. II 1U S T I A N I T ^ . 



' with th tmsiamuj of Y*citu u a first principle, ai.d 

 pursue th .ion upwards, . Jencc that 



we collect from the annaU of the Roman historian 

 were than tht of the Christian writer* who 



fljuruhcd nearer thetceoe of the investigation, and whose 

 credibility can be established on grounds which are al- 

 together independent of hit testimony. In this way, 

 they come at last to the credibility of the New Testa- 

 ment writers, but by a lengthened and circuitous pro- 



t. Tie leader feels as if the arguments were di- 

 luted at cveiy step in the process of derivation, and his 

 filth in the gopel history is much weaker than his faith 

 in histories that are far lc*s authenticated. Bring Taci- 

 tui and th . -.merit to an immediate comparison, 



and subject them both to the touchstone of ordinary and 

 received principles, and it will be found that the latter 

 leaves the former out of sight in -11 the marks, and cha- 

 racters, and evidences of an authentic history. The truth 

 of the gospel stands on a much firmer and more inde- 

 pendent footing, than many of its defenders would date 

 to give us any conception of. They want that boldness 

 of argument which the merits of the question entitle 

 them to assume. They ought to maintain a more de- 

 cided front to their adversaries, and tell them, that, in 

 the New Testament itself in the concurrence of its nu- 

 merous, and distant, and independent authors in the uu- 

 contradictcd authority which it has maintained from the 

 earbra times of the church in the total inability of the 

 bitterest adversaries of our religion to impeach its credi- 

 in the genuine characters of honesty and fairness 

 on the very face of it, that in these, and 

 in every thing clc, which can give validity to the writ- 

 ten history of pa^t times, there is a weight and a splen- 

 dour of evidence, which the testimony of Tacitus can- 

 not confirm, and which the absence of that testimony 

 LOuld not hare diminished. 



If it were necessary, in a court of justice, to ascer- 

 tain the circumstances of a certain transaction which 

 happened in a particular .neighbourhood, the obvious ex- 

 pedient would be to examine the agents and the eye-wit- 

 nesses of that transaction. If six or eight concurred in 

 giving the same testimony if there was no appearance 

 of collusion amongst them if they had the manner and 

 aspect of creditable men above all, if this testimony 

 were made public, and not a single individual, from the 

 numerous spectators of the transaction alluded to, etcpt 

 forward to falsify it, then, we apprehend, the proof would 

 be looked upon as complete. Other witnesses might be 

 summoned from a distance to give in their testimony, 

 not of what they sa\v, but of what they heard upon the 

 abject ; but their concurrence, though a happy enough 

 circumstance, would never be looked upon as any ma- 

 icrial addition to the evidence already brought forward. 

 Another court of justice might be held in a distant 

 country , and years sfter the death of the original wit- 

 aetses. It might have occasion to verify the same trans. 

 action, and for this purpose might call in the only evi- 

 dence which it was capable of collecting the testimony 

 f men who lived after the transaction in question, and 

 at a great distance from the place where it happened. 

 There would be no hesitation, in ordinary cases, about whiih 

 ftf the two testimonies ought to be preferred ; and the 

 record of the fmt court could be appealed to by posterity 

 as by far the more valuable document, and far more deci- 

 sive of the point in controversy. Now, what we com- 

 plain of, is, that in the instance before us, this principle 



i-rscd. The reports of hearsay witnesses is held 

 in higher estimation than the reports of the original 

 agents and spectators. The most implicit credit u given 



to the testirr.ony of the distant and later historians, and 

 the testimony of the original witnesses is received with 

 as much distrust as if they carried the marks 

 and imposture upon their foreheads. The g< nuinencsao'f 

 the I'M 5t record can be established by a much ^ 

 weight and variety nf evidence, than tin- ;< nuincness 

 of the second. Yet all the suspicion that we feel upon 

 this subject annexes to the former ; and the a; 

 and evangelists, with every evidence in their favour which 

 it is in the power of testimony to furnish, are, in fact, 

 degraded from the place which they ought to occupy 

 among the accredited historians of | 



'27. The above observations may help to prepare the 

 enquirer for forming a just and impartial estin 

 the merits of the Christian testimony. His great object 

 should be to guard against every bias of the understand- 

 ing. The general ides is, that a predilection in ! 



ristiamty may lead him to overrate the argun.int. 

 We believe that it every unfair tendency of the mind 

 could be subjected to a rigorous computation, it would 

 be found that the combined opcuti n ot them all has the 

 effect of impressing a bias in a contrary direction. All 

 we wish for, is, that the arguments which are held de- 

 cisive in other historical questions, should not be look- 

 ed upon as nugatory when applied to the investigation 

 of those facts which are connected with the truth and 

 establishment of the Christian religion, that every pre- 

 possession should be swept away, and room left for the 

 understanding to expatiate without fear, and without in- 

 cunibrance. 



28. The argument for the truth of the different facts Division 

 recorded in the gospel hi&tory, resolves itself into four ofthear- 

 parts. In the first, it shall be our object to prove, that gmitiii 

 the different pieces which make up the New Testament, ,; n ' 

 were written by the authors whose names they bear, and 

 at the age which is commonly assigned to them. In the 

 second, we shall exhibit the internal marks of truth and 

 honesty which may be gathered from the compositions 

 themselves. In the third, we shall press upon the read- 

 er the known situation and history of the authors, as sa- 

 tisfying proofs of the veracity with which they delivered 

 themselves. And, in the fourth part, we shall lay be- 

 fore them the additional and subsequent testimonies, by 

 which the narrative of the original writers is supported. 



'J!>. In every point of the investigation, we shall meet 

 with examples of the principle which we have already 

 alluded to. We have said, that if two distinct enquiries 

 be set on foot, where the object of the one is to settle 

 some point of sacred history, and the object ot the 

 other is to settle some point of profane history ; the 

 mind acquiesces in a much smaller quantity of evidence 

 in the latter case than it docs in the former. If this be 

 right, (and to a certain degree it undoubtedly is), then 

 it is incumbent on the defender of Christianity to bring 

 forward a greater quantity of evidence than would be 

 deemed sufficient in a question of common literature, and 

 to demand the acquiescence of his reader upon the strength 

 of this superior evidence. If it be not right beyond a 

 certain degree and if there be a tendency in the mind to 

 carry it beyond that degree, then this tendency is founded 

 upon a delusion, and it is well that the reader should be 

 apprised of its existence, that he may protect himself from 

 its influence. The superior quantity of evidence which 

 we can bring forward will, in this cage, all go to aug- 

 ment the positive effects upon his convictions ; and he 

 will rejoice to perceive, that he is far safer in believing 

 what has been handed down to him of the history of Jc- 

 us Christ, and the doctrine of his apostles, than in be- 



