

He feels tomething 

 ;nony 

 '.:\t piety and 





of the >ub- 

 jrct.hM 

 i brown a 



,>.'8 



picion to a tcmpalout enquirer, 



.'ian th concurrenc- 

 of thr itches thr . 



hi* moral entitnent*. In addition to rhe acquiescence ot 

 th< understanding, there is a con amnrt feeling both in 

 himself, and in his author, which he had rather been with- 

 finds it difficult to compute the precie 

 ,d the consideration of thi* re- 



<rain~ that cleir and decided conclusion, which 



,ly have landed in, had it been purely a 

 secular iovejtigation. 



1 v 'There is something in the very Mcredness of I 

 ubj-ct, which intimidates the understanding, and restrains 

 it from making the same firm ai.d confident application 

 of it* f.'cultie*. which it would have felt itself perfectly 

 warranted to do, had it been a question of ordinary his- 

 tory. Had the apostles been the disciples of some emi- 

 Mrcofth of neat philosopher, and the fathers of the church, their im- 

 theChn. mfdiji,. successors in the office of presiding over the 

 discipline and instruction of the numerous schools which, 

 they had established, this would have given a secular 

 complexion to the argument, which we think would have 

 been more satisfying to the mind, and have impressed upon 

 it a closer and more familiar conviction of the history in 

 question. We should have immediately brought it into 

 comparison with the history of other philosophers, and 

 could not have failed to recognize, that, in minuteness of 

 information, in weight and quantity of evidence, in the 

 concurrence of numerous and independent testimonies, 

 and in the total absence of every circumstance that should 

 dispose us to annex suspicion to the account which lay 

 before us, it far surpassed any thing that had come down 

 to us from antiquity. It so happens, however, that, in- 

 stead of being the history of a philosopher, it is the his- 

 tory of a prophet. The veneration we annex to the 

 sicredness of such a character, mingles with our belief in 

 the truth of his history. From a question of simple 

 truth, it become* a question in which the heart is inte- 

 rested ; and the subject from that moment a.sumes a cer- 

 tain holiness and mystery, which veils the strength of the 

 argument, and takes off from that familiar and intimate 

 conviction which we anues to the far less authenticated 

 historic* of profane authors. 



And how- 19. It may be further observed, that every part of the 

 rvcrtirung Q ir i 6 tiin argument has been mnde to undergo a most Be- 

 an argu Tfre jcru^ny. The ame degree of evidence which, in qucs- 

 NMinf 1 *' l ' oos of ordinary history, command* the easy and universal 

 mett fact acquiescence of every inquirer, has, in the subject be- 

 of it being fore u, been taken most thoroughly to pieces, and pur- 

 mocbqu. iucd, b ithby friends and enemies, into all its ramifications. 

 The effect of this is unquestionable. The genuineness 

 foiinir'trut "d authenticity of the profane historian, are admitted 

 it i.vcrv upon much inferior evidence to what we can adduce for 

 the different pieces which make up the New Testament : 

 And why ? because the evidence has been hitherto thought 



CHRISTIANITY. 



ground. Other books, where the evidence is much in- Chri-: 



tenor, but which have had the advantage of never bving 

 questioned, are received as of established authority. It 

 is striking to observe the perfect confidence with which, 

 an infidel will quote a passage from an ancient historian. 

 He perhaps does not overrate the credit due to him. Bat 

 present him with a tabellated and comparative view of 

 all the evidences that can be adduced for the gospel of 

 Matthew, and any profane historian which he chooses to 

 fix upon, and let each distinct evidence be discussed upon 

 no other principle than the ordinary and approved prin- 

 ciple of criticism, we assure him that the sacred history 

 would far outweigh the profane in the number and value 

 ot its testimonies. 



20. In illustration of the above remarks, we can refer 

 to the experience of those who have attended to this ex . i 

 animation. We ask them to recollect the satisfaction above r:- 

 voicli thry felt, when they came to those parts of the " 

 examination, where the argument assumes a secular com- 

 plexion. Let us take the testimony of Tacitus for an i x- 

 ample. He asserts the execution of our Saviour in the 

 reign of Tiberius, and under the procuratorship of Pi- 

 late ; the temporary check which this gave to his reb^on ; 

 its revival, and the progress it had made, not ouly over 

 Judea, but to the city of Rome. Now all this i attested 

 in the Annals of Tacitus. But it is also attested in a far 

 more direct and circumstantial manner in the an >als of 

 another author, in a book entitled the History of the 

 Acts of the ApottltibytkEa*gttutlMlif. B>.tli ,,i these 

 performances carry on the very race of them the a; pcar- 

 ance of unsuspicious znd well-authenticated documents. 

 But there are several circumstances, in which the testi- 

 mony of Luke possesses a decided advantage over the 

 testimony of Tacitus. He was the companion of these 

 very apostles. He was an eye-witness to many of the 

 events recorded by him. He had the advantage over the 

 Roman historian in time and in place, and in personal 

 knowledge of many of the circumstances in his history. 

 The genuineness of his publications, too, and the time of 

 its appearance, are far better established, and by precise- 

 ly tliat kind i;f argument which is held decisive in every 

 other question of erudition. Besides all this, we have 

 the testimony of at leasl rive of the Christian fuller. , all 

 of whom had the same, or a greater, advantage in p.,int 

 of time than Tacitus, and who had a much nearer and 

 readier access to original sources of information. Now, 

 how comes it that the testimony <>f Tacitus, a distant 

 and later hist., nan, should yielit such delight and satisfac- 

 tion to the inquirer, while all the antecedent testimony 

 (which, by every principle of approved criticism, is much 

 stronger than the other,) should produce an impression 

 that is comparatively languid and in. ffeciual I it is owing, 

 in a great measure, to the principle which we have already 

 alluded to. There is a sacredness annexed to the sub- 

 ject, so long as it is under the pen of fathers and evan- 



iufficient, and the genuineness and authenticity have never gelisu, and this very sacredness takes away from the 

 bB questioned. Not so with the gospel hut^ry. Though freedom and confidence ot ihe arj-timi t. 

 its evidence is preci- ly the wine in kind, and vastly that it is taken up by a profane author, the spell which 



held the understand i-g in sonv degree ot restraint is dis- 

 sipated. We now tread on the more familiar ground of 

 ordinary history ; and the evidence for the truth of the 

 gospel appears more asMinilaud to that . vul -IR-. , winch 

 brings home to our conviction the particulars ot the 

 Greek and Roman story. 



'2\. To say that Tacitus was upon tl a dis- 



interested historian, is not enough to exunm tile prefer- 

 ence which you give to his testimony. There is no sub- 

 ject in which the triumph ot : ">t i 

 more conspicuous, than the moral qualifications which 



superior in degree to the evidence fr the history ot the 

 profane writer, its evidence has been questioned, and the 

 very circumstance of its being questioned ha annexed a 

 n-piciim to it. At all points of the question, there has 

 been a struggle and a controvrr..y. Evtry ignorant ob 

 jection, and rvrry rash and petulant obvrval inn, lias been 

 tak n up and commented upon by the defenders of Chris- 

 lianit). 'There has at last been *o much said ab< ut it, 

 that a general feeling .f insecurity is apt to accompany 

 the whole investigation. Thei so much 



ing, that Christianity is now loukctl upon M debatable 



