is not so much as the command to repeat it. This, surely, lookslike undesignedness. I think also that the difficulty arising from theconciseness of Christ's expression, "This is my body, " would have beenavoided in a made-up story. I allow that the explication of these wordsgiven by Protestants is satisfactory; but it is deduced from a diligentcomparison of the words in question with forms of expression used inScripture, and especially by Christ upon other occasions. No writerwould arbitrarily and unnecessarily have thus cast in his reader's way adifficulty which, to say the least, it required research and eruditionto clear up. 

Now it ought to be observed that the argument which is built upon theseexamples extends both to the authenticity of the books, and to thetruth of the narrative; for it is improbable that the forger of ahistory in the name of another should have inserted such passages intoit: and it is improbable, also, that the persons whose names the bookshear should have fabricated such passages; or even have allowed them aplace in their work, if they had not believed them to express the truth. 

The following observation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the most candid ofall advocates, and the most cautious of all inquirers, seems to be wellfounded:--"Christians are induced to believe the writers of the Gospelby observing the evidences of piety and probity that appear in theirwritings, in which there is no deceit, or artifice, or cunning, ordesign. " "No remarks, " as Dr. Beattie hath properly said, "are thrown into anticipate objections; nothing of that caution which never fails todistinguish the testimony of those who are conscious of imposture; noendeavour to reconcile the reader's mind to what may be extraordinary inthe narrative. "

I beg leave to cite also another author, (Duchal, pp. 97, 98. ) who haswell expressed the reflection which the examples now brought forwardwere intended to suggest. "It doth not appear that ever it came into themind of these writers to consider how this or the other action wouldappear to mankind, or what objections might be raised upon them. Butwithout at all attending to this, they lay the facts before you, at nopains to think whether they would appear credible or not. If the readerwill not believe their testimony, there is no help for it: they tellthe truth and attend to nothing else. Surely this looks like sincerity, and that they published nothing to the world but that they believedthemselves. "

As no improper supplement to this chapter, I crave a place here forobserving the extreme naturalness of some of the things related in theNew Testament. 

Mark ix. 23. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things arepossible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the childcried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mineunbelief. " This struggle in the father's heart, between solicitude forthe preservation of his child, and a kind of involuntary distrust ofChrist's power to heal him, is here expressed with an air of realitywhich could hardly be counterfeited. 

Again (Matt. Xxi. 9), the eagerness of the people to introduce Christinto Jerusalem, and their demand, a short time afterwards, of hiscrucifixion, when he did not turn out what they expected him to be, sofar from affording matter of objection, represents popular favour inexact agreement with nature and with experience, as the flux and refluxof a wave. 

The rulers and Pharisees rejecting Christ, whilst many of the commonpeople received him, was the effect which, in the then state of Jewishprejudices, I should have expected. And the reason with which they whorejected Christ's mission kept themselves in countenance, and with whichalso they answered the arguments of those who favoured it, is preciselythe reason which such men usually give:--"Have any of the Scribes orPharisees believed on him?" (John vii. 48. )

In our Lord's conversation at the well (John iv. 29), Christ hadsurprised the Samaritan woman with an allusion to a single particular inher domestic situation, "Thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thounow hast is not thy husband. " The woman, soon after this, ran back tothe city, and called out to her neighbours, "Come, see a man which toldme all things that ever I did. " This exaggeration appears to me verynatural; especially in the hurried state of spirits into which the womanmay be supposed to have been thrown. 

The lawyer's subtilty in running a distinction upon the word neighbour, in the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, " was no lessnatural than our Saviour's answer was decisive and satisfactory. (Lukex. 20. ) The lawyer of the New Testament, it must be observed, was aJewish divine. 

The behaviour of Gallio (Acts xviii. 12-17), and of Festus (xxv. 18, 19), have been observed upon already. 

The consistency of Saint Paul's character throughout the whole of hishistory (viz. The warmth and activity of his zeal, first against, andthen for, Christianity) carries with it very much of the appearance oftruth. 

There are also some properties, as they may be called, observable in theGospels; that is, circumstances separately suiting with the situation, character, and intention of their respective authors. 

Saint Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not joinChrist's society until some time after Christ had come into Galilee topreach, has given us very little of his history prior to that period. Saint John, who had been converted before, and who wrote to supplyomissions in the other Gospels, relates some remarkable particularswhich had taken place before Christ left Judea, to go into Galilee. (Hartley's Observations, vol. Ii. P. 103. )

Saint Matthew (xv. 1) has recorded the cavil of the Pharisees againstthe disciples of Jesus, for eating "with unclean hands. " Saint Mark hasalso (vii. 1) recorded the same transaction (taken probably from SaintMatthew), but with this addition: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands often, eat not, holding the tradition ofthe elders: and when they come from the market, except they wash, theyeat not: and many other things there be which they have received tohold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. "Now Saint Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, fromthe whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerousreferences to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers. Theabove explanation, therefore, in him, would have been unnatural, as notbeing wanted by the readers whom he addressed. But in Mark, who, whatever use he might make of Matthew's Gospel, intended his ownnarrative for a general circulation, and who himself travelled todistant countries in the service of the religion, it was properly added. 

CHAPTER IV. 

IDENTITY OF CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 

THE argument expressed by this title I apply principally to thecomparison of the first three Gospels with that of Saint John. It isknown to every reader of Scripture that the passages of Christ's historypreserved by Saint John are, except his passion and resurrection, forthe most part different from those which are delivered by the otherevangelists. And I think the ancient account of this difference to bethe true one, viz. , that Saint John wrote after the rest, and to supplywhat he thought omissions in their narratives, of which the principalwere our Saviour's conferences with the Jews of Jerusalem, and hisdiscourses to his apostles at his last supper. But what I observe in thecomparison of these several accounts is, that, although actions anddiscourses are ascribed to Christ by Saint John in general differentfrom what are given to him by the other evangelists, yet, under thisdiversity, there is a similitude of manner, which indicates that theactions and discourses proceeded from the same person. I should havelaid little stress upon the repetition of actions substantially alike, or of discourses containing many of the same expressions, because thatis a species of resemblance which would either belong to a true history, or might easily be imitate in a false one. Nor do I deny that a dramaticwriter is able to sustain propriety and distinction of character througha great variety of separate incidents and situations. But theevangelists were not dramatic writers; nor possessed the talents ofdramatic writers; nor will it, I believe, be suspected that they studieduniformity of character, or ever thought of any such thing in the personwho was the subject of their histories. Such uniformity, if it exist, is on their part casual; and if there be, as I contend there is, aperceptible resemblance of manner, in passages, and between discourses, which are in themselves extremely distinct, and are delivered byhistorians writing without any imitation of, or reference to, oneanother, it affords a just presumption that these are what they professto be, the actions and the discourses of the same real person; that theevangelists wrote from fact, and not from imagination. 

The article in which I find this agreement most strong is in ourSaviour's mode of teaching, and in that particular property of it whichconsists in his drawing of his doctrine from the occasion; or, which isnearly the same thing, raising reflections from the objects andincidents before him, or turning a particular discourse then passinginto an opportunity of general instruction. 

It will be my business to point out this manner in the first threeevangelists; and then to inquire whether it do not appear also in severalexamples of Christ's discourses preserved by Saint John. 

The reader will observe in the following quotations that the Italicletter contains the reflection; the common letter the incident oroccasion from which it springs. 

Matt. Xii. 47--50. "Then they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thybrethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered andsaid unto him that told him, Who is my mother; and who are my brethren?And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Beholdmy mother and my brethren: for whosoever shall do the will of my Fatherwhich is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. "

Matt. Xvi. 5. "And when his disciples were come to the other side, theyhad forgotten to take bread; then Jesus said unto them, Take heed, andbeware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And theyreasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken nobread. --How is it that ye do not understand, that I speak it not to youconcerning bread, that ye shall beware of the leaven of the Phariseesand of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them notbeware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees andof the Sadducees. "

Matt. Xv. 1, 2; 10, 11; 15--20. "Then came to Jesus scribes andPharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciplestransgress the traditions of the elders? for they wash not their handswhen they eat bread. --And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man. --Thenanswered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. AndJesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do ye not understandthat whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and iscast out into the draught? but those things which proceed out of themouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man: for out of theheart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; these are the things which defile a man: BUTTO EAT WITH UNWASHEN HANDS DEFILETH NOT A MAN. " Our Saviour, on this occasion, expatiates rather more at large than usual, and his discourse also is more divided; but the concluding sentence brings back the whole train of thought to the incident in the first verse, viz. The objurgatory question of the Pharisees, and renders it evidentthat the whole sprang from that circumstance. 

Mark x. 13, 14, 15. "And they brought young children to him, that heshould touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them:but when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for ofsuch is the kingdom of God: verily I say unto you, whosoever shall notreceive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not entertherein. "

Mark i. 16, 17. "Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simonand Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea, for they werefishers: and Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make youfishers of men. "

Luke xi. 27. "And it came to pass as he spake these things, a certainwoman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed isthe womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked: but hesaid, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keepit. "

Luke xiii. 1--3. "There were present at that season some that told himof the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices;and Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye, that these Galileanswere sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. "

Luke xiv. 15. "And when one of them that sat at meat with him heardthese things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread inthe kingdom of God. Then said he unto him, A certain man made a greatsupper, and bade many, " &c. The parable is rather too long forinsertion, but affords a striking instance of Christ's manner of raisinga discourse from the occasion. Observe also in the same chapter twoother examples of advice, drawn from the circumstances of theentertainment and the behaviour of the guests. 

We will now see how this manner discovers itself in Saint John's historyof Christ. 

John vi. 25. "And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? Jesus answered themand said, Verily I say unto you, ye seek me not because ye saw themiracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labournot for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth untoeverlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you. "

John iv. 12. "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who gave us thewell, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesusanswered, and said unto her (the woman of Samaria), Whosoever drinkethof this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the waterthat I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shallgive him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlastinglife. "

John iv. 31. "In the mean while, his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat; but he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know notof. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man broughthim aught to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will ofHim that sent me, and to finish his work. "

John ix. 1--5. "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blindfrom his birth: and his disciples asked him, saying, Who did sin, thisman or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither haththis man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should bemade manifest in him. I must work the works of Him that sent me while itis day; the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in theworld, I am the light of the world. "

John ix. 35--40. "Jesus heard that they had cast him (the blind manabove mentioned) out: and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dostthou believe on the Son of God? And he answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hastboth seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, Ibelieve; and he worshipped him. And Jesus said. For judgment I am comeinto this world, that they which see not might see; and that they whichsee might be made blind. "

All that the reader has now to do, is to compare the series of examplestaken from Saint John with the series of examples taken from the otherevangelists, and to judge whether there be not a visible agreement ofmanner between them. In the above-quoted passages, the occasion isstated, as well as the reflection. They seem, therefore, the most properfor the purpose of our argument. A large, however, and curiouscollection has been made by different writers, (Newton on Daniel, p. 148, note a. Jottin, Dis. , p. 218. Bishop Law's Life of Christ. ) of instancesin which it is extremely probable that Christ spoke in allusion to someobject, or some occasion then before him, though the mention of theoccasion, or of the object, be omitted in the history. I only observe thatthese instances are common to Saint John's Gospel with the other three. 

I conclude this article by remarking, that nothing of this manner isperceptible in the speeches recorded in the Acts, or in any other butthose which are attributed to Christ, and that, in truth, it was a veryunlikely manner for a forger or fabulist to attempt; and a manner verydifficult for any writer to execute, if he had to supply all thematerials, both the incidents and the observations upon them, out of hisown head. A forger or a fabulist would have made for Christ, discoursesexhorting to virtue and dissuading from vice in general terms. It wouldnever have entered into the thoughts of either, to have crowded togethersuch a number of allusions to time, place, and other little circumstances, as occur, for instance, in the sermon on the mount, and which nothing butthe actual presence of the objects could have suggested (See Bishop Law'sLife of Christ). 

II. There appears to me to exist an affinity between the history ofChrist's placing a little child in the midst of his disciples, asrelated by the first three evangelists, (Matt. Xviii. 1. Mark ix. 33. Luke ix. 46. ) and the history of Christ's washing his disciples' feet, as given by Saint John. (Chap. Xiii. 3. ) In the stories themselves thereis no resemblance. But the affinity which I would point out consists inthese two articles: First, that both stories denote the emulation whichprevailed amongst Christ's disciples, and his own care and desire tocorrect it; the moral of both is the same. Secondly, that both storiesare specimens of the same manner of teaching, viz. , by action; a mode ofemblematic instruction extremely peculiar, and, in these passages, ascribed, we see, to our Saviour by the first three evangelists, and bySaint John, in instances totally unlike, and without the smallestsuspicion of their borrowing from each other. 

III. A singularity in Christ's language which runs through all theevangelists, and which is found in those discourses of Saint John thathave nothing similar to them in the other Gospels, is the appellation of"the Son of man;" and it is in all the evangelists found under thepeculiar circumstance of being applied by Christ to himself, but ofnever being used of him, or towards him, by any other person. It occursseventeen times in Matthew's Gospel, twenty times in Mark's, twenty-onetimes in Luke's and eleven times in John's, and always with thisrestriction. 

IV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented by hisdifferent historians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of the waywhenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a disposition totumult. 

Matt. Xiv. 22. "And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to getinto a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent themultitude away. And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up intoa mountain apart to pray. "

Luke v. 15, 16. "But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him oftheir infirmities; and he withdrew himself into the wilderness andprayed. " With these quotations compare the following from Saint John:Chap. V. 13. "And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus hadconveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. "

Chap. Vi. 15. "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come andtake him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountainhimself alone. "

In this last instance, Saint John gives the motive of Christ's conduct, which is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have related theconduct itself. 

V. Another, and a more singular circumstance in Christ's ministry, wasthe reserve which, for some time, and upon some occasions at least, heused in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collectedfrom his works rather than his professions. Just reasons for thisreserve have been assigned. (See Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity. )But it is not what one would have expected. We meet with it in SaintMatthew's Gospel (chap. Xvi. 20): "Then charged he his disciples thatthey should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. " Again, and upon adifferent occasion, in Saint Mark's (chap. Iii. 11): "And uncleanspirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God: and he straitly charged them that they shouldnot make him known. " Another instance similar to this last is recordedby Saint Luke (chap. Iv. 41). What we thus find in the threeevangelists, appears also in a passage of Saint John (chap. X. 24, 25):"Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dostthou make us to doubt: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. " Theoccasion here was different from any of the rest; and it was indirect. We only discover Christ's conduct through the upbraidings of hisadversaries. But all this strengthens the argument. I had rather at anytime surprise a coincidence in some oblique allusion than read it inbroad assertions. 

VI. In our Lord's commerce with his disciples, one very observableparticular is the difficulty which they found in understanding him whenhe spoke to them of the future part of his history, especially of whatrelated to his passion or resurrection. This difficulty produced, as wasnatural, a wish in them to ask for further explanation: from which, however, they appear to have been sometimes kept back by the fear ofgiving offence. All these circumstances are distinctly noticed by Markand Luke, upon the occasion of his informing them (probably for thefirst time) that the Son of man should be delivered into the hands ofmen. "They understood not, " the evangelists tell us, "this saying, andit was hid from them, that they perceived it not; and they feared to askhim of that saying. " Luke ix. 45; Mark ix. 32. In Saint John's Gospel wehave, on a different occasion, and in a different instance, the samedifficulty of apprehension, the same curiosity, and the samerestraint:--"A little while and ye shall not see me; and again, a littlewhile and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. Then said some ofhis disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us? Alittle while and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while and yeshall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? They said, therefore, What is this that he saith? A little while? We cannot tell what hesaith. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said untothem, --" &c. John xvi. 16, et seq. 

VII. The meekness of Christ during his last sufferings, which isconspicuous in the narratives of the first three evangelists, ispreserved in that of Saint John under separate examples. The answergiven by him, in Saint John, (Chap. Xviii. 20, 21. ) when the high priestasked him of his disciples and his doctrine; "I spake openly to theworld: I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither theJews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thoume? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them, " is very much ofa piece with his reply to the armed party which seized him, as we readit in Saint Mark's Gospel, and in Saint Luke's:(Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii. 52. ) "Are you come out as against a thief, with swords and with stavesto take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took menot. " In both answers we discern the same tranquillity, the samereference to his public teaching. His mild expostulation with Pilate, ontwo several occasions, as related by Saint John, (Chap. Xviii. 34; xix. 11. ) is delivered with the same unruffled temper as that which conductedhim through the last scene of his life, as described by his otherevangelists. His answer, in Saint John's Gospel, to the officer whostruck him with the palm of his hand, "If I have spoken evil, bearwitness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" (Chap. Xviii. 23. ) was such an answer as might have been looked for from the personwho, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions (aswe are told by Saint Luke; Chap. Xxiii. 28. ) weep not for him, but forthemselves, their posterity, and their country; and who, whilst he wassuspended upon the cross, prayed for his murderers, "for they know not, "said he, "what they do. " The urgency also of his judges and hisprosecutors to extort from him a defence to the accusation, and hisunwillingness to make any (which was a peculiar circumstance), appearsin Saint John's account, as well as in that of the otherevangelists. (See John xix. 9. Matt. Xxvii. 14. Luke xxiii. 9. )

There are, moreover, two other correspondencies between Saint John'shistory of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat different fromthose which we have been now mentioning. 

The first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour's agony, i. E. His devotion in the garden immediately before he was apprehended;in which narrative they all make him pray "that the cup might pass fromhim. " This is the particular metaphor which they all ascribe to him. Saint Matthew adds, "O, my Father, if this cup may not pass away fromme, except I drink it, thy will be done. " (Chap, xxvi. 42. ) Now SaintJohn does not give the scene in the garden: but when Jesus was seized, and some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jesus, accordingto his account, checked the attempt, with this reply: "Put up thy swordinto the sheath; the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I notdrink it?" (Chap. Xviii. 11. ) This is something more thanconsistency---it is coincidence; because it is extremely natural thatJesus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father that"that cup might pass from him, " yet with such a pious retraction of hisrequest as to have added, "If this cup may not pass from me, thy will bedone;" it was natural, I say, for the same person, when he actually wasapprehended, to express the resignation to which he had already made uphis thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he hadbefore used, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drinkit?" This is a coincidence between writers in whose narratives there isno imitation, but great diversity. 

A second similar correspondency is the following: Matthew and Mark makethe charge upon which our Lord was condemned to be a threat ofdestroying the temple; "We heard him say, I will destroy this templemade with hands, and within three days I will build another made withouthands:" (Mark xiv. 58. ) but they neither of them inform us upon whatcircumstance this calumny was founded. Saint John, in the early part ofthe history, (Chap. Ii. 19. ) supplies us with this information; for herelates, that on our Lord's first journey to Jerusalem, when the Jewsasked him "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest thesethings? He answered, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raiseit up. " This agreement could hardly arise from anything but the truth ofthe case. From any care or design in Saint John to make his narrativetally with the narratives of other evangelists, it certainly did notarise, for no such design appears, but the absence of it. 

A strong and more general instance of agreement is the following. --Thefirst three evangelists have related the appointment of the twelveapostles; (Matt. X. 1. Mark iii. 14. Luke vi. 12. ) and have given acatalogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning theappointment, or giving the catalogue, supposes, throughout his wholenarrative, Christ to be accompanied by a select party of disciples; thenumber of these to be twelve; (Chap. Vi. 70. ) and whenever he happens tonotice any one as of that number, (Chap. Xx, 24; vi. 71. ) it is oneincluded in the catalogue of the other evangelists: and the namesprincipally occurring in the course of his history of Christ are thenames extant in their list. This last agreement, which is ofconsiderable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through everychapter of each. All this bespeaks reality. 

CHAPTER V. 

ORIGINALITY OF OUR SAVIOUR'S CHARACTER. 

The Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies toforetell the advent of a person who by some supernatural assistanceshould advance their nation to independence, and to a supreme degree ofsplendour and prosperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectationof the times. Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that hisenthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that, while he gave himself out to be the person intended by thesepredictions, he would have assumed the character to which they wereuniversally supposed to relate. 

Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered theprevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of hisattraction and success. 

But what is better than conjectures is the fact, that all the pretendedMessiahs actually did so. We learn from Josephus that there were many ofthese. Some of them, it is probable, might be impostors, who thoughtthat an advantage was to be taken of the state of public opinion. Others, perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose imagination had been drawn tothis particular object by the language and sentiments which prevailedaround them. But whether impostors or enthusiasts, they concurred inproducing themselves in the character which their countrymen looked for, that is to say, as the restorers and deliverers of the nation, in thatsense in which restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews. 

Why therefore Jesus, if he was, like them, either an enthusiast orimpostor, did not pursue the same conduct as they did, in framing hischaracter and pretensions, it will be found difficult to explain. Amission, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in anotherlife, was a thing unthought of as the subject of these prophecies. ThatJesus, coming to them as their Messiah, should come under a charactertotally different from that in which they expected him; should deviatefrom the general persuasion, and deviate into pretensions absolutelysingular and original--appears to be inconsistent with the imputation ofenthusiasm or imposture, both which by their nature I should expectwould, and both which, throughout the experience which this very subjectfurnishes, in fact, have followed the opinions that obtained at thetime. 

If it be said that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at lengthto this; I answer, that the thing is said without evidence; againstevidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the same, yetthat nothing of this sort was thought of by any. 

CHAPTER VI. 

One argument which has been much relied upon (but not more than its justweight deserves) is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentionedor referred to in Scripture with the state of things in those times, asrepresented by foreign and independent accounts; which conformityproves, that the writers of the New Testament possessed a species oflocal knowledge which could belong only to an inhabitant of that countryand to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out byexamples, is very little short of proving the absolute genuineness ofthe writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, toan age in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Christianpublic forgeries in the names of those authors, and in which there is noevidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, thatthe books, whoever were the authors of them, were composed by personsliving in the time and country in which these things were transacted;and consequently capable, by their situation, of being well informed ofthe facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when appliedto the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any otherwritings, by reason of the mixed nature of the allusions which this bookcontains. The scene of action is not confined to a single country, butdisplayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. Allusions are madeto the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. This variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, especiallyto writers of a posterior age. A Greek or Roman Christian who lived inthe second or third century would have been wanting in Jewishliterature; a Jewish convert in those ages would have been equallydeficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. (Michaelis's Introductionto the New Testament [Marsh's translation], c. Ii. Sect. Xi. )

This, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an inductionof particulars; and as, consequently, it carries with it little forcewithout a view of the instances upon which it is built, I have to requestthe reader's attention to a detail of examples, distinctly andarticulately proposed. In collecting these examples I have done no morethan epitomise the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner'sCredibility of the Gospel History. And I have brought the argumentwithin its present compass, first, by passing over some of his sectionsin which the accordancy appeared to me less certain, or upon subjectsnot sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondly, by contractingevery section into the fewest words possible, contenting myself for themost part with a mere apposition of passages; and, thirdly, by omittingmany disquisitions, which, though learned and accurate, are notabsolutely necessary to the understanding or verification of theargument. 

The writer principally made use of in the inquiry is Josephus. Josephuswas born at Jerusalem four years after Christ's ascension. He wrote hishistory of the Jewish war some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in the year of our Lord LXX, that is, thirty-seven yearsafter the ascension; and his history of the Jews he finished in the yearxciii, that is, sixty years after the ascension. At the head of eacharticle I have referred, by figures included in brackets, to the page ofDr. Lardner's volume where the section from which the abridgment is madebegins. The edition used is that of 1741. 

I. [p. 14. ] Matt. Ii. 22. "When he (Joseph) heard that Archclaus didreign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to gothither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turnedaside into the parts of Galilee. "

II. In this passage it is asserted that Archclaus succeeded Herod inJudea; and it is implied that his power did not extend to Galilee. Nowwe learn from Josephus that Herod the Great, whose dominion included allthe land of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, andassigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that thisdisposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Romanemperor (Ant. Lib. Xvi. C. 8, sect. 1. ). 

Saint Matthew says that Archclaus reigned, was king, in Judea. Agreeablyto this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod appointedArchclaus his successor in Judea, but that he also appointed him withthe title of King; and the Greek verb basileuei, which the evangelistuses to denote the government and rank of Archclaus, is used likewise byJosephus (De Bell. Lib. I. C. 3, 3, sect. 7. ). 

The cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is not obscurely intimatedby the evangelist, agrees with divers particulars in his historypreserved by Josephus:--"In the tenth year of his government, the chiefof the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty andtyranny, presented complaints against him to Caesar. " (Ant, lib. Xii. 13, sect. 1. )

II. [p. 19. ] Luke iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign ofTiberius Caesar--Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philiptetrarch of Iturea, and of the region of Trachonitis--the word of Godcame unto John. "

By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus thereupon, his two sons were appointed, one (Herod Antipus) tetrarch of Galilee andPeraea, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and theneighbouring countries. (Ant. Lib. Xvii. C. 8, sect. 1. ) We have, therefore, these two persons in the situations in which Saint Lukeplaces them; and also, that they were in these situations in thefifteenth year of Tiberius; in other words, that they continued inpossession of their territories and titles until that time, andafterwards, appears from a passage of Josephus, which relates of Herod, "that he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius;" (Ant. Lib. Xviii. C. 8, sect. 2. ) and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth yearof Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitisthirty-seven years. (Ant. Lib. Xviii. C. 5, sect. 6. )

III. [p. 20. ] Mark vi. 17. "Herod had sent forth, and laid hold uponJohn, and bound him in prison, for Heredias' sake, his brother Philip'swife: for he had married her. " (See also Matt. Xiv. 1--13; Luke iii. 19. )

With this compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. Xviii. C. 6, sect. 1:--"He (Herodthe tetrareh) made a visit to Herod his brother. --Here, failing in lovewith Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make herproposals of marriage. "*

_________

* The affinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is adifference in the name of Herodias's first husband, which in theevangelist is Philip; in Josephus, Herod. The difficulty, however, willnot appear considerable when we recollect how common it was in thosetimes for the same persons to bear two names. "Simon, which is calledPeter; Lebbeus, whose surname is Thaddeus; Thomas, which is calledDidymus; Simeon, who was called Niger; Saul, who was also called Paul. "The solution is rendered likewise easier in the present case by theconsideration that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight wives;that Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod; thatit is nevertheless highly probable that the brothers bore someadditional name by which they were distinguished from one another. Lardner, vol. Ii. P. 897. _________

Again, Mark vi. 22. "And when the daughter of the said Herodias came inand danced. "

With this also compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. Xviii. C. 6, sect. 4. "Herodiaswas married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a daughter, whosename was Salome; after whose birth Herodias, in utter violation of thelaws of her country, left her husband, then living, and married Herodthe tetrarch of Galilee, her husband's brother by the father's side. "

IV. [p. 29. ] Acts xii. 1. "Now, about that time, Herod the kingstretched forth his hands, to vex certain of the church. "

In the conclusion of the same chapter, Herod's death is represented tohave taken place soon after this persecution. The accuracy of ourhistorian, or, rather, the unmeditated coincidence which truth of itsown accord produces, is in this instance remarkable. There was noportion of time for thirty years before, nor ever afterwards, in whichthere was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that authority inJudea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the last threeyears of this Herod's life, within which period the transaction recordedin the Acts is stated to have taken place. This prince was the grandsonof Herod the Great. In the Acts he appears under his family-name ofHerod; by Josephus he was called Agrippa. For proof that he was a king, properly so called, we have the testimony of Josephus, in full anddirect terms:--"Sending for him to his palace, Caligula put a crown uponhis head, and appointed him king of the tetrarchie of Philip, intendingalso to give him the tetrarchie of Lysanias. " (Antiq. Xviii. C. 7, sect. 10. ) And that Judea was at last, but not until the last, included in hisdominions, appears by a subsequent passage of the same Josephus, whereinhe tells us that Claudius, by a decree, confirmed to Agrippa thedominion which Caligula had given him; adding also Judea and Samaria, inthe utmost extent, as possessed by his grandfather Herod (Antiq. Xix. C. 5, sect. 1. ). 

V. [p. 32. ] Acts xii. 19--23. "And he (Herod) went down from Judea toCesarea, and there abode. And on a set day Herod, arrayed in royalapparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them: and thepeople gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man;and immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not Godthe glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xix. C. 8, sect. 2. "He went to the city of Cesarea. Here he celebrated shows in honour of Caesar. On the second day of theshows, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, dressed in a robeof silver, of most curious workmanship. The rays of the rising sun, reflected from such a splendid garb, gave him a majestic and awfulappearance. They called him a god; and intreated him to be propitious tothem, saying, Hitherto we have respected you as a man; but now weacknowledge you to be more than mortal. The king neither reproved thesepersons, nor rejected the impious flattery. Immediately after this hewas seized with pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the veryfirst. He was carried therefore with all haste to his palace. Thesepains continually tormenting him, he expired in five days' time. "

The reader will perceive the accordancy of these accounts in variousparticulars. The place (Cesarea), the set day, the gorgeous dress, theacclamations of the assembly, the peculiar turn of the flattery, thereception of it, the sudden and critical incursion of the disease, arecircumstances noticed in both narratives. The worms mentioned by SaintLuke are not remarked by Josephus; but the appearance of these is asymptom not unusually, I believe, attending the disease which Josephusdescribes, viz. , violent affections of the bowels. 

VI. [p. 41. ] Acts xxiv. 24. "And after certain days, when Felix camewith his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xx. C. 6, sect. 1, 2. "Agrippa gave his sisterDrusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when he hadconsented to be circumcised. --But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizuswas dissolved in a short time after, in this manner:--When Felix wasprocurator of Judea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily takenwith her. --She was induced to transgress the laws of her country, andmarry Felix. "

Here the public station of Felix, the name of his wife, and the singularcircumstance of her religion, all appear in perfect conformity with theevangelist. 

VII. [p. 46. ] Acts xxv. 13. "And after certain days king Agrippa andBerenice came to Cesarea to salute Festus. " By this passage we are ineffect told that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came tosalute Festus, who at this time administered the government of thatcountry at Cesarea. 

Now, how does the history of the age correspond with this account? TheAgrippa here spoken of was the son of Herod Agrippa, mentioned in thelast article; but that he did not succeed to his father's kingdom, norever recovered Judea, which had been a part of it, we learn by theinformation of Josephus, who relates of him that when his father wasdead Claudius intended at first to have put him immediately inpossession of his father's dominions; but that, Agrippa being then butseventeen years of age, the emperor was persuaded to alter his mind, andappointed Cuspius Fadus prefect of Judea and the whole kingdom; (Antiq. Xi. C. 9 ad fin. ) which Fadus was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Festus. (Antiq. Xx. De Bell. Lib. Ii. ) But that, thoughdisappointed of his father's kingdom, in which was included Judea, hewas, nevertheless, rightly styled King Agrippa, and that he was inpossession of considerable territories, bordering upon Judea, we gatherfrom the same authority: for, after several successive donations ofcountry, "Claudius, at the same time that he sent Felix to be procuratorof Judea, promoted Agrippa from Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving tohim the tetrarchie which had been Philip's; and he added, moreover, thekingdom of Lysanias, and the province that had belonged to Varus. " (DeBell. Lib. Li. C. 12 ad fin. )

Saint Paul addresses this person as a Jew: "King Agrippa, believest thouthe prophets? I know that thou believest. " As the son of Herod Agrippa, who is described by Josephus to have been a zealous Jew, it isreasonable to suppose that he maintained the same profession. But whatis more material to remark, because it is more close and circumstantial, is, that Saint Luke, speaking of the father (Acts xii. 1--3), calls himHerod the, king, and gives an example of the exercise of his authorityat Jerusalem: speaking of the son (xxv. 13), he calls him king, but notof Judea; which distinction agrees correctly with the history. 

VIII. [p. 51. ] Acts xiii. 6. "And when they had gone through the isle(Cyprus) to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, aJew, whose name was Bar-jesus, which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man. "

The word which is here translated deputy, signifies and upon this wordour observation is founded. The provinces of the Roman empire were of two kinds; those belonging the emperor, in which the governor was calledproprietor; those belonging to the senate, in which the governor wasproconsul. And this was a regular distinction. Now it appears from DioCassius, (Lib. Liv. Ad A. U. 732. ) that the province of Cyprus, which, inoriginal distribution, was assigned to the emperor, had transferred tothe senate, in exchange for some others; and after this exchange, theappropriate title of the Roman was proconsul. 

Ib. Xviii. 12. [p. 55. ] "And when Gallio was deputy (proconsul) ofAchaia. "

The propriety of the title "proconsul" is in this still more critical. For the province of Achaia, after passing from the senate to theemperor, had been restored again by the emperor Claudius to the senate(and consequently its government had become proconsular) only six orseven years before the time in which this transaction is said to havetaken place. (Suet. In Claud. C. Xxv. Dio, lib. Lxi. ) And what confineswith strictness the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under thefollowing reign ceased to be a Roman province at all. 

IX. [p. 152. ] It appears, as well from the general constitution of aRoman province, as from what Josephus delivers concerning the state ofJudea in particular, (Antiq. Lib. Xx. C. 8, sect. 5; c. 1, sect. 2. ) thatthe power of life and death resided exclusively in the Roman governor;but that the Jews, nevertheless, had magistrates and a council, investedwith a subordinate and municipal authority. This economy is discerned inevery part of the Gospel narrative of our Saviour's crucifixion. 

X. [p. 203. ] Acts ix. 31. "Then had the churches rest throughout allJudea and Galilee and Samaria. "

This rest synchronises with the attempt of Caligula to place his statuein the temple of Jerusalem; the threat of which outrage produced amongstthe Jews a consternation that, for a season, diverted their attentionfrom every other object. (Joseph. De Bell lib. Xi. C. 13, sect. 1, 3, 4. )

XI. [p. 218. ] Acts xxi. 30. "And they took Paul, and drew him out of thetemple; and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about tokill him, tidings came to the chief captain of the band that allJerusalem was in an uproar. Then the chief captain came near, and tookhim and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who hewas, and what he had done; and some cried one thing, and some another, among the multitude: and, when he could not know the certainty for thetumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he cameupon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for theviolence of the people. "

In this quotation we have the band of Roman soldiers at Jerusalem, theiroffice (to suppress tumults), the castle, the stairs, both, as it shouldseem, adjoining to the temple. Let us inquire whether we can find theseparticulars in any other record of that age and place. 

Joseph. De. Ball. Lib. V. E. 5, sect. 8. "Antonia was situated at theangle of the western and northern porticoes of the outer temple. It wasbuilt upon a rock fifty cubits high, steep on all sides. --On that sidewhere it joined to the porticoes of the temple, there were stairsreaching to each portico, by which the guard descended; for there wasalways lodged here a Roman legion; and posting themselves in theirarmour in several places in the porticoes, they kept a watch on thepeople on the feast-days to prevent all disorders; for as the temple wasa guard to the city, so was Antonia to the temple. "

XII. [p. 224. ] Acts iv. 1. "And as they spake unto the people, thepriests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came uponthem. " Here we have a public officer, under the title of captain of thetemple, and he probably a Jew, as he accompanied the priests andSadducees in apprehending the apostles. 

Joseph. De Bell. Lib. Ii. C. 17, sect. 2. "And at the temple, Eleazer, the son of Ananias the high priest, a young man of a bold and resolutedisposition, then captain, persuaded those who performed the sacredministrations not to receive the gift or sacrifice of any stranger. "

XIII. [p. 225. ] Acts xxv. 12. "Then Festus, when he had conferred withthe council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shaltthou go. " That it was usual for the Roman presidents to have a councilconsisting of their friends, and other chief Romans in the province, appears expressly in the following passage of Cicero's oration againstVerres:--"Illud negare posses, aut nunc negabis, te, concilio tuodimisso, viris primariis, qui in consilio C. Sacerdotis fuerant, tibiqueesse volebant, remotis, de re judicata judicasse?"

XIV. [p. 235. ] Acts xvi. 13. "And (at Philippi) on the Sabbath we wentout of the city by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made, " orwhere a proseuche, oratory, or place of prayer was allowed. Theparticularity to be remarked is, the situation of the place where prayerwas wont to be made, viz. By a river-side. 

Philo, describing the conduct of the Jews of Alexandria, on a certainpublic occasion, relates of them, that, "early in the morning, flockingout of the gates of the city, they go to the neighbouring shores, (forthe proseuchai were destroyed, ) and, standing in a most pure place, theylift up their voices with one accord. " (Philo in Flacc. P. 382. )

Josephus gives us a decree of the city of Halicarnassus, permitting theJews to build oratories; a part of which decree runs thus:--"We ordainthat the Jews, who are willing, men and women, do observe the Sabbaths, and perform sacred rites, according to the Jewish laws, and buildoratories by the sea-side. " (Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xiv. C. 10, sect, 24. )

Tertullian, among other Jewish rites and customs, such as feasts, sabbaths, fasts, and unleavened bread, mentions "orationes literales, "that is, prayers by the river-side. (Tertull. Ad Nat, lib. I. C. 13. )

XV. [p. 255. ] Acts xxvi. 5. "After the most straitest sect of ourreligion, I lived a Pharisee. "

Joseph. De Bell. Lib. I. C. 5, sect. 2. "The Pharisees were reckoned themost religious of any of the Jews, and to be the most exact and skilfulin explaining the laws. "

In the original, there is an agreement not only in the sense but in theexpression, it being the same Greek adjective which is rendered "strait"in the Acts, and "exact" in Josephus. 

XVI. [p. 255. ] Mark vii. 3, 4. "The Pharisees and all the Jews, exceptthey wash, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and many otherthings there be which they have received to hold. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xiii. C. 10, sect. 6. "The Pharisees have deliveredup to the people many institutions, as received from the fathers, whichare not written in the law of Moses. "

XVII. [p. 259. ] Acts xxiii. 8. "For the Sadducees say, that there is noresurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confessboth. "

Joseph. De Bell. Lib. Ii. C. 8, sect. 14. "They (the Pharisees) believeevery soul to be immortal, but that the soul of the good only passesinto another body, and that the soul of the wicked is punished witheternal punishment. " On the other hand (Antiq. Lib. Xviii. E. 1, sect. 4), "It is the opinion of the Sadducees that souls perish with thebodies. "

XVIII. [p. 268. ] Acts v. 17. "Then the high priest rose up, and allthey that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and werefilled with indignation. " Saint Luke here intimates that the high priestwas a Sadducee; which is a character one would not have expected to meetwith in that station. This circumstance, remarkable as it is, was nothowever without examples. 

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xiii. C. 10, sect. 6, 7. "John Hyreanus, high priestof the Jews, forsook the Pharisees upon a disgust, and joined himself tothe party of the Sadducees. " This high priest died one hundred and sevenyears before the Christian era. 

Again (Antiq. Lib. Xx. E. 8, sect. 1), "This Ananus the younger, who, aswe have said just now, had received the high priesthood, was fierce andhaughty in his behaviour, and, above all men, hold and daring, and, moreover, was of the sect of the Sadducees. " This high priest livedlittle more than twenty years after the transaction in the Acts. 

XIX. [p. 282. ] Luke ix. 51. "And it came to pass, when the time was comethat he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go toJerusalem, and sent messengers before his face. And they went, andentered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. Andthey did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go toJerusalem. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xx. C. 5, sect. 1. "It was the custom of theGalileans, who went up to the holy city at the feasts, to travel throughthe country of Samaria. As they were in their journey, some inhabitantsof the village called Ginaea, which lies on the borders of Samaria andthe great plain, falling upon them, killed a great many of them. "

XX. [p. 278. ] John iv. 20. "Our fathers, " said the Samaritan woman, "worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that Jerusalem is the placewhere men ought to worship. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xviii. C. 5, sect. 1. "Commanding them to meet himat mount Gerizzim, which is by them (the Samaritans) esteemed the mostsacred of all mountains. "

XXI. [p. 312. ] Matt. Xxvi. 3. "Then assembled together the chiefpriests, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the highpriest, who was called Caiaphas. " That Caiaphas was high priest, andhigh priest throughout the presidentship of Pontius Pilate, andconsequently at this time, appears from the following account:--He wasmade high priest by Valerius Gratus, predecessor of Pontius Pilate, andwas removed from his office by Vitellius, president of Syria, afterPilate was sent away out of the province of Judea. Josephus relates theadvancement of Caiaphas to the high priesthood in this manner: "Gratusgave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. He, havingenjoyed this honour not above a year, was succeeded by Joseph, who isalso called Caiaphas. " (Antiq. Lib. Xviii. C. 2, sect. 2. ) After this, Gratus went away for Rome, having been eleven years in Judea; andPontius Pilate came thither as his successor. Of the removal of Caiaphasfrom his office, Josephus likewise afterwards informs us: and connectsit with a circumstance which fixes the time to a date subsequent to thedetermination of Pilate's government--"Vitellius, " he tells us; "orderedPilate to repair to Rome: and after that, went up himself to Jerusalem, and then gave directions concerning several matters. And having donethese things he took away the priesthood from the high priest Joseph, who is called Caiaphas. " (Antiq. Lib. Xvii. C. 5, sect 3. )

XXII. (Michaelis, c. Xi. Sect. 11. ) Acts xxiii. 4. "And they that stoodby said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest?" Now, upon inquiry into thehistory of the age, it turns out that Ananias, of whom this is spoken, was, in truth, not the high priest, though he was sitting in judgment inthat assumed capacity. The case was, that he had formerly holden theoffice, and had been deposed; that the person who succeeded him had beenmurdered; that another was not yet appointed to the station; and thatduring the vacancy, he had, of his own authority, taken upon himself thedischarge of the office. (Joseph. Antiq. 1. Xx. C. 5, sect. 2; c. 6, sect. 2; c. 9, sect. 2. ) This singular situation of the high priesthoodtook place during the interval between the death of Jonathan, who wasmurdered by order of Felix, and the accession of Ismael, who wasinvested with the high priesthood by Agrippa; and precisely in thisinterval it happened that Saint Paul was apprehended, and brought beforethe Jewish council. 

XXIII. [p. 323. ] Matt. Xxvi. 59. "Now the chief priests and elders, andall the council, sought false witness against him. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xviii. E. 15, sect. 3, 4. "Then might be seen thehigh priests themselves with ashes on their heads and their breastsnaked. "

The agreement here consists in speaking of the high priests or chiefpriests (for the name in the original is the same) in the plural number, when in strictness there was only one high priest: which may beconsidered as a proof that the evangelists were habituated to the mannerof speaking then in use, because they retain it when it is neitheraccurate nor just. For the sake of brevity, I have put down fromJosephus only a single example of the application of this title in theplural number; but it is his usual style. 

Ib. [p. 871. ] Luke ill. 1. "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign ofTiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Juries, and Herodbeing tetrarch of Galilee, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John. " There is a passage in Josephus verynearly parallel to this, and which may at least serve to vindicate theevangelist from objection, with respect to his giving the title of highpriest specifically to two persons at the same time: "Quadratus sent twoothers of the most powerful men of the Jews, as also the high priestsJonathan and Ananias. " (De Bell. Lib. Ix. C. 12, sect. 6. ) That Annaswas a person in an eminent station, and possessed an authoritycoordinate with, or next to, that of the high print properly so called, may he inferred from Saint John's Gospel, which in the history ofChrist's crucifixion relates that "the soldiers led him away to Annasfirst. " (xviii. 13. ) And this might be noticed as an example ofundesigned coincidence in the two evangelists. 

Again, [p. 870. ] Acts iv. 6. Annas is called the high priest, thoughCaiaphas was in the office of the high priesthood. In like manner inJosephus, (Lib. Ii. C. 20, sect. 3. ) "Joseph the son of Gorion, and thehigh priest Ananus, were chosen to be supreme governors of all things inthe city. " Yet Ananus, though here called the high priest Ananus, wasnot then in the office of the high priesthood. The truth is, there is anindeterminateness in the use of this title in the Gospel:(Mark xiv. 53. )sometimes it is applied exclusively to the person who held the office atthe time; sometimes to one or two more, who probably shared with himsome of the powers or functions of the office; and sometimes to such ofthe priests as were eminent by their station or character; and there isthe very same indeterminateness in Josephus. 

XXIV. [p. 347. ] John xix. 19, 20. "And Pilate wrote a title, and put iton the cross. " That such was the custom of the Romans on these occasionsappears from passages of Suetonius and Dio Cassius: "Pattremfamilias--canibus objecit, cure hoc titulo, Impie locutus parmularius. "Suet. Domit. Cap. X. And in Dio Cassius we have the following: "Havingled him through the midst of the court or assembly, with a writingsignifying the cause of his death, and afterwards crucifying him. " Bookliv. 

Ib. "And it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. " That it was alsousual about this time in Jerusalem to set up advertisements in differentlanguages, is gathered from the account which Josephus gives of anexpostulatory message from Titus to the Jews when the city was almost inhis hands; in which he says, Did ye not erect pillars with inscriptionson them, in the Greek and in our language, "Let no one pass beyond thesebounds"?

XXV. [p. 352. ] Matt. Xxvii. 26. "When he had scourged Jesus, hedelivered him to be crucified. "

The following passages occur in Josephus:

"Being beaten, they were crucified opposite to the citadel. " (P. 1247, edit. 24 Huds. )

"Whom, having first scourged with whips, he crucified. " (P. 1080, edit. 45. )

"He was burnt alive, having been first beaten. " (P. 1327, edit. 43. )

To which may he added one from Livy, lib. Xi. C. 5. "Pro ductique omnes, virgisqus caesi, ac securi percussi. "

A modern example may illustrate the use we make of this instance. Thepreceding of a capital execution by the corporal punishment of thesufferer is a practice unknown in England, but retained, in someinstances at least, as appears by the late execution of a regicide inSweden. This circumstance, therefore, in the account of an Englishexecution, purporting to come from an English writer, would not onlybring a suspicion upon the truth of the account, but would in aconsiderable degree impeach its pretensions of having been written bythe author whose name it bore. Whereas, the same circumstance in theaccount of a Swedish execution would verify the account, and support theauthenticity of the book in which it was found, or, at least, wouldprove that the author, whoever he was, possessed the information and theknowledge which he ought to possess. 

XXVI. [p. 353. ] John xix. 16. "And they took Jesus, and led him away;and he bearing his cross went forth. "

Plutarch, De iis qui sero puniuntur, p. 554; a Paris, 1624. "Every kindof wickedness produces its own particular torment; just as everymalefactor, when he is brought forth to execution, carries his owncross. "

XXVII. John xix. 32. "Then came the soldiers and brake the legs of thefirst, and of the other which was crucified with him. "

Constantine abolished the punishment of the cross: in commending whichedict, a heathen writer notices this very circumstance of breaking thelegs: "Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque supplicium, patibulum, etcruribus suffringendis, primus removerit. " Aur. Vict Ces. Cap. Xli. 

XXVIII. [p. 457. ] Acts iii. 1. "Now Peter and John went up together intothe temple, at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. "

Joseph. Antiq. Lib xv. E. 7, sect. 8. "Twice every day, in the morningand at the ninth hour, the priests perform their, duty at the altar. "

XXIX. [p. 462. ] Acts xv. 21. "For Moses of old time hath, in every city, them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day. "

Joseph. Contra Ap. 1. Ii. "He (Moses) gave us the law, the mostexcellent of all institutions; nor did he appoint that it should beheard once only, or twice, or often, but that, laying aside all otherworks, we should meet together every week to hear it read, and gain aperfect understanding of it. "

XXX. [p. 465. ] Acts xxi. 23. "We have four men which have a vow on them;them take, and purify thyself with them that they may shave theirheads. "

Joseph. De Bell. 1. Xi. C. 15. "It is customary for those who have beenafflicted with some distemper, or have laboured under any otherdifficulties, to make a vow thirty days before they offer sacrifices, toabstain from wine, and shave the hair of their heads. "

Ib. V. 24. "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at chargeswith them, that they may shave their heads. "

Joseph. Antiq. 1. Xix. C. 6. "He (Herod Agrippa) coming to Jerusalem, offered up sacrifices of thanksgiving, and omitted nothing that wasprescribed by the law. For which reason he also ordered a good number ofNazarites to be shaved. " We here find that it was an act of pietyamongst the Jews to defray for those who were under the Nazaritic vowthe expenses which attended its completion; and that the phrase was, "that they might be saved. " The custom and the expression are bothremarkable, and both in close conformity with the Scripture account. 

XXXI. [p. 474. ] 2 Cor. Xi. 24. "Of the Jews, five times received I fortystripes save one. "

Joseph. Antiq. Iv. C. 8, sect. 21. "He that acts contrary hereto let himreceive forty stripes, wanting one, from the officer. "

The coincidence here is singular, because the law allowed fortystripes:--"Forty stripes he may give him and not exceed. " Deut. Xxv. 3. It proves that the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians was guidednot by books, but by facts; because his statement agrees with the actualcustom, even when that custom deviated from the written law, and fromwhat he must have learnt by consulting the Jewish code, as set forth inthe Old Testament. 

XXXII. [p. 490. ] Luke iii. 12. "Then came also publicans to bebaptized. " From this quotation, as well as from the history of Levi orMatthew (Luke v. 29), and of Zaccheus (Luke xix. 2), it appears that thepublicans or tax-gatherers were, frequently at least, if not always, Jews: which, as the country was then under a Roman government, and thetaxes were paid to the Romans, was a circumstance not to be expected. That it was the truth, however, of the case appears from a short passageof Josephus. 

De Bell. Lib. Ii. C. 14, sect. 45. "But Florus not restraining thesepractices by his authority, the chief men of the Jews, among whom wasJohn the publican, not knowing well what course to take, wait uponFlorus and give him eight talents of silver to stop the building. "

XXXIII. [p. 496. ] Acts xxii. 25. "And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you toscourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned?"

"Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum; scelus verberari. " Cic. In Verr. 

"Caedebatur virgis, in medio foro Messanae, civis Romanus, Judices: cuminterea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia, istius miseri inter doloremcrepitumque plagarum audiebatur, nisi haec, Civis Romanus sum. "

XXXIV. [p. 513] Acts xxii. 27. "Then the chief captain came, and saidunto him (Paul), Tell me, Art thou a Roman? He said Yea. " Thecircumstance to be here noticed is, that a Jew was a Roman citizen. 

Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xiv. C. 10, sect. 13. "Lucius Lentulna, the consul, declared, I have dismissed from the service the Jewish Roman citizens, who observe the rites of the Jewish religion at Ephesus. "

Ib. Ver. 28. "And the chief captain answered, with a great sum obtainedI this freedom. "

Dio Cassius, lib. Lx. "This privilege, which had been bought formerly ata great price, became so cheap, that it was commonly said a man might bemade a Roman citizen for a few pieces of broken glass. "

XXXV. [p. 521. ] Acts xxviii. 16. "And when we came to Rome the centuriondelivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard; but Paul wassuffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him. "

With which join vet. 20. "For the hope of Israel, I am bound with thischain. "

"Quemadmedum cadem catean et custodiam et militem copulat; sic ista, quae tam dissimilia sunt, pariter incedunt. " Seneca, Ep. V. 

"Proconsul estimare solet, utrum in carcerera recipienda sit persona, anmiliti tradenda. " Ulpian. L. I. Sect. De Custod. Et Exhib. Reor. 

In the confinement of Agrippa by the order of Tiberius, Antonia managedthat the centurion who presided over the guards, and the soldier to whomAgrippa was to be bound, might be men of mild character. (Joseph. Antiq. Lib. Xviii. C. 7, sect. 5. ) After the accession of Caligula, Agrippaalso, like Paul, was suffered to dwell, yet as a prisoner, in his ownhouse. 

XXXVI. [p. 531. ] Acts xxvii. 1. "And when it was determined that weshould sail into Italy, they delivered Paul, and certain otherprisoners, unto one named Julius. " Since not only Paul, but certainother prisoners were sent by the same ship into Italy, the text must beconsidered as carrying with it an intimation that the sending of personsfrom Judea to be tried at Rome was an ordinary practice. That in truthit was so, is made out by a variety of examples which the writings ofJosephus furnish: and, amongst others, by the following, which comesnear both to the time and the subject of the instance in the Acts. "Felix, for some slight offence, bound and sent to Rome several priestsof his acquaintance, and very good and honest men, to answer forthemselves to Caesar. " Joseph. In Vit. Sect. 3. 

XXXVII. [p. 539. ] Acts xi. 27. "And in these days came prophets fromJerusalem unto Antioch; and there stood up one of them, named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a great dearththroughout all the world (or all the country); which came to pass in thedays of Claudius Caesar. "

Joseph. Antiq. 1. Xx. C. 4, sect. 2. "In their time (i. E. About thefifth or sixth year of Claudius) a great dearth happened in Judea. "

XXXVIII. [p. 555. ] Acts xviii. 1, 2. "Because that Claudius hadcommanded all Jews to depart from Rome. "

Suet. Gland. C. Xxv. "Judeos, impulsero Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit. "

XXXIX. [p. 664. ] Acts v. 37. "After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him. "

Joseph. De Bell. 1. Vii. "He (viz. The person who in another place iscalled, by Josephus, Judas the Galilean, or Judas of Galilee) persuadednot a few to enrol themselves when Cyrenius the censor was sent intoJudea. "

XL. [p. 942. ] Acts xxi. 38. "Art not thou that Egyptian which, beforethese days, madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness fourthousand men that were murderers?"

Joseph. De Bell. 1. Ii. C. 13, sect. 5. "But the Egyptian false prophetbrought a yet heavier disaster upon the Jews; for this impostor, cominginto the country, and gaining the reputation of a prophet, gatheredtogether thirty thousand men, who were deceived by him. Having broughtthem round out of the wilderness, up to the mount of Olives, he intendedfrom thence to make his attack upon Jerusalem; but Felix, comingsuddenly upon him with the Roman soldiers, prevented the attack. --Agreat number, or (as it should rather be rendered) the greatest part, ofthose that were with him were either slain or taken prisoners. "

In these two passages, the designation of this impostor, an "Egyptian, "without the proper name, "the wilderness ;" his escape, though hisfollowers were destroyed; the time of the transaction, in thepresidentship of Felix, which could not be any long time before thewords in Luke are supposed to have been spoken; are circumstances ofclose correspondency. There is one, and only one, point of disagreement, and that is, in the number of his followers, which in the Acts arecalled four thousand, and by Josephus thirty thousand: but, beside thatthe names of numbers, more than any other words, are liable to theerrors of transcribers, we are in the present instance under the lessconcern to reconcile the evangelist with Josephus, as Josephus is not, in this point, consistent with himself. For whereas, in the passage herequoted, he calls the number thirty thousand, and tells us that thegreatest part, or a great number (according as his words are rendered)of those that were with him were destroyed; in his Antiquities herepresents four hundred to have been killed upon this occasion, and twohundred taken prisoners:(Lib. Xx. C. 7, sect. 6. ) which certainly wasnot the "greatest part, " nor "a great part, " nor "a great number, " outof thirty thousand. It is probable, also, that Lysias and Josephus spokeof the expedition in its different stages: Lysias, of those who followedthe Egyptian out of Jerusalem; Josephus, of all who were collected abouthim afterwards, from different quarters. 

XLI. (Lardner's Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. Iii p. 21. ) Actsxvii. 22. "Then Paul stood in the midst of Marshill, and said, Ye men ofAthens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious; for, asI passed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with thisinscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. "

Diogenes Laertius, who wrote about the year 210, in his history ofEpimenides, who is supposed to have flourished nearly six hundred yearsbefore Christ, relates of him the following story: that, being invitedto Athens for the purpose, he delivered the city from a pestilence inthis manner;--"Taking several sheep, some black, others white, he hadthem up to the Areopagus, and then let them go where they would, andgave orders to those who followed them, wherever any of them should liedown, to sacrifice it to the god to whom it belonged; and so the plagueceased. --Hence, " says the historian, "it has come to pass, that to thispresent time may be found in the boroughs of the Athenians ANONYMOUSaltars: a memorial of the expiation then made. " (In Epimenide, l. I. Segm. 110. ) These altars, it may be presumed, were called anonymousbecause there was not the name of any particular deity inscribed uponthem. 

Pausanias, who wrote before the end of the second century, in hisdescription of Athens, having mentioned an altar of Jupiter Olympius, adds, "And nigh unto it is an altar of unknown gods. " (Paus. L. V. P. 412. ) And in another place, he speaks "of altars of gods calledunknown. " (Paus. L. I. P. 4. )

Philostratus, who wrote in the beginning of the third century; recordsit as an observation of Apollonius Tyanseus, "That it was wise to speakwell of all the gods, especially at Athens, where altars of unknowndemons were erected. " (Philos. Apoll. Tyan. L. Vi. C. 3. )

The author of the dialogue Philoparis by many supposed to have beenLucian, who wrote about the year 170, by others some anonymous Heathenwriter of the fourth century, makes Critias swear by the unknown god ofAthens; and, near time end of the dialogue, has these words, "But let usfind out the unknown god at Athens, and, stretching our hands to heaven, offer to him our praises and thanksgivings. " (Lucian. In Philop. Tom. Ii. Graev. Pp. 767, 780. )

This is a very curious and a very important coincidence. It appearsbeyond controversy, that altars with this inscription were existing atAthens at the time when Saint Paul is alleged to have been there. Itseems also (which is very worthy of observation) that this inscriptionwas peculiar to the Athenians. There is no evidence that there werealtars inscribed "to the unknown god" in any other country. Supposingthe history of Saint Paul to have been a fable, how is it possible thatsuch a writer as the author of the Acts of the Apostles was should hitupon a circumstance so extraordinary, and introduce it by an allusion sosuitable to Saint Paul's office and character?

The examples here collected will be sufficient, I hope, to satisfy usthat the writers of the Christian history knew something of what theywere writing about. The argument is also strengthened by the followingconsiderations:

I. That these agreements appear not only in articles of public history, but sometimes in minute, recondite, and very peculiar circumstances, inwhich, of all others, a forger is most likely to have been foundtripping. 

II. That the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place forty yearsafter the commencement of the Christian institution, produced such achange in the state of the country, and the condition of the Jews, thata writer who was unacquainted with the circumstances of the nationbefore that event would find it difficult to avoid mistakes, inendeavouring to give detailed accounts of transactions connected withthose circumstances, forasmuch as he could no longer have a livingexemplar to copy from. 

III. That there appears, in the writers of the New Testament, aknowledge of the affairs of those times which we do not find in authorsof later ages. In particular, "many of the Christian writers of thesecond and third centuries, and of the following ages, had false notionsconcerning the state of Judea between the nativity of Jesus and thedestruction of Jerusalem. " (Lardner, part i. Vol. Ii. P. 960. ) Thereforethey could not have composed our histories. 

Amidst so many conformities we are not to wonder that we meet with somedifficulties. The principal of these I will put down, together with thesolutions which they have received. But in doing this I must becontented with a brevity better suited to the limits of my volume thanto the nature of a controversial argument. For the historical proofs ofmy assertions, and for the Greek criticisms upon which some of them arefounded, I refer the reader to the second volume of the first part ofDr. Lardner's large work. 

I. The taxing during which Jesus was born was "first made, " as we read, according to our translation, in Saint Luke, "whilst Cyrenius wasgovernor of Syria. " (Chap. Ii. Ver. 2. ) Now it turns out that Cyreniuswas not governor of Syria until twelve, or at the soonest, ten yearsafter the birth of Christ; and that a taxing census, or assessment, wasmade in Judea, in the beginning of his government, The charge, therefore, brought against the evangelist is, that, intending to referto this taxing, he has misplaced the date of it by an error of ten ortwelve years. 

The answer to the accusation is founded in his using the word"first:"--"And this taxing was first made:" for, according to themistake imputed to the evangelist, this word could have no significationwhatever; it could have had no place in his narrative; because, let itrelate to what it will, taxing, census, enrolment, or assessment, itimports that the writer had more than one of those in contemplation. Itacquits him therefore of the charge: it is inconsistent with thesupposition of his knowing only of the taxing in the beginning ofCyrenius's government. And if the evangelist knew (which this wordproves that he did) of some other taxing beside that, it is too much, for the sake of convicting him of a mistake, to lay it down as certainthat he intended to refer to that. 

The sentence in Saint Luke may be construed thus: "This was the firstassessment (or enrolment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria;"* the words"governor of Syria" being used after the name of Cyrenius as hisaddition or title. And this title, belonging to him at the time ofwriting the account, was naturally enough subjoined to his name, thoughacquired after the transaction which the account describes. A modernwriter who was not very exact in the choice of his expressions, inrelating the affairs of the East Indies, might easily say that such athing was done by Governor Hastings; though, in truth, the thing hadbeen done by him before his advancement to the station from which hereceived the name of governor. And this, as we contend, is precisely theinaccuracy which has produced the difficulty in Saint Luke. 

_________

* If the word which we render "first" be rendered "before, " which ithas been strongly contended that the Greek idiom shows of, the wholedifficulty vanishes: for then the passage would be, --"Now this taxingwas made before Cyreulus was governor of Syria;" which corresponds withthe chronology. But I rather choose to argue, that however the word"first" be rendered, to give it a meaning at all, it militates with theobjection. In this I think there can be no mistake. _________

At any rate it appears from the form of the expression that he had twotaxings or enrolments in contemplation. And if Cyrenius had been sentupon this business into Judea before he became governor of Syria(against which supposition there is no proof, but rather externalevidence of an enrolment going on about this time under some person orother +), then the census on all hands acknowledged to have been made byhim in the beginning of his government would form a second, so as tooccasion the other to be called the first. 

_________

+ Josephus (Antiq. Xvii. C. 2, sect. 6. ) has this remarkable message:"When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful toCaesar, and the interests of the king. " This transaction corresponds inthe course of the history with the time of Christ's birth. What iscalled a census, and which we render taxing, was delivering upon oath anaccount of their property. This might be accompanied with an oath offidelity, or might be mistaken by Josephus for it. _________

II. Another chronological objection arises upon a date assigned in thebeginning of the third chapter of Saint Luke. (Lardner, part i. Vol. Ii. P. 768. ) "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of TiberiusCaesar, --Jesus began to be about thirty years of age:" for, supposingJesus to have been born as Saint Matthew and Saint Luke also himselfrelate, in the time of Herod, he must, according to the dates given inJosephus and by the Roman historians, have been at least thirty-oneyears of age in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. If he was born, as SaintMatthew's narrative intimates, one or two years before Herod's death, hewould have been thirty-two or thirty-three years old at that time. 

This is the difficulty: the solution turns upon an alteration in theconstruction of the Greek. Saint Luke's words in the original areallowed, by the general opinion of learned men, to signify, not "thatJesus began to be about thirty years of age, " but "that he was aboutthirty years of age when he began his ministry. " This construction beingadmitted, the adverb "about" gives us all the latitude we want, and moreespecially when applied, as it is in the present instance, to a decimalnumber; for such numbers, even without this qualifying addition, areoften used in a laxer sense than is here contended for. *

_________

* Livy, speaking of the peace which the conduct of Romulus had procured tothe state, during the whole reign of his successor (Numa), has thesewords: "Ab illo enim profectis viribus datis tautum valuit, ut, inquaaraginta deiade annos, tutam proem haberet:" yet afterwards in thesame chapter, "Romulus, " he says, "septera et triginta regnavit annos. Numa tres et quadraginta. " (Liv. Hist. C. I. Sect. 16. )_________

III. Acts v. 36. "For before these days rose up Theudas, boastinghimself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who were slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, werescattered and brought to nought. "

Josephus has preserved the account of an impostor of the name ofTheudas, who created some disturbances, and was slain; but according tothe date assigned to this man's appearance (in which, however, it isvery possible that Josephus may have been mistaken), (Michaelis'sIntroduction to the New Testament [Marsh's translation], vol. I. P. 61. )it must have been, at the least, seven years after Gamaliel's speech, ofwhich this text is a part, was delivered. It has been replied to theobjection, (Lardner, part i. Vol. Ii. P. 92. ) that there might be twoimpostors of this name: and it has been observed, in order to give ageneral probability to the solution, that the same thing appears to havehappened in other instances of the same kind. It is proved fromJosephus, that there were not fewer than four persons of the name ofSimon within forty years, and not fewer than three of the name of Judaswithin ten years, who were all leaders of insurrections: and it islikewise recorded by this historian, that upon the death of Herod theGreat (which agrees very well with the time of the commotion referred toby Gamaliel, and with his manner of stating that time, "before thesedays") there were innumerable disturbances in Judea. (Antiq. 1. 17, c. 12. Sect. 4. ) Archbishop Usher was of opinion, that one of the threeJudases above mentioned was Gamaliel's Theudas; (Annals, p. 797. ) andthat with a less variation of the name than we actually find in theGospel, where one of the twelve apostles is called, by Luke, Judas; andby Mark, Thaddeus. (Luke vi. 16. Mark iii. 18. ) Origen, however he cameat his information, appears to have believed that there was an impostorof the name of Theudas before the nativity of Christ. (Orig. Cont Cels. P. 44. )

IV. Matt. Xxiii. 34. "Wherefore, behold I send unto you prophets, andwise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; andsome of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute themfrom city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shedupon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood ofZacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and thealtar. "

There is a Zacharias whose death is related in the second book ofChronicles, * in a manner which perfectly supports our Saviour'sallusion. But this Zacharias was the son of Jehoiada. 

_________

* "And the Spirit of God came upon Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada thepriest, which stood above the people, and mid unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord that ye cannot prosper?Because ye hive forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. And theyconspired against him, and stoned him with stones, at the commandment ofthe king, in the court of the house of the Lord. " 2 Chron. Xxiv. 20, 21. _________

There is also Zacharias the prophet; who was the son of Barachiah, andis so described in the superscription of his prophecy, but of whosedeath we have no account. 

I have little doubt but that the first Zacharias was the person spokenof by our Saviour; and that the name of the father has been since addedor changed, by some one who took it from the title of the prophecy, which happened to be better known to him than the history in theChronicles. 

There is likewise a Zacharias, the son of Baruch, related by Josephus tohave been slain in the temple a few years before the destruction ofJerusalem. It has been insinuated that the words put into our Saviour'smouth contain a reference to this transaction, and were composed by somewriter who either confounded the time of the transaction with ourSaviour's age, or inadvertently overlooked the anachronism. 

Now, suppose it to have been so; suppose these words to have beensuggested by the transaction related in Josephus, and to have beenfalsely ascribed to Christ; and observe what extraordinary coincidences(accidentally as it must in that case have been) attend the forger'smistake. 

First, that we have a Zacharias in the book of Chronicles, whose death, and the manner of it, corresponds with the allusion. 

Secondly, that although the name of this person's father be erroneouslyput down in the Gospel, yet we have a way of accounting for the error byshowing another Zacharias in the Jewish Scriptures much better knownthan the former, whose patronymic was actually that which appears in thetext. 

Every one who thinks upon the subject will find these to becircumstances which could not have met together in a mistake which didnot proceed from the circumstances themselves. 

I have noticed, I think, all the difficulties of this kind. They arefew: some of them admit of a clear, others of a probable solution. Thereader will compare them with the number, the variety, the closeness, and the satisfactoriness, of the instances which are to be set againstthem; and he will remember the scantiness, in many cases, of ourintelligence, and that difficulties always attend imperfect information. 

CHAPTER VII. 

UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES. 

Between the letters which bear the name of Saint Paul in our collectionand his history in the Acts of the Apostles there exist many notes ofcorrespondency. The simple perusal of the writings is sufficient toprove that neither the history was taken from the letters, nor theletters from the history. And the undesignedness of the agreements(which undesignedness is gathered from their latency, their minuteness, their obliquity, the suitableness of the circumstances in which theyconsist to the places in which those circumstances occur, and thecircuitous references by which they are traced out) demonstrates thatthey have not been produced by meditation, or by any fraudulentcontrivance. But coincidences, from which these causes are excluded, andwhich are too close and numerous to be accounted for by accidentalconcurrences of fiction, must necessarily have truth for theirfoundation. This argument appeared to my mind of so much value(especially for its assuming nothing beside the existence of the books), that I have pursued it through Saint Paul's thirteen epistles, in a workpublished by me four years ago, under the title of Horae Paulinae. I amsensible how feebly any argument which depends upon an induction ofparticulars is represented without examples. On which account I wishedto have abridged my own volume, in the manner in which I have treatedDr. Lardner's in the preceding chapter. But, upon making the attempt, Idid not find it in my power to render the articles intelligible by fewerwords than I have there used. I must be content, therefore, to refer thereader to the work itself. And I would particularly invite his attentionto the observations which are made in it upon the first three epistles. I persuade myself that he will find the proofs, both of agreement, andundesignedness, supplied by these epistles, sufficient to support theconclusion which is there maintained, in favour both of the genuinenessof the writings and the truth of the narrative. 

It remains only, in this place, to point out how the argument bears uponthe general question of the Christian history. 

First, Saint Paul in these letters affirms, in unequivocal terms, hisown performance of miracles, and, what ought particularly to beremembered, "That miracles were the signs of an Apostle. " (Rom. Xv. 18, 19. 2 Cor. Xii. 12. ) If this testimony come from Saint Paul's own hand, it is invaluable. And that it does so, the argument before us fixes inmy mind a firm assurance. 

Secondly, it shows that the series of action represented in the epistlesof Saint Paul was real; which alone lays a foundation for theproposition which forms the subject of the first part of our presentwork, viz. That the original witnesses of the Christian history devotedthemselves to lives of toil, suffering, and danger, in consequence oftheir belief of the truth of that history, and for the sake ofcommunicating the knowledge of it to others. 

Thirdly, it proves that Luke, or whoever was the author of the Acts ofthe Apostles (for the argument does not depend upon the name of theauthor, though I know no reason for questioning it), was well acquaintedwith Saint Paul's history; and that he probably was, what he professeshimself to be, a companion of Saint Paul's travels; which, if true, establishes, in a considerable degree, the credit even of his Gospel, because it shows that the writer, from his time, situation, andconnexions, possessed opportunities of informing himself trulyconcerning the transactions which he relates. I have little difficultyin applying to the Gospel of Saint Luke what is proved concerning theActs of the Apostles, considering them as two parts of the same history;for though there are instances of second parts being forgeries, I knownone where the second part is genuine, and the first not so. 

I will only observe, as a sequel of the argument, though not noticed inmy work, the remarkable similitude between the style of Saint John'sGospel and of Saint John's Epistle. The style of Saint John's is not atall the style of Saint Paul's Epistles, though both are very singular;nor is it the style of Saint James's or of Saint Peter's Epistles: butit bears a resemblance to the style of the Gospel inscribed with SaintJohn's name, so far as that resemblance can be expected to appear, whichis not in simple narrative, so much as in reflections, and in therepresentation of discourses. Writings so circumstanced provethemselves, and one another, to be genuine. This correspondency is themore valuable, as the epistle itself asserts, in Saint John's manner, indeed, but in terms sufficiently explicit, the writer's personalknowledge of Christ's history: "That which was from the beginning, whichwe have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have lookedupon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life; that which wehave seen and heard, declare we unto you. " (Ch. I. Ver. 1--3. )Who wouldnot desire, who perceives not the value of an account delivered by awriter so well informed as this?

CHAPTER VIII. 

OF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. 

The history of the resurrection of Christ is a part of the evidence ofChristianity: but I do not know whether the proper strength of thispassage of the Christian history, or wherein its peculiar value, as ahead of evidence, consists, be generally understood. It is not that, asa miracle, the resurrection ought to be accounted a more decisiveproof of supernatural agency than other miracles are; it is not that, asit stands in the Gospels, it is better attested than some others; it isnot, for either of these reasons, that more weight belongs to it than toother miracles, but for the following, viz. , That it is completelycertain that the apostles of Christ, and the first teachers ofChristianity, asserted the fact. And this would have been certain, ifthe four Gospels had been lost, or never written. Every piece ofScripture recognizes the resurrection. Every epistle of every apostle, every author contemporary with the apostles, of the age immediatelysucceeding the apostles, every writing from that age to the presentgenuine or spurious, on the side of Christianity or against it, concurin representing the resurrection of Christ as an article of his history, received without doubt or disagreement by all who called themselvesChristians, as alleged from the beginning by the propagators of theinstitution, and alleged as the centre of their testimony. Nothing, Iapprehend, which a man does not himself see or hear can be more certainto him than this point. I do not mean that nothing can be more certainthan that Christ rose from the dead; but that nothing can be morecertain than that his apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, gave out that he did so. In the other parts of the Gospel narrative, aquestion may be made, whether the things related of Christ be the verythings which the apostles and first teachers of the religion deliveredconcerning him? And this question depends a good deal upon the evidencewe possess of the genuineness, or rather perhaps of the antiquity, credit, and reception of the books. On the subject of the resurrection, no such discussion is necessary, because no such doubt can beentertained. The only points which can enter into our consideration are, whether the apostles knowingly published a falsehood, or whether theywere themselves deceived; whether either of these suppositions bepossible. The first, I think, is pretty generally given up. The natureof the undertaking, and of the men; the extreme unlikelihood that suchmen should engage in such a measure as a scheme; their personal toils, and dangers and sufferings in the cause; their appropriation of theirwhole time to the object; the warm and seemingly unaffected zeal andearnestness with which they profess their sincerity exempttheir memory from the suspicion of imposture. The solution moredeserving of notice is that which would resolve the conduct of theapostles into enthusiasm; which would class the evidence of Christ'sresurrection with the numerous stories that are extant of theapparitions of dead men. There are circumstances in the narrative, as itis preserved in our histories, which destroy this comparison entirely. It was not one person but many, who saw him; they saw him not onlyseparately but together, not only by night but by day, not at a distancebut near, not once but several times; they not only saw him, but touchedhim, conversed with him, ate with him, examined his person to satisfytheir doubts. These particulars are decisive: but they stand, I doadmit, upon the credit of our records. I would answer, therefore, theinsinuation of enthusiasm, by a circumstance which arises out of thenature of the thing; and the reality of which must be confessed by allwho allow, what I believe is not denied, that the resurrection ofChrist, whether true or false, was asserted by his disciples from thebeginning; and that circumstance is, the non-production of the deadbody. It is related in the history, what indeed the story of theresurrection necessarily implies, that the corpse was missing out of thesepulchre: it is related also in the history, that the Jews reportedthat the followers of Christ had stolen it away. * And this account, though loaded with great improbabilities, such as the situation of thedisciples, their fears for their own safety at the time, theunlikelihood of their expecting to succeed, the difficulty of actualsuccess, + and the inevitable consequence of detection and failure, was, nevertheless, the most credible account that could be given of thematter. But it proceeds entirely upon the supposition of fraud, as allthe old objections did. What account can be given of the body, upon thesupposition of enthusiasm? It is impossible our Lord's followers couldbelieve that he was risen from the dead, if his corpse was lying beforethem. No enthusiasm ever reached to such a pitch of extravagancy asthat: a spirit may be an illusion; a body is a real thing, an object ofsense, in which there can be no mistake. All accounts of spectres leavethe body in the grave. And although the body of Christ might be removedby fraud, and for the purposes of fraud, yet without any such intention, and by sincere but deluded men (which is the representation of theapostolic character we are now examining), no such attempt could bemade. The presence and the absence of the dead body are alikeinconsistent with the hypothesis of enthusiasm: for if present, it musthave cured their enthusiasm at once; if absent, fraud, not enthusiasm, must have carried it away. 

_________

* "And this saying, " Saint Matthew writes, "is commonly reported amongstthe Jews until this day" (chap. Xxviii. 15). The evangelist may bethought good authority as to this point, even by those who do not admithis evidence in every other point: and this point is sufficient to provethat the body was missing. It has been rightly, I think, observed by Dr. Townshend (Dis. Upon the Res. P. 126), that the story of the guardscarried collusion upon the face of it:--"His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. " Men in their circumstances would nothave made such an acknowledgment of their negligence without previousassurances of protection and impunity. 

+ "Especially at the full moon, the city full of people, many probablypassing the whole night, as Jesus and his disciples had done, in theopen air, the sepulchre so near the city as to be now enclosed withinthe walls. " Priestley on the Resurr. P. 24. _________

But further, if we admit, upon the concurrent testimony of all thehistories, so much of the account as states that the religion of Jesuswas set up at Jerusalem, and set up with asserting, in the very place inwhich he had been buried, and a few days after he had been buried, hisresurrection out of the grave, it is evident that, if his body couldhave been found, the Jews would have produced it, as the shortest andcompletest answer possible to the whole story. The attempt of theapostles could not have survived this refutation a moment. If we alsoadmit, upon the authority of Saint Matthew, that the Jews wereadvertised of the expectation of Christ's followers, and that they hadtaken due precaution in consequence of this notice, and that the bodywas in marked and public custody, the observation receives more forcestill. For notwithstanding their precaution and although thus preparedand forewarned; when the story of the resurrection of Christ came forth, as it immediately did; when it was publicly asserted by his disciples, and made the ground and basis of their preaching in his name, andcollecting followers to his religion, the Jews had not the body toproduce; but were obliged to meet the testimony of the apostles by ananswer not containing indeed any impossibility in itself, but absolutelyinconsistent with the supposition of their integrity; that is, in otherwords, inconsistent with the supposition which would resolve theirconduct into enthusiasm. 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY. 

In this argument, the first consideration is the fact--in what degree, within what time, and to what extent, Christianity actually waspropagated. 

The accounts of the matter which can be collected from our books are asfollow: A few days after Christ's disappearance out of the world, wefind an assembly of disciples at Jerusalem, to the number of "about onehundred and twenty;" (Acts i. 15. ) which hundred and twenty wereprobably a little association of believers, met together not merely asbelievers in Christ, but as personally connected with the apostles, andwith one another. Whatever was the number of believers then inJerusalem, we have no reason to be surprised that so small a companyshould assemble: for there is no proof that the followers of Christ wereyet formed into a society; that the society was reduced into any order;that it was at this time even understood that a new religion (in thesense which that term conveys to us) was to be set up in the world, orhow the professors of that religion were to be distinguished from therest of mankind. The death of Christ had left, we may suppose, thegenerality of his disciples in great doubt, both as to what they were todo, and concerning what was to follow. 

This meeting was holden, as we have already said, a few days afterChrist's ascension: for ten days after that event was the day ofPentecost, when, as our history relates, (Acts ii. 1. ) upon a signaldisplay of divine agency attending the persons of the apostles, therewere added to the society "about three thousand souls. " (Acts ii. 41. )But here, it is not, I think, to be taken, that these three thousandwere all converted by this single miracle; but rather that many whobefore were believers in Christ became now professors of Christianity;that is to say, when they found that a religion was to be established, asociety formed and set up in the name of Christ, governed by his laws, avowing their belief in his mission, united amongst themselves, andseparated from the rest of the world by visible distinctions; inpursuance of their former conviction, and by virtue of what they hadheard and seen, and known of Christ's history, they publicly becamemembers of it. 

We read in the fourth chapter (verse 4) of the Acts, that soon afterthis, "the number of the men, " i. E. The society openly professing theirbelief in Christ, "was about five thousand. " So that here is an increaseof two thousand within a very short time. And it is probable that therewere many, both now and afterwards, who, although they believed inChrist, did not think it necessary to join themselves to this society;or who waited to see what was likely to become of it. Gamaliel, whoseadvice to the Jewish council is recorded Acts v. 34, appears to havebeen of this description; perhaps Nicodemus, and perhaps also Joseph ofArimathea. This class of men, their character and their rank, arelikewise pointed out by Saint John, in the twelfth chapter of hisGospel: "Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they shouldbe put out of the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more thanthe praise of God. " Persons such as these might admit the miracles ofChrist, without being immediately convinced that they were underobligation to make a public profession of Christianity at the risk ofall that was dear to them in life, and even of life itself. *

_________

* "Beside those who professed, and those who rejected and opposed, Christianity, there were in all probability multitudes between both, neither perfect Christians nor yet unbelievers. They had a favourableopinion of the Gospel, but worldly considerations made them unwilling toown it. There were many circumstances which inclined them to think thatChristianity was a divine revelation, but there were many inconvenienceswhich attended the open profession of it; and they could not find inthemselves courage enough to bear them to disoblige their friends andfamily, to ruin their fortunes, to lose their reputation, their liberty, and their life, for the sake of the new religion. Therefore they werewilling to hope, that if they endeavoured to observe the greatprinciples of morality which Christ had represented as the principalpart, the sum and substance of religion; if they thought honourably ofthe Gospel; if they offered no injury to the Christians; if they didthem all the services that they could safely perform, they were willingto hope that God would accept this, and that He would excuse and forgivethe rest. " Jortin's Dis. On the Christ. Rel. P. 91, ed. 4. _________

Christianity, however, proceeded to increase in Jerusalem by a progressequally rapid with its first success; for in the next chapter of ourhistory, we read that "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women. " And this enlargement of the newsociety appears in the first verse of the succeeding chapter, wherein weare told, that "when the number of the disciples was multiplied, therearose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because theirwidows were neglected;" (Acts v. 14; vi. 1) and afterwards, in the samechapter, it is declared expressly, that "the number of the disciplesmultiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and that a great company of the priestswere obedient to the faith. "

This I call the first period in the propagation of Christianity. Itcommences with the ascension of Christ, and extends, as may be collectedfrom incidental notes of time, (Vide Pearson's Antiq. 1. Xviii. C. 7. Benson's History of Christ, b. I. P. 148. ) to something more than oneyear after that event. During which term, the preaching of Christianity, so far as our documents inform us, was confined to the single city ofJerusalem. And how did it succeed there? The first assembly which wemeet with of Christ's disciples, and that a few days after his removalfrom the world, consisted of "one hundred and twenty. " About a weekafter this, "three thousand were added in one day;" and the number ofChristians publicly baptized, and publicly associating together, wasvery soon increased to "five thousand. " "Multitudes both of men andwomen continued to be added;" "disciples multiplied greatly, " and "manyof the Jewish priesthood as well as others, became obedient to thefaith;" and this within a space of less than two years from thecommencement of the institution. 

By reason of a persecution raised against the church at Jerusalem, theconverts were driven from that city, and dispersed throughout theregions of Judea and Samaria. (Acts viii. L. ) Wherever they came, theybrought their religion with them: for our historian informs us, (Actsviii. 4. ) that "they that were scattered abroad went everywherepreaching the word. " The effect of this preaching comes afterwards to benoticed, where the historian is led, in the course of his narrative, toobserve that then (i. E. About three years posterior to this, [Benson, b. I. P. 207. ]) the churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galileeand Samaria, and were edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, andin the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. This was the work ofthe second period, which comprises about four years. 

Hitherto the preaching of the Gospel had been confined to Jews, toJewish proselytes, and to Samaritans. And I cannot forbear from settingdown in this place an observation of Mr. Bryant, which appears to me tobe perfectly well founded;--"The Jews still remain: but how seldom is itthat we can make a single proselyte! There is reason to think, thatthere were more converted by the apostles in one day than have sincebeen won over in the last thousand years. " (Bryant on the Truth of theChristian Religion, p. 112. ) It was not yet known to the apostles thatthey were at liberty to propose the religion to mankind at large. That"mystery, " as Saint Paul calls it, (Eph. Iii. 3--6. ) and as it then was, was revealed to Peter by an especial miracle. It appears to have been(Benson, book ii. P. 236. ) about seven years after Christ's ascensionthat the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles of Cesarea. A year afterthis a great multitude of Gentiles were converted at Antioch in Syria. The expressions employed by the historian are these:--"A great numberbelieved, and turned to the Lord;" "much people was added unto theLord;" "the apostles Barnabas and Paul taught much people. " (Acts xi. 21, 24, 26. ) Upon Herod's death, which happened in the nextyear, (Benson, book ii, p. 289. ) it is observed, that "the word of Godgrew and multiplied. " (Acts xii. 24. ) Three years from this time, uponthe preaching of Paul at Iconium, the metropolis of Lycaonia, "a greatmultitude both of Jews and Greeks believed:" (Acts xiv. 1. ) andafterwards, in the course of this very progress, he is represented as"making many disciples" at Derbe, a principal city in the same district. Three years (Benson's History of Christ, book iii. P. 50. ) after this, which brings us to sixteen after the ascension, the apostles wrote apublic letter from Jerusalem to the Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, with which letter Paul travelled through these countries, and found the churches "established in the faith, and increasing innumber daily. " (Acts xvi. 5. ) From Asia the apostle proceeded intoGreece, where, soon after his arrival in Macedonia, we find him atThessalonica: in which city, "some of the Jews believed, and of thedevout Greeks a great multitude. " (Acts xvii. 4. ) We meet also here withan accidental hint of the general progress of the Christian mission, inthe exclamation of the tumultuous Jews of Thessalonica, "that they whohad turned the world upside down were come thither also. " (Acts xvii. 6. ) At Berea, the next city at which Saint Paul arrives, the historian, who was present, inform us that "many of the Jews believed. " (Acts xvii. 12. ) The next year and a half of Saint Paul's ministry was spent atCorinth. Of his success in that city we receive the followingintimations; "that many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized;"and "that it was revealed to the Apostle by Christ, that be had muchpeople in that city. " (Acts xviii, 8--10. ) Within less than a year afterhis departure from Corinth, and twenty-five (Benson, book iii. P, 160. )years after the ascension, Saint Paul fixed his station at Ephesus forthe space of two years (Acts xix. 10. ) and something more. The effect ofhis ministry in that city and neighbourhood drew from the historian areflection how "mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. " (Acts xix. 20. ) And at the conclusion of this period we find Demetrius at the headof a party, who were alarmed by the progress of the religion, complaining, that "not only at Ephesus, but also throughout all Asia(i. E. The province of Lydia, and the country adjoining to Ephesus), thisPaul hath persuaded and turned away much people. " (Acts xix. 26. ) Besidethese accounts, there occurs, incidentally, mention of converts at Rome, Alexandria, Athens, Cyprus, Cyrene, Macedonia, Philippi. 

This is the third period in the propagation of Christianity, setting offin the seventh year after the ascension, and ending at thetwenty-eighth. Now, lay these three periods together, and observe howthe progress of the religion by these accounts is represented. Theinstitution, which properly began only after its Author's removal fromthe world, before the end of thirty years, had spread itself throughJudea, Galilee, and Samaria, almost all the numerous districts of theLesser Asia, through Greece, and the islands of the Aegean Sea, theseacoast of Africa, and had extended itself to Rome, and into Italy. AtAntioch, in Syria, at Joppa, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Berea, Iconium, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, at Lydda, Saron, the number ofconverts is intimated by the expressions, "a great number, " "greatmultitudes, " "much people. " Converts are mentioned, without anydesignation of their number, * at Tyre, Cesarea, Troas, Athens, Philippi, Lystra, Damascus. During all this time Jerusalem continued not only thecentre of the mission, but a principal seat of the religion; for whenSaint Paul returned thither at the conclusion of the period of which weare now considering the accounts, the other apostles pointed out to him, as a reason for his compliance with their advice, "how many thousands(myriads, ten thousands) there were in that city who believed. "+

_________

* Considering the extreme conciseness of many parts of the history, thesilence about the number of converts is no proof of their paucity; forat Philippi, no mention whatever is made of the number, yet Saint Pauladdressed an epistle to that church. The churches of Galatia, and theaffairs of those churches, were considerable enough to be the subject ofanother letter, and of much of Saint Paul's solicitude; yet no accountis preserved in the history of his success, or even of his preaching inthat country, except the slight notice which these words convey:--"Whenthey had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, theyassayed to go into Bithynia. " Acts xvi. 6. 

+ Acts xxi. 20. _________

Upon this abstract, and the writing from which it is drawn, thefollowing observations seem material to be made:

I. That the account comes from a person who was himself concerned in aportion of what he relates, and was contemporary with the whole of it;who visited Jerusalem, and frequented the society of those who hadacted, and were acting the chief parts in the transaction. I lay downthis point positively; for had the ancient attestations to this valuablerecord been less satisfactory than they are, the unaffectedness andsimplicity with which the author notes his presence upon certainoccasions, and the entire absence of art and design from these notices, would have been sufficient to persuade my mind that, whoever he was, heactually lived in the times, and occupied the situation, in which herepresents himself to be. When I say, "whoever he was, " I do not mean tocast a doubt upon the name to which antiquity hath ascribed the Acts ofthe Apostles (for there is no cause, that I am acquainted with, forquestioning it), but to observe that, in such a case as this, the timeand situation of the author are of more importance than his name; andthat these appear from the work itself, and in the most unsuspiciousform. 

II. That this account is a very incomplete account of the preaching andpropagation of Christianity; I mean, that if what we read in the historybe true, much more than what the history contains must be true also. For, although the narrative from which our information is derived hasbeen entitled the Acts of the Apostles, it is, in fact, a history of thetwelve apostles only during a short time of their continuing together atJerusalem; and even of this period the account is very concise. The workafterwards consists of a few important passages of Peter's ministry, ofthe speech and death of Stephen, of the preaching of Philip the deacon;and the sequel of the volume, that is, two thirds of the whole, is takenup with the conversion, the travels, the discourses, and history of thenew apostle, Paul; in which history, also, large portions of time areoften passed over with very scanty notice. 

III. That the account, so far as it goes, is for this very reason morecredible. Had it been the author's design to have displayed the earlyprogress of Christianity, he would undoubtedly have collected, or atleast have set forth, accounts of the preaching of the rest of theapostles, who cannot without extreme improbability be supposed to haveremained silent and inactive, or not to have met with a share of thatsuccess which attended their colleagues. 

To which may be added, as an observation of the same kind, IV. That the intimations of the number of converts, and of the successof the preaching of the apostles, come out for the most partincidentally: are drawn from the historian by the occasion, such as themurmuring of the Grecian converts; the rest from persecution; Herod'sdeath; the sending of Barnabas to Antioch, and Barnabas calling Paul tohis assistance; Paul coming to a place and finding there disciples; theclamour of the Jews; the complaint of artificers interested in thesupport of the popular religion; the reason assigned to induce Paul togive satisfaction to the Christians of Jerusalem. Had it not been forthese occasions it is probable that no notice whatever would have beentaken of the number of converts in several of the passages in which thatnotice now appears. All this tends to remove the suspicion of a designto exaggerate or deceive. 

PARALLEL TESTIMONIES with the history are the letters of Saint Paul, andof the other apostles, which have come down to us. Those of Saint Paulare addressed to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, thechurch of Galatia, and, if the inscription be right, of Ephesus; hisministry at all which places is recorded in the history: to the churchof Colosse, or rather to the churches of Colosse and Laodicea jointly, which he had not then visited. They recognise by reference the churchesof Judea, the churches of Asia, and "all the churches of the Gentiles. "(Thess ii. 14. ) In the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. Xv. 18, 19. ) theauthor is led to deliver a remarkable declaration concerning the extentof his preaching, its efficacy, and the cause to which he ascribesit, --"to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mightysigns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that fromJerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached theGospel of Christ. " In the epistle to the Colossians, (Col. I. 23. ) wefind an oblique but very strong signification of the then general stateof the Christian mission, at least as it appeared to Saint Paul:--"If yecontinue in the faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away fromthe hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached toevery creature which is under heaven;" which Gospel, he had remindedthem near the beginning of his letter (Col. I. 6. ), "was present withthem, as it was in all the world. " The expressions are hyperbolical; butthey are hyperboles which could only be used by a writer who entertaineda strong sense of the subject. The first epistle of Peter accosts theChristians dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, andBithynia. 

It comes next to be considered how far these accounts are confirmed orfollowed up by other evidence. 

Tacitus, in delivering a relation, which has already been laid beforethe reader, of the fire which happened at Rome in the tenth year of Nero(which coincides with the thirtieth year after Christ's ascension), asserts that the emperor, in order to suppress the rumours of havingbeen himself the author of the mischief, procured the Christians to beaccused. Of which Christians, thus brought into his narrative, thefollowing is so much of the historian's account as belongs to ourpresent purpose: "They had their denomination from Christus, who, in thereign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procuratorPontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for awhile, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, but reached thecity also. At first they only were apprehended who confessed themselvesof that sect; afterwards vast multitude were discovered by them. " Thistestimony to the early propagation of Christianity is extremelymaterial. It is from an historian of great reputation, living near thetime; from a stranger and an enemy to the religion; and it joinsimmediately with the period through which the Scripture accounts extend. It establishes these points: that the religion began at Jerusalem; thatit spread throughout Judea; that it had reached Rome, and not only so, but that it had there obtained a great number of converts. This wasabout six years after the time that Saint Paul wrote his Epistle to theRomans, and something more than two years after he arrived therehimself. The converts to the religion were then so numerous at Rome, that of those who were betrayed by the information of the persons firstpersecuted, a great multitude (multitudo ingens) were discovered andseized. 

It seems probable, that the temporary check which Tacitus representsChristianity to have received (repressa in praesens) referred to thepersecution of Jerusalem which followed the death of Stephen (Actsviii. ); and which, by dispersing the converts, caused the institution, in some measure, to disappear. Its second eruption at the same place, and within a short time, has much in it of the character of truth. Itwas the firmness and perseverance of men who knew what they reliedupon. 

Next in order of time, and perhaps superior in importance is thetestimony of Pliny the Younger. Pliny was the Roman governor of Pontusand Bithynia, two considerable districts in the northern part of AsiaMinor. The situation in which he found his province led him to apply tothe emperor (Trajan) for his direction as to the conduct he was to holdtowards the Christians. The letter in which this application iscontained was written not quite eighty years after Christ's ascension. The president, in this letter, states the measures he had alreadypursued, and then adds, as his reason for resorting to the emperor'scounsel and authority, the following words:--"Suspending all judicialproceedings, I have recourse to you for advice; for it has appeared tome a matter highly deserving consideration, especially on account of thegreat number of persons who are in danger of suffering: for many of allages, and of every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and willbe accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized citiesonly, but the lesser towns also, and the open country. Nevertheless itseemed to me that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain thatthe temples, which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented;and the sacred solemnities, after a long intermission, are revived. Victims, likewise, are everywhere (passim) bought up; whereas, for sometime, there were few to purchase them. Whence it is easy to imagine thatnumbers of men might be reclaimed if pardon were granted to those thatshall repent. " (C. Plin. Trajano Imp. Lib. X. Ep. Xcvii. )

It is obvious to observe, that the passage of Pliny's letter herequoted, proves, not only that the Christians in Pontus and Bithynia werenow numerous, but that they had subsisted there for some considerabletime. "It is certain, " he says, "that the temples, which were almostforsaken (plainly ascribing this desertion of the popular worship to theprevalency of Christianity), begin to be more frequented; and the sacredsolemnities, after a long intermission, are revived. " There are also twoclauses in the former part of the letter which indicate the same thing;one, in which he declares that he had "never been present at any trialsof Christians, and therefore knew not what was the usual subject ofinquiry and punishment, or how far either was wont to be urged. " Thesecond clause is the following: "Others were named by an informer, who, at first, confessed themselves Christians, and afterwards denied it; therest said they had been Christians some three years ago, some longer, and some about twenty years. " It is also apparent, that Pliny speaks ofthe Christians as a description of men well known to the person to whomhe writes. His first sentence concerning them is, "I have never beenpresent at the trials of Christians. " This mention of the name ofChristians, without any preparatory explanation, shows that it was aterm familiar both to the writer of the letter and the person to whom itwas addressed. Had it not been so, Pliny would naturally have begun hisletter by informing the emperor that he had met with a certain set ofmen in the province called Christians. 

Here then is a very singular evidence of the progress of the Christianreligion in a short space. It was not fourscore years after thecrucifixion of Jesus when Pliny wrote this letter; nor seventy yearssince the apostles of Jesus began to mention his name to the Gentileworld. Bithynia and Pontus were at a great distance from Judea, thecentre from which the religion spread; yet in these provincesChristianity had long subsisted, and Christians were now in such numbersas to lead the Roman governor to report to the emperor that they werefound not only in cities, but in villages and in open countries; of allages, of every rank and condition; that they abounded so much as to haveproduced a visible desertion of the temples; that beasts brought tomarket for victims had few purchasers; that the sacred solemnities weremuch neglected:--circumstances noted by Pliny for the express purpose ofshowing to the emperor the effect and prevalency of the new institution. 

No evidence remains by which it can be proved that the Christians weremore numerous in Pontus and Bithynia than in other parts of the Romanempire; nor has any reason been offered to show why they should be so. Christianity did not begin in these countries, nor near them. I do notknow, therefore, that we ought to confine the description in Pliny'sletter to the state of Christianity in these provinces, even if no otheraccount of the same subject had come down to us; but, certainly, thisletter may fairly be applied in aid and confirmation of therepresentations given of the general state of Christianity in the world, by Christian writers of that and the next succeeding age. 

Justin Martyr, who wrote about thirty years after Pliny, and one hundredand six after the ascension, has these remarkable words: "There is not anation, either of Greek or barbarian, or of any other name, even ofthose who wander in tribes, and live in tents, amongst whom prayers andthanksgivings are not offered to the Father and Creator of the universeby the name of the crucified Jesus. " (Dial cum Tryph. ) Tertullian, whocomes about fifty years after Justin, appeals to the governors of theRoman empire in these terms: "We were but of yesterday, and we havefilled your cities, islands, towns, and boroughs, the camp, the senate, and the forum. They (the heathen adversaries of Christianity) lamentthat every sex, age, and condition, and persons of every rank also, areconverts to that name. " (Tertull. Apol. C. 37. ) I do allow that theseexpressions are loose, and may be called declamatory. But evendeclamation hath its bounds; this public boasting upon a subject whichmust be known to every reader was not only useless but unnatural, unlessthe truth of the case, in a considerable degree, corresponded with thedescription; at least, unless it had been both true and notorious, thatgreat multitudes of Christians, of all ranks and orders, were to befound in most parts of the Roman empire. The same Tertullian, in anotherpassage, by way of setting forth the extensive diffusion ofChristianity, enumerates as belonging to Christ, beside many othercountries, the "Moors and Gaetulians of Africa, the borders of Spain, several nations of France, and parts of Britain inaccessible to theRomans, the Sarmatians, Daci, Germans, and Scythians;" (Ad Jud. C. 7. )and, which is more material than the extent of the institution, thenumber of Christians in the several countries in which it prevailed isthus expressed by him: "Although so great a multitude, that in almostevery city we form the greater part, we pass our time modestly and insilence. " (Ad Scap. C. Iii. ) A Clemens Alexandrinus, who precededTertullian by a few years, introduced a comparison between the successof Christianity and that of the most celebrated philosophicalinstitutions: "The philosophers were confined to Greece, and to theirparticular retainers; but the doctrine of the Master of Christianity notremain in Judea, as philosophy did in Greece, but is throughout thewhole world, in every nation, and village, and city, both of Greeks andbarbarians, converting both whole houses and separate individuals, having already brought over to the truth not a few of the philosophersthemselves. If the Greek philosophy he prohibited, it immediatelyvanishes; whereas, from the first preaching of our doctrine, kings andtyrants, governors and presidents, with their whole train, and with thepopulace on their side, have endeavoured with their whole might toexterminate it, yet doth it flourish more and more. " (Clem. AI. Strora. Lib. Vi. Ad fin. ) Origen, who follows Tertullian at the distance of onlythirty years, delivers nearly the same account: "In every part of theworld, " says he, "throughout all Greece, and in all other nations, thereare innumerable and immense multitudes, who, having left the laws oftheir country, and those whom they esteemed gods, have given themselvesup to the law of Moses, and the religion of Christ: and thisnot without the bitterest resentment from the idolaters, by whom theywere frequently put to torture, and sometimes to death: and it iswonderful to observe how, in so short a time, the religion hasincreased, amidst punishment and death, and every kind of torture. "(Orig. In Cels. Lib. I. ) In another passage, Origen draws the followingcandid comparison between the state of Christianity in his time and thecondition of its more primitive ages: "By the good providence of God, the Christian religion has so flourished and increased continually thatit is now preached freely without molestation, although there were athousand obstacles to the spreading of the doctrine of Jesus in theworld. But as it was the will of God that the Gentiles should have thebenefit of it, all the counsels of men against the Christians weredefeated: and by how much the more emperors and governors of provinces, and the people everywhere strove to depress them, so much the more havethey increased and prevailed exceedingly. " (Orig. Cont. Cels. Lib vii. )

It is well known that, within less than eighty years after this, theRoman empire became Christian under Constantine: and it is probable thatConstantine declared himself on the side of the Christians because theywere the powerful party: for Arnobius, who wrote immediately beforeConstantine's accession, speaks of "the whole world as filled withChrist's doctrine, of its diffusion throughout all countries, of aninnumerable body of Christians in distant provinces, of the strangerevolution of opinion of men of the greatest genius, --orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, lawyers, physicians having come over to theinstitution, and that also in the face of threats, executions andtortures. " (Arnob. In Genres, 1. I. Pp. 27, 9, 24, 42, 41. Edit. Lug. Bat. 1650. )

And not more than twenty years after Constantine's entire possession ofthe empire, Julius Firmiens Maternus calls upon the emperors Constantiusand Constans to extirpate the relics of the ancient religion; thereduced and fallen condition of which is described by our author in thefollowing words: "Licet adhue in quibusdam regionibus idololatriaemorientia palpitont membra; tamen in eo res est, ut a Christianisomnibus terris pestiferum hoc malum funditus amputetur:" and in anotherplace, "Modicum tautum superest, ut legibus vestris--extinctaidololatriae pereat funesta contagio. " (De Error. Profan. Relig. C. Xxi. P. 172, quoted by Lardner, vol. Viii. P. 262. ) It will not be thoughtthat we quote this writer in order to recommend his temper or hisjudgment, but to show the comparative state of Christianity and ofHeathenism at this period. Fifty years afterwards, Jerome represents thedecline of Paganism, in language which conveys the same idea of itsapproaching extinction: "Solitudinem patitur et in urbe gentilitas. Diiquondam nationum, cum bubonibus et noctuis, in solis culminibusremanserunt. " (Jer. Ad Lect. Ep. 5, 7. ) Jerome here indulges a triumph, natural and allowable in a zealous friend of the cause, but which couldonly be suggested to his mind by the consent and universality with whichhe saw; the religion received. "But now, " says he, "the passion andresurrection of Christ are celebrated in the discourses and writings ofall nations. I need not mention Jews, Greeks, and Latins. The Indians, Persians, Goths, and Egyptians philosophise, and firmly believe theimmortality of the soul, and future recompenses, which, before, thegreatest philosophers had denied, or doubted of, or perplexed with theirdisputes. The fierceness of Thracians and Scythians is now softened bythe gentle sound of the Gospel; and everywhere Christ is all in all. "(Jer. Ad Lect. Ep. 8, ad Heliod. ) Were, therefore, the motives ofConstantine's conversion ever so problematical, the easy establishmentof Christianity, and the ruin of Heathenism, under him and his immediatesuccessors, is of itself a proof of the progress which had made in thepreceding period. It may be added also, "that Maxentius, the rival ofConstantine, had shown himself friendly to the Christians. Therefore of those who were contending for worldly power and empire, one actually favoured and flattered them, and another may be suspected to have joined himself to them partly from consideration of interest: so considerable were they become, under external disadvantages of all sorts. " (Lardner, vol. Vii. P. 380. ) This at least is certain, that, throughout the whole transaction hitherto, the great seemed to follow, not to lead, the public opinion. 

It may help to convey to us some notion of the extent and progress ofChristianity, or rather of the character and quality of many earlyChristians, of their learning and their labours, to notice the number ofChristian writers who flourished in these ages. Saint Jerome's cataloguecontains sixty-six writers within the first three centuries, and thefirst six years of the fourth; and fifty-four between that time and hisown, viz. A. D. 392. Jerome introduces his catalogue with the followingjust remonstrance:--"Let those who say the church has had nophilosophers, nor eloquent and learned men, observe who and what theywere who founded, established, and adorned it; let them cease to accuseour faith of rusticity, and confess their mistake. " (Jer. Prol. In Lib. De Ser. Eccl. ) Of these writers, several, as Justin, Irenaeus, Clementof Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Bardesanes, Hippolitus, Eusebius, were voluminous writers. Christian writers abounded particularly aboutthe year 178. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, founded a library in thatcity, A. D. 212. Pamphilus, the friend of Origen, founded a library atCesarea, A. D. 294. Public defences were also set forth, by variousadvocates of the religion, in the course of its first three centuries. Within one hundred years after Christ's ascension, Quadratus andAristides, whose works, except some few fragments of the first, arelost; and, about twenty years afterwards, Justin Martyr, whose worksremain, presented apologies for the Christian religion to the Romanemperors; Quadratus and Aristides to Adrian, Justin to Antoninus Pins, and a second to Marcus Antoninus. Melito, bishop of Sardis, andApollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and Miltiades, men of greatreputation, did the same to Marcus Antoninus, twenty yearsafterwards; (Euseb. Hist. Lib. Iv. C. 26. See also Lardner, vol. Ii. P. 666. ) and ten years after this, Apollonius, who suffered martyrdom underthe emperor Commodus, composed an apology for his faith which he read inthe senate, and which was afterwards published. (Lardner, vol. Ii. P. 687. ) Fourteen years after the apology of Apollonius, Tertullianaddressed the work which now remains under that name to the governors ofprovinces in the Roman empire; and, about the same time, Minucius Felixcomposed a defence of the Christian religion, which is still extant;and, shortly after the conclusion of this century, copious defences ofChristianity were published by Arnobius and Lactantius. 

SECTION II. 

REFLECTIONS UPON THE PRECEDING ACCOUNT. 

In viewing the progress of Christianity, our first attention is due tothe number of converts at Jerusalem, immediately after its Founder'sdeath; because this success was a success at the time, and upon thespot, when and where the chief part of the history had been transacted. 

We are, in the next place, called upon to attend to the earlyestablishment of numerous Christian societies in Judea and Galilee;which countries had been the scene of Christ's miracles and ministry, and where the memory of what had passed, and the knowledge of what wasalleged, must have yet been fresh and certain. 

We are, thirdly, invited to recollect the success of the apostles and oftheir companions, at the several places to which they came, both withinand without Judea; because it was the credit given to originalwitnesses, appealing for the truth of their accounts to what themselveshad seen and heard. The effect also of their preaching strongly confirmsthe truth of what our history positively and circumstantially relates, that they were able to exhibit to their hearers supernaturalattestations of their mission. 

We are, lastly, to consider the subsequent growth and spread of thereligion, of which we receive successive intimations, and satisfactory, though general and occasional, accounts, until its full and finalestablishment. 

In all these several stages, the history is without a parallel for itmust be observed, that we have not now been tracing the progress, anddescribing the prevalency, of an opinion founded upon philosophical orcritical arguments, upon mere of reason, or the construction of ancientwriting; (of which are the several theories which have, at differenttimes, possession of the public mind in various departments of science andliterature; and of one or other of which kind are the tenets also whichdivide the various sects of Christianity;) but that we speak of asystem, the very basis and postulatum of which was a supernaturalcharacter ascribed to a particular person; of a doctrine, the truthwhereof depends entirely upon the truth of a matter of fact then recent. "To establish a new religion, even amongst a few people, or in onesingle nation, is a thing in itself exceedingly difficult. To reformsome corruptions which may have spread in a religion, or to make newregulations in it, is not perhaps so hard, when the main and principalpart of that religion is preserved entire and unshaken; and yet thisvery often cannot be accomplished without an extraordinary concurrenceof circumstances, and may be attempted a thousand times without success. But to introduce a new faith, a new way of thinking and acting, and topersuade many nations to quit the religion in which their ancestors havelived and died, which had been delivered down to them from timeimmemorial; to make them forsake and despise the deities which they hadbeen accustomed to reverence and worship; this is a work of stillgreater difficulty. " (Jortin's Dis. On the Christ. Rel. P. 107, 4thedit. ) The resistance of education, worldly policy, and superstition, isalmost invincible. 

If men, in these days, be Christians in consequence of their education, in submission to authority, or in compliance with fashion, let usrecollect that the very contrary of this, at the beginning, was thecase. The first race of Christians, as wall as millions who succeededthem, became such in formal opposition to all these motives, to thewhole power and strength of this influence. Every argument, therefore, and every instance, which sets forth the prejudice of education, and thealmost irresistible effects of that prejudice (and no persons are morefond of expatiating upon this subject than deistical writers), in factconfirms the evidence of Christianity. 

But, in order to judge of the argument which is drawn from the earlypropagation of Christianity, I know no fairer way of proceeding than tocompare what we have seen on the subject with the success of Christianmissions in modern ages. In the East India mission, supported by theSociety for Promoting Christian Knowledge, we hear sometimes of thirty, sometimes of forty, being baptized in the course of a year, and theseprincipally children. Of converts properly so called, that is, of adultsvoluntarily embracing Christianity, the number is extremely small. "Notwithstanding the labour of missionaries for upwards of two hundredyears, and the establishments of different Christian nations who supportthem, there are not twelve thousand Indian Christians, and those almostentirely outcasts. " (Sketches relating to the history, learning, andmanners of the Hindoos, p. 48; quoted by Dr. Robertson, Hist. Dis. Concerning Ancient India, p. 236. )

I lament as much as any man the little progress which Christianity hasmade in these countries, and the inconsiderable effect that has followedthe labours of its missionaries; but I see in it a strong proof of theDivine origin of the religion. What had the apostles to assist them inpropagating Christianity which the missionaries have not? If piety andzeal had been sufficient, I doubt not but that our missionaries possessthese qualities in a high degree: for nothing except piety and zealcould engage them in the undertaking. If sanctity of life and mannerswas the allurement, the conduct of these men is unblameable. If theadvantage of education and learning be looked to, there is not one ofthe modern missionaries who is not, in this respect, superior to all theapostles; and that not only absolutely, but, what is of more importance, relatively, in comparison, that is, with those amongst whom theyexercise their office. If the intrinsic excellency of the religion, theperfection of its morality, the purity of its precepts, the eloquence, or tenderness, or sublimity, of various parts of its writings, were therecommendations by which it made its way, these remain the same. If thecharacter and circumstances under which the preachers were introduced tothe countries in which they taught be accounted of importance, thisadvantage is all on the side of the modern missionaries. They come froma country and a people to which the Indian world look up with sentimentsof deference. The apostles came forth amongst the Gentiles under noother name than that of Jews, which was precisely the character theydespised and derided. If it be disgraceful in India to become aChristian, it could not be much less so to be enrolled amongst those"quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat. " If thereligion which they had to encounter be considered, the difference, Iapprehend, will not be great. The theology of both was nearly the same:"what is supposed to be performed by the power of Jupiter, Neptune, ofAeolus, of Mars, of Venus, according to the mythology of the West, isascribed, in the East, to the agency Agrio the god of fire, Varoon thegod of oceans, Vayoo god of wind, Cama the god of love. " (Baghvat Gets, p. 94, quoted by Dr. Robertson, Ind. Dis. P. 306. ) The sacred rites ofthe Western Polytheism were gay, festive, and licentious; the rites ofthe public religion in the East partake of the same character, with amore avowed indecency. "In every function performed in the pagodas, aswell as in every public procession, it is the office of these women(i. E. Of women prepared by the Brahmins for the purpose) to dance beforethe idol, and to sing hymns in his praise; and it is difficult to saywhether they trespass most against decency by the gestures they exhibit, or by the verses which they recite. The walls of the pagodas werecovered with paintings in a style no less indelicate. " (Others of thedeities of the East are of an austere and gloomy character, to bepropitiated by victims, sometimes by human sacrifices, and by voluntarytorments of the most excruciating kind. Voyage de Gentil. Vol. I. P. 244--260. Preface to the Code of Gentoo Laws, p. 57; quoted by Dr. Robertson, p. 320. )

On both sides of the comparison, the popular religion had a strongestablishment. In ancient Greece and Rome it was strictly incorporatedwith the state. The magistrate was the priest. The highest officers ofgovernment bore the most distinguished part in the celebration of thepublic rites. In India, a powerful and numerous caste possessesexclusively the administration of the established worship; and are, ofconsequence, devoted to its service, and attached to its interest. Inboth, the prevailing mythology was destitute of any proper evidence: orrather, in both, the origin of the tradition is run up into ages longanterior to the existence of credible history, or of written language. The Indian chronology computes eras by millions of years, and the lifeof man by thousands "The Suffec Jogue, or age of purity, is said tohave lasted three million two hundred thousand years; and they hold thatthe life of man was extended in that age to one hundred thousand years;but there is a difference amongst the Indian writers of six millions ofyears in the computation of this era. " (Voyage de Gentil. Vol. I. P. 244--260. Preface to the Code of Gentoo Laws, p. 57; quoted by Dr. Robertson, p. 320. ) and in these, or prior to these, is placed thehistory of their divinities. In both, the established superstition heldthe same place in the public opinion; that is to say, in both it wascredited by the bulk of the people, but by the learned and philosophicalpart of the community either derided, or regarded by them as only fit tobe upholden for the sake of its political uses. *

_________

* "How absurd soever the articles of faith may be which superstition hasadopted, or how unhallowed the rites which it prescribes, the former arereceived, in every age and country with unhesitating assent, by thegreat body of the people, and the latter observed with scrupulousexactness. In our reasonings concerning opinions and practices whichdiffer widely from our own, we are extremely apt to err. Having beeninstructed ourselves in the principles of a religion worthy in everyrespect of that Divine wisdom by which they were dictated, we frequentlyexpress wonder at the credulity of nations, in embracing systems ofbelief which appear to us so directly repugnant to right reason; andsometimes suspect that tenets so wild and extravagant do not really gaincredit with them. But experience may satisfy us, that neither our wondernor suspicions are well founded. No article of the public religion wascalled in question by those people of ancient Europe with whose historywe are best acquainted; and no practice which it enjoined appearedimproper to them. On the other hand, every opinion that tended todiminish the reverence of men for the gods of their country, or toalienate them from their worship, excited, among the Greeks and Romans, that indignant zeal which is natural to every people attached to theirreligion by a firm persuasion of its truth. " Ind. Dis. P. 321. That thelearned Brahmins of the East are rational Theists, and secretly rejectthe established theory, and contemn the rites that were founded uponthem, or rather consider them as contrivances to be supported for theirpolitical uses, see Dr. Robertson's Ind. Dis. P. 324-334. _________

Or if it should be allowed, that the ancient heathens believed in theirreligion less generally than the present Indians do, I am far fromthinking that this circumstance would afford any facility to the workof the apostles, above that of the modern missionaries. To me itappears, and I think it material to be remarked, that a disbelief of theestablished religion of their country has no tendency to dispose men forthe reception of another; but that, on the contrary, it generates asettled contempt of all religious pretensions whatever. Generalinfidelity is the hardest soil which the propagators of a new religioncan have to work upon. Could a Methodist or Moravian promise himself abetter chance of success with a French esprit fort, who had beenaccustomed to laugh at the popery of his country, than with a believingMahometan or Hindoo? Or are our modern unbelievers in Christianity, forthat reason, in danger of becoming Mahometans or Hindoos? It does notappear that the Jews, who had a body of historical evidence to offer fortheir religion, and who at that time undoubtedly entertained and heldforth the expectation of a future state, derived any great advantage, asto the extension of their system, from the discredit into which thepopular religion had fallen with many of their heathen neighbours. 

We have particularly directed our observations to the state and progressof Christianity amongst the inhabitants of India: but the history of theChristian mission in other countries, where the efficacy of the missionis left solely to the conviction wrought by the preaching of strangers, presents the same idea as the Indian mission does of the feebleness andinadequacy of human means. About twenty-five years ago was published, inEngland, a translation from the Dutch of a History of Greenland and arelation of the mission for above thirty years carried on in thatcountry by the Unitas Fratrum, or Moravians. Every part of that relationconfirms the opinion we have stated. Nothing could surpass, or hardlyequal, the zeal and patience of the missionaries. Yet their historian, in the conclusion of his narrative, could find place for no reflectionsmore encouraging than the following:--"A person that had known theheathen, that had seen the little benefit from the great pains hithertotaken with them, and considered that one after another had abandoned allhopes of the conversion of these infidels (and some thought they wouldnever be converted, till they saw miracles wrought as in the apostles'days, and this the Greenlanders expected and demanded of theirinstructors); one that considered this, I say, would not so much wonderat the past unfruitfulness of these young beginners, as at theirsteadfast perseverance in the midst of nothing but distress, difficulties, and impediments, internally and externally: and that theynever desponded of the conversion of those poor creatures amidst allseeming impossibilities. " (History of Greenland, vol. Ii. P. 376. )

From the widely disproportionate effects which attend the preaching ofmodern missionaries of Christianity, compared with what followed theministry of Christ and his apostles under circumstances either alike, ornot so unlike as to account for the difference, a conclusion is fairlydrawn in support of what our histories deliver concerning them, viz. That they possessed means of conviction which we have not; that they hadproofs to appeal to which we want. 

SECTION III. 

OF THE RELIGION OF MAHOMET. 

The only event in the history of the human species which admits ofcomparison with the propagation of Christianity is the success ofMahometanism. The Mahometan institution was rapid in its progress, wasrecent in its history, and was founded upon a supernatural or propheticcharacter assumed by its author. In these articles, the resemblance withChristianity is confessed. But there are points of difference whichseparate, we apprehend, the two cases entirely. 

I. Mahomet did not found his pretensions upon miracles, properly socalled; that is, upon proofs of supernatural agency capable of beingknown and attested by others. Christians are warranted in this. Assertion by the evidence of the Koran, in which Mahomet not only doesnot affect the power of working miracles, but expressly disclaims it. The following passages of that book furnish direct proofs of the truthof what we allege:--"The infidels say, Unless a sign be sent down untohim from his lord, we will not believe; thou art a preacher only. "(Sale's Koran, c. Xiii. P. 201, ed. Quarto. ) Again; "Nothing hindered usfrom sending thee with miracles, except that the former nations havecharged them with imposture. " (C. Xvii. P. 232. ) And lastly; "They say, Unless a sign be sent down unto him from his lord, we will not believe:Answer; Signs are in the power of God alone, and I am no more than apublic preacher. Is it not sufficient for them, that we have sent downunto them the book of the Koran to be read unto them?" (C. Xxix. P. 328. ) Beside these acknowledgments, I have observed thirteen distinctplaces in which Mahomet puts the objection (unless a sign, &c. ) into themouth of the unbeliever, in not one of which does he allege a miracle inreply. His answer is, "that God giveth the power of working miracleswhen and to whom he pleaseth;" (C. V. X. Xiii. Twice. ) "that if heshould work miracles, they would not believe;" (C. Vi. ) "that they hadbefore rejected Moses, and Jesus and the Prophets, who wroughtmiracles;" (C. Iii. Xxi. Xxviii. ) "that the Koran itself was a miracle. "(C. Xvi. )

The only place in the Koran in which it can be pretended that a sensiblemiracle is referred to (for I do not allow the secret visitations ofGabriel, the night-journey of Mahomet to heaven, or the presence inbattle of invisible hosts of angels, to deserve the name of sensiblemiracles) is the beginning of the fifty-fourth chapter. The words arethese:--"The hour of judgment approacheth, and the moon hath been splitin sunder: but if the unbelievers see a sign, they turn aside, saying, This is a powerful charm. " The Mahometan expositors disagree in theirinterpretation of this passage; some explaining it to be mention of thesplitting of the moon as one of the future signs of the approach of theday of judgment: others referring it to a miraculous appearance whichhad then taken place. (Vide Sale, in loc. ) It seems to me not improbable, that Mahomet might have taken advantage of some extraordinary halo, orother unusual appearance of the moon, which had happened about thistime; and which supplied a foundation both for this passage, and for thestory which in after times had been raised out of it. 

After this more than silence, after these authentic confessions of theKoran, we are not to be moved with miraculous stories related of Mahometby Abulfeda, who wrote his life about six hundred years after his death;or which are found in the legend of Al-Jannabi, who came two hundredyears later. * On the contrary, from comparing what Mahomet himself wroteand said with what was afterwards reported of him by his followers, theplain and fair conclusion is, that when the religion was established byconquest, then, and not till then, came out the stories of his miracles. 

_________

* It does not, I think, appear, that these historians had any writtenaccounts to appeal to more ancient than the Sonnah; which was acollection of traditions made by order of the Caliphs two hundred yearsafter Mahomet's death. Mahomet died A. D. 632; Al-Bochari, one of the sixdoctors who compiled the Sonnah, was born A. D. 809; died 869. Prideaux'sLife of Mahomet, p. 192, ed. 7th. _________

Now this difference alone constitutes, in my opinion, a bar to allreasoning from one case to the other. The success of a religion foundedupon a miraculous history shows the credit which was given to thehistory; and this credit, under the circumstances in which it was given, i. E. By persons capable of knowing the truth, and interested to inquireafter it, is evidence of the reality of the history, and, byconsequence, of the truth of the religion. Where a miraculous history isnot alleged, no part of this argument can be applied. We admit thatmultitudes acknowledged the pretensions of Mahomet: but, thesepretensions being destitute of miraculous evidence, we know that thegrounds upon which they were acknowledged could not be secure grounds ofpersuasion to his followers, nor their example any authority to us. Admit the whole of Mahomet's authentic history, so far as it was of anature capable of being known or witnessed by others, to be true (whichis certainly to admit all that the reception of the religion can bebrought to prove), and Mahomet might still be an impostor, orenthusiast, or a union of both. Admit to be true almost any part ofChrist's history, of that, I mean, which was public, and within thecognizance of his followers, and he must have come from God. Wherematter of fact is not in question, where miracles are not alleged, I donot see that the progress of a religion is a better argument of itstruth than the prevalency of any system of opinions in natural religion, morality, or physics, is a proof of the truth of those opinions. And weknow that this sort of argument is inadmissible in any branch ofphilosophy what ever. 

But it will be said, if one religion could make its way withoutmiracles, why might not another? To which I reply, first, that this isnot the question; the proper question is not, whether a religiousinstitution could be set up without miracles, but whether a religion, ora change of religion, founding itself in miracles, could succeed withoutany reality to rest upon? I apprehend these two cases to be verydifferent: and I apprehend Mahomet's not taking this course, to be oneproof, amongst others, that the thing is difficult, if not impossible, tobe accomplished: certainly it was not from an unconsciousness of thevalue and importance of miraculous evidence; for it is very observable, that in the same volume, and sometimes in the same chapters, in whichMahomet so repeatedly disclaims the power of working miracles himself, he is incessantly referring to the miracles of preceding prophets. Onewould imagine, to hear some men talk, or to read some books, that thesetting up of a religion by dint of miraculous pretences was a thing ofevery day's experience: whereas, I believe that, except the Jewish andChristian religion, there is no tolerably well authenticated account ofany such thing having been accomplished. 

II. The establishment of Mahomet's religion was affected by causes whichin no degree appertained to the origin of Christianity. 

During the first twelve years of his mission, Mahomet had recourse onlyto persuasion. This is allowed. And there is sufficient reason from theeffect to believe that, if he had confined himself to this mode ofpropagating his religion, we of the present day should never have heardeither of him or it. "Three years were silently employed in theconversion of fourteen proselytes. For ten years, the religion advancedwith a slow and painful progress, within the walls of Mecca. The numberof proselytes in the seventh year of his mission may be estimated by theabsence of eighty-three men and eighteen women, who retired toAethiopia. " (Gibbon's Hist. Vol. Ix. P. 244, et seq. Ed. Dub. ) Yet thisprogress, such as it was, appears to have been aided by some veryimportant advantages which Mahomet found in his situation, in his modeof conducting his design, and in his doctrine. 

1. Mahomet was the grandson of the most powerful and honourable familyin Mecca; and although the early death of his father had not left him apatrimony suitable to his birth, he had, long before the commencement ofhis mission, repaired this deficiency by an opulent marriage. A personconsiderable by his wealth, of high descent, and nearly allied to thechiefs of his country, taking upon himself the character of a religiousteacher, would not fail of attracting attention and followers. 

2. Mahomet conducted his design, in the outset especially, with greatart and prudence. He conducted it as a politician would conduct a plot. His first application was to his own family. This gained him his wife'suncle, a considerable person in Mecca, together with his cousin Ali, afterwards the celebrated Caliph, then a youth of great expectation, andeven already distinguished by his attachment, impetuosity, and courage. *He next expressed himself to Abu Beer, a man amongst the first of theKoreish in wealth and influence. The interest and example of Abu Beerdrew in five other principal persons in Mecca, whose solicitationsprevailed upon five more of the same rank. This was the work of threeyears; during which time everything was transacted in secret. Upon thestrength of these allies, and under the powerful protection of hisfamily, who, however some of them might disapprove his enterprise, orderide his pretensions, would not suffer the orphan of their house, therelict of their favourite brother, to be insulted, Mahomet now commencedhis public preaching. And the advance which he made during the nine orten remaining years of his peaceable ministry was by no means greaterthan what, with these advantages, and with the additional and singularcircumstance of there being no established religion at Mecca at thattime to contend with, might reasonably have been expected. How soon hisprimitive adherents were let into the secret of his views of empire, orin what stage of his undertaking these views first opened themselves tohis own mind, it is not now easy to determine. The event however was, that these, his first proselytes, all ultimately attained to riches andhonours, to the command of armies, and the government of kingdoms. (Gibbon, vol. Ix. P 244. )

_________

* Of which Mr. Gibbon has preserved the following specimen: "WhenMahomet called out in an assembly of his family, Who among you will bemy companion, and my vizir? Ali, then only in the fourteenth year of hisage, suddenly replied, O prophet I am the man;--whosoever rises againstthee, I will dash out his teeth, tear out his eyes, break his legs, ripup his belly. O prophet! I will be thy vizir over them. " Vol. Ix. P. 215. _________

3. The Arabs deduced their descent from Abraham through the line ofIshmael. The inhabitants of Mecca, in common probably with the otherArabian tribes, acknowledged, as I think may clearly be collected fromthe Koran, one supreme Deity, but had associated with him many objectsof idolatrous worship. The great doctrine with which Mahomet set out wasthe strict and exclusive unity of God. Abraham, he told them, theirillustrous ancestor; Ishmael, the father of their nation; Moses, thelawgiver of the Jews; and Jesus, the author of Christianity--had allasserted the same thing; that their followers had universally corruptedthe truth, and that he was now commissioned to restore it to the world. Was it to be wondered at, that a doctrine so specious, and authorized bynames, some or other of which were holden in the highest veneration byevery description of his hearers, should, in the hands of a popularmissionary, prevail to the extent in which Mahomet succeeded by hispacific ministry?

4. Of the institution which Mahomet joined with this fundamentaldoctrine, and of the Koran in which that institution is delivered, wediscover, I think, two purposes that pervade the whole, viz. , to makeconverts, and to make his converts soldiers. The following particulars, amongst others, may be considered as pretty evident indications of thesedesigns:

1. When Mahomet began to preach, his address to the Jews, to theChristians, and to the Pagan Arabs, was, that the religion which hetaught was no other than what had been originally their own. --"Webelieve in God, and that which hath been sent down unto us, and thatwhich hath been sent down unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, andJacob, and the Tribes, and that which was delivered unto Moses andJesus, and that which was delivered unto the prophets from their Lord:we make no distinction between any of them. " (Sale's Koran, c. Ii. P. 17. ) "He hath ordained you the religion which he commanded Noah, andwhich we have revealed unto thee, O Mohammed, and which we commandedAbraham, and Moses, and Jesus, saying, Observe this religion, and be notdivided therein. " (Sale's Koran, c. Xlii. P. 393. ) "He hath chosen you, and hath not imposed on you any difficulty in the religion which he hathgiven you, the religion of your father Abraham. " (Sale's Koran, c. Xxii. P. 281. )

2. The author of the Koran never ceases from describing the futureanguish of unbelievers, their despair, regret, penitence, and torment. It is the point which he labours above all others. And thesedescriptions are conceived in terms which will appear in no smalldegree impressive, even to the modern reader of an English translation. Doubtless they would operate with much greater force upon the minds ofthose to whom they were immediately directed. The terror which they seemwell calculated to inspire would be to many tempers a powerfulapplication. 

3. On the other hand: his voluptuous paradise; his robes of silk, hispalaces of marble, his riven, and shades, his groves and couches, hiswines, his dainties; and, above all, his seventy-two virgins assigned toeach of the faithful, of resplendent beauty and eternalyouth--intoxicated the imaginations, and seized the passions of hisEastern followers. 

4. But Mahomet's highest heaven was reserved for those who fought hisbattles or expended their fortunes in his cause: "Those believers whosit still at home, not having any hurt, and those who employ theirfortunes and their persons for the religion of God, shall not be heldequal. God hath preferred those who employ their fortunes and theirpersons in that cause to a degree above those who sit at home. God hadindeed promised every one Paradise; but God had preferred those whofight for the faith before those who sit still, by adding unto them agreat reward; by degrees of honour conferred upon them from him, and bygranting them forgiveness and mercy. " (Sale's Koran, c. Iv. P. 73. )Again; "Do ye reckon the giving drink to the pilgrims, and the visitingof the holy temple, to be actions as meritorious as those performed byhim who believeth in God and the last day, and fighteth for the religionof God? They shall not be held equal with God. --They who have believedand fled their country, and employed their substance and their personsin the defence of God's true religion, shall be in the highest degree ofhonour with God; and these are they who shall be happy. The Lord sendeththem good tidings of mercy from him, and good will, and of gardenswherein they shall enjoy lasting pleasures. They shall continue thereinfor ever; for with God is a great reward. " (Sale's Koran, c. Ix. P. 151. ) And, once more; "Verily God hath purchased of the true believerstheir souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment ofParadise on condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether theyslay or be slain, the promise for the same is assuredly due by the Lawand the Gospel and the Koran. " (Sale's Koran, c. Ix. P. 164. )*

_________

* "The sword, " saith Mahomet, "is the key of heaven and of hell; a dropof blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of moreavail than two months' fasting or prayer. Whosoever falls in battle, hissins are forgiven at the day of judgment; his wounds shall beresplendent as vermilion, and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of hislimbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim. " Gibbon, vol. Ix. P. 256. _________

5. His doctrine of predestination was applicable, and was applied byhim, to the same purpose of fortifying and of exalting the courage ofhis adherents. --"If anything of the matter had happened unto us, we hadnot been slain here. Answer; If ye had been in your houses, verily theywould have gone forth to fight, whose slaughter was decreed, to theplaces where they died. " (Sale's Koran, c. Iii. P. 54. )

6. In warm regions, the appetite of the sexes is ardent, the passion forinebriating liquors moderate. In compliance with this distinction, although Mahomet laid a restraint upon the drinking of wine, in the useof women he allowed an almost unbounded indulgence. Four wives, with theliberty of changing them at pleasure, (Sale's Koran, c. Iv. P. 63. )together with the persons of all his captives, (Gibbon, vol. Ix. P. 225. )was an irresistible bribe to an Arabian warrior. "God is minded, " sayshe, speaking of this very subject, "to make his religion light untoyou; for man was created weak. " How different this from theunaccommodating purity of the Gospel! How would Mahomet have succeededwith the Christian lesson in his mouth. --"Whosoever looketh upon a womanto lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in hisheart"? It must be added, that Mahomet did not venture upon theprohibition of wine till the fourth year of the Hegira, or theseventeenth of his mission, when his military successes had completelyestablished his authority. The same observation holds of the fast of theRamadan, (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. I. Pp. 126 & 112. ) and of the mostlaborious part of his institution, the pilgrimage to Mecca. (Thislatter, however, already prevailed amongst the Arabs, and had grown outof their excessive veneration for the Caaba. Mahomot's law, in thisrespect, was rather a compliance than an innovation. Sale's Prelim. Disc. P. 122. )

What has hitherto been collected from the records of the Musselmanhistory relates to the twelve or thirteen years of Mahomet's peaceablepreaching, which part alone of his life and enterprise admits of thesmallest comparison with the origin of Christianity. A new scene is nowunfolded. The city of Medina, distant about ten days' journey fromMecca, was at that time distracted by the hereditary contentions of twohostile tribes. These feuds were exasperated by the mutual persecutionsof the Jews and Christians, and of the different Christian sects bywhich the city was inhabited. (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. I. P. 100. ) Thereligion of Mahomet presented, in some measure, a point of union orcompromise to these divided opinions. It embraced the principles whichwere common to them all. Each party saw in it an honourableacknowledgment of the fundamental truth of their own system. To thePagan Arab, somewhat imbued with the sentiments and knowledge of hisJewish or Christian fellow-citizen, it offered no defensive or veryimprobable theology. This recommendation procured to Mahometanism a morefavourable reception at Medina than its author had been able, by twelveyears' painful endeavours, to obtain for it at Mecca. Yet, after all, the progress of the religion was inconsiderable. His missionary couldonly collect a congregation of forty persons. It was not a religious, but a political association, which ultimately introduced Mahomet intoMedina. Harassed, as it should seem, and disgusted by the longcontinuance of factions and disputes, the inhabitants of that city sawin the admission of the prophet's authority a rest from the miserieswhich they had suffered, and a suppression of the violence and furywhich they had learned to condemn. After an embassy, therefore, composedof believers and unbelievers, (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. I. P. 85. ) and ofpersons of both tribes, with whom a treaty was concluded of strictalliance and support, Mahomet made his public entry, and was received asthe sovereign of Medina. 

From this time, or soon after this time, the impostor changed hislanguage and his conduct. Having now a town at his command, where to armhis party, and to head them with security, he enters upon new counsels. He now pretends that a divine commission is given him to attack theinfidels, to destroy idolatry, and to set up the true faith by thesword. (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. I. P. 88. ) An early victory over a verysuperior force, achieved by conduct and bravery, established the renownof his arms, and of his personal character. (Victory of Bedr, Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. I. P. 106. ) Every year after this was marked by battles orassassinations. The nature and activity of Mahomet's future exertionsmay be estimated from the computation, that in the nine following yearsof his life he commanded his army in person in eight generalengagements, (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. I. P. 255. ) and undertook, by himselfor his lieutenants, fifty military enterprises. 

From this time we have nothing left to account for, but that Mahometshould collect an army, that his army should conquer, and that hisreligion should proceed together with his conquests. The ordinaryexperience of human affairs leaves us little to wonder at in any ofthese effects: and they were likewise each assisted by peculiarfacilities. From all sides, the roving Arabs crowded round the standardof religion and plunder, of freedom and victory, of arms and rapine. Beside the highly painted joys of a carnal paradise, Mahomet rewardedhis followers in this world with a liberal division of the spoils, andwith the persons of their female captives. (Gibbon, vol. Ix. P. 255. ) Thecondition of Arabia, occupied by small independent tribes, exposed it tothe impression, and yielded to the progress of a firm and resolute army. After the reduction of his native peninsula, the weakness also of theRoman provinces on the north and the west, as well as the distractedstate of the Persian empire on the east, facilitated the successfulinvasion of neighbouring countries. That Mahomet's conquests shouldcarry his religion along with them will excite little surprise, when weknow the conditions which he proposed to the vanquished. Death orconversion was the only choice offered to idolaters. "Strike off theirheads! strike off all the ends of their fingers!(Sale's Koran, c. Viii. P. 140. ) kill the idolaters, wheresoever ye shall find them!" (Sale'sKoran, c. Ix. P. 149. ) To the Jews and Christians was left the somewhatmilder alternative of subjection and tribute, if they persisted in theirown religion, or of an equal participation in the rights and liberties, the honours and privileges, of the faithful, if they embraced thereligion of their conquerors. "Ye Christian dogs, you know your option;the Koran, the tribute, or the sword. " (Gibbon, vol. Ix. P. 337. ) Thecorrupted state of Christianity in the seventh century, and thecontentions of its sects, unhappily so fell in with men's care of theirsafety or their fortunes, as to induce many to forsake its profession. Add to all which, that Mahomet's victories not only operated by thenatural effect of conquest, but that they were constantly represented, both to his friends and enemies, as divine declarations in his favour. Success was evidence. Prosperity carried with it, not only influence, but proof. "Ye have already, " says he, after the battle of Bedr, "had amiracle shown you, in two armies which attacked each other; one armyfought for God's true religion, but the other were infidels. " (Sale'sKoran, c. Iii. P. 36. ) Again; "Ye slew not those who were slain at Bedr, but God slew them. --If ye desire a decision of the matter between us, now hath a decision come unto you. " (Sale's Koran, c. Viii. P. 141. )

Many more passages might be collected out of the Koran to the sameeffect; but they are unnecessary. The success of Mahometanism duringthis, and indeed every future period of its history, bears so littleresemblance to the early propagation of Christianity, that no inferencewhatever can justly be drawn from it to the prejudice of the Christianargument. For what are we comparing? A Galilean peasant accompanied by afew fishermen with a conqueror at the head of his army. We compareJesus, without force, without power, without support, without Oneexternal circumstance of attraction or influence, prevailing against theprejudices, the learning, the hierarchy, of his country; against theancient religious opinions, the pompous religious rites, the philosophy, the wisdom, the authority, of the Roman empire, in the most polished andenlightened period of its existence, --with Mahomet making his wayamongst Arabs; collecting followers in the midst of conquests andtriumphs, in the darkest ages and countries of the world, and whensuccess in arms not only operated by that command of men's wills andpersons which attend prosperous undertakings, but was considered as asure testimony of Divine approbation. That multitudes, persuaded by thisargument, should join the train of a victorious chief; that stillgreater multitudes should, without any argument, bow down beforeirresistible power--is a conduct in which we cannot see much to surpriseus; in which we can see nothing that resembles the causes by which theestablishment of Christianity was effected. 

The success, therefore, of Mahometanism stands not in the way of thisimportant conclusion; that the propagation of Christianity, in themanner and under the circumstances in which it was propagated, is anunique in the history of the species. A Jewish peasant overthrew thereligion of the world. 

I have, nevertheless, placed the prevalency of the religion amongst theauxiliary arguments of its truth; because, whether it had prevailed ornot, or whether its prevalency can or cannot be accounted for, thedirect argument remains still. It is still true that a great number ofmen upon the spot, personally connected with the history and with theAuthor of the religion, were induced by what they heard and saw, andknew, not only to change their former opinions, but to give up theirtime, and sacrifice their ease, to traverse seas and kingdoms withoutrest and without weariness, to commit themselves to extreme dangers, toundertake incessant toils, to undergo grievous sufferings, and all thissolely in consequence, and in support, of their belief of facts, which, if true, establish the truth of the religion, which, if false, they musthave known to be so. 

PART III. 

A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJECTIONS. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL GOSPELS. 

I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding, than to reject the substance of a story by reason of some diversity inthe circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of humantestimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This iswhat the daily experience of courts of justice teaches. When accounts ofa transaction come from the mouths of different witnesses, it is seldomthat it is not possible to pick out apparent or real inconsistenciesbetween them. These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by anadverse pleader, but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds ofthe judges. On the contrary, a close and minute agreement induces thesuspicion of confederacy and fraud. When written histories touch uponthe same scenes of action; the comparison almost always affords groundfor a like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes important, variationspresent themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final contradictions;yet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient to shake thecredibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to deprecate theexecution of Claudian's order to place his statute, in their temple, Philo places in harvest, Josephus in seed time; both contemporarywriters. No reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt whether such anembassy was sent, or whether such an order was given. Our own historysupplies examples of the same kind. In the account of the Marquis ofArgyle's death, in the reign of Charles the Second, we have a veryremarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemnedto be hanged, which was performed the same day; on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrew, Heath, Echard, concur in stating that he was beheaded; and thathe was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon the Monday. (SeeBiog. Britann. ) Was any reader of English history ever sceptic enough toraise from hence a question whether the Marquis of Argyle was executedor not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to theprinciples upon which the Christian history has sometimes been attacked. Dr. Middleton contended, that the different hours of the day assigned tothe crucifixion of Christ, by John and by the other Evangelists, did notadmit of the reconcilement which learned men had proposed: and thenconcludes the discussion with this hard remark; "We must be forced, withseveral of the critics, to leave the difficulty just as we found it, chargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency. "(Middleton's Reflections answered by Benson, Hist. Christ. Vol. Iii. P. 50. ) But what are these consequences? By no means the discrediting ofthe history as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposingthat repugnancy not to be resolvable into different modes ofcomputation) in the time of the day in which it is said to have takenplace. 

A great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels arises fromomission; from a fact or a passage of Christ's life being noticed by onewriter which is unnoticed by another. Now, omission is at all times avery uncertain ground of objection. We perceive it, not only in thecomparison of different writers, but even in the same writer whencompared with himself. There are a great many particulars, and some ofthem of importance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities, which, aswe should have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in theirplace in the Jewish Wars. (Lardner, part i. Vol. Ii. P. 735, et seq. )Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have, all three, written of the reignof Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by therest, (Lardner, part i. Vol. Ii. P. 743. ) yet no objection is from thencetaken to the respective credit of their histories. We have in our owntimes, if there were not something indecorous in the comparison, thelife of an eminent person written by three of his friends, in whichthere is very great variety in the incidents selected by them; someapparent, and perhaps some real contradictions; yet without anyimpeachment of the substantial truth of their accounts, of theauthenticity of the books, of the competent information or generalfidelity of the writers. 

But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do notwrite histories, but memoirs: which is, perhaps, the true name andproper description of our Gospels: that is, when they do not undertake, nor ever meant to deliver, in order of time, a regular and completeaccount of all the things of importance which the person who is thesubject of their history did or said; but only, out of many similarones, to give such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offeredthemselves more immediately to their attention, came in the way of theirinquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were suggested by theirparticular design at the time of writing. 

This particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, nor often. Thus I think that the particular design which Saint Matthew had in viewwhilst he was writing the history of the resurrection was to attest thefaithful performance of Christ's promise to his disciples to go beforethem into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, who seems to havetaken it from him, has recorded this promise, and he alone has confinedhis narrative to that single appearance to the disciples which fulfilledit. It was the preconcerted, the great and most public manifestation ofour Lord's person. It was the thing which dwelt upon Saint Matthew'smind, and he adapted his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing inSaint Matthew's language which negatives other appearances, or whichimports that this his appearance to his disciples in Galilee, inpursuance of his promise, was his first or only appearance, is madepretty evident by Saint Mark's Gospel, which uses the same termsconcerning the appearance in Galilee as Saint Matthew uses, yet itselfrecords two other appearances prior to this: "Go your way, tell hisdisciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shallye see him as he said unto you" (xvi. 7). We might be apt to infer fromthese words, that this was the first time they were to see him; atleast, we might infer it, with as much reason as we draw the inferencefrom the same words in Matthew: the historian himself did not perceivethat he was leading his readers to any such conclusion; for, in thetwelfth and following verses of this chapter, he informs us of twoappearances, which, by comparing the order of events, are shown to havebeen prior to the appearance in Galilee. "He appeared in another formunto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country; and theywent and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them:afterwards he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, andupbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not them thathad seen him after he was risen. "

Probably the same observation, concerning the particular design whichguided the historian, may be of use in comparing many other passages ofthe Gospels. 

CHAPTER II. 

ERRONEOUS OPINIONS IMPUTED TO THE APOSTLES. 

A species of candour which is shown towards every other book issometimes refused to the Scriptures: and that is, the placing of adistinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually questionthe credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have deliveredupon subjects unconnected with his evidence: and even upon subjectsconnected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse orwriting, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony fromobservation, narrative from argument. 

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, muchcontroversy and much objection has been raised concerning the quotationsof the Old Testament found in the New; some of which quotations, it issaid, are applied in a sense and to events apparently different fromthat which they bear, and from those to which they belong in theoriginal. It is probable, to my apprehension, that many of thosequotations were intended by the writers of the New Testament as nothingmore than accommodations. They quoted passages of their Scripture whichsuited, and fell in with, the occasion before them, without alwaysundertaking to assert that the occasion was in the view of the author ofthe words. Such accommodations of passages from old authors, from booksespecially which are in every one's hands, are common with writers ofall countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected than inthe writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely confinedto their Scriptures. Those prophecies which are alleged with moresolemnity, and which are accompanied with a precise declaration thatthey originally respected the event then related, are, I think, trulyalleged. But were it otherwise; is the judgment of the writers of theNew Testament, in interpreting passages of the Old, or sometimes, perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, so connected eitherwith their veracity, or with their means of information concerning whatwas passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were itclearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit?--Does itdiminish it? Has it anything to do with it?

Another error imputed to the first Christians was the expected approachof the day of judgment. I would introduce this objection by a remarkupon what appears to me a somewhat similar example. Our Saviour, speaking to Peter of John, said, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"' (John xxi. 22. ) These words we find had been somisconstrued, as that a report from thence "went abroad among thebrethren, that that disciple should not die. " Suppose that this had comedown to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Christians, andthat the particular circumstance from which the mistake sprang had beenlost (which, humanly speaking, was most likely to have been the case), some, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the erroras an impeachment of the whole Christian system. Yet with how littlejustice such a conclusion would have been drawn, or rather such apresumption taken up, the information which we happen to possess enablesus now to perceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us tobelieve that the early Christians, and even the apostles, expected theapproach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflectionwill occur as that which we have made with respect to the more partial, perhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient, error concerning theduration of Saint John's life. It was an error, it may be likewise said, which would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting thepart of impostors. 

The difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter iscontained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of theapostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely uponit? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing forthe substantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, itis competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply, Give me theapostles' testimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgment; giveme the facts, and I have complete security for every conclusion I want. 

But, although I think that it is competent to the Christian apologist toreturn this answer, I do not think that it is the only answer which theobjection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded, I apprehend, in the most reasonable distinctions, will exclude alluncertainty upon this head which can be attended with danger. 

First, to separate what was the object of the apostolic mission, anddeclared by them to be so, from what was extraneous to it, or onlyincidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to thereligion nothing need be said. Of points incidentally connected with itsomething may be added. Demoniacal possession is one of these points:concerning the reality of which, as this place will not admit theexamination, nor even the production of the argument on either side ofthe question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgment. Andit is unnecessary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even theywho think it was a general, but erroneous opinion of those times; andthat the writers of the New Testament, in common with other Jewishwriters of that age, fell into the manner of speaking and of thinkingupon the subject which then universally prevailed, need not be alarmedby the concession, as though they had anything to fear from it for thetruth of Christianity. The doctrine was not what Christ brought into theworld. It appears in the Christian records, incidentally andaccidentally, as being the subsisting opinion of the age and country inwhich his ministry was exercised. It was no part of the object of hisrevelation, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action ofspiritual substances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnectedwith testimony. If a dumb person was by a word restored to the use ofhis speech, it signifies little to what cause the dumbness was ascribed;and the like of every other cure wrought upon these who are said to havebeen possessed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether thepopular explication of the cause was well founded or not. The matter offact, the change, so far as it was an object of sense, or of testimony, was in either case the same. 

Secondly, that, in reading the apostolic writings, we distinguishbetween their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came tothem by revelation properly so called; yet in propounding thesedoctrines in their writings or discourses they were wont to illustrate, support, and enforce them by such analogies, arguments, andconsiderations as their own thoughts suggested. Thus the call of thegentiles, that is, the admission of the Gentiles to the Christianprofession without a previous subjection to the law of Moses, wasimported to the apostles by revelation, and was attested by the miracleswhich attended the Christian ministry among them. The apostles' ownassurance of the matter rested upon this foundation. Nevertheless, SaintPaul, when treating of the subject, often a great variety of topics inits proof and vindication. The doctrine itself must be received: but itis not necessary, in order to defend Christianity, to defend thepropriety of every comparison, or the validity of every argument, whichthe apostle has brought into the discussion. The same observationapplies to some other instances, and is, in my opinion, very wellfounded; "When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always boundto believe the conclusions that their reasonings end in, as parts ofdivine revelation: but we are not bound to be able to make out, or evento assent to all the premises made use of by them, in their wholeextent, unless it appear plainly, that they affirm the premises asexpressly as they do the conclusions proved by them. " (Burnets Expos. Art. 6. )

CHAPTER III. 

THE CONNEXION OF CHRISTIANITY WITH THE JEWISH HISTORY. 

Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaicinstitution: and, independently of his authority, I conceive it to bevery difficult to assign any other cause for the commencement orexistence of that institution; especially for the singular circumstanceof the Jews adhering to the unity when every other people slid intopolytheism; for their being men in religion, children in everythingelse; behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, superior to themost improved in their sentiments and doctrines relating to the Deity. *

_________

* "In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the eternity, theomnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and thegoodness of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and thecreation, preservation, and government of the world. " Campbell on Mir. P. 207. To which we may add, in the acts of their religion not beingaccompanied either with cruelties or impurities: in the religion itselfbeing free from a species of superstition which prevailed universally inthe popular religions of the ancient world, and which is to be foundperhaps in all religions that have their origin in human artifice andcredulity, viz. Fanciful connexions between certain appearances andactions, and the destiny of nations or individuals. Upon these conceitsrested the whole train of auguries and auspices, which formed so mucheven of the serious part of the religions of Greece and Rome, and of thecharms and incantations which were practised in those countries by thecommon people. From everything of this sort the religion of the Jews, and of the Jews alone, was free. Vide. Priestley's Lectures on the Truthof the Jewish and Christian Revelation; 1794. _________

Undoubtedly, also, our Saviour recognises the prophetic character ofmany of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound asChristians to go. But to make Christianity answerable, with its life, for the circumstantial truth of each separate passage of the OldTestament, the genuineness of every book, the information, fidelity, andjudgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, butunnecessary difficulties into the whole system. These books wereuniversally read and received by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He andhis apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred to them, alludedto them, used them. Yet, except where he expressly ascribes a divineauthority to particular predictions, I do not know that we can strictlydraw any conclusion from the books being so used and applied, beside theproof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception atthat time. In this view, our Scriptures afford a valuable testimony tothose of the Jews. But the nature of this testimony ought to beunderstood. It is surely very different from what it is sometimesrepresented to be, a specific ratification of each particular fact andopinion; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motivesassigned for every action, together with the judgment of praise ordispraise bestowed upon them. Saint James, in his Epistle, says, "Yehave heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord. "Notwithstanding this text, the reality of Job's history, and even theexistence of such a person, have been always deemed a fair subject ofinquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines. Saint James'sauthority is considered as good evidence of the existence of the book ofJob at that time, and of its reception by the Jews; and of nothing more. Saint Paul, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, has this similitude: "Now, as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist thetruth. " These names are not found in the Old Testament. And it isuncertain whether Saint Paul took them from some apocryphal writing thenextant, or from tradition. But no one ever imagined that Saint Paul ishere asserting the authority of the writing, if it was a written accountwhich he quoted, or making himself answerable for the authenticity ofthe tradition; much less that he so involves himself with either ofthese questions as that the credit of his own history and mission shoulddepend upon the fact whether Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses or not. For what reason a more rigorous interpretation should be put upon otherreferences it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other passagesof the Jewish history stand upon no better evidence than the history ofJob, or of Jannes and Jambres (I think much otherwise); but I mean, thata reference in the New Testament to a passage in the Old does not so fixits authority as to exclude all inquiry into its credibility, or intothe separate reasons upon which that credibility is founded; and that itis an unwarrantable as well as unsafe rule to lay down concerning theJewish history, what was never laid down concerning any other, thateither every particular of it must be true, or the whole false. 

I have thought it necessary to state this point explicitly, because afashion, revived by Voltaire, and pursued by the disciples of hisschool, seems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Christianitythrough the sides of Judaism. Some objections of this class are foundedin misconstruction, some in exaggeration; but all proceed upon asupposition, which has not been made out by argument, viz. That theattestation which the Author and first teachers of Christianity gave tothe divine mission of Moses and the prophets extends to every point andportion of the Jewish history; and so extends as to make Christianityresponsible, in its own credibility, for the circumstantial truth (I hadalmost said for the critical exactness) of every narrative contained inthe Old Testament. 

CHAPTER IV. 

REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY. 

We acknowledge that the Christian religion, although it converted greatnumbers, did not produce an universal, or even a general conviction inthe minds of men of the age and countries in which it appeared. And thiswant of a more complete and extensive success is called the rejection ofthe Christian history and miracles; and has been thought by some to forma strong objection to the reality of the facts which the historycontains. 

The matter of the objection divides itself into two parts; as it relatesto the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations: because the minds ofthese two descriptions of men may have been, with respect toChristianity, under the influence of very different causes. The case ofthe Jews, inasmuch as our Saviour's ministry was originally addressed tothem, offers itself first to our consideration. 

Now upon the subject of the truth of the Christian religion; with usthere is but one question, viz. , whether the miracles were actuallywrought? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass instantaneously to theacknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and theconclusion. If we believe the works of any one of them, we believe inJesus. And this order of reasoning has become so universal and familiarthat we do not readily apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise. Yet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought in themind of a Jew of our Saviour's age was totally different from this. After allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do topersuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimatedby various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in theapprehension of the writers of the New Testament, the miracles did notirresistibly carry even those who saw them to the conclusion intended tobe drawn from them; or so compel assent, as to leave no room forsuspense, for the exercise of candour, or the effects of prejudice. Andto this point, at least, the evangelists may he allowed to be goodwitnesses; because it is a point in which exaggeration or disguise wouldhave been the other way. Their accounts, if they could he suspected offalsehood, would rather have magnified than diminished the effects ofthe miracles. 

John vii. 21--31. "Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done onework, and ye all marvel. --If a man on the Sabbath-day receivecircumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angryat me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day?Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he whom they seek tokill? But lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing to him: do therulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know thisman, whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but He that sentme is true, whom ye know not. But I know Him, for I am from Him, and Hehath sent me. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands onhim, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believedon him and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than thosewhich this man hath done?"

This passage is very observable. It exhibits the reasoning of differentsorts of persons upon the occasion of a miracle which persons of allsorts are represented to have acknowledged as real. One sort of menthought that there was something very extraordinary in all this; butthat still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there was acircumstance in his appearance which militated with an opinionconcerning Christ in which they had been brought up, and of the truth ofwhich, it is probable, they had never entertained a particle of doubt, viz. That "when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. " Anothersort were inclined to believe him to be the Messiah. But even these didnot argue as we should; did not consider the miracle as of itselfdecisive of the question; as what, if once allowed, excluded all furtherdebate upon the subject; but founded their opinion upon a kind ofcomparative reasoning, "When Christ cometh, will he do more miraclesthan those which this man hath done?"

Another passage in the same evangelist, and observable for the samepurpose, is that in which he relates the resurrection of Lazarus;"Jesus, " he tells us (xi. 43, 44), "when he had thus spoken, cried witha loud voice, Lazarus, come forth: and he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was bound about witha napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. " One mighthave suspected, that at least all those who stood by the sepulchre, whenLazarus was raised, would have believed in Jesus. Yet the evangelistdoes not so represent it:--"Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him; but some ofthem went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesushad done. " We cannot suppose that the evangelist meant by this accountto leave his readers to imagine, that any of the spectators doubtedabout the truth of the miracle. Far from it. Unquestionably, he statesthe miracle to have been fully allowed; yet the persons who allowed itwere, according to his representation, capable of retaining hostilesentiments towards Jesus. "Believing in Jesus" was not only to believethat he wrought miracles, but that he was the Messiah. With us there isno difference between these two things; with them there was thegreatest; and the difference is apparent in this transaction. If SaintJohn has represented the conduct of the Jews upon this occasion truly(and why he should not I cannot tell, for it rather makes against himthan for him), it shows clearly the principles upon which their judgmentproceeded. Whether he has related the matter truly or not, the relationitself discovers the writer's own opinion of those principles: and thatalone possesses considerable authority. In the next chapter, we have areflection of the evangelist entirely suited to this state of the case:"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet believed theynot on him. " (Chap. Xii. 37. ) The evangelist does not mean to impute thedefect of their belief to any doubt about the miracles, but to their notperceiving, what all now sufficiently perceive, and what they would haveperceived had not their understandings been governed by strongprejudices, the infallible attestation which the works of Jesus bore tothe truth of his pretensions. 

The ninth chapter of Saint John's Gospel contains a very circumstantialaccount of the cure of a blind man; a miracle submitted to all thescrutiny and examination which a sceptic could propose. If a modernunbeliever had drawn up the interrogatories, they could hardly have beenmore critical or searching. The account contains also a very curiousconference between the Jewish rulers and the patient, in which the pointfor our present notice is, their resistance of the force of the miracle, and of the conclusion to which it led, after they had failed indiscrediting its evidence. "We know that God spake unto Moses, but asfor this fellow, we know not whence he is. " That was the answer whichset their minds at rest. And by the help of much prejudice, and greatunwillingness to yield, it might do so. In the mind of the poor manrestored to sight, which was under no such bias, and felt no suchreluctance, the miracle had its natural operation. "Herein, " says he, "is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, yet he hathopened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if anyman be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Sincethe world began, was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of onethat was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. "We do not find that the Jewish rulers had any other reply to make tothis defence, than that which authority is sometimes apt to make toargument, "Dost thou teach us?"

If it shall be inquired how a turn of thought, so different from whatprevails at present, should obtain currency with the ancient Jews; theanswer is found in two opinions which are proved to have subsisted inthat age and country. The one was their expectation of a Messiah of akind totally contrary to what the appearance of Jesus bespoke him to be;the other, their persuasion of the agency of demons in the production ofsupernatural effects. These opinions are not supposed by us for thepurpose of argument, but are evidently recognised in the Jewish writingsas well as in ours. And it ought moreover to be considered, that inthese opinions the Jews of that age had been from their infancy broughtup; that they were opinions, the grounds of which they had probably fewof them inquired into, and of the truth of which they entertained nodoubt. And I think that these two opinions conjointly afford anexplanation of their conduct. The first put them upon seeking out someexcuse to themselves for not receiving Jesus in the character in whichhe claimed to be received; and the second supplied them with just suchan excuse as they wanted. Let Jesus work what miracles he would, stillthe answer was in readiness, "that he wrought them by the assistance ofBeelzebub. " And to this answer no reply could be made, but that whichour Saviour did make, by showing that the tendency of his mission was soadverse to the views with which this being was, by the objectorsthemselves, supposed to act, that it could not reasonably be supposedthat he would assist in carrying it on. The power displayed in themiracles did not alone refute the Jewish solution, because theinterposition of invisible agents being once admitted, it is impossibleto ascertain the limits by which their efficiency is circumscribed. Weof this day may be disposed possibly to think such opinions too absurdto have been ever seriously entertained. I am not bound to contend forthe credibility of the opinions. They were at least as reasonable as thebelief in witchcraft. They were opinions in which the Jews of that agehad from their infancy been instructed; and those who cannot see enoughin the force of this reason to account for their conduct towards ourSaviour, do not sufficiently consider how such opinions may sometimesbecome very general in a country, and with what pertinacity, when oncebecome so, they are for that reason alone adhered to. In the suspensewhich these notions and the prejudices resulting from them mightoccasion, the candid and docile and humble-minded would probably decidein Christ's favour; the proud and obstinate, together with the giddy andthe thoughtless, almost universally against him. 

This state of opinion discovers to us also the reason of what somechoose to wonder at, why the Jews should reject miracles when they sawthem, yet rely so much upon the tradition of them in their own history. It does not appear that it had ever entered into the minds of those wholived in the time of Moses and the prophets to ascribe their miracles tothe supernatural agency of evil being. The solution was not theninvented. The authority of Moses and the prophets being established, andbecome the foundation of the national polity and religion, it was notprobable that the later Jews, brought up in a reverence for thatreligion, and the subjects of that polity, should apply to their historya reasoning which tended to overthrow the foundation of both. 

II. The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially of menof rank and learning in it, is resolvable into a principle which, in myjudgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument or anyevidence whatever, viz. Contempt prior to examination. The state ofreligion amongst the Greeks and Romans had a natural tendency to inducethis disposition. Dionysius Halicarnassensis remarks, that there weresix hundred different kinds of religions or sacred rites exercised atRome. (Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. Vol. I. P. 371. ) The superiorclasses of the community treated them all as fables. Can we wonder, then, that Christianity was included in the number, without inquiry intoits separate merits, or the particular grounds of its pretensions? Itmight be either true or false for anything they knew about it. Thereligion had nothing in its character which immediately engaged theirnotice. It mixed with no politics. It produced no fine writers. Itcontained no curious speculations. When it did reach their knowledge, Idoubt not but that it appeared to them a very strange system, --sounphilosophical, --dealing so little in argument and discussion, in sucharguments however and discussions as they were accustomed to entertain. What is said of Jesus Christ, of his nature, office, and ministry, wouldbe in the highest degree alien from the conceptions of their theology. The Redeemer and the destined Judge of the human race a poor young man, executed at Jerusalem with two thieves upon a cross! Still more wouldthe language in which the Christian doctrine was delivered be dissonantand barbarous to their ears. What knew they of grace, of redemption, ofjustification, of the blood of Christ shed for the sins of men, ofreconcilement, of mediation? Christianity was made up of points they hadnever thought of; of terms which they had never heard. 

It was presented also to the imagination of the learned Heathen underadditional disadvantage, by reason of its real, and still more of itsnominal, connexion with Judaism. It shared in the obloquy and ridiculewith which that people and their religion were treated by the Greeks andRomans. They regarded Jehovah himself only as the idol of the Jewishnation, and what was related of him as of a piece with what was told ofthe tutelar deities of other countries; nay, the Jews were in aparticular manner ridiculed for being a credulous race; so that whateverreports of a miraculous nature came out of that country were looked uponby the Heathen world as false and frivolous. When they heard ofChristianity, they heard of it as a quarrel amongst this people aboutsome articles of their own superstition. Despising, therefore, as theydid, the whole system, it was not probable that they would enter, withany degree of seriousness or attention, into the detail of its disputesor the merits of either side. How little they knew, and with whatcarelessness they judged of these matters, appears, I think, prettyplainly from an example of no less weight than that of Tacitus, who, ina grave and professed discourse upon the history of the Jews, statesthat they worshipped the effigy of an ass. (Tacit. Hist. Lib. V. C. 2. )The passage is a proof how prone the learned men of those times were, and upon how little evidence, to heap together stories which mightincrease the contempt and odium in which that people was holden. Thesame foolish charge is also confidently repeated by Plutarch. (Sympos. Lib. Iv. Quaest. 5. )

It is observable that all these considerations are of a nature tooperate with the greatest force upon the highest ranks; upon men ofeducation, and that order of the public from which writers areprincipally taken: I may add also upon the philosophical as well as thelibertine character; upon the Antonines or Julian, not less than uponNero or Domitian; and, more particularly, upon that large and polishedclass of men who acquiesced in the general persuasion, that all they hadto do was to practise the duties of morality, and to worship the Deitymore patrio; a habit of thinking, liberal as it may appear, which shutsthe door against every argument for a new religion. The considerationsabove mentioned would acquire also strength from the prejudices whichmen of rank and learning universally entertain against anything thatoriginates with the vulgar and illiterate; which prejudice is known tobe as obstinate as any prejudice whatever. 

Yet Christianity was still making its way: and, amidst so manyimpediments to its progress, so much difficulty in procuring audienceand attention, its actual success is more to be wondered at, than thatit should not have universally conquered scorn and indifference, fixedthe levity of a voluptuous age, or, through a cloud of adverseprejudications, opened for itself a passage to the hearts andunderstandings of the scholars of the age. 

And the cause which is here assigned for the rejection of Christianityby men of rank and learning among the Heathens, namely, a strongantecedent contempt, accounts also for their silence concerning it. Ifthey had rejected it upon examination, they would have written about it;they would have given their reasons. Whereas, what men repudiate uponthe strength of some prefixed persuasion, or from a settled contempt ofthe subject, of the persons who propose it, or of the manner in which itis proposed, they do not naturally write books about, or notice much inwhat they write upon other subjects. 

The letters of the younger Pliny furnish an example of this silence, andlet us, in some measure, into the cause of it. From his celebratedcorrespondence with Trajan, we know that the Christian religionprevailed in a very considerable degree in the province over which hepresided; that it had excited his attention; that he had inquired intothe matter just so much as a Roman magistrate might be expected toinquire, viz. , whether the religion contained any opinions dangerous togovernment; but that of its doctrines, its evidences, or its books, hehad not taken the trouble to inform himself with any degree of care orcorrectness. But although Pliny had viewed Christianity in a nearerposition than most of his learned countrymen saw it in, yet he hadregarded the whole with such negligence and disdain (further than as itseemed to concern his administration), that, in more than two hundredand forty letters of his which have come down to us, the subject isnever once again mentioned. If, out of this number, the two lettersbetween him and Trajan had been lost, with what confidence would theobscurity of the Christian religion have been argued from Pliny'ssilence about it, and with how little truth!

The name and character which Tacitus has given to Christianity, "exitiabilis superstitio" (a pernicious superstition), and by which twowords he disposes of the whole question of the merits or demerits of thereligion, afford a strong proof how little he knew, or concerned himselfto know, about the matter. I apprehend that I shall not be contradicted, when I take upon me to assert, that no unbeliever of the present agewould apply this epithet to the Christianity of the New Testament, ornot allow that it was entirely unmerited. Read the instructions given bya great teacher of the religion to those very Roman converts of whomTacitus speaks; and given also a very few years before the time of whichhe is speaking; and which are not, let it be observed, a collection offine sayings brought together from different parts of a large work, butstand in one entire passage of a public letter, without the intermixtureof a single thought which is frivolous or exceptionable:--"Abhor thatwhich is evil, cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned oneto another, with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; notslothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; rejoicing inhope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; distributingto the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. Bless them whichpersecute you; bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one towards another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wisein your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide thingshonest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth inyou, live peaceably with all men. Avenge not yourselves, but rather giveplace unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord: therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if hethirst, give him drink: for, in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fireon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no powerbut of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and theythat resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not aterror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid ofthe power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of thesame: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou dothat which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: forhe is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him thatdoeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, butalso for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: forthey are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due;custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 

"Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that lovethanother, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commitadultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bearfalse witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any othercommandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt lovethy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour;therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 

"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out ofsleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The nightis far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works ofdarkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly asin the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering andwantonness, not in strife and envying. " (Romans, xii. 9--xiii. 13. )

Read this, and then think of "exitiabilis superstitio!" Or, if we be notallowed, in contending with Heathen authorities, to produce our booksagainst theirs, we may at least be permitted to confront theirs with oneanother. Of this "pernicious superstition" what could Pliny find toblame, when he was led, by his office, to institute something like anexamination into the conduct and principles of the sect? He discoverednothing but that they were went to meet together on a stated day beforeit was light, and sing among themselves a hymn to Christ as a God, andto bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but, not to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery; never to falsifytheir word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon toreturn it. 

Upon the words of Tacitus we may build the following observations:

First; That we are well warranted in calling the view under which thelearned men of that age beheld Christianity an obscure and distant view. Had Tacitus known more of Christianity, of its precepts, duties, constitution, or design, however he had discredited the story, he wouldhave respected the principle. He would have described the religiondifferently, though he had rejected it. It has been very satisfactorilyshown, that the "superstition" of the Christians consisted inworshipping a person unknown to the Roman calendar; and that the"perniciousness" with which they were reproached was nothing else buttheir opposition to the established polytheism; and this view of thematter was just such an one as might be expected to occur to a mindwhich held the sect in too much contempt to concern itself about thegrounds and reasons of their conduct. 

Secondly; We may from hence remark how little reliance can be placedupon the most acute judgments in subjects which they are pleased todespise; and which, of course, they from the first consider as unworthyto be inquired into. Had not Christianity survived to tell its ownstory, it must have gone down to posterity as a "pernicioussuperstition;" and that upon the credit of Tacitus's account, much, Idoubt not, strengthened by the name of the writer, and the reputation ofhis sagacity. 

Thirdly; That this contempt, prior to examination, is an intellectualvice, from which the greatest faculties of mind are not free. I knownot, indeed, whether men of the greatest faculties of mind are not themost subject to it. Such men feel themselves seated upon an eminence. Looking down from their height upon the follies of mankind, they beholdcontending tenets wasting their idle strength upon one another with thecommon disdain of the absurdity of them all. This habit of thought, however comfortable to the mind which entertain it, or however naturalto great parts, is extremely dangerous; and more apt than almost anyother disposition to produce hasty and contemptuous, and, byconsequence, erroneous judgments, both of persons and opinions. 

Fourthly; We need not be surprised at many writers of that age notmentioning Christianity at all, when they who did mention it appear tohave entirely misconceived its nature and character; and, in consequenceof this misconception, to have regarded it with negligence and contempt. 

To the knowledge of the greatest part of the learned heathens, the factsof the Christian history could only come by report. The books, probably, they had never looked into. The settled habit of their minds was, andlong had been, an indiscriminate rejection of all reports of the kind. With these sweeping conclusions truth hath no chance. It depends upondistinction. If they would not inquire, how should they be convinced? Itmight be founded in truth, though they, who made no search, might notdiscover it. 

"Men of rank and fortune, of wit and abilities, are often found, even inChristian countries, to be surprisingly ignorant of religion, and ofeverything that relates to it. Such were many of the heathens. Theirthoughts were all fixed upon other things; upon reputation and glory, upon wealth and power, upon luxury and pleasure, upon business orlearning. They thought, and they had reason to think, that the religionof their country was fable and forgery, a heap of inconsistent lies;which inclined them to suppose that other religions were no better. Hence it came to pass, that when the apostles preached the Gospel, andwrought miracles in confirmation of a doctrine every way worthy of God, many Gentiles knew little or nothing of it, and would not take the leastpains to inform themselves about it. This appears plainly from ancienthistory. " (Jortin's Disc. On the Christ. Rel. P. 66, ed. 4th. )

I think it by no means unreasonable to suppose that the heathen public, especially that part which is made up of men of rank and education, weredivided into two classes; these who despised Christianity beforehand, and those who received it. In correspondency with which division ofcharacter the writers of that age would also be of two classes; thosewho were silent about Christianity, and those who were Christians. "Agood man, who attended sufficiently to the Christian affairs, wouldbecome a Christian; after which his testimony ceased to be pagan andbecame Christian. " (Hartley, Obs. P. 119. )

I must also add, that I think it sufficiently proved, that the notion ofmagic was resorted to by the heathen adversaries of Christianity, inlike manner as that of diabolical agency had before been by the Jews. Justin Martyr alleges this as his reason for arguing from prophecyrather than from miracles. Origen imputes this evasion to Celsus; Jerometo Porphyry; and Lactantius to the heathen in general. The severalpassages which contain these testimonies will be produced in the nextchapter. It being difficult, however, to ascertain in what degree thisnotion prevailed, especially the superior ranks of the heathencommunities, another, and think an adequate, cause has been assigned fortheir infidelity. It is probable that in many cases the two causes wouldtogether. 

CHAPTER V. 

THAT THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES ARE NOT RECITED, OR APPEALED TO, BY EARLYCHRISTIAN WRITERS THEMSELVES SO FULLY OR FREQUENTLY AS MIGHT HAVE BEENEXPECTED. 

I shall consider this objection, first, as it applies to the letters ofthe apostles preserved in the New Testament; and secondly, as it appliesto the remaining writings of other early Christians. 

The epistles of the apostles are either hortatory or argumentative. Sofar as they were occupied in delivering lessons of duty, rules of publicorder, admonitions against certain prevailing corruptions, against vice, or any particular species of it, or in fortifying and encouraging theconstancy of the disciples under the trials to which they were exposed, there appears to be no place or occasion for more of these referencesthan we actually find. 

So far as these epistles are argumentative, the nature of the argumentwhich they handle accounts for the infrequency of these allusions. Theseepistles were not written to prove the truth of Christianity. Thesubject under consideration was not that which the miracles decided, thereality of our Lord's mission; but it was that which the miracles didnot decide, the nature of his person or power, the design of his advent, its effects, and of those effects the value, kind, and extent. Still Imaintain that miraculous evidence lies at the bottom of the argument. Fornothing could be so preposterous as for the disciples of Jesus todispute amongst themselves, or with others, concerning his office orcharacter; unless they believed that he had shown, by supernaturalproofs, that there was something extraordinary in both. Miraculousevidence, therefore, forming not the texture of these arguments, but theground and substratum, if it be occasionally discerned, if it beincidentally appealed to, it is exactly so much as ought take place, supposing the history to be true. 

As a further answer to the objection, that the apostolic epistles do notcontain so frequent, or such direct and circumstantial recitals ofmiracles as might be expected, I would add, that the apostolic epistlesresemble in this respect the apostolic speeches, which speeches aregiven by a writer who distinctly records numerous miracles wrought bythese apostles themselves, and by the Founder of the institution intheir presence; that it is unwarrantable to contend that the omission, or infrequency, of such recitals in the speeches of the apostlesnegatives the existence of the miracles, when the speeches are given inimmediate conjunction with the history of those miracles: and that aconclusion which cannot be inferred from the speeches withoutcontradicting the whole tenour of the book which contains them cannot beinferred from letters, which in this respect are similar only to thespeeches. 

To prove the similitude which we allege, it may be remarked, thatalthough in Saint Luke's Gospel the apostle Peter is represented to havebeen present at many decisive miracles wrought by Christ; and althoughthe second part of the same history ascribes other decisive miracles toPeter himself, particularly the cure of the lame man at the gate of thetemple (Acts iii. 1), the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1), thecure of Aeneas (Acts ix. 34), the resurrection of Dorcas (Acts ix. 40);yet out of six speeches of Peter, preserved in the Acts, I know but twoin which reference is made to the miracles wrought by Christ, and onlyone in which he refers to miraculous powers possessed by himself. In hisspeech upon the day of Pentecost, Peter addresses his audience withgreat solemnity thus: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus ofNazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, andsigns, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves alsoknow:" (Acts ii. 22. ) &c. In his speech upon the conversion ofCornelius, he delivers his testimony to the miracles performed by Christin these words: "We are witnesses of all things which he did, both inthe land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. " (Acts x. 39. ) But in this latterspeech no allusion appears to the miracles wrought by himselfnotwithstanding that the miracles above enumerated all preceded the timein which it was delivered. In his speech upon the election ofMatthias, (Acts i. 15. ) no distinct reference is made to any of themiracles of Christ's history except his resurrection. The same also maybe observed of his speech upon the cure of the lame man at the of thetemple; (Acts iii. 12. ) the same in his speech before the Sanhedrim;(Acts iv. 8. ) the same in his second apology in the presence of thatassembly Stephen's long speech contains no reference whatever tomiracles, though it be expressly related of him, in the book whichpreserves the speech, and almost immediately before the speech, "that hedid great wonders and miracles among the people. " (Acts vi. 8. ) Again, although miracles be expressly attributed to Saint Paul in the Acts ofthe Apostles, first generally, as at Iconium (Acts xiv. 3), during thewhole tour through the Upper Asia (xiv. 27; xv. 12), at Ephesus (xix. 11, 12); secondly, in specific instances, as the blindness of Elymas atPaphos, (Acts xiii. 11. ) the cure of the cripple at Lystra, (Acts xiv. 8. )of the pythoness at Philippi, (Acts xvi. 16. ) the miraculous liberationfrom prison in the same city, (Acts xvi. 26. ) the restoration ofEutychus, (Acts xx. 10. ) the predictions of his shipwreck, (Acts xxvii. 1. ) the viper at Melita, the cure of Publius's father; (Acts xxvii. 8. )at all which miracles, except the first two, the historian himself waspresent: notwithstanding, I say, this positive ascription of miracles toSt. Paul, yet in the speeches delivered by him, and given as deliveredby him, in the same book in which the miracles are related, and themiraculous powers asserted, the appeals to his own miracles, or indeedto any miracles at all, are rare and incidental. In his speech atAntioch in Pisidia, (Acts xiii. 16. ) there is no allusion but to theresurrection. In his discourse at Miletus, (Acts xx. 17. ) none to anymiracle: none in his speech before Felix; (Acts xxiv. 10. ) none in hisspeech before Festus; (Acts xxv. 8. ) except to Christ's resurrection andhis own conversion. 

Agreeably hereunto, in thirteen letters ascribed to Saint Paul, we haveincessant references to Christ's resurrection, frequent references tohis own conversion, three indubitable references to the miracles whichhe wrought; (Gal. Iii. 5; Rom. Xv. 18, 19; 2 Cor. Xii. 12. ) four otherreferences to the same, less direct, yet highly probable; (1 Cor. Ii. 4, 5;Eph. Iii. 7; Gal. Ii. 8; 1 Thess. I. 8. ) but more copious orcircumstantial recitals we have not. The consent, therefore, betweenSaint Paul's speeches and letters is in this respect sufficiently exact;and the reason in both is the same, namely, that the miraculous historywas all along presupposed, and that the question which occupied thespeaker's and the writer's thoughts was this: whether, allowing thehistory of Jesus to be true, he was, upon the strength of it, to bereceived as the promised Messiah; and, if he was, what were theconsequences, what was the object and benefit of his mission?

The general observation which has been made upon the apostolic writings, namely, that the subject of which they treated did not lead them to anydirect recital of the Christian history, belongs to the writings of theapostolic fathers. The epistle of Barnabas is, in its subject andgeneral composition, much like the epistle to the Hebrews; anallegorical application of divers passages of the Jewish history, oftheir law and ritual, to those parts of the Christian dispensation inwhich the author perceived a resemblance. The epistle of Clement waswritten for the sole purpose of quieting certain dissensions that hadarisen amongst the members of the church of Corinth, and of reviving intheir minds that temper and spirit of which their predecessors in theGospel had left them an example. The work of Hermas is a vision; quotesneither the Old Testament nor the New, and merely falls now and theninto the language and the mode of speech which the author had read inour Gospels. The epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius had for theirprincipal object the order and discipline of the churches which theyaddressed. Yet, under all these circumstances of disadvantage, the greatpoints of the Christian history are fully recognised. This hath beenshown in its proper place. (Vide supra, pp. 48-51. [Part 1, Chapter 8])

There is, however, another class of writers to whom the answer abovegiven, viz. The unsuitableness of any such appeals or references as theobjection demands to the subjects of which the writings treated, doesnot apply; and that is the class of ancient apologists, whose declareddesign it was to defend Christianity, and to give the reasons of theiradherence to it. It is necessary, therefore, to inquire how the matterof the objection stands in these. 

The most ancient apologist of whose works we have the smallest knowledgeis Quadratus. Quadratus lived about seventy years after the ascension, and presented his apology to the Emperor Adrian. From a passage of thiswork, preserved in Eusebius, it appears that the author did directly andformally appeal to the miracles of Christ, and in terms as express andconfident as we could desire. The passage (which has been once alreadystated) is as follows: "The works of our Saviour were alwaysconspicuous, for they were real: both they that were healed, and theythat were raised from the dead, were seen, not only when they werehealed or raised, but for a long time afterwards; not only whilst hedwelled on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a goodwhile after it; insomuch as that some of them have reached to ourtimes, " (Euseb. Hist. I. Iv. C. 3. ) Nothing can be more rational orsatisfactory than this. 

Justin Martyr, the next of the Christian apologists, whose work is notlost, and who followed Quadratus at the distance of about thirty years, has touched upon passages of Christ's history in so many places, that atolerably complete account of Christ's life might be collected out ofhis works. In the following quotation he asserts the performance ofmiracles by Christ, in words as strong and positive as the languagepossesses: "Christ healed those who from their birth were blind, anddeaf, and lame; causing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, anda third to see; and having raised the dead, and caused them to live, he, by his works, excited attention, and induced the men of that age to knowhim: who, however, seeing these things done, said that it was a magicalappearance, and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of thepeople. " (Just. Dial. P. 258, ed. Thirlby. )

In his first apology, (Apolog. Prim. P. 48, ib. ) Justin expresslyassigns the reason for his having recourse to the argument fromprophecy, rather than alleging the miracles of the Christian history;which reason was, that the persons with whom he contended would ascribethese miracles to magic; "lest any of our opponents should say, Whathinders, but that he who is called Christ by us, being a man sprung frommen, performed the miracles which we attribute to him by magical art?"The suggestion of this reason meets, as I apprehend, the very point ofthe present objection; more especially when we find Justin followed init by other writers of that age. Irenaeus, who came about forty yearsafter him, notices the same evasion in the adversaries of Christianity, and replies to it by the same argument: "But if they shall say, that theLord performed these things by an illusory appearance (phantasiodos), leading these objectors to the prophecies, we will show from them, thatall things were thus predicted concerning him, and Strictly came topass. " (Iren. I. Ii. C. 57. ) Lactantius, who lived a century lower, delivers the same sentiment upon the same occasion: "He performedmiracles;--we might have supposed him to have been a magician, as yesay, and as the Jews then supposed, if all the prophets had not with onespirit foretold that Christ should perform these very things. " (Lactant. V. 3. )

But to return to the Christian apologists in their order. Tertullian:--"That person whom the Jews had vainly imagined, from themeanness of his appearance, to be a mere man, they afterwards, inconsequence of the power he exerted, considered as a magician, when he, with one word, ejected devils out of the bodies of men, gave sight tothe blind, cleansed the leprous, strengthened the nerves of those thathad the palsy, and lastly, with one command, restored the dead to life;when he, I say, made the very elements obey him, assuaged the storms, walked upon the seas, demonstrating himself to be the Word of God. "(Tertul. Apolos. P. 20; ed. Priorii, Par. 1675. )

Next in the catalogue of professed apologists we may place Origen, who, it is well known, published a formal defence of Christianity, in answerto Celsus, a heathen, who had written a discourse against it. I know noexpressions by which a plainer or more positive appeal to the Christianmiracles can be made, than the expressions used by Origen; "Undoubtedlywe do think him to be the Christ, and the Son of God, because he healedthe lame and the blind; and we are the more confirmed in this persuasionby what is written in the prophecies: 'Then shall the eyes of the blindbe opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the lame man shallleap as a hart. ' But that he also raised the dead, and that it is not afiction of those who wrote the Gospels, is evident from hence, that ifit had been a fiction, there would have been many recorded to be raisedup, and such as had been a long time in their graves. But, it not beinga fiction, few have been recorded: for instance, the daughter of theruler of a synagogue, of whom I do not know why he said, She is notdead, but sleepeth, expressing something peculiar to her, not common toall dead persons: and the only son of a widow, on whom he hadcompassion, and raised him to life, after he had bid the bearers of thecorpse to stop; and the third, Lazarus, who had been buried four days. "This is positively to assert the miracles of Christ, and it is also tocomment upon them, and that with a considerable degree of accuracy andcandour. 

In another passage of the same author, we meet with the old solution ofmagic applied to the miracles of Christ by the adversaries of thereligion. "Celsus, " saith Origen, "well knowing what great works may bealleged to have been done by Jesus, pretends to grant that the thingsrelated of him are true; such as healing diseases, raising the dead, feeding multitudes with a few leaves, of which large fragments wereleft. " (Orig. Cont. Cels. Lib. Ii. Sect. 48. ) And then Celsus gives, itseems, an answer to these proofs of our Lord's mission, which, as Origenunderstood it, resolved the phenomena into magic; for Origen begins hisreply by observing, "You see that Celsus in a manner allows that thereis such a thing as magic. " (Lardner's Jewish and Heath. Test, vol. Ii. P. 294, ed. 4to. )

It appears also from the testimony of St. Jerome, that Porphyry, themost learned and able of the heathen writers against Christianity, resorted to the same solution: "Unless, " says he, speaking toVigilantius, "according to the manner of the Gentiles and the profane, of Porphyry and Eunomius, you pretend that these are the tricks ofdemons. " (Jerome cont. Vigil. )

This magic, these demons, this illusory appearance, this comparison withthe tricks of jugglers, by which many of that age accounted so easilyfor the Christian miracles, and which answers the advocates ofChristianity often thought it necessary to refute by arguments drawnfrom other topics, and particularly from prophecy (to which, it seems, these solutions did not apply), we now perceive to be gross subterfuges. That such reasons were ever seriously urged and seriously received, isonly a proof what a gloss and varnish fashion can give to any opinion. 

It appears, therefore, that the miracles of Christ, understood as weunderstand them in their literal and historical sense, were positivelyand precisely asserted and appealed to by the apologists forChristianity; which answers the allegation of the objection. 

I am ready, however, to admit, that the ancient Christian advocates didnot insist upon the miracles in argument so frequently as I should havedone. It was their lot to contend with notions of magical agency, against which the mere production of the facts was not sufficient forthe convincing of their adversaries: I do not know whether theythemselves thought it quite decisive of the controversy. But since it isproved, I conceive with certainty, that the sparingness with which theyappealed to miracles was owing neither to their ignorance nor theirdoubt of the facts, it is, at any rate, an objection not to the truth ofthe history, but to the judgment of its defenders. 

CHAPTER VI. 

WANT OF UNIVERSALITY IN THE KNOWLEDGE AND RECEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY, ANDOF GREATER CLEARNESS IN THE EVIDENCE. 

Or, a Revelation which really came from God, the proof, it has beensaid, would in all ages be so public and manifest, that no part of thehuman species would remain ignorant of it, no understanding could failof being convinced by it. 

The advocates of Christianity do not pretend that the evidence of theirreligion possesses these qualities. They do not deny that we canconceive it to be within the compass of divine power to havecommunicated to the world a higher degree of assurance, and to havegiven to his communication a stronger and more extensive influence. Foranything we are able to discern, God could have so formed men, as tohave perceived the truths of religion intuitively; or to have carried ona communication with the other world whilst they lived in this; or tohave seen the individuals of the species, instead of dying, pass toheaven by a sensible translation. He could have presented a separatemiracle to each man's senses. He could have established a standingmiracle. He could have caused miracles to be wrought in every differentage and country. These and many more methods, which we may imagine if weonce give loose to our imaginations, are, so far as we can judge, allpracticable. 

The question therefore is, not whether Christianity possesses thehighest possible degree of evidence, but whether the not having moreevidence be a sufficient reason for rejecting that which we have. 

Now there appears to be no fairer method of judging concerning anydispensation which is alleged to come from God, when question is madewhether such a dispensation could come from God or not, than bycomparing it with other things which are acknowledged to proceed fromthe same counsel, and to be produced by the same agency. If thedispensation in question labour under no defects but what apparentlybelong to other dispensations, these seeming defects do not justify usin setting aside the proofs which are offered of its authenticity, ifthey be otherwise entitled to credit. 

Throughout that order then of nature, of which God is the author, whatwe find is a system of beneficence: we are seldom or never able to makeout a system of optimism. I mean, that there are few cases in which, ifwe permit ourselves to range in possibilities, we cannot supposesomething more perfect, and, more unobjectionable, than what we see. Therain which descends from heaven is confessedly amongst the contrivancesof the Creator for the sustentation of the animals and vegetables whichsubsist upon the surface of the earth. Yet how partially: andirregularly is it supplied! How much of it falls upon sea, where it canbe of no use! how often is it wanted where it would be of the greatest!What tracts of continent are rendered deserts by the scarcity of it! Or, not to speak of extreme cases, how much sometimes do inhabited countriessuffer by its deficiency or delay!--We could imagine, if to imagine wereour business, the matter to be otherwise regulated. We could imagineshowers to fall just where and when they would do good; alwaysseasonable, everywhere sufficient; so distributed as not to leave afield upon the face of the globe scorched by drought or even a plantwithering for the lack of moisture. Yet, does the difference between thereal case and the imagined case, or the seeming inferiority of the oneto the other, authorise us to say, that the present disposition of theatmosphere is not amongst the productions or the designs of the Deity?Does it check the inference which we draw from the confessed beneficenceof the provision? or does it make us cease to admire the contrivance?The observation which we have exemplified in the single instance of therain of heaven may be repeated concerning most of the phenomena ofnature; and the true conclusion to which it leads is this--that toinquire what the Deity might have done, could have done, or, as we evensometimes presume to speak, ought to have done, or, in hypotheticalcases, would have done; and to build any propositions upon suchinquiries against evidence of facts, is wholly unwarrantable. It is amode of reasoning which will not do in natural history, which will notdo in natural religion, which cannot therefore be applied with safety torevelation. It may have same foundation in certain speculative a prioriideas of the divine attributes, but it has none in experience or inanalogy. The general character of the works of nature is, on the onehand, goodness both in design and effect; and, on the other hand, aliability to difficulty and to objections, if such objections beallowed, by reason of seeming incompleteness or uncertainty in attainingtheir end. Christianity participates of this character. The truesimilitude between nature and revelation consists in this--that theyeach bear strong marks of their original, that they each also bearappearances of irregularity and defect. A system of strict optimism may, nevertheless, be the real system in both cases. But what I contend is, that the proof is hidden from us; that we ought not to expect toperceive that in revelation which we hardly perceive in anything; thatbeneficence, of which, we can judge, ought to satisfy us that optimism, of which we cannot judge, ought not to be sought after. We can judge ofbeneficence, because it depends upon effects which we experience, andupon the relation between the means which we see acting and the endswhich we see produced. We cannot judge of optimism because itnecessarily implies a comparison of that which is tried with that whichis not tried; of consequences which we see with others which we imagine, and concerning many of which, it is more than probable, we know nothing;concerning some that we have no notion. 

If Christianity be compared with the state and progress of naturalreligion, the argument of the objector will gain nothing by thecomparison. I remember hearing an unbeliever say that, if God had givena revelation, he would have written it in the skies. Are the truths ofnatural religion written in the skies, or in a language which every onereads? or is this the case with the most useful arts, or the mostnecessary sciences of human life? An Otaheitean or an Esquimaux knowsnothing of Christianity; does he know more of the principles of deism ormorality? which, notwithstanding his ignorance, are neither untrue, norunimportant, nor uncertain. The existence of Deity is left to becollected from observations, which every man does not make, which everyman, perhaps, is not capable of making. Can it be argued that God doesnot exist because if he did, he would let us see him, or discoverhimself to man kind by proofs (such as, we may think, the nature of thesubject merited) which no inadvertency could miss, no prejudicewithstand?

If Christianity be regarded as a providential instrument the meliorationof mankind, its progress and diffusion that of other causes by whichhuman life is improved diversity is not greater, nor the advance moreslow, in than we find it to be in learning, liberty, government, laws. The Deity hath not touched the order of nature in vain. The Jewishreligion produced great and permanent effects; the Christian religionhath done the same. It hath disposed the world to amendment: it hath putthings in a train. It is by no means improbable that it may becomeuniversal; and that the world may continue in that stage so long as thatthe duration of its reign may bear a vast proportion to the time of itspartial influence. 

When we argue concerning Christianity, that it must necessarily be truebecause it is beneficial, we go, perhaps, too far on one side; and wecertainly go too far on the other when we conclude that it must be falsebecause it is not so efficacious as we could have supposed. The questionof its truth is to be tried upon its proper evidence, without deferringmuch to this sort of argument on either side. "The evidence, " as BishopButler hath rightly observed, "depends upon the judgment we form ofhuman conduct, under given circumstances, of which it may be presumedthat we know something; the objection stands upon the supposed conductof the Deity, under relations with which we are not acquainted. "

What would be the real effect of that overpowering evidence which ouradversaries require in a revelation it is difficult foretell; at leastwe must speak of it as of a dispensation which we have no experience. Some consequences, however, would, it is probable, attend this economy, which do not seem to befit a revelation that proceeded from God. One is, that irresistible proof would restrain the voluntary powers too much;would not answer the purpose of trial and probation; would call for noexercise of candour, seriousness, humility, inquiry, no submission ofpassion, interests, and prejudices, to moral evidence and to probabletruth; no habits of reflection; none of that previous desire to learnand to obey the will of God, which forms perhaps the test of thevirtuous principle, and which induces men to attend, with care andreverence, to every credible intimation of that will, and to resignpresent advantages and present pleasures to every reasonable expectationof propitiating his favour. "Men's moral probation may be, whether theywill take due care to inform themselves by impartial consideration; and, afterwards, whether they will act, as the case requires, upon theevidence which they have. And this we find by experience is often ourprobation in our temporal capacity. " (Butler's Analogy, part ii. C. 6. )

II. These modes of communication would leave no place for the admissionof internal evidence; which ought, perhaps, to bear a considerable partin the proof of every revelation, because it is a species of evidencewhich applies itself to the knowledge, love, and practice, of virtue, and which operates in proportion to the degree of those qualities whichit finds in the person whom it addresses. Men of good dispositions, amongst Christians, are greatly affected by the impression which theScriptures themselves make upon their minds. Their conviction is muchstrengthened by these impressions. And this perhaps was intended to beone effect to be produced by the religion. It is likewise true, towhatever cause we ascribe it (for I am not in this work at liberty tointroduce the Christian doctrine of grace or assistance, or theChristian promise that, "if any man will do his will, he shall know ofthe doctrine, whether it be of God" John vii. 17. ), --it is true, I say, that they who sincerely act, or sincerely endeavour to act, according towhat they believe, that is, according to the just result of theprobabilities, or, if you please, the possibilities in natural andrevealed religion, which they themselves perceive, and according to arational estimate of consequences, and, above all, according to the justeffect of those principles of gratitude and devotion which even the viewof nature generates in a well-ordered mind, seldom fail of proceedingfarther. This also may have been exactly what was designed. 

Whereas, may it not be said that irresistible evidence would confoundall characters and all dispositions? would subvert rather than promotethe true purpose of the Divine counsels; which is, not to produceobedience by a force little short of mechanical constraint, (whichobedience would be regularity, not virtue, and would hardly perhapsdiffer from that which inanimate bodies pay to the laws impressed upontheir nature), but to treat moral agents agreeably to what they are;which is done, when light and motives are of such kinds, and areimparted in such measures, that the influence of them depends upon therecipients themselves? "It is not meet to govern rational free agents invia by sight and sense. It would be no trial or thanks to the mostsensual wretch to forbear sinning, if heaven and hell were open to hissight. That spiritual vision and fruition is our state in patria. "(Baxter's Reasons, p. 357. ) There may be truth in this thought, thoughroughly expressed. Few things are more improbable than that we (thehuman species) should be the highest order of beings in the universe:that animated nature should ascend from the lowest reptile to us, andall at once stop there. If there be classes above us of rationalintelligences, clearer manifestations may belong to them. This may beone of the distinctions. And it may be one to which we ourselveshereafter shall attain. 

III. But may it not also be asked, whether the perfect display of afuture state of existence would be compatible with the activity of civillife, and with the success of human affairs? I can easily conceive thatthis impression may be overdone; that it may so seize and fill thethoughts as to leave no place for the cares and offices of men's severalstations, no anxiety for worldly prosperity, or even for a worldlyprovision, and, by consequence, no sufficient stimulus to secularindustry. Of the first Christians we read, "that all that believed weretogether, and had all things common; and sold their possessions andgoods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need; and continuingdaily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house tohouse, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart" (Actsii. 44-46. ) This was extremely natural, and just what might be expectedfrom miraculous evidence coming with full force upon the senses ofmankind: but I much doubt whether, if this state of mind had beenuniversal, or long-continued, the business of the world could have goneon. The necessary art of social life would have been little cultivated. The plough and the loom would have stood still. Agriculture, manufactures, trade, and navigation, would not, I think, haveflourished, if they could have been exercised at all. Men would haveaddicted themselves to contemplative and ascetic lives, instead of livesof business and of useful industry. We observe that St. Paul found itnecessary frequently to recall his converts to the ordinary labours anddomestic duties of their condition; and to give them, in his ownexample, a lesson of contented application to their worldly employments. 

By the manner in which the religion is now proposed, a great portion ofthe human species is enabled and of these multitudes of every generationare induced, to seek and effectuate their salvation through the mediumof Christianity, without interruption of the prosperity or of theregular course of human affairs. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE SUPPOSED EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 

That a religion which under every form in which it is taught holds forththe final reward of virtue and punishment of vice, and proposes thosedistinctions of virtue and vice which the wisest and most cultivatedpart of mankind confess to be just, should not be believed, is verypossible; but that, so far as it is believed, it should not produce anygood, but rather a bad effect upon public happiness, is a propositionwhich it requires very strong evidence to render credible. Yet many havebeen found to contend for this paradox, and very confident appeals havebeen made to history and to observation for the truth of it. 

In the conclusions, however, which these writers draw from what theycall experience, two sources, I think, of mistake may be perceived. 

One is, that they look for the influence of religion in the wrong place. 

The other, that they charge Christianity with many consequences forwhich it is not responsible. 

I. The influence of religion is not to be sought for in the councils ofprinces, in the debates or resolutions of popular assemblies, in theconduct of governments towards their subjects, of states and sovereignstowards one another; of conquerors at the head of their armies, or ofparties intriguing for power at home (topics which alone almost occupythe attention, and fill the pages of history); but must be perceived, ifperceived at all, in the silent course of private and domestic life. Nay, even there its influence may not be very obvious to observation. Ifit check, in some degree, personal dissoluteness, if it beget generalprobity in the transaction of business, if it produce soft and humanemanners in the mass of the community, and occasional exertions oflaborious or expensive benevolence in a individuals, it is all theeffect which can offer itself to external notice. The kingdom of heavenis within us. That which the substance of the religion, its hopes andconsolation, its intermixture with the thoughts by day and by night, thedevotion of the heart, the control of appetite, the steady direction ofwill to the commands of God, is necessarily invisible. Yet these dependthe virtue and the happiness of millions. This cause renders therepresentations of history, with respect to religion, defect andfallacious in a greater degree than they are upon any other subject. Religion operates most upon those of whom history knows the least; uponfathers and mothers their families, upon men-servants and maid-servants, upon orderly tradesman, the quiet villager, the manufacturer at hisloom, the husbandman in his fields. Amongst such, its collectively maybe of inestimable value, yet its effects, in mean time, little uponthose who figure upon the stage of world. They may know nothing of it;they may believe nothing of it; they may be actuated by motives moreimpetuous than those which religion is able to excite. It cannot, bethought strange that this influence should elude the grasp and touch ofpublic history; for what is public history but register of the successesand disappointments, the vices, the follies, and the quarrels, of thosewho engage in contentions power?

I will add, that much of this influence may be felt in times of publicdistress, and little of it in times of public wealth and security. This also increases the uncertainty of any opinions that we drawfrom historical representations. The influence of Christianity iscommensurate with no effects which history states. We do not pretendthat it has any such necessary and irresistible power over the affairsof nations as to surmount the force of other causes. 

The Christian religion also acts upon public usages and institutions, byan operation which is only secondary and indirect. Christianity is not acode of civil law. It can only reach public institutions through privatecharacter. Now its influence upon private character may be considerable, yet many public usages and institutions repugnant to its principles mayremain. To get rid of these, the reigning part of the community mustact, and act together. But it may be long before the persons who composethis body be sufficiently touched with the Christian character to joinin the suppression of practices to which they and the public have beenreconciled by causes which will reconcile the human mind to anything, byhabit and interest. Nevertheless, the effects of Christianity, even inthis view, have been important. It has mitigated the conduct of war, andthe treatment of captives. It has softened the administration ofdespotic, or of nominally despotic governments. It has abolishedpolygamy. It has restrained the licentiousness of divorces. It has putan end to the exposure of children and the immolation of slaves. It hassuppressed the combats of gladiators, * and the impurities of religionsrites. It has banished, if not unnatural vices, at least the tolerationof them. It has greatly meliorated the condition of the laborious part, that is to say, of the mass of every community, by procuring for them aday of weekly rest. In all countries in which it is professed it hasproduced numerous establishments for the relief of sickness and poverty;and in some, a regular and general provision by law. It has triumphedover the slavery established in the Roman empire: it is contending, andI trust will one day prevail, against the worse slavery of the WestIndies. 

_________

* Lipsius affirms (Sat. B. I. C. 12) that the gladiatorial showssometimes cost Europe twenty or thirty thousand lives in a month; andthat not only the men, but even the women of all ranks were passionatelyfond of these shows. See Bishop Porteus, Sermon XIII. _________

A Christian writer, (Bardesanes, ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. Vi. 10. ) soearly as in the second century, has testified the resistance whichChristianity made to wicked and licentious practices though establishedby law and by public usage:--"Neither in Parthia do the Christians, though Parthians, use polygamy; nor in Persia, though Persians, do theymarry their own daughters; nor among the Bactri, or Galli, do theyviolate the sanctity of marriage; nor wherever they are, do they sufferthemselves to be overcome by ill-constituted laws and manners. "

Socrates did not destroy the idolatry of Athens, or produce the slighterrevolution in the manners of his country. 

But the argument to which I recur is, that the benefit of religion, being felt chiefly in the obscurity of private stations, necessarilyescapes the observation of history. From the first general notificationof Christianity to the present day, there have been in every age manymillions, whose names were never heard of, made better by it, not onlyin their conduct, but in their disposition; and happier, not so much intheir external circumstances, as in that which is inter praecordia, inthat which alone deserves the name of happiness, the tranquillity andconsolation of their thoughts. It has been since its commencement theauthor of happiness and virtue to millions and millions of the humanrace. Who is there that would not wish his son to be a Christian?

Christianity also, in every country in which it is professed, hathobtained a sensible, although not a complete influence upon the publicjudgment of morals. And this is very important. For without theoccasional correction which public opinion receives, by referring tosome fixed standard of morality, no man can foretel into whatextravagances it might wander. Assassination might become as honourableas duelling: unnatural crimes be accounted as venal as fornication iswont to be accounted. In this way it is possible that many may be keptin order by Christianity who are not themselves Christians. They may beguided by the rectitude which it communicates to public opinion. Theirconsciences may suggest their duty truly, and they may ascribe thesesuggestions to a moral sense, or to the native capacity of the humanintellect, when in fact they are nothing more than the public opinion, reflected from their own minds; and opinion, in a considerable degree, modified by the lessons of Christianity. "Certain it is, and this is agreat deal to say, that the generality, even of the meanest and mostvulgar and ignorant people, have truer and worthier notions of God morejust and right apprehensions concerning his attributes and perfections, a deeper sense of the difference of good and evil, a greater regard tomoral obligations, and to the plain and most necessary duties of life, and a more firm and universal expectation of a future state of rewardsand punishments, than in any heathen country any considerable number ofmen were found to have had. " (Clarke, Ev. Nat. Rel. P. 208. Ed. V. )

After all, the value of Christianity is not to be appreciated by itstemporal effects. The object of revelation is to influence human conductin this life; but what is gained to happiness by that influence can onlybe estimated by taking in the whole of human existence. Then, as hathalready been observed, there may be also great consequences ofChristianity which do not belong to it as a revelation. The effects uponhuman salvation of the mission, of the death, of the present, of thefuture agency of Christ, may be universal, though the religion be notuniversally known. 

Secondly, I assert that Christianity is charged with many consequencesfor which it is not responsible. I believe that religious motives havehad no more to do in the formation of nine tenths of the intolerant andpersecuting laws which in different countries have been established uponthe subject of religion, than they have had to do in England with themaking of the game-laws. These measures, although they have theChristian religion for their subject, are resolvable into a principlewhich Christianity certainly did not plant (and which Christianity couldnot universally condemn, because it is not universally wrong), whichprinciple is no other than this, that they who are in possession ofpower do what they can to keep it. Christianity is answerable for nopart of the mischief which has been brought upon the world bypersecution, except that which has arisen from conscientiouspersecutors. Now these perhaps have never been either numerous orpowerful. Nor is it to Christianity that even their mistake can fairlybe imputed. They have been misled by an error not properly Christian orreligious, but by an error in their moral philosophy. They pursued theparticular, without adverting to the general consequence. Believingcertain articles of faith, or a certain mode of worship, to be highlyconducive, or perhaps essential, to salvation, they thought themselvesbound to bring all they could, by every means, into them, and this theythought, without considering what would be the effect of such aconclusion when adopted amongst mankind as a general rule of conduct. Had there been in the New Testament, what there are in the Koran, precepts authorising coercion in the propagation of the religion, andthe use of violence towards unbelievers, the case would have beendifferent. This distinction could not have been taken, nor this defencemade. 

I apologise for no species nor degree of persecution, but I think thateven the fact has been exaggerated. The slave-trade destroys more in ayear than the Inquisition does in a hundred or perhaps hath done sinceits foundation. 

If it be objected, as I apprehend it will be, that Christianity ischargeable with every mischief of which it has been the occasion, thoughnot the motive; I answer that, if the malevolent passions be there, theworld will never want occasions. The noxious element will always find aconductor. Any point will produce an explosion. Did the applaudedintercommunity of the pagan theology preserve the peace of the Romanworld? did it prevent oppressions, proscriptions, massacres, devastation? Was it bigotry that carried Alexander into the East, orbrought Caesar into Gaul? Are the nations of the world into whichChristianity hath not found its way, or from which it hath beenbanished, free from contentions? Are their contentions less ruinous andsanguinary? Is it owing to Christianity, or to the want of it, that theregions of the East, the countries inter quatuor maria, peninsula ofGreece, together with a great part of the Mediterranean coast, are atthis day a desert? or that the banks of the Nile, whose constantlyrenewed fertility is not to be impaired by neglect, or destroyed by theravages of war, serve only for the scene of a ferocious anarchy, or thesupply of unceasing hostilities? Europe itself has known no religiouswars for some centuries, yet has hardly ever been without war. Are thecalamities which at this day afflict it to be imputed to Christianity?Hath Poland fallen by a Christian crusade? Hath the overthrow in Franceof civil order and security been effected by the votaries of ourreligion, or by the foes? Amongst the awful lessons which the crimes andthe miseries of that country afford to mankind this is one; that inorder to be a persecutor it is not necessary to be a bigot: that in rageand cruelty, in mischief and destruction, fanaticism itself can beoutdone by infidelity. 

Finally, if war, as it is now carried on between nations produce lessmisery and ruin than formerly, we are indebted perhaps to Christianityfor the change more than to any other cause. Viewed therefore even inits relation to this subject, it appears to have been of advantage tothe world. It hath humanised the conduct of wars; it hath ceased toexcite them. 

The differences of opinion that have in all ages prevailed amongstChristians fall very much within the alternative which has been stated. If we possessed the disposition which Christianity labours, above allother qualities, to inculcate, these differences would do little harm. If that disposition be wanting, other causes, even were these absent, would continually rise up to call forth the malevolent passions intoaction. Differences of opinion, when accompanied with mutual charity, which Christianity forbids them to violate, are for the most partinnocent, and for some purposes useful. They promote inquiry, discussion, and knowledge. They help to keep up an attention toreligious subjects, and a concern about them, which might be apt to dieaway in the calm and silence of universal agreement. I do not know thatit is in any degree true that the influence of religion is the greatestwhere there are the fewest dissenters. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE CONCLUSION, In religion, as in every other subject of human reasoning, much dependsupon the order in which we dispose our inquiries. A man who takes up asystem of divinity with a previous opinion that either every part mustbe true or the whole false, approaches the discussion with greatdisadvantage. No other system, which is founded upon moral evidence, would bear to be treated in the same manner. Nevertheless, in a certaindegree, we are all introduced to our religious studies under thisprejudication. And it cannot be avoided. The weakness of the humanjudgment in the early part of youth, yet its extreme susceptibility ofimpression, renders it necessary to furnish it with some opinions, andwith some principles or other. Or indeed, without much express care, ormuch endeavour for this purpose, the tendency of the mind of man toassimilate itself to the habits of thinking and speaking which prevailaround him, produces the same effect. That indifferency and suspense, that waiting and equilibrium of the judgment, which some require inreligious matters, and which some would wish to be aimed at in theconduct of education, are impossible to be preserved. They are not givento the condition of human life. 

It is a consequence of this institution that the doctrines of religioncome to us before the proofs; and come to us with that mixture ofexplications and inferences from which no public creed is, or can be, free. And the effect which too frequently follows, from Christianitybeing presented to the understanding in this form, is, that when anyarticles, which appear as parts of it, contradict the apprehension ofthe persons to whom it is proposed, men of rash and confident tempershastily and indiscriminately reject the whole. But is this to dojustice, either to themselves or to the religion? The rational way oftreating a subject of such acknowledged importance is, to attend, in thefirst place, to the general and substantial truth of its principles, andto that alone. When we once feel a foundation; when we once perceive aground of credibility in its history; we shall proceed with safety toinquire into the interpretation of its records, and into the doctrineswhich have been deduced from them. Nor will it either endanger ourfaith, or diminish or alter our motives for obedience, if we shoulddiscover that these conclusions are formed with very different degreesof probability, and possess very different degrees of importance. 

This conduct of the understanding, dictated by every rule of rightreasoning, will uphold personal Christianity, even in those countries inwhich it is established under forms the most liable to difficulty andobjection. It will also have the further effect of guarding us againstthe prejudices which are wont to arise in our minds to the disadvantageof religion, from observing the numerous controversies which are carriedon amongst its professors; and likewise of inducing a spirit of lenityand moderation in our judgment, as well as in our treatment of those whostand, in such controversies, upon sides opposite to ours. What is clearin Christianity we shall find to be sufficient, and to be infinitelyvaluable; what is dubious, unnecessary to be decided, or of verysubordinate importance, and what is most obscure, will teach us to bearwith the opinions which others may have formed upon the same subject. Weshall say to those who the most widely dissent from us, what Augustinesaid to the worst heretics of his age; "Illi in vos saeviant, quinasciunt, cum quo labore verum inveniatur, et quam difficile caveanturerrores;---qui nesciunt, cure quanta difficultate sanetur oculusinterioris hominis;--qui nesciunt, quibus suspiriis et gemitibus fiat utex quantulacumque parte possit intelligi Deus. ". (Aug. Contra. Ep. Fund. Cap. Ii. N. 2, 3. )

A judgment, moreover, which is once pretty well satisfied of the generaltruth of the religion will not only thus discriminate in its doctrines, but will possess sufficient strength to overcome the reluctance of theimagination to admit articles of faith which are attended withdifficulty of apprehension, if such articles of faith appear to be trulyparts of the revelation. It was to be expected beforehand, that whatrelated to the economy and to the persons of the invisible world, whichrevelation profess to do, and which, if true, it actually does, shouldcontain some points remote from our analogies, and from thecomprehension of a mind which hath acquired all its ideas from sense andfrom experience. 

It hath been my care in the preceding work to preserve the separationbetween evidences and doctrines as inviolable as I could; to remove fromthe primary question all considerations which have been unnecessarilyjoined with it; and to offer a defence to Christianity which everyChristian might read without seeing the tenets in which he had beenbrought up attacked or decried: and it always afforded a satisfaction tomy mind to observe that this was practicable; that few or none of ourmany controversies with one another affect or relate to the proofs ofour religion; that the rent never descends to the foundation. 

The truth of Christianity depends upon its leading facts, and upon themalone. Now of these we have evidence which ought to satisfy us, at leastuntil it appear that mankind have ever been deceived by the same. Wehave some uncontested and incontestable points, to which the history ofthe human species hath nothing similar to offer. A Jewish peasantchanged the religion of the world, and that without force, withoutpower, without support; without one natural source or circumstance ofattraction, influence, or success. Such a thing hath not happened in anyother instance. The companions of this Person, after he himself had beenput to death for his attempt, asserted his supernatural character, founded upon his supernatural operations: and, in testimony of the truthof their assertions, i. E. In consequence of their own belief of thattruth, and in order to communicate the knowledge of it to others, voluntarily entered upon lives of toil and hardship, and, with a fullexperience of their danger, committed themselves to the last extremitiesof persecution. This hath not a parallel. More particularly, a very fewdays after this Person had been publicly executed, and in the very cityin which he was buried, these his companions declared with one voicethat his body was restored to life: that they had seen him, handled him, ate with him, conversed with him; and, in pursuance of their persuasionof the truth of what they told, preached his religion, with this strangefact as the foundation of it, in the face of those who had killed him, who were armed with the power of the country, and necessarily andnaturally disposed to treat his followers as they had treated himself;and having done this upon the spot where the event took place, carriedthe intelligence of it abroad, in despite of difficulties andopposition, and where the nature of their errand gave them nothing toexpect but derision, insult, and outrage. --This is without example. These three facts, I think, are certain, and would have been nearly so, if the Gospels had never been written. The Christian story, as to thesepoints, hath never varied. No other hath been set up against it. Everyletter, every discourse, every controversy, amongst the followers of thereligion; every book written by them from the age of its commencement tothe present time, in every part of the world in which it hath beenprofessed, and with every sect into which it hath been divided (and wehave letters and discourses written by contemporaries, by witnesses ofthe transaction, by persons themselves bearing a share in it, and otherwritings following that again regular succession), concur inrepresenting these facts in this manner. A religion which now possessesthe greatest part of the civilised world unquestionably sprang up atJerusalem at this time. Some account must be given of its origin; somecause assigned for its rise. All the accounts of this origin, all theexplications of this cause, whether taken from the writings of the earlyfollowers of the religion (in which, and in which perhaps alone, itcould he expected that they should he distinctly unfolded), or fromoccasional notices in other writings of that or the adjoining age, either expressly allege the facts above stated as the means by which thereligion was set up, or advert to its commencement in a manner whichagrees with the supposition of these facts being true, and whichtestifies their operation and effects. 

These prepositions alone lay a foundation for our faith; for they provethe existence of a transaction which cannot even, in its most generalparts, be accounted for upon any reasonable supposition, except that ofthe truth of the mission. But the particulars, the detail of themiracles or miraculous pretences (for such there necessarily must havebeen) upon which this unexampled transaction rested, and for which thesemen acted and suffered as they did act and suffer, it is undoubtedly ofgreat importance to us to know. We have this detail from thefountain-head, from the persons themselves; in accounts written byeye-witnesses of the scene, by contemporaries and companions of thosewho were so; not in one book but four, each containing enough for theverification of the religion, all agreeing in the fundamental parts ofthe history. We have the authenticity of these books established by moreand stronger proofs than belong to almost any other ancient bookwhatever, and by proofs which widely distinguish them from any othersclaiming a similar authority to theirs. If there were any good reasonfor doubt concerning the names to which these books are ascribed (whichthere is not, for they were never ascribed to any other, and we haveevidence not long after their publication of their bearing the nameswhich they now bear); their antiquity, of which there is no question, their reputation and authority amongst the early disciples of thereligion, of which there is as little, form a valid proof that theymust, in the main at least, have agreed with what the first teachers ofthe religion delivered. 

When we open these ancient volumes, we discover in them marks of truth, whether we consider each in itself, or collate them with one another. The writers certainly knew something of what they were writing about, for they manifest an acquaintance with local circumstances, with thehistory and usages of the times, which could belong only to aninhabitant of that country, living in that age. In every narrative weperceive simplicity and undesignedness; the air and the language ofreality. When we compare the different narratives together, we find themso varying as to repel all suspicion of confederacy; so agreeing underthis variety as to show that the accounts had one real transaction fortheir common foundation; often attributing different actions anddiscourses to the Person whose history, or rather memoirs of whosehistory, they profess to relate, yet actions and discourses so similaras very much to bespeak the same character: which is a coincidence that, in such writers as they were, could only be the consequence of theirwriting from fact, and not from imagination. 

These four narratives are confined to the history of the Founder of thereligion, and end with his ministry. Since, however, it is certain thatthe affair went on, we cannot help being anxious to know how itproceeded. This intelligence hath come down to us in a work purportingto be written by a person, himself connected with the business duringthe first stages of its progress, taking up the story where the formerhistories had left it, carrying on the narrative, oftentimes with greatparticularity, and throughout with the appearance of good sense, *information and candour; stating all along the origin, and the onlyprobable origin, of effects which unquestionably were produced, togetherwith the natural consequences of situations which unquestionably didexist; and confirmed, in the substance at least of the account, by thestrongest possible accession of testimony which a history can receive, original letters, written by the person who is the principal subject ofthe history, written upon the business to which the history relates, andduring the period, or soon after the period, which the historycomprises. No man can say that this all together is not a body of stronghistorical evidence. 

_________

* See Peter's speech upon curing the cripple (Acts iii. 18), the councilof the apostles (xv. ), Paul's discourse at Athens (xvii. 22), beforeAgrippa (xxvi. ). I notice these passages, both as fraught with goodsense and as free from the smallest tincture of enthusiasm. _________

When we reflect that some of those from whom the books proceeded arerelated to have themselves wrought miracles, to have been the subject ofmiracles, or of supernatural assistance in propagating the religion, wemay perhaps be led to think that more credit, or a different kind ofcredit, is due to these accounts, than what can be claimed by merelyhuman testimony. But this is an argument which cannot be addressed tosceptics or unbelievers. A man must be a Christian before he can receiveit. The inspiration of the historical Scriptures, the nature, degree, and extent of that inspiration, are questions undoubtedly of seriousdiscussion; but they are questions amongst Christians themselves, andnot between them and others. The doctrine itself is by no meansnecessary to the belief of Christianity, which must, in the firstinstance at least, depend upon the ordinary maxim of historicalcredibility. (See Powell's Discourse, disc. Xv. P. 245. )

In viewing the detail of miracles recorded in these books, we find everysupposition negatived by which they can be resolved into fraud ordelusion. They were not secret, nor momentary, nor tentative, norambiguous; nor performed under the sanction of authority, with thespectators on their side, or in affirmance of tenets and practicesalready established. We find also the evidence alleged for them, andwhich evidence was by great numbers received, different from that uponwhich other miraculous accounts rest. It was contemporary, it waspublished upon the spot, it continued; it involved interests andquestions of the greatest magnitude; it contradicted the most fixedpersuasions and prejudices of the persons to whom it was addressed; itrequired from those who accepted it, not a simple, indolent assent, buta change, from thenceforward, of principles and conduct, a submission toconsequences the most serious and the most deterring, to loss anddanger, to insult, outrage, and persecution. How such a story should befalse, or, if false, how under such circumstances it should make itsway, I think impossible to be explained; yet such the Christian storywas, such were the circumstances under which it came forth, and inopposition to such difficulties did it prevail. 

An event so connected with the religion, and with the fortunes, of theJewish people, as one of their race, one born amongst them, establishinghis authority and his law throughout a great portion of the civilisedworld, it was perhaps to be expected should be noticed in the propheticwritings of that nation; especially when this Person, together with hisown mission, caused also to be acknowledged the Divine original of theirinstitution, and by those who before had altogether rejected it. Accordingly, we perceive in these writings various intimationsconcurring in the person and history of Jesus, in a manner and in adegree in which passages taken from these books could not be made toconcur in any person arbitrarily assumed, or in any person except himwho has been the author of great changes in the affairs and opinions ofmankind. Of some of these predictions the weight depends a good dealupon the concurrence. Others possess great separate strength: one inparticular does this in an eminent degree. It is an entire description, manifestly directed to one character and to one scene of things; it isextant in a writing, or collection of writings, declaredly prophetic;and it applies to Christ's character, and to the circumstances of hislife and death, with considerable precision, and in a way which nodiversity of interpretation hath, in my opinion, been able to confound. That the advent of Christ, and the consequences of it, should not havebeen more distinctly revealed in the Jewish sacred books, is I think insome measure accounted for by the consideration, that for the Jews tohave foreseen the fall of their institution, and that it was to merge atlength into a more perfect and comprehensive dispensation, would havecooled too much, and relaxed, their zeal for it, and their adherence toit, upon which zeal and adherence the preservation in the world of anyremains, for many ages, of religious truth might in a great measuredepend. 

Of what a revelation discloses to mankind, one, and only one, questioncan properly be asked--Was it of importance to mankind to know, or to bebetter assured of? In this question, when we turn our thoughts to thegreat Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and of afuture judgment, no doubt can possibly be entertained. He who gives meriches or honours, does nothing; he who even gives me health, doeslittle, in comparison with that which lays before me just grounds forexpecting a restoration to life, and a day of account and retribution;which thing Christianity hath done for millions. 

Other articles of the Christian faith, although of infinite importancewhen placed beside any other topic of human inquiry, are only theadjuncts and circumstances of this. They are, however, such as appearworthy of the original to which we ascribe them. The morality of thereligion, whether taken from the precepts or the example of its Founder, or from the lessons of its primitive teachers, derived, as it shouldseem, from what had been inculcated by their Master, is, in all itsparts, wise and pure; neither adapted to vulgar prejudices, norflattering popular notions, nor excusing established practices, butcalculated, in the matter of its instruction, truly to promote humanhappiness; and in the form in which it was conveyed, to produceimpression and effect: a morality which, let it have proceeded from anyperson whatever, would have been satisfactory evidence of his good senseand integrity, of the soundness of his understanding and the probity ofhis designs: a morality, in every view of it, much more perfect thancould have been expected from the natural circumstances and character ofthe person who delivered it; a morality, in a word, which is, and hathbeen, most beneficial to mankind. 

Upon the greatest, therefore, of all possible occasions, and for apurpose of inestimable value, it pleased the Deity to vouchsafe amiraculous attestation. Having done this for the institution, when thisalone could fix its authority, or give to it a beginning, he committedits future progress to the natural means of human communication, and tothe influence of those causes by which human conduct and human affairsare governed. The seed, being sown, was left to vegetate; the leaven, being inserted, was left to ferment; and both according to the laws ofnature: laws, nevertheless, disposed and controlled by that Providencewhich conducts the affairs of the universe, though by an influenceinscrutable, and generally undistinguishable by us. And in this, Christianity is analogous to most other provisions for happiness. Theprovision is made; and; being made, is left to act according to lawswhich, forming a part of a more general system, regulate this particularsubject in common with many others. 

Let the constant recurrence to our observation of contrivance, design, and wisdom, in the works of nature, once fix upon our minds the beliefof a God, and after that all is easy. In the counsels of a beingpossessed of the power and disposition which the Creator of the universemust possess, it is not improbable that there should be a future state;it is not improbable that we should be acquainted with it. A futurestate rectifies everything; because, if moral agents be made, in thelast event, happy or miserable, according to their conduct in thestation and under the circumstances in which they are placed, it seemsnot very material by the operation of what causes, according to whatrules, or even, if you please to call it so, by what chance or capricethese stations are assigned, or these circumstances determined. Thishypothesis, therefore, solves all that objection to the divine care andgoodness which the promiscuous distribution of good and evil (I do notmean in the doubtful advantages of riches and grandeur, but in theunquestionably important distinctions of health and sickness, strengthand infirmity, bodily ease and pain, mental alacrity and depression) isapt on so many occasions to create. This one truth changes the nature ofthings; gives order to confusion; makes the moral world of a piece withthe natural. 

Nevertheless, a higher degree of assurance than that to which it ispossible to advance this, or any argument drawn from the light ofnature, was necessary, especially to overcome the shock which theimagination and the senses received from the effects and the appearancesof death, and the obstruction which thence arises to the expectation ofeither a continued or a future existence. This difficulty, although of anature no doubt to act very forcibly, will be found, I think, uponreflection to reside more in our habits of apprehension than in thesubject: and that the giving way to it, when we have any reasonablegrounds or the contrary, is rather an indulging of the imagination thananything else. Abstractedly considered, that is, considered withoutrelation to the difference which habit, and merely habit, produces inour faculties and modes of apprehension, I do not see anything more inthe resurrection of a dead man than in the conception of a child; exceptit be this, that the one comes into his world with a system of priorconsciousness about him, which the other does not: and no person willsay that he knows enough of either subject to perceive that thiscircumstance makes such a difference in the two cases that the oneshould be easy, and the other impossible; the one natural, the other notso. To the first man the succession of the species would be asincomprehensible as the resurrection of the dead is to us. 

Thought is different from motion, perception from impact: theindividuality of a mind is hardly consistent with the divisibility of anextended substance; or its volition, that is, its power of originatingmotion, with the inertness which cleaves to every portion of matterwhich our observation or our experiments can reach. These distinctionslead us to an immaterial principle: at least, they do this: they sonegative the mechanical properties of matter, in the constitution of asentient, still more of a rational, being, that no argument drawn fromthe properties can be of any great weight in opposition to otherreasons, when the question respects the changes of which such: a natureis capable, or the manner in which these changes am effected. Whateverthought be, or whatever it depend upon the regular experience of sleepmakes one thing concerning it certain, that it can be completelysuspended, and completely restored. 

If any one find it too great a strain upon his thoughts to admit thenotion of a substance strictly immaterial, that is, from which extensionand solidity are excluded, he can find no difficulty in allowing, that aparticle as small as a particle of light, minuter than all conceivabledimensions, may just as easily be the depositary, the organ, and thevehicle of consciousness as the congeries of animal substance whichforms a human body, or the human brain; that, being so, it may transfera proper identity to whatever shall hereafter be united to it; may besafe amidst the destruction of its integuments; may connect the naturalwith the spiritual, the corruptible with the glorified body. If it besaid that the mode and means of all this is imperceptible by our senses, it is only what is true of the most important agencies and operations. The great powers of nature are all invisible. Gravitation, electricity, magnetism, though constantly present, and constantly exerting theirinfluence; though within us, near us, and about us; though diffusedthroughout all space, overspreading the surface, or penetrating thecontexture, of all bodies with which we are acquainted, depend uponsubstances and actions which are totally concealed from our senses. TheSupreme Intelligence is so himself. 

But whether these or any other attempts to satisfy the imagination bearany resemblance to the truth; or whether the imagination, which, as Ihave said before, is the mere slave of habit, can be satisfied or not;when a future state, and the revelation of a future state is not onlyperfectly consistent with the attributes of the Being who governs theuniverse; but when it is more; when it alone removes the appearance ofcontrariety which attends the operations of his will towards creaturescapable of comparative merit and demerit, of reward and punishment; whena strong body of historical evidence, confirmed by many internal tokensof truth and authenticity, gives us just reason to believe that such arevelation hath actually been made; we ought to set our minds atrest with the assurance, that in the resources of Creative Wisdomexpedients cannot be wanted to carry into effect what the Deity hathpurposed: that either a new and mighty influence will descend upon thehuman world to resuscitate extinguished consciousness; or that, amidstthe other wonderful contrivances with which the universe abounds, and bysome of which we see animal life, in many instances, assuming improvedforms of existence, acquiring new organs, new perceptions, and newsources of enjoyment, provision is also made, though by methods secretto us (as all the great processes of nature are), for conducting theobjects of God's moral government, through the necessary changes oftheir frame, to those final distinctions of happiness and misery whichhe hath declared to be reserved for obedience and transgression, forvirtue and vice, for the use and the neglect, the right and the wrongemployment of the faculties and opportunities with which he hath beenpleased, severally, to intrust and to try us.