They utter no lofty panegyrics; they pronounce no eloquent encomiums. They depart from the common line of historians, and give an artless narrative of every circumstance, however apparently unfavourable to their master, and leave the truth to support itself.

Again, when they relate any of the miracles of Jesus Christ, they announce them with the same dispassionate coolness as if they had been common transactions; saying nothing previously to raise expectation, nor, after the recital of them, breaking out into exclamations, but they leave the reader to draw his own conclusion. Does he confound and triumph over his enemies? We see no symptoms of exultation. Is he in the lowest distress? On their parts we can collect no tokens of fear, of grief, or indignation. Do they record his giving of sight to the blind, restoring the lame, feeding many thousands with a few loaves and fishes, calming the raging sea, and even raising the dead? They seem perfectly calm and unconcerned. Do they narrate his resurrection and ascension? They afford no explanation of any difficulties; they never offer a single argument to enforce their credit; they leave the bare facts with their readers, who may receive or reject them as they please. In perusing the simple and unadorned narratives of the evangelists, it is impossible not to feel that the purport of their writing was to bear witness of the truth.

The conduct of the evangelists, when speaking of their enemies, is characterised by the same striking integrity. Of all who were concerned in the persecution and death of Christ, they mention by name only the high priest Caiaphas, and his coadjutor Annas, the Roman procurator Pilate, and the treacherous disciple Judas; because the suppression of their names would have impaired the evidence of their history to posterity. Not the slightest tincture of party-spirit is observable in the notice of these persons; who are barely mentioned without censure and without resentment. The epithet attached to Judas by all the evangelists (i ragadous, who delivered him up) is expressive of the simple fact, rather than of its criminality; which would more aptly be signified by godons, traitor, as he is styled on one solitary occasion. (Luke, vi. 16.)1

Further, it is worthy of remark, that the evangelical historians pay no regard to what others had before written on the same subject. "Had they written in concert, and with the direct view of promoting the same cause, they would have taken proper care to have preserved some uniformity in their arrangement; to have supported the same facts, and not to have contradicted, in their narration, any of those facts or circumstances that had been recorded by their colleagues or friends. But if any one will read, with attention, their several histories, he will find a difference of arrangement, different facts and circumstances also brought forward by different historians, the same fact differently told, and many things so altered

1 The argument, here necessarily treated with brevity, is prosecuted at considerable length, and in the very words of the most learned defenders of Christianity, in Mr. Simpson's Internal and Presumptive Evidences of Christianity pp. 126-142.

and changed in their different relations, that we are sometimes at a loss to determine, whether it be in reality the same fact, that any two or more of them are telling, or some other one nearly resembling it in some leading features. Matthew and Luke give us even different pedigrees of Jesus Christ. We mention this only to show that we have no reason to suppose, that they wrote in collusion; and also to show how inattentive they were to what others had written on the same subject before. Each appears to have written what struck him the most forcibly, and what seemed the most proper to make us acquainted with the character and doctrines of Jesus Christ. They are only careful to give them upon the best authority, either from their own personal knowledge, or as they had them from those, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. Like honest and faithful historians, they are concerned about nothing but the truth. In their histories, you meet with just such accounts as you may naturally expect from different observers of the same fact. No two men of equal capacity and attention, ever yet related the same fact precisely in the same manner and words. Without the smallest prejudice or partiality, and with the strictest regard to truth, they will give you the circumstances of the same action with considerable difference.

The inferences, then, that we have a right to draw from this apparent honesty and impartiality of the sacred historians are, First, that the Gospel bears all the marks of a true history, and that the differences and trifling disagreements among the historians, are a strong evidence of the truth of the whole. It is much more likely to be true, than if the whole had been transmitted to us by a single writer of the greatest ability. Secondly, that though we meet with differences and difficulties in the relation of some material facts, yet none of these difficulties affect the main cause, or the leading principles of our religion. We are left in the full possession of all these. They all agree, that Jesus Christ was upon this earth, that he was a divine teacher, and a great example, that he died and rose again. On the contrary, had they been all uniform in their narration, we should have had good cause to suspect fraud and collusion. Had they in the relation of each particular sermon, prayer, and great work, expressed themselves in the very same words, would not unbelievers have found good cause to allege, "these men are no more but copyists of one another, a company of men under the pretended direction of the spirit of truth, imposing a most impudent fraud on the world."

These differences bear all the marks of candour, of honesty, and integrity. We know from them, that Jesus Christ was on this earth, that he wrought great works, that he delivered remarkable prophecies, that he died and rose again, that his disciples, immediately after his resurrection, with firmness embraced his cause; and,

1 See a solution of this supposed difficulty, infra, in the Appendix, No. III. Sect. I. § 1.

in obedience to his last commands, went and baptised all nations. We know, in short, that he brought life and immortality to light, and placed our hopes upon the best foundation. Let the learned, then, settle lesser differences, and let cavillers dispute about dark expressions and darker tenets, we will hold fast by the main pillars; and if the world itself should sink, these will support us: this is our joy and rejoicing in the strength of this, let us march onwards towards heaven."

If, from the consideration of the narratives of the evangelical historians concerning their master, we proceed to whatever is recorded concerning themselves, we shall find the same integrity and fidelity every where prevail. When Cicero had offended against the capital law of his moral code that which enjoined the love of his country-first, by his backwardness to join the camp of Pompey, and afterwards by his prompt submission to the tyranny of Cæsar, what was the conduct of that illustrious Roman on this pressing occasion? Did he frankly condemn those false steps, or did he content himself with the simple relation of them? He did neither of these things. He softened and disguised the truth; and employed all his wit and eloquence to palliate this inglorious desertion of his principles to himself and to others. What a striking contrast is this to the ingenuousness of the evangelical writers! They study no arts of evasion or concealment. They honestly acknowledge not only the lowness of their station, but also the meanness of their original employments, the indigence of their circumstances, the inveteracy of their national prejudices, the slowness of their apprehension under so excellent a teacher, the weakness of their faith, the ambition of some of the disciples, the intolerant temper of others, and the worldly views of all. They even tell us of their cowardice in deserting their master when he was seized by his enemies, and that after his crucifixion they all resumed their secular employments, for ever resigning those hopes which they had once fondly cherished, and abandoning the cause in which they had been so long engaged; notwithstanding all the proofs that had been exhibited, and the conviction which they had before entertained, that Jesus was the Messiah, and that his religion was from God. They mention, with many affecting circumstances, the incredulity of one of their associates, who was not convinced of the reality of their Lord's resurrection but by occular and sensible demonstration. They might have concealed their own faults and follies from the world; or, if they had chosen to mention them, they might have alleged plausible reasons to soften and extenuate them. But they did no such thing they related, without disguise, events and facts just as they happened, and left them to speak for themselves. In like manner, when recording the exercise of the miraculous powers with which they were endowed, they relate these astonishing facts, without any ornaments of language, in the most concise and simple manner.

-

1 Popular Evidences of Natural Religion and Christianity, by the Rev. Thomas Watson, pp. 415-418.

They do nothing, they assume nothing, in their own character. In short, they speak with such certainty, with so much self-conviction, and with such confidence in the truth of their history, that assuredly we can no longer depend on any historian whatever, if we entertain the least doubt concerning the integrity of the writers of the New Testament. And if we compare their merits as historians with that of other writers, we shall be convinced that they are inferior to none who ever wrote, with regard to knowledge of persons, acquaintance with facts, candour of mind, or reverence for truth.1

Lastly, in the epistles of the apostles which have been transmitted to us, there are preserved memorials of many particulars which are not very honourable to the first converts to Christianity. Such are the readiness of the churches of Galatia to depart from the purity and simplicity of the Gospel; -the scandalous disorders of the church of Corinth in some solemn parts of their worship; the contentions among them in behalf of their teachers; the preposterous use of the gift of tongues, proceeding from vanity and ostentation; and the unaccountable conceits of others, who depended upon an empty faith without works, and a speculative knowledge without a suitable holy practice, referred to in the epistles of James and John. Upon the whole, it is most evident from the facts that were disadvantageous to Christ himself, to the writers themselves, and also to the first Christians, that those persons from whom we have received these accounts had a very particular regard to truth, and preferred its interest before all selfish considerations.

(5.) They appealed to notorious proofs.

Whatever internal marks of credibility the evangelical writings possess (and which could not but carry conviction to those to whom they were addressed), their authors confirm the veracity of their statements by an appeal to the miracles wrought by themselves, and to the extraordinary gifts conferred by them upon many other persons. This is evident from their epistles, which were written and directed to those who had beheld those miracles, and had participated in those gifts, and which also contain reproofs for the mismanagement of such gifts, and various directions respecting the better use and employment of them. If these persons had not received such gifts, would this mode of writing and arguing have recommended the persons or doctrines of the apostles to them, who were declining from both? Would they not have contradicted the apostles, as asserting deliberate falsehoods? But this was never attempted.

(6.) They suffered every thing for the truth of their narration, even death itself; and brought many of their contemporaries to a conriction of its truth.

1 Bonnet, Œuvres, tom. x. pp. 498-501. Dr. Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p. 693, et seq. Dr. Harwood's Introduction to the New Test. vol. i. pp. 10. Less on the Authenticity of the New Testament, pp. 267-330. Vernet, Traité de la Vérité de la Rel. Chrét. tom. iii. throughout, and tom. iv. pp. 9-137.

2 See 1 Cor. i. 4, 5. ii. 4, 5. v. 3—5. xii. xiii. 8. xiv. 1–33. 2 Cor. xii. 7-11. Gal. iii. 5. 1 Thes. i. 5.

The history of the first professors of Christianity bears witness to the afflictions, sufferings, and painful deaths to which they were constantly exposed, and which they cheerfully endured for the sake of their testimony. If the things which they attested had been false, it would have been unparalleled madness for any one to persist in it to the loss of life; and it would have been incredible, that so many should conspire in the same unreasonable and unaccountable folly; especially when the religion which they professed excluded all liars from the happiness and rewards of the next life, of which they pretended to be persuaded: so that, whatsoever those persons might otherwise be, and however they might falsify, there is no reason to doubt of their truth and fidelity in this report, because they died for the testimony of it. Therefore the highest attestation of a thing is called martyrdom, and the most credible witnesses martyrs; and though bare martyrdom be not an argument of the infallible truth of a testimony, or of the infallibility of a person that gives it, yet it is one of the highest arguments that can be of his honesty and integrity in that thing, and that he believes it himself, otherwise he would not die for it; and it is a good evidence of the general integrity of these persons, as to all other things, that they were so conscientious as not, for fear of death, to deny what they believed to be a truth, nor to conceal what they believed to be of importance.

Further, history shows that, by their testimony, the first disciples of Christianity so convinced a vast number of their contemporaries, who could without any trouble have proved the truth or falsehood of their statements, that even these encountered great persecutions, and cheerfully ventured estate, liberty, and even life itself, on the truth of the facts they asserted. Nor were the persons who thus embraced the Christian faith, (notwithstanding all the sufferings which they knew that such profession would infallibly bring upon them), merely ignorant or illiterate individuals, who might be supposed to be hurried into a belief of it, through a blind and thoughtless enthusiasm. On the contrary, among the first professors of Christianity, we have instances of many persons of quality and rank, men capable of investigating truth, and judging of its evidences, some of whom were philosophers and accurately acquainted with the best writings and with all the learning of the Gentiles.1

III. Thirdly, The credibility of the Old and New Testaments is further attested by the principal facts, contained in them, being confirmed by certain commemorative ordinances, or monuments of great

1 Such were Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus (Acts xiii. 7—12.); Dionysius, a member of the senate or council of Areopagus, and many others of the polished and inquisitive Athenians (Acts xvii. 34.); Erastus, treasurer of Corinth; and even persons belonging to the imperial court (Rom. xvi. 23.); Justin Martyr, once a Platonic philosopher; and Athenagoras, an Athenian philosopher, who at first entertained so unfavourable an opinion of the Christian religion, that he determined to write against it, but on inquiring into the facts that supported it, was convinced by the blaze of evidence in its favour, and turned his designed invective into an elaborate apology. (Lardner, 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 180-187; 4to. vol. i. pp. 379-381.) To these may be added the eminent writers whose testimonies to the authenticity of the New Testament have already been cited, pp. 77–88. supra.