CHRISTIANITY. 



' .: 



hi it< irue 

 principle*. 



Thep- 

 plicd to 

 the deter. 



p( put 

 matitn of 



fact. 



The nut. 

 ten of fact 

 involved in 

 UK au-hcn- 

 ticnj of 

 the New 



Ml :(,r 



tiato of it. 

 appearance 

 and the u. 



thfir> liy 

 whom it 

 WM writ- 

 ten. 



than to enjoy the anticipated blunder* of the mrn of fu- 

 ture time*, whom they had combined with to much dex- 

 terity to bewilder and lead astray. 



34. If it were possible to summon up to the pretence 

 mind, the whole mat* of ipokcn testimony, it 

 would be found that what waa fake bore a very .null 

 proportion to what was true. For many obviout rca- 

 rant, the proportion of the false to the true must be 

 also ftnali in written testimony. Yet instances of false- 

 hood occur in both ; and the actual ability to separate 

 UM falte from the true in written history, proves that 

 historical evidence has its principles and its probabilities 

 togo upon. There may be the natural signs of ditho- 

 oe*iy. There may be the wildne&s and improbability of 

 the narrative. There may be a total want of agreement 

 on the part of other documents. There may be the si- 

 lence of every author for ages after the pretended date 

 of the manuscript in question. There may be all these, 

 in sufficient abundance, to convict the manuscript of fur. 

 gory and falsehood. This has actually been done in se- 

 veral instances. The skill and discernment of the hu- 

 man mind upon the subject of historical evidence, have 

 been improved by the exercise. The few cases in which 

 aentencc of condemnation has been given, are so many 

 testimonies to the competency of the tribunal which has 

 tat in judgment over them, and give a stability to their 

 verdict, when any document is approven of. It is a pe- 

 culiar subject, and the men who stand at a distance from 

 it may multiply their suspicions and their scepticism at 

 pleasure ; but no intelligent man ever entered into the 

 details, without feeling the most familiar and satisfying 

 conviction of that credit and confidence, which it is in 

 the power of historical evidence to bestow. 



. Now to apply this to the object of our present 

 division, which is to ascertain the age of the document, 

 and the person who is the author of it. These are points 

 of information which may be collected from the per- 

 formance itself. They may be found in the body of the 

 composition, or they may be more formally announced 

 in the title-page and every time that the book is refer- 

 red to by its title, or the name of the author and age of 

 the publication are announced in any other document 

 that has come down to us, these points of information 

 receive additional proof from the testimony of subse- 

 quent writers. 



36. The New Testament is bound up in one volume, 

 but we would be underrating its evidence if we regarded 

 it only as one testimony, and that the truth of the facts 

 recorded in it rested upon the testimony of one histo- 

 rian. It is not one publication, but a collcctirn of se- 

 veral publications, which are ascribed to different au- 

 thors, and made their first appearance in different parts 

 of the world. To fix the date of their appearance, it 

 is necessary to institute a separate inquiry for each pub- 

 lication ; and it is the unexcepted testimony of all sub- 

 sequent writers, that two of the gospels, and several of 

 the epistles, were written by the immediate disciples of 

 our Saviour, and published in their lifetime. Celsus, 

 an enemy of the Christian faith, refers to the affairs of 

 Jesus as written by bis disciples. He never thinks of 

 disputing the fact; and from the extracts which he makes 

 for the purpose of criticism, there can be no doubt in 

 the mind of the reader, that it is one or other of the 

 four gospels to which he refers. The single testimony 

 of Cclsu* may be considered as decisive of the fact, that 

 the story of .Ic^us and of his life was actually written by 

 hit duciplei. Celsus writes about a hundred years after 

 the alleged time of the publication of this story; but 

 that it was written by the companions of this Jesus, is a 



fact which he never thinks of disputing. Ho takes it 

 up upon the strength of its general notoriety, and the 

 whole history of that period furnii-'.i-.'s nothing that can 

 attach any don 1 cion to this circumstance. Re- 



ferring to a principle already taken notice of, had it been 

 the history of a philosopher iiuteid of a prophet, it* 

 authenticity would have been admitted without any for- 

 mal testimony to that effect. It \vould have been ad- 

 mitted, so to speak, upon the mere existence of the title- 

 page, combined with this circumstance, that the whole 

 course of history or tradition does not furnish us with a 

 single fact, leading us to believe that the correctness of 

 this title page was ever questioned. It would have bee* 

 admitted, not because it was asserted by subsequent wri- 

 ters, but because they made no assertion upon the sub- 

 ject, because they never thought of converting it into a 

 matter of discussion, and because their occasional refe- 

 rences to the book in question would be looked upon 

 as carrying in them a tacit acknowledgment, that it was 

 the very same book which it professed to be at the pre- 

 sent day. The distinct assertion of Celsus, that the 

 pieces in question were written by the companions of 

 Jesus though even at the distance of ICO years, is an 

 argument in favour of their authenticity which cannot 

 be alleged for many of the most esteemed compositions 

 of antiquity. It is the addition of a formal testimony 

 to that kind of general evidence, which is founded upon 

 the tacit or implied concurrence of subsequent writers, 

 and which is held to be perfectly decisive in similar 

 Cases. 



37. Had the pieces, which make up the New Testa- 

 ment, been the only documents of past times, the mere 

 existence of a pretension to such an age, and to such an 

 author, resting on their own information, would have been 

 sustained as a certain degree of evidence, that the real 

 age and the real author had been assigned to them. But 

 we have the testimony of subsequent authors to the same 

 effect ; and it is to be remarked, that it is by far the most 

 crowded, and the most closely sustained series of 

 monies, of which we have any example in the whole field 

 of ancient history. When we assigned the testimony of 

 Celsus, it is not to be supposed thjt this is the very tiiit 

 which occurs after the diys of the apostles. The blank 

 of a hundred years betwixt the publication of the origi- 

 nal story and the publication of Celsus, is filled up by 

 antecedent testimonies, which, in all fairness, should be 

 counted more decisive of the point in question. They 

 are the testimonies of Chribtian writers, and, in as far as 

 a nearer opportunity of obtaining correct information ii 

 concerned, they should be held more val uablc than the testi- 

 mony of Celsus. In some cases, their reference to the books 

 of the new Testament is made in the form of an express 

 quotation, and the author particularly named. In other 

 cases, the quotation is made without reference to the par- 

 ticular author, and ushered in by tin. general words, " a* 

 it is written." And besides, there are innumerable al- 

 lusions to the different parts of the New Testament, scat- 

 tered over all the writings of the earlier fathers. In thia 

 last case, there is no express citation ; but we have the 

 sentiment, the term of expression, the very words of the 

 New Testament repeated so often, and by such a number 

 of different writers, as to leave no doubt upon the mind, 

 that they were copied from one com:non original, which, 

 was at that period held in high reverence and estimation. 

 In pursuing the train of references, we do not meet with 

 a single chasm from the days of the original writers. Not 

 to repeat what we have already made some allusion to, 

 the testimonies of the original writers to one another, we 

 proceed to assert, that some of the fathers, whose wrf- 



The teti- 

 mony of 

 Celiui to 

 these mat- 

 ter* of 

 lacu 



The near- 

 er and 

 more va- 

 luable res- 

 timonics of 

 the Chris- 

 tian wri- 

 ter*. 



