CHRISTIANITY. 



37,5 





ter his death ; its progress over the land of Judea, and 

 to Rome itself, the metropolis of the empire ; all this 

 w e have in a Roman historian ; and, in opposition to all 

 established reasoning upon these subjects, it is by some 

 more firmly confided in upon his testimony, than upon 

 the numerous and concurring testimonies of nearer and 

 cotemporary writers. But be this as it may, let us sup- 

 pose that Tacitus had thrown one particular more into 

 his testimony, and that his sentence had run thus : 

 " They had their denomination from Christus, who, 

 in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal 

 by the procurator Pontius Pilate, and who rose from the 

 dead on the third day after his execution, and ascended 

 into heaven." Does it not strike every body, that how- 

 ever try? the last piece of information may be, and how- 

 ever well established by its proper historians, this is not 

 the place where we can expect to find it ? If Tacitus 

 did not believe the resurrection of our Saviour, (which 

 is probably the case, as he never, in all likelihood, paid 

 any attention to the evidence of a faith which he was led 

 to regard, from the outset, as a pernicious superstition, and 

 a mere modification of Judaism), it is not to be supposed 

 that such an assertion could ever have been made by him. 

 If Tacitus did believe the resurrection of our Saviour, he 

 gives us an example of what appears not to have been 

 uncommon in these ages he gives us an example of a man 

 adhering to that system which interest and education re- 

 commended, in opposition to the evidence of a miracle 

 which he admitted to be true. Still, even on this sup- 

 position, it is the most unlikely thing in the world, that 

 he would have admitted the fact of our Saviour's resur- 

 rection into his history. It is most improbable, that a 

 testimony ef this kind would have been given, even 

 though the resurrection of Jesus Christ be admitted ; 

 and, therefore, the want of this testimony carries in it 

 no argument that tho resurrection is a falsehood. If, 

 however, in opposition to all probability, this testimony 

 had been given, it would have been appealed to as a most 

 striking confirmation uf the main fact of the evangelical 

 history. It would have figured away in all our elemen- 

 tary treatises, and been referred to as a master argument 

 in every exposition of the evidences of Christianity. In- 

 fidels would have been challenged to believe in it on the 

 strength of their own favourite evidence, the evidence 

 of a classical historian ; and must have been at a loss 

 how to dispose of this fact, when they saw an unbiassed 

 heathen giving his round and unqualified testimony in its 

 favour. 



100. Let us now carry the supposition a step farther. 

 Let us conceive tiiat Tacitus not only believed the fact, 

 and gave his testimony to it, but that he believed it so far 

 as to become a Christian. Is his testimony to be refu- 

 sed because he gives this evidence of its sincerity ? Ta- 

 citus asserting the fact, and remaining a heathen, is not 

 <o strong an argument for the truth of our Saviour's re- 

 surrection, as Tacitus asserting the fact and becoming a 

 Christian in consequence of it. Yet the moment that 

 this transition is made a transition by which, in point 

 of fact, it becomes stronger =in point of impression it be- 

 comes, less j and, by a delusion, common to the ii.fidel 

 and the believer, the argument is held to be weakened 

 by the very circumsfmce whLh imparts greater force to 

 it. The elegant and accomplished scholar becomes a be- 

 liever. The truth, the novelty, the importance of this 

 ucw subject, withdraws him from every other pursuit. 

 lie shares in the common enthusiasm or the cause, and 



fives all liis talents and eloquence to the support of it. 

 nitead of the Roman historian, Tacitus comes down 

 to posterity in the t-hape of a Christian father, and the 



high authority of his name is lost in a crowd of similar 

 testimonies. 



101. A direct testimony to the miracles of the New 

 Testament from the mouth of a heathen, is not to be ex- 

 pected. We cannot satisfy this demand of the infidel ; 

 but we can give him a host of much stronger testimonies 

 than he is in quest of the testimonies of those men who 

 were heathens, and who embraced a hazardous and a dis- 

 graceful profession, under a deep conviction of those facts 

 to which they gave their testimony. ' O, but you now 

 land us in the testimony of Christians !" This is very 

 true ; but it is the very fact of their being Christians in 

 which the strength of the argument lies : and in each of 

 the numerous fathers of the Christian church, we fee a 

 stronger testimony than the required testimony of the 

 heathen Tacitus. We see men who, if they had not 

 been Christians, would have risen to as high an eminence 



, as Tacitus in the literature of the times ; and whose di- 

 rect testimonies to the gospel history would, in that case, 

 have been most impressive, even to the mind of an in- 

 fidel. And are these testimonies to be less impressive 1 , 

 because they were preceded by conviction, and sealed by 

 martyrdom ? 



102. Yet though, from the nature of the case, no di. 

 rect testimony to the Christian miracles from a heathen 

 can be looked for, there are heathen testimonies which 

 form an important accession to the Christian argument. 

 Such are the testimonies to the state of Judea, the testi- 

 monies to those numerous particulars in government and 

 customs which are so often alluded to in the New Tes- 

 tament, and give it the air of an authentic history. And, 

 above all, the testimonies to the sufferings of the primi- 

 tive Christians, from which we learn, through a chan- 

 nel clear of every suspicion, that Christianity, a religion 

 of facts, was the object of persecution at a time, when 

 eye-witnesses taught, and eye-witnessea must have bled 

 for it. 



103. The silence of Jewish and Heathen writers, when 

 the true interpretation is given to it, is all on the side of 

 the Christian argument. Even though the miracles of the 

 gospel had been believed to be true, it is most unlikely 

 that the enemies of the Christian religion would have 

 given their testimony to them ; and the absence of this 

 testimony is no impeachment therefore upon the reality 

 of these miracles. But if the miracles of the gospel had 

 been believed to be false, it is most likely that this false*, 

 hood would have been asserted by the Jews and Hea- 

 thens of that period ; and the circumstance of no such 

 assertion having been given, is a strong argument for the 

 reality of these miracles. Their silence in not asserting 

 the miracles is perfectly consistent with their truth ; but 

 their silence in not denying them is not at all consistent 

 with their falsehood. The entire silence of Josephus 

 upon the subject of Christianity, though he wrote after 

 the destruction of Jerusalem, and gives us the history of 

 that period in which Christ and his apostles lived, is cer- 

 tainly a very striking circumstance. The sudden pro- 

 gress of Christianity at that time, and the fame of its 

 miracles, (if not the miracles themselves,) form an im- 

 portant part of the Jewish history. How came Jose- 

 phus to abstain from every particular respecting it ? Will 

 you reverse every principle of criticism, and make the 

 silence of Josephus carry it over the positive testimony 

 of the many historical documents which have comedown 

 to us ? If you refuse every Christian testimony upon 

 the subject, you will not refuse the testimony ot Taci- 

 tu-, v.-ho asv.'rts, that this religion spread over Judea, 

 and reached the city of Rome, and was looked upon as 

 an evil of such importance, that it became the object of 



