CHRISTIANITY. 



359 



eluristiani- give cre4Jt to the testimony of its witnesses. W<? have 

 ')' every possible evidence, that there could be neither mis- 

 s - > ~r / take nor falsehood in their testimony ; a much greater 

 quantity of evidence, indeed, than can actually be produ- 

 ced to establish the credibility of any other historian. 

 Now all we ask is, that where an exception to the vera- 

 city of any historian is removed, you restore him to that 

 degree of credit and influence which he ought to have 

 possessed, had no such exception been made. In no case 

 has an exception to the credibility of an author been 

 more triumphantly removed, than with the early Chris- 

 tian writers ; and yet, as a proof that there really exists 

 some such delusion as we have been labouring to esta- 

 blish, though our eyes are perfectly open to the integri- 

 ty of the Christian witnesses, there is still a disposition to 

 give the preference to the secular historian. When Tacitus 

 is placed by the side of the evangelist Luke, even after the 

 decisive argument which establishes the credit of the latter 

 historian has convinced the understanding, there remains 

 a tendency in the mind to annex a confidence to the ac- 

 count of the Roman writer, which is altogether dispro- 

 portioned to the relative merits of his testimony. 



22. Let us suppose, for the sake of further illustra- 

 tion, that Tacitus had included some more particulars 

 in his testimony, and that, in addition to the execution of 

 our Saviour, he had asserted, in round and unqualified 

 terms, that this said Christus had risen from the dead, 

 and was seen alive by some hundreds of his acquaintances. 

 Even this would not have silenced altogether the cavils 

 of enemies, but it would have reclaimed many an in- 

 fidel ; been exulted in by many a sincere Christian ; and 

 made to occupy a foremost place in many a book upon 

 the evidences of our religion. Are we to forget all the 

 while, that we are in actual possession of much stronger 

 testimony i that we have the concurrence of eight or ten 

 cotemporary authors, most of whom had actually seen 

 Christ after the great event of his resurrection 1 that the 

 veracity of these authors, and the genuineness of their 

 respective publications, are established on grounds much 

 stronger than have ever been alleged in behalf of Ta- 

 citus, or any ancient author ! Whence this unaccount- 

 able preference of Tacitus ? Upon every received princi- 

 ple of criticism, we are bound to annex greater confidence 

 to the testimony of the apostles. It is vain to recur to 

 the imputation of its being an interested testimony. This 

 the apologists for Christianity undertake to disprove, 

 and actually have disproved it, and that by a much 

 greater quantity of evidence than would be held perfect- 

 ly decisive in a question of common history. If after 

 this there should remain any lurking sentiment of diffi- 

 dence or suspicion, it is entirely resolvable into some such 

 principle as I have already alluded to. It is to be treat- 

 ed as a mere feeling, a delusion which should not be ad- 

 mitted to have any influence on the convictions of the 

 understanding. 



23. The principle which we have been attempting to 

 expose, is found, in fact, to run through every part of 

 the argument, and to accompany the enquirer through 

 all the branches of the investigation. The authenticity 

 of the different books of the New Testament forms a 

 ery important enquiry, wherein the object of the Chris- 

 tian apologist is to prove that they were really written 

 by their professed authors. In proof of this, there is an 

 uninterrupted series of testimony from the days of the 

 apobtles ; and it was not to be expected, that a point so 

 iaoteric to the Christian society could have attracted the 

 attention of profane authors, till the religion of Jesus, 

 by its progress in the world, had rendered itself censpi- 

 cuou. It is not tlien till about eighty years after the 



publication of the different pieces, that we meet with thu Ciiristiam- 

 testimony of Celsus, an avowed enemy to Christianity, 

 and who asserts, upon the strength of its general notu- """V 

 riety, that the historical parts of the New Testament 

 were written by the disciples of our Saviour. This is 

 very decisive evidence. But how does it happen, that it 

 should throw a clearer gleam of light and satisfaction 

 over the mind of the enquirer, than he had yet expe- 

 rienced in the whole train of his investigation ? Whence 

 that disposition to underrate the antecedent testimony of 

 the Christian writers ? Talk not, of their's being an in- 

 terested testimony ; for, in point of fact, the same dispa- 

 sition operates, after reason is convinced that the suspi- 

 cion is totally unfounded. What we contend for is, that 

 this indifference to the testimony of the Christian writer* t 

 implies a dereliction of principles, which we apply with 

 the utmost confidence to all similar enquiries. 



24. The effects of this same principle are perfectly dis- 

 cernible in the writings of even our most judicious apo- 

 logists. We offer no reflection against the worthy and 

 meritorious Lardner, who, in his credibility of the gos- 

 pel history, presents us with a collection of testimonies 

 which should make every Christian proud of his religion. 

 In his evidence for the authenticity of the different pieces 

 which make up the New Testament, he begins with the 

 oldest of the fathers, some of whom were the intimate 

 companions of the original writers. According to our 

 view of the matter, he should have dated the commence- 

 ment of his argument from a higher point, and begun 

 with the testimonies of these original writers to one ano- 

 ther. In the second Epistle of Peter, there is a distinct 

 reference made to the writings of Paul, and in the Acts 

 of the Apostles, there is a reference made to one of the 

 four gospels. Had Peter, instead of being an apostle, 

 ranked only with the fathers of the church, and had his 

 epistle not been admitted into the canon of scripture ; 

 this testimony of his would have had a place in the ca- 

 talogue, and been counted peculiarly valuable, both for 

 its precision and its antiquity. There is certainly no- 

 thing in the estimation-he enjoyed, or in the circumstances 

 of his epistle being bound up with the other books of 

 the New Testament, which ought to impair the credit 

 of his testimony. But in effect, his testimony does make 

 a weaker impression on the mind, than a similar testi- 

 mony from Barnabas, or Clement, or Polycarp. It cer- 

 tainly ought not to do it, and there is a delusion in the 

 preference that is thus given to the latter writers. It is 

 in fact another example of the principle which we have 

 been so often insisting upon. What profane authors are 

 in reference to Christian authors at large, the fathers of 

 the church are in reference to the original writers of the 

 New Testament. In contradiction to every approved 

 principle, we prefer the distant and the later testimony, 

 to the testimony of writers, who carry as much evidence 

 and legitimate authority along with them, and who only 

 differ from others in being nearer the original sources of 

 information. We neglect and undervalue the evidence 

 which the New Testament itself furnishes, and rest the 

 whole of the argument upon die external and superin- 

 dn-ed testimony of subsequent authors. 



25. A great deal of all this is owing to the manner 

 in which the defence of Christianity has been conducted 

 by its friends and supporters. They have given too 

 much in to the suspicions of the opposite party. They 

 have yielded their minds to the infection of their scepti- 

 cism, and maintained, through the whole process, a cau- 

 tion and a delicacy which they often carry to an exces- 

 sive degree ; and by which, in fact, they have done in- 

 justice to their own arguments. Some of them begin 



